Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3 (Secret of the Ooze)

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by quoipourquoi, Nov 17, 2018.

  1. It's phishing season. Members should beware of an email informing them their password is about to expire. You should delete it. This is a scam to steal passwords.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. quoipourquoi Goaltender

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    10,045
    Likes Received:
    3,962
    Trophy Points:
    201
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Hockeytown, MI
    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, November 16th at midnight and continue through Sunday, November 18th at 8:59pm. Eastern time zone. I will release the results of the vote on Monday, November 19th.


    Vote 3 Candidates
    • Alex Ovechkin
    • Denis Potvin
    • Dominik Hasek
    • Eddie Shore
    • Howie Morenz
    • Jacques Plante
    • Jaromir Jagr
    • Mark Messier
    • Nicklas Lidstrom
    • Ray Bourque
    • Sidney Crosby
    • Stan Mikita
     
  2. solidmotion Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    61
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    i don't have a mountain of evidence for you but thought i would mention that hasek missed two games vs toronto in 1999 in which toronto—the top-scoring team in the regular season—scored 4 and 5 goals on roloson. buffalo won one of those two games because toronto as always had shit for d. hasek came back and toronto was held to 2 goals in each of the remaining three games which buffalo won.

    maybe it's a generational thing but i definitely grew up in total awe of hasek and even though the styles and resumes are very different i never saw a ton of daylight between him, roy and brodeur. to me it would look weird to have them more than a handful of spots apart. were i a voter he'd be near the top of my list this round.
     
    Sentinel and ehhedler like this.
  3. Mike Farkas Grace Personified

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    11,027
    Likes Received:
    4,316
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    PA
    Home Page:
    Super flashy player becomes slightly overrated historically...? Well, I never!
     
    Canadiens1958 likes this.
  4. quoipourquoi Goaltender

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    10,045
    Likes Received:
    3,962
    Trophy Points:
    201
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Hockeytown, MI
    Sorry I was late on this one. Have to catch up on the last 6 pages.
     
  5. Nick Hansen Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    1,988
    Trophy Points:
    101
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe there is a generational thing with Hasek? Any one who was a kid in the 90's and liked hockey would be awed by Hasek. I know I was.

    Do you consider flashiness and unique style or is that more just descriptive without much inherent value with regards to the ranking?
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2018
  6. Dirt 101 Dirt, the famous Nevada railway cat

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    Messages:
    32,268
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    Trophy Points:
    232
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Occupation:
    Teacher
    Whew. :phew:

    That means you won't hold it against Seibert that he killed Morenz with the death-caused-by-complications-from-injury hit.

    (,Certainly, Earl held himself responsible for the subsequent death)

    [​IMG]
     
  7. ImporterExporter "You're a boring old man"

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2013
    Messages:
    15,265
    Likes Received:
    5,086
    Trophy Points:
    156
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Oblivion Express
    @ehhedler

    In 99-00 the Pens had Straka, Lang, Kovalev, Hatcher, Kasper, Hrdina, Barrasso beyond Jagr. Again, were they an elite roster? No. But I keep hearing about how it was Jagr and a bunch of nobodies which is complete fantasy. The Pens didn't fold until the Jagr trade. Jagr never played on any sort of expansion level roster in Pittsburgh.
     
    Sentinel likes this.
  8. Kyle McMahon Registered User

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    12,137
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    196
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Sports Investor
    Location:
    Evil Empire
    Home Page:
    Fair points re Hasek/Toronto series.

    I agree with your second paragraph. I think they're all pretty close. I'm not going to upgrade where I vote for Hasek just because Roy already got onto the list though. I had Morenz, Crosby, Bourque, and Shore ahead of both in the last vote and I'll have those four ahead of Hasek again in this one, barring a late compelling argument that convinces me otherwise.
     
    solidmotion likes this.
  9. sr edler whom

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,787
    Likes Received:
    3,845
    Trophy Points:
    171
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    No one is denying that team had some guys up front who could do things (score), but the team was really badly structured and was bad on D. You won't go anywhere in the playoffs with a team that is straight out bad defensively. Jagr should get criticized for being bad on D himself, but not for not dragging a heavily listing team anywhere near the Cup. Kasparaitis was a decently good player on D, I guess, but come on now.
     
  10. Nick Hansen Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    1,988
    Trophy Points:
    101
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    By games played, these were the seven guys on defense who played the most games for Penguins year by year.

    97/98

    Kasparaitis
    Tamer
    Olausson
    Hatcher
    Slegr
    Werenka
    Wilkinson

    98/99

    Werenka
    Dollas
    Hatcher
    Slegr
    Galanov
    Kasparaitis
    Serowik

    99/00

    Roszival
    Slegr
    Kasparaitis
    Moran
    Jonsson
    Werenka
    Popovic

    00/01

    Kasparaitis
    Jonsson
    Boughner
    Laukkanen
    Slegr
    Moran
    Ference
     
  11. ChiTownPhilly Not Too Soft

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    849
    Trophy Points:
    139
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Occupation:
    Private Sector wk ethic trapped in Govt Mgr career
    Location:
    NOT under a sofa
    *Not really sure what the one quote has to do with the other, nor even where this "you" stuff came from. Perhaps my identity was mistaken for the identity of someone who advocated extensively for Shore?

    I'm also pretty sure that I can distinguish between a serious but relatively accidental injury and a willfully deliberate attempt to injure. But- we'll have plenty of time to talk about that later, as players relevant to that distinction continue to materialize in the nomination process.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2018
  12. overpass Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Trophy Points:
    139
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    The Ace Bailey incident was a nasty business and it will always be part of Eddie Shore’s hockey legacy. I don’t think anyone is pretending it never happened.

    Nobody is saying Shore was never suspended for 16 games, or that Shore should have been a first-team all-star or won a retro-Norris for the 1933-34 season, or saying Shore and the Bruins were unjustly excluded from the 1934 playoffs. Shore did what he did to Bailey, paid the price, did what he could to support Bailey along with the rest of the NHL with benefit games, etc, and everyone moved on. Shore continued to play great hockey and win awards and accolades, and was a part of organized hockey until he died. The THN panel was fully aware that Eddie Shore had ended Ace Bailey’s hockey career when they placed him ninth on their list of top players in 1998. Not that you have to agree with the placement, but it’s not as though Shore has to be rehabilitated somehow to get him into this list.
     
    seventieslord and Canadiens1958 like this.
  13. Theokritos Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    11,119
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Trophy Points:
    201
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    The basic idea here is very reasonable, but: Which better, more detailed, more first hand data do we actually have?

    I assume you refer to the Hart voting record. But back in the day, wasn't the Hart voting more faithful to the definition "most valuable to his team" (or, as the Montreal Gazette put it when Morenz won his third Hart Trophy in 1932, "most useful to his club")? Which would render comparing Morenz and Shore on their Hart record rather meaningless since they, of course, played for different teams.
     
  14. Canadiens1958 Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    20,020
    Likes Received:
    2,661
    Trophy Points:
    196
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Lake Memphremagog, QC.
    In hockey utility and value refer to different qualities. Utility refers to multiple roles, value the quality of a specific role. Playing multiple roles does at times bring great value.

    No problem comparing players on two distinct teams. Value of a player who contributes at a two or three roster spot level compared to a player who contributes at a one roster spot level.
     
    Killion likes this.
  15. danincanada Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,738
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    124
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    You mean ‘03 to ‘06, minus ‘05 due to the lockout, right? That’s 3 playoffs when the Red Wings lost to teams that went to the finals and nearly won it all. Just to clarify.

    Lidstrom has the most playoff game wins as a skater in the playoffs (and regular season) all-time so those voters who like “winners” and players who contribute most to winning, should have been voting high on him all along. Not you Kyle but I have someone else in mind here who always uses that argument for his Bleu Blanc et Rouge.
     
    Sentinel likes this.
  16. Canadiens1958 Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    20,020
    Likes Received:
    2,661
    Trophy Points:
    196
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Lake Memphremagog, QC.
    Benefit of playing in an OT/SO era. How does Lidstrom rank in terms of losses? Playoffs Lidstrom and the Wings had app a 59.5% winning percentage. 1956 - 60 Canadiens were 40- 9 or app 81%. Big gap to overcome.
     
    Killion likes this.
  17. danincanada Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,738
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    124
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Comparing 5 years to a whole 20 year career is cherry picking stats. Not surprised. You loving winners and players who contribute to winning so please be consistent.
     
    Sentinel likes this.
  18. seventieslord Student Of The Game

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    33,764
    Likes Received:
    3,045
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Regina, SK
    I think it would be disingenuous to suggest that the overall best, and overall most valuable players, regardless of team, didn't have a tendency to show up highly and repeatedly in hart voting - in any era. They do. These two players are pretty much the consensus two best of the post-consolidation, pre-WW2 era, and well, look who hogged all the Hart votes - to the extent that two players could hog Hart votes, that is.

    There are also plenty of reports about their greatness in newspaper reports and books that make it pretty clear that they were both very highly regarded throughout their careers. It's subjective, but it's still good information we all like to refer to.

    I'm just saying, you wouldn't look at 15 years of hart votes, and read everything written about them during their careers, and then come to the conclusion that it's reasonable that one should win a poll 27-1 (votes for other players eliminated).

    (Also, I don't think the thing about valuable vs. useful is really all that important here, but personally I wouldn't concern myself with how one newspaper in one season worded the definition of the Hart trophy. It didn't change; it was always for most valuable to his team.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2018
    Killion likes this.
  19. bobholly39 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    15,426
    Likes Received:
    7,106
    Trophy Points:
    156
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    I feel as though discussion kinda run out of steam a bit early in this round. Pretty quiet past cpl days. I may end up voting early if no one brings up any other interesting points.

    I think my biggest question mark right now remains the argument QPQ brought up about Messier > Bourque. And tbh - if i buy into that Messier > Bourque argument and the reason behind it - it's not outlandish to extend the same Jagr > Bourque and Ovechkin > Bourque argument as other modern forwards who I tend to rank above Messier.

    I think an anti-defenseman bias is definitely a part of it - but to a certain extent i'm not sure how much i disagree with it. I value offense above defense - and as such someone like Jagr winning an Art Ross is more impressive to me (by quite a bit at times) than Bourque winning a Norris. Maybe i'm ok being a bit anti-defenseman bias in my votes.
     
  20. BenchBrawl joueur de hockey

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    24,920
    Likes Received:
    5,600
    Trophy Points:
    202
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Dumping some stuff in here, not sure if this is of any interest

    Winnipeg Tribune, 4 Avril 1946
    [​IMG]
     
  21. Mike Farkas Grace Personified

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    11,027
    Likes Received:
    4,316
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    PA
    Home Page:
    It ran out of steam despite being a lot of hot air at times...I'm scouting tonight, so I'm not sure I'm going to be able to piece together anything new or shocking before most of the panel has voted...which is disappointing...I also am not withholding anything new or shocking either...

    I personally flipped Lidstrom over Bourque in my head earlier in the week. Talking to a coaching friend of mine this weekend, who is old enough to still complain about Orr's penalty with 3 minutes left in the 1974 Final, he re-affirmed where I was at (before I said my feelings)...he'd take Bourque offensively and full well realizing he needed to bring offense to a rather incomplete Bruins team(s), but Lidstrom was the better overall player probably...albeit he could play a quieter game because of his surrounding cast. I think that's where I'm at too...Lidstrom (who gets paraded about this place by a couple of goons in an amateur-hour whirlwind) was surprisingly undercooked in this round I thought...and frankly, it's for the better.

    Crosby was in the top half of my ballot (quite surprisingly, as I wasn't really ready for him yet I didn't think) last time, and that status has been re-affirmed this time through...hard to distance him from Morenz too much I think...

    I had questions on Morenz and Shore coming into the project. And I think a couple of the really good posters took those questions to task and actually help to answer a lot of my issues with them. I thank the other panelists for that and engaging in that challenge so that we didn't just pass these guys through because they smelled nice last time. That said, I don't see Shore as better than Bourque or Lidstrom certainly. And thus, he'll be behind at least both of them. I'd like to see another full Potvin game from the 70's before I decide on what side on Shore he falls on for me as well.

    It's not time for Ovechkin or Messier. Mikita will not feature prominently either for me, which is a little bit at odds with my prelim list. But I saw two playoff games of his since I made my list and it's very clear who was driving the...ship? bus? Whatever...and it wasn't him in my eyes. Which is enough to put him on cinderblocks on this particular ballot.
     
  22. Kyle McMahon Registered User

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    12,137
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    196
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Sports Investor
    Location:
    Evil Empire
    Home Page:
    No, I mean what I stated. Detroit lost to underdog Anaheim in 2007 after finishing in 1st place, 4th consecutive year they were upset in the playoffs. I'd be inclined to forgive the 2003 loss to Anaheim though. Giguere played maybe the greatest series of all time against them, tough to find a lot of fault there. But is Detroit's four year stretch of playoff underachieving perfectly overlapping with the time span where Lidstrom was pretty clearly their top player just coincidental? Maybe. I mean, I certainly wouldn't direct outright blame in his direction. But it does put a big damper on any suggestion that Lidstrom could get a less-than-great roster to swing above their weight class. Not that all the other candidates necessarily could either. But Bourque specifically did demonstrate that he could. As far as my vote goes, this will be a key reason why I have a gap between Bourque (3rd this vote pending further arguments) and Lidstrom (undecided).
     
  23. BraveCanadian Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    12,263
    Likes Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    169
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    They were struggling financially and declining year by year.

    Those late 90s squads that Jagr was somehow supposed to drag to the promised land were paper thin rosters, especially on defense and in goal. Considering how much he could be focused on by the opposition it is a miracle (and usually due to Jagr) that they won any series at all.
     
  24. BenchBrawl joueur de hockey

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    24,920
    Likes Received:
    5,600
    Trophy Points:
    202
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Ottawa Journal, 2 Septembre 1936

    [​IMG]
     
    ImporterExporter and Killion like this.
  25. Theokritos Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    11,119
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Trophy Points:
    201
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    No doubt, but it stands to reason that it's more difficult to ramp up Hart votes when you play on a stacked team with multiple other elite players. At least when the focus is indeed on value "to the club".

    I don't quite agree. What you say here could also be said about Hull and Mikita. And yet Hull beats Mikita 436½ to 7 in that 1970 poll on the Best Player of the 1960s. Unreasonable? I don't think so. A big difference in a voting result doesn't necessarily mean two players were miles apart. As you rightly pointed out in your earlier post: A single-name ballot is not likely to deliver a nuanced picture. Yes, the numbers aren't close: The vast majority of voters thought player A was better than player B. But that doesn't mean the vast majority of voters also thought A was much better than B. If almost everyone thinks: It's close, but Morenz for me... then you get a landslide victory for Morenz like 27-1.

    Sure, I don't disagree, in the context of the Hart Trophy I don't even consider "most valuable to his team" and "most useful to his team" as opposites. In fact I think the wording "most useful to his club" emphasizes the "to his club" aspect even more, which highlights how the Hart trophy was viewed back then.
     
    TheDevilMadeMe and Kyle McMahon like this.

Share This Page

Presented in Association with the Society for International Hockey Research
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"