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

[VanIslander]

Let's not list nationality and birthplace for our HOH List.

9 CANADA
5 QUEBEC

Wave the flag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ugh.

How about instead: career start year - end year, height and weight

"Like" this suggestion. Let's get it done.

 

[seventieslord]

I guess it does bother me a little that this list is so far made up of players who were elite between 1944 and 2003, and not in the 50 years before that, or the 15 since. It covers less than half of hockey's history, so far.

 

[TANK200]

I guess it does bother me a little that this list is so far made up of players who were elite between 1944 and 2003, and not in the 50 years before that, or the 15 since. It covers less than half of hockey's history, so far.

I’m observing rather than participating, and there has been a lot of good discussion so far, so I shouldn’t be too critical. But I find it somewhat disappointing that 5 of the top 9 selections are from the O6 era.

 

[solidmotion]

I guess it does bother me a little that this list is so far made up of players who were elite between 1944 and 2003, and not in the 50 years before that, or the 15 since. It covers less than half of hockey's history, so far.

otoh, for the list to meet that standard of representation, it would be at around one player per decade so far, which could make pretty directly comparable players, like howe/hull/beliveau for instance, end up 10 or 20 spots away from each other, which just seems sort of absurd... no matter what there will be tradeoffs.

 

[VanIslander]

Don't worry. Early NHL era representation is coming soon!

A lot of Montreal Canadiens fans hereabouts. They'll put Morenz first (or second behind Plante) next round.

No Habs this century though. Lafleur will be their next target.

(Jaded and still confused at the 7 last place votes for Hasek yet Roy so much higher. Hope prejudice doesn't explain the gap. Ugh.)

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I guess it does bother me a little that this list is so far made up of players who were elite between 1944 and 2003, and not in the 50 years before that, or the 15 since. It covers less than half of hockey's history, so far.

Don't worry. Early NHL era representation is coming soon!
A lot of Montreal Canadiens fans hereabouts. They'll put Morenz first (or second behind Plante) next round.

Toughest calls for me last round were: 1) my choice of Hull over Roy, and 2) my choice of M. Richard over Morenz.

Morenz should get through on the merits in vote 3. Mr. Ottawa will likely be nominated in Vote 4. Plante will probably go through on Vote 4, and Red Kelly looms, very shortly.

After that, we might be through talking about '50s players for a while (unless Sawchuk sneaks up on us). I think there are some non-NHL Soviets who are worthy of discussion on the "Mr. Ottawa/Weather Event" tier... but I wouldn't bet anything of value that they'll be nominated at the same time as those guys are.

 

[VanIslander]

I didn't see why Morenz received so many votes? Where were the convincing arguments?

Back in round one there was discussion of Morenz as overrated, as underwhelming when you look at his production, at the 'star power' factor rather than performances, weak playoffs, the died-so-honor-the-dead dimension, the early hero of Montreal, etc.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Don't worry. Early NHL era representation is coming soon!

A lot of Montreal Canadiens fans hereabouts. They'll put Morenz first (or second behind Plante) next round.

No Habs this century though. Lafleur will be their next target.

(Jaded and still confused at the 7 last place votes for Hasek yet Roy so much higher. Hope prejudice doesn't explain the gap. Ugh.)

Majority of the voters 16/30 had Hasek 7th to 10th.

 

[quoipourquoi]

As someone who had both Morenz and Shore in his top-10, is it that unusual to have all five of Beliveau, Harvey, Howe, Hull, and Richard in a top-10 list? Same five O6 players we had in the top-9 the last two times in 2008 and 2009. Same five O6 players The Hockey News had in their top-9 in 1998. Consensus seems to be that those 5 are really good and not an indicator that the list will carry 55% Original Six; 22% October 5th, 1965 birthdates; and 33% Wingers based on two weeks of a five-month project.

Right now, we have the top-3 Centers from the positional project, the top-3 Wingers from the positional project, the top-2 Defensemen from the positional project, and the top Goaltender from the positional project.

Including the top pre-O6 player (Howie Morenz) would have meant omitting an entire position (which was done in the 2008 and 2009 lists), taking the stance that Morenz > Richard (which seems to conflict with historical accounts that Richard displaced Morenz as the best ever to that point), or taking the stance that Morenz > Harvey (but then people would be complaining that our list is 77% forwards).

Given that Morenz, Shore, and Crosby are all eligible and very much jockeying for the #10 position against Bourque and Hasek (who are not O6 players but whose 1980-2005 period does already have representation), I’m not sure that we missed the mark.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm fine with the results.I won't organize my list too much based on which era the players came from.There needs to be actual players from those eras deserving of getting voted in (not saying there weren't).I won't force it.I guess the era distribution is a sanity checker, but more for the entire list (why I had Russell Bowie and Hod Stuart on it at all).

 

[BenchBrawl]

It appears Maurice Richard was the most controversial player last round.His votes are all over the place more or less equally.

Kindda sad he made it by the back door.If he was still available we could discuss him in more depth.

 

[bobholly39]

Don't worry. Early NHL era representation is coming soon!

A lot of Montreal Canadiens fans hereabouts. They'll put Morenz first (or second behind Plante) next round.

No Habs this century though. Lafleur will be their next target.

(Jaded and still confused at the 7 last place votes for Hasek yet Roy so much higher. Hope prejudice doesn't explain the gap. Ugh.)

I'm a life long habs fan but i hold 0 type of favoritism towards habs of older era. I suppose I can't speak for others though - but based on conversations by voting members it doesn't seem like it's a big dynamic here, outside of maybe 1-2 voter at most.

The 4 candidates voted in are all very worthy candidates of being in the top 10.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Thought I'd quote and respond to this one over here, since I don't want to digress from discussion of the nominees in the other thread-

Hot take : I might end up ranking a goalie at the very top spot of each round until the end of the project.

I can see that- Hašek for top vote and advancement for Round 3, Plante for top vote and advancement Round 4, Glenn Hall for top vote and advancement Round 5. Then... Brodeur?

 

[MXD]

Thought I'd quote and respond to this one over here, since I don't want to digress from discussion of the nominees in the other thread-I can see that- Hašek for top vote and advancement for Round 3, Plante for top vote and advancement Round 4, Glenn Hall for top vote and advancement Round 5. Then... Brodeur?

Well... (and everything IMO where it applies)

- Hasek 1st in V3 might just be the easiest ranking in the whole project. I know we're supposed to compare him to new players, but I already know where this one's ending. I suspect he will be voted in this round; if he's not, then Hasek 1st in V4 becomes the easiest ranking.

- If Hasek was voted in at V3, Plante becomes the obvious 1st in V4 (unless something really weird happens and a player I deem better than Plante is NOT voted in. That could happen, but it's unlikely)

- Then Brodeur. Then Hall. Then Dryden. I guess there's a chance of a lull at some point since I tend to group Sawchuk in the Vezina/Gardiner/Brimsek/Benedict group rather than the first six, but even that sent Sawchuk bordering the Top-40 on my list.

- Come to think of it, I should change my statement : IF there's a goalie up for voting, then I'll necessarily rank him at the top. UNLESS those goalies Terry Sawchuk (... and there comes a point where I will rank him) or Vladislav Tretiak.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I guess it does bother me a little that this list is so far made up of players who were elite between 1944 and 2003, and not in the 50 years before that, or the 15 since. It covers less than half of hockey's history, so far.

Crosby and Morenz FTW next time

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I didn't see why Morenz received so many votes? Where were the convincing arguments?

Back in round one there was discussion of Morenz as overrated, as underwhelming when you look at his production, at the 'star power' factor rather than performances, weak playoffs, the died-so-honor-the-dead dimension, the early hero of Montreal, etc.

The player who tore the league a new one statistically for 5 years (more than any other pre-WW2 player) had underwelming production? what are you talking about?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Anyway, if I was a betting person, I would have predicted Hull first, then Beliveau, then Harvey, then Roy/Richard in some order. So I was pretty close.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

@quoipourquoi, can we please have the main thread of this project open for comments? So that posters have a place to post generalized commentary about the way the project is going?

Keep that stuff out of the focused weekly threads

 

[Michael Farkas]

I actually kind of wish we only took four that round too...

 

[MXD]

I wonder how many of the 6 guys who ranked Roy first also were among the 7 who ranked Hasek last.

I had them back to back and didn't hear 'gap' arguments. So much discussion made it apparent how competitive the two were when placed side by side.

Hasek would have been inducted if the 7 who ranked him last just put him in the middle of the pack, not even anywhere near the top.

At most 5.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Don't worry. Early NHL era representation is coming soon!

A lot of Montreal Canadiens fans hereabouts. They'll put Morenz first (or second behind Plante) next round.

No Habs this century though. Lafleur will be their next target.

(Jaded and still confused at the 7 last place votes for Hasek yet Roy so much higher. Hope prejudice doesn't explain the gap. Ugh.)

I had Roy 1st and Hasek last. IMO, Hasek belongs with Plante and Hall (who will hopefully be candidates soon), not with Roy.

FTR, Hasek will not be my last place vote next round.

 

[MXD]

I had Roy 1st and Hasek last. IMO, Hasek belongs with Plante and Hall (who will hopefully be candidates soon), not with Roy.

FTR, Hasek will not be my last place vote next round.

DDDDEEEEUUURRRRRTYYYY Canadiens fan.

 

[The Macho King]

I didn't have Hasek in my top 5 (which I think I had him ranked 7th overall in my initial list).

The direct comparison with Roy, and what dropped him... He pulled *himself* out of two playoffs because he wasn't 100% (despite the fact that him at 90% was better than the alternative). And that's not something I think any of the players at this part of the list would do. So when I compared him to Roy specifically, but the list most generally, that weighed more on me than I initially expected.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I didn't have Hasek in my top 5 (which I think I had him ranked 7th overall in my initial list).

The direct comparison with Roy, and what dropped him... He pulled *himself* out of two playoffs because he wasn't 100% (despite the fact that him at 90% was better than the alternative). And that's not something I think any of the players at this part of the list would do. So when I compared him to Roy specifically, but the list most generally, that weighed more on me than I initially expected.

Hasek's refusal to play at anything but 100% has to inflate his save percentage at least a little bit, as well. Since save percentage is an averaging statistic, after all. I would love to revisit Hasek vs Plante actually.

In 2008, Plante actually finished the #1 goalie of all time on these lists, but by the time we made a goalie-only list, he was sort of an afterthought after Roy and Hasek. I'm not quite sure what changed (other than a greater appreciation of recent players... i don't know, maybe that explains the whole thing).

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Let's not list nationality and birthplace for our HOH List.

9 CANADA
5 QUEBEC

Wave the flag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ugh.

How about instead: career start year - end year, height and weight

"Like" this suggestion. Let's get it done.

LOL ok because Quebecers and Canadians are not smart enough to vote for players without taking birthplace and nationality in consideration?

You just sound salty because "your" player (Hasek) didn't make it.