HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time
View Single Post
12-09-2013, 06:10 PM
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Originally Posted by
Well, if you went through the "career span" listings from earlier projects with a fine tooth comb, I'm sure you noticed that Lundqvist and Lidstrom had their SEL years treated the same as I am treating Forsberg's. Any particular reason you have yet to mention that fact?
I conceded the point about Modo once you said you would fix Belfour:
Originally Posted by
And you don't want to give non-Iron Curtain players credit for European leagues. Fine.
The circumstances here were different, considering
he played his first game in a senior league two years before he was NHL-eligible
, and an NHL team was actively trying to get him to leave his country while he was holding out specifically for the Olympics,
Lundqvist and Lidstrom were already NHL-eligible 18-year-olds when they played their first senior league game in Sweden. It's not nearly as analogous as you're saying (hence why I drew the parallel to Hasek, who received credit in his career listing for games as a non-NHL-eligible teenager) - but
you already stated that the error was
Belfour's year in a second-tier Swedish league
because you said
Swedish league games should have been included in the first place.
After that, I basically just rattled off every other name that fit that same scenario of post-NHL play in other leagues or minimal play
in their final years
that would also need to be fixed because they are no longer compatible with the new rule.
Originally Posted by
Anyway, if I wasn't clear before, I copied the career spans for the defenseman and goalies lists from other sources (FissionFire's top 100 list when applicable, hockey reference, or wikipedia). Most sources list a player's full final season, not the calendar year he retired. So if he retired in the first half of the year, that would explain most of the discrepancies you listed.
The centers project is the first time I've actually tried to pay attention to accuracy there.
Okay, I accept that. Let's only look at this project.
Lemieux and Mikita are easy mistakes to make, so perhaps they were just errors, but you still haven't given a consistent reason for originally not wanting to include Forsberg's 2007-08 (which you now include - only because of the 2010 Olympics). I think it's a good idea to figure out why that was, should the circumstances arise in a future player. Again, he played more in 2008 than Trottier did in 1994 and he hadn't missed a season in-between like Boucher did. What was the motivation behind the original decision?
Here's what I gather thus far: Junior games don't count. Professional games in non-NHL leagues don't count at the end of the career. Professional games in non-NHL leagues don't count at the beginning of the career unless it is an Iron Curtain situation - at which point all of them count, even pre-18.
World Championships don't count.
Olympics, WHA, NHA, IHPL, and PCHA count. Federal Amateur Hockey League counts. Canadian American Hockey League does not count.
NHL counts sometimes:
Frank Boucher's 18 games in 1937-38 count.
Frank Boucher's 15 games in 1943-44 don't count.
Stan Mikita's 17 games in 1979-80 count.
Bryan Trottier's 11 games in the calendar year of 1994 count.
Peter Forsberg's 16 games in the calendar year of 2008 wouldn't have counted.
Stan Mikita's 17 games in the beginning of 1979-80 count for 1980.
Mario Lemieux's 26 games in the beginning of 2005-06 count for 2006.
Joe Sakic's 15 games in the beginning of 2008-09 only count for 2008.
Henri Richard's 16 games in the beginning of 1974-75 only count for 1974.
Newsy Lalonde's single game in 1926-27 counts for 1927.
Peter Forsberg's two games in 2011 don't count.
It just seems like the overkill applied to Frank Boucher and Peter Forsberg in the last two rounds was not applied evenly. And in the case of Forsberg - with all of this being a major issue in the discussion part of the project - saying that it was "consistent" or what FissionFire would have listed is certainly not going to diffuse the situation, because neither are really true. I just want less subjectivity in assessing career lengths
so I can be less of an ***
about something that comes across as an unnecessary slight.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by quoipourquoi