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

[Michael Farkas]

I'm actually a Francis backer too...but I assume he won't end up on our list and Fedorov will...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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.

I voted Fedorov fairly high in this round, but the above does not make for a compelling argument. I'm not sure if you were around for the Richard discussion, but if you were then you should recall that his powerplay usage was almost non-existent compared to basically every other forward on this list. The data indicates that past-his-prime 1970s Richard was just as prolific an even-strength scorer as Fedorov ever was, other than Fedorov's two big scoring seasons in 1994 and 1996. Reasonable extrapolation leads to the conclusion that in-his-prime 1960s Richard was a considerably better offensive player than Fedorov usually was. Richard finished 2nd and 5th in overall scoring in the only two full seasons that he appears to have been a regular on Montreal's PP. He was regularly a top-10 ES goal scorer in his prime years (and he was more of a playmaker than a goal scorer); Fedorov almost never was, despite being a more goal-biased scorer.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

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.

You're the HF Boards equivalent to a Battleground State! Feel the Power!!

But then, you say something like this:

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

So I have to ask. How do I put this delicately... was he- uhh, mmm--- your first?

In my case, we about got to 3b with Brett Hull, with a healthy lead towards home- but am otherwise intact...

 

[MXD]

I am the first available player that MXD didnt rank. True story.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You're the HF Boards equivalent to a Battleground State! Feel the Power!!

But then, you say something like this:
So I have to ask. How do I put this delicately... was he- uhh, mmm--- your first?

In my case, we about got to 3b with Brett Hull, with a healthy lead towards home- but am otherwise intact...

My lack of getting Bentley was just an oversight...

Hull did better than I wanted him to on my v16 ballot...but that's because I thought about half the ballot didn't really belong...

 

[danincanada]

I voted Fedorov fairly high in this round, but the above does not make for a compelling argument. I'm not sure if you were around for the Richard discussion, but if you were then you should recall that his powerplay usage was almost non-existent compared to basically every other forward on this list. The data indicates that past-his-prime 1970s Richard was just as prolific an even-strength scorer as Fedorov ever was, other than Fedorov's two big scoring seasons in 1994 and 1996. Reasonable extrapolation leads to the conclusion that in-his-prime 1960s Richard was a considerably better offensive player than Fedorov usually was. Richard finished 2nd and 5th in overall scoring in the only two full seasons that he appears to have been a regular on Montreal's PP. He was regularly a top-10 ES goal scorer in his prime years (and he was more of a playmaker than a goal scorer); Fedorov almost never was, despite being a more goal-biased scorer.

The overall numbers still show that Fedorov was the better offensive player. Usage, or lack of usage, doesn’t overcome that. I’m not even stating that Fedorov was the better player because Richard had a great long career and was as two-way as Fedorov. I think they are comparable players though and should show up at similar times on this list.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The overall numbers still show that Fedorov was the better offensive player. Usage, or lack of usage, doesn’t overcome that. I’m not even stating that Fedorov was the better player because Richard had a great long career and was as two-way as Fedorov. I think they are comparable players though and should show up at similar times on this list.

It certainly appears to in this case. Look at the season to season ES goal totals for the two players. They are nearly identical, other than Fedorov's one spike in 1994. Now consider that Richard was playing 70-game seasons, Fedorov 82 game seasons. Now also consider that Richard was a more assist-biased overall point producer than Fedorov was. And finally, consider that Richard's prime years were spent in the low-scoring Original Six era. Fedorov played several prime years in the high scoring 1991-1996 stretch before the dead puck era. Richard was getting old by the time the 1970s scoring boom got rolling. If Richard had been receiving similar PP usage to Fedorov, there's no reason to suspect his numbers throughout the 1960s would not be approximately on par with Fedorov's 1995 or 1996 seasons. Except for about a decade, rather than a three-year spike. If Fedorov had ten seasons similar to his 1996, he'd have been up for vote a long time ago.

 

[wetcoast]

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

I guess I missed the year Francis won his Hart?

That being said Francis is a legit top 120 possible player.

 

[danincanada]

It certainly appears to in this case. Look at the season to season ES goal totals for the two players. They are nearly identical, other than Fedorov's one spike in 1994. Now consider that Richard was playing 70-game seasons, Fedorov 82 game seasons. Now also consider that Richard was a more assist-biased overall point producer than Fedorov was. And finally, consider that Richard's prime years were spent in the low-scoring Original Six era. Fedorov played several prime years in the high scoring 1991-1996 stretch before the dead puck era. Richard was getting old by the time the 1970s scoring boom got rolling. If Richard had been receiving similar PP usage to Fedorov, there's no reason to suspect his numbers throughout the 1960s would not be approximately on par with Fedorov's 1995 or 1996 seasons. Except for about a decade, rather than a three-year spike. If Fedorov had ten seasons similar to his 1996, he'd have been up for vote a long time ago.

Lots of IFs but Fedorov still outproduces him overall. Yup, it was partially because Fedorov was great on the PP and Richard was behind the first liners on his team. Still means Fedorov’s offensive contributions were greater overall - raw and adjusted for the regular season and raw playoff numbers.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I guess I missed the year Francis won his Hart?

That being said Francis is a legit top 120 possible player.

The person that I'm tongue-in-cheek responding to didn't mention the Hart...why would I? Or anyone in the spirit of this conversation...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lots of IFs but Fedorov still outproduces him overall. Yup, it was partially because Fedorov was great on the PP and Richard was behind the first liners on his team. Still means Fedorov’s offensive contributions were greater overall - raw and adjusted for the regular season and raw playoff numbers.

Rationalized against your claim linked below:

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

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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?

What do you mean by results being more accurate? Results are all a product of opinions.

Or do you mean a larger pool could make your results more accurate?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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

Yes, there have been a number of candidates that have benefited from the "when's whatshisname going to come up" posts.

And when they do come up, the "well, whatshisname should the consensus #1 this round" post.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What do you mean by results being more accurate? Results are all a product of opinions.

Or do you mean a larger pool could make your results more accurate?

The final results would better reflect the opinions of the group after discussions if the "right" players (again, according to group opinion) appear at the "right" time. The more players who appear as options, the more likely our final list is to reflect the opinions that the voters hold after the more detailed discussions of Round 2.

I completely understand the argument made above that limiting the number of candidates to 10-11 every round increases the quality of the discussion, and I'm pretty resigned to the fact that that's the way this project is going to be until the end.

But increasing the number of candidates slightly would give us a slightly better final list, if "better" means "reflecting the opinions of the voters after the detailed Round 2 discussions."

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Lots of IFs but Fedorov still outproduces him overall. Yup, it was partially because Fedorov was great on the PP and Richard was behind the first liners on his team. Still means Fedorov’s offensive contributions were greater overall - raw and adjusted for the regular season and raw playoff numbers.

So the offensive ability of a player is simply a matter of how many points they recorded, end of story. This does not bode well for Fedorov, as your criteria would seem to place him below (in some cases, well below) contemporaries Ron Francis, Doug Gilmour, Mike Modano, Adam Oates, Jeremy Roenick, Mats Sundin, etc. as an offensive player. Perhaps Fedorov is not a top 100 player afterall...

 

[MXD]

Kyle, your post made me realize Joe Thornton :
- Is better than every single player you name dropped
- Would have looked rather good in this group.

 

[bobholly39]

What do you mean by results being more accurate? Results are all a product of opinions.

Or do you mean a larger pool could make your results more accurate?

Why are you being so snippy? I don't care about making my results more accurate, i just meant for the group in general.

TDMM explained it pretty well.

There was a lot of call for Firsov for a few rounds. Then he shows up and he's voted #1. If we had 15-20 players available instead of 10 - he'd have been available 1-2 rounds early. Considering all the talk he was getting - maybe he gets voted in 1, or maybe even 2 rounds earlier than he did. If he does - well that's more representative of our collective opinions, ie a more accurate result.

If anything I think my round 1 list past 40-50 is pretty flawed, so i'm not trying to get you guys to match it, quite the contrary. But considering it's that round 1 list (and all of your lists too) we're using to decide whose eligible or not - it seems pretty limiting this far into the project. More players to discuss = better.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Kyle, your post made me realize Joe Thornton :
- Is better than every single player you named dropped
- Would have looked rather good in this group.

I think it would have maybe been a bit early, but yeah I can see that. I had Thornton ahead of Selanne on my original list, and pretty close with Marcel Dionne who got elected several rounds ago.

 

[wetcoast]

The person that I'm tongue-in-cheek responding to didn't mention the Hart...why would I? Or anyone in the spirit of this conversation...

At this stage of the project we are and already have seen growing divergance on players available to be sure.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I think it would have maybe been a bit early, but yeah I can see that. I had Thornton ahead of Selanne on my original list, and pretty close with Marcel Dionne who got elected several rounds ago.

I'm still dumbfounded by how highly Selanne placed on this list. Worthless defensively, proved nothing in the playoffs and two out of his goalscoring 'awards' were shared with Bondra and Mogilny.

His point finishes are nice, though. Second to Jagr and Lemieux in two different years is not a bad look. That's impressive. International record is pretty good as well.

Seeing both guys for a lot their careers I wouldn't have chosen Selanne over Kovalchuk for my team but whatever...I also think Kariya overshone Selanne during their time together.

 

[MXD]

For kicks. 5 highest players not yet voted in or eligible. No player from the top-half of my Top-120 left over (Gardiner was the last) :
- Duncan Keith
- Ed Belfour
- Tony Esposito (feels a bit high now, but would probably be in this group regardless)
- Henrik Lundqvist
- Roy Worters

(Mike, are you all right?)

I know, I know. Blackhawks fans. Ruining this thing.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Agreed with Belfour especially. If Fedorov is up so should he be.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I'm good...I always breathe into a brown paper bag at this time of day...it's kinda my thing...


(I think Worters and Belfour are my next two goalies available)...those other two goalies didn't make my list...Keith was near the bottom...behind two active defensemen actually...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Why are you being so snippy? I don't care about making my results more accurate, i just meant for the group in general.

TDMM explained it pretty well.

There was a lot of call for Firsov for a few rounds. Then he shows up and he's voted #1. If we had 15-20 players available instead of 10 - he'd have been available 1-2 rounds early. Considering all the talk he was getting - maybe he gets voted in 1, or maybe even 2 rounds earlier than he did. If he does - well that's more representative of our collective opinions, ie a more accurate result.

If anything I think my round 1 list past 40-50 is pretty flawed, so i'm not trying to get you guys to match it, quite the contrary. But considering it's that round 1 list (and all of your lists too) we're using to decide whose eligible or not - it seems pretty limiting this far into the project. More players to discuss = better.

So, you'd be fine with 20 players next round?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So, you'd be fine with 20 players next round?

I don't know why posters are taking it to extremes like this. IIRC, the previous projects never went over 15-16 candidates, expect maybe in the final round.

(Mostly unrelated, I do like the idea in the current project to only add one guy in the final round... No need for a huge pool then).