Top 60 centers of All Time Rules Discussion - Proposed Rules in Post 100

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The first thing to decide, as always, is how long we want the list to be?

I definitely think a list of 40 (to match the goaltenders list) is too short, given the number of talented centers in history.

So do we want the best 50 centers of all time?

Or do we want the best 60 centers of all time to match the length of the defensemen project?

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here's what I said in the other thread

I quickly threw together a top 80-90 list of centers based loosely on the ATD just to get a rough idea of how such a list would look, and it's amazing the level of talent that is in the 40-60 range. You're talking consensus HHOFers like Dale Hawerchuk and Mike Modano who are likely on the outside looking in if you stop at 40.

Just look at the HOH Top 100 list. Counting Taylor, there are already 34 centers on the list! Stopping at 40 barely adds any new players.

To add to this, according to the HHOF's website, there are 79 centers, 42 left wings, 39 right wings, 77 defensemen, 19 rovers, and 36 goaltenders in the Hall of Fame. Some of their classifications of ppsitions are a bit weird, but it gives a rough idea as to the ratios.

I think the Top 100 lists have a similar ratio.

 

[amnesiac]

Id go with 60

 

[BraveCanadian]

There are so many great centers I would say the more the merrier.

Not that I know if or how much of my involvement there will be.

 

[tarheelhockey]

60 sounds good to me too.

 

[eddytheeagle20]

I think 50 would be good after that people will begin to plug in players

 

[quoipourquoi]

No matter how long it goes, I just don't want to add more than four to the final list at a time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No matter how long it goes, I just don't want to add more than four to the final list at a time.

Then getting to 60 would take 15 rounds... that's an awful long time.

Perhaps add 4 per round for the first 5 rounds (to get to 20) and 5 per round afterwards? Then you'd have 13 rounds total, which I think is a little more manageable.

The defenseman project had 12 rounds of 5.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

60 for centers

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The first thing to decide, as always, is how long we want the list to be?

I definitely think a list of 40 (to match the goaltenders list) is too short, given the number of talented centers in history.

So do we want the best 50 centers of all time?

Or do we want the best 60 centers of all time to match the length of the defensemen project?

I'd say 50.

Twice as many Dmen on the ice as centers so it shouldn't be the same number.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Poll added.

 

[ted2019]

Top 60.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

For reference, the HOH Top 100 list from 2008 has 34 centers (including Taylor), 25 defensemen (including Clapper), 16 goaltenders, 13 right wings, and 12 left wings.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Then getting to 60 would take 15 rounds... that's an awful long time.

Perhaps add 4 per round for the first 5 rounds (to get to 20) and 5 per round afterwards? Then you'd have 13 rounds total, which I think is a little more manageable.

The defenseman project had 12 rounds of 5.

This sways me to think we should go with 50. I'd rather have a shorter list if it means fewer inductees per round.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This sways me to think we should go with 50. I'd rather have a shorter list if it means fewer inductees per round.

I guess at 50, what would we do? 10 rounds of 4, plus 2 rounds of 5 for 12 rounds total?

We can always do 15 rounds of 4 to get to 60 if we think the board has the attention span for it.

The 2008 Top 100 project had 20 rounds of 5, but they had horrible voting turnout by the end.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

This is a little off topic but related to the project...For those players that spent time at other positions we will be giving them full credit for those seasons right? An example would be mark messier and his time at lw. I would like to hear some thoughts on this so everyone is on the same page.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is a little off topic but related to the project...For those players that spent time at other positions we will be giving them full credit for those seasons right? An example would be mark messier and his time at lw. I would like to hear some thoughts on this so everyone is on the same page.

Basically, do we only give Mario Lemieux credit for 5 of his 6 Art Rosses, since he played LW for the majority of 1996-97 due largely to his back problems? I think going that route is silly and it defeats the purpose of determining a guy's primary position in the other thread.

As others have said "the 50/60 greatest players of all time who are identified as centers"

Also, more people need to vote.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I guess at 50, what would we do? 10 rounds of 4, plus 2 rounds of 5 for 12 rounds total?

We can always do 15 rounds of 4 to get to 60 if we think the board has the attention span for it.

I'd be up for doing it either way, TBH, as long as we avoid the problem of players squeaking in by plurality despite having barely been talked about. I strongly prefer a model that focuses discussion toward a smaller number of candidates per round, allowing us to really pick their careers apart and do in-depth comparisons.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Basically, do we only give Mario Lemieux credit for 5 of his 6 Art Rosses, since he played LW for the majority of 1996-97 due largely to his back problems? I think going that route is silly and it defeats the purpose of determining a guy's primary position in the other thread.

As others have said "the 50/60 greatest players of all time who are identified as centers"

Also, more people need to vote.

I agree - once someone is categorized at a position (by whatever method), their entire body of work should be up for grabs.

 

[Killion]

I agree - once someone is categorized at a position (by whatever method), their entire body of work should be up for grabs.

By "entire body of work" does that Include Junior & Minor-Pro / WHA and in the case of Europeans Elite League & International play from the late 40's on?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd be up for doing it either way, TBH, as long as we avoid the problem of players squeaking in by plurality despite having barely been talked about. I strongly prefer a model that focuses discussion toward a smaller number of candidates per round, allowing us to really pick their careers apart and do in-depth comparisons.

Admins could be given more discretion about the number of players to add in a round when there is a break in Round 2 voting.

In the defenseman project, we added 5 guys per round. But look at round 3:

Player | Total | 11th | 12th | 13th | 14th | 15th | 16th | 17th | 18th | 19th | 20th | none Brad Park |176|6|6|3|4|0|2|0|0|0|0|0
King Clancy |167|4|8|2|3|1|1|1|1|0|0|0
Paul Coffey |155|6|3|3|2|2|1|3|0|0|1|0
Pierre Pilote |149|2|2|5|5|5|0|1|0|1|0|0
Sprague Cleghorn |99|1|0|3|1|5|1|2|3|2|2|1
Al MacInnis |96|1|0|2|2|2|4|1|4|3|2|0
Tim Horton |94|1|0|2|0|3|3|4|4|3|1|0
Earl Seibert |80|0|1|1|1|0|5|5|1|2|4|1
Scott Stevens |77|0|1|0|1|2|3|1|5|7|1|0
Chris Pronger |50|0|0|0|2|1|1|1|3|3|6|4
Brian Leetch |12|0|0|0|0|0|0|2|0|0|4|15

We could have a rule that if more than X number of votes separate spots 4 and 5 and less than Y number of votes separate spots 5 and 6, then only the top 4 are added that round.

I'm not sure what to do in situations like Vote 7 though - where 5th place was way behind 4th place, but was still a fair amount over 6th:

Player | Total | 31st | 32nd | 33rd | 34th | 35th | 36th | 37th | 38th | 39th | 40th | none Jack Stewart |159|8|4|2|0|3|1|1|0|0|0|0
Guy Lapointe |148|0|7|3|4|3|1|1|0|0|0|0
Scott Niedermayer |120|4|2|1|2|2|0|4|4|0|0|0
Marcel Pronovost |111|3|1|2|1|3|3|2|2|1|0|1
Lionel Conacher |85|3|0|2|2|1|2|1|0|2|1|5
Zdeno Chara |73|0|0|3|1|2|2|3|2|0|2|4
Alexei Kasatonov |68|1|0|2|2|1|3|0|0|3|1|6
J.C. Tremblay |67|0|1|2|1|0|3|4|1|0|1|6
Jacques Laperriere |63|0|2|0|1|3|0|1|4|1|2|5
Butch Bouchard |43|0|1|1|2|0|1|0|0|3|2|9
Rob Blake |40|0|0|0|2|1|0|1|3|2|3|7
Larry Murphy |32|0|1|0|1|0|1|1|0|1|4|10
Carl Brewer |24|0|0|1|0|0|1|0|2|2|1|12
Ebbie Goodfellow |18|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|1|4|2|11

The other way to look at it is that close votes are guaranteed to happen at some point, and if you keep trying to avoid them earlier, you'll be stuck with them later anyway.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

By "entire body of work" does that Include Junior & Minor-Pro / WHA and in the case of Europeans Elite League & International play from the late 40's on?

Sure, why not?

But I assume most of us don't really care what a guy did in junior and minor-pro at least

 

[Bear of Bad News]

By "entire body of work" does that Include Junior & Minor-Pro / WHA and in the case of Europeans Elite League & International play from the late 40's on?

Yes in my opinion (although appropriately discounted/augmented if necessary).

 

[ted2019]

Can't wait for this to start.

 

[ted2019]

When can We start voting?