Your preferences on the next HOH Project (read post)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

VOTE FOR YOUR TOP 3 CHOICES!

If the results are close, there will be a second poll as a run-off.

This is nonbinding, but maybe we can reach a consensus.

Click to read more...

 

[bobholly39]

Here's my opinion on all of them:

HOH Hall of Fame - Why? We already have a hall of fame. Are we going to induct Lindros a few years early? Are we going to skip on Phil Housley? Are we going to induct 1-2 long forgotten players? In the end, the hall of fame is mostly fine aside from a few small points, and I don't think this will give us any worthwhile list at the end, nothing that differs too much from the actual hall of fame.

Best Players by Birth Year - To me, this is more trivia, than a list actually worth something. It can also easily be conducted by a set of polls in the polls section (or even here) without needing an actual "project". Majority of birth years ranking are quite....straightforward.

Best Duos of all-time - To me this is impossible. @BenchBrawl came up with a good list of suggestions as to what qualifies as duos in a previous thread, but it's such insanely subjective that i'm sure everyone will have their own criteria of what duos qualify. No one will ever agree who the duos are, which is a deal breaker at the start. Also - length of duo vs peak, what counts more?

Best Pre-Consolidation Players - This is 100% a worthwhile project, no question. If you guy run this, i'll follow and learn, but I have very little knowledge to contribute here, so won't vote for it. Also - I think this will be very hard, and I wonder how much participation will happen. If you guys go this route - I'd suggest trying to get a commitment from a minimum number of posters to participate actively, or it'll fizzle out.

Most worthy future HHOF Inductions - A bit similar to my thoughts on the first one, why? Also - are there even any names worth discussing outside of maybe ~10-15 who aren't active players where we'd need to do a ton of projections? "Is Matthews/Eichel a future HHOF'er" - doesn't seem very project worthy. And if we're spending a ton of time debating whether Alfredsson or Zetterberg are worthy of HHOF - well, they are fine players but on the very low end of HHOF worthiness, so it isn't all that interesting.

Best WHA players of all-time. Like he pre-consolidation list, this is a fine worthwhile project (pre-consolidation is moreso) - I don't know enough about the league so don't know that i'd be able to participate, but I would enjoy following. Not sure it's the best of projects to undertake though.

Best dynasties of all-time - This could be ok, but there's only....a handful of dynasties, right? So are we only ranking ~5-10 teams? If so - let's do this in a week and move on? Maybe I'm missing something.

Which leaves me with my top 3. In order from least to most favorite:

3. Best Teams of all time. This could be fun, and different than anything we've ever done. Would also be a worthwhile project, as ranking top teams isn't something you come across often. I think the only way this project makes any sense though is if we spend a lot of time ahead of time coming up with the right criteria of team, vs everyone doing their own thing. Would need a lot of discussion. The 2019 Lightning is a fantastic team, one of the best ever - but they got swept in round 1. Are we ranking best teams 'on paper' or on performance, playoffs too or just regular season? Also - if you ignore the sweep - Tampa vs rest of league is a giant last year, but Tampa vs other all-time teams in a non cap era....is way lower on totem pole - which is the measure we're ranking by? Habs won 4 straight in the 70s - do we rank that as "1 team" or rank each year as a different team, and if so...it gets redundant? I think it's important these types of issues get discussed and agreed upon at beginning so everyone isn't voting based on separate criteria, rendering the actual list just a jumble and not representative of much.

2. Next Best Players of All-Time. This would be fantastic. I've never seen any worthy all-time list go farther than 100, so this would be a very valuable project. Instead of comparing Gretzky to Lemieux to Orr we get to rank Sundin vs Oates vs Luongo - the type of players you don't normally get to rank. This is also time sensitive - it makes sense to do this after the top 100. If we wait too long- in another 2-3 years, we'd probably have to redo the whole top 100 vs just start off as #101, since opinions/posters will change and it wouldn't be representative.

1. Best Single Seasons of All-Time. This is my personal favorite - peak seasons. I think we'd have to do one season per player max - because we don't want to have the project rank 25 of Orr/Lemieux/Gretzky seasons before getting to anyone else. We'd also have to decide how to include playoffs if at all. Personally - I say no playoffs, as it throws things off. Fedorov in 1994 is amazing and could rank very high- but it's the year Detroit happens to choke in round 1 - so does that mean we now rank Fedorov's "peak season" lower because of a bad team result? Not even representative of Fedorov as a playoff performer, because if you took any of his 97 or 98 playoff run, they'd hold up very nicely with 1994. So - I would say best single season regular season only of players, and 1 only per player - that's my suggestion. I also think this would be a very worthwhile list - as it's not something that's ever been done before in a serious way, and would cause us to look at many players in a different light, focusing on just their very best season.

 

[bobholly39]

VOTE FOR YOUR TOP 3 CHOICES!

If the results are close, there will be a second poll as a run-off.

This is nonbinding, but maybe we can reach a consensus.

Should definitely do a run-off imo. Do a run off of the top 2-5 choices depending on how many are getting a lot of votes.

 

[Professor What]

I don't seem to be able to vote. Is there a certain level of activity necessary that I haven't reached yet or am I missing something?

 

[DitchMarner]

I voted for Next Best Players and Most Worthy Future HHOF Inductions. Maybe I'll participate. We'll see.

 

[plusandminus]

VOTE FOR YOUR TOP 3 CHOICES!

If the results are close, there will be a second poll as a run-off.

This is nonbinding, but maybe we can reach a consensus.

Since I think I was the one suggesting birth years, I'd want it to rather read something like "...Birth Year or group of Birth Years (for example 1950-54)". I think most here thought one year at the time would be to time consuming.

I also have a few questions...
1. Does "best teams" include CSKA Moscow? National teams? Maybe you could clarify so that one knows what one is voting for. (Like "Best NHL teams".)
2. Same for dynasties... I would say CSKA is the greatest dynasty ever. There are also other teams that have strongly dominated their domestic leagues. (They might not be Stanley Cup competitive, but still dominating domestically just like NHL teams used to do in the "basically all Canadian players" NHL.
3. Is "Hall of fame" from a NHL perspective? For example, Satan (the hockey player) is in the International HOF, while Pronger is not. (I recently received a sarcastic reply for not knowing the criterias for the North American HOF compared to the International one.) What is measured?
4. How would "Best WHA players" be measured"? Obviously, Gretzky and Gordie are the greatest to ever play there? Or are we just comparing how veterans Bobby Hull and Gordie compared to young players and players in their prime? That is, how good the players were at the actual time of playing in the WHA. (I would think the latter.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't seem to be able to vote. Is there a certain level of activity necessary that I haven't reached yet or am I missing something?

It's probably because you haven't been a member long enough. I get why brand new members can't vote in polls, but in this case, it's pretty lame.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Since I think I was the one suggesting birth years, I'd want it to rather read something like "...Birth Year or group of Birth Years (for example 1950-54)". I think most here thought one year at the time would be to time consuming.

I tried editing that poll option to your preferred wording, but it seems I am not allowed to. Maybe a mod count edit it? @Theokritos @quoipourquoi

If it makes the runoff, I'll use your new wording.

I also have a few questions...
1. Does "best teams" include CSKA Moscow? National teams? Maybe you could clarify so that one knows what one is voting for. (Like "Best NHL teams".)
2. Same for dynasties... I would say CSKA is the greatest dynasty ever. There are also other teams that have strongly dominated their domestic leagues. (They might not be Stanley Cup competitive, but still dominating domestically just like NHL teams used to do in the "basically all Canadian players" NHL.
3. Is "Hall of fame" from a NHL perspective? For example, Satan (the hockey player) is in the International HOF, while Pronger is not. (I recently received a sarcastic reply for not knowing the criterias for the North American HOF compared to the International one.) What is measured?
4. How would "Best WHA players" be measured"? Obviously, Gretzky and Gordie are the greatest to ever play there? Or are we just comparing how veterans Bobby Hull and Gordie compared to young players and players in their prime? That is, how good the players were at the actual time of playing in the WHA. (I would think the latter.)

I think that details can be decided later. I personally prefer to include both European and North American perspectives when possible.

 

[Professor What]

It's probably because you haven't been a member long enough. I get why brand new members can't vote in polls, but in this case, it's pretty lame.

Well, I guess for lack of a better option at the moment, I'll just state my preferences. In order that they're found on the list: HOH HOF, Next Best Players, Pre-Consolidation

 

[sr edler]

Only one I would consider participating in myself is pre-consolidation. Not interested in discussing Brendan Shanahan, sorry.

I would also like @Sanf to get the proper opportunity to sort out his bookmarks/notes once and for all. I'm interested in what's in there.

 

[GMR]

Aren't pre-consolidation players already included in the top 100?

I vote for best teams, best individual seasons, and best dynasties. That seems more unique and original. There's already many lists ranking players (including by individual position).

 

[Perennial]

If you were guaranteed 1200 games of optimal health from each player, who are the Top 100 players you would build around if you were the GM of Seattle...

 

[plusandminus]

Regarding "best single season", I suppose it's about best individual single seasons?

Some have pointed out that one should limit it to one season per player. However, I think it would be hard just to determine which season is the best for guys like Gretzky, Mario and others.

That might be solved by lettering everyone pick his own preferred season, for example either Gretzky 1983-84 or 1985-86. Then just focus on Gretzky's best season, regardless of when it occured. Focus on who rather than when.
Example...
Voter A think that Gretzky 1983-84 is the best ever, followed by Orr 1970-71 and Gretzky 1985-86.
Voter B think Gretzky 1985-86 was best, followed by Orr 1970-71, Mario 1992-92, and Gretzky 1983-84.
Then just agree that both think Gretzky had the best season ever, followed by Orr.
Aggregated: Gretzky 1st+1st. Orr 2nd+2nd.

(If being forced to consider either the 1983-84 or 1985-86 season for Gretzky, one would get a different
outcome.
Using 1983-84. Voter A picks Gretzky, Orr... Voter B picks Orr, Mario, Gretzky...
Aggregated: Orr 1st+2nd, Gretzky 1st+3rd.
Using 1985-86. Voter A picks Orr, Gretzky... Voter B pick Gretzky, Orr, Mario...
Aggregated: Gretzky and Orr both 1st+2nd.
So even if both think Gretzky had the best season ever, only one of them has Gretzky as number 1. And an aggregation would in one case even put Orr as number 1.)

I agree with TDMM that one doesn't need to get too detailed now. But I just pointed out the above anyway, in case it might affect how someone here would think regarding trying to determine "best single season".

 

[ted2019]

Continue to get your votes in folks.

 

[plusandminus]

VOTE FOR YOUR TOP 3 CHOICES!

If the results are close, there will be a second poll as a run-off.

This is nonbinding, but maybe we can reach a consensus.

If I vote now, will I be able to change it later? (I haven't decided yet exactly how to vote, but don't want to miss the deadline.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If I vote now, will I be able to change it later? (I haven't decided yet exactly how to vote, but don't want to miss the deadline.)

I did not set it up so voters could change their votes.

You can vote over the next few days

 

[BenchBrawl]

If it boils down to 101-200 vs. Pre-consolidation, the opportunity to learn will be much greater with the latter.

The entire community will mature from a deep dive into Pre-consolidation.

 

[wetcoast]

It's probably because you haven't been a member long enough. I get why brand new members can't vote in polls, but in this case, it's pretty lame.

Funny because in many polls it is extremely obvious that some established members don't even read the poll question properly in the polls section on the main boards where I assume the rules are the same.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Funny because in many polls it is extremely obvious that some established members don't even read the poll question properly in the polls section on the main boards where I assume the rules are the same.

The reason is to make it harder for someone to create multiple accounts just to skew the results of a poll. This is the internets, after all.

 

[DieSendungmitderMaus]

Well, I guess for lack of a better option at the moment, I'll just state my preferences. In order that they're found on the list: HOH HOF, Next Best Players, Pre-Consolidation

As someone who likes to lurk here and doesn't post , I usually wouldn't vote, but voted for your preferences here in proxy.

 

[Professor What]

As someone who likes to lurk here and doesn't post , I usually wouldn't vote, but voted for your preferences here in proxy.

Thank you very much.

 

[Beau Knows]

I can't believe my idea for the 100 worst players didn't make the list

But I voted for the next 100, it should generate some good discussion on players who don't usually get discussed as much as the top 100.

 

[GMR]

I can't believe my idea for the 100 worst players didn't make the list

But I voted for the next 100, it should generate some good discussion on players who don't usually get discussed as much as the top 100.

I'm bummed 100 best hockey fighters isn't an option.

 

[ted2019]

If it boils down to 101-200 vs. Pre-consolidation, the opportunity to learn will be much greater with the latter.

The entire community will mature from a deep dive into Pre-consolidation.

and it counter this is that the #1-100 was done only 2 years ago and this is the absolute best time to piggy back on that to get a project like #101-200 off the ground and done. The Pre-consolidation can be done next as there isn't a time frame for it to get done.

 

[bobholly39]

and it counter this is that the #1-100 was done only 2 years ago and this is the absolute best time to piggy back on that to get a project like #101-200 off the ground and done. The Pre-consolidation can be done next as there isn't a time frame for it to get done.

Yeah if we don't do a 101-200 list now - you can't do that 2 years from now. 4 years after initial list, we'd have to start over or it loses credibility imo.

Still say we should have a run off poll between both options as a next step