Voting Record - Sentinel, Hockey Outsider, ChiTownPhilly

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,797
754
Helsinki, Finland
So, when I'm answering a post belittling Clarke's slash in 1972 and its influence on the outcome, I should at the same time remember to criticize Ovechkin for something that happened decades later? Or every other 'culprit' in the history of hockey? That makes sense.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
So, when I'm answering a post belittling Clarke's slash in 1972 and its influence on the outcome, I should at the same time remember to criticize Ovechkin for something that happened decades later? Or every other 'culprit' in the history of hockey? That makes sense.

No. Criticism should be even-handed, not based on who benefits and who is impacted.
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
@Sentinel you see to have low rankings for many defensemen. Harvey at 18, Bourque at 21, Kelly at 31 (so much for Red Wings bias), Potvin at 35, Robinson at 48, Park at 61, Pilote at 67. Each of those rankings are probably defensible individually, but do you think overall you're tougher on defensemen?
Possibly. I guess it takes more for a defenseman to impress me than a forward.

One thing that always bothered me about this board's take on defensemen is the overuse of the expression "Defenseman X revitalized his position." Shore. Kelly. Harvey. Orr. Potvin. Coffey. Bourque. I don't understand what it means. Defensmen rushed the puck and tried scoring a goal when the opportunity arose from the beginning of hockey. They all tried controlling the play in their own zone and quarterbacked the power play since power play was insitituted. What exactly did they "revitalize"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
No. Criticism should be even-handed, not based on who benefits and who is impacted.
Fine, I'll chip in. I haven't seen this particular incident, but Ovechkin has a history of uncontrolled temper that is different from planned assassination. Not to mention, it's a very poor tactic to use your best player for such assassination.

Kharlamov > Clarke
Ovechkin >>> Svechnikov
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Possibly. I guess it takes more for a defenseman to impress me than a forward.

One thing that always bothered me about this board's take on defensemen is the overuse of the expression "Defenseman X revitalized his position." Shore. Kelly. Harvey. Orr. Potvin. Coffey. Bourque. I don't understand what it means. Defensmen rushed the puck and tried scoring a goal when the opportunity arose from the beginning of hockey. They all tried controlling the play in their own zone and quarterbacked the power play since power play was insitituted. What exactly did they "revitalize"?

So you are lacking in historical hockey knowledge and English.

All the major rule changes brought challenges defensively to the transition game required from defensemen. Each of the mentioned defensemen found solutions that incorporated the old (hence revitalized) within elements of the new rules.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,352
7,833
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Also suggests a major lack of viewings...over-reliance on random media articles without proper context. Or, if video is watched, well...there are many different questions from that...and my guess, a completely different list all together...

Viewing hype for defensemen like reading the box toothpaste comes in..."they all say they fight cavities! So therefore they're all on the same level..." ...deeper research, product trials are necessary to actually determine the best...
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
So you are lacking in historical hockey knowledge and English.

All the major rule changes brought challenges defensively to the transition game required from defensemen. Each of the mentioned defensemen found solutions that incorporated the old (hence revitalized) within elements of the new rules.
Your logic is comparable only to your manners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast

shazariahl

Registered User
Apr 7, 2009
2,030
59
I like Sentinel's list. Sure there's things I disagree with, but I can understand why he chose the players he did. And after all, I didn't put in a list, so who am I to complain? hehe. As for HockeyOutsider, I find myself liking nearly every post he's ever made, so not much to complain about there either. Really, all 3 of these were pretty solid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
Also suggests a major lack of viewings...over-reliance on random media articles without proper context. Or, if video is watched, well...there are many different questions from that...and my guess, a completely different list all together...

Viewing hype for defensemen like reading the box toothpaste comes in..."they all say they fight cavities! So therefore they're all on the same level..." ...deeper research, product trials are necessary to actually determine the best...
Viewing is important for all positions. Stats back up eye-witness accounts. Where it gets tricky is when we have to rely on other eye-witness accounts exclusively, along with accompanying stats, hardware won, etc. There are so many variables to wade through when you get to players who were in their prime before we started to really follow the game. It's not impossible... but I rely a lot on the volumes of text and reports from experts of the day to place Doug Harvey or Jean Beliveau in my top ten.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
Viewing is important for all positions. Stats back up eye-witness accounts. Where it gets tricky is when we have to rely on other eye-witness accounts exclusively, along with accompanying stats, hardware won, etc. There are so many variables to wade through when you get to players who were in their prime before we started to really follow the game. It's not impossible... but I rely a lot on the volumes of text and reports from experts of the day to place Doug Harvey or Jean Beliveau in my top ten.

But not Maurice Richard?
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Viewing is important for all positions. Stats back up eye-witness accounts. Where it gets tricky is when we have to rely on other eye-witness accounts exclusively, along with accompanying stats, hardware won, etc. There are so many variables to wade through when you get to players who were in their prime before we started to really follow the game. It's not impossible... but I rely a lot on the volumes of text and reports from experts of the day to place Doug Harvey or Jean Beliveau in my top ten.

Noble but problematic given that major Toronto dailies are nearly impossible to readily view online and the Quebec French papers get ignored. So the available perspective comes from mainly wire service accounts.

Major obstacle to ranking the great Leafs from 1932 to 1967 and beyond.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
But not Maurice Richard?
I could rattle off 100 names.
Richard is a legend. He was my uncle's favorite player of all time, and I heard many stories of how exciting he was. He achieved much and is a deserved member of the NHL's top 20 of all time. It's when he cracks the top 10 that I start to think... "wait a second, his biggest achievement - 50 goals in 50 games - came in the war years; he never won a scoring title (although his own stupidity was to blame for his best chance); He won a single Hart"... that kind of offsets the Conn Smythe (or Smythes) he would have likely won if it existed at the time, or the Maurice Richard Trophies that didn't exist that he would have won five times.

In my opinion, his placement on most "best of" lists is based just as much on myth and legend as it is cold, hard facts. Tough guy to place, but as a whole he's a little overrated by most.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
He is quoting this:
To be accurate, Beliveau and Harvey were shoe-ins for my top ten anyways... the main point of my post was the challenges when it comes to placing players who played in eras before I was born or when I was too young to follow their primes.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
I could rattle off 100 names.
Richard is a legend. He was my uncle's favorite player of all time, and I heard many stories of how exciting he was. He achieved much and is a deserved member of the NHL's top 20 of all time. It's when he cracks the top 10 that I start to think... "wait a second, his biggest achievement - 50 goals in 50 games - came in the war years; he never won a scoring title (although his own stupidity was to blame for his best chance); He won a single Hart"... that kind of offsets the Conn Smythe (or Smythes) he would have likely won if it existed at the time, or the Maurice Richard Trophies that didn't exist that he would have won five times.

In my opinion, his placement on most "best of" lists is based just as much on myth and legend as it is cold, hard facts. Tough guy to place, but as a whole he's a little overrated by most.

" I rely a lot on the volumes of text and reports from experts of the day to place Doug Harvey or Jean Beliveau in my top ten."

So how did Richard become a legend if not by the reports of the experts of the day? Certainly he was thought of more highly at the time he played than either Harvey or Beliveau. They were not considered legends.
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
All right- let's do this as a package-deal. I'll start off, as no-one is going to be as familiar with my list as I am...

ChiTownPhilly
unrequited (in personal top-100, but not advanced):
57. Iginla
66. Vasiliev
68. Suchý
72. Parent
76. Holeček
82. Pospíšil
86. Martinec
94. T. Blake
96. Maltsev
97. T. Esposito
98. Gerard

Understood from jump that all of the non-NHL Europeans cited above were windmill-tilts, with the possible exception of Martinec. The high resistance to Parent took me by surprise- and Iginla didn't gain esteem until after the clock ran out.

Cherry Popping Daddies (advanced, but not on My Personal List):
87. Bill Cowley
91. Joe Thornton

Call it the Overrated Centers' Revenge. After some early Rounds, where I presented as a skeptic to Mikita and Clarke, with some effectiveness, and H. Richard, with somewhat less effectiveness, these guys came up behind and got me, good and hard.

@Sentinel
unrequited
58. Bure
59. Datsyuk
62. Petrov
70. Martinec
74. Yakushev
85. Št'astný
86. Parent
89. S. Savard
91. Niedermayer
93. Maltsev
94. Ullman
96. Starshinov
98. Holeček
100. Delvecchio

14 "unrequiteds" is NOT the sole leader-in-the-clubhouse. It ties C1958. I'd think about putting Datsyuk on MY list if I had to do it over again...

Cherry Popping Daddies
42. Boucher (a singularity)
61. Seibert (another singularity)
66. Vézina (joined by two others)
75. Gardiner
89. Chara
90. Gadsby

@Hockey Outsider
unrequited
71. Bower
78. Vasiliev
80. Ullman
90. T. Esposito
95. Št'astný
96. T. Blake
99. Iginla

Bower was left off the lists of 14- so there's that. Toe Blake>Lach is an interesting perspective.

Finally, congratulations to Hockey Outsider for having the first documented instance of Zero Cherry Popping Daddies!

 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockey Outsider

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
@Hockey Outsider
unrequited
71. Bower
78. Vasiliev
80. Ullman
90. T. Esposito
95. Št'astný
96. T. Blake
99. Iginla

Bower was left off the lists of 14- so there's that. Toe Blake>Lach is an interesting perspective.

Finally, congratulations to Hockey Outsider for having the first documented instance of Zero Cherry Popping Daddies!

I really like these lists, thanks for putting them together.

Bower - I posted about him earlier. What impressed me about him is he was great at stopping the puck (six save percentage titles in eight years), and combined that with tremendous playoff success. Some people criticized him for playing in a platoon situation - there's some truth to that, but he was still 2nd in games played in the 1960's. The real strike against him (which I don't think I took into account when I made my list) was lack of contemporary recognition - just one year-end all-star selection. That definitely lowers him. I still think highly of Bower and I think he should be in the top 100, but I'd probably knock him down 20 spots.

Vasiliev - I think I commented on him as well. I overrated him initially, probably because he seems to have a very North American style of play (so I was probably looking at him with that implicit bias). Yes, he was the 2nd best Soviet defenseman after Fetisov, but I don't think I really understood just how far behind him he was. I'd now have him in my top 120, but not the top 100.

Ullman - I said before that he'd be a serious omission, and I stand by that. I did briefly question his defensive ability (a lot of the plus/minus and R-on/off data didn't look great) - but we know that (unlike, say, Frank Mahovlich, who was criticized for the same reasons), there are lots of contemporary accounts about Ullman being a great defensive player. He has the best offensive resume of any remaining NHL forward (and if we give him a boost for limited powerplay time, as we did for Henri Richard, he looks even better). Not much was said about his playoff resume, but he finished 1st, T-1st and 2nd in playoff scoring in a span of four years. Ullman's omission was simply a mistake from our final list.

Esposito - he probably belongs as well. Someone compared him to Joe Thornton (tremendous career value in the regular season, disappointing in the playoffs), and that's probably a fair comment. Some metrics have Esposito as high as top three all-time in regular-season career value; that's definitely overstated a bit, but there's no doubt he was elite for a very long time. I also think his playoff struggles are somewhat exaggerated.

Blake over Lach was a mistake. The main knock against Lach is several of his accomplishments took place during the talent-depleted WWII years, but that applies to Blake as well.

Won't comment on Iginla specifically, he was on the bubble on my list (though I will say - inconsistency from season to season hurt him in my rankings).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->