Which HOH ranking project should we do next?

[seventieslord]

Pretty sure messier only played C.

LOL

you're not very "olde", are you?

 

[kmad]

LOL

you're not very "olde", are you?

1) It was a play on the word "messier" .. get it.. double entendre.. funny stuff

2) Not really, no.. Tony Esposito retired before I was born

 

[Hardyvan123]

To try to clarify my point regarding European players...
Take a look at the table below, showing how you ranked the players alltime.



Europeans:
12 Hasek, 15 Mikita, 17 Lidstrom, 23 Jagr, 33 Fetisov, 35 Charlamov, 44 Tretiak, 61 Makarov, 65 Forsberg, 68 Michailov, 69 Kurri. (I may have missed someone.)
Is it realistic that the 11 best players alltime all were Canadian? That the best European skater ever places 14 among skaters? That the best European forward ever - apart from Mikita - is 23 overall? When actually the best clubs (like CSKA Moscow) and national teams (USSR, CSSR) were about as good the Canadian?

Trottier at 26, and Bossy at 29, were better than all the Europeans outside of NHL?
Is Sakic at 32 better than all Soviets/Russians to ever have played the game of hockey?

The only non-NHL:ers on the list being Charlamov, Tretiak and Michailov, when at least the 1970s and 1960s had so many great players outside of the NHL?

Wouldn't it be better to completely skip the guys who never played in the NHL?

It's a very Canadian list. It also, in my opinion, seems to rate guys playing pre 1990 (when the ex-Soviets started moving over to the NHL) a bit too high compared to players of the 20 last years. Perhaps the quality of the best players of the last 20 years is considered poorer than it was when Canadians dominated the NHL?


I'm sorry if I offend anyone. It's not my intention, and I do respect your knowledge. But it does seem very Canadian. About 59 of 70 players on the list are non-European, including top 11. Despite the best Europeans having showed since at least the early 1970s that they were/are basically as good as the best Canadians.

I agree with a lot that TDMM says regarding this post and the list is more accurately an NHL-centric list of which Canadian have dominated for the first 70 year with other nationalities also contributing star players in the last 30 years or so.

The NHL for better or worse has been around for nearly 100 years and provides a baseline and timeline which makes it easier to judge players than say in Europe with different leagues and levels of play.

Quite simply there is more comparable information to go on for NHL players than for players from other nations and this information for both sets of players has increased over time to today where we have a ton of information to compare players.

I for one find it extremely difficult to give an honest opinion on players I have never seen play never mind players from another context entirely.

Luckily I have seen or can evaluate most players from Europe post 1970, as this is where any top 100 players from all time would be found as I have found very little compelling evidence of players from Europe pre 1970 being worthy of consideration in a top 100 of all time list.

I voted for a top 50 Dman list but would also enjoy any other topic we decide to tackle.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It was a landslide to start a new project, rather than continue the old one.

But it looks like we're quite split on what project to start.

The votes right now:

- 9 votes for the big Top 100 project

- 11 votes for a smaller project:

- 9 of them for "by position" lists (5 G, 3 D, 1 W)
- 2 of them for a "top Europeans" list

Let's keep this poll open for awhile longer and see if we can reach something closer to a consensus. If voting trends remain as the are, we'll have to do a runoff between "the Top 100 players" and "Top 50 by position."

 

[steve141]

It was a landslide to start a new project, rather than continue the old one.

But it looks like we're quite split on what project to start.

The votes right now:

- 9 votes for the big Top 100 project

- 11 votes for a smaller project:

- 9 of them for "by position" lists (5 G, 3 D, 1 W)
- 2 of them for a "top Europeans" list

Let's keep this poll open for awhile longer and see if we can reach something closer to a consensus. If voting trends remain as the are, we'll have to do a runoff between "the Top 100 players" and "Top 50 by position."

I agree, if those seem like the most popular options we should do a vote between just the two of them.

Before that I would like to hear if there are more ideas though, and if posters have any compelling reasons to suggest one over the other. My preference was the Top 50 Goalies, but I'd probably be interested in all of the suggested projects, with the exception of the "Top Europeans in the NHL" project.

 

[Pear Juice]

As much as I'm convinced that former great Swedes such as Sven Tumba or Lennart Svedberg could have been great in the NHL. There simply isn't any basis for arguing such, except by pure speculation. I do believe that they were generational talents and likely would've been in the NHL aswell, but it's just not possible to include them in a list such as the top-100 as they never really competed on the same level as the NHL players. A couple of national games here and there simply doesn't make for a good argument.

The stars in Sweden in the 50s and 60s might've been talented, but the state of the game simply wasn't good enough for them to be considered all-time players. They benefitted greatly to the Swedish hockey scene. They truly are legends here in Sweden, and are definite top-10 players on a list of top-10 Swedish players. But I don't believe they belong on a Top-100 list.

On the topic at hand, I'd love for you to make another top-100, I enjoyed the first very much. It's what really got me interested in NHL history for starters. I'd love to chime in on some matters, but I feel unprepared to participate full-time, therefore I rest my vote.

 

[plusandminus]

At first glance, pretty much all those games involve the elite European teams (the Moscow based USSR teams and Kladno from CSSR), usually playing crappy NHL teams.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that CSKA Moscow was as good or at least almost as good as a dynasty NHL team. But the quality of the European teams falls off quickly after that.

Super series 1975-76. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Series_'76
Comments on how good the NHL teams were that season.

CSKA-Rangers 7-3 (13th, 29-42-9)
CSKA-Montreal 3-3 (1st, 58-11-11, set records in wins and point, probably one of best NHL teams ever)
CSKA-Bostron 5-2 (3rd, 48-15-17)
CSKA-Philadephia 1-4 (2nd, 51-13-16. Controversial game were Flyers played pretty ugly hockey, and CSKA having everything (away team, rink size, etc.) against them)
Record 2-1-1.

Krylia-Pittsburgh 7-4 (8th, 35-33-12)
Krylia-Buffalo 6-12 (4h, 46-21-13)
Krylia-Chicago 4-2 (10th, 32-30-18)
Krylia-Islanders 2-1 (5th, 42-21-17)
Record: 3-1-0. All NHL teams was better than .500 NHL wise and all were top 10 in the 18 team NHL.
Krylia basically played as good as a 5th placed NHL team.

CSKA wasn't even the best USSR team that season. They finished 2nd, and Krylia finished 4th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975-76_Soviet_League_season

In all the above games, the European was the away team. If home advantage is of such importance during Stanley Cup (which I think has been proven historically), I suspect it to be an even bigger factor in these cases.

What are usually the Stanley Cup champion's away record during their playoff runs? I don't know, but from what I recall they may often be as low as .500 or lower.
If the best non-NHL teams were basically equal to the best NHL teams, then their best players also might be of equal skill as the best NHL:ers.


1977-78
Kladno-Rangers 4-4 (11)
Kladno-Chicago 6-4 (8)
Kladno-Toronto 8-5 (6)
Kladno-Cleveland 3-4 15)
Record 2-1-1. Wins away against two upper half NHL teams, but also losses vs weaker teams. Everything on away ice.

Pardubice-Philadelphia 1-6 (4)
Pardubice-Detroit 4-5 (9)
Pardubice-Minnesota 4-2 (18/18)
Pardubice-Islanders 3-8 (3)
Record: 1-3. Including a 4-5 loss away vs an average NHL team.

Spartak Moscow-Vancouver 0-2 (14)
Spartak-Colorado 8-3 (13)
Spartak-St Louis 2-1 (16)
Spartak-Montreal 2-5 (1)
Spartak-Atlanta 2-1 (7)
Record: 3-2. Wins vs 7,13,16. Losses vs 1,14

Spartak finished 8th in the Soviet league!
Perhaps the 8th best Soviet league team playing away, were about equal to an average NHL team playing at home.

Not sure what this is supposed to prove. All those were good players, but top 100 players of all time? (Maybe Martinec and Maltsev... maybe).

In the tournament, on away ice, they performed basically as good as the best Canadian players did. This may indicate that the best European players were probably a little better than the average Canadian players on their team. They may only have been outperformed by the very best couple of Canadians. Also, if i remember right, the USSR didn't feature their best team.

Another thought... What if the USSR and CSSR of the 1970s were allowed to feature a combined team. Wouldn't that USSR/CSSR "all star team" probably be very competitive compared to Canada? If so, wouldn't it be a sign that the non-NHLers were pretty equal, both regarding depth and top skill?

I may be wrong here, but my impressions are that the best Europeans of the 1970s and 1980s (soviets) were at - at least - the same level as players like Trottier, Bossy, Dionne and Sakic.

I think USSR of 1970s, and CSSR, competed as well against Canada as Russia does today. Today, we can see black and white that guys like Ovechkin, Datsyuk and Malkin are top level NHL:ers. The guys of the 1960s and 1970s starred on national teams as stong as today's, but never got the chance to play in the NHL.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HC_Kladno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Hockey_Stick_(Czechoslovakia)
Suchy, Pospisill, Martinec, Holecek, Novy.
But I perhaps can't (yet) single out one and say he's a lock for top 70 alltime.


We're not having a feud. I just got interested in making a case for the non-NHL Europeans, and that I think Canadians overrate Canadians.
If you guys prefers to include non-NHL:ers, then do it. In such a list, one still can see how you think the NHL:ers compared to each other.

 

[tony d]

Top 50 goalies got my vote. After the consensus top 7 of Roy, Sawchuk, Hasek, Brodeur, Plante, Dryden and Hall the goalie rankings get cloudy. Be nice to get a consensus ranking.

 

[plusandminus]

...

Just confirming that I agree with what you write about the Swedes. (I just mentioned Svedberg anyway. Had he come around today, he might have been a top NHL player. But we don't know.)

 

[plusandminus]

Some questions...

How long time does this kind of project take? I mean, if we would start today, when might we know the top 5, top 50, top 100?

If one participates, how does it work out? When is one expected to cast votes? Does one need to be online at certain times?

 

[seventieslord]

1) It was a play on the word "messier" .. get it.. double entendre.. funny stuff

2) Not really, no.. Tony Esposito retired before I was born

I know. It was I who started said double entendre.

I think you missed out on it though, because you didn't realize that Messier actually played a ton of LW... I forget when he actually switched, but he played at least 5 NHL seasons there, and earned postseason all-star spots.

It was a landslide to start a new project, rather than continue the old one.

But it looks like we're quite split on what project to start.

The votes right now:

- 9 votes for the big Top 100 project

- 11 votes for a smaller project:

- 9 of them for "by position" lists (5 G, 3 D, 1 W)
- 2 of them for a "top Europeans" list

Let's keep this poll open for awhile longer and see if we can reach something closer to a consensus. If voting trends remain as the are, we'll have to do a runoff between "the Top 100 players" and "Top 50 by position."

I think what we'll need to do is eliminate the least popular option and have those who voted for it choose something else. Then eliminate the least popular one again, until we are down to 2. Then start one last thread where you either choose one or the other.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I think what we'll need to do is eliminate the least popular option and have those who voted for it choose something else. Then eliminate the least popular one again, until we are down to 2. Then start one last thread where you either choose one or the other.

This is a good idea, but to speed things up, I would say just group all of the "position lists" into one choice. If that ends up being the one people choose, then we can do another poll to decide which position to start with.

 

[gifted88]

How about top 20 at each position for every decade?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Some questions...

How long time does this kind of project take? I mean, if we would start today, when might we know the top 5, top 50, top 100?

If one participates, how does it work out? When is one expected to cast votes? Does one need to be online at certain times?

If it's like the process used in previous top 100 lists:

Stage 1: All participants create their initial lists. I would imagine that everyone would have about a month to do so.

Then the administrators of the project review lists and create an aggregate list from the submitted one. This would probably take a few weeks.

Stage 2: The top 10 names from the aggregate list are reported, there is about a week for discussion, then participants vote on their top 5 names. The top 5 vote getters get added to the list.

This stage takes about a week per 5 names added to the list.

It's fine if a participant missed a vote in stage 2 (though obviously everyone is encouraged to vote whenever they can), but everyone who participates in stage 2 has to submit a list (and have that list accepted*) in stage 1.

*In the past, the only reasons to reject lists were if they failed to represent all eras or all classes of players or showed an extreme bias.

This is a good idea, but to speed things up, I would say just group all of the "position lists" into one choice. If that ends up being the one people choose, then we can do another poll to decide which position to start with.

I agree. All the "position lists" are really the same choice. If we do one position this year, we'll probably do another position next year.

 

[plusandminus]

If it's like the process used in previous top 100 lists:

Stage 1: All participants create their initial lists. I would imagine that everyone would have about a month to do so.

Then the administrators of the project review lists and create an aggregate list from the submitted one. This would probably take a few weeks.

Stage 2: The top 10 names from the aggregate list are reported, there is about a week for discussion, then participants vote on their top 5 names. The top 5 vote getters get added to the list.

This stage takes about a week per 5 names added to the list.

It's fine if a participant missed a vote in stage 2 (though obviously everyone is encouraged to vote whenever they can), but everyone who participates in stage 2 has to submit a list (and have that list accepted*) in stage 1.

What happens after step 2? At that stage, the top 5 players are determined, right? Do the administrators make a new 10 name list to vote on. And then players 6-10 overall are determined. And so on?

*In the past, the only reasons to reject lists were if they failed to represent all eras or all classes of players or showed an extreme bias.

Like all being Canadians?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What happens after step 2? At that stage, the top 5 players are determined, right? Do the administrators make a new 10 name list to vote on. And then players 6-10 overall are determined. And so on?

Basically, yes.

Like all being Canadians?

Yes, that would be obvious grounds for rejection.

 

[jepjepjoo]

I'd like to see atleast a separate list for goalies. It's so different from the other positions. Maybe even G D F top50?

edit. I'd also exclude players from before WW2.

 

[seventieslord]

edit. I'd also exclude players from before WW2.

too bad, not gonna happen

 

[markrander87]

I vote we conduct a poll starting at number one of the list and have roughly 20 options to vote. Each week we will vote a spot on the list until we reach our goal. It will allow for a lot (and more organized structure) as we will have a dedicated poll/thread for each spot. Yes I know every idea has its flaw, and yes this has been done in those "other" threads but it would make for some very enjoyable discussion/results.

An example would be:

Vote and discuss for the number 1 player on the HOH top 100 list.


Bobby Orr, D
Gordie Howe, RW
Wayne Gretzky, C
Doug Harvey, D
Mario Lemieux, C
Eddie Shore, D
Bobby Hull, LW
Ray Bourque, D
Jean Beliveau, C
Denis Potvin, D
Maurice Richard, RW
Nicklas Lidstrom, D
Stan Mikita, C
Patrick Roy, G
Bryan Trottier, C
Dominik Hasek, G
Howie Morenz, C
Bobby Clarke, C
Jacques Plante, G
Red Kelly, D/C
Guy Lafleur, RW
Viacheslav Fetisov, D
Larry Robinson, D
Terry Sawchuk, G
Phil Esposito, C

(In poll format)

 

[seventieslord]

I think the voting process loses a lot of depth when we institute a system where everyone submits nothing more than a first place vote.

 

[Hardyvan123]

*In the past, the only reasons to reject lists were if they failed to represent all eras or all classes of players or showed an extreme bias.

edit. I'd also exclude players from before WW2.

I can see this as a potential problem on my list for a number of reasons and for other people as well.

People will be "slotting" in players they have never seen play and also players with less information than players in recent history as well.

Sure we can all read historical reports of players from the past but reporting hasn't always been of the same caliber and with a critical eye in hockey either.

Aslo I'm starting from a basic premise of odds with my lists the increased number of players and talent pools will have my list tilted in more recent times %wise than in say pre NHL hockey when both the quality and quantity of play and players was extremely variable.

At the end of the day everyone's list will have it's own bias and I'm afraid that many will alter their real list to pass the muster of the administrators and their tendencies.

While I bring this point up, I also have no solution to the guy that makes the list based on the last 10 years of the NHL, if this hypothetical poster is say in his late teens or something.

At the very least if a list is rejected, I think the reasons for rejection and a chance at a revised list could be an option, although it could make an already thankless task even more so.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I can see this as a potential problem on my list for a number of reasons and for other people as well.

People will be "slotting" in players they have never seen play and also players with less information than players in recent history as well.

Sure we can all read historical reports of players from the past but reporting hasn't always been of the same caliber and with a critical eye in hockey either.

Aslo I'm starting from a basic premise of odds with my lists the increased number of players and talent pools will have my list tilted in more recent times %wise than in say pre NHL hockey when both the quality and quantity of play and players was extremely variable.

At the end of the day everyone's list will have it's own bias and I'm afraid that many will alter their real list to pass the muster of the administrators and their tendencies.

While I bring this point up, I also have no solution to the guy that makes the list based on the last 10 years of the NHL, if this hypothetical poster is say in his late teens or something.

At the very least if a list is rejected, I think the reasons for rejection and a chance at a revised list could be an option, although it could make an already thankless task even more so.

This is true.

Its a problem.

But like many things in life, you need to chose between your personal integrity and "playing the game".

For me, choosing to play the game was much more fun and informative. I did change my mind on many players and feel I know a lot more about the history of the game because of it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Super series 1975-76. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Series_'76
Comments on how good the NHL teams were that season.

CSKA-Rangers 7-3 (13th, 29-42-9)
CSKA-Montreal 3-3 (1st, 58-11-11, set records in wins and point, probably one of best NHL teams ever)
CSKA-Bostron 5-2 (3rd, 48-15-17)
CSKA-Philadephia 1-4 (2nd, 51-13-16. Controversial game were Flyers played pretty ugly hockey, and CSKA having everything (away team, rink size, etc.) against them)
Record 2-1-1.

Krylia-Pittsburgh 7-4 (8th, 35-33-12)
Krylia-Buffalo 6-12 (4h, 46-21-13)
Krylia-Chicago 4-2 (10th, 32-30-18)
Krylia-Islanders 2-1 (5th, 42-21-17)
Record: 3-1-0. All NHL teams was better than .500 NHL wise and all were top 10 in the 18 team NHL.
Krylia basically played as good as a 5th placed NHL team.

CSKA wasn't even the best USSR team that season. They finished 2nd, and Krylia finished 4th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975-76_Soviet_League_season

In all the above games, the European was the away team. If home advantage is of such importance during Stanley Cup (which I think has been proven historically), I suspect it to be an even bigger factor in these cases.

What are usually the Stanley Cup champion's away record during their playoff runs? I don't know, but from what I recall they may often be as low as .500 or lower.
If the best non-NHL teams were basically equal to the best NHL teams, then their best players also might be of equal skill as the best NHL:ers.


1977-78
Kladno-Rangers 4-4 (11)
Kladno-Chicago 6-4 (8)
Kladno-Toronto 8-5 (6)
Kladno-Cleveland 3-4 15)
Record 2-1-1. Wins away against two upper half NHL teams, but also losses vs weaker teams. Everything on away ice.

Pardubice-Philadelphia 1-6 (4)
Pardubice-Detroit 4-5 (9)
Pardubice-Minnesota 4-2 (18/18)
Pardubice-Islanders 3-8 (3)
Record: 1-3. Including a 4-5 loss away vs an average NHL team.

Spartak Moscow-Vancouver 0-2 (14)
Spartak-Colorado 8-3 (13)
Spartak-St Louis 2-1 (16)
Spartak-Montreal 2-5 (1)
Spartak-Atlanta 2-1 (7)
Record: 3-2. Wins vs 7,13,16. Losses vs 1,14

Spartak finished 8th in the Soviet league!
Perhaps the 8th best Soviet league team playing away, were about equal to an average NHL team playing at home.




In the tournament, on away ice, they performed basically as good as the best Canadian players did. This may indicate that the best European players were probably a little better than the average Canadian players on their team. They may only have been outperformed by the very best couple of Canadians. Also, if i remember right, the USSR didn't feature their best team.

Another thought... What if the USSR and CSSR of the 1970s were allowed to feature a combined team. Wouldn't that USSR/CSSR "all star team" probably be very competitive compared to Canada? If so, wouldn't it be a sign that the non-NHLers were pretty equal, both regarding depth and top skill?

I may be wrong here, but my impressions are that the best Europeans of the 1970s and 1980s (soviets) were at - at least - the same level as players like Trottier, Bossy, Dionne and Sakic.

I think USSR of 1970s, and CSSR, competed as well against Canada as Russia does today. Today, we can see black and white that guys like Ovechkin, Datsyuk and Malkin are top level NHL:ers. The guys of the 1960s and 1970s starred on national teams as stong as today's, but never got the chance to play in the NHL.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HC_Kladno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Hockey_Stick_(Czechoslovakia)
Suchy, Pospisill, Martinec, Holecek, Novy.
But I perhaps can't (yet) single out one and say he's a lock for top 70 alltime.


We're not having a feud. I just got interested in making a case for the non-NHL Europeans, and that I think Canadians overrate Canadians.
If you guys prefers to include non-NHL:ers, then do it. In such a list, one still can see how you think the NHL:ers compared to each other.

This is really compelling stuff.

I remember watching the Bruins-CSKA game in 1976. Bruins outshot Soviets 20-2 (I think) in the first period. They dominated but Tretiak saved the day. After that it was all Soviets.

A year later I sat 2 rows from the ice in Hartford and watched the WHA Whalers beat the Red Army & Tretiak 5-2.

 

[plusandminus]

This is really compelling stuff.

I remember watching the Bruins-CSKA game in 1976. Bruins outshot Soviets 20-2 (I think) in the first period. They dominated but Tretiak saved the day. After that it was all Soviets.

A year later I sat 2 rows from the ice in Hartford and watched the WHA Whalers beat the Red Army & Tretiak 5-2.

Here you can see video footage from the 1972 summit games, including player biographies and more.
http://www.1972summitseries.com/index2.html
Here is a stats page: http://www.1972summitseries.com/stats.html
Guys like Yakushev, Shadrin, Kharlamov/Charlamov, Petrov and even the defenceman Liapkin proved to be as good scorers as for example Bobby Clarke.
We can say one tournament is just one tournament, but Yakushev do appear pretty equal to Esposito, and Shadrin (+7, mentioned as their best defensive fw of the tournament) to Clarke, skill wise. By the way, Shadrin played for Spartak.
We also have a guy like Maltsev, playing for Dynamo, scoring 1-2 pts per game in the Soviet league. Considered by many to be the perhaps best Soviet player ever. If one had integrated the top 8 Soviet teams into the NHL, they would likely have done as good as the Canadian teams, and a guy like Maltsev would probably be a constant Art Ross candidate, perhaps winning it a number of times. Definitely comparable to guys like Esposito (ranked 20), Clarke (ranked 21) and Lafleur (ranked 19).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Here you can see video footage from the 1972 summit games, including player biographies and more.
http://www.1972summitseries.com/index2.html
Here is a stats page: http://www.1972summitseries.com/stats.html
Guys like Yakushev, Shadrin, Kharlamov/Charlamov, Petrov and even the defenceman Liapkin proved to be as good scorers as for example Bobby Clarke.
We can say one tournament is just one tournament, but Yakushev do appear pretty equal to Esposito, and Shadrin (+7, mentioned as their best defensive fw of the tournament) to Clarke, skill wise. By the way, Shadrin played for Spartak.
We also have a guy like Maltsev, playing for Dynamo, scoring 1-2 pts per game in the Soviet league. Considered by many to be the perhaps best Soviet player ever. If one had integrated the top 8 Soviet teams into the NHL, they would likely have done as good as the Canadian teams, and a guy like Maltsev would probably be a constant Art Ross candidate, perhaps winning it a number of times. Definitely comparable to guys like Esposito (ranked 20), Clarke (ranked 21) and Lafleur (ranked 19).

I thought Esposito was clearly the best player in the tournament.

Petrov was the guy that always impressed me when I saw the Soviets play.