HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

HOH Top 100- First Round of Voting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-11-2008, 12:34 PM
  #51
amnesiac*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
If all you've got is numbers then you shouldn't be part of this. Why don't you give us reasons, based on the style of play, and how they played the game, on why Palffy is better than Neely, instead of blowing statistical smoke up my ass.

Palffy is nowhere near the HOCKEY PLAYER that Cam Neely was. Period. Palffy had good offensive numbers. But as far as being a hockey player, he's way below Neely. Neely was a better goal scorer, a more physical player, a better hitter, a better fighter, a better player along the boards, a better defensive player, and, most importantly, a much better playoff player, than Palffy. Palffy never had a playoff remotely close to Neely's in 1991. In fact, Neely's playoffs in 1990 and 1988 were far better than anything Palffy ever had.

Keep in mind, when spewing your career point per game stats, that Neely started in the league when he was 18. Not an age when most players are putting up big totals, especially power forwards, who often take a little longer to develop their offensive game. Palffy's first game was at 21, and he didn't become an NHL regular until just before his 23rd birthday. Shortly before his 23rd birthday, Neely had just finished his first second all-star team season, and he had just carried Boston to a second-round playoff upset over heavily favoured Montreal - the Bruins' first post-season series win over the Habs since 1948.

Neely wasn't in my top 100, but he's close. Palffy shouldn't be in anyone's top 300.
I agree with everything you say about Neely being the better "hockey player", but the numbers are still the numbers. Granted I wouldnt put Bernie Nicholls in a top 200 given the era he played in and players he played with, but you cant use that argument against a guy like Palffy or Mogilny for that matter.

The only reason why Im comparing him to Neely is that they both had short-lived careers, and both were great goal scorers in different eras. The physical presence is obviously one-sided, Im not debating that whatsoever.

Neely had a whopping 0.65 GPG during his peak years (86-96), and Palffy had a 0.51 GPG between (95-04). So to say Neely was "a better goal scorer", yes he was, but not so easily as you think given their scoring eras. Neely was one of the best during his era, and Palffy was one of the best during his.

And yes, the playoff argument is evidently in Neely's favour, but thats where I argue that Palffy was UNLUCKILY on a crappy Islanders and Kings team throughout his career and never had the opportunity to show what kind of playoff-performer he could have been (still had 19 pts in 24 games). Neely was LUCKILY on a Bruins team that consistently made the playoffs with great players such as Bourque and Oates, something Palffy never had.

If you really think Neely should be on a top 120 list, then Palffy sure as hell makes a top 200 let alone a top 300. You cant blame a player for playing a bad team. Last I checked hockey was a team sport.


If Jari Kurri happened to be selected 68th overall instead of 69th, would he even be on a top 100 list? I really doubt it. Lots of things to consider when making these lists. Understand that.

The number of Cups a player has is barely a credible statistic for today's 30-team NHL, and too many of these Top 100 lists are Cup-biased. Parity is A HUGE part of the game today and it MUST be considered.

Iginla, Thornton, and Alfredsson make my top 100, Ill tell you that, as laughable as that may seem to many of you. If Iginla had/has the oppotunity Glenn Anderson had (playing on a dynasty), he would probably be considered top 50 by now.


Last edited by amnesiac*: 02-11-2008 at 01:05 PM.
amnesiac* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 12:48 PM
  #52
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post

Iginla, Thornton, and Alfredsson make my top 100, Ill tell you that, as laughable as that may seem to many of you. If Iginla had/has the oppotunity Glenn Anderson had (playing on a dynasty), he would probably be considered top 50 by now.
Iginla is getting there... But I'm not sure he'll be there when his career his over. Not Top-100, yet, although he would make the Top-100 FORWARDS. Thornton wouldn't be in my Top-200, let's alone Top-100.

And when it comes down to playoffs, I fail to see why a player is lucky to be on the Bruins for any time of their history, except early-70 (even if they underachieved) and late-30, early-40 (even if they somewhat underachieved).

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 12:49 PM
  #53
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
The thing with Neely is that the earliest part of his career is often overlooked when we analyse his career as a whole. He was a dominant player... But not for very long, from 88-89 to the end of his career (roughly) .. Before this he was an efficient player laying hits, working hard, and getting his share of goals, but no more, no less (though, he was young and he had a normal developpement curve for a PF). Neely would have made my Top-100 with a few more seasons from him prime. We all know what derailed his career, but if we would work on hypothesis, well, Dickie Moore would be a shoo-in Top-50.

Neely's seasons from age 18 to age 23 shouldn't get plus-value for the sole reason that he was young.
I actually had Dickie Moore in my top 50....

Power forwards usually take longer to develop. Just look at guys like Shanahan and Iginla - they had flashes of brilliance, but never put it together consistently until their mid 20s.

Neely's first big year was 87-88. There were moments of brilliance, especially when he got to Boston. (His 87 playoff was a sign of things to come). He was terrific in 87-88, earned his first of four second team all-star births, but his best hockey that year (and some of the best hockey of his career) came in the playoffs, when he keyed the Bruins victory over Montreal in the second round.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 12:52 PM
  #54
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
I actually had Dickie Moore in my top 50....

Power forwards usually take longer to develop. Just look at guys like Shanahan and Iginla - they had flashes of brilliance, but never put it together consistently until their mid 20s.

Neely's first big year was 87-88. There were moments of brilliance, especially when he got to Boston. (His 87 playoff was a sign of things to come). He was terrific in 87-88, earned his first of four second team all-star births, but his best hockey that year (and some of the best hockey of his career) came in the playoffs, when he keyed the Bruins victory over Montreal in the second round.
He'll be there as well I guess(only Top-40 done), but not exactly as a shoo-in, if that makes sense. Heck, Moore would have rivalled (sp) Lindsay's legacy if he could only play 900 top-shape games.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 12:56 PM
  #55
amnesiac*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Iginla is getting there... But I'm not sure he'll be there when his career his over. Not Top-100, yet, although he would make the Top-100 FORWARDS. Thornton wouldn't be in my Top-200, let's alone Top-100.

And when it comes down to playoffs, I fail to see why a player is lucky to be on the Bruins for any time of their history, except early-70 (even if they underachieved) and late-30, early-40 (even if they somewhat underachieved).
Boston were still a great team in the late 80s and especially the early 90s. Of course Neely contributed to that, and Im not saying he played on dynasty or anything, BUT he did have a lot of opportunity to play in the playoffs in a 21-team NHL, which cant be said for many of today's players in a parity riddled 30-team NHL.

9 more teams and a salary cap makes all the difference in the world.

Thornton is still one of the best playmakers the game has ever seen. I agree that hes been absent in the playoffs, and hes due to get a decent Sharks team further than theyve gone. In his defense, though, the Sharks D has never been very good, and to win in today's NHL you need that more than anything.


Last edited by amnesiac*: 02-11-2008 at 01:03 PM.
amnesiac* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 01:10 PM
  #56
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post
Boston were still a great team in the late 80s and especially the early 90s. Of course Neely contributed to that, and Im not saying he played on dynasty or anything, BUT he did have a lot of opportunity to play in the playoffs in a 21-team NHL, which cant be said for many of today's players in a parity riddled 30-team NHL.

9 more teams and a salary cap makes all the difference in the world.

Thornton is still one of the best playmakers the game has ever seen. I agree that hes been absent in the playoffs, and hes due to get a decent Sharks team further than theyve gone. In his defense, though, the Sharks D has never been very good, and to win in today's NHL you need that more than anything.
Carolina won the Stanley Cup in 2006 with a defence that, based on personel, would best be described as mediocre. But the defence's sum was better than its parts, and that is what's most important. Frantisek Kabarle might be the worst No. 1 defenceman on a Cup champion in history, but I'd rather have a defence that plays great as a collective unit with Frantisek Kabarle as the No. 1 defenceman, than a stacked defence that never gels.

Thornton has no place in the top 100. Not with his playoff record. It's not as bad as some would have you believe, but I can't put guys like Thornton or Selanne in my top 100 (or top 120), with their post-season track record, especially now that non-NHL and European stars are eligible.

Those Boston teams in the late 80s and early 90s were usually pretty shallow squads. They had Thornton, Bourque, Moog and not much else. Especially in 1990 and 1991. In 1990, it really showed when they went up against a deep, well-rounded Edmonton squad. Boston probably wins the Cup in 1991 if not for Neely's injury - after the Samuelsson knee, the entire complexion of that series changed, and you saw how little depth Boston had up front beyond Neely.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 01:17 PM
  #57
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
I think Thornton will be a lock in the future but at this point he's just a player with three great seasons and some so-so ones. Same thing with Iginla.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 01:38 PM
  #58
Pwnasaurus
Registered User
 
Pwnasaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Robot City
Country: United States
Posts: 5,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
I can't put guys like...Selanne in my top 100 (or top 120), with their post-season track record, especially now that non-NHL and European stars are eligible.
It's not all that bad...ppg with Winnipeg and some big goals in the Ducks run last year most notably the OT winner vs Detroit..but yeah he's never carried a team or anything.

Pwnasaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 02:11 PM
  #59
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pwnasaurus View Post
It's not all that bad...ppg with Winnipeg and some big goals in the Ducks run last year most notably the OT winner vs Detroit..but yeah he's never carried a team or anything.
That point-per-game with Winnipeg came in one six game series against Vancouver in 1993. Not much of a sample size, and it came on the heels of a record-setting regular season. A lot of people expected a lot more.

And as someone who watched that series, Selanne was really a factor in only one game: Game 3 in Winnipeg, when he had a hat trick. Outside of that, not much to write home about, especially for a player of his calibre.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 02:14 PM
  #60
amnesiac*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Carolina won the Stanley Cup in 2006 with a defence that, based on personel, would best be described as mediocre. But the defence's sum was better than its parts, and that is what's most important. Frantisek Kabarle might be the worst No. 1 defenceman on a Cup champion in history, but I'd rather have a defence that plays great as a collective unit with Frantisek Kabarle as the No. 1 defenceman, than a stacked defence that never gels.

Thornton has no place in the top 100. Not with his playoff record. It's not as bad as some would have you believe, but I can't put guys like Thornton or Selanne in my top 100 (or top 120), with their post-season track record, especially now that non-NHL and European stars are eligible.

Those Boston teams in the late 80s and early 90s were usually pretty shallow squads. They had Thornton, Bourque, Moog and not much else. Especially in 1990 and 1991. In 1990, it really showed when they went up against a deep, well-rounded Edmonton squad. Boston probably wins the Cup in 1991 if not for Neely's injury - after the Samuelsson knee, the entire complexion of that series changed, and you saw how little depth Boston had up front beyond Neely.
You mean Oates? To say Boston would have won the Cup had Neely been there is a little bold, but it did make a huge difference, no doubt.

Cam Ward was Carolina's best "defenseman" that year, his Conn Smythe proved that. Their D was mediocre, but Ward got them there almost single handedly, something Nabokov would almost have to do at this point given the Sharks' poor D. Look at each SC finals team since 2000, they almost all had brilliant goaltending or defense:

Anaheim: Giguere 03, Defense 07
Ottawa: Defense
Edmonton: Roloson and D
Carolina: Ward
Calgary: Defense and Kipper
Detroit: Defense
New Jersey: Defense and Marty
Dallas: Defense

You just dont win with a great offense in today's NHL. Oilers dynasties are a thing of the past.

Thornton is due, theres no doubt, but he still has time to prove himself too. Not all the great players lead their team to a cup in their first 5 even 10 years (Lemieux, Lafleur, Sakic, Yzerman).

amnesiac* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 02:15 PM
  #61
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,943
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp View Post
I'd love to see the guidelines for what constitutes a "credible list."
Its pretty simple. They will exclude anyone who very obviously ignored an era.

For example, someone who started watching hockey in the 70's who did not vote for anyone pre 1970, or had very few players from pre 1970.

Its a history of Hockey top 100 greatest players list. People who do not have a good base knowledge of the older Era's, the way the game was played etc, might just look at point totals and think "this player doesn't compare", when In reality, Howe's 95 point season in 1953 was basically a 160+ point season if he had played in the 80's, etc etc

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 02:18 PM
  #62
amnesiac*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
Its pretty simple. They will exclude anyone who very obviously ignored an era.

For example, someone who started watching hockey in the 70's who did not vote for anyone pre 1970, or had very few players from pre 1970.

Its a history of Hockey top 100 greatest players list. People who do not have a good base knowledge of the older Era's, the way the game was played etc, might just look at point totals and think "this player doesn't compare", when In reality, Howe's 95 point season in 1953 was basically a 160+ point season if he had played in the 80's, etc etc
Whats tough is comparing the pre 1940s-50s players. Id put the top 10 or so around 40-60 (with some exceptions like Morenz who would be higher), but how do you compare guys whove played 300-400 career NHL games with those whove played 1200+?

amnesiac* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 03:03 PM
  #63
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post
Whats tough is comparing the pre 1940s-50s players. Id put the top 10 or so around 40-60 (with some exceptions like Morenz who would be higher), but how do you compare guys whove played 300-400 career NHL games with those whove played 1200+?
Easily. You judge how they dominated their era relative to the guy who played 1200 games.


BTW, did I miss a post in the past few days about this being a total global effort? I was under the impression that it was NHL-only, and I made my list accordingly.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 03:06 PM
  #64
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,943
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post
Whats tough is comparing the pre 1940s-50s players. Id put the top 10 or so around 40-60 (with some exceptions like Morenz who would be higher), but how do you compare guys whove played 300-400 career NHL games with those whove played 1200+?
Where greatness applies in HOH polls like this generally will fall unto how much they dominated their peers and personal opinion on how they did with the set of rules they had + the way the game was played.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 03:07 PM
  #65
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,109
vCash: 500
OK, I just went back and read the OP again. Not sure when this changed. I was sure that at some point someone decided that this was going to begin just as an NHL top-100 only.

HO, you can scrap my list. I will be adding in at least 10 international and pre-NHL players to the existing list while dropping about 10 off the bottom.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 03:10 PM
  #66
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,943
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
OK, I just went back and read the OP again. Not sure when this changed. I was sure that at some point someone decided that this was going to begin just as an NHL top-100 only.

HO, you can scrap my list. I will be adding in at least 10 international and pre-NHL players to the existing list while dropping about 10 off the bottom.
Ill assume Cyclone Tailor + several Russians make that 10

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 03:18 PM
  #67
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post
Whats tough is comparing the pre 1940s-50s players. Id put the top 10 or so around 40-60 (with some exceptions like Morenz who would be higher), but how do you compare guys whove played 300-400 career NHL games with those whove played 1200+?
Games played is overrated. Career numbers in general are overrated, especially in the regular season.

There are quite a few pre-06 guys who are locks for this list. Not just Morenz and Shore. Guys like Charlie Conacher and Bill Cook have to be on any list. Joe Primeau, Busher Jackson, Aurel Joliat, the list goes on.

And there are more from the early O6 days. Any list without Milt Schmidt in the top 50 should be trashed. Max Bentley was in my top 35. Three Cup rings, close to a point-per-game from late 40s and early 50s in the playoffs, and some big offensive seasons. Possibly the best stick-handler of all-time, and one of the best clutch offensive players of all-time.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 03:28 PM
  #68
Wings4Life
Registered User
 
Wings4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ov Steamrolls Jagr!
Posts: 2,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post
Whats tough is comparing the pre 1940s-50s players. Id put the top 10 or so around 40-60 (with some exceptions like Morenz who would be higher), but how do you compare guys whove played 300-400 career NHL games with those whove played 1200+?

I had the exact same problem. For some players, the sample size is way too small (ie 3-4 playoff series).

Wings4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 03:35 PM
  #69
ck26
7,709 miles & runnin
 
ck26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Coyotes Bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 6,862
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
Ill assume Cyclone Tailor + several Russians make that 10
Not as good as his friend, Cyclone Taylor. I wouldn't rate Tailor higher than 250 or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post
Whats tough is comparing the pre 1940s-50s players. Id put the top 10 or so around 40-60 (with some exceptions like Morenz who would be higher), but how do you compare guys whove played 300-400 career NHL games with those whove played 1200+?
Simple longevity itself is waaaay overrated. How is a player who played a 44-game season suppposed to put up the career stats of someone who played 84? His only choice is to play 34-40 seasons. Ouch.

Mike Gartner out-scored Mike Bossy in all 3 stats. Gartner better?

In a few cases of simply absurd longevity (Howe, Chelios) or absurd short-gevity (Lindros), I let it push a player up or down a few slots, but otherwise, you really can't punish someone for playing fewer games.

It would be one thing for a 20-year NHL player in the 80's and 90's to only have 18 career playoff games, but for someone who played 12 years back in the 30's and 40's, I can't fault them for that.

ck26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 05:30 PM
  #70
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
Just submitted my list. There were about a half dozen or so players that were really painful to leave off but at this point messing around with it is counterproductive.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 05:53 PM
  #71
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,943
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottonking View Post
Not as good as his friend, Cyclone Taylor. I wouldn't rate Tailor higher than 250 or so.Simple longevity itself is waaaay overrated. How is a player who played a 44-game season suppposed to put up the career stats of someone who played 84? His only choice is to play 34-40 seasons. Ouch.

Mike Gartner out-scored Mike Bossy in all 3 stats. Gartner better?

In a few cases of simply absurd longevity (Howe, Chelios) or absurd short-gevity (Lindros), I let it push a player up or down a few slots, but otherwise, you really can't punish someone for playing fewer games.

It would be one thing for a 20-year NHL player in the 80's and 90's to only have 18 career playoff games, but for someone who played 12 years back in the 30's and 40's, I can't fault them for that.
You are taking Longevity to the extreme with this argument.

When I think Longevity, I Look at it more on a "Ray Bourque" or "Nik Lidstrom" kind of way when Considering Longevity. Guys who were able to not only play for long periods of time, but remain top players in their position, always fighting for that #1 spot.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 06:16 PM
  #72
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Just submitted my list. There were about a half dozen or so players that were really painful to leave off but at this point messing around with it is counterproductive.
I know. The non-NHL factor forced me to remove about 15 guys who would have otherwise made the list. Toughest removal was likely Bryan Hextall Sr. - a former Cup champ, a three-time first-team all-star and Art Ross winner who played a tough, physical game. Also the patriarch of one of hockey's great families, likely the best for the Prairies.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 07:03 PM
  #73
amnesiac*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Is there really that many hockey players to consider outside of the NHL?

Tretiak, Fetisov, Kharlamov, Mikhailov.... who else was really that good?

amnesiac* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 07:57 PM
  #74
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Is there really that many hockey players to consider outside of the NHL?

Tretiak, Fetisov, Kharlamov, Mikhailov.... who else was really that good?
Taylor, Firsov, Holecek, Vasiliev, Suchy, Yakushev, etc. Not to mention all the players who eventually played in the NHL but had their best prime years outside the NHL (i.e. Makarov, Nedomansky, etc)


In regards to this whole reviewing of all the lists to make sure they're credible, I don't think we need to get too anal about it. I think the only reasons for rejecting a list should be:

- Any Rory Fitzpatrick-type joke voting
- Any obvious bias against a certain player (imagine where Gretzky would rank on a chooch list)
- Completely ignoring everything from before you were born (or conversely, an old-timer refusing to pick any current or recent players).


Sorry GBC, but I don't think rating Schmidt lower than #50 is grounds for tossing a list. We're all going to have a certain player or two rated lower on our list than everyone else does. That's just the nature of things.

I'd like to see this start soon. I don't know if we really need to forward the lists to somebody else to review them before we start. Personally I think Hockey Outsider is one of the more credible posters here, and I've never seen him let any personal preferences or biases show in anything he posted here, so if he thinks a list is legit then that's good enough for me.

I do agree with extending the deadline though because there's a lot of ATD guys and others who haven't voted yet. Should we start sending PMs reminding people who have mentioned earlier that they wanted to be a part of this?


Last edited by reckoning: 02-11-2008 at 08:21 PM.
reckoning is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 07:59 PM
  #75
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
I had 11 players from outside of North America (aside from players who made their name in the NHL) plus two more that were tough to keep off the list. There were also a couple more who pre-dated the NHL.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.