HOH Top 60 Wingers of All-Time Rules Discussion thread

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here is a link to the rules from the centers project: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/70350727

Areas that need discussion (feel free to add more):

Eligibility and Ranking Criteria

• What to do about players who were both C and W, were determined eligible for the centers list here, and didn't make the top 60. I'm talking Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris, who just missed the cut, but also perhaps someone modern like Patrick Marleau (and no, this thread is NOT the place to discuss Marleau's merits as a player). Should such players be eligible for the wingers list, or did they already have their chance and lose it?

Voting

• Round 1 - What is the time frame for accepting lists? We want at least a month of preliminary discussion first. Last year, we extended the time frame to include the start of the NHL season. Do we want to wait that long this year?
  
• Round 2 - AT LEAST A FEW VOTERS THOUGHT IT TOOK TOO LONG. Adding 4 per round made the thing last 15 rounds (plus a 16th round as a tiebreaker which probably won't happen again). Possible changes - add 4 per round to get a top 20, then add 5 per round = 13 rounds. Add 5 per round every round - 12 rounds.

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here is a link to the rules from the centers project:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/70350727

Areas that need discussion (feel free to add more):

Eligibility and Ranking Criteria

• What to do about players who were both C and W, were determined eligible for the centers list here, and didn't make the top 60. I'm talking Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris, who just missed the cut, but also perhaps someone modern like Patrick Marleau (and no, this thread is NOT the place to discuss Marleau's merits as a player). Should such players be eligible for the wingers list, or did they already have their chance and lose it?

Voting

• Round 1 - What is the time frame for accepting lists? We want at least a month of preliminary discussion first. Last year, we extended the time frame to include the start of the NHL season. Do we want to wait that long this year?
  
• Round 2 - AT LEAST A FEW VOTERS THOUGHT IT TOOK TOO LONG. Adding 4 per round made the thing last 15 rounds (plus a 16th round as a tiebreaker which probably won't happen again). Possible changes - add 4 per round to get a top 20, then add 5 per round = 13 rounds. Add 5 per round every round - 12 rounds.

My own opinion - the only area I feel strongly on is that Round 2 took too long. My favored solution is to add 4 per round to reach a list of 20, then add 5 per round to get to 60. It allows more detailed discussion of players for the first 5 rounds, but still shortens the overall project by 2 rounds.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Eligibility and Ranking Criteria

• What to do about players who were both C and W, were determined eligible for the centers list here, and didn't make the top 60. I'm talking Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris, who just missed the cut, but also perhaps someone modern like Patrick Marleau (and no, this thread is NOT the place to discuss Marleau's merits as a player). Should such players be eligible for the wingers list, or did they already have their chance and lose it?

My feeling is that if we decided they were a center, then they should remain a center for the purpose of this list. I'm thinking of Red Kelly, who could easily have made the center list but wasn't eligible because he was previously judged to be a defenseman.

I don't think it makes sense to penalize players for being too good at multiple positions, or alternately to reward players who weren't good enough at a particular position.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My feeling is that if we decided they were a center, then they should remain a center for the purpose of this list. I'm thinking of Red Kelly, who could easily have made the center list but wasn't eligible because he was previously judged to be a defenseman.

I don't think it makes sense to penalize players for being too good at multiple positions, or alternately to reward players who weren't good enough at a particular position.

Kelly couldn't make the center list because he was already on as a defenseman, though. Likewise, Henrik Zetterberg wouldn't be eligible as a W because he already made the C list. It would only be for players who haven't made a list yet.

I'm not a big proponent either way; just want to clarify that only players who haven't made any other lists would be eligible. There were some really close calls between C and W (Bernie Morris in particular), where the decision to make him a C was semi-arbitrary (in Morris's case, it was determined that his career was close to 50/50, but his best playoffs were as a C).

 

[tarheelhockey]

I guess it won't matter too much either way, it just strikes me as odd to say "this guy is a center... wait, he's not a good enough center to make the list... now he's a winger".

Really though, it's not a huge deal either way if we're really just talking about Morris. One guy who's really close between the two positions won't upset the apple cart.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Are we including a tiebreaker this time?

 

[seventieslord]

I guess it won't matter too much either way, it just strikes me as odd to say "this guy is a center... wait, he's not a good enough center to make the list... now he's a winger".

I 100% agree.

We went to the trouble of determining what position to consider every prominent player for the purposes of listmaking. We can't go back on that now.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I 100% agree.

We went to the trouble of determining what position to consider every prominent player for the purposes of listmaking. We can't go back on that now.

I am also very much in favor of this. A player should be a eligible for one list only.

I also believe that we should stick to the criteria laid out in the centers project saying that a players time at positions other than what he's being considered for should still count towards his resume. In other words, if a player played both wing and center and he has been decided eligible for the wings project then his time at center should also count for him.

Regarding tiebreakers, I believe that we should at least use the tiebreaker of whichever player was ahead of the other on more lists wins the tiebreak. Beyond that requires further discussion IMO.

 

[seventieslord]

I am also very much in favor of this. A player should be a eligible for one list only.

I also believe that we should stick to the criteria laid out in the centers project saying that a players time at positions other than what he's being considered for should still count towards his resume. In other words, if a player played both wing and center and he has been decided eligible for the wings project then his time at center should also count for him.

Regarding tiebreakers, I believe that we should at least use the tiebreaker of whichever player was ahead of the other on more lists wins the tiebreak. Beyond that requires further discussion IMO.

I prefer that as a tiebreaker, too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Having 3 ties last time was pretty weird. We had 1 tie during the defenseman project and none during the goaltenders project. So I wouldn't worry too much about coming up with a better tiebreaking procedure.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I don't have anything to add to the actual rules of the process. You guys have all done this before and know the best way to do things. I am just excited to take part this time. Already started working on my list!

 

[Hardyvan123]

I am also very much in favor of this. A player should be a eligible for one list only.

I also believe that we should stick to the criteria laid out in the centers project saying that a players time at positions other than what he's being considered for should still count towards his resume. In other words, if a player played both wing and center and he has been decided eligible for the wings project then his time at center should also count for him.

Regarding tiebreakers, I believe that we should at least use the tiebreaker of whichever player was ahead of the other on more lists wins the tiebreak. Beyond that requires further discussion IMO.

Agree with this.

we voted on designations they should prevail.

On the tiebreaker 2 thoughts,

1) what's wrong with a tie?

2) only the guys tied should actually be involved in any tiebreaker, not guys who are close and then sneak in the back door

 

[kmad]

Since I haven't participated in any position rankings yet I need to clarify this:

Are we deciding that a player counts as a certain position and then including his entire body of work, or are we only including the player's body of work at that specific position?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Since I haven't participated in any position rankings yet I need to clarify this:

Are we deciding that a player counts as a certain position and then including his entire body of work, or are we only including the player's body of work at that specific position?

Entire body of work, otherwise Kelly wouldn't be ranked in the top 10 for his half career on D, as good as it was.

Although others will disagree to be sure.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Since I haven't participated in any position rankings yet I need to clarify this:

Are we deciding that a player counts as a certain position and then including his entire body of work, or are we only including the player's body of work at that specific position?

Entire body of work.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Agree with this.

we voted on designations they should prevail.

On the tiebreaker 2 thoughts,

1) what's wrong with a tie?

2) only the guys tied should actually be involved in any tiebreaker, not guys who are close and then sneak in the back door

A tie isn't that bad. A top 60 list with 61 players is.

 

[Hardyvan123]

A tie isn't that bad. A top 60 list with 61 players is.

Well if having 61 on a 60 list is that bad, those 2 guys should go to overtime, to make it a 60 list then IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A tie isn't that bad. A top 60 list with 61 players is.

Agreed. Such a unique situation, I can't see it happening again.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Well if having 61 on a 60 list is that bad, those 2 guys should go to overtime, to make it a 60 list then IMO.

We had another vote with the top vote getters from the previous round who didn't make it, just like every other round.

If you only wanted the two people who tied to be eligable, then what is the purpose of having a second round. Just have the aggregate list because if someone has a certain spot on that list, why should they be able to have the chance to move up

 

[Hardyvan123]

We had another vote with the top vote getters from the previous round who didn't make it, just like every other round.

If you only wanted the two people who tied to be eligable, then what is the purpose of having a second round. Just have the aggregate list because if someone has a certain spot on that list, why should they be able to have the chance to move up

Not really sure what you mean here but in principle if 2 guys are tied they should be in the tiebreaker period, those are my thoughts on the matter and it makes sense when you think about it, 2 guys tied to get a resolution of which one was better, or more deserving whatever, then it's between those 2 guys, unless it's a 3 way tie of course...lol.

In the cited example of the centers project 2 guys tied , not 3 or 6, thus 2 guys should be in the tiebreaker IMO.

Others may disagree everyone has an opinion on it, that's mine.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Not really sure what you mean here but in principle if 2 guys are tied they should be in the tiebreaker period, those are my thoughts on the matter and it makes sense when you think about it, 2 guys tied to get a resolution of which one was better, or more deserving whatever, then it's between those 2 guys, unless it's a 3 way tie of course...lol.

In the cited example of the centers project 2 guys tied , not 3 or 6, thus 2 guys should be in the tiebreaker IMO.

Others may disagree everyone has an opinion on it, that's mine.

The tiebreaker we had didn't break the tie though so we had to have a vote and what is the point of the vote for two people?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Agree with this.

we voted on designations they should prevail.

On the tiebreaker 2 thoughts,

1) what's wrong with a tie?

2) only the guys tied should actually be involved in any tiebreaker, not guys who are close and then sneak in the back door

This is the same as the first tiebreaker of who's ahead on more lists, it completely eliminates all of the other candidates and only considers how the two in question rank in respect to one another. Often this is also a tie, as was the case at the end of the centers project

 

[ted2019]

Is there a time frame on the start of this?

 

[seventieslord]

Here is a link to the rules from the centers project:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/70350727

Areas that need discussion (feel free to add more):

Eligibility and Ranking Criteria

• What to do about players who were both C and W, were determined eligible for the centers list here, and didn't make the top 60. I'm talking Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris, who just missed the cut, but also perhaps someone modern like Patrick Marleau (and no, this thread is NOT the place to discuss Marleau's merits as a player). Should such players be eligible for the wingers list, or did they already have their chance and lose it?

Voting

• Round 1 - What is the time frame for accepting lists? We want at least a month of preliminary discussion first. Last year, we extended the time frame to include the start of the NHL season. Do we want to wait that long this year?
  
• Round 2 - AT LEAST A FEW VOTERS THOUGHT IT TOOK TOO LONG. Adding 4 per round made the thing last 15 rounds (plus a 16th round as a tiebreaker which probably won't happen again). Possible changes - add 4 per round to get a top 20, then add 5 per round = 13 rounds. Add 5 per round every round - 12 rounds.

Is there a time frame on the start of this?

once the rules are settled we can start the preliminary discussion.

- I think we're all on the same page on the first point, as far as who to count as a winger.

- let's talk about the time frame for accepting lists. I think a month is a good plan. I don't see the need to wait for the start of the NHL season. What does everyone else think?

- If people thought it took too long, we could certainly do what TDMM said and make it 12 rounds long instead of 15. Any major objections?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

once the rules are settled we can start the preliminary discussion.

- I think we're all on the same page on the first point, as far as who to count as a winger.

Seems like it.

Also I would say that we basically agree on the tiebreak procedure (1st, who is ahead of who on more ballots, 2nd, leave it a tie)

- let's talk about the time frame for accepting lists. I think a month is a good plan. I don't see the need to wait for the start of the NHL season. What does everyone else think?

You need at least a month from the START of the preliminary discussion thread before starting to accept lists. I think you want to give a couple weeks notice before starting the preliminary round, as well. Exact time frame doesn't matter to me much - we ran the last few preliminary rounds starting in Aug, with accepting lists from mid Sept-early Oct, but we don't have to wait that long this time if we are ready.

- If people thought it took too long, we could certainly do what TDMM said and make it 12 rounds long instead of 15. Any major objections?

I preferred the 13 round option (5 rounds of 4, then 8 rounds of 5) but not a huge deal. I thought doing 4 per round worked very well at the beginning last time and the project didn't start to drag until the end