HOH Top 100- First Round of Voting

[MXD]

* Players currently in top 50 not on every list: BT, CT, PC, BC

That seems to be one of the players that got tossed because of an accidental doublon.

 

[FissionFire]

I look forward to seeing that argument.

Hopefully the person who submitted that list chooses to partake in the debate. There were a couple debatable rankings on it which I feel would really make the Round 2 voting interesting from a discussion standpoint.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

I look forward to the lists so i can stop racking my mind with the initials.

 

[seventieslord]

Update:

22 lists reviewed so far, 20 accepted and 2 rejected

* 220 different players listed
* Smallest standard deviation: ML (0.47), GH (0.81), WG (0.91), BH (1.58), BO (1.68), MR (1.82), ES (1.90), DH (2.23), JB (2.26), JP (3.68)
* Largest standard deviation: GH (30.96), AM (29.16), CB (29.11), AF (28.81), VB (28.74), NS (28.37), ES (27.84), PF (26.40), EL (26.19), SM (25.79)
* Largest standard deviation for player on all 12 lists: VT (25.22), CD (24.34), FB (21.38), HR (18.31), NL (18.04)
* Largest standard deviation for player currently in top 20: DH (17.10) next closest is only 8.50
* Active players in top 100 currently: 8
* Lowest ranked player to appear on all lists: CD
* Players currently in top 50 not on every list: BT, CT, PC, BC
* Player not currently in top 100 appearing on most lists: AD (16)
* Player currently in top 100 appearing on fewest lists: AF (11)
* Widest voting ranges for players on all list: VT (15-103), KD (21-104), DH (7-88), HR (25-101), CD (27-102), FB (33-106), BP (45-116)

Not that I'd expect my list to be rejected, but if it was, you'd let me know, correct? I don't have any outlandish choices, but the possibility exists that I just plain forgot someone I meant to have on, so in the off-chance that it was my list that was rejected, make sure to inform me.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Hopefully the person who submitted that list chooses to partake in the debate. There were a couple debatable rankings on it which I feel would really make the Round 2 voting interesting from a discussion standpoint.

I think that participating in the next round of debates should be mandatory. Obviously we can't go back and erase his votes, but we can identify publicly those who don't participate in the next round of debates, and go after them.

I agree that I can't wait till totals are released, so that we can get rid of this initials thing. It's giving me a headache. Easy at home - I just reference my list there. Not so easy at work.

And I'm glad that FF and HO have taken this part of the project on. I don't understand standard deviation, and I never will, so don't bother trying to explain it to me. HO tried it once, and I was lost after the first three words "standard deviation is..." If you guys need a press release done up on this project, let me know.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Not that I'd expect my list to be rejected, but if it was, you'd let me know, correct? I don't have any outlandish choices, but the possibility exists that I just plain forgot someone I meant to have on, so in the off-chance that it was my list that was rejected, make sure to inform me.

Likewise. I'm sure my list made it, but I would like to know if it is otherwise

 

[Pwnasaurus]

I look forward to seeing that argument.

I was responsible for the 7 part and I expected that to be his highest ranking in all probability, though not too far off from most lists I assume.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

I was responsible for the 7 part and I expected that to be his highest ranking in all probability, though not too far off from most lists I assume.

I have him around there too, more interested in the argument that has him absurdly low.

 

[FissionFire]

Not that I'd expect my list to be rejected, but if it was, you'd let me know, correct? I don't have any outlandish choices, but the possibility exists that I just plain forgot someone I meant to have on, so in the off-chance that it was my list that was rejected, make sure to inform me.

Any lists that were rejected I've informed the submitters of and the reasons for it. One list was revised and later approved and the other I just sent out the notice for today.

As for forgetting a name, it happens. We'll have roughly 30 lists in the end so one name forgotten on one list won't matter too much because of the way Round 2 voting is set up. I'm hoping to make this Top 100 project an annual undertaking (probably in the summer when there's lots of hockey downtime) so they'll be plenty of time to tweak an revise lists in the interim (as well as recruit more participants).

P.S.: Your list was approved.

 

[FissionFire]

Likewise. I'm sure my list made it, but I would like to know if it is otherwise

It did. I assigned each list a number randomly and you just happened to be List 1 so you were the first to go through the process.

And I'm glad that FF and HO have taken this part of the project on. I don't understand standard deviation, and I never will, so don't bother trying to explain it to me. HO tried it once, and I was lost after the first three words "standard deviation is..." If you guys need a press release done up on this project, let me know.

Simple explanation: If you take the mean (or average) of all the rankings for the player, the standard deviation is just how far from the mean (or average) each ranking is on average. The higher to standard deviation, the larger the range of rankings tend to be. Think of it as a measure for the consistency or "agreement" of the rankings on a player. The more consistently people rank the player, or the more they "agree" on the ranking for a player, the lower the standard deviation.

So taking ML for example. His mean/average value was 117.3 points, which is between 3rd and 4th place but closer to 4th. His standard deviation is 0.47. So that means voters on average gave him a point total of 117.3 +/- 0.47 or 117.9 to 116.9 points on average, meaning he was either 118 (3rd) or 117 (4th) on almost every list, or very very close to it. Looking at the raw data, ML was 118 (3rd) six times, and 117 (4th) fourteen times so he was ranked extremely consistently across all lists.

Contrast that with VT. His mean/average value was 63.2 points, which is slightly better than 58th place. His standard deviation is 25.22. That means voters on average game him a point total of 63.2 +/- 25.22 or 88.42 to 37.98 on average, something between about 33rd and 83rd place. That's a very wide range of rankings. Looking at the raw data shows why: Placing 15, 20, 24, 32, 42, 42, 45, 45, 53, 55, 59, 61, 67, 71, 76, 80, 83, 87, 97, and 103. Aside from broad consensus among about half the voters that he's in the 42-61 range, the opinions of him are all over the board from top 20 to outside the top 100. Because the range of rankings is so diverse the standard deviation is very largeto reflect the lack of consistency in the values.

As for a press release, I have to check on that. I'm pretty sure someone offered to do a summary/bio of all the players somewhere in this thread so I need to big back through the posts and see who it was and give them first crack at it if they are still interested. Unless HO has something planned already because honestly I haven't thought that far ahead yet lol.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm curious what kind of attention RF got in these lists. He seems to be a polarizing figure in terms of people debating how good he was on an all-time level.

 

[FissionFire]

I'm curious what kind of attention RF got in these lists. He seems to be a polarizing figure in terms of people debating how good he was on an all-time level.

Bottom end of the top 100 and looks to pretty entrenched there. Listed on 17 of 20 lists with a high ranking of 45 and a low ranking of 119.

 

[seventieslord]

Bottom end of the top 100 and looks to pretty entrenched there. Listed on 17 of 20 lists with a high ranking of 45 and a low ranking of 119.

Hmm, interesting. I am separated from my list, but I believe I have him 119th, I thought I was being generous, but from the looks of it, only three had him lower (the three that never ranked him)

 

[amnesiac*]

I'm curious what kind of attention RF got in these lists. He seems to be a polarizing figure in terms of people debating how good he was on an all-time level.

Consistency over many years has a lot of merit, imo. I have him #62, but I think he should be higher now given his place on the all-time points list.

Played a lot of years on that crappy green team too with PV as his best winger.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

I was responsible for the 7 part and I expected that to be his highest ranking in all probability, though not too far off from most lists I assume.

I had him at 7 too. And as for the four Top 50-players that aren't on all lists, I only have two of them on my list.

 

[amnesiac*]

I had him at 7 too. And as for the four Top 50-players that aren't on all lists, I only have two of them on my list.

The goalie or dman at #7?

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

D-man, I had momentarily forgotten that I also have the goalie on my list.

 

[amnesiac*]

D-man, I had momentarily forgotten that I also have the goalie on my list.

yeah, I think the 7-88 was for the goalie.

#88 for either one is pretty bad, but the dman should be on everyone's top 15 imo.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

yeah, I think the 7-88 was for the goalie.

#88 for either one is pretty bad, but the dman should be on everyone's top 15 imo.

I assumed it was the dman, and FF didn't correct me. I have the d-man at 7 or 8 IIRC.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

Now I feel like a dunce for confusing the two, but it could also be seen as further proof that discussing players using only initials is really confusing.

Moving on, I really wanted to include RF, but I believe he was one of the names that had to go when I updated my list. I'm really happy that many of you included him.

 

[FissionFire]

I assumed it was the dman, and FF didn't correct me. I have the d-man at 7 or 8 IIRC.

Oops sorry, I musta missed that post. Maybe I'm getting old

 

[FissionFire]

Quick update:

Only 4 lists left to be submitted and one potential revision on the recent rejection. The reviewing of the submitted lists is almost done and the compiling as well is nearly complete. Soon as I get these final lists we'll be ready to go. I'm pegging Friday as a hopeful start date for Round 2.

Lists Received
amnesiac
arrbez
BM67
cottonking
DaveG
EagleBelfour
God Bless Canada
Hockey Outsider
kruezer
Kyle McMahon
MXD
Nalyd Psycho
overpass
pappyline
pitseleh
pnep
Pwnasaurus
raleh
reckoning
seventieslord
Shlomo
Thornton_19
tomi2
Transplanted Caper
Wings4Life
vivianmb

Pending Lists
Murphy
Spitfire11
VanIslander
Weztex

 

[Pwnasaurus]

I assumed it was the dman, and FF didn't correct me. I have the d-man at 7 or 8 IIRC.

Yeah I meant the d-man as well though the goalie is not too too far behind.

 

[Pwnasaurus]

I'm pegging Friday as a hopeful start date for Round 2.

Cool. Good work.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I'm curious what kind of attention RF got in these lists. He seems to be a polarizing figure in terms of people debating how good he was on an all-time level.

If we're talking about the RF I'm thinking of, I had him in the top 100, but on the fringe. He's a guy who was underrated for most of his career, until he really started to climb the career numbers lists, and then people took notice. Then some started to overrate him.

I see a guy who was a top 10 player late in his career (from about 1995 to 1998). Magnificent playmaker, excellent two-way forward, a rock in the face-off circle, and an excellent PP QB from the point. It was really hard to rate him ahead of NU and JR.