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

[Michael Farkas]

I've been reading and watching...just not writing...tough time for me. But I'm involved...

A few things...

I realized I left Max Bentley off my original list...nice...stay hot, Michael.

Bentley was an unbelievable technical skillsman. Wish he didn't play in such a weak era...but this is one of those guys where if you see him, you see that he would have been great in any era...he had that talent. I mean, Christ, he netted five NHL players in a trade...I know it's trivia, but can anyone else say that? Five NHLers?

I go back and forth on Fedorov...I'm an eye-test guy a lot, so I have a lot of time for Feds as a result...he has the ability...it's like Evgeni Malkin in Pittsburgh...when Sid is down or when the chips are, Geno brings the heat. When he doesn't have to, he brings it randomly...I don't expect every player to play 100% 100% of the time, that's a tough ask...I like his versatility, I like him as a player, I know he was capable...I don't think he's going to feature prominently for me right now, because I think there are better guys available...but he's a good bet for the list at some point...anecdotally, does anyone have numbers on what goalies certain players dominate? I imagine that Fedorov would have a HOF career would just the amount of times he wasted Jon Casey haha

I don't see what he could have on Jari Kurri...Kurri was even better defensively for my money...very smart player, very skilled...I'm a big fan.

Gardiner is one of the few goalies I like. Seemed to be dominant, a big part of the Chicago success, likely helped with the evolution of the position with crease depth/angular game...

 

[MXD]

Bentley was an unbelievable technical skillsman. Wish he didn't play in such a weak era...but this is one of those guys where if you see him, you see that he would have been great in any era...he had that talent. I mean, Christ, he netted five NHL players in a trade...I know it's trivia, but can anyone else say that? Five NHLers?

Phil Watson fetched that on a loan.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Good call. Though, you could argue that Mahaffy and Demers were not NHLers...they just happened to be playing in the NHL...but that's an interesting one, I'd never heard of that transaction before...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Good call. Though, you could argue that Mahaffy and Demers were not NHLers...they just happened to be playing in the NHL...but that's an interesting one, I'd never heard of that transaction before...

Tony Demers was an NHL talent pre-WWII, played Army hockey 1942-43 but then was civilianized.

Issues with discipline. Did 15 years for manslaughter.

Tony Demers Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[bobholly39]

Just voted - few mins late, hope i made the cut still.

I assume we're all agreed on Brett Hull being unanimous #1, correct?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not even close...

 

[ted2019]

Just voted - few mins late, hope i made the cut still.

I assume we're all agreed on Brett Hull being unanimous #1, correct?

subtract 7 or 8 spots from your number and you will get mine.

 

[VanIslander]

Three guys we're limited to aren't even on the top-120 list I submitted.
*sigh*
I changed my mind about one of them, but I still think it's too early.

This format of voting is very limiting. Who was it that suggested that the number of candidates we consider should increase with every induction round?

It would be nice to go from 10 to 12 or 15,...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Three guys we're limited to aren't even on the top-120 list I submitted.
*sigh*
I changed my mind about one of them, but I still think it's too early.

This format of voting is very limiting. Who was it that suggested that the number of candidates we consider should increase with every induction round?

It would be nice to go from 10 to 12 or 15,...

The number of candidates increased as we went along for the 2008 top 100 list and for the 4 top-players by position lists this project is loosely based on, so it's not exactly a new idea.

But it's also a discussion we had 2 weeks ago.

 

[VanIslander]

I know. I know.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm part of the crowd who wishes we'd add a lot more names too per round at this stage. My interest has waned a bit, as has my participation level.

One thing I've found frustrating too is that i feel a lot of voters seem too strongly set in their ways. I'm very high on offense - but trying to argue the merits of highly prolific offensive players with some posters is like talking to a brick wall. So it's a bit frustrating. Not everyone is like that mind you - but a lot seem to be.

I've really enjoyed the posts of people explaining who they're thinking of ranking in what order, and why. Not enough of that happening imo.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I've really enjoyed the posts of people explaining who they're thinking of ranking in what order, and why. Not enough of that happening imo.

I like those too. I wish I wrote more posts like that.

 

[MXD]

I wish I had the fingers to write these long posts. And that English was my first language, so voice recognition wouldn't give awful results.

 

[bobholly39]

Any chance we can revisit the idea of adding more names per round?

This is my first big project with you guys - and I feel mostly pretty good about my top 50. Maybe a cpl of unpopular names, and some of the order is different, but most names that should be there were there. But in the back half - it's all over the place. I have a lot of names I had 100+ or NR'd showing up in the 60s and 70s. And then some names I had lower not showing up (and maybe not for a while). And if i'm all over the place in my list - i expect it's the same for others too. Seems like it's quite flawed to stick to this limited pool of 5 names from round 1 list to come up with candidates this far in the project.

What would be the actual downside to adding 10 new names each round moving forward, for example? Maybe cap it at having no more than 20 names available to vote on per round so it doesn't get out of hand - but I think it would help give more accurate results.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Changing procedures and rules midstream does not work.

 

[bobholly39]

Changing procedures and rules midstream does not work.

I agree in essence but this seems like a very low impact change. I'm not arguing we change the voting rules, or eligible voters or anything else that would be significant.

This just gives us a larger pool of candidates to discuss. Considering how much fluctuation there's likely been between round 1 lists and final votes here - it would help make results more accurate if anything.

We've had a few times where someone came in and was voted #1 in their first eligible vote, and sometimes by a big gap (such as Firsov last round). This tells me he probably should have been available 1-2 rounds early, and if so would have placed in a position slightly more representative of where the collective group thinks he should fit.

What's the downside?

 

[MXD]

Nitpicking here : Firsov was voted #1, but not by a big gap. I do think there are reasons to believe he would've made it in the Top-5 the round before (though I'm not entirely sure of that).

But yeah, if this happens again this round, and there are good reasons to think it will happen judging by this thread, something should probably be done to make sure we have more than 10 names.

 

[sr edler]

C. Gardiner seems to be the new misunderstood darling now when Firsov is done with, and will probably leapfrog everyone this round.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Only having 10 or 11 names per round encourages everyone to learn about all the candidates. And even then, there are still some players that haven't had a great deal of discussion about them prior to them being added (perhaps because they are non-polarizing, but I haven't done any sort of study on it). A pool of 15-20 names would likely exacerbate this situation. In a 20-candidate scenario, there's a high probability of electing players that almost nobody thought should be in the top 5, on the strength of a bunch of 6th-10th place votes, while polarizing players get a bunch of top votes, but a bunch of NRs. No system is perfect.

 

[MXD]

Only having 10 or 11 names per round encourages everyone to learn about all the candidates. And even then, there are still some players that haven't had a great deal of discussion about them prior to them being added (perhaps because they are non-polarizing, but I haven't done any sort of study on it). A pool of 15-20 names would likely exacerbate this situation. In a 20-candidate scenario, there's a high probability of electing players that almost nobody thought should be in the top 5, on the strength of a bunch of 6th-10th place votes, while polarizing players get a bunch of top votes, but a bunch of NRs. No system is perfect.

I don't disagree with this either. 20 is too much.

But no newcomer should finish first either.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

But no newcomer should finish first either.

Why not? Re-evaluation of previously held positions is a major purpose of the project. Firsov did finish first last round, but it was with a less "dominant" vote total than the first place finishers in the two previous rounds. It's easy to assume a first-time candidate who finishes in first place in his vote would have been inducted earlier if available, but Firsov only edged out Frank Mahovlich by a very narrow margin. Mahovlich was 7th (albeit in a very tight 4th-7th grouping) in his previous vote. Perhaps Firsov moves up a couple spots on the final list if voting were to be redone, but it's far from certain. His detractors would still (presumably) have him low, while his supporters may not have had him as high if he was going up against Horton and Vezina, both of whom finished ahead of Mahovlich by a big margin in the previous round.

 

[danincanada]

Regular season? Not true.

Fedorov has better career PPG numbers than H. Richard for the regular season, playoffs, and adjusted stats for the regular season. His two best seasons were higher than anything Henri did and his average seasons were higher for adjusted stats as well. He simply produced more offensively and was therefore a better offensive player for his era than Richard was for his.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In that case, Ron Francis was better than Sergei Fedorov...tell your friends, boys...he should be ahead of Fedorov...

 

[bobholly39]

In that case, Ron Francis was better than Sergei Fedorov...tell your friends, boys...he should be ahead of Fedorov...

I'm probably higher on Ron Francis than most - but I wouldn't mind that. Top 5 scorer all time. Selke winner - so strong defense too. Pretty good career.

 

[MXD]

Yeah, the idea that Francis was better than Fedorov isn't so far fetched (even though I disagree with it).