Voting Record - Sentinel, Hockey Outsider, ChiTownPhilly

[Canadiens1958]

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.



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.

Bower, recognize his AHL accomplishments like we recognize domestic European leagues and the post season question disappears. Start with three consecutive MVPs.

Ullman. Playoff scoring is tied to games played:

Norm Ullman Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

The same three of four seasons Ullman was, tied for the lead in playoff games played, part of the Red Wings five forward PP, a negative defensively.

We got it right. Especially given that Jean Ratelle did not make the list.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Hasek
Hasek
Ovechkin
Ovechkin
Makarov
Yzerman
Yzerman
Tretiak

You forgot Lidstrom and Fedorov!

 

[DannyGallivan]

" 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.

My opinion... he's given a boost by his style of play, the fact that he was well established before Beliveau, his leadership of the Habs and of course, Richard as a symbol of working class Quebec.

Again, we must remember that saying someone is overrated by being in the top ten is not to say that they aren't a deserved legend... it's just that Richard's resume doesn't jive with him being that high. He is a legend and one of the greatest players of all time... just not a top ten player in my books.

 

[ImporterExporter]

CTP's list should have been thrown out on the grounds of obvious bias against Crosby alone. Somebody who references Chicago and Philly in their username, while living very close to Philly, and then ranking Crosby in the mid 30's, in 2018/19 is [MOD] clearly biased. There is no other explanation. Don't pass go. Don't collect a buck. Even some of the older members who don't like ranking active players don't show this sort of blatant aggression against a "polarizing" player. I know well enough, with all who participated, there are several folks who ranked Crosby fairly (in the teens, or even low 20's) while having a fairly large amount of disdain for the player. People know I'm one of the biggest Crosby supporters out there and even I didn't have him the top 10 and lower than a handful of others. I've always prided myself on being fair to players, regardless of rivalries or personal feelings. Sadly, this particular list does not show that.

There is zero justification for ranking a player with the resume he possesses, that low. 3 Stanley Cups, back to back Smythes, multiple Harts, multiple scoring titles, multiple goal scoring titles, multiple gold medals at best on best tournaments (he's the only player in hockey history to captain a SC winner, Olmypic Winner and WC winner. Oh and he captained the WCOH team as well for laughs). And the only reason he doesn't have even more hardware is because a slug Capitals player ran him at the outdoor classic years back (a year where he was on pace for 64 goals and 132 points at exactly the halfway mark of the season btw), and then taking a slap shot off the jaw a few years after that, costing him another easy Hart and Art Ross. You know 2013, when it took the rest of the field the entire final month to catch and pass him. barely, on the scoring chart. Despite the head hunting and freak, 1 in a million injury, his resume is FAR better than numerous players you have ranked above him. This is a guy, who on the wrong side of 30 is still putting up great numbers, rounding his game into a true 200 foot impact player (Sid has now finished top 10 in scoring and Selke voting for 4 seasons in a row. You know how many players have done or exceeded that since the Selke existed? Kurri (5) and Francis) and contending for Hart trophies. From, we'll say 19 until currently (he's 32), he's been the best or in the conversation for best player in the world most years, by most sane people outside of hockey and those playing/coaching with/against him.

I'm appalled this was allowed to count in process. No amount of droning or fancy reasoning can get you there. At some point there is an agenda.

Then again, I see Howe below Mario. Orr below Mario. Hooooray gaudy offensive totals and complete lack of regard for defensive brilliance or impact beyond goals and assists.

"Shockingly" Ovechkin is 21 spots above Sid. Then I see Jagr over Ovechkin by a spot, even though Ovechkin can at least lay claim to being arguably the greatest goal scorer ever, and leading his team to a title, something Jagr knows nothing about. Then again, neither played a lick of defense either so their scoring exploits mean less to me than somebody who actually understands the importance of 200 foot hockey. Usually those types win more as well, but what the bleep do I know?

 

[bobholly39]

CTP's list should have been thrown out on the grounds of obvious bias against Crosby alone. Somebody who references Chicago and Philly in their username, while living very close to Philly, and then ranking Crosby in the mid 30's, in 2018/19 is simply put, asinine and clearly biased. There is no other explanation. Don't pass go. Don't collect a buck. Even some of the older members who don't like ranking active players don't show this sort of blatant aggression against a "polarizing" player. I know well enough, with all who participated, there are several folks who ranked Crosby fairly (in the teens, or even low 20's) while having a fairly large amount of disdain for the player. People know I'm one of the biggest Crosby supporters out there and even I didn't have him the top 10 and lower than a handful of others. I've always prided myself on being fair to players, regardless of rivalries or personal feelings. Sadly, this particular list does not show that.

There is zero justification for ranking a player with the resume he possesses, that low. 3 Stanley Cups, back to back Smythes, multiple Harts, multiple scoring titles, multiple goal scoring titles, multiple gold medals at best on best tournaments (he's the only player in hockey history to captain a SC winner, Olmypic Winner and WC winner. Oh and he captained the WCOH team as well for laughs). And the only reason he doesn't have even more hardware is because a slug Capitals player ran him at the outdoor classic years back (a year where he was on pace for 64 goals and 132 points at exactly the halfway mark of the season btw), and then taking a slap shot off the jaw a few years after that, costing him another easy Hart and Art Ross. You know 2013, when it took the rest of the field the entire final month to catch and pass him. barely, on the scoring chart. Despite the head hunting and freak, 1 in a million injury, his resume is FAR better than numerous players you have ranked above him. This is a guy, who on the wrong side of 30 is still putting up great numbers, rounding his game into a true 200 foot impact player (Sid has now finished top 10 in scoring and Selke voting for 4 seasons in a row. You know how many players have done or exceeded that since the Selke existed? Kurri (5) and Francis) and contending for Hart trophies. From, we'll say 19 until currently (he's 32), he's been the best or in the conversation for best player in the world most years, by most sane people outside of hockey and those playing/coaching with/against him.

I'm appalled this was allowed to count in process. No amount of droning or fancy reasoning can get you there. At some point there is an agenda.

Then again, I see Howe below Mario. Orr below Mario. Hooooray gaudy offensive totals and complete lack of regard for defensive brilliance or impact beyond goals and assists.

"Shockingly" Ovechkin is 21 spots above Sid. Then I see Jagr over Ovechkin by a spot, even though Ovechkin can at least lay claim to being arguably the greatest goal scorer ever, and leading his team to a title, something Jagr knows nothing about. Then again, neither played a lick of defense either so their scoring exploits mean less to me than somebody who actually understands the importance of 200 foot hockey. Usually those types win more as well, but what the bleep do I know?

Seems kind of random to bring this up so many months later - especially since he was called out on it on the very first page and gave a long, in-depth explanation of his ranking of Crosby vs Ovechkin, in post #19.

Now I don't know if you agree or not with his reasoning - but you may as well respond to it directly if you have issues/questions. Here is his post:

A two-part question- and taking into account that it's one of the three most controversial portions of my list, it's right for me to be called out on it, and asked to explain myself. Well- here goes the first part:

I always felt that Crosby got too much credit for the Penguins success... and Malkin not enough. At the time I composed my list, the two most recent completed seasons helped underpin that belief. But-- with regard to Crosby/Ovechkin specifically, I have a trio of points:

A. Ovechkin continues to prep briefs for the case that he's the greatest LW of all-time. Bobby Hull would be tough guy to move around... but Ovechkin may yet win the day. If you are a longevity guy, he's starting to be worth podium consideration for greatest W of all-time, never mind laterality. [I'm not so much a longevity guy when it comes to Forwards, so there's that.] An incidental aside to this is that with Ovechkin, you get deployment-flexibility: as he can play RW just as effectively. Crosby might leak into the bottom-six of the discussion for greatest C of all-time, maybe. He's had significant stretches where he's not the finest C on his own team.

B. [What I consider to be the most relevant point]- I think that the blueprint for the "Sidney Crosby containment structure" exists in the public domain. Its construction requires some rare and valuable materials (impossible for many to even obtain), but it's out there. Zetterberg, Toews, Bergeron- maybe it's not out-of-line to say we're seeing another construction-site being put in place before our very eyes.

C. (The most personal and therefore objectively possibly the least meaningful point)- yeah, there's that whole "Greg Louganis/Klaus Dibiasi" thing with Crosby. [And visible instances where he runs the mouth when his acting isn't persuasive.] He's certainly far from the first player to bring the most distasteful aspects of European Football onto the ice, but he is likely the most significant popularizer of that stunt. I'm not alone in saying that it's having an overall negative impact on recent Youth Hockey development.

Okay, on to the second part of the question: how do I like 'em now?! When this season began, I had reason to think that the general trend for the Penguins would continue. I did not know then that Crosby would have a fine bounce-back Regular Season, and that it would be Malkin who would take a dump on his own C.V. Ovechkin's put another quality chapter into his book, too. Ultimately, I think it's more a case that I slightly over-valued Ovechkin than I under-valued Crosby. The space I got between them has narrowed.
When I made the rough-draft of my Prelim List, I started with Iginla around the border, like most of the rest of the Panelists. Then, I went to order my Wingers- and took a deeper dive into his output- and became more and more impressed. "Look at all the things he did, in virtual exile, there in The Outpost, with next-to-no help!" I thought. When Bathgate came up, the point was raised "just how much separates Bathgate from the likes of Iginla?"- in a manner that was intended to encourage caution with Bathgate. In my mind, it had the effect of adding honor to Iginla. Some of the dips in his regular season output can be explained by the fact that he often played full-on hurt.

So- he missed this Top-100... and to me, that's disappointing at a certain level. [I'm sure certain posters feel much the same way about, for instance, Ullman.] At least I know he'll get his plaque in Toronto soon enough. When that happens, maybe the records can be peeled back once again, assessments made, and maybe, just maybe, the idea of Iginla is a comfortable Top-100 player won't seem so outré.

 

[bobholly39]

IE, you see Mario above Orr and Howe??? Above the peak monster AND career monster (Mario had a better peak than Orr? A better career than Howe)?

Where are you from, Montreal?

AND in the same breath you dug up an old thread cuz you want to claim a 30ish ranking of Crosby is veto-able?

I have no idea where you are coming from.

Pretty sure he's saying the opposite. He's calling out that poster for having Mario above Orr/Howe - not the other way around.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Seems kind of random to bring this up so many months later - especially since he was called out on it on the very first page and gave a long, in-depth explanation of his ranking of Crosby vs Ovechkin, in post #19.

Now I don't know if you agree or not with his reasoning - but you may as well respond to it directly if you have issues/questions. Here is his post:

I read it and it's garbage. Ambulance chasing rhetoric done to distract from the obvious bias. NOBODY else ranks Sid that low. Not one single person. That's the most clear example of WHY this is bias in raw form.

As someone who's watched the Penguins for a long, long time, the vast majority of their games, many in person, the Crosby "gets to much credit and Malkin not enough" is garbage. Crosby gets the top defensemen and checking C almost every night. He's the primary focus of every single opponent. He actually plays solid and sometimes great defense now. Malkin has RARELY played any kind of responsible defense through out his career. He flashes the ability to do so but it is RARE. Crosby, even in his early years was at least sensible in his positioning. He wasn't a difference maker but he wasn't ignoring the basic principles. And now he's actually developed much like Yzerman in terms of 2 way play. Malkin has directly benefited from being the #2 C on a team with a generation talent like Sid. Not the other way around.

A - Is such a shape shifting joke. He equates Ovechkin maybe being the best LW of all time as some sort of plus over Crosby because Sid might get into the "bottom 6 C's ever" (even though he's already there for 99% of knowledgable hockey people). As if LW had even a fraction of the top end talent not to mention depth that C posseses. Is it any wonder why C has so many players in the top 20? And I'm supossed to take that argument seriously?

B - Crosby "containment structure". That's another very fancy way of trying to say Crosby has been shut down by a hanful of players? I find that pretty comical considering, in big games (playoffs) Sid clearly has a superior record to Ovechkin. Oh, on the international stage as well, by a mile. Both in production, longevity, peak, end results, whatever. ALL players get shut down here and there. It's happened to literally every f***ing player who's played the amount of hockey these guys have. I've said before folks like CTP are very well written and understand how to shape an argument using long, winding logic and $10 words to distract from the fac they're grasping at straws.

C - There it is! The Crosby dives narrative. Yep, he had a problem with it as a teenager. As a Crosby fan, I have enough fortitude to admit as much. But that's an argument that hasn't held water in more than a decade. The bitching out refs and diving was an 18/19 year old practice of immaturity. Once the C went on that stuff dried up very, very quickly. And at the end of the day, this is a personal issue with the voter. A common theme.

I'll finish the rest when I've got time.....

 

[ImporterExporter]

Wsit: delete.

Never mind.

Readi g while walkng with a smartphone can result in missed bits.

G'day

For somebody who teaches English, you're having a tough time comprehending what I wrote. I literally said the opposite of that. I was chastising CTP for ranking Mario over those 2. I have Orr #1 all time btw.

Have a nice one.

 

[bobholly39]

I read it and it's garbage. Ambulance chasing rhetoric done to distract from the obvious bias. NOBODY else ranks Sid that low. Not one single person. That's the most clear example of WHY this is bias in raw form.

As someone who's watched the Penguins for a long, long time, the vast majority of their games, many in person, the Crosby "gets to much credit and Malkin not enough" is garbage. Crosby gets the top defensemen and checking C almost every night. He's the primary focus of every single opponent. He actually plays solid and sometimes great defense now. Malkin has RARELY played any kind of responsible defense through out his career. He flashes the ability to do so but it is RARE. Crosby, even in his early years was at least sensible in his positioning. He wasn't a difference maker but he wasn't ignoring the basic principles. And now he's actually developed much like Yzerman in terms of 2 way play. Malkin has directly benefited from being the #2 C on a team with a generation talent like Sid. Not the other way around.

A - Is such a shape shifting joke. He equates Ovechkin maybe being the best LW of all time as some sort of plus over Crosby because Sid might get into the "bottom 6 C's ever" (even though he's already there for 99% of knowledgable hockey people). As if LW had even a fraction of the top end talent not to mention depth that C posseses. Is it any wonder why C has so many players in the top 20? And I'm supossed to take that argument seriously?

B - Crosby "containment structure". That's another very fancy way of trying to say Crosby has been shut down by a hanful of players? I find that pretty comical considering, in big games (playoffs) Sid clearly has a superior record to Ovechkin. Oh, on the international stage as well, by a mile. Both in production, longevity, peak, end results, whatever. ALL players get shut down here and there. It's happened to literally every ****ing player who's played the amount of hockey these guys have. I've said before folks like CTP are very well written and understand how to shape an argument using long, winding logic and $10 words to distract from the fac they're grasping at straws.

C - There it is! The Crosby dives narrative. Yep, he had a problem with it as a teenager. As a Crosby fan, I have enough fortitude to admit as much. But that's an argument that hasn't held water in more than a decade. The *****ing out refs and diving was an 18/19 year old practice of immaturity. Once the C went on that stuff dried up very, very quickly. And at the end of the day, this is a personal issue with the voter. A common theme.

I'll finish the rest when I've got time.....

Just keep in mind the lowest rank for Crosby in this project was 48. I don't think him being at 35 makes sense either, but it's not the lowest one. The General had him 48. I know Canadiens1958 had Crosby 32 and Ovechkin 59. I believe there might have been at least 1 or 2 more posters who had him below 30, but i forget who off hand.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Just keep in mind the lowest rank for Crosby in this project was 48. I don't think him being at 35 makes sense either, but it's not the lowest one. The General had him 48. I know Canadiens1958 had Crosby 32 and Ovechkin 59. I believe there might have been at least 1 or 2 more posters who had him below 30, but i forget who off hand.

And him at 48 is even worse. Just goes to show that Sid finishing below somebody like Morenz for example (I've done a very in depth look at them side by side and in no way can you get Howie above Sid unless you massively overrate the hyperbolic style of writing that was evident in the 20's and 30's to describe players. For as God like as he was described Morenz's raw and more advanced numbers come up short, not to mention Montreal wasn't exactly a powerhouse during his time there, despite having as much or more talent than any other team) was almost surely a result of a few people having strong anti Crosby agendas.

Canadiens1958 has at least a sensible argument for his rankings. His is borne more out of retired vs active players and the difficulties that can come with ranking guys who still have a lot left in the tank. CTP can't use that logic because he has Ovechkin at 14. So there is no active vs retired thought process with his ranking.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Just keep in mind the lowest rank for Crosby in this project was 48. I don't think him being at 35 makes sense either, but it's not the lowest one. The General had him 48. I know Canadiens1958 had Crosby 32 and Ovechkin 59. I believe there might have been at least 1 or 2 more posters who had him below 30, but i forget who off hand.

27 of the 32 votes had Crosby ranked between 5th and 19th. Then he was also ranked 24th, 27th, 32nd, 35th and 48th.

I looked at how Crosby's average rank in the bottom five compared to his overall average. He had the 2nd largest drop-off in the bottom five. The only player with a worse drop-off was Gretzky, solely due to him inexplicably being ranked 6th on one list.

 

[VanIslander]

...

Then again, I see Howe below Mario. Orr below Mario....

No, i didn't finish the paragraph or the one after as i was on and off inbetween traffic lights in my jeep, killin' time on my smartphone.

By "i see" i had read "i understand" not "i notice" ....

Afterwards, at home, STATIONARY rather than mobile, i read it all in context, hence my edit, as i mentioned in editing, so f off any character attack about my job.

 

[TheEye]

The only player with a worse drop-off was Gretzky, solely due to him inexplicably being ranked 6th on one list.

To be fair, Gretzky was only initially ranked at 6th on that list. Given further consideration, the contributor decided that Gretzky at 7th all-time was more appropriate for their final submission.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

For somebody who teaches English, you're having a tough time comprehending what I wrote.

This is flaming. Don’t do it again. Comprendez vous?

 

[ImporterExporter]

This is flaming. Don’t do it again. Comprendez vous?

Oui

 

[BenchBrawl]

Comprendez is the spanish version IIRC. In french it's Comprenez-vous?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

all the other stuff in this thread aside, you really shouldn't read hf while in traffic.

love,

mom

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Comprendez is the spanish version IIRC. In french it's Comprenez-vous?

I was quoting a Kids in the Hall bit - probably poorly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Gretzky at 6 is at least as bad as Crosby at 35.

Lists shouldn't be rejected due to 1 "bad" ranking, anyway.

Now if the listmaker was unduly biased against either all Penguins players or all modern players, thenthat might be grounds for rejection.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Gretzky at 6 is at least as bad as Crosby at 35.

Lists shouldn't be rejected due to 1 "bad" ranking, anyway.

Now if the listmaker was unduly biased against either all Penguins players or all modern players, thenthat might be grounds for rejection.

If these projects want to be taken very seriously by outsiders then we absolutely should be looking for outlier rankings. This is clearly a case of that. It'd be one thing if you could promote arguments that made sense, but I see nothing that constitutes that.

I mean just read the logic he gave as to ranking Sid low. Some of it has nothing to do with the actual accomplishments of his career. He cited "diving" (I think Sid's whining was more of an issue early in his career then diving) as a principle reason for being sour on Crosby. Fine. You can have that opinion but do not try and use it to justify a players ranking. It has absolutely nothing to do with offensive production, impact defensively, whether or not the player in question was a big game performer, etc. Crosby was and is the youngest captain to win a SC in league history (has 3 overall on 4 trips). A record that will be very difficult to break. He was hand picked by team Canada over Toews to wear the C in 2014 (even though Toews had 2 Cups at that point and Sid called JT to essentially get the blessing) and has worn that letter for the Canooks ever since, while never failing to win Gold while wearing it.

And then using Ovechkin being arguably the greatest LW as some sort of gleaming advantage over Crosby, while conflating the 2 positions as if they are equal in terms of talent and depth all time. I'm not looking for likes or a bunch of positive reinforcement either. That kind of reasoning is not only ridiculous, it cheapens the project. And it absolutely skews rankings and it should be discouraged and in blatant cases, rejected.

Like I said, there are some people who participated in this project who really don't like Sid and weren't dropping him more than a 3rd of the way down the list. As much as I can't stand him, I think I had Ovechkin 26th originally and would bump him up at least 5-6 spots in retrospect now.

I'd love to see the argument over a guy, who despite missing huge portions of his peak/prime due to dirty play and a freak puck to the face, has done the following and is still contending for major trophies today at 32 years old:

-3 Cups on 4 trips (been past the 2nd round 5 times)
-2 Smythes back to back (yeah the first one was weak but he's had other runs that could have easily won a Smythe most years, like 2008 or 2009)
-2 Hart's (that is with losing out 2010-11 when in 41 games he was a runaway for every major award with 32 goals and 66 points due to a blatant dirty hit and then 2012-13 when he had 56 in 36 and again would have run away with the Hart and Ross had it not been for a Brooks Orpik slapper to the face).
-2 Art Ross
-3 Lindsay/Pearsons
-8 Time Postseason AS
-Gold medal at 2010 Olympics (scored arguably the greatest (golden) goal in Canada's history given where the games were being played, who Canada was playing, and the fact that in 2006 they had a pathetic showing). Gold medal at 2014 Olympics (Captain). Gold medal at 2015 WC's (Captain). Gold medal at 2016 WCOH (Captain, leading scorer and tournament MVP). Oh and in 2006 he was the youngest player ever to lead the WC in scoring, was named best forward and was on the tournament AS team, at 18 years of age.
-He's only player in hockey history to Captain all 3 teams of the triple gold club.
-Has never once been under a point per game in his career, in any season, despite almost never having stellar linemates at ES unlike most other superstars in league history. Consider, the greatest linemate he's ever had for more than a game or 2 was Hossa, for all of a few months in 2008. And the were utterly dominant together.
-One of just 3 players in league history to finish top 10 in scoring and Selke voting 4 or more times.

Seriously, how many players, who have entire careers in their back pocket can claim that kind of resume?

30+?

It's absurd.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

If these projects want to be taken very seriously by outsiders then we absolutely should be looking for outlier rankings. This is clearly a case of that. It'd be one thing if you could promote arguments that made sense, but I see nothing that constitutes that.

I made a post a few months ago looking at what would have happened if we dropped the lowest (and highest) ranking for certain players. I think I was looking at the (approx) 35 players who appeared on everyone's list. The impact of the outlier votes was minimal (I don't think anybody moved by more than 2 spots on the Round 1 list, and the vast majority of players didn't move at all). This is probably because we have a large number of voters, and one outlier ranking can't cause too much distortion.

So, for example, even though ranking Gretzky 6th looks bad, it didn't have any actual impact on the results of the project. On the other hand - if 16% of the voters are low on Crosby (ie out of the top 20), even though you or I might disagree with them, we can't throw out a sixth of the votes as being outliers.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I made a post a few months ago looking at what would have happened if we dropped the lowest (and highest) ranking for certain players. I think I was looking at the (approx) 35 players who appeared on everyone's list. The impact of the outlier votes was minimal (I don't think anybody moved by more than 2 spots on the Round 1 list, and the vast majority of players didn't move at all). This is probably because we have a large number of voters, and one outlier ranking can't cause too much distortion.

So, for example, even though ranking Gretzky 6th looks bad, it didn't have any actual impact on the results of the project. On the other hand - if 16% of the voters are low on Crosby (ie out of the top 20), even though you or I might disagree with them, we can't throw out a sixth of the votes as being outliers.

For me, it's not primarily about the ranking. If we look at the average ranking of Crosby (or any player for that matter) and then see somebody place that him/them drastically lower or higher, there better be a damn good reason for it. I'm open to strange alternatives. Always have been.

But I pretty easily shredded multiple reasons given when it came to Crosby ("diving" being some sort of major downgrading factor, something that was relatively minor and brief....LW vs C in an all time sense and the illogical position CTP took to justify Ovechkin high and Crosby low, etc).

If you're going to make outlandish claims you better have more than just personal dislike (Crosby being boring or whining for a year and change when he was 18/19 has nothing to do with quantifiable stats/hardware/winning) and nonsensical opinions that aren't based in reality.

Those paragraphs he wrote way back when is about 95% fluff. It has nothing to do with numbers, hardware, being a winner. You know, on ice impact which is how we should be judging everyone across the board.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Lists shouldn't be rejected due to 1 "bad" ranking, anyway.

Now if the listmaker was unduly biased against either all Penguins players or all modern players, thenthat might be grounds for rejection.

Agree with this. Outliers have the right to their opinion assuming it is backed up or non-patterned.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

CTP's list should have been thrown out on the grounds of obvious bias against Crosby alone. Somebody who references Chicago and Philly in their username, while living very close to Philly, and then ranking Crosby in the mid 30's, in 2018/19 is simply put, asinine and clearly biased. There is no other explanation. Don't pass go. Don't collect a buck. Even some of the older members who don't like ranking active players don't show this sort of blatant aggression against a "polarizing" player. I know well enough, with all who participated, there are several folks who ranked Crosby fairly (in the teens, or even low 20's) while having a fairly large amount of disdain for the player. People know I'm one of the biggest Crosby supporters out there and even I didn't have him the top 10 and lower than a handful of others. I've always prided myself on being fair to players, regardless of rivalries or personal feelings. Sadly, this particular list does not show that.

There is zero justification for ranking a player with the resume he possesses, that low. 3 Stanley Cups, back to back Smythes, multiple Harts, multiple scoring titles, multiple goal scoring titles, multiple gold medals at best on best tournaments (he's the only player in hockey history to captain a SC winner, Olmypic Winner and WC winner. Oh and he captained the WCOH team as well for laughs). And the only reason he doesn't have even more hardware is because a slug Capitals player ran him at the outdoor classic years back (a year where he was on pace for 64 goals and 132 points at exactly the halfway mark of the season btw), and then taking a slap shot off the jaw a few years after that, costing him another easy Hart and Art Ross. You know 2013, when it took the rest of the field the entire final month to catch and pass him. barely, on the scoring chart. Despite the head hunting and freak, 1 in a million injury, his resume is FAR better than numerous players you have ranked above him. This is a guy, who on the wrong side of 30 is still putting up great numbers, rounding his game into a true 200 foot impact player (Sid has now finished top 10 in scoring and Selke voting for 4 seasons in a row. You know how many players have done or exceeded that since the Selke existed? Kurri (5) and Francis) and contending for Hart trophies. From, we'll say 19 until currently (he's 32), he's been the best or in the conversation for best player in the world most years, by most sane people outside of hockey and those playing/coaching with/against him.

I'm appalled this was allowed to count in process. No amount of droning or fancy reasoning can get you there. At some point there is an agenda.

Then again, I see Howe below Mario. Orr below Mario. Hooooray gaudy offensive totals and complete lack of regard for defensive brilliance or impact beyond goals and assists.

"Shockingly" Ovechkin is 21 spots above Sid. Then I see Jagr over Ovechkin by a spot, even though Ovechkin can at least lay claim to being arguably the greatest goal scorer ever, and leading his team to a title, something Jagr knows nothing about. Then again, neither played a lick of defense either so their scoring exploits mean less to me than somebody who actually understands the importance of 200 foot hockey. Usually those types win more as well, but what the bleep do I know?

Just wondering why you are picking on poor CTP. The General had Crosby ranked 48.

Looking at other lists, there are a number of other voters with more highest & lowest rankings than CTP.

Example:

Mike Farkas & Canadiens1958, both extremely knowledgeable voters. Mike had Al MacInnis ranked 40 (way too high), Canadiens1958 not raked (really?).

If you want to throw out all the lists with odd ranks (rankings you don't like) there is no point to the process.

By the way: Chara 60th?

 

[Nick Hansen]

IE always speaks loudly of how objective he is but most of the time he delivers emotionally charged diatribes against other voters.