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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This might sound a little unorthodox at first, but I think the 1st round could be a round of 5. Those guys have been discussed so much already that I have a hard time believing any real new information will come about, the top 3 in particular seem like it would be virtually impossible for their order to change.

I can't see the top 3 finishing any different that the normal order. But I think there should be a lively discussion for spot 4.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Another idea would be to "add either 4 or 5" per round or even "add between 3 and 6 per round" based on natural breaking points in the voting. This would give a bit of discretion to the admins though.

The admins have traditionally had a bit of discretion in putting up candidates based on natural breaking points, but have stuck to a strict count of how many to actually add each round.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The lockout/WW players are different from players like Crosby/Malkin because we know what they did both before and after that missed time.

I didn't mean to come across as if I thought Crosby doesn't belong on the list with his to date accomplishments. He will be on mine. Not sure where yet, but he will be there.

Crosby and Malkin sure as they didn't play in the NHL before the 05 lockout, but other players were affected by the other 3 lockouts and I have seldom seen arguments for "lost time" due to those 3 lockouts and ahve seen many for WW2 lost time in comparison.

This often comes up with the lesser counting stats of more recent players and is something that needs to be considered when making comparisons across the different eras.

Ken Reardon, and how favorably he fared in the top 60 Dman project is the example that jumps out the most here.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Assuming we do a list of top 60 (which isn't decided yet), what procedure do you guys want to do?

Does anyone think 15 rounds of adding 4 is feasable? I feel like Rounds 11-12 were were the defenseman project really lost steam (that one was 12 rounds of adding 5).

A compromise that I briefly mentioned earlier is 5 rounds of adding 4 (to get to the Top 20), then 8 more rounds of adding 5 (to get to 60) - 13 rounds in all.

I don't mind either direction and if we go for top 60, will our initial lists be for top 60 or perhaps 70 or 80 guys?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't mind either direction and if we go for top 60, will our initial lists be for top 60 or perhaps 70 or 80 guys?

Top 60 final list = Top 80 submitted lists

Also, let's focus on the rules in this thread and not where individual players should rank. There will be plenty of time to talk about that soon enough.

 

[seventieslord]

I would like 12 rounds of 5, personally.

 

[Sturminator]

Another idea would be to "add either 4 or 5" per round or even "add between 3 and 6 per round" based on natural breaking points in the voting. This would give a bit of discretion to the admins though.

I think using natural breaking points is the way to go, for both players to add to the voting and the voting results. If you need to justify specific decisions, just post something like this:

1) Stastny: 127
2) Maltsev: 112
3) Francis: 105
4) Player_x: 83

...after the voting to make it clear that there was a large breaking point after the top-3 without giving away where the other players stand in the list. I doubt anyone would have a problem with this methodology.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Rules and Procedures

Objective is a top 60 centers list debated after each participant submits an intitial ranked list of 80. This should take between 3 and 7 days max. No discussion needed.

Procedures

If x initial lists are submitted then the top x-3 rankings are considered for each player. If a player is listed on fewer than 4 lists he does not qualify. This eliminates the review process since all the anomalies - no pre O6, PCHA, Europeans are simply compensated for without additional work, time and discussion. Likewise listing Kyle Chipchura #1 or Wayne Gretzky #60 gets dropped from the final consideration. Enormous saving of time. Self regulation works best.

Next step would be a qualifying round. For the purpose of example, the initial list should generate at least 80 names. The players ranked #'s 51 to 70 would enter a qualifying round. No debate just a poll generating the top 10 from this limited group which would result in #'s 51 to 60. No longer than a 48 hour polling period.

Discussion Rounds

Participants initial lists should be released at this point.

Each discussion round would start at 18:00 EST Tuesday and end the following Sunday at 23:59:59 EST without fail.No flexibility in times or length. Results would be posted before the following Tuesday 18:00.

First Discussion Round. #'s 1 to 10. First 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the second round with #'s 11-18.

Second Discussion Round. #'s 9 to 16. Top 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the third round with #'s 19-26.

Third Discussion Round. #'s 17 to 24. Top 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the fourth round with #'s 27-34.

Fourth Discussion Round. #'s 25 to 32. Top 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the fifth round with #'s 35-42.

Fifth Discussion Round. #'s 33 to 40. Top 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the sixth round with #'s 43-50.

Six Discussion Round. #'s 41 to 48. Top 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the second round with #'s 51-57.

Final Round. Remaining twelve are debated and ranked.

Advantages. 4 or 5 elected out of 10 per round concentrates debate and voting at the top with little importance to the bottom four candidates. 8 out of 10 spreads the debate to all candidates and makes each ranking important. Shortens the process to seven discussion rounds as opposed to upwards of 15.

Basic Rules
Posts are strictly limited to the players under consideration. Direct references to other players are not allowed. Example stating 10 future candidates were better defensively is acceptable but listing the actual 10 candidate names is not.

Limit individual post to 2,000 characters. Cut and paste skills are not on display.

Excerpts have to be properly credited to the source - title, author, date.

Kibitzers(those not submitting an initial list) limited to three comments a round requesting clarification. They cannot engage in discussion. Responding to kibitzers takes away from discussion time.

The discussions are about players. Very little latitude about non-player issues.

The issue of non-contributing participants should be addressed. Simply voting in a round is not sufficient. Minimum requirements could be considered. Voting from such participants could be weighed on a sliding scale.

 

[tony d]

Top 50 for me. 50's a rounder number. Also I think we should add 5 guys per round as to shorten the time this takes in an effort to keep interest up.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Basic Rules
Posts are strictly limited to the players under consideration. Direct references to other players are not allowed. Example stating 10 future candidates were better defensively is acceptable but listing the actual 10 candidate names is not.

Why the censorship?

If a guy comes up, say like Mikita for arguments sake, and his defense comes up compared to all the offensive guys around him why not mention how his defense stacks up all time?

Anyone can say heck there are 10 guys better than him defensively but with no allowance for actual discussion guys coming up first will always get the benefit of the doubt.

Limit individual post to 2,000 characters. Cut and paste skills are not on display.

No problems here

Excerpts have to be properly credited to the source - title, author, date.

sure they are preferred but this is another attempt to stifle discussion IMO and gives guys with alot of extra time on their hands, and probable ATD experience, another leg up.

We already know that a lot of the thoughts and ideas are going to come from the ATD people, which is neither here or there, but it would be better to have different POV and contrasts to actual have a discussion on players.

Kibitzers(those not submitting an initial list) limited to three comments a round requesting clarification. They cannot engage in discussion. Responding to kibitzers takes away from discussion time.

Sorry but discussion is discussion, calling guys who perhaps don't have the time and commitment to be involved in the whole project should be allowed to make thought full comments and ideas to the discussion.

Calling them Kibitzers isn't really helpfull.

The discussions are about players. Very little latitude about non-player issues.

What are non player issues?

Are they ones of context?

If so they shouldn't be excluded as no players played in a vacuum

The issue of non-contributing participants should be addressed. Simply voting in a round is not sufficient. Minimum requirements could be considered. Voting from such participants could be weighed on a sliding scale.

I don't like this idea at all but you're right everyone should participate as much as possible but a weighted voting scale?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think using natural breaking points is the way to go, for both players to add to the voting and the voting results. If you need to justify specific decisions, just post something like this:

1) Stastny: 127
2) Maltsev: 112
3) Francis: 105
4) Player_x: 83

...after the voting to make it clear that there was a large breaking point after the top-3 without giving away where the other players stand in the list. I doubt anyone would have a problem with this methodology.

I'm okay with this when a natural breaking point occurs (such as in the Cleghorn example provided above). Most of the time, that won't really happen, so the question remains:

Is our target to add 4 or 5 in the average round?

 

[Sturminator]

I'm for four per round as a target.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Objective is a top 60 centers list debated after each participant submits an intitial ranked list of 80. This should take between 3 and 7 days max. No discussion needed.

Procedures

If x initial lists are submitted then the top x-3 rankings are considered for each player. If a player is listed on fewer than 4 lists he does not qualify. This eliminates the review process since all the anomalies - no pre O6, PCHA, Europeans are simply compensated for without additional work, time and discussion. Likewise listing Kyle Chipchura #1 or Wayne Gretzky #60 gets dropped from the final consideration. Enormous saving of time. Self regulation works best.

Next step would be a qualifying round. For the purpose of example, the initial list should generate at least 80 names. The players ranked #'s 51 to 70 would enter a qualifying round. No debate just a poll generating the top 10 from this limited group which would result in #'s 51 to 60. No longer than a 48 hour polling period.

Discussion Rounds

Participants initial lists should be released at this point.

Each discussion round would start at 18:00 EST Tuesday and end the following Sunday at 23:59:59 EST without fail.No flexibility in times or length. Results would be posted before the following Tuesday 18:00.

First Discussion Round. #'s 1 to 10. First 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the second round with #'s 11-18.

Second Discussion Round. #'s 9 to 16. Top 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the third round with #'s 19-26.

Third Discussion Round. #'s 17 to 24. Top 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the fourth round with #'s 27-34.

Fourth Discussion Round. #'s 25 to 32. Top 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the fifth round with #'s 35-42.

Fifth Discussion Round. #'s 33 to 40. Top 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the sixth round with #'s 43-50.

Six Discussion Round. #'s 41 to 48. Top 8 elected, two leftover are moved to the second round with #'s 51-57.

Final Round. Remaining twelve are debated and ranked.

Advantages. 4 or 5 elected out of 10 per round concentrates debate and voting at the top with little importance to the bottom four candidates. 8 out of 10 spreads the debate to all candidates and makes each ranking important. Shortens the process to seven discussion rounds as opposed to upwards of 15.

Basic Rules
Posts are strictly limited to the players under consideration. Direct references to other players are not allowed. Example stating 10 future candidates were better defensively is acceptable but listing the actual 10 candidate names is not.

Limit individual post to 2,000 characters. Cut and paste skills are not on display.

Excerpts have to be properly credited to the source - title, author, date.

Kibitzers(those not submitting an initial list) limited to three comments a round requesting clarification. They cannot engage in discussion. Responding to kibitzers takes away from discussion time.

The discussions are about players. Very little latitude about non-player issues.

The issue of non-contributing participants should be addressed. Simply voting in a round is not sufficient. Minimum requirements could be considered. Voting from such participants could be weighed on a sliding scale.

I think a lot of posters (certainly the majority who commented so far) feel that concentrating Round 2 discussion on a few names at a time is beneficial.

One thing is NOT up for debate: Non-voters will be able to participate in the discussions, so long as they stay on topic. This is non-negotiable.

 

[Canadiens1958]

On Topic

I think a lot of posters (certainly the majority who commented so far) feel that concentrating Round 2 discussion on a few names at a time is beneficial.

One thing is NOT up for debate: Non-voters will be able to participate in the discussions, so long as they stay on topic. This is non-negotiable.

Topic is generated by the submission of the initial list of 80. Staying on topic means all participants can view the comment(s) of others within the context of the list that was submitted. Otherwise the comment is without foundation.

From a practical standpoint producing a list takes 1-2 hours depending on typing skills. The regulars have a saved ready list that gets updated regularly. Kibitzing actually takes longer.

Plus one of the key objectives of the project is to generate the submission of initial lists. Since 2008 participation has gone down while the overall board population has increased dramatically and the HOH forum participation has increased as well. If the submission of initial lists is down under such circumstances then steps have to be taken to drive participation upwards in an inclusive fashion.

The 10 per round suggestion is maybe six hours old. Let it mature. The few names approach has been around since 2008. Debating the same player over 3 or 4 rounds is wasteful to the extreme.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Next step would be a qualifying round. For the purpose of example, the initial list should generate at least 80 names. The players ranked #'s 51 to 70 would enter a qualifying round. No debate just a poll generating the top 10 from this limited group which would result in #'s 51 to 60. No longer than a 48 hour polling period.

When would the initial list of 80 be submitted?

[/QUOTE]Participants initial lists should be released at this point.

Each discussion round would start at 18:00 EST Tuesday and end the following Sunday at 23:59:59 EST without fail.No flexibility in times or length. Results would be posted before the following Tuesday 18:00.[/QUOTE]

Do we submit another list for each round for the players that are left or is it all based off the initial list?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Initial List

When would the initial list of 80 be submitted?

Participants initial lists should be released at this point.

Each discussion round would start at 18:00 EST Tuesday and end the following Sunday at 23:59:59 EST without fail.No flexibility in times or length. Results would be posted before the following Tuesday 18:00.[/QUOTE]

Do we submit another list for each round for the players that are left or is it all based off the initial list?[/QUOTE]

Initial list would be submitted to a determined deadline, time and date, then no other lists would be required just voting in the rounds. The collective initial lists would generate the discussion list of 60 with simple voting required for each round after discussion.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When would the initial list of 80 be submitted?

Like the last two projects, there will be a discussion thread before Round 1 voting.

Edit: Here is what it looked like last time: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1251289

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would like 12 rounds of 5, personally.

I'm for four per round as a target.

Assuming the voting totals in the poll don't change drastically, or people don't flock to any of C1958's radical changes to procedure, this seems to be the one sticking point left to discuss.

The reason for for preferring to add 4 per round: More individualized discussion of players. There were cases in the defenseman project where it seemed the 5th place vote getter wasn't discussed in as much detail as we could have done.

The reason for preferring to add 5 per round: 12 rounds of 5 won't take as long as 15 rounds of 4. You're adding almost another month to the project if you go from 12 to 15 rounds.

Anything I'm missing?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Length and Focus

Assuming the voting totals in the poll don't change drastically, or people don't flock to any of C1958's radical changes to procedure, this seems to be the one sticking point left to discuss.

The reason for for preferring to add 4 per round: More individualized discussion of players. There were cases in the defenseman project where it seemed the 5th place vote getter wasn't discussed in as much detail as we could have done.

The reason for preferring to add 5 per round: 12 rounds of 5 won't take as long as 15 rounds of 4. You're adding almost another month to the project if you go from 12 to 15 rounds.

Anything I'm missing?

Length.Reducing to eight rounds would reduce the length by app six weeks below 12 to 15 rounds, so attrition is not a factor nor do changing schedules and outside responsibilities enter the picture.

Focus. If only 4 or 5 are being ranked each round then that limits the focus to the top four or five. The rest are deferred to the next round. Rank eight out of ten and the focus shifts to eight with 9 and 10 in play much longer with 4 or 5. Nothing radical, just an application of the NHL approach to standings in the 21 team era. 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs. Same basic ratio. Every player or team is in contention much longer.

Every player else gets attention and support.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Length.Reducing to eight rounds would reduce the length by app six weeks below 12 to 15 rounds, so attrition is not a factor nor do changing schedules and outside responsibilities enter the picture.

Focus. If only 4 or 5 are being ranked each round then that limits the focus to the top four or five. The rest are deferred to the next round. Rank eight out of ten and the focus shifts to eight with 9 and 10 in play much longer with 4 or 5. Nothing radical, just an application of the NHL approach to standings in the 21 team era. 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs. Same basic ratio. Every player or team is in contention much longer.

Every player else gets attention and support.

In this scenario the initial lists become more important, because only 2 players can be passed over to the next round. It may be beneficial to look at the Dman and goalie projects and see if this would have caused a change in the final rankings.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Anything that increases the importance of Round 1 voting and decreases the importance of the Round 2 discussions is a bad idea.

Increasing the ability of Round 2 voting to create movement from initial lists by increasing the number of candidates per round as we move along (while keeping the number actually added to the final list per round the same) is one of the biggest improvements we made from the original Top 100 lists, IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Importance of Initial Lists

Anything that increases the importance of Round 1 voting and decreases the importance of the Round 2 discussions is a bad idea.

Increasing the ability of Round 2 voting to create movement from initial lists by increasing the number of candidates per round as we move along (while keeping the number added per round the same) is one of the biggest improvements we made from the original Top 100 lists, IMO.

The two phases round 1 and round 2 are not connected in such a fashion in my proposal. It is not an either /or proposal. It is a proposal that strengthens both round 1 and 2.

A stronger round one is important because it paves the way for a strong round 2 since less time will be wasted correcting round 1 rankings.

As a result round two becomes much stronger because the focus is very strict - getting the best possible ranking while allowing for the greatest possible movement.

The approach I proposed can in theory generate a movement of upwards of 16 spots down in two rounds, 9 spots up or down in one round. The previous approach would require at least four rounds to have the same fast movement down while a nine spot upward movement was not possible in every round or even in most rounds.

You save upwards of ten weeks in real time plus you generate the desired movement at a better rate plus you generate greater participation which is a very important benefit to the forum and the board.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Anything that increases the importance of Round 1 voting and decreases the importance of the Round 2 discussions is a bad idea.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Unlike what was asserted above, I doubt that non-ATD'ers have a ready made list of their top 80 centers. Personally I expect to do a fair amount of research on my Round 1 list, but I have no illusions that it will closely resemble my final personal ranking of players after this project is over. That certainly hasn't been the case in the last 2 projects.

The Round 1 lists are nothing more than a starting point that helps frame the discussion. The entire purpose of Round 2 is to present fully-developed arguments for each candidate and vote open-mindedly according to the evidence that has been presented. Opinions ought to be fairly fluid at that point, particularly once we get past the tired arguments at the top of the list.

If we put undue emphasis on our Round 1 lists, we do so at the cost of undermining the important research and information-sharing which is the meat and potatoes of the project. We would simply be reinforcing our pre-conceived understanding of history rather than challenging and validating it.

Also, I don't see how we could possibly hope to get a valid result out of taking only 5 days to research, argue and rank 8 players at a time. The process simply can't be done that quickly, and experience has consistently shown that arguments around 2-5 players dominate discussion in each round. IMO the idea of ranking 8/10 per round is simply out of the question if we want to compare these players in substantial detail.

 

[VanIslander]

Four per round seems more HHOF-induction like.

It also gives more attention to the individuals.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I just looked back on the Top 100 list, which actually went on for 18 rounds (they were adding more than 5 players for the last several rounds). And participation towards the end really wasn't that bad - it was only really bad for the week that included Christmas, and I guess that's what I was remembering.

Makes me feel a little more comfortable with the prospect of this project going on for 15 rounds.