Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Voting Results (Part 1)

[Killion]

I hope Clarke rebounds next vote when more focus will be on him. He's a better overall player than Esposito...and that's not just me liking guys that can play defense, Clarke had better hands in open space and was better in transition than Esposito too...

Honestly have absolutely no idea whatsoever how anyone could even compare them to one another.

Like chalk & cheese.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes, watching my Bruins lose to the Flyers in the finals not my idea of a good time. Wasn't much fun the first time either.

Maybe I'll watch Game 8 of the Summit Series. Espo and Clarke were both in that one, right?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Is the board bugging again? Some posts seem gone

 

[Theokritos]

Is the board bugging again? Some posts seem gone

No, it's because certain posters are creating work for the moderators.

Please, let's move on from the last few posts.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not sure why the field liked Nighbor so much, if they hated Clarke so much.

Really.

Nighbor playing with an all-star team and Clarke playing with so many plugs and thugs that they had to give him the Hart Trophy 3 times.

 

[Killion]

Is the board bugging again? Some posts seem gone

Probably mine. From Babysitter, Minder... from Hero to Zero. .. and as your clearly following my posts...... throw me to the Wolves... you better believe it I come back as Leader of the Pack..... Bring it.

 

[MXD]

I must admit I never saw much if any gap between Nighbor and Clarke.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Probably mine. From Babysitter, Minder... from Hero to Zero. .. and as your clearly following my posts...... throw me to the Wolves... you better believe it I come back as Leader of the Pack..... Bring it.

My post was also deleted.Not sure I understand you there, are you saying I am throwing you to the wolves? If that's what you are saying, I can assure you that I'm not.

 

[Killion]

Nevermind.......

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Nighbor was the first and (at that point) only player of his era up for voting. Clarke finished behind two direct contemporaries in the vote. Others whose careers overlapped a fair bit with his are already on the list. Not hard to demonstrate that Nighbor was greater in his era than Clarke was in his. There was also evidence presented that Nighbor was a little better offensively and had a bit more longevity as an elite player. In comparisons where we are splitting hairs, details like those may have tilted the balance for some.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I'll take Larry Robinson for the next vote please...

I don't view myself as a particular critic of Potvin, nor an enthusiastic advocate for Robinson- but really, a couple of years down-the-road, members and lurkers are going to look at the space that we put between these two and wonder "W in T actual F??"

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't view myself as a particular critic of Potvin, nor an enthusiastic advocate for Robinson- but really, a couple of years down-the-road, members and lurkers are going to look at the space that we put between these two and wonder "W in T actual F??"

Why would that be?

Robinson's not close to Potvin offensively. No significant difference defensively. Both on dynasties in same era. Unless Robinson drops out of the top 40 its not a WTF.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

IDK- suppose I'm in the minority here, but I just don't have THAT much space between them. Potvin's sitting at 18 on our list- higher than I would have placed him... but not inordinately so. Highest Robinson can finish is 30, and that's presuming that a) he gets nominated next round, and b) brevets straight to the top-of-the-class. [Realistically, (a) should happen, but there's no chance in Hell that (b) will come to pass.] There'll likely be c. a dozen-and-a-half positions between the two.

If I had to guess, Robinson looks like he'll end up in the high 30s. In the "top-70" project 10 years back, we had Robinson at 31. What changed? Well, Crosby's judged to have gone by both. The remaining new challenges seem to have nestled in between the two: Nighbor, the Russians, Brodeur. Cook will get a big pop when nominated. Got no problem with at least three Russians passing Robinson. Maybe they should have passed more competitors...

 

[Iceman]

Not sure why the field liked Nighbor so much, if they hated Clarke so much.

I had both of them among my first 4.

 

[unknown33]

Not sure why the field liked Nighbor so much, if they hated Clarke so much.

Not saying Nighbor doesn't deserve his ranking, but he is a player seperating the HoH researcher from the casual fan or even NHL expert if you look at the THN ranking. Someone being really under/overrated by the general public might lead to an opinion in the another direction on here which could take it too far at some point.
I don't know if that's the case here, just a general idea.

 

[sr edler]

I had both of them among my first 4.

I had Nighbor #1 and Clarke #5, so not very far in-between.

 

[sr edler]

Not saying Nighbor doesn't deserve his ranking, but he is a player seperating the HoH researcher from the casual fan or even NHL expert if you look at the THN ranking. Someone being really under/overrated by the general public might lead to an opinion in the another direction on here which could take it too far at some point.
I don't know if that's the case here, just a general idea.

I think people can risk to romanticize any era they’re (particularly) fond of, and thus subsequently also certain players of that era, whether it’s the 1910s, 1920s, 1950s, 1970s, 1990s or 2010s.

 

[MXD]

Frank Nighbor was absolutely not the best NHL player for the first few years, and if he was, he didn't play like so, and thus, wasn't actually the best player.

That's probably my biggest gripe against how he was assessed.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Not saying Nighbor doesn't deserve his ranking, but he is a player seperating the HoH researcher from the casual fan or even NHL expert if you look at the THN ranking. Someone being really under/overrated by the general public might lead to an opinion in the another direction on here which could take it too far at some point.
I don't know if that's the case here, just a general idea.

Nighbor is unique in this situation because:

1) He played when dinosaurs were still alive
2) He played for a franchise that was dead for decades
3) He had an unspectacular (but very effective) style

Nighbor being ranked at 100th by THN just screams second-grade tokenism.It doesn't mean anything.It's not a case where "THN ranked him there, we ranked him here, so the truth must be somewhere in the middle", because THN's ranking of Nighbor is completely worthless.

Our assessment of Frank Nighbor is the most archetypal and signature display of our competence as all-time hockey players lists creators, because nobody ranks him even close to where we do, yet we have a crap ton of good reasons to rank him where we do.Even if you think he should go 10 spots lower, my point still stands.

 

[MXD]

Nighbor is unique in this situation because:

1) He played when dinosaurs were still alive
2) He played for a franchise that was dead for decades
3) He had an unspectacular (but very effective) style

Nighbor being ranked at 100th by THN just screams second-grade tokenism.It doesn't mean anything.It's not a case where "THN ranked him there, we ranked him here, so the truth must be somewhere in the middle", because THN's ranking of Nighbor is completely worthless.

Our assessment of Frank Nighbor is the most archetypal and signature display of our competence as all-time hockey players lists creators, because nobody ranks him even close to where we do, yet we have a crap ton of good reasons to rank him where we do.Even if you think he should go 10 spots lower, my point still stands.

This post is totally right -- despite what I said about about Nighbor going a tad too high.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Thought I'd drop this quote here, as my commentary on it has more to do with the "voting results" topic than the "players under consideration in Vote 6" topic...

I think this is the first round where it wouldn't be completely wrong if Esposito was voted in. I don't see him as one of the five best players in this group, but I don't think we'd do a collective mistake anymore, should we somehow rank him amongst five best players this round.

Understand what you're saying- and completely agree. Reflecting on this further, I came up with the idea of personal "comfort/discomfort" level with the rankings. For example, last round we added Lafleur, whom I didn't have advancing-- but his presence on the list in that slot doesn't stress my "personal discomfort" meter.

I have one broad category in my "personal discomfort" enclosure... the generalized sub-set "overrated Centers." I know the board's gonna be higher on them than I am, they'll get advanced long before I would have, personally- but the sheer predictability of it will keep me from doing a 750-word freak-out every time it happens.

On the other side of that coin are those under the heading "underrated non-NHL Europeans." Board will value them less than I will, but (in light of the fact that it's as inevitable as the sunrise), no sense jaying about it.

It's the un-predictable developments that risk disorienting me. For instance, there's not a whole lot bad you could say about Red Kelly, as a player or as a person, but his field-promotion caught me by surprise... and I think we went a little overboard there. Ovechkin outside the top-20 jarred me a little, too. Also, I know I'm not the only one who didn't see Potvin inside the top-20 coming.

 

[Captain Bowie]

That time of the week where we make predictions. I saw Brodeur, Hall and Phil in for sure. Up next I'm expecting Lindsay, Cook, Robinson, and a couple of C's, could be any 2 from Lalonde to Malkin honestly.

Ok, maybe a little early for Geno, but I could see guys from a few different eras spanning 80 or so years.

 

[MXD]

Reposting here :

For next round?
Larry Robinson, Bill Cook and Ken Dryden, please. Clearly the best D-Men, the best winger and the best goalie available.

Necessary to restore positionnal balance.

The other two, I don't care much. But the lack of these three players, especially Cook, would put us in a weird situation.

 

[seventieslord]

Cook for sure. Robinson, most likely. Dryden, I'm not sure. I think there's a gap from 6 to 7 in the goalies.

 

[MXD]

Cook for sure. Robinson, most likely. Dryden, I'm not sure. I think there's a gap from 6 to 7 in the goalies.

I think so, too, and that's pretty much why Dryden really has to be available... if you catch my drift.

EDIT : On second thought, I might have misunderstood your post.