The HOHHOF : Registration and Procedure

[MXD]

To clarify I meant Steve Moore, not Dickie Moore (just to show that a player can be famous without being HOF calibre). Of course O'Ree and Henderson are other good examples of this.

...Duh!

 

[MXD]

Unless we're talking about someone who had a clear negative impact on hockey history (maybe Shore nearly killing Bailey would count?), I don't think a bad personality should be held against a player. Hockey players, like the rest of us, all have flaws and unless it was a clear detriment to their team or to history, why should we care?

Same for, say, Sprague Cleghorn.

If Ballard would have played...

 

[MXD]

The Early Era

Okay...
So how do we do this?

VanI? HO? 70ies?

 

[seventieslord]

Okay...
So how do we do this?

VanI? HO? 70ies?

I'm just not interested enough to be involved in the procedure making. If I see something that I think is just wrong, I'll speak up, otherwise, I will be laissez-faire. I will give a fulle ffort in participation; I just won't be in a leadership role.

 

[Form and Substance]

I'd like to join! This sounds exciting.

 

[VMBM]

If it's a history of hockey hof and not a nhlhof with a few token others thrown in, then have a pre-NHL committee. (plus hockey outsider suggested an International Hockey Committee to focus on soviets, czechs and the like, international greats who never played in the nhl - this is a great idea, and there are several knowledgeable posters at hfboards who reside in and know european hockey history well)

I like that but let's not take that "never played in the NHL" too literally, as players like Nedomansky, Hlinka, Novy...Fetisov, Krutov, Makarov etc., who played in the NHL only as 30+ year olds, should also belong to this group of players. They spend their primes in Europe, and it would be silly IMO to put much weight to their NHL careers. Yes, we should have the same standards for those international greats as for NHL players, but I don't think we have ever reached any sort of consensus on the Boards how to compare them to each other. But I certainly don't want to be in a situation where I would have to try to convince someone that, say, Sergei Makarov indeed was a clearly superior player to Lanny McDonald. That's just common knowledge, right? RIGHT?

Anyway, an e-mail (or 2 accidentally?) has been sent, even though still not quite sure what I'm getting myself into (another nice mess? )

 

[MXD]

I'm just not interested enough to be involved in the procedure making. If I see something that I think is just wrong, I'll speak up, otherwise, I will be laissez-faire. I will give a fulle ffort in participation; I just won't be in a leadership role.

Well...
Let's say, 10 rounds, using the same voting procedure than for the "regular" HHOF?

 

[Dgill]

Are you still recruiting participants? If so I am interested.

 

[MXD]

Number of votes, Mandatory votes & Weighting votes

Now...

I suggest that each voter has 4 VOTES for each "year" or "round" (for the early-era).

What I want to know -- Are those votes MANDATORY?

Making them mandatory might lead to some "weaker" inductees, though I suspect the votes will split amongst "weaker" candidates.

Not making them mandatory might just lead to an unofficial cut-off, and give us an expanded version of the Top-100. It might also lead to some discrepancies between eras as well.

_________________________________________________

Also, what do you think of a weighted vote system?

I'm not really for it (more complicated for the adminstrators, will have to come up with some formula (the 80% would then end up being (80% of voters total x no. of points for the 4th place), or something like this. Not to mention that the point distribution can end up being unbalanced.

On the other hand, there's no doubt that it would be interesting, and will place a premium on "true fame".

 

[Leafs Forever]

I'd probably lean towards not mandatory (though you should send an explanation as to why, just so we aren't confusing inactivity with not liking the players available). If there aren't any real HHOFers artound, then we shouldn't push it. I doubt we'll have many cases like that though.

On another note that I don't think has been talked about: What about the non-player categories?

Here are the other categories we could do:

-Media

-Builders

-Referees

-Coaches

-Womens Hockey

I don't think many are likely interested in Media or refeeres, but the other 3 are interesting, I think. I don't think we should do a straight up builders category, but a kind of builders/coaches hybrid; best coaches get in, but more game innovations/significance to the game gets bonus points, similar to how I think people want it for players. I think mosty people can agree to including coaches in some form.

Womens hockey is a whole other anime..it likely doesn't matter much into rather well into our project, but I think it''d be interesting to try and include. We are calling this a hockey hall of fame after all, and not a men's hockey hall of fame. True that women's hockey is rather below men's, but it is still the best hockey in the world within their division, unlike the minor leagues people will undoubtedly want to compare women's hockey too if they oppose it.

 

[MXD]

I'd probably lean towards not mandatory (though you should send an explanation as to why, just so we aren't confusing inactivity with not liking the players available). .

Just to be clear : what I meant by "mandatory" was that it would be mandatory to cast 4 votes (as opposed to as opposed to 3 or 5).

 

[Leafs Forever]

Just to be clear : what I meant by "mandatory" was that it would be mandatory to cast 4 votes (as opposed to as opposed to 3 or 5).

Oh, I see. Hmm..I wouldn't say it should be mandtory to cast 4 votes, I think, considering there are likely to be a number of years where there aren't 4 good candidates.

 

[finchster]

-Womens Hockey

Womens hockey is a whole other anime..it likely doesn't matter much into rather well into our project, but I think it''d be interesting to try and include. We are calling this a hockey hall of fame after all, and not a men's hockey hall of fame. True that women's hockey is rather below men's, but it is still the best hockey in the world within their division, unlike the minor leagues people will undoubtedly want to compare women's hockey too if they oppose it.

The only issue I have with woman's hockey is I am not sure if we have enough collective knowledge of woman's hockey to do it justice. Modern woman's hockey is pretty easy for many who have paid attention, but Woman's hockey has a rich history starting in World War One, up until World War Two. In order to do the history of woman's hockey justice, we would need some posters who have enough knowledge of early players to make it worth while in my opinion.

 

[MXD]

The only issue I have with woman's hockey is I am not sure if we have enough collective knowledge of woman's hockey to do it justice. Modern woman's hockey is pretty easy for many who have paid attention, but Woman's hockey has a rich history starting in World War One, up until World War Two. In order to do the history of woman's hockey justice, we would need some posters who have enough knowledge of early players to make it worth while in my opinion.

Same here. Daniele Sauvageau, Cammi Granato, Angela James, Manon Rhéaume... But beyond that...

 

[finchster]

The only two early female players I know anything about is Elizabeth Graham, she played goal and wore a fencing mask in 1927 (I have no idea if she was any good) and Hilda Ranscombe.

 

[VanIslander]

Well...
Let's say, 10 rounds, using the same voting procedure than for the "regular" HHOF?

10? That's a joke. Even the HHOF has more. Unless the whole HOHHOF will have under 100 inductees.

Your bias against the earlier eras of hockey history is becoming apparent.

I think you should seriously consider making it an NHL hall of fame if token non-NHL inductees are going to be made.

At LEAST 20% of the Hall should have non-NHLers (challenge era, NHA/PCHA/WHL/Soviets/Czechoslovakians/WHA). It sounds like you want to make a more modern NHL biased hall.

10 bloody rounds?????????? then disband?

Seriously. There needs to be some clear vision and statement of the goal and purpose of this project. Is it supposed to represent the most significant figures from hockey history? the best and most famous of each era? those most famous today for the past?

 

[MXD]

10? That's a joke. Even the HHOF has more. Unless the whole HOHHOF will have under 100 inductees.

Your bias against the earlier eras of hockey history is becoming apparent.

I think you should seriously consider making it an NHL hall of fame if token non-NHL inductees are going to be made.

At LEAST 20% of the Hall should have non-NHLers (challenge era, NHA/PCHA/WHL/Soviets/Czechoslovakians/WHA). It sounds like you want to make a more modern NHL biased hall.

10 bloody rounds?????????? then disband?

Seriously. There needs to be some clear vision and statement of the goal and purpose of this project. Is it supposed to represent the most significant figures from hockey history? the best and most famous of each era? those most famous today for the past?

10 rounds x 4 votes = As much as 40 inductees (if we go by a standard voting procedure). Let's say that 18 pre-1991 europeans and 2 WHA'ers make it (which seems extremely realistic, at least for the WHA figure).

That makes 60.
60 x 5 = 300.

Do you really think there will be 300 total players in "our" Hall? For the record, I think europeans shouldn't be in a different category, unless they happened to play pre-merger (and really, I wouldn't put THAT GUY with the old-timers, as he would be eligible for the regular Hall around 1952).

 

[Derick*]

I'd probably lean towards not mandatory (though you should send an explanation as to why, just so we aren't confusing inactivity with not liking the players available). If there aren't any real HHOFers artound, then we shouldn't push it. I doubt we'll have many cases like that though.

On another note that I don't think has been talked about: What about the non-player categories?

Here are the other categories we could do:

-Media

-Builders

-Referees

-Coaches

-Womens Hockey

I don't think many are likely interested in Media or refeeres, but the other 3 are interesting, I think. I don't think we should do a straight up builders category, but a kind of builders/coaches hybrid; best coaches get in, but more game innovations/significance to the game gets bonus points, similar to how I think people want it for players. I think mosty people can agree to including coaches in some form.

Womens hockey is a whole other anime..it likely doesn't matter much into rather well into our project, but I think it''d be interesting to try and include. We are calling this a hockey hall of fame after all, and not a men's hockey hall of fame. True that women's hockey is rather below men's, but it is still the best hockey in the world within their division, unlike the minor leagues people will undoubtedly want to compare women's hockey too if they oppose it.

That's a meaningless statement in so far as a "division" of something can be arbitrarily defined. The best minor league is the best within the division called minor leagues.

 

[VanIslander]

Do you really think there will be 300 total players in "our" Hall?

*shrug* THERE IS NO VISION AS TO THE ENDPRODUCT.

We seem to be focused more on procedure than product, more on means than ends. Are we setting up a way to chat, argue and vote for the fun of it, regardless of outcome?

For the record, I think europeans shouldn't be in a different category, unless they happened to play pre-merger

Then Paul Henderson would probably get inducted instead of Boris Mikhailov.

I guess it may be apt to set up a procedure and just run with it and see what happens. No need to have much ambitions for it. Just set it up and run with it. I'll shut my mouth and do the seventieslord thing and just participate in discussions and voting.

 

[MXD]

Then Paul Henderson would probably get inducted instead of Boris Mikhailov.

I guess it may be apt to set up a procedure and just run with it and see what happens. No need to have much ambitions for it. Just set it up and run with it. I'll shut my mouth and do the seventieslord thing and just participate in discussions and voting.

I think you're somewhat underestimating the boards.

 

[Starchild74]

I am interested think it would be cool who we all agree on. I mean we all have our own opinions but be cool to see who most of the people on here think is the best of the best.

 

[Leafs Forever]

That's a meaningless statement in so far as a "division" of something can be arbitrarily defined. The best minor league is the best within the division called minor leagues.

Well, I think most people understand the message I'm trying to convey- we'd be looking at the highest hockiey in the world for women, wheras minor leagues are far from the highest hockey in the world for men. Yes, female hockey is behind, but then old-days hockey is, unrelatively, way behind today's hockey, but we don't care too much, because we look at things relatively, at least to some extent.

I think you're somewhat underestimating the boards.

Indeed. I don't think the vast majority will move for a Paul Henderson induction.

However, an international committee may be a good idea, because they aren't the most well-known players by a long shot; probably better known than pre-consolidation guys, but still not so known and on the underappreciated side still.

 

[VanIslander]

However, an international committee may be a good idea, because they aren't the most well-known players by a long shot; probably better than pre-consolidation guys...

 

[Leafs Forever]

I meant "better known", not "better players". Should have clarified that.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Email sent.
Voting should absolutely not be mandatory.