quoipourquoi
Goaltender
I like him a little earlier than this, but given the splits for him and Bowie, I wouldn’t doubt that some of it is people trying to cure deficiencies in era representation.
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Voting Results
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
I like him a little earlier than this, but given the splits for him and Bowie, I wouldn’t doubt that some of it is people trying to cure deficiencies in era representation.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I had Bowie at #1 with the following logic:
- I think the 1900-10 era deserves representation on the list.
- It is practically impossible for a player to dominate his era more than Bowie did.
- Therefore, if I am voting for Bowie at all, I need to have him at the top of the list.
I initially had Holecek a lot higher, but dropped him as we went along. Not because he wasn't being talked about, but because it dawned on me that Holecek was ranked lower within his generation than Lundqvist (by a lot) or Esposito (not by much, but IMO pretty clearly).
I came to feel like Holecek and Bower are both ~4th/5th best goalies of their era (Dryden/Tretiak/Espo, Plante/Sawchuk/Hall, with Parent and Worsley making things a little complicated) and therefore paired them closely but outside my top-5.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,810
- 16,548
But there's the elephant in the room about the gap between Holecek and Tretiak that's totally not representative of reality and acheivements considering their respective situations...
(Unless you also claim that Tretiak went too high in the first place, something I'm totally agreeing with).
To be honest, I had Holecek a good 10 spots below Lundqvist (which was still clearly good enough for second in last group).
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Indeed, that's the tricky part which makes ranking Holecek difficult.
Did Tretiak go too high... I don't know, but I do think he tends to be magnified in the popular consciousness in much the same way as Sawchuk.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Kinda wanted to revisit this after more splits were conducted in the latest round.
Sawchuk’s run of consecutive All-Star selections was 1951-1955. Plante’s run of consecutive All-Star selections was 1956-1960. Bower’s run of 6 save percentage titles in 8 years was 1960-1967.
We can say they’re all of the same era and not be wrong, and we can say the three of them overlapped but have separate segments of dominance within that era and also not be wrong (with Hall flowing through the Plante and Bower periods).
But if we acknowledge Bower as merely the 4th best of a ~20 year era, the players he’s finishing ahead of statistically on a consistent basis are very, very good ones to finish ahead of. Alternatively, he’s maybe the #1 or #1a to Hall in the 1960s if we don’t treat it as one era.
I think of it more like the latter, drawing parallels to Roy (1988-1992) and Hasek (1994-1999) and Brodeur (2003-2008) and Belfour (throughout) occupying ~20 years without stepping on each other’s toes too much at their peaks.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
But save percentage titles don't carry nearly the same value as All Star selections, especially when they're based on less than 40 games (which was the case in half of those seasons).
1960 - Hall, Plante
1961 - Bower, Hall
1962 - Plante, Hall
1963 - Hall, Sawchuk
1964 - Hall, Hodge
1965 - Crozier, Hodge
1966 - Hall, Worsley,
1967 - Giacomin, Hall
It's very hard for me to look at this and think "Bower had a run comparable to Sawchuk 51-55 and Plante 56-60".
In fact, a big part of why I hold Bower so clear-cut below those guys is precisely what we see here -- they were both still pulling down AS selections right through the middle of Bower's peak. Meaning they had both a better-looking peak and better-looking longevity. Add in Hall's being the clear-cut favorite during this phase, plus also before and after it, and you end up with Bower and Worsley competing for the #4 spot.
I agree that Bower beat out a lot of very good competition to get to that #4 spot. #4 in the late Original Six is nothing to underestimate... roster spots were probably never harder to earn than in the early/mid 60s, and we know how much harder it is for goalies.
But I can't stretch to see him as a #1 or #1a if Glenn Hall is in the picture. Hall was right behind Bower in save% every year, while playing way more games behind a much weaker defense, getting far greater recognition from the voters. And as if it were necessary, Hall added a Smythe in 68 and a 1AS 69. It's just not close between them.
Just a random thought. We always say the more voters the better for these projects, which I agree with. And when you read the active threads, you see a ton of extremely valuable content/opinions/data provided by many regular posters who are very knowledgeable.....but who aren't registered to vote.
Any way to open it up to allow some of these to also vote?
Any way to open it up to allow some of these to also vote?
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
I tried open ballots in the playoff project, and as I recall, Sentinel was the only person to take me up on it.
Ultimately - and I say this from the perspective of someone who isn’t a voter but also won’t shut the hell up in the discussion rounds so far - it’s probably best to leave it to those who could commit to seeing it through for the sake of consistency.
Let’s say McDavid becomes eligible - I don’t want to sift through 100 ballots because the Oilers board had some fun.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
That's a good point I hadn't considered before. Having 30 ballots in a round and then 12 in the next round is really not desirable, especially if it correlates to one particular debate (like Karlsson v Doughty recently).
Even if those extra ballots come from regulars, we'd end up with an uneven dynamic in the results and would forever be saying "yeah that was the round where so-and-so dropped in to make a strategic vote which changed the order". It could end very badly.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
You're an elitist? Me too! We should start a club.
Professor What
Registered User
I agree with keeping voting among those who signed on originally too. I can only speak for myself with certainty here, but the fact that I put a lot of work into this originally in making a list and double and triple checking it, even if I now see some flaws in it, means that I'm invested in this project and have a very real interest in trying to make the project the best it can be. I can only assume that others involved would feel the same way. But, while I'm not trying to cast any doubt on anyone else's intentions, I do have a hard time imagining someone who is as strongly invested could feel quite as strongly about a project as those who have poured the work into it. I say that because I think that's just a natural human inclination. Add the possibility of people jumping in for certain matchups as already stated and it gets messier. Imagine the Bure factor there...
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I think there are several non-voters who are just as invested as the voters. I wish they could submit ballots, because their opinions and contributions are adding a lot to the project. I can only respect their choice not to go all-in, even if I'd strongly prefer they were voting.
That being said, this forum's history is not entirely clean when it comes to attempts to rig votes or treat academic debates like a personal competition. @quoipourquoi 's post above reminded me of that, and I can very much imagine something like a Bure vs Forsberg matchup causing us to suddenly have votes with one at #1 and the other at #15, and meaningless rankings in the middle. I think that's really what makes it non-practical to open up the voting beyond the group which has formally identified as participants.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Bure and Forsberg people have unionized with Kariya and Lindros people, now that Forsberg people have been given a seat at the Pond of Dreams. We are Voltron!
But yeah, the voting is sometimes the worst part of these things. I care much more about people’s opinions from Round 1 to Round 2 evolving (or becoming more strengthened from having been tested), so if they aren’t in Round 1, then we kinda lose that part of the whole thing.
Professor What
Registered User
I do want to be clear that I think there are plenty of nonvoters who are giving some very valuable contributions. In fact, I should have said that to start with. You're absolutely right to point that out. I still generally stand by what I said though, and if any nonvoters were to become voters, it would have to be very selective, and that could open up its own can of worms.
That's more what I was going with - the several non-voted who are very actively invested/engaged in the discussions, and in some cases much more so than voters are. I'm not suggesting opening it up to allow anyone to vote (we definitely don't want 50 random write-in votes for McDavid - I agree) - but more opening to those select key 5-6 guys, and we all know who they are based on the discussion threads.
Of course - that's only if they'd even want to vote, which is another question.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
| Player | Total | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | NR |
| Roy Worters | 106 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Doug Gilmour | 103 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||||
| Johnny Bower | 101 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Jiri Holecek | 95 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Toe Blake | 89 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Bill Quackenbush | 75 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Valeri Vasiliev | 64 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | ||
| Pavel Bure | 48 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8 | ||||||
| Serge Savard | 44 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | ||||
| Ron Francis | 37 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | ||||
| Peter Stastny | 36 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||||
| Busher Jackson | 26 | 4 | 2 | 10 | ||||||||
| Rod Langway | 23 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 11 | |||||||
| Bernie Parent | 17 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | |||||||
| Pavel Datsyuk | 16 | 2 | 2 | 12 |
5 of my top 7 got in - so pretty expected results. I particularly was confident Gilmour and Bower were likely to go this round, Worters possibly wasn't as sure on his support.
I guess I continue to be one of the few dissenting votes on Bure - who again was my #1. Also - others clearly don't agree with my ranking of Francis.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Wasn't my top 5 (had Bure #1 also) but much closer to it than last 2 votes. At least I didn't NR any of them.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Do I detect some dissatisfaction with the placement of comrade Makarov on the top 100 list?
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
If you think you saw a different version of these results before, I assure you, you did not.
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
| Player | Total | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | NR |
| Valeri Vasiliev | 111 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Bill Quackenbush | 105 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Peter Stastny | 93 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Serge Savard | 71 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Ron Francis | 59 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | |||||
| Pavel Bure | 53 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | ||||
| Busher Jackson | 53 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | ||
| Alex Delvecchio | 47 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | ||
| Rod Langway | 44 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | |||||
| Bernie Parent | 41 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | |||||
| Gilbert Perreault | 38 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | ||
| Jack Stewart | 37 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | |||
| Guy Lapointe | 34 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | |||
| Pavel Datsyuk | 31 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | |||||
| Doug Bentley | 8 | 1 | 2 | 12 |
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
QPQ doing God’s work posting these during the Super Bowl.
