I agree but it's pretty obvious with Sid, Jonathan and Drew on Scottys list, he must be using some projection here don't you think?
But that can be a dangerous way of thinking. I remember before lists like these became fashionable and they did the 1998 list with The Hockey News of top 50 players. Jagr was at #37 or something like that. Some people couldn't understand why Lindros wasn't there. It was generally agreed that he was going to be a staple on these future lists someday. Little did they know Lindros didn't do a whole lot after 1998 to add to his career and is far from a top 50 overall player. Jagr on the other hand was a bit too premature in early 1998 to be voted that high as well. Luckily for him he projected as many expected. I guess my point is you never know when a player's career is going to get derailed.
I noticed too late that I was on hfboards from googling about Bowman but in the middle of this I thought I was responding to a recent thread, so sorry about the useless bump.
This list was obviously ridiculous but there's some value into it , like how he ranked players that he coached , and especially those he coached on the same team.
For exemple , someone who tries to argue that Crosby is a top 20 player all-time wouldn't be taken seriously if he used the Bowman list as support , but someone who wants to make a case for Savard ahead of Robinson could use the list as an argument supporter.
I mean Bowman just went out and ranked Savard ahead of Robinson publicly.That should means something somehow even though I still rank Robinson ahead of Savard.Basically what I'm saying is that Bowman's approach to comparing players from different teams/eras is deeply flawed , but knowing the subtleties of this approach isn't required when comparing players he had on his own bench at the same time.
Last edited by BenchBrawl: 06-03-2014 at 10:37 PM.