Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 2 (Back in the Habit)

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
I’m scared of losing five months of my life to re-living four years of positional projects, sure.

There are plenty of players to compare Nicklas Lidstrom to besides Doug Harvey and Ray Bourque and Eddie Shore. We’re making a list with Forwards and Goaltenders too.

But you’ll all have to wait because he’s not eligible.

I’m still waiting for you to compare Harvey with the other positions from his era but it doesn’t seem it will happen. Maybe point to Hart voting to elevate Beliveau far over Harvey? Is this “rule” only designed for Lidstrom or when you want to bring down Bourque in comparison with Messier? Seems rather self-serving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,135
6,429
Art of Sedinery said:
I don't think their regular season is as far apart as it has been portrayed at times, but it's certainly possible Hasek's playoffs are better than I give him credit for.
Remember he won multiple championships in Czechoslovakia, named the country's best player (Golden Stick) three times before his NHL career. More importantly, he was:
  • the tourney all star in the 1987 world championships;
  • the tourney all star in the 1989 world championships;
  • the media* all star in the 1990 world championships;
* the media vote and the IIHF tourney official vote are usually the same, but the tourney vote went to Irbe of the gold-medal Soviet team whereas the media thought Hasek was the best of the tourney.

Hasek also faced 40 shots in the regulation round of the 1987 Canada Cup in a TIE with eventual tourney winner Canada, the goals against assisted by Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier and Bourque. That is at least a noteworthy accomplishment, to get a tie against arguably the most talented line-up ever.

Hasek has playoff chops. In fact, he thrived on pressure. The more shots he faced, the more into the game he got. If he had been a Soviet, then went to a loaded NHL team (before Detroit at age 37, where he had 6 playoff shutouts and all 16 wins for his only cup)... he could have had a much more hyped career and more playoff team achievements.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I’m still waiting for you to compare Harvey with the other positions from his era but it doesn’t seem it will happen. Maybe point to Hart voting to elevate Beliveau far over Harvey? Is this “rule” only designed for Lidstrom or when you want to bring down Bourque in comparison with Messier? Seems rather self-serving.

This was actually done on at least three occassions in the first part of the Vote 2 discussion.

Would require reading with understanding.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Remember he won multiple championships in Czechoslovakia, named the country's best player (Golden Stick) three times before his NHL career. More importantly, he was:
  • the tourney all star in the 1987 world championships;
  • the tourney all star in the 1989 world championships;
  • the media* all star in the 1990 world championships;
* the media vote and the IIHF tourney official vote are usually the same, but the tourney vote went to Irbe of the gold-medal Soviet team whereas the media thought Hasek was the best of the tourney.

Hasek also faced 40 shots in the regulation round of the 1987 Canada Cup in a TIE with eventual tourney winner Canada, the goals against assisted by Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier and Bourque. That is at least a noteworthy accomplishment, to get a tie against arguably the most talented line-up ever.

Hasek has playoff chops. In fact, he thrived on pressure. The more shots he faced, the more into the game he got. If ge had been a Soviet, then went to a loaded NHL team (before Detroit at age 37, where he had 6 playoff shutouts and all 16 wins for his only cup)... he could have had a much more hyped career and more playoff team achievements.

Reliability was a factor. If and when he decided to play. Thanks to overpass:

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151895757/

On the other hand in 1994 Patrick Roy stopped 60 shots in a 2-1 playoff victory over Boston, playing medicated to delay an appendectomy.

Then you have other goalie greats:

0000plante.jpg


returning to the game after an injury.

If they were Soviets, definitely Order of Lenin and a statue in Red Square as a minimum.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MXD and Killion

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,135
6,429
Reliability was a factor. If and when de decided to play...

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/151895757/
What a 41-year-old did or didn't do in a comeback attempt is immaterial.

The fact that Chelios played so much longer will not in itself be evidence for his induction. Of course, if he played great it will help (eg., 40-year-old 1st team all star season by Bourque). But if he didn't, it won't hurt.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
This was actually done on at least three occassions in the first part of the Vote 2 discussion.

Would require reading with understanding.

By QPQ who believes Hart voting is everything when it’s convenient? Nope.

To know that’s what I was referring to would actually require reading with understanding.
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
It's definitely time to vote, since we're reduced to childish jabs at this point.

Voted.

Morenz and Crosby were the biggest risers from my original list, 6 spots each. Roy and Hasek moved up 3 each.

Harvey fell 4, Richard fell 2, Bourque and Shore within one, mainly because I have a top 10er that is not eligible yet.
 
Last edited:

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
I don't want to get too much into comparisons with a bunch of ineligible players, but briefly...yeah I think Kane/Toews 2010 and 2015 are comparable with Crosby 2009 and 2017. 2013 for them and 2016 for Crosby are also reasonable comparisons. I think Keith was probably all around a little more consistent than Kane/Toews and has the best Conn Smythe performance of the last 15 years in my opinion, so throw him in as well. In any case, it's not a run-away for anybody. Which is fine; I don't think any other candidates can decisively claim to be the best of their era either, so it's not a strike against Crosby.



Interesting to see that's how Hull and Beliveau fall compared to each other. It perhaps illustrates the difference between Beliveau playing the Hawks and Hull playing the Canadiens.

I'm not sure how well the O6 numbers can directly translate to eras with more teams in the league. 6 teams is problematically small when trying to scale to 30 teams. To clarify, my original methodology was meant to provide context to a player's raw scoring totals when compared to other players from that same era. It wasn't an attempt to normalize scoring totals across eras, though it may we a worthwhile endeavor to explore.

The issue I see with the methodology employed in the bolded above, is that a 30-team league has 5 times as many data points and is likely to provide a more consistent and accurate measure of defensive strength year over year, when using GA as the proxy. A 6-team league can lead to situations where minor differences are hugely exaggerated by the points system you've established.

Take 1963-64. You have Montreal (167 GA), Chicago (169), and Toronto (172) leading the way. Scaling this to last season, 1964 Toronto would be assigned the same defensive value as the 2018 Avalanche. The 31 data points that saw Colorado end up as a slightly above average defensive team have painted a fairly accurate picture. The 6 data points that have suggested Toronto was similar seems far less accurate. Was league-leading Montreal also just a little better than average? Or was half the league very strong? Neither conclusion seems appropriate. It's a problem that I can't really offer a clear solution to. I think you almost have to look at multi-year sample sizes to establish a baseline for O6 years and grade them on a more finely tuned scale. 1-2-3-4-5-6 is just too broad to be a reliable indicator.

I think you're right... If someone is going to do this, it should just be a weighted average based on aa percentag better or worse than the league average. Not really much harder to do, either.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
So you don’t know enough to properly compare the top defenders of those eras with each other but you feel comfortable comparing each ones peers with each other. At best that’s odd and at worst that’s ridiculous. Gotcha.

You should post more here though cause you’d fit right in where so many assume a Canadian only league with 36 mainstay defenders is tougher competition than an international league with 180 or so of the same.

Man, the quality of any thread is directly and inversely related to your level of involvement in it.
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
I wouldn't hesitate to call Crosby the best playoff player of his generation, but does the Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin generation really boast a lot of players who are great playoff performers in an historical context?

If you exclude Malkin (whom Crosby works with as opposed to competing against in the playoffs) and make a list of the top ten playoff performers of that generation, how far down would you get before having to give serious consideration to players like Ryan Getzlaf, Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty?

Ovechkin's latest Conn Smythe and Cup add to his legacy and he was very good in the playoffs early on in his career, but I'm not sure he's a top five playoff player from his generation. Toews' legacy as a relevant player in his generation is built largely on his playoff success, but he's not a dominant offensive player. Kane puts up numbers but doesn't do the other kinds of things people make a big fuss about in the playoffs. Thornton has been underwhelming in the post season.

Forget about the likes of Gretzky - if you exclude the Penguins, is there a playoff performer from the Crosby generation who's at least on par with a Forsberg or a Sakic?

How does that generation compare to older ones when it comes to great playoff performers?
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,209
17,566
Connecticut
It's definitely time to vote, since we're reduced to childish jabs at this point.

Voted.

Morenz and Crosby were the biggest risers from my original list, 6 spots each. Roy and Hasek moved up 3 each.

Harvey fell 4, Richard fell 2, Bourque and Shore within one, mainly because I have a top 10er that is not eligible yet.

I don't get it.

What does an ineligible player have to do with how you vote this round?
 

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
Forget about the likes of Gretzky - if you exclude the Penguins, is there a playoff performer from the Crosby generation who's at least on par with a Forsberg or a Sakic?

How does that generation compare to older ones when it comes to great playoff performers?

Keith? Hedman has been pretty awesome, probably would've won the Smythe a few years ago had they won. He's got a lot more games to play though so we'll see about that.

But I agree, still feels weak...
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
I wouldn't hesitate to call Crosby the best playoff player of his generation, but does the Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin generation really boast a lot of players who are great playoff performers in an historical context?

If you exclude Malkin (whom Crosby works with as opposed to competing against in the playoffs) and make a list of the top ten playoff performers of that generation, how far down would you get before having to give serious consideration to players like Ryan Getzlaf, Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty?

Ovechkin's latest Conn Smythe and Cup add to his legacy and he was very good in the playoffs early on in his career, but I'm not sure he's a top five playoff player from his generation. Toews' legacy as a relevant player in his generation is built largely on his playoff success, but he's not a dominant offensive player. Kane puts up numbers but doesn't do the other kinds of things people make a big fuss about in the playoffs. Thornton has been underwhelming in the post season.

Forget about the likes of Gretzky - if you exclude the Penguins, is there a playoff performer from the Crosby generation who's at least on par with a Forsberg or a Sakic?

How does that generation compare to older ones when it comes to great playoff performers?

Wouldn't a number of factors, mainly the number of teams in the league, play a role in creating significant differences in a comparison of great playoff performers from different eras? Generally, Crosby, (and Malkin and OV) has a playoff resume befitting his regular season stature in comparison to his peers. His team is the most successful of his era and has a case to have the best international resume of his era too. Thankfully this project weighs heavily on performance vs. peers analysis.
 

overg

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
1,228
235
Indianapolis, IN
Visit site
I wouldn't hesitate to call Crosby the best playoff player of his generation, but does the Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin generation really boast a lot of players who are great playoff performers in an historical context?

If you exclude Malkin (whom Crosby works with as opposed to competing against in the playoffs) and make a list of the top ten playoff performers of that generation, how far down would you get before having to give serious consideration to players like Ryan Getzlaf, Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty?

Ovechkin's latest Conn Smythe and Cup add to his legacy and he was very good in the playoffs early on in his career, but I'm not sure he's a top five playoff player from his generation. Toews' legacy as a relevant player in his generation is built largely on his playoff success, but he's not a dominant offensive player. Kane puts up numbers but doesn't do the other kinds of things people make a big fuss about in the playoffs. Thornton has been underwhelming in the post season.

Forget about the likes of Gretzky - if you exclude the Penguins, is there a playoff performer from the Crosby generation who's at least on par with a Forsberg or a Sakic?

How does that generation compare to older ones when it comes to great playoff performers?

Aside from those mentioned, the best you're going to do is probably either Zetterburg and/or Pronger. Possibly throw in Lidstrom, depending upon how loosely you want to define Crosby's generation.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,135
6,429
What does an ineligible player have to do with how you vote this round?
Well, I had to vote Roy last in round 1 because an ineligible (Hasek) was at least as good as him and I wasn't going to create a gap between the netminders arbitrarily. For example, I thought Roy>>Morenz but also Hasek>>Morenz and Hasek>or=Roy and thus the gap between the two netminders as miniscule compared to the canyon between Morenz and the pair. Epilogue: This round I was a happy camper, with both goalies back-to-back on my list and a gap of five slots to Morenz (not a lot of convincing discussion about Howie this round; doubts prevail).
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Well, I had to vote Roy last in round 1 because an ineligible (Hasek) was at least as good as him and I wasn't going to create a gap between the netminders arbitrarily. For example, I thought Roy>>Morenz but also Hasek>>Morenz and Hasek>or=Roy and thus the gap between the two netminders as miniscule compared to the canyon between Morenz and the pair. Epilogue: This round I was a happy camper, with both goalies back-to-back on my list and a gap of five slots to Morenz (not a lot of convincing discussion about Howie this round; doubts prevail).

Thats called having an agenda tbh.

You should vote eligible players vs each other. Players not yet eligible should have 0 relevance in how u vote.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,135
6,429
You should vote eligible players vs each other. Players not yet eligible should have 0 relevance in how u vote.
Of course.

But how can one be convinced that eligible player A is better than eligible player B if ineligible player C cannot even be argued AGAINST to weaken one's belief that C=B and C>>A... hard to see A>B... when no one is allowed to argue A>C.

I'm open to being convinced. But no relevant discussion to shake those beliefs happened, hence the inevitability of the vote.

Note: A was Morenz, B Roy, C Hasek in the example above from round one.
 
Last edited:

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,209
17,566
Connecticut
Well, I had to vote Roy last in round 1 because an ineligible (Hasek) was at least as good as him and I wasn't going to create a gap between the netminders arbitrarily. For example, I thought Roy>>Morenz but also Hasek>>Morenz and Hasek>or=Roy and thus the gap between the two netminders as miniscule compared to the canyon between Morenz and the pair. Epilogue: This round I was a happy camper, with both goalies back-to-back on my list and a gap of five slots to Morenz (not a lot of convincing discussion about Howie this round; doubts prevail).

Doesn't seem kosher to me.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Of course.

But how can one be convinced that eligible player A is better than eligible player B if ineligible player C cannot even be argued AGAINST to weaken one's belief that C=B and C>>A... hard to see A>B... when no one is allowed to argue A>C.

I'm open to being convinced. But no relevant discussion to shake those beliefs happened, hence the inevitability of the vote.

Note: A was Morenz, B Roy, C Hasek in the example above from round one.

Well the point is that you individually are not responsible for who becomes eligible - it's the decision of all 32 voters combined who decide who becomes eligible (based on round 1 lists).

I firmly believe Jaromir Jagr was a great candidate for #5 - and moreso I think he has a case above both Hull and Richard as #2 winger after Howe, and i'm very upset that 1, or both may be voted in before I get to argue Jagr's case.

But that has 0 bearing on my vote here. I will vote for Hull and Richard strictly based on how I perceive them vs the other 8 players here. If I were to vote both of those wingers low in purpose to hope they get bumped and it allows me to have Jagr above them, it would be voting strategically off of an agenda, which isn't right. So i'll vote for Richard and Hull strictly based on how they should rank vs the other 8 guys here. And if/when Jagr becomes eligible and they're still around - only then will that affect my rank.

I really think everyone should adhere to this.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,135
6,429
Well the point is that you individually are not responsible for who becomes eligible - it's the decision of all 32 voters combined who decide who becomes eligible (based on round 1 lists).

I firmly believe Jaromir Jagr was a great candidate for #5 - and moreso I think he has a case above both Hull and Richard as #2 winger after Howe, and i'm very upset that 1, or both may be voted in before I get to argue Jagr's case.

But that has 0 bearing on my vote here. I will vote for Hull and Richard strictly based on how I perceive them vs the other 8 players here. If I were to vote both of those wingers low in purpose to hope they get bumped and it allows me to have Jagr above them, it would be voting strategically off of an agenda, which isn't right. So i'll vote for Richard and Hull strictly based on how they should rank vs the other 8 guys here. And if/when Jagr becomes eligible and they're still around - only then will that affect my rank.

I really think everyone should adhere to this.
The point is about players at different positions.

If you think an ineligible RW is so much better than an eligible RW then maybe G or D or C candidates are to be considered as possibly better than the eligible RW. Since all are great guys it may be easier to see this than to see inducting the inferior RW now.

When to start inducting goaltenders is an open question many of us have wondered and deliberated over. I can say with good conscience that this round may be it, as I believe two are worthy and the one I think the best of the two is now eligible.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->