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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I doubt that non-ATD'ers have a ready made list of their top 80 centers.

I doubt most ATDers have such a list.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

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

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.

What are you guys, the center of the universe?

That's 9pm at night here on the left coast where we like to go out Sundays and enjoy the great west coast lifestyle, then head to our computers as darkness falls over our lovely city.

I mean half the guys here suffer from sleep disorders thinking about the next big argument to counter us insurgents from the wacky west here.

Am I right Killion or am I right?

I'm sure TDMM can make up more reasonable rules on these matters.

 

[Killion]

Am I right Killion or am I right?

Im afraid were outnumbered Hv. Eastern Time Zone's
got the population, have to cater to central North America.

 

[VanIslander]

Im afraid were outnumbered Hv. Eastern Time Zone's
got the population, have to cater to central North America.

I am 13 hours ahead of the Eastern Time Zone (a Canadian working here in S. Korea) but I accept the EST as the standard; after all. hockey history pre-NHL shows the NE U.S. college plus Pennsylvania and Michigan pro leagues and Ottawa-Montreal teams makes Eastern time the premier time zone for ice hockey history!

 

[Sturminator]

I am also way off of Eastern Standard Time (I'm at GMT +1), but I have long since accepted that eastern north america is the hockey world's center of mass.

--------------------------

I would like to suggest a small change to the rules of previous drafts: let's try to get more players involved in the voting for the final two rounds - like all the way down to the bottom of the top-80. I am not convinced, for example, that a guy like Russell Bowie will be properly treated by all of the voters in the first round of this thing, and it would be a damn shame if he never even came up for a vote because he was left off of too many lists. Same goes for Tom Dunderdale, Duke Keats and Milan Novy. Let's expand the field for the final 8-10 slots on the list.

It has always been the bottoms of these lists which have been the most problematic in the past, with deserving players simply not coming up for a vote. While I agree that better pre-list discussion should eliminate the most egregious oversights, I am not convinced that it will eliminate the small injustices, like Jimmy Thomson not even coming up for a vote at the bottom of the defensemen project. Expanding the voting pool at the bottom is possibly the best way to address this problem.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Time Zone

The time zone issue comes down to a compromise between an hour that attracts the greatest number of new participants while respecting the established participants and hockey traditions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Time Element

I doubt most ATDers have such a list.

Very interesting comment TDMM. I refer you to a thread you started March 27, 2013 about the HOH Top Centers of All time Project:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/sh....php?t=1386941

Today is August 18, 2013, 9 days short of 5 full months since that thread was stared. ATDer or not, the suggestion is that in almost five months or app. 150 days, potential participants have not done any discernible work towards the project. That's one center roughly every two days towards the initial list or a rough mental outline of eighty.

 

[Canadiens1958]

List in Progress

I am also way off of Eastern Standard Time (I'm at GMT +1), but I have long since accepted that eastern north america is the hockey world's center of mass.

--------------------------

I would like to suggest a small change to the rules of previous drafts: let's try to get more players involved in the voting for the final two rounds - like all the way down to the bottom of the top-80. I am not convinced, for example, that a guy like Russell Bowie will be properly treated by all of the voters in the first round of this thing, and it would be a damn shame if he never even came up for a vote because he was left off of too many lists. Same goes for Tom Dunderdale, Duke Keats and Milan Novy. Let's expand the field for the final 8-10 slots on the list.

It has always been the bottoms of these lists which have been the most problematic in the past, with deserving players simply not coming up for a vote. While I agree that better pre-list discussion should eliminate the most egregious oversights, I am not convinced that it will eliminate the small injustices, like Jimmy Thomson not even coming up for a vote at the bottom of the defensemen project. Expanding the voting pool at the bottom is possibly the best way to address this problem.

Nice to see someone with lists that are in a constant state of " work in progress".

 

[tarheelhockey]

I would like to suggest a small change to the rules of previous drafts: let's try to get more players involved in the voting for the final two rounds - like all the way down to the bottom of the top-80. I am not convinced, for example, that a guy like Russell Bowie will be properly treated by all of the voters in the first round of this thing, and it would be a damn shame if he never even came up for a vote because he was left off of too many lists. Same goes for Tom Dunderdale, Duke Keats and Milan Novy. Let's expand the field for the final 8-10 slots on the list.

It has always been the bottoms of these lists which have been the most problematic in the past, with deserving players simply not coming up for a vote. While I agree that better pre-list discussion should eliminate the most egregious oversights, I am not convinced that it will eliminate the small injustices, like Jimmy Thomson not even coming up for a vote at the bottom of the defensemen project. Expanding the voting pool at the bottom is possibly the best way to address this problem.

Even having pushed for smaller ballots and more focused discussion, this is the exception where I would agree with opening up the field.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Today is August 18, 2013, 9 days short of 5 full months since that thread was stared. ATDer or not, the suggestion is that in almost five months or app. 150 days, potential participants have not done any discernible work towards the project. That's one center roughly every two days towards the initial list or a rough mental outline of eighty.

See this thread:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1386941

There most certainly has been "discernible work" done toward the project in the past 5 months by any number of forumers. The talk about Kibitzers and now accusations of laziness toward those who can't get a list done in 2 hours are not the right tone for a collaborative project.

In any case, having a ready-made list is not a requirement for participation. We will set a deadline that works for the group, not just one forumer or one cohort of forumers.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I am also way off of Eastern Standard Time (I'm at GMT +1), but I have long since accepted that eastern north america is the hockey world's center of mass.

--------------------------

I would like to suggest a small change to the rules of previous drafts: let's try to get more players involved in the voting for the final two rounds - like all the way down to the bottom of the top-80. I am not convinced, for example, that a guy like Russell Bowie will be properly treated by all of the voters in the first round of this thing, and it would be a damn shame if he never even came up for a vote because he was left off of too many lists. Same goes for Tom Dunderdale, Duke Keats and Milan Novy. Let's expand the field for the final 8-10 slots on the list.

It has always been the bottoms of these lists which have been the most problematic in the past, with deserving players simply not coming up for a vote. While I agree that better pre-list discussion should eliminate the most egregious oversights, I am not convinced that it will eliminate the small injustices, like Jimmy Thomson not even coming up for a vote at the bottom of the defensemen project. Expanding the voting pool at the bottom is possibly the best way to address this problem.

I agree with your premise but in the top 60 Dman project it would have just been another large injustice to modern guys who would not have been brought up including 2 Norris winners (one with a very long career) and other very distinguished careers.

The players at both ends of the time spectrum do get the short end of the shrift here but for entirely different reasons. for players from the past century there is often too little information and for more recent guys there is too much information. for the guys in the middle (top 6 and pre integration) there is ton of leeway in any benifit of the doubt.

Jimmy Johnson was a 2 time 2nd team all star in a league of 25 Dmen, sure he had a long career, for the era, but his was his name not coming up an injustice?

I'm hopeful that in the top forwards project some consideration of the integrated nature of the NHL (thus harder degree of difficulty in top 5,10, 20 finishes and SC's) is seriously considered.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I am also way off of Eastern Standard Time (I'm at GMT +1), but I have long since accepted that eastern north america is the hockey world's center of mass.

--------------------------

I would like to suggest a small change to the rules of previous drafts: let's try to get more players involved in the voting for the final two rounds - like all the way down to the bottom of the top-80. I am not convinced, for example, that a guy like Russell Bowie will be properly treated by all of the voters in the first round of this thing, and it would be a damn shame if he never even came up for a vote because he was left off of too many lists. Same goes for Tom Dunderdale, Duke Keats and Milan Novy. Let's expand the field for the final 8-10 slots on the list.

It has always been the bottoms of these lists which have been the most problematic in the past, with deserving players simply not coming up for a vote. While I agree that better pre-list discussion should eliminate the most egregious oversights, I am not convinced that it will eliminate the small injustices, like Jimmy Thomson not even coming up for a vote at the bottom of the defensemen project. Expanding the voting pool at the bottom is possibly the best way to address this problem.

We had 17 defensemen available (down to spot 72 of the aggregate list) for the last 5 spots of the defenseman project. I don't know how much farther we could have gone. There were some posters who thought that was too many to even talk about everyone.

Edit: If we went up to 20 in the last round (down to spot 75 of the aggregate list), Thomson, Herb Gardiner, and Eric Desjardins would have been available. Maybe we should look into going up that high just for the final round, as long as the project still has momentum.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

See this thread:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1386941

There most certainly has been "discernible work" done toward the project in the past 5 months by any number of forumers. The talk about Kibitzers and now accusations of laziness toward those who can't get a list done in 2 hours are not the right tone for a collaborative project.

In any case, having a ready-made list is not a requirement for participation. We will set a deadline that works for the group, not just one forumer or one cohort of forumers.

I don't think we made it official before - but tarheelhockey and I are the chief co-admins of the project right now. So take what he says as official too. Yes, I got roped into doing this one more time.

Hawkey Town 18 and tony D are also helping administer - don't worry guys; we'll have work for you soon enough.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Last chance to vote. If the poll doesn't tighten, I'm closing it late Monday night or early Tuesday.

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?

Another possible idea - start off by adding 4 per round for 5 rounds to get to 20. When we accept the votes for the 5th round, we also take a poll of project participants as to whether we continue adding 4 per round or more to 5 per round.

Maybe I'm making things overly complicated, but I think this could function as a good compromise. After 5 rounds, participants should have a better idea as to whether adding 4 per round is going to go too slowly or not.

 

[Sturminator]

Jimmy Johnson was a 2 time 2nd team all star in a league of 25 Dmen, sure he had a long career, for the era, but his was his name not coming up an injustice?

I'm hopeful that in the top forwards project some consideration of the integrated nature of the NHL (thus harder degree of difficulty in top 5,10, 20 finishes and SC's) is seriously considered.

I'll refer you to a fairly spirited discussion of Jimmy Thomson from the last ATD.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1385193&page=2

It goes on for several pages. Long story short: the specific things that most often get overlooked about Thomson's career are how good he was in his non all-star seasons, and the fact that he was almost certainly blocked from a shot at the HHOF by Conn Smythe because of his activism in the formation of the NHLPA. The guy had seven consecutive seasons in which he was a top-6 defenseman in the NHL, and was the best blueliner on a defensive-minded team that won four Cups. I've got him around 56th-57th all-time, so yeah, I think it was an injustice that he never came up for discussion. Giving Herb Gardiner and Eric Desjardins a fair look wouldn't have hurt, either, even if they would have likely not been voted into the top-60.

At any rate, this is not the place to argue for Jimmy Thomson, but just to point out that opening up the field at the end may yield some surprises, and help correct possible oversights in the round one lists.

 

[Sturminator]

Another possible idea - start off by adding 4 per round for 5 rounds to get to 20. When we accept the votes for the 5th round, we also take a poll of project participants as to whether we continue adding 4 per round or more to 5 per round.

Maybe I'm making things overly complicated, but I think this could function as a good compromise. After 5 rounds, participants should have a better idea as to whether adding 4 per round is going to go too slowly or not.

I think this is a very reasonable compromise. Sometimes deferring judgment is simply prudent. Let's see where we're at after the first four rounds before locking in.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'll refer you to a fairly spirited discussion of Jimmy Thomson from the last ATD.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1385193&page=2

It goes on for several pages. Long story short: the specific things that most often get overlooked about Thomson's career are how good he was in his non all-star seasons, and the fact that he was almost certainly blocked from a shot at the HHOF by Conn Smythe because of his activism in the formation of the NHLPA. The guy had seven consecutive seasons in which he was a top-6 defenseman in the NHL, and was the best blueliner on a defensive-minded team that won four Cups. I've got him around 56th-57th all-time, so yeah, I think it was an injustice that he never came up for discussion. Giving Herb Gardiner and Eric Desjardins a fair look wouldn't have hurt, either, even if they would have likely not been voted into the top-60.

At any rate, this is not the place to argue for Jimmy Thomson, but just to point out that opening up the field at the end may yield some surprises, and help correct possible oversights in the round one lists.

Interesting read but there is too much allowance for the 6 team league, thus 4 SC isn't as impressive as it would sound, say in a 30 team league.

Being around 6th for 7 consecutive years is still being at the bottom of the 1st tier of Dmen in the league and in the bottom of the top 1/4 of all Dmen in the league or at a 75% placing (to look at it another way).

I'm not saying that we ahve to look at it 100% the other way but it needs to be taken into context when comparing guys that came later, post integration in a 21-30 team league with a lot of elite talent outside of the Canadian stream.

Too often 1948 is treated pretty much the same as 1998 which really tilts the bias in favor of one guy over the other.

For centers, and forwards in general, hopefully the sheer impact of the non NHL non Canadians will simply be too outstanding to keep off the top 60 lists.

Back to Thompson, there is very little to suggest that he is even close to a guy like Zubov in terms of value and impact yet the 6 team league can exaggerate it.

 

[Sturminator]

Back to Thompson, there is very little to suggest that he is even close to a guy like Zubov in terms of value and impact yet the 6 team league can exaggerate it.

wut?

Allright, I guess I know where you stand vis-á-vis older players. Good to know.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Is there going to be a list of about 100 centers or so to help making a list easier?

 

[Killion]

Back to Thompson, there is very little to suggest that he is even close to a guy like Zubov in terms of value and impact yet the 6 team league can exaggerate it.

Ya, actually Hv theres plenty to suggest that he was a superior player to Zubov (of more importance) in terms of value & impact all things being equal era-era. Thompson was buried by Conn Smythe, no markers allowed on that ones gravesite for as long as the Major had anything to say about it. This guy was a Hell of a player, multiple SC Winner, Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs for Gods Sake. He got screwed for having the temerity to stand up for himself & the players, sent to Coventry. No exaggeration, padding this guys resume' is required. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is there going to be a list of about 100 centers or so to help making a list easier?

I would suggest checking out past All Time Draft threads as a good starting point: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1386617

* Disclaimer: The ATD is a competitive fantasy game and not a ranking project. The order in which players are drafted reflects team-building and personal preference, NOT all-time ranking. The draft list is a good shortcut to having an initial list of names, but NOT something to be taken at face value as the basis for your own list.


The Hockey Hall of Fame also has their Honored Members listed by position: http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsPlayersByPosition.jsp?pos=C

* Disclaimer: The HHOF is also not an all-time ranking project. It virtually ignores international players, excludes many recent players, and has made any number of questionable decisions over time. Again, it's a good place to collect names but NOT a definitive list.


Finally, I tend to run some lists on hockey-reference.com to be sure I'm not missing anyone from the lists above. Top-100 games played, G/A/P, points per game, award winners, +/-, things like that. Just in case someone sneaks through the lists above.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There will be a substantive discussion thread open for a good month before we start accepting lists.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

Are these proposed rules or the actual rules?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Proposed

Are these proposed rules or the actual rules?

Proposed rules.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Proposed rules

Only getting 2-3 new votes per day for the past several days; it's clear that Top 60 won. We'll be doing the Top 60 Centers of All Time.

Based on input in this thread, we've slightly modified the rules from defenseman and goalies projects here. If you have any questions about them or desired tweaks, now is the time to speak up.

Absent any major rule changes, the preliminary discussion thread will be up in a few days. I'm sure we all can't wait to start actually talking about the players, rather than quibbling about rules.

1. Eligibility and Ranking Criteria
   • Any person who spent the majority of his career playing as a center or who has the majority of his accomplishments as a center is eligible
   • It is highly recommended that you use these guidelines to determine whether a player qualifies as a "center" for the purposes of this project (link)
   • A player who qualifies as a center should be ranked based on his overall accomplishments as a forward or hockey player.
   • Players should be judged only on their accomplishments as hockey players
   • Players currently active are eligible, but should be ranked based only on what they have already done
2. Preliminary Discussion Thread
   • Anyone may participate in this thread, even if he does not plan on taking part in the voting phase
   • Any center may be discussed
   • Posters are encouraged to share information about players in this thread and to take information shared into account when constructing their own lists
   • Brief comparisons between players are permitted, but detailed cases and debates should be saved for Round 2 of Voting
   • Please do NOT rank players outright in the preliminary thread
3. Voting
   • Round 1
     • All participants submit a list of 80 centers ranked in order
     • All eras MUST be considered, and consideration should be given to both NHL and non-NHL players
     • To make it easier to aggregate the submitted lists, please list players using their most commonly used name; e.g. Cyclone Taylor, not Frederick Wellington Taylor; Hooley Smith, not Reginald Smith
     • Lists may be submitted via email to (will be posted later) or via PM to (will be posted later). Excel format is preferred, but a top to bottom list of 80 is fine too
     • We will be accepting lists between September 20 and October 10. Please PM me if you can't make this timeframe and would like to participate
     • Players will be assigned a point value on the list based on ranking
     • Players will be awarded 80 points for a 1st place vote down to 1 point for a 80th place vote
     • An aggregate list of the top centers will be compiled ranking them in order of the most total points
     • Participants MUST submit a list in Round 1 to be eligible for Round 2
   • Round 2
     • The top 8 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
     • Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
     • Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five (5) days. Administrators may extend the discussion period if it remains active
     • Final voting will occur for two (2) days, via PM
     • Top 4 players will be added to the list
     • Final results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 4 places with remaining players until a list of 60 centers is obtained
     • After Vote 5 (when we have a list of the top 20 centers), we may increase the number of players added per round to 5. Participants will be allowed to vote on whether to increase the number added per round to 5 or to stay at 4 per round
     • If there are major breaks in the Round 2 voting totals, we may add more or less than the targeted 4 or 5 players in certain rounds
     • The number of players available for discussion at once will increase from 8 as we move down the list, based on natural breaks in the aggregate list put together in Round 1
4. Quality Assurance
   • Lists will be subject to an evaluation process
   • The submitter of a questionable list will be given an opportunity to defend or justify any selection under question or to correct errors and resubmit
   • The complete voting record of every participant will be released at the end of the project
5. Participants Code of Conduct
   • Participants must recognize that this is a collaborative project and that we all share the same goals, no matter how much we disagree on individual ranking
   • Participants should treat each other with respect and must not openly question the motivations of other participants
   • Repeatedly violating these rules may result in ban from this project and possibly similar future projects on the History of Hockey board