Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 16

[quoipourquoi]

Procedure

• You will be presented with 10+ players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list (10 players plus anyone with 99% of the voting points of the 10th ranked player)
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties via PM to quoipourquoi
• Results of this vote will be posted after each voting cycle, but the individual ballots themselves will remain secret until the completion of this project
• The top-4 players will be added to The List in Vote 1, while the top-5 players will be added to The List in subsequent voting cycles (#1-4 in Vote 1, #5-9 in Vote 2, #10-14 in Vote 3, #15-19 in Vote 4, #20-24 in Vote 5, #25-29 in Vote 6, #30-34 in Vote 7, #35-39 in Vote 8, #40-44 in Vote 9, #45-49 in Vote 10, #50-54 in Vote 11, #55-59 in Vote 12, #60-64 in Vote 13, #65-69 in Vote 14, #70-74 in Vote 15, #75-79 in Vote 16, #80-84 in Vote 17, #85-89 in Vote 18, #90-94 in Vote 19, #95-99 in Vote 20)
• A 100th player will be added to The List in Vote 21 from an expanded group of 15 candidates

Eligible Voters

• Ballots from voters who have submitted an approved Round 1 ranking of 120 players (which was used to shape the aggregate list) will have their votes tabulated in the History of Hockey ranking
• Art of Sedinery, Batis, BenchBrawl, blogofmike, bobholly39, Canadiens1958, ChiTownPhilly, DannyGallivan, Dennis Bonvie, Dr John Carlson, ehhedler, Hockey Outsider, Iceman, ImporterExporter, Johnny Engine, JoseTheodore2002, kruezer, Kyle McMahon, Mike Farkas, MXD, pappyline, quoipourquoi, ResilientBeast, Sentinel, seventieslord, steve141, ted1971, TheDevilMadeMe, TheGeneral, The Macho Man, tony d, VanIslander

Guidelines

• Respect each other. No horseplay or sophistry!
• Stay on topic and don't get caught up in talking about non-eligible players
• Participate, but retain an open mind throughout the discussion
• Do not speculate who cast any particular ballot. Do not make judgments about the mindset of whoever cast that particular ballot. All individual ballots will be revealed at the end of the project.

House Rules

• Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey will be met with frontier justice
• We encourage interpositional discussion (forward vs. defenseman vs. goaltender) as opposed to the safer and somewhat redundant intrapositional debates. Overemphasizing a tired single-position argument like, I don’t know, Harvey/Lidstrom, will only be briefly tolerated before one is asked to move on to a less tedious comparison.
  
• Take a drink when someone mentions the number of hockey registrations in a given era
• Finish your drink when someone mentions that goaltenders cannot be compared to skaters

The actual voting period will open up on Friday, March 1st at midnight and continue through Sunday, March 3rd at 8:59pm. Eastern time zone. I will release the results of the vote on Monday, March 4th.


Vote 16 Candidates

• Aurele Joliat
• Bill Durnan
• Boris Mikhailov
• Brett Hull
• Charlie Gardiner
• Cy Denneny
• Jari Kurri
• Max Bentley
• Sergei Fedorov
• Turk Broda

Click to read more...

 

[MXD]

... I think I would've had Gardiner first in Vote 11.
Joliat was a bit overdue, but not Gardiner-overdue. Should've gone before Dit Clapper at the very least, considering Joliat was deemed better as a forward and was too old by 1938 to move to D (and reap the AST berths due to weak competition). Not to mention probably a bit slight to be a D.
Mikhaïlov and Bentley are available at ther ight
Fedorov? I guess he became available at the right time, but being not emotionally-attached to the Red Wings and having no bias in favor of DPE, he's starting right at the bottom of the pile.

 

[blogofmike]

How much does it hurt Gardiner that in the season following his death, Lorne Chabot, who had never won anything as an individual, also won 1st Team AS honours and had the best GAA behind a similar Chicago team?

In Durnan's case, the Vezinas stopped piling up after his departure.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Joliat and Gardiner were back to back on my original list, and were my highest remaining unavailable players.

Fedorov has just never done it for me... I had Datsyuk ranked higher than him. Neither were in my top 100.

 

[MXD]

How much does it hurt Gardiner that in the season following his death, Lorne Chabot, who had never won anything as an individual, also won 1st Team AS honours and had the best GAA behind a similar Chicago team?

In Durnan's case, the Vezinas stopped piling up after his departure.

All it says it that Lorne Chabot had the best GAA.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Hart trophy voting results

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th+	Total
Brett Hull	1		2			1?		3 (4?)
Max Bentley	1		1	1				3
Aurele Joliat	1				2			3
Bill Durnan		1	1		1			3
Sergei Fedorov	1				1			2
Turk Broda				1				1
Charlie Gardiner							1	1
Cy Denneny								0
Jari Kurri								0
Boris Mikhailov								0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As far as I can tell, Kurri only got a single vote for the Hart during his career (a 2nd place vote in 1985). Was that because he didn't deserve it, or because he was in Gretzky's shadow? (I'd say it's the former, but the only thing that gives me pause is he didn't get any consideration during his first few post-Gretzky seasons, which were very strong).

Mikhailov never played in the NHL, so was never eligible for the Hart trophy.

Denneny played roughly half his career during the Hart era - so I think it's fair to ask why he didn't do better in the voting.

See this link for a discussion of the bizarre voting rules in 1995 (which is why I gave Hull a question mark).

Note that one of Joliat's 5th place finishes took place pre-consolidation, so is probably worth less than face value.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

VsX results (1927-2018)

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	7YR	10YR
Max Bentley	114.3	101.7	97.2	93.9	90.0	75.9	59.4	59.4	55.6	52.5	90.4	80.0
Jari Kurri	100.0	100.0	93.4	92.9	83.9	73.4	73.3	72.1	64.2	58.8	88.1	81.2
Brett Hull	113.9	94.0	87.6	82.3	80.8	79.1	78.2	75.2	73.1	71.4	88.0	83.6
Aurel Joliat	111.4	88.6	86.0	81.4	78.0	71.1	61.7	58.6	57.5	56.3	82.6	75.1
Sergei Fedorov	100.0	89.2	79.8	75.6	74.7	74.1	71.9	71.4	68.7	66.0	80.8	77.1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The top three players are pretty close (though Hull clearly has better longevity in years eight through ten).

These numbers only go back to 1927, so I'm missing Joliat's first four seasons. He was runner-up in scoring in 1925 and 5th place in 1924 (though only three points from the scoring lead) in 1924). These were split-leagues, but you'd have to think (conservatively) there are worth at least 85's. That would give him a seven year score of 87.9 and a ten year score of 80.7 (even that's probably too low, as we could likely drop off a few of his tail-end years).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Some great new candidates. Gardiner is an easy #1. A shame Benedict went in before we could even discuss Gardiner, but that's the way the ball bounces.

Love that we get a chance to talk Bentley vs these wingers. I think I prefer Bentley, but I'm not 100%.

Joliat has a lot in common with Kurri.

Mikhailov shows up at the right time.

Fedorov seems a few rounds too early.

 

[ted2019]

I had Charlie Gardiner , Boris Mikhailov going earlier.
I have Bentley, Hull going later, the rest around this spot.

I have Fedorov barely in my top 120.

 

[sr edler]

Fedorov seems a few rounds too early.

No, he's due here. Selänne got voted in two rounds ago but Fedorov's a few rounds too early? TDMM, you crack me up.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'm certainly looking forward to hearing the case for Gardiner, given how much consternation there has been over his absence up until now.

I've said my piece on Durnan, probably not much more I can add. He's my number one again unless I'm convinced one of the newcomers should rank ahead.

I think the holdover wingers deserve a stronger look this round.

I didn't have that big of a gap between Yzerman and Fedorov on my initial list, so I could see Fedorov going in at this point. Key member of three Cup winners, and always showed up in the playoffs. Coasting through the regular season hurt his numbers post-peak, but you can't say that saving some juice for the playoffs didn't pay off. For whatever this bit of anecdotal evidence is worth, Jason Chimera was on local Edmonton radio not too long ago and mentioned that Fedorov was a real leader in Columbus, often staying late after practice to work on his game and mentor young players.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, he's due here. Selänne got voted in two rounds ago but Fedorov's a few rounds too early? TDMM, you crack me up.

This is the HOH Top Centers list in this section:

Rank	Player	Height	Weight	Born	Died	Career	Nationality
23	Joe Malone	5'10"	150	1890	1969	1910-1924	Canada
24	Max Bentley	5'10"	155	1920	1984	1940-1954	Canada
25	Norm Ullman	5'10"	175	1935		1955-1977	Canada
26	Elmer Lach	5'10"	165	1918	2015	1940-1954	Canada
27	Bill Cowley	5'10"	165	1912	1993	1934-1947	Canada
28	Nels Stewart	6'1"	195	1902	1957	1925-1940	Canada
29	Sergei Fedorov (Fyodorov)	6'2"	207	1969		1986-2009	Russia
30	Sid Abel	5'11"	170	1918	2000	1938-1954	Canada
31	Dave Keon	5'9"	165	1940		1960-1982	Canada
32	Doug Gilmour	5'11"	177	1963		1983-2003	Canada

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

At the time, I remember strongly favoring Sid Abel over Fedorov, but obviously they didn't finish that way.

The "classic" question asked by Fedorov detractors is why should he rank over Doug Gilmour?

 

[sr edler]

This is the HOH Top Centers list in this section:

Rank	Player	Height	Weight	Born	Died	Career	Nationality
23	Joe Malone	5'10"	150	1890	1969	1910-1924	Canada
24	Max Bentley	5'10"	155	1920	1984	1940-1954	Canada
25	Norm Ullman	5'10"	175	1935		1955-1977	Canada
26	Elmer Lach	5'10"	165	1918	2015	1940-1954	Canada
27	Bill Cowley	5'10"	165	1912	1993	1934-1947	Canada
28	Nels Stewart	6'1"	195	1902	1957	1925-1940	Canada
29	Sergei Fedorov (Fyodorov)	6'2"	207	1969		1986-2009	Russia
30	Sid Abel	5'11"	170	1918	2000	1938-1954	Canada
31	Dave Keon	5'9"	165	1940		1960-1982	Canada
32	Doug Gilmour	5'11"	177	1963		1983-2003	Canada

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

At the time, I remember strongly favoring Sid Abel over Fedorov, but obviously they didn't finish that way.

The "classic" question asked by Fedorov detractors is why should he rank over Doug Gilmour?

I like Gilmour and had him reasonably high on my list, but did you see him on big ice in the 1990 World Championships against the Soviets? He looked like Nemo from Finding Nemo out there, totally lost out there in the big pond.

Fedorov's Crush, totally calm and aware of his abilities/surroundings.

 

[MXD]

I'm certainly looking forward to hearing the case for Gardiner, given how much consternation there has been over his absence up until now.

I've said my piece on Durnan, probably not much more I can add. He's my number one again unless I'm convinced one of the newcomers should rank ahead.

I think the holdover wingers deserve a stronger look this round.

.

Durnan ahead of Gardiner is something I really, really have to be explained, let alone having suspicions over the latter while lauding the former. Especially playoffs that something that matters to you (and it appears it's the case, considering your paragraph on Fedorov). Both have the same "strike" against them (longevity), it's just that Durnan 'tended for a powerhouse that ended up underachieving while it was mostly the other way around for Gardiner.

 

[MXD]

I like Gilmour and had him reasonably high on my list, but did you see him on big ice in the 1990 World Championships against the Soviets? He looked like Nemo from Finding Nemo out there, totally lost out there in the big pond.

That's a really, really random thing to give importance to.

 

[Hobnobs]

That's a really, really random to give importance to.

In europe fans traditionally value american players on how well they adapt to the big ice. Similar to how americans value europeans on how they adapts to small ice. Not really random but maybe of lesser importance on this forum.

 

[MXD]

In europe fans traditionally value american players on how well they adapt to the big ice. Similar to how americans value europeans on how they adapts to small ice. Not really random but maybe of lesser importance on this forum.

It's the World Championships and Gilmour is an NHL'er. That's probably all that should be said on the matter.

 

[sr edler]

It's the World Championships and Gilmour is an NHL'er.

So he didn't try his best? Okay, let's say I buy that for the sake of this round. But then you have to buy that the regular season is the regular season and Fedorov is a playoff guy post 1996.

 

[Hobnobs]

It's the World Championships and Gilmour is an NHL'er. That's probably all that should be said on the matter.

Why does that matter? He couldnt adapt to the big ice. If you're implying that he didnt try to adapt thats even worse.

 

[MXD]

Why does that matter? He couldnt adapt to the big ice. If you're implying that he didnt try to adapt thats even worse.

It's nice that you care about it. I just don't. Especially since he was up against players who, mostly, spent the whole season on bigger ice. Being able to adapt is a thing. Having issues adapting when you have so few games to do so is not, and should not be, when talking about a player with 1600+ games in the NHL (and 182 playoffs games, a strictly more important stage than the World Championships, at least when it comes to assessing a North American).

Also, Gilmour apparently had absolutely awful playoffs in 1990 as well.


Besides, Doug Gilmour isn't available for voting this round.

 

[Hobnobs]

It's nice that you care about it. I just don't.
Besides, Doug Gilmour isn't available for voting this round.

And thats why I added that its of lesser importance on this forum.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I might as well post my 3rd and final "standard" post now, since things are crazy at work and I likely won't contribute much else this week.

We have playoff plus/minus data for one new entrant this week - Sergei Fedorov:

Season	Games	R ON	R OFF	INCREASE
1990-91	7	0.89	0.67	33%
1991-92	11	1.33	0.93	43%
1992-93	7	2.00	0.75	167%
1993-94	7	0.88	2.14	-59%
1994-95	17	3.60	0.84	329%
1995-96	19	2.00	0.88	127%
1996-97	20	1.71	1.81	-5%
1997-98	22	1.00	2.11	-53%
1998-99	10	1.60	0.69	131%
1999-00	9	2.00	0.75	167%
2000-01	6	1.00	0.56	80%
2001-02	23	1.29	1.84	-30%
2002-03	4	0.67	0.29	133%
2007-08	7	0.80	0.80	0%
2008-09	14	1.17	1.21	-4%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

His results are very good, but with one important disclaimer (which I'll get to). His overall R-On of 1.37 is outstanding - nearly as good as Gretzky's career average. The difference between his goal differential, and the rest of the team's, is 22% - a bit behind Kurri and Datsyuk, and roughly in the same range as Alfredsson.

The one thing that jumps out in this data - Fedorov only had a few playoffs when his R-On was worse than his R-Off - but three of those were the years the Wings won the Cup, and in two of those, it was a significant lag. Was this because Fedorov was used in more of a defensive role those years?

 

[DannyGallivan]

In europe fans traditionally value american players on how well they adapt to the big ice. Similar to how americans value europeans on how they adapts to small ice. Not really random but maybe of lesser importance on this forum.

You mean "Canadian", I assume (based on the size of the hockey playing population). I'm sure Swedes don't like being called Finns and vica versa.

 

[wetcoast]

No, he's due here. Selänne got voted in two rounds ago but Fedorov's a few rounds too early? TDMM, you crack me up.

Basically this.

Fedorov had an extremely long and productive career and was the best player in the world for a period of time and has by far the best playoff resume here.

If anything he is overdue.

 

[Hobnobs]

You mean "Canadian", I assume (based on the size of the hockey playing population). I'm sure Swedes don't like being called Finns and vica versa.

I mean North Americans because it involves both canadians and americans.