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

[quoipourquoi]

... I get the feeling this is actually an argument for Ed Belfour in disguise. Modano won jack squat without an elite netminder, too.

Really would have liked Belfour eligible at the same time as contemporary Scott Stevens.

 

[MXD]

Yup. Lots of '90ies players are getting some ridiculous romanticizing. Belfour doesn't get enough. I'd add Forsberg to the list of contemporaries that Belfour should've appeared at the same time, and don't get me started with the fact Fedorov is available for voting before Belfour.

He's squarely in the Broda/Durnan tier of netminders as far as I'm concerned.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Kurri's defense ALLOWED Gretzky to play half the rink. I'll still take Kurri of Fedorov any day of the week and twice on Sunday's.

I find Kurri's defensive game a little overrated. This was the 80's - early 90's. Any forward who ventured inside his own blueline once every second shift was considered "defensive". The main knock on Federov, for me, was that he was only crowned "the man" once. For about a half dozen seasons, he was always in the mix when discussions of the best players in the league came up. Kurri, meanwhile, was never "the man". He was an excellent finisher on Gretzky's wing, and a decent (if not dominating) goal scorer sans Gretzky. He had a defensive awareness that most of the point-getters of that era did not have, but as I said, that's kind of overblown. He was no Patrice Bergeron, for example.

After saying all that, I don't really have a lot seperating those two players anyways. Both make by top 100, but not by a lot. On my original list of 120, I had Federov at 91 and Kurri at 95.

 

[Sentinel]

Kurri's defense ALLOWED Gretzky to play half the rink. I'll still take Kurri of Fedorov any day of the week and twice on Sunday's.

Great, now you're saying Kurri is better defensive forward than a two-time Seller winner, whose defense ALLOWED one-legged Yzerman to have the playoffs for the ages.

Nothing against Kurri, he is underrated here, and should've been in long time ago. Just slightly below Fedorov.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

They're nowhere close at this point. I mean, without going into specifics, in terms of raw points, Joe Thornton is ahead of Adam Oates as we speak, and considering the era they respectively played in (and the fact that their non-offense game is a bit of a wash), that should probably makes sure there's not even a hint of a debate.

(I'm probably the furthest thing from being a Thornton fan here, but seriously, in terms of pure offence, he's probably closer to Joe Sakic than to Adam Oates)

Joe Sakic scored goals, lots of them. Oates and Thornton are both pure playmakers.

Both Oates and Thornton have 12 top 10 finishes in assists. Oates has 7 top 10 finishes in points, Thornton 6.

While neither was a playoff star, Oates has better numbers.

That's hardly "nowhere near close".

 

[MXD]

Joe Sakic scored goals, lots of them. Oates and Thornton are both pure playmakers.

Both Oates and Thornton have 12 top 10 finishes in assists. Oates has 7 top 10 finishes in points, Thornton 6.

While neither was a playoff star, Oates has better numbers.

That's hardly "nowhere near close".

Well, I guess if you'Re trying really hard to make them closer than they are... They're closer than they are.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well, I guess if you'Re trying really hard to make them closer than they are... They're closer than they are.

Didn't take much effort.

Because of how close they are.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I'd love to see Jumbo up soon. I am higher on than most, I know that going in.

In terms of him vs. Oates, Joe was well within my top 100, and Oates just narrowly missed the top 120 cut.

Joe's got the Art Ross and Hart win, as well as a 2nd in P season, while all 3 of Oates' top 3's are 3rd's. Thornton never had a finisher near the caliber of Hull or Neely beside him either.

 

[ted2019]

Great, now you're saying Kurri is better defensive forward than a two-time Seller winner, whose defense ALLOWED one-legged Yzerman to have the playoffs for the ages.

Nothing against Kurri, he is underrated here, and should've been in long time ago. Just slightly below Fedorov.

Lets see, the 2 seasons Fedorov won the Selke he had 120 points. The only true defensive forwards in the top 5 were Brian Skrudland and Guy Carbonneau In the coaches poll for that season, here were the list of the top defensive forwards for that season.

Best Defensive Forward: Doug Gilmour (6), Joel Otto (5), Ron Francis (3), Dirk Graham (2), Brent Sutter (2), Murray Craven (1), Guy Carbonneau (1), Kelly Miller (1)

I don't see Fedorov anywhere on that list. I will give you the fact that he deserved to win the 1995 Selke.

Jari Kurri finished 2nd in 1982 behind Bobby Clarke, who was on the best defensive forwards of all time. The other top 5 forwards were all defensive forwards in Bobby Gould, Tom Lysiak and Doug Risebrough. Bob Gainey was 6th and Craig Ramsey was 7th. Not bad company for Kurri to finish ahead of. The next season Kurri finished 3rd behind winner Doug Jarvis & Bryan Trottier. The next season Jari was 4th, behind Craig Ramsey, Doug Jarvis & John Tonelli. Kurri went against some ATG defensive forwards, while Fedorov didn't have the Murderers Row that Kurri had to go against.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'd love to see Jumbo up soon. I am higher on than most, I know that going in.

In terms of him vs. Oates, Joe was well within my top 100, and Oates just narrowly missed the top 120 cut.

Joe's got the Art Ross and Hart win, as well as a 2nd in P season, while all 3 of Oates' top 3's are 3rd's. Thornton never had a finisher near the caliber of Hull or Neely beside him either.

Oates made Hull and Neely legendary goal scorers. The thing is, they probably helped Oates assist numbers up to a point as well. Even though he helped elevate their stats, both Hull and Neely were quality players regardless of Oates.

Meanwhile, Thornton made Jonathan Cheechoo a Maurice Richard Trophy winner. Really??? That's right up there with what Mario Lemieux did for Warren Young.

 

[pappyline]

Max Bentley is our biggest decliner so far - he dropped 31 spots compared to the 2008 project. Bill Durnan will ultimately be a larger decliner though - the highest he could finish is 80th, and that represents a 36 spot drop.

We now have 11 players who have, or are guaranteed to, drop 15+ spots from the 2008 project. All but two of them were active, at least to some extent, between 1945 and 1960.

Of the 13 players who have risen 15+ spots, 7 of them were active in the 21st century (and one more retired in the late 1990's).

Also, comparing our list to the NHL's centennial list from a couple of years ago - we now have 58 players in common (out of 79 selected so far). Some of that is due to differences in eligibility criteria (their list is NHL only, so Fetisov, Makarov and Tretiak, among others, are excluded). But I think we're going to see some significant differences - will be interesting to see how closely the lists line up. I feel much better with our list so far (including Nighbor, Cook and Boucher, Seibert, Brimsek, Pilote, and Malkin) over some of their choices (Cournoyer, Gainey, Gartner, Lafontaine, Nieuwendyk, Sittler, Toews).

Very odd that Bentley dropped 31 spots, This all due to the top 120 submissions in round one since he was voted in as soon as he became eligible in round 2. I don't remember his name coming up at all before the submissions.I attribute the drop to a different make up of the voting group. This shows that these rankings shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Very odd that Bentley dropped 31 spots, This all due to the top 120 submissions in round one since he was voted in as soon as he became eligible in round 2. I don't remember his name coming up at all before the submissions.I attribute the drop to a different make up of the voting group. This shows that these rankings shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Astute observation, combined with app a 30% drop in participation over the various votes.

Will have a better idea once individual lists are revealed.

 

[sr edler]

Meanwhile, Thornton made Jonathan Cheechoo a Maurice Richard Trophy winner. Really??? That's right up there with what Mario Lemieux did for Warren Young.

I think you have an apter comparison within the same season in Forsberg/Gagne.

 

[MXD]

Very odd that Bentley dropped 31 spots, This all due to the top 120 submissions in round one since he was voted in as soon as he became eligible in round 2. I don't remember his name coming up at all before the submissions.I attribute the drop to a different make up of the voting group. This shows that these rankings shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Not to mention, Bentley wasn't even the best "1st timer" in his round. I mean, Charlie Gardiner is a very obvious case of "ranked too low due to faulty Round 1 ranking".

I must admit I prefer Bentley's ranking this time around, but still... the only players I had ahead of Bentley last round were netminders (including Gardiner, a new player), and Aurèle Joliat, ALSO a new player.

Not to mention, Bentley's case in V16 was actually very good.

 

[pappyline]

Not to mention, Bentley wasn't even the best "1st timer" in his round. I mean, Charlie Gardiner is a very obvious case of "ranked too low due to faulty Round 1 ranking".

I must admit I prefer Bentley's ranking this time around, but still... the only players I had ahead of Bentley last round were netminders (including Gardiner, a new player), and Aurèle Joliat, ALSO a new player.

Not to mention, Bentley's case in V16 was actually very good.

it all comes down to personal opinion in the end.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Yes, it'll be interesting to see who had Gretzky 7th... *cough*

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not to mention, Bentley wasn't even the best "1st timer" in his round. I mean, Charlie Gardiner is a very obvious case of "ranked too low due to faulty Round 1 ranking".

I must admit I prefer Bentley's ranking this time around, but still... the only players I had ahead of Bentley last round were netminders (including Gardiner, a new player), and Aurèle Joliat, ALSO a new player.

Not to mention, Bentley's case in V16 was actually very good.

How is a goaltender from the 1920's and 30's, with a losing record, who only played seven seasons, an "obvious case of ranked too low"? I guess if any voters actually saw him play and could comment on his amazing ability, that would help. We got any 100 year old voters?

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think people need to recognize the difference in Round 1 and Round 2 voting. Round 1 allowed for greater nuance and in a way probably offered truer balance between conflicting opinions whereas Round 2 is less flexible because it is designed for laser-focused discussion on small sets of names.

Round 2 voting is much more punitive, as there is a cap to how highly one can rate a player with almost no floor to how little another person can think of them (given options of 1 and 0 point ballot allocations).

For example, I can rank Bill Durnan #38 and Charlie Gardiner #72 in Round 1, but at some point, they might end up back-to-back on my Round 2 ballot (meaning my opinion is worth, like, 1 point of difference) whereas another voter could essentially bury Durnan round after round after round with 10th place or NR ballots, causing Durnan to continually fail to reach the threshold for advancement from his sub-set of less controversial candidates.

So if you’re wondering how a player could get named in his first round of eligibility and if that means he would have been ranked earlier had he come up earlier, my answer to the first question is that he probably wasn’t very controversial, and my answer to the second is that the allowance of wider ranges of opinions in Round 1 is why he came up when he did.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think people need to recognize the difference in Round 1 and Round 2 voting. Round 1 allowed for greater nuance and in a way probably offered truer balance between conflicting opinions whereas Round 2 is less flexible because it is designed for laser-focused discussion on small sets of names.

Round 2 voting is much more punitive, as there is a cap to how highly one can rate a player with almost no floor to how little another person can think of them (given options of 1 and 0 point ballot allocations).

For example, I can rank Bill Durnan #38 and Charlie Gardiner #72 in Round 1, but at some point, they might end up back-to-back on my Round 2 ballot (meaning my opinion is worth, like, 1 point of difference) whereas another voter could essentially bury Durnan round after round after round with 10th place or NR ballots, causing Durnan to continually fail to reach the threshold for advancement from his sub-set of less controversial candidates.

So if you’re wondering how a player could get named in his first round of eligibility and if that means he would have been ranked earlier had he come up earlier, my answer to the first question is that he probably wasn’t very controversial, and my answer to the second is that the allowance of wider ranges of opinions in Round 1 is why he came up when he did.

Well, this assumes that the number of participants stays the same from Round 1 thru Round 2.

When Round 2 participation drops - participants do not vote, round 1 results dominate since non-voters do not change their minds.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Very odd that Bentley dropped 31 spots...

It makes for an interesting lookaround to observe the factors involved in ANY big mover- but since Max Bentley was brought up, I thought I'd take a scan...

First, he was placed tied to 46 on the 2008 project- but the very next year, he dipped to 57-- so his nerfage is scarcely a phenomenon of recent vintage. From that 57th position, he's subsequently dipped to 77. So, from that placing, who's moved around him? There is:
1) Duh- because we rightly re-examined their legacies: Nighbor & Makarov
2) Duh- because they reinforced résumés after the conclusion of the '09 list: Crosby & Ovechkin
3) a reinforced résumé... but maybe we got a little cray-cray with it: Malkin
4) a Soviet reappraisal... but maybe we got a little cray-cray with it (but I don't think so): Firsov
Next, a trio of "We Love The Playoffs" Forwards: Forsberg, Kennedy, Moore
Then, some career-value Defensemen- Cleghorn, Seibert, Stevens, Horton, MacInnis, Clapper
A pair of goalies- Brimsek & Gardiner (and Gardiner/Bentley is a pretty close call, according to our voting).
Finally, an even closer call- Jari Kurri nosing out Bentley at the line.

Funny thing is- of all these guys, I only had ONE of them behind Max Bentley- and I wound up changing my mind, upwards (Firsov). For the sake of balance, I might request a mulligan on Malkin, whom I overvalued on my Prelim List, I believe. There are more significant "things-that-make-you-go-'hmm'" placings on The List than Max Bentley at 77.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think people need to recognize the difference in Round 1 and Round 2 voting. Round 1 allowed for greater nuance and in a way probably offered truer balance between conflicting opinions whereas Round 2 is less flexible because it is designed for laser-focused discussion on small sets of names.

Round 2 voting is much more punitive, as there is a cap to how highly one can rate a player with almost no floor to how little another person can think of them (given options of 1 and 0 point ballot allocations).

For example, I can rank Bill Durnan #38 and Charlie Gardiner #72 in Round 1, but at some point, they might end up back-to-back on my Round 2 ballot (meaning my opinion is worth, like, 1 point of difference) whereas another voter could essentially bury Durnan round after round after round with 10th place or NR ballots, causing Durnan to continually fail to reach the threshold for advancement from his sub-set of less controversial candidates.

So if you’re wondering how a player could get named in his first round of eligibility and if that means he would have been ranked earlier had he come up earlier, my answer to the first question is that he probably wasn’t very controversial, and my answer to the second is that the allowance of wider ranges of opinions in Round 1 is why he came up when he did.

Excellent example.

 

[Sentinel]

Lets see, the 2 seasons Fedorov won the Selke he had 120 points. The only true defensive forwards in the top 5 were Brian Skrudland and Guy Carbonneau In the coaches poll for that season, here were the list of the top defensive forwards for that season.

Best Defensive Forward: Doug Gilmour (6), Joel Otto (5), Ron Francis (3), Dirk Graham (2), Brent Sutter (2), Murray Craven (1), Guy Carbonneau (1), Kelly Miller (1)

I don't see Fedorov anywhere on that list. I will give you the fact that he deserved to win the 1995 Selke.

Jari Kurri finished 2nd in 1982 behind Bobby Clarke, who was on the best defensive forwards of all time. The other top 5 forwards were all defensive forwards in Bobby Gould, Tom Lysiak and Doug Risebrough. Bob Gainey was 6th and Craig Ramsey was 7th. Not bad company for Kurri to finish ahead of. The next season Kurri finished 3rd behind winner Doug Jarvis & Bryan Trottier. The next season Jari was 4th, behind Craig Ramsey, Doug Jarvis & John Tonelli. Kurri went against some ATG defensive forwards, while Fedorov didn't have the Murderers Row that Kurri had to go against.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The fact remains that Fedorov won his two Selkes against Gilmour and Francis (and, as you correctly stated, should've won the third one as well). Kurri lost his potential Selkes to Trottier and post-prime Clarke and Gainey. The second group is not much better than the first. You can spin it all you want but 2 > 0. This board is great at obfuscating clear facts and numbers (which is why Lidstrom ended up behind Bourque), but to me it matters not.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Player	Ballots	Points	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	NR
Brett Hull	23	162	7	2	2	3	3	1	2	1	1	1
Elmer Lach	23	157	3	6		2	6	2	2	1	1
Bill Durnan	23	154	7	3		4	1	1	3		2	2
Turk Broda	23	152		7	6	2		2	2	2	1	1
Borje Salming	23	127		2	4	1	4	4	4	3		1
Boris Mikhailov	23	116		2	2	2	4	4	2	4	1	2
Sergei Fedorov	23	115	3		2	3	1	3		7	2	2
Bill Gadsby	23	100	3	1		1	3	2	2	1	5	5
Nels Stewart	23	99			4	3	1	2	4		5	4
Brian Leetch	23	83			3	2		2	2	4	5	5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[pappyline]

Ugly results and ugly adds.

Lets vote more players in each round and get this over with.

 

[MXD]

Stewart and Leetch last. Good. I don't like Fedorov ahead of Gadsby. I'm not sure if Broda and Durnan were better players than Ed Belfour, but they certainly were very good in that group, so we'll have to deal with this, and I'm a bit cold towards Elmer Lach, but... fair enough.