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

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Ugly results and ugly adds.
I agree. Woof. Well-- you take the good with the bad. Two rounds ago, I came close to an Exacta. This time, I wasn't far away from an Inverse Exacta. I blame myself, partially. I wouldn't have thought that I'd have to go through over a decade's worth of "with/withouts" to demonstrate that Gadsby's a better choice than Salming- but a price has been paid for my laziness.
 
Last edited:

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
I'm a little surprised that Lach got waved through in second place his first time eligible while Fedorov wasn't particularly close in his second appearance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
I'm a little surprised that Lach got waved through in second place his first time eligible while Fedorov wasn't particularly close in his second appearance.

Is this Fedorov's 2nd appearance? For some reason i thought it was his 3rd.

I'm happy Hull was voted 1st. Obviously to me he should have been way before - but the majority has seemed to disagree for a while.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Is this Fedorov's 2nd appearance? For some reason i thought it was his 3rd.

I'm happy Hull was voted 1st. Obviously to me he should have been way before - but the majority has seemed to disagree for a while.

This upcoming vote will be Fedorov's third.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Fedorov came up way earlier than his final placement in the centers project would seem to warrant. I don't think we should slavishly follow the previous lists or anything, but it shouldn't be a surprise that he didn't get in yet, either.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Since we're down to the final 10 now - any appetite to including more nominees next round? I know we were going to do it for position #100 anyways - maybe it would be worth it to open it from 90-100 to give more players a chance to get their case heard and slot among the top 100?
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Since we're down to the final 10 now - any appetite to including more nominees next round? I know we were going to do it for position #100 anyways - maybe it would be worth it to open it from 90-100 to give more players a chance to get their case heard and slot among the top 100?

Upcoming aggregate point totals:

723
707
703
681

646
645
608
597
591

574
568
562
552
541
512
506
502
475
470


Where do you propose we have the breaks instead?
 
  • Like
Reactions: overg

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
This strikes me as a means to apply the "natural breaks in the aggregate" concept into the Project- but in a belated and selective manner. I didn't mind the idea of the 'breaks-in-aggregate' proposal when it was floated in the Preliminary Thread(s)- but the entire Project has been conducted under a different framework. To change the framework at this late date is probably not going to do any lasting harm-- but I don't think it's a particularly good look now...
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
This strikes me as a means to apply the "natural breaks in the aggregate" concept into the Project- but in a belated and selective manner. I didn't mind the idea of the 'breaks-in-aggregate' proposal when it was floated in the Preliminary Thread(s)- but the entire Project has been conducted under a different framework. To change the framework at this late date is probably not going to do any lasting harm-- but I don't think it's a particularly good look now...

It's only belated because it should have been done months ago :)

Anyway, at this point, I almost wonder if there's a point
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Upcoming aggregate point totals:
723, 707, 793, 681.
646, 645, 608, 597, 591.
574, 568. 562, 552, 541, 512, 506, 502, 475, 470.
So I was thinking- my math has it that the next Round will be the last Round where the new nominees will be more likely than not to make the Final List. Does that check out?

Next Round seems to show that we'll be taking a break from the Land of NR. So- that'll be ten nominees for the five places 90-94. NR appears to return for the 95-99 Round. That discussion figures to feature eleven nominees for five places. The bottom 2-3 places in THAT vote will probably be a "death-sentence;" as anyone collected there will have to leapfrog three nominees who received higher vote-totals in the previous Round, AND withstand the onslaught of ten new adds.

To keep our humor about it, we probably should approach that last phase as if we're conducting a "100-105" vote, and be as fastidious about the earnestness of the ranking order as we (hopefully) have been in all of our prior Rounds. Here's where it will be more important than ever to resist the "strategic voting" temptation.

Patrick Kane's probably not going to make it. I'm not stunned by that now- but I didn't anticipate that when this whole show began. What's even more interesting to me is that the odds seem stacked against Martinec, too. Does the over/under for additional Czechoslovak players added beyond Chara (as opposed to nominated) stand at ½ or something?!
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Patrick Kane is probably the player who will benefit the absolute most from hindsight if we redo this list in say ~10 years. I'm not too worried about him not making it this time - his stock will likely rise a lot when people have had time to properly judge his career and peak/prime years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->