Round 2, Vote 5 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wow, even of you give Stewart full credit for the two years he missed due to the war, he's still behind Quack. I do prefer him slightly to Langway and Savard though. It should be noted that both of Stewart's second place finishes were to Quackenbush.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Wow, even of you give Stewart full credit for the two years he missed due to the war, he's still behind Quack. I do prefer him slightly to Langway and Savard though. It should be noted that both of Stewart's second place finishes were to Quackenbush.

While some guys are having problems with some players time spent at forward, like Howe and Clapper, the missing war years are tough to judge as well.

I'm assuming that guys are looking at career paths and looking at the lost time and including it to their view, that's pretty much the way I'm looking at it but in rough not absolute terms.

My list keeps getting juggled around, it might be easier to go back to my original list but I want to view each round on it's own merits.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

While some guys are having problems with some players time spent at forward, like Howe and Clapper, the missing war years are tough to judge as well.

I'm assuming that guys are looking at career paths and looking at the lost time and including it to their view, that's pretty much the way I'm looking at it but in rough not absolute terms.

My list keeps getting juggled around, it might be easier to go back to my original list but I want to view each round on it's own merits.

I would hope that everyone does this.

 

[VanIslander]

Just voted.

The top-4 was ridiculously easy. I'll be pissed if any of them don't get inducted this round! The 5th is a crapshoot!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Votes received from: BiLLY_ShOE1721; Canadiens1958; Dennis Bonvie; Der Kaiser; Dreakmur; Hockey Outsider; intylerwetrust; JaysCyYoung; MXD; overpass; pappyline; reckoning; seventieslord; tarheelhockey; TheDevilMadeMe; tony D; VanIslander

Votes needed from: chaosrevolver; DaveG; Epsilon; Hardyvan123; Hawkey Town 18; McNuts;

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Just voted.

The top-4 was ridiculously easy. I'll be pissed if any of them don't get inducted this round! The 5th is a crapshoot!

I didn't find anything easy about this round.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Just voted.

The top-4 was ridiculously easy. I'll be pissed if any of them don't get inducted this round! The 5th is a crapshoot!

My vote is in.

I'm assuming that neither Howe or Clapper made your top 4 with your comments on their time at forward but still I don't see "ridiculously easy" top 4 after them.

It was extremely difficult to evaluate and balance the different types and eras and leagues these players played in.

 

[VanIslander]

I should have said 'shockingly' easy... I didn't expect it to be, but when I re-read the thread and assembled my notepads, four players jumped out as OBVIOUS inductees this round, I mean, 'ridiculous' because it was supposed to be so hard but in the end it really wasn't. I began this round thinking only one 'for sure' inductee and one 'for sure' non-inductee, and ended up with four I'm certain about. If one of the four doesn't get inducted you bet I'll be heavily invested in pimping the guy who was wrongfully overlooked in my eyes.

All in all, this HOH process has been pretty sensical and I've had no major concerns. There are at least three pre-NHL era greats I feel should be in the next round of discussions, but of course, it'll depend on how initial ranking votes went and I don't hold my breath as early era greats are so typically underappreciated.

 

[VanIslander]

I was soo right!

It was not hard selecting the top-5 this time; or - in the end - everything realized how obviously the best of the round were.

None outside the top-5 received any first place votes and only 1 of 23 outside the top-5 received any 2nd place votes!!!

It was ridiculously, surprisingly, obviously easy in the end. We got it right!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I was soo right!

It was not hard selecting the top-5 this time; or - in the end - everything realized how obviously the best of the round were.

None outside the top-5 received any first place votes and only 1 of 23 outside the top-5 received any 2nd place votes!!!

It was ridiculously, surprisingly, obviously easy in the end. We got it right!

Getting a consensus is hardly the same as getting it right.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I was soo right!

It was not hard selecting the top-5 this time; or - in the end - everything realized how obviously the best of the round were.

None outside the top-5 received any first place votes and only 1 of 23 outside the top-5 received any 2nd place votes!!!

It was ridiculously, surprisingly, obviously easy in the end. We got it right!

Getting a consensus is hardly the same as getting it right.

Exactly, any time an opinion, and that's what the project is a consensus opinion, is called "getting it right" it raises questions that other viewing this thread might ask.

For the record our "consensus opinion" has a "historical context" and each voters list must pass a screening test and this process affects the order that players come up and the entire process as well.

Personally I was in favour of a Pre WW2 and a post WW2 list but our project is an all time list so each voter has to weigh different factors and that's part of the reason that much of the voter has been slightly different even at this early stage.

And before someone gets all upset, this is not a criticism it's simply an observation and small explanation of how our process works which may not be apparent to others reading our list.