Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Voting Results (Part 2)

[Hockey Outsider]

Yeah, I got you. And yes, you totally created that tie!

Also curious if mine counted - I realized I sent mine in a few minutes after the deadline.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Also curious if mine counted - I realized I sent mine in a few minutes after the deadline.

Yep, I waited for you.

 

[MXD]

Yeah, I got you. And yes, you totally created that tie!

... a tie between two players who weren't even making it before I told everyone to hold my beer.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well...that was unexpected.

 

[MXD]

I've been in all of these projects EXCEPT the European Players Project, and I've never one been one to favor modern players (all in all, I probably skew a bit towards the 25-42 era).

But I (well, all our votes are equal, it's just that mine came in really late, and was probably the last recveived by QPQ) just pushed Duncan Keith and Patrick Kane in, while pulling out an older player. (My vote also had the effect of pulling Brian Leetch, which I see as my best biggest net positive contribution to the end result).

This made me realize that the "Modern Player vs. Older Player" pendulum probably swung a bit towards "Older Player".

Also, I might've been Kane's biggest detractor in the Vote 19 thread, DESPITE having him quite high all along (He ended up 4th, probably gaining one net spot, as Tony Esposito slid down my ballot).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm surprised to see Kane and Gadsby with so many NRs. Thought the case for Kane was fairly cut and dry.

And didn't realize there were voters that low on Gadsby.

Seems to be a huge diversity of opinion as we get this low (that shouldn't be surprising).

 

[kruezer]

I wasn't the same order but I believe I matched exactly on who I ranked and NR'd with the consensus, didn't think that'd happen in a round of twenty.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm surprised to see Kane and Gadsby with so many NRs. Thought the case for Kane was fairly cut and dry.

And didn't realize there were voters that low on Gadsby.

Seems to be a huge diversity of opinion as we get this low (that shouldn't be surprising).

I didn't have Gadsby on my final list. Originally I had him, but kept moving him down for guys I wanted until he was gone.

But, I had him 7th this round so I saw the error of my ways.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Player	Ballots	Points	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	NR
Bill Gadsby	16	111	4	2	1	1	2	4	1		1		5
Joe Thornton	16	106	3	3	1	1	1	3	3			1	5
Nels Stewart	13	90	3	1	2	1	3		2		1		8
Patrick Kane	15	85	2	1	2	2	2			4		2	6
Duncan Keith	15	85	1	1	2	4	1	1	1		3	1	6
Brian Leetch	15	82	1	1	2	2		3	3	1	1	1	6
Dave Keon	12	80	1	3	1	3	2					2	9
Eric Lindros	12	78	2	1	1		3	4		1			9
Mark Howe	14	66	1	1	2		1	2	2		2	3	7
Eddie Gerard	11	64		3	2	1	1			1	2	1	10
Martin St. Louis	10	57		3	1	1	1			2	1	1	11
Sid Abel	10	44			2	2			1	2	1	2	11
Tony Esposito	8	41	1			1	1	1	2	1	1		13
Serge Savard	7	37	1		1		1		1	3			14
Jarome Iginla	7	29	1		1					2	2	1	14
Erik Karlsson	6	26				1		2	1	1	1		15
Toe Blake	8	24				1	1		1		2	3	13
Valeri Vasiliev	5	24		1			1	1		1		1	16
Norm Ullman	5	13							2		2	1	16
Peter Stastny	5	13							1	2	1	1	16

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Kinda surprised to see Gadsby at the top of the list. Shocked, actually.

 

[wetcoast]

Kinda surprised to see Gadsby at the top of the list. Shocked, actually.

I'm not all that shocked but surprised that he was ranked well ahead of Leetch who has taken a real beating.

Speaking of beatings the last place ranking of the top point producer in the 80s ( everyone in history would be behind Gretzky) is kind of baffling.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'm not all that shocked but surprised that he was ranked well ahead of Leetch who has taken a real beating.

Speaking of beatings the last place ranking of the top point producer in the 80s ( everyone in history would be behind Gretzky) is kind of baffling.

Lots of similarities to Dale Hawerchuk, although Statsny had more offensive support.

 

[wetcoast]

Lots of similarities to Dale Hawerchuk, although Statsny had more offensive support.

Sure except Stastny also aged better and had a better playoff resume as well.

I think Hawerchuck had some okay support his biggest problem was playing in the double death Smythe with the Oilers and Flames being the powerhouse teams of the 80s.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Sure except Stastny also aged better and had a better playoff resume as well.

I think Hawerchuck had some okay support his biggest problem was playing in the double death Smythe with the Oilers and Flames being the powerhouse teams of the 80s.

Referring to his nine prime years in Winnipeg only, Hawerchuk "made" regular linemates Paul MacLean and Brian Mullen, and before Mullen... Larry Hopkins. Of course, you are bang on with the point regarding the Oilers killing Hawerchuk's Jets when they did make the playoffs, and the malaise of being on poor teams when the Jets did not make the playoffs (they seemed to alternate).

 

[wetcoast]

Referring to his nine prime years in Winnipeg only, Hawerchuk "made" regular linemates Paul MacLean and Brian Mullen, and before Mullen... Larry Hopkins. Of course, you are bang on with the point regarding the Oilers killing Hawerchuk's Jets when they did make the playoffs, and the malaise of being on poor teams when the Jets did not make the playoffs (they seemed to alternate).

I think alot of players legacies might be different if not for Wayne

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

So... every North American player I have in the top-100 is either off-the-board or under discussion.

Some Persuasive Beast made a credible-sounding case for Hugh Lehman, and I was led down that Primrose Path (105 overall). Might have been a mistake on my part. Had Drew Doughty at 112... but it looks like he (too) has gone into "graffiti-on-résumé" mode. Guess we'll see things more clearly in about ten years. Jack Stewart sits at 114, but maybe I should have focused more on Quackenbush. Hod Stuart at 120 rounds out things for me.

Other than that, four non-NHL Soviets and three non-NHL Czecholslovaks, of which I only have the slightest hope that we might see Martinec with the last five.

Agonizing late-cuts for me included (among personally memorable names, not necessarily 'most-top' players): Lionel Conacher, Jean Ratelle, and Marian Hossa.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Player	Ballots	Points	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	NR
Mark Howe	17	111	2	2	2	3	4		1	2	1		4
Eric Lindros	15	106	5	1		1	4	2	1		1		6
Brian Leetch	15	97	3	1	2		3	3	1	1	1		6
Martin St. Louis	15	91	2	3		3	1	1		2	3		6
Dave Keon	13	88	1	2	4	1	1	1	2		1		8
Eddie Gerard	13	68	1	4					2	3	2	1	8
Sid Abel	15	63	1	1	1	2			2	2	2	4	6
Serge Savard	8	58	1	3	1	1			1		1		13
Norm Ullman	9	53		1	2	2		2		1		1	12
Tony Esposito	10	51	1		2		1	3			1	2	11
Erik Karlsson	9	51	1			2	2	2	1			1	12
Jarome Iginla	8	50	1		2	1	1		2	1			13
Jiri Holecek	10	48	2		1	1			1	1	2	2	11
Toe Blake	9	43		1		1	2	1		3		1	12
Bernie Parent	10	40			2				5		1	2	11
Pavel Bure	6	35		1	1	1	1		1			1	15
Valeri Vasiliev	5	28		1	1			1	1		1		16
Russell Bowie	8	26				1	1	1		1	1	3	13
Johnny Bower	7	25				1		2		2		2	14
Peter Stastny	8	23						2		2	3	1	13

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'm not really sure we needed 4 more post-WHA guys added...a bit disappointed that one of Gerard or Abel will miss the final list.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

A few changes-of-heart from the last ballot...

Mark Howe went around Brian Leetch.
Martin St Louis went around Eddie Gerard.
Erik Karlsson went around Jarome Iginla.
Norm Ullman went around Toe Blake.

And all of those revisions- well... I think we were right the first time.

I had a last-minute re-think, and put Lindros ahead of Sid Abel-- although it ultimately made no difference to the placements of either player. A 'Top-100' list with Forsberg at 51 and Lindros off-the-board would have just been risible buffoonery.

I guess QPQ is onto something- I suppose Keon was judged comprehensively superior to Bernie Parent in the same manner that Joe Thornton was judged comprehensively superior to Tony O.

Grateful that Leetch's long wait is over- and that we are spared that potential embarrassment.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's interesting how votes changed based on the information presented. If the full regular season R-on/R-off numbers were still easily available on this website, I doubt St Louis would have jumped over Iginla since the wingers project.

I shouldn't complain too much, as I had them back to back.

 

[sr edler]

Sorry for being obtuse, but what is r-on/r-off now again?

 

[DannyGallivan]

A few changes-of-heart from the last ballot...

Mark Howe went around Brian Leetch.
Martin St Louis went around Eddie Gerard.
Erik Karlsson went around Jarome Iginla.
Norm Ullman went around Toe Blake.

And all of those revisions- well... I think we were right the first time.

I had a last-minute re-think, and put Lindros ahead of Sid Abel-- although it ultimately made no difference to the placements of either player. A 'Top-100' list with Forsberg at 51 and Lindros off-the-board would have just been risible buffoonery.

I guess QPQ is onto something- I suppose Keon was judged comprehensively superior to Bernie Parent in the same manner that Joe Thornton was judged comprehensively superior to Tony O.

Grateful that Leetch's long wait is over- and that we are spared that potential embarrassment.

Lindros's five first place votes was nice to see. Based on talent/ability, he was LONG overdue. Surprised to see Leetch so high up. Nice to see Mark Howe get some due... he's very evenly spread among the top five placements, and the lowest NR of the bunch.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Sorry for being obtuse, but what is r-on/r-off now again?

It looks at the ratio of ES goals for to ES goals against, while a player is on the ice ("R-On"), and when he's off ("R-Off").

Suppose a player is on the ice for 75 ES goals for and 50 ES goals against. The team scores 100 ES goals for, and allows 100 ES goals against, when he's off the ice. So he has an R-On ratio of 1.50 (75/50), and his team has an R-Off ratio of 1.00 (100/100). His "out-performance ratio" would be 1.50 (1.50 / 1.00) - which is exceptionally good over the span of a career.

Caveat - I wasn't able to split out shorthanded goals, so the ratios I'm showing could have some small distortion in them due to pluses and minuses from shorthanded goals.

 

[sr edler]

It looks at the ratio of ES goals for to ES goals against, while a player is on the ice ("R-On"), and when he's off ("R-Off").

Suppose a player is on the ice for 75 ES goals for and 50 ES goals against. The team scores 100 ES goals for, and allows 100 ES goals against, when he's off the ice. So he has an R-On ratio of 1.50 (75/50), and his team has an R-Off ratio of 1.00 (100/100). His "out-performance ratio" would be 1.50 (1.50 / 1.00) - which is exceptionally good over the span of a career.

Caveat - I wasn't able to split out shorthanded goals, so the ratios I'm showing could have some small distortion in them due to pluses and minuses from shorthanded goals.

Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I'm not a big math enthusiast though. So it's like +/– plus outscoring your teammates? I figure this would/could benefit a good scorer on a mediocre team with good/balanced linemates (i.e. Iginla/Conroy → Marcus Nilson, Iginla/Tanguay → whoever). Gilmour in Toronto is another good example as they put Andreychuk (and Clark) on his line and the rest of the team was bleh offensively speaking.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I'm not a big math enthusiast though. So it's like +/– plus outscoring your teammates? I figure this would/could benefit a good scorer on a mediocre team with good/balanced linemates (i.e. Iginla/Conroy → Marcus Nilson, Iginla/Tanguay → whoever). Gilmour in Toronto is another good example as they put Andreychuk (and Clark) on his line and the rest of the team was bleh offensively speaking.

For sure, context (linemates & matchups) needs to be taken into account, which I why I always try to provide commentary on the numbers (at least for the entrants - I'm not re-posting everything about players who were already up).

For example, Messier's numbers are pretty bad, but that's because the "R-Off" for a big part of his career included prime Gretzky. Like all the numbers I post, I think there's value there, but it shouldn't be used in isolation.

 

[sr edler]

Player	Ballots	Points	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	NR
Mark Howe	17	111	2	2	2	3	4		1	2	1		4
Eric Lindros	15	106	5	1		1	4	2	1		1		6
Brian Leetch	15	97	3	1	2		3	3	1	1	1		6
Martin St. Louis	15	91	2	3		3	1	1		2	3		6
Dave Keon	13	88	1	2	4	1	1	1	2		1		8
Eddie Gerard	13	68	1	4					2	3	2	1	8
Sid Abel	15	63	1	1	1	2			2	2	2	4	6
Serge Savard	8	58	1	3	1	1			1		1		13
Norm Ullman	9	53		1	2	2		2		1		1	12
Tony Esposito	10	51	1		2		1	3			1	2	11
Erik Karlsson	9	51	1			2	2	2	1			1	12
Jarome Iginla	8	50	1		2	1	1		2	1			13
Jiri Holecek	10	48	2		1	1			1	1	2	2	11
Toe Blake	9	43		1		1	2	1		3		1	12
Bernie Parent	10	40			2				5		1	2	11
Pavel Bure	6	35		1	1	1	1		1			1	15
Valeri Vasiliev	5	28		1	1			1	1		1		16
Russell Bowie	8	26				1	1	1		1	1	3	13
Johnny Bower	7	25				1		2		2		2	14
Peter Stastny	8	23						2		2	3	1	13

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Interesting how Gerard is perhaps the most polarizing player in this group. 5 participants had him top 2, then he's not getting a single vote until 2 guys have him top 7. There was a hype train there at the station, big and shiny and ready to go, blowing thick smoke out of its chimney, but quite a number of potential passengers hesitated to jump on and missed its departure for safer destinations (Howe, Ullman, Keon).

Also noteworthy is that ehhedler didn't rank Bure the highest.