HOH Top-50 Non-NHL Europeans Project - Preliminary & General Discussion Thread

[Theokritos]

Back to the deadline question: Are there any people out there who have not yet submitted anything but who are still working on a top 70 list?

 

[tarheelhockey]

I've done just a little bit of work on a list, but TBH I didn't realize how little I knew about a lot of these guys until I sat down to rank them. 30 names in, I started seeing the field as just a bunch of semi-familiar names with no particular order.

Edit: and to be totally honest, I'm kind of waiting to find out whether this project is going to move forward to another deadline, or if it's going to be scrapped. Finishing the list is going to be at least a couple more hours' work if not more, and I have multiple other HF-related conflicts plus a very cluttered life at the moment. I'd rather conserve my time if finishing my list isn't going to make any difference in the end.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Theo told me we have 14 lists submitted. 1-2 more and we can move forward.

So, tarheel, please work on your list if you can

BTW, my listmaking went like this - had a good list of 30 or so names I liked and felt totally lost about finishing it. Then went through this thread post by post and finally came up with a list of about 95 names I thought were worth discussing. Then slowly pared it down, a few players at a time until I was finally at 70

 

[VMBM]

For me, top 40-50 was okay, since it was almost exclusively about Soviet and Czech players along with the most notable Swedes, but then it got very difficult.* The last 20-30 names were really just a mixture of the somewhat lesser Soviet & Czech stars and Swedish stars who did well e.g in the MVP voting, all-stars and international competition (stats and/or accolades), personal favourites (i.e. based on the famous "eye test", like Bykov, Khomutov, Hagman) and, quite honestly speaking, a couple of guys that I would have never picked without the preliminary discussion (= some other pre-1950s stars besides Malecek). Goalies like Dzurilla, Lindmark, Holmqvist, Konovalenko etc gave me the most trouble; not just that they are basically impossible to compare with the skaters but also really difficult to compare with each other IMO. Defencemen were quite difficult too.

* before starting the actual top 70 list, I did a sort of top 10-30 list for every significant country - it would have driven me totally crazy otherwise

Theo told me we have 14 lists submitted. 1-2 more and we can move forward.

Fairly positive news.

 

[Theokritos]

Edit: and to be totally honest, I'm kind of waiting to find out whether this project is going to move forward to another deadline, or if it's going to be scrapped.

As TDMM said above, we got 14 lists now, so we're almost good to go. As far as I'm concerned it's not a question of whether we carry on at this point but only a question of when. And thus, the new deadline I propose (and it should be the final one) is October 21.

 

[seventieslord]

As far as I'm concerned it's not a question of whether we carry on at this point but only a question of when.

I agree... I wouldn't mind delaying even longer... whatever it takes to get more lists. We've waited this long already.

 

[Sanf]

Very little to my knowledge have been published on the early years of Russian/Soviet, bandy/hockey.
What I find fascinating is that St.Petersburg Eislaufverein had yearbooks going back to 1899 with "season-in-review" summaries of their bandy activities.

British entrepeneurs brought bandy to Moscow and St.Petersburg in the 1850s.
The first Russian public skating rink was opened in 1865 (in St.Petersburg), and it is a well-known fact that the Russian Czar loved to play the game and it was frequently played by the Royalties at the Winter Palace Grounds in the 1860s.
The earliest photo that I have of the Royal family with skates and hockey/bandy sticks dates back to 1884.

In 1880 there were nine ice skating rinks operating in St.Petersburg and in 1888 they wrote the first rules in Russian.
Many games were played before the turn of the century, but I believe it wasn't until 1905/06 that the first league season was played.

St.Petersburg had great bandy teams before WW I, unfortunately many of the players were killed in the Russian revolution, putting an end to a great era of Russian bandy. Now that would be an interesting book. (I apologize for being a bit off-topic)

Sorry to continue this bit offtopic, but where are those yearbooks available? Those "Jussupoffska" teams had pretty interesting lineups when they played against team from Vyborg. In one old Finnish newspaper in the turn of the century the players were listed as Lauman jr. , Gertner, Ross, Ross, Panschin, Jacobin, Nikolajeff, Birken, Krewing, Lauman and Lebach.

I guess that there were Alexander Panschin, Adolf Laumann and his brother (Vladimir?), A.G. Rosz, I.A. Kreving and Richard Lebach. To others I won´t even make guesses. Mainly I´m interest of the players and where were they originally from.

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

Sorry to continue this bit offtopic, but where are those yearbooks available? Those "Jussupoffska" teams had pretty interesting lineups when they played against team from Vyborg. In one old Finnish newspaper in the turn of the century the players were listed as Lauman jr. , Gertner, Ross, Ross, Panschin, Jacobin, Nikolajeff, Birken, Krewing, Lauman and Lebach.

I guess that there were Alexander Panschin, Adolf Laumann and his brother (Vladimir?), A.G. Rosz, I.A. Kreving and Richard Lebach. To others I won´t even make guesses. Mainly I´m interest of the players and where were they originally from.

I PM'd you.

 

[Theokritos]

the new deadline I propose (and it should be the final one) is October 21.

Any objections? Anybody working on a list?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Working on it.

 

[Theokritos]

We got 15 ballots now. If no-one else lets me know he's working on a list and hasn't submitted yet we will close the voting very soon so that we can finally move on.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We got 15 ballots now. If no-one else lets me know he's working on a list and hasn't submitted yet we will close the voting very soon so that we can finally move on.

I think we should try to move on, and if any more straggler decide to send in lists, we should try to accommodate them.

During the positional projects, we made sure that the # of names in Round 2, Vote 1 was determined by a big natural break, and accepted lists up through the end of Round 2, Vote 1. Though obviously, it is better to get all the lists before starting Round 2.*

*Edit: To clarify, we added 2 lists this way during the dmen project, and either none or 1 during each of the other three positional projects

 

[Theokritos]

During the positional projects, we made sure that the # of names in Round 2, Vote 1 was determined by a big natural break, and accepted lists up through the end of Round 2, Vote 1.

I will look into the preliminary aggregate list to see whether this is an option.

 

[Theokritos]

I will look into the preliminary aggregate list to see whether this is an option.

Looks like this is indeed going to be an option and if it is then I'm in favour of it.

A general information: Right now there are still a few ballots left to get screened. As soon as we're through with this process we can start with round 2.

 

[seventieslord]

I am not sure if you have full data for scoring in CS league. In case you depend on Czech wikipedia, there are many seasons wrong. The most reliable source about czechoslovak statistics is http://avlh.sweb.cz/ . I also counted average amount of goals scored per game in a season which better illustrates how good season one player had since scoring environment has been constantly changing. Hence I´ll post it here.

This was awesome, by the way, because I was able to use it to figure out some inconsistencies in SIHR's stats. For the most part they appear correct - some things are off by 1-2 here and there. But what is incorrect is that in some seasons, playoff stats are separated, and in others they are rolled in along with the regular season stats, and in at least one they are rolled in for some players and not for others (which, as you can imagine, causes quite different leaderboards!)

There's a project I am working on where I use domestic CSSR league stats and translate to would-be NHL totals. But before I do that I need to make sure I'm using the correct stats for every season. I'm sold on this site and I trust it. I really would like to use it, but I can't navigate the site as I don't know the language. Can you offer any help?

Ultimately what I want to end up with is a sheet of all Czechoslovak seasons in one, with year-player-team-gp-g-a-pts-pim.

edit: actually, I'm working my way through it, and it appears that they only have the top-10 for each season. Being that I'm looking for complete league stat panels, it appears I'm stuck with SIHR, meaning I'll need to take out the playoffs wherever they are rolled into the season... what a pain!

Unless you know of a place where full league stat panels can be found. Perhaps this site of yours is sourcing it from somewhere else?

 

[MadArcand]

Unless you know of a place where full league stat panels can be found. Perhaps this site of yours is sourcing it from somewhere else?

The yearbooks, but only up from 70s IIRC. And I still found only one.

 

[Theokritos]

I'm working my way through it, and it appears that they only have the top-10 for each season. Being that I'm looking for complete league stat panels, it appears I'm stuck with SIHR, meaning I'll need to take out the playoffs wherever they are rolled into the season... what a pain!

See post 144 for 1972-1973, one of the playoff seasons.

 

[DN28]

This was awesome, by the way, because I was able to use it to figure out some inconsistencies in SIHR's stats. For the most part they appear correct - some things are off by 1-2 here and there. But what is incorrect is that in some seasons, playoff stats are separated, and in others they are rolled in along with the regular season stats, and in at least one they are rolled in for some players and not for others (which, as you can imagine, causes quite different leaderboards!)

There's a project I am working on where I use domestic CSSR league stats and translate to would-be NHL totals. But before I do that I need to make sure I'm using the correct stats for every season. I'm sold on this site and I trust it. I really would like to use it, but I can't navigate the site as I don't know the language. Can you offer any help?

Ultimately what I want to end up with is a sheet of all Czechoslovak seasons in one, with year-player-team-gp-g-a-pts-pim.

edit: actually, I'm working my way through it, and it appears that they only have the top-10 for each season. Being that I'm looking for complete league stat panels, it appears I'm stuck with SIHR, meaning I'll need to take out the playoffs wherever they are rolled into the season... what a pain!

Unless you know of a place where full league stat panels can be found. Perhaps this site of yours is sourcing it from somewhere else?

Yeah they have only top 10 for each season. Complete stat panels are not to be found on internet, I believe. The guy who runs this site appears to use official game records (for these czechoslovak league seasons) which are probably lying in some Czech hockey association´s archive. I guess he took just top 10 scorers from each season as it would be too much time consuming to take whole stat panels.

And there are at least two seasons (1970-71, 1972-73) where he writes that Association don´t have recorded points for that season´s playoffs (only for reg. season which are written on the right column). So the stats that are written there comes from different source - Gól magazine - weekly magazine specializing on soccer and hockey (and has been publishing to this day btw.). And again Gól´s archive is not digitalized so for that statistics, the guy who runs it, had to find some way to the old editions.

The website seems trustworthy because of the extent of what´s available - full statistics not just about domestic 1st league seasons but also about lower-tier domestic leagues, KHL, NHL or international hockey (including junior´s and women´s championships). Also because of constant updating - as you can see, he has all 2014-15 extraleague, NHL, KHL seasons filled + WC 2015.

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah they have only top 10 for each season. Complete stat panels are not to be found on internet, I believe. The guy who runs this site appears to use official game records (for these czechoslovak league seasons) which are probably lying in some Czech hockey association´s archive. I guess he took just top 10 scorers from each season as it would be too much time consuming to take whole stat panels.

And there are at least two seasons (1970-71, 1972-73) where he writes that Association don´t have recorded points for that season´s playoffs (only for reg. season which are written on the right column). So the stats that are written there comes from different source - Gól magazine - weekly magazine specializing on soccer and hockey (and has been publishing to this day btw.). And again Gól´s archive is not digitalized so for that statistics, the guy who runs it, had to find some way to the old editions.

The website seems trustworthy because of the extent of what´s available - full statistics not just about domestic 1st league seasons but also about lower-tier domestic leagues, KHL, NHL or international hockey (including junior´s and women´s championships). Also because of constant updating - as you can see, he has all 2014-15 extraleague, NHL, KHL seasons filled + WC 2015.

ok, thanks.

looks like my best bet is to go with SIHR's as they are pretty much the same, and then do my best to use the numbers you've provided to determine when playoffs account for the discrepancies, and remove them if at all possible. (since I will only know the top-10 playoff scorers each season, I think I'm stuck just using what I have - which will be adequate for my purposes but a little unsatisfying )

 

[Theokritos]

The screening process is in the last stage and we should be ready to move on before this week is over. Stay tuned. Participants will receive a PM from me as soon as we're good to go.

Let's talk about the way we are going to proceed in round 2. Based on the foreseeable point gaps on the aggregate list, it would be convenient to start with nine players (#1-9 on the aggregate list) being eligible for vote 1. The top 4 vote getters from vote 1 will be added to the final list. We can also add the top 5 instead of top 4 in some rounds if the voting result calls for it (when the point gap between #4 and #5 is small compared to the point gap between #5 and #6). Given that there is less consensus on many of the players covered in this project than there was consensus or near-consensus in the earlier HOH projects, it makes sense to me to increase the number of eligible players from nine (vote 1) rather sooner than later during the process. We should discuss & rank up to 13-14 players at once by vote 3 or 4 in my opinion. Not more than 14 though, otherwise there are too many names to discuss.

 

[seventieslord]

The screening process is in the last stage and we should be ready to move on before this week is over. Stay tuned. Participants will receive a PM from me as soon as we're good to go.

Let's talk about the way we are going to proceed in round 2. Based on the foreseeable point gaps on the aggregate list, it would be convenient to start with nine players (#1-9 on the aggregate list) being eligible for vote 1. The top 4 vote getters from vote 1 will be added to the final list. We can also add the top 5 instead of top 4 in some rounds if the voting result calls for it (when the point gap between #4 and #5 is small compared to the point gap between #5 and #6). Given that there is less consensus on many of the players covered in this project than there was consensus or near-consensus in the earlier HOH projects, it makes sense to me to increase the number of eligible players from nine (vote 1) rather sooner than later during the process. We should discuss & rank up to 13-14 players at once by vote 3 or 4 in my opinion. Not more than 14 though, otherwise there are too many names to discuss.

I agree that larger pools are a necessity.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The screening process is in the last stage and we should be ready to move on before this week is over. Stay tuned. Participants will receive a PM from me as soon as we're good to go.

Let's talk about the way we are going to proceed in round 2. Based on the foreseeable point gaps on the aggregate list, it would be convenient to start with nine players (#1-9 on the aggregate list) being eligible for vote 1. The top 4 vote getters from vote 1 will be added to the final list. We can also add the top 5 instead of top 4 in some rounds if the voting result calls for it (when the point gap between #4 and #5 is small compared to the point gap between #5 and #6). Given that there is less consensus on many of the players covered in this project than there was consensus or near-consensus in the earlier HOH projects, it makes sense to me to increase the number of eligible players from nine (vote 1) rather sooner than later during the process. We should discuss & rank up to 13-14 players at once by vote 3 or 4 in my opinion. Not more than 14 though, otherwise there are too many names to discuss.

Round 3 seems pretty early to expand the pool by that much. 13-14 names is already close to the maximum that we can discuss coherently at the same time.

What I find most concerning about this post is that you want us to rank 13-14 players at once in the next phase of voting. For a variety of reasons, if the target is to add 4 players in a round, we should just rank 8 of them, leaving the rest unranked. (Maybe this isn't what you want to do, and you just weren't clear in your post).

Edit: I see the OP has us ranking the top 10 players each week, rather than top 8. Ranking top 10 is totally normal when the target is to add 5 per round. I'd prefer ranking top 8 when the target is to add 4 per round.

 

[Theokritos]

Round 3 seems pretty early to expand the pool by that much. 13-14 names is already close to the maximum that we can discuss coherently at the same time.

Yes, but why not get close to the maximum early?

What I find most concerning about this post is that you want us to rank 13-14 players at once in the next phase of voting. For a variety of reasons, if the target is to add 4 players in a round, we should just rank 8 of them, leaving the rest unranked.

I'm unaware of these reasons, care to explain?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes, but why not get close to the maximum early?

The more names in the list, the less time we get to discuss them. If natural breaks force us to go big early, then that's what we have to do.

I'm unaware of these reasons, care to explain?

Discussed in the rules discussion threads for previous projects, but anyway,

1) Having voters rank a long list of players makes it more difficult to focus on the players at the top of the ballot, who are the ones whose rankings actually matter at that point.

2) probably most importantly, the more players on the ballot, the more a single outlier low vote can tank a player's final ranking. Ranking twice as many players as you intend to add is a middle ground between the voting system of the 2008 top 100 project (which gave too much power to outlier high votes) and the 2009 project (which gave too much power to outlier low votes).

3) Seems pretty late in the game to change the rules now. What was the point of the long rules discussion before the start?

 

[Theokritos]

1) Having voters rank a long list of players makes it more difficult to focus on the players at the top of the ballot, who are the ones whose rankings actually matter at that point.

That's a good point.

2) probably most importantly, the more players on the ballot, the more a single outlier low vote can tank a player's final ranking.

I can't follow. What difference does it make whether a single outlier ranks a player really low or doesn't rank the player at all?

3) Seems pretty late in the game to change the rules now. What was the point of the long rules discussion before the start?

I'm not aware we really discussed this issue before.