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

[MXD]

Code words in a hockey project? Are you serious? And I'm not a Red Wings fan, you know that.

I acknowledge could've used "fertilizer of bovine origins", or its more frequently used accronym, instead.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Player	Ballots	Points	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	NR
Charlie Conacher	24	184	8	2	5	2	2	3		1	1		1
Frank Brimsek	24	183	6	5	3	5		2	1	1	1		1
Sprague Cleghorn	24	146	2	5	3	2	1	2	4	3		2	1
Ted Kennedy	25	142	3	2	4	2	3	1	1	4	4	1
Chris Pronger	24	139	4	1	2	3	1	2	6	4		1	1
Bernie Geoffrion	25	130	1	3	1	3	5	2	1	4	3	2
Earl Seibert	25	111		3		4	1	4	4	1	3	5
Marcel Dionne	21	106	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	4	2	4
Andy Bathgate	22	102		2	3	1	3	2	2	3	2	4	3
Tim Horton	22	90			1	1	5	3	4	2	2	4	3
Frank Mahovlich	14	42				1	2	1	1		5	4	11

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I honestly thought Brimsek would dominate first place votes.

Still a pretty good group.

 

[bobholly39]

I had Brimsek 1 and at last minute i switched him to 2.

I guess 1 vote really does make a difference =\

 

[Canadiens1958]

I honestly thought Brimsek would dominate first place votes.

Still a pretty good group.

Only goalie.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I had Conacher & Brimsek going through last Round, so heading through this Round at the top-of-class works for me.

For the record, I did NOT NR Cleghorn.

Dionne ahead of Bathgate. Hmmm...

The breveting of Kennedy doesn't surprise me. Back when we field-promoted Boucher, I thought to myself "they're gonna love Kennedy, too." And y'all did.

 

[MXD]

I had Conacher & Brimsek going through last Round, so heading through this Round at the top-of-class works for me.

...Hell, I had them 1st and 2nd LAST round.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I guess I just don't get Conacher...5, 6 years of being a terrific goal scorer in the 30's against whom? If Bathgate is better than Selanne, then why isn't he better than Conacher too? Just to pick some relevant names.

 

[MXD]

I guess I just don't get Conacher...5, 6 years of being a terrific goal scorer in the 30's against whom? If Bathgate is better than Selanne, then why isn't he better than Conacher too? Just to pick some relevant names.

Conacher was outlier-good and outscored some pretty good players such as Bill Cook.

Also, 6 years in the 30ies.... isn't worth 6 years in, say, the '70ies.

 

[pappyline]

I am seeing myself as more and more of an outlier here. Its like wasting your vote if you vote Republican in Massachusetts. One observation is that of late more recent players like Malkin & Pronger get voted in as soon as they appear. Meanwhile an old timer like Conacher waits 4 or 5 rounds. It may be due to a natural tendency to favor players you have actually seen play.

I am also very disappointed with the new players. No Max Bentley. Max may be the most slilled player that hasn't come up. No Bill Gadsby. I guess I am not surprised due to the hatchet job that was done on him in the defenceman project.

I just had to sound off. I will shut up now about non available players

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think historically (heh) we have been a touch too conservative on modern players. I don't believe we jumped the gun on them. They were comfortably in my top 50 (Prongs and Geno, that is)...

Meanwhile, as I have stated, with new archival data and greater resources and understanding, I think some of us have rightfully challenged some things that were canon in the past. Now, that doesn't mean tear down...it means challenge.

For me, I don't care that Conacher had to wait X number of rounds...that's putting emphasis on round 1 lists and perhaps, by extension, old reruns...I didn't have Conacher in my top 50, or 75 for that matter...and I didn't see any great reason for his addition already...

 

[MXD]

For me, I don't care that Conacher had to wait X number of rounds...that's putting emphasis on round 1 lists and perhaps, by extension, old reruns...I didn't have Conacher in my top 50, or 75 for that matter...and I didn't see any great reason for his addition already...

...And then you look at where you ranked Bossy and wonder how the luck could you come up with something on internally incoherent.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Bossy was a great deal better in the playoffs than Conacher, even if Conacher was not bad per say.Bossy was legendary.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Why is Cy Denneny so lowly thought of here? I must be missing something vital. Is it WW1?

 

[pappyline]

I think historically (heh) we have been a touch too conservative on modern players. I don't believe we jumped the gun on them. They were comfortably in my top 50 (Prongs and Geno, that is)...

Meanwhile, as I have stated, with new archival data and greater resources and understanding, I think some of us have rightfully challenged some things that were canon in the past. Now, that doesn't mean tear down...it means challenge.

For me, I don't care that Conacher had to wait X number of rounds...that's putting emphasis on round 1 lists and perhaps, by extension, old reruns...I didn't have Conacher in my top 50, or 75 for that matter...and I didn't see any great reason for his addition already...

Well, a lot of people certainly felt different which is why Conacher was available as early as vote 9.

 

[Michael Farkas]

...And then you look at where you ranked Bossy and wonder how the luck could you come up with something on internally incoherent.

But why are they in the same conversation? Bossy was a better player for twice as long in a better era against better competition...what am I missing, I swear I am not normally this dumb (Probably)...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, a lot of people certainly felt different which is why Conacher was available as early as vote 9.

And that's fine. But it doesn't address anything...

 

[pappyline]

And that's fine. But it doesn't address anything...

Well it addresses your post.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Player	Ballots	Points	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	NR
Charlie Conacher	24	184	8	2	5	2	2	3		1	1		1
Frank Brimsek	24	183	6	5	3	5		2	1	1	1		1
Sprague Cleghorn	24	146	2	5	3	2	1	2	4	3		2	1
Ted Kennedy	25	142	3	2	4	2	3	1	1	4	4	1
Chris Pronger	24	139	4	1	2	3	1	2	6	4		1	1
Bernie Geoffrion	25	130	1	3	1	3	5	2	1	4	3	2
Earl Seibert	25	111		3		4	1	4	4	1	3	5
Marcel Dionne	21	106	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	4	2	4
Andy Bathgate	22	102		2	3	1	3	2	2	3	2	4	3
Tim Horton	22	90			1	1	5	3	4	2	2	4	3
Frank Mahovlich	14	42				1	2	1	1		5	4	11

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Dionne only one to fill all the boxes.

4 of the top 5 got an NR. But 6 & 7 didn't.

Most underrated may be Tim Horton.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bossy was a great deal better in the playoffs than Conacher, even if Conacher was not bad per say.Bossy was legendary.

First half of the 1980s features many questions.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well it addresses your post.

My point was, to some degree: "Player X/Conacher is in this spot because he was in it yesterday."

Your response was: "He was in this spot yesterday...what gives?!?!"

It highlighted my point more than anything. Every single one of these players should be challenged for the spot that they're getting. No free passes because yesterday or five years ago or ten years we placed him somewhere. We have framed it against ourselves by doing that. It suggests that ten years ago: we did better, knew more, had more information available to us, had more resources at hand, etc.

There's no way any of that is true. So why stand on that stump? And, to be clear, that's not directed at you. That's directed at our group. If anything, pappy, I'd want more out of you. You grew up in more of these eras than I did...as much as we can get out of you, I want it. That doesn't mean I'm taking everything you say and etching it stone...but we need more from the people that saw it happen...that's why I go back and watch as many games as I can, because I know it 10 years, we've lost some valuable posters with some valuable thoughts that saw a lot of this stuff go down and we need to scramble to replace it...and then augment it with all the other information that we have collected and can still collect...

That information does not include the 2009 ranking.

 

[BenchBrawl]

First half of the 1980s features many questions.

What do you have in mind?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Allow me to translate, if I may...the early 1980's sucked.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Allow me to translate, if I may...the early 1980's sucked.

OK but then what? Potvin, Bossy, Trottier, all overrated? Where does the buck stops?

 

[pappyline]

My point was, to some degree: "Player X/Conacher is in this spot because he was in it yesterday."

Your response was: "He was in this spot yesterday...what gives?!?!"

It highlighted my point more than anything. Every single one of these players should be challenged for the spot that they're getting. No free passes because yesterday or five years ago or ten years we placed him somewhere. We have framed it against ourselves by doing that. It suggests that ten years ago: we did better, knew more, had more information available to us, had more resources at hand, etc.

There's no way any of that is true. So why stand on that stump? And, to be clear, that's not directed at you. That's directed at our group. If anything, pappy, I'd want more out of you. You grew up in more of these eras than I did...as much as we can get out of you, I want it. That doesn't mean I'm taking everything you say and etching it stone...but we need more from the people that saw it happen...that's why I go back and watch as many games as I can, because I know it 10 years, we've lost some valuable posters with some valuable thoughts that saw a lot of this stuff go down and we need to scramble to replace it...and then augment it with all the other information that we have collected and can still collect...

That information does not include the 2009 ranking.

Who mentioned the 2009 ranking. All I said was that a lot of people ranked Conacher higher in round one of this project than you did, Nothing more complicated than that.