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 70 Players of All Time (2009)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-05-2012, 07:45 AM
  #501
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
I'm planning on having the next installment of this happen in 2013, which will mark 5 years since the first 2008 list. Seems like twice per decade would be a good timeframe. All the original data and spreadsheets were lost on my old laptop (RIP) but I've been able to recreate most of it so far. With my graduation set for December my schedule should open up alot after that. I'll be posting more updates down the road but just wanted to give everyone a heads up this project is tentatively slated to start up again in 8-12 months with the next update.
There is currently a project underway to rank all players by position. Defensemen have already been done, with goalies up next. I think a great time to rank all players together would be after each position has been done.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 07:50 AM
  #502
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
There is currently a project underway to rank all players by position. Defensemen have already been done, with goalies up next. I think a great time to rank all players together would be after each position has been done.
Good point. How long is it going to take to get the project ready on the by position?

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 10:34 AM
  #503
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Good point. How long is it going to take to get the project ready on the by position?
I didn't realize FF was planning on resurrecting this project himself, so I was assuming we'd do a project a year until we got back to updating this one.

Goalies is happening this summer. Then the earliest I can see forwards being done is next spring, but seems like a lot of people wanted to divide forwards by position.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 10:48 AM
  #504
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I didn't realize FF was planning on resurrecting this project himself, so I was assuming we'd do a project a year until we got back to updating this one.

Goalies is happening this summer. Then the earliest I can see forwards being done is next spring, but seems like a lot of people wanted to divide forwards by position.
I am a big advocate of this...Do 30 of each wing and 50-60 for center. We can probably do at least one of the three in the fall/winter before ATD 2013 starts.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 01:40 PM
  #505
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 500
If that's the case then it seems like 2014 or 2015 is the more likely timeframe for this, especially if each forward position is done independently.

My 2 cents on the forward thing would be to group them all together. Too many players don't really fit under a single designation, especially when you get to more recent times. Some players spend equal amounts of time at center and wing over their career. Others flip between LW and RW depending on linemates within a single season even. Seems like it would be an incredible time sink to try and force versatile forwards into a single arbitrary designation. Or do you try to split up their careers and take their accomplishments at each position independently? A perfect example of this are guys like Sid Abel or Alex Delvecchio, who may or may not make either list depending how deep it goes. How do you decide which position they should belong to when they spent significant time at both C and W. Wouldn't forcing them into a single position penalize them for their versatility? Sort of like how forcing Red Kelly to be categorized as a D or C would penalize him for being able to perform at both at elite levels. But then if you break these guys careers down into separate parts for when they played at each position you lessen their overall career significantly. Forwards just seem like a group where it's too complex to try and force players into C, RW, or LW especially when most of the ones on the list will have spent time at more than one spot.

Just my 2 cents.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 01:59 PM
  #506
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
If that's the case then it seems like 2014 or 2015 is the more likely timeframe for this, especially if each forward position is done independently.

My 2 cents on the forward thing would be to group them all together. Too many players don't really fit under a single designation, especially when you get to more recent times. Some players spend equal amounts of time at center and wing over their career. Others flip between LW and RW depending on linemates within a single season even. Seems like it would be an incredible time sink to try and force versatile forwards into a single arbitrary designation. Or do you try to split up their careers and take their accomplishments at each position independently? A perfect example of this are guys like Sid Abel or Alex Delvecchio, who may or may not make either list depending how deep it goes. How do you decide which position they should belong to when they spent significant time at both C and W. Wouldn't forcing them into a single position penalize them for their versatility? Sort of like how forcing Red Kelly to be categorized as a D or C would penalize him for being able to perform at both at elite levels. But then if you break these guys careers down into separate parts for when they played at each position you lessen their overall career significantly. Forwards just seem like a group where it's too complex to try and force players into C, RW, or LW especially when most of the ones on the list will have spent time at more than one spot.

Just my 2 cents.
nope, just consider their whole body of work, and then decide which position to slot them into.

For 99% of players it is obvious which position we would consider them. The remaining 1% with a near 50/50 career split would need more analysis to decide. They might be the tricky ones, but compared to the rest of the research that goes into this, it's really nothing.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 02:04 PM
  #507
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,881
vCash: 500
Agreed

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
nope, just consider their whole body of work, and then decide which position to slot them into.

For 99% of players it is obvious which position we would consider them. The remaining 1% with a near 50/50 career split would need more analysis to decide. They might be the tricky ones, but compared to the rest of the research that goes into this, it's really nothing.
Agreed plus in such instances the process of research and study only serves to enhance the appreciation of such players.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 09:07 PM
  #508
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
nope, just consider their whole body of work, and then decide which position to slot them into.

For 99% of players it is obvious which position we would consider them. The remaining 1% with a near 50/50 career split would need more analysis to decide. They might be the tricky ones, but compared to the rest of the research that goes into this, it's really nothing.
I agree here and to be fair to the players involved we should consider designating, by vote or otherwise, players that might be considered at more than 1 position so everyone is on the same page in their thinking before we start the forwards.

Just my 2 cents on it.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 01:07 AM
  #509
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I didn't realize FF was planning on resurrecting this project himself, so I was assuming we'd do a project a year until we got back to updating this one.

Goalies is happening this summer. Then the earliest I can see forwards being done is next spring, but seems like a lot of people wanted to divide forwards by position.
I'd be with this. There is not too many guys that are split between W/C so it should not be too big of a problem to decide where to put them.

So, goalies go this summer. Are you, TDMM, going to be the force behind this?

I reckon it should be doable to have forwards done by the end of 2013? Or early in the 2014?

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 10:19 AM
  #510
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,732
vCash: 500
The quote function appears to be broken right now.

Anyway, I plan on being involved in administering the goalie project, yes. After that, if FF has more time, I welcome his involvement. The biggest improvement in administering that we made recently was to upload all the files to a yahoo address and to allow 2 admins (for defensemen, it was overpass and me; for goalies it will probably be vecens24 and me) access to all of them. Makes it so the project doesn't lose anything when the admin's hard drive breaks.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 01:36 PM
  #511
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The quote function appears to be broken right now.

Anyway, I plan on being involved in administering the goalie project, yes. After that, if FF has more time, I welcome his involvement. The biggest improvement in administering that we made recently was to upload all the files to a yahoo address and to allow 2 admins (for defensemen, it was overpass and me; for goalies it will probably be vecens24 and me) access to all of them. Makes it so the project doesn't lose anything when the admin's hard drive breaks.
All right.

I have no intention to participate in the actual voting of projects. Since i dont have enough knowledge on history of hockey. But i am keen on learning more. So, probably going to hang around the time you are making the all-time lists by position. Maybe i will catch up enough to have an real opinion in 2013-2014.

Try to be patient with me and tell me if i am getting annoying.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 01:49 PM
  #512
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
I think its safe to say that all of the great Soviet players played mostly with other great Soviet players. While the 5 man unit Makarov played on was perhaps the best, you are correct in stating that its not a huge gap to the other great Soviet units. It makes me wonder, if the USSR did not fall apart how good would the Federov, Bure, Mogilny, Konstantinov, ?(maybe Gonchar, Kasparaitis) unit have been.
i think that would be the best unit.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 08:54 AM
  #513
Blitzburgh87*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,647
vCash: 500
Lemieux>Howe

Blitzburgh87* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 09:36 AM
  #514
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzburgh87 View Post
Lemieux>Howe
Why?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 10:01 AM
  #515
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzburgh87 View Post
Lemieux>Howe
Because of the logical law of transposition?

I. Mario is arguably better than Gretzky*
II. Gretzky is arguably better than Howe
so,
III. Mario is arguably better than Howe.

*gawd, Lemieux fans have been arguing this since he was drafted

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2012, 06:28 PM
  #516
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=669817

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
Lemieux-Gretzky-anybody is in the conversation of best line of all time.
I knew somebody would bring this up. And that brings up another point. In the 1987 CC three game series, considered by many to be the greatest hockey exhibition of all time, all three games decided by one goal (two went into OT), and Canada ended up winning 2-1. I'm going to ignore "the Koharsky aspect" for the time being. I hope everybody agrees that this was a very close contest.

Now. Gretzky is #1 in the Top 70 list, Lemieux is #4, Bourque is #10, Messier is #22, Coffey is #46. The only Russian players in that list are Fetisov at #33 and Makarov at #61. Shouldn't this be a little closer, given the close nature of these three games? You can, of course, argue that the Russian team was more than the sum of its parts, but still, shouldn't the Russian players be ranked higher? Hell, Team USSR had Mylnikov and Belosheikin in goal!

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2012, 07:59 PM
  #517
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
I knew somebody would bring this up. And that brings up another point. In the 1987 CC three game series, considered by many to be the greatest hockey exhibition of all time, all three games decided by one goal (two went into OT), and Canada ended up winning 2-1. I'm going to ignore "the Koharsky aspect" for the time being. I hope everybody agrees that this was a very close contest.

Now. Gretzky is #1 in the Top 70 list, Lemieux is #4, Bourque is #10, Messier is #22, Coffey is #46. The only Russian players in that list are Fetisov at #33 and Makarov at #61. Shouldn't this be a little closer, given the close nature of these three games? You can, of course, argue that the Russian team was more than the sum of its parts, but still, shouldn't the Russian players be ranked higher? Hell, Team USSR had Mylnikov and Belosheikin in goal!
Fetisov's stock seemed to increase just a bit during the 2011 defenseman project (swapping places with Robinson).

Agreed that Makarov is much too low.

Krutov has a peak worthy of a top 100 player, but his sudden and complete fall from grace when removed from the Soviet system raises serious questions

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2012, 08:08 PM
  #518
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Fetisov's stock seemed to increase just a bit during the 2011 defenseman project (swapping places with Robinson).

Agreed that Makarov is much too low.

Krutov has a peak worthy of a top 100 player, but his sudden and complete fall from grace when removed from the Soviet system raises serious questions
I recently watched the 87 CC again and was once again struck by how talented Makarov was.. he should be in the Hall.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2012, 08:13 PM
  #519
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
What about Larionov, Kasatonov, Semak, Kamensky, and Bykov? Otherwise isn't it odd that a team of NHL all-time greats barely squeaked by a bunch of nobodies?

All in all, in history of USSR/Russia vs. Canada games, there were only two blowouts: 1981 and 2010 (and both of them were single-game eliminations, so they might have been closer in a 3 or 7 game series). Every contest was reasonably close. Yet every "all-time great" list is mostly Canadian, with sporadic inclusions of other nations. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2012, 08:18 PM
  #520
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
What about Larionov, Kasatonov, Semak, Kamensky, and Bykov? Otherwise isn't it odd that a team of NHL all-time greats barely squeaked by a bunch of nobodies?

All in all, in history of USSR/Russia vs. Canada games, there were only two blowouts: 1981 and 2010 (and both of them were single-game eliminations, so they might have been closer in a 3 or 7 game series). Every contest was reasonably close. Yet every "all-time great" list is mostly Canadian, with sporadic inclusions of other nations. Doesn't make sense, does it?
Considering hockey is over 100 years old and for the majority of that time, nobody could touch Canada, yes it does make sense. If you want to pull the "Canada is overrated card," keep it to a comparison of names who played after 1970, which is about when the USSR and CSSR really became competitive

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2012, 08:20 PM
  #521
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Krutov has a peak worthy of a top 100 player, but his sudden and complete fall from grace when removed from the Soviet system raises serious questions
Change in the lifestyle should not be completely ignored. No one can tell how the famed NHL stars would do in the Soviet system. Some NHLers did not do so well in Russian league during the lockout, but I don't think that tarnished their legacy. Hell, Messier had a problem adjusting to Vancouver . Krutov was a beast in his peak years and in his environment. Mogilny had problems adjusting to the NHL in the beginning, but he was young and came together in time.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2012, 08:25 PM
  #522
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Considering hockey is over 100 years old and for the majority of that time, nobody could touch Canada, yes it does make sense. If you want to pull the "Canada is overrated card," keep it to a comparison of names who played after 1970, which is about when the USSR and CSSR really became competitive
I'd start from the 50s (Bobrov, Firsov, etc.). If somebody could make the adjusted list, it would be good to look at where would the Russians, Czechs, and Swedes be.

I'm not saying "Canada is overrated" or that there should be more Russians than Canadians in the list. But given the all-star rosters and close nature of every contest, one would expect the "best of" lists to be close as well. With the demigod status of Gretzky and Lemieux, how do Canadians account for them barely beating the Soviets (khem-khem-Koharsky...)? Is it just that the Soviet lines practiced together year round?


Last edited by Sentinel: 08-05-2012 at 08:31 PM.
Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2012, 08:37 PM
  #523
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
I'd start from the 50s (Bobrov, Firsov, etc.). If somebody could make the adjusted list, it would be good to look at where would the Russians, Czechs, and Swedes be.
When Bobrov played in the 50s, the Soviets regularly lost to teams full Canadian amateurs who weren't even good enough to play in the NHL. I'm sure there were Soviets good enough to be very good NHLers in the 60s, but IMO Firsov (who peaked around 1970) was the first Soviet player who would be a superstar in the NHL

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2012, 08:38 PM
  #524
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
Yet every "all-time great" list is mostly Canadian, with sporadic inclusions of other nations. Doesn't make sense, does it?
TDMM is correct about the reason why this is the case: Canada dominated hockey up until the 70s.

We were winning medals and World Championships in the 50s and 60s with what were intermediate teams here.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2012, 08:49 PM
  #525
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Canada team could have had better or more high talent but lose or have a hard time winning againts a more coesive team. Also the all time great have to be in their prime to count during the event.

Canada 1998 had a better player all time wise than Hasek in Gretzky, but Gretzky was no Jagr or Lindros back then.

In a game that a country need to present only one team, the country just need 6 all star forward, 4 defencemen and a great goaltender to win, American dominance in basketball or baseball is not always show in international competition for those reason. Canada will be the only nation with all time great (top-100 player) not choose for the team, like Sakic, Yzeman, Roy for the canada cup.

Some event were closer for those reason (Hull, Howe and mainly Orr not present in the 72 series, 3 player in lot of people top 5 with 2 in their prime)

MadLuke 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 01:00 AM.

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.