The outcry over the NHL’s list of the 100 greatest players in league history – revealed Friday as part of all-star weekend in Los Angeles – was as predictable as the sun rising in the east and your taxes being due in April. As soon as the league released the full list of names (none of which were ranked, thankfully) the social media universe exploded with anger.
Now, don’t get me wrong, nobody appreciates a good angry rant more than me. And there were omissions/inclusions that blew my mind, too. But let’s be clear – the discussion surrounding the top 100 list wasn’t an indication the NHL had failed. Rather, it’s an inevitable result of the subjectivity of the process – and the ferocious reaction is exactly what the league should want: a passionate debate that engages a fan base and draws more people into the mix.
The idea that any list is going to please everyone is naive, to say the least. And you really come to understand that when you work for an entity like The Hockey News, as I did for some 13 years. For instance, as an editor, writer and columnist, I was part of the group that helped determine the annual 100 People of Power and Influence issue – an edition that many people inside the industry (a) waited anxiously at their mailboxes (remember those?) for; and (b) lobbied vigorously to be included on.
I’m not joking about either of those things. Leading up to the issue’s publication date, I would hear from a slew of very recognizable names who’d either drop hints or flat-out make the case for themselves to be on the list. And almost immediately after the issue was finalized and went to the printer’s (remember those?), I’d get an earful from former players, broadcasters, player agents and others within the business practically beside themselves with outrage over one perceived slight or another. If they weren’t on the list at all, they were incensed; if a rival or an enemy was slotted in a higher position than they were, their fury was palpable.
In many cases, I agreed with them. There were some people who made the list over the years I thought never should’ve been in the top 500, let alone the top 100. I did my best to explain why when we had editorial department meetings, but because it wasn’t my list, I had no ultimate say over the end result. And ultimately, I was fine with that. To achieve consensus as a group, you have to have a degree of flexibility.
The same goes for the Top 100 NHLers, which were selected by a 58-person panel of former players, league executives and veteran media members. Those panelists are from different eras, have had different experiences, value different elements of a player’s on-ice contributions. It was only natural, then, that certain players were going to get squeezed out of the list.
And while I was shocked that players like Joe Thornton, Dale Hawerchuk, Evgeni Malkin and Jarome Iginla (among others) didn’t make the cut, I also understand that their inclusion would’ve resulted in four other very good players not making it, which would’ve resulted in fans of those stars feeling slighted. This is one of those cases where the cliche of being honored just to be considered actually applies, and I’m sure that, while the players who weren’t on the list would’ve liked to have been on it, they also won’t stay up in the wee hours of every morning for the rest of their days haunted by their exclusion.
The bottom line for the Top 100 list is this: it’s a marketing tool that helps connect generations of hockey fans, and it’s fun to argue about and compare your perspective on to those of your friends and peers. But pretending there’s one single, objective list that’s been passed down from a mountain on ten stone tablets is silly. It’s impossible to fairly and accurately compare eras of the sport, and the reality is, a league that’s a century old is going to have far more than 100 terrific competitors.
Again, I can’t stress enough that fans and media should be putting forth their best arguments for players they believe in. But it’s the notion some hold that the people voting had to be out of their gourds to not be in lockstep agreement with them that takes things too far for me.
If you believe the game is an art form – and in the most important ways, I do – you have to acknowledge that art is subjective, and that consumers of art are always going to have their differences. That – and not the effort to humiliate someone who doesn’t share your opinion – is what makes the community worth participating in.