HOHHOF - Early Era - Round 3 Thread

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by MXD, Feb 9, 2011.

  1. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,930
    Likes Received:
    1,895
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    The third round for the Early Era HOHHOF begans now. Each voter will have 4 votes at his disposal, that he MUST cast, and the deadline will be Sunday, February 20th.
    If a player gets 80% of the total possible votes, he'll get induced in the HOHHOF. The votes are to be cast at

    [email protected]

    The eligible players can be found on this thread : http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=847482

    In round 1, the following players were inducted

    Rover/D Frederick "Cyclone" Taylor
    Rover/C Édouard "Newsy" Lalonde

    In round 2, the following player was inducted

    C Frank Nighbor

    So PLEASE, no votes for Cyclone, Newsy and Frank :)

    Click on the link beside the player for additionnal info.

    This is the thread for Round 3 of the discussion. Feel free to advocate for the players that you deem worthy. Here are the result of Round 1 and Round 2

    http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=30438600&postcount=1 : Round 1

    http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=30765956&postcount=1 : Round 2

    Here's a few "mandatory" rules :

    - At all time, and in every round you can cast a write-in vote. This said, if you cast a vote for a non-eligible player (ex.: Josef Malecek in this one) in any round, your vote will be voided.
    - Every guy getting a write-in vote will be added to the ballot for the whole Early Era Rounds.
    - The players will remain on the Early Era ballots until the end of the rounds, or until when they're inducted.
    - As of now, there will be TEN (10) rounds. That number MIGHT be "reviewed" for a few more rounds (not less).
    - The Early Era guys will be eligible for write-ins in the "Chronological" rounds. It's a bit useless to bother about write-in rules at this point (since this is basically an open ballot with 80+ names), but if a guy is written in, he'll remain on the ballot for the reminder of the Early Era Rounds.
    - When you send your E-Mail, use the following format for the title
    HOHHOF ROUND x (in this case, 3), "hfboards usename" ballot

    So, for me, (AND ONLY FOR ME :naughty:) it would look like : HOHHOF Round 2, MXD ballot.

    The idea is to make the job easier for us when we count the votes.

    - Keep it civil and polite.

    Here's a suggestion :

    - Try to vote for the more "deserving guys", the players you think are the really best in that crop. Example : I really think Hod Stuart is worthy of the HOHHOF, and I sorta like his personnal story. This said -- I recognize there are AT LEAST four more "worthy" guys than him at this point. In this said, I'll restrain from voting for Hod Stuart in the 2nd round. The idea is to get is to not get stuck with a few players that we all think are worthy, but that we disagree on the order of their induction. (I can keep the Stuart example... for now)



    And a few others messages that aren't related to the Early Era voting rounds

    - Still looking for another trustee.
    - We need to start the "research" for the "Post-merger and Depression era" Keep in mind that the voting will start in 1940, with a 3 year "waiving" period (well, 3 seasons actually). So every player retiring in 1936-1937 or earlier will be eligible for the first round, and the other will be eligible in subsequent rounds.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2011
  2. RabbinsDuck

    RabbinsDuck Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Brighton, MI
    Probably going with Bowie, Benedict, Cleghorn, Malone.
     
  3. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,472
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    As I posted in the other thread (and since edited out since this is the correct thread for it):

    Russell Bowie is my only absolute lock for next round.

    My other 3 votes will be divided between 3 of Clint Benedict, Sprague Cleghorn, Joe Malone, Dan Bain, and Frank McGee.
     
  4. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,472
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    That's definitely defensible, but if all 4 of those guys get in, it means that only 1 of our first 7 inductees (Bowie) played before WW1. And that seems awfully low to me.

    On the other hand, all 4 are locks to make it soon, and I'm tempted to just vote for all 4 of them to "get them out of the way" and be able to really discuss some new deserving pre-WWI guys in length next time.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011
  5. RabbinsDuck

    RabbinsDuck Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Brighton, MI
    Amen! Do it!
    I'm looking forward to some real discussion.

    All you voters giving votes to minority guys at this point will have a much better shot of making a legitimate case for them if you vote in the majority guys now and get them out of the way early.
     
  6. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    I'd have Mike Grant or Harvey Pulford in there ahead of Joe Malone.
     
  7. RabbinsDuck

    RabbinsDuck Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Brighton, MI
    The way I see it - you can help sabotage the vote for the next 5 rounds ensuring none of them get in, or you can go with the majority - get Malone in and then focus on your favorites.
     
  8. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,930
    Likes Received:
    1,895
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    I'm keeping the three other guys I voted for (Cleghorn, Benedict, Bowie).

    My other vote is "available", and quite frankly, it will take very good arguments for two or three specific guys in order to make me change that vote.

    I expected Round 3 to be the round where I'd start to push for Hobey Baker, but I'd thought there would be 5 inductees instead of 3...
     
  9. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,930
    Likes Received:
    1,895
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    I think it's about being consistent. If I vote for (example) -- Tony Gingras. Change are -- I'm gonna ALWAYS vote for him 'till the end of the Early Era Rounds.

    With the Rounds 2 results, we can say that Dubbie Bowie has a very good chance to make it, and Clint Benedict didn't miss by much, either.
     
  10. RabbinsDuck

    RabbinsDuck Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Brighton, MI
    I know, but it does frustrate me - we could spend the next 8 rounds with 1 guy getting in each round, thus ensuring your example of Gingras never gets in, or we could all agree to vote in the majority candidates and then get down to some real discussion about the others that stand no chance unless we all "get along".

    I assume C1958 is voting and he is a guaranteed spoke in the wheel of every single round.
     
  11. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    Our goal isn't to form alliances and vote in the most number of guys.

    Mike Grant and Harvey Pulford were amazing defensemen, they both carried dynasties, and I think they should get in before Joe Malone.
     
  12. RabbinsDuck

    RabbinsDuck Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Brighton, MI
    And I am asking you to use some basic strategy and common sense with your voting. You are obviously in the minority, but could probably contribute to ensuring Malone does not get in for the next 5 rounds (despite agreeing, I assume, that he should be in the HoF), just to make a stand.

    But that stand will help ensure your minority candidates do not stand a chance of making it in.
    I hope I am making some sense in my posts, as I feel it will be vital to this process. IE. It is more important to get the deserveable players in than it is to have universal agreement on the exact order they do get in.
     
  13. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    Really, Malone won't get in this round anyway.

    Bowie should be a lock.

    Cleghorn and Benedict should be close to making it in, but might miss by a little bit.

    Nobody else should even be close to getting in this round.
     
  14. RabbinsDuck

    RabbinsDuck Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Brighton, MI
    The way it is going, I see maybe 12-14 Pre-1940 players getting in, at most (which I personally view as vastly under-representing this era).... Unless collusion actually happens. It's up to you guys, but I hope I have pleaded my case sufficiently.
     
  15. RabbinsDuck

    RabbinsDuck Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Brighton, MI
    Actually, without collusion I'll be shocked if more than 8 players make it in during this era.
     
  16. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,472
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    Why do you think they deserve to get in before Dan Bain and Frank McGee?
     
  17. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    McGee only played 4 years, and it's not like he was dominant during those years. Yes, he was probably one of the best players in the world, but it's still only 4 years.

    I need to see Dan Bain's scoring finishes and dominance in his league before I'd even vote for him.
     
  18. finchster

    finchster Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    9,616
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Moscow
    I pushed for Dan Bain last round, not based on a statistical analysis but what his stellar play did for the game of hockey, popularizing it west of Ontario. What is a hall of fame? A Hall of fame is a museum and I believe a hall of fame should consider subjective arguments based on historical significance; otherwise, how is this any different from the all time draft, or the top-100 players list? I understand that historical significance is a slippery slope, but in this era specifically I believe it’s important. If not, what you will see is pre-WWI and nineteenth century players as left over’s to decide between at the end of the early era of voting.

    Yes, best remaining player(s) is usually the correct decision, but there needs to be some leeway.

    Bain, Benedict, Bowie, and Cleghorn is probably my vote unless I can be persuaded.
     
  19. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    If we're going to base it on who popularized the game out west, we might want to look at Frank and Lester Patrick instead of Bain. They were both better players than Bain anyway.

    As for historical significance, Mike Grant could have a good case there too:

    First, Grant helped smash the class barrier that existed in the early era game. He was one of the first proletatiat players, and he was certainly the first one to become team captain. Before Grant, hockey was almost exclusively a rich man's sport.

    He was one of the game's first famous star players. He was the first player to draw large crowds to the rinks, and he was also the first player to be regularly followed and written about by newspaper reporters. He also helped grow the game's popularity in the United States, by arranging and playing exhibitio games south of the border.

    On the ice, Grant helped change the game by being one of the game's first rushing defenseman.
     
  20. MadArcand

    MadArcand Whaletarded

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,463
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Seat of the Empire
    This.

    Bain was Canadian athlete of the second half of 19th century. He was the first guy to use mask for face protection. He was important in hockey's spread out west, and was a damn good player to boot. It's Hall of Fame, not Hall of Nice Stats.
     
  21. finchster

    finchster Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    9,616
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Moscow
    Frank and Lester Patrick are important figures, but I don't think anyone can deny that hockey, while popular in Canada, was mostly a Montreal/Ottawa pastime in this era. Winnipeg winning the Stanley cup in 1896 opened hockey up to the west and was one of the key moments that helped spread hockey across Canada.

    Had Bowie been elected last round, Grant would have been the next guy on my list. I am well aware of his historical significance and wrote about it in the last round. I ended up going for Bain because I feel his regional significance is more important than class in the sporting world. Class barriers were all defeated at different times in sports whereas sports do to historical influences can remain regionalized.

    In my personal opinion, hockey would have became popular anyway due to climate, but winning is the fastest and most efficient way to grow a sport and a following.
     
  22. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,472
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    From what I've read, it was pretty undisputed that McGee was the best player in the world when he played.

    He was the leading scorer in the majority of Cup challenges he played in, and was known as a complete player and "punishing checker."

    Also, he seemed to have a reputation on the Ottawa Silver Seven similar to Nighbor on the Ottawa Senators, where his presence in the lineup could make or break the team:

    As for Dan Bain, he was hockey's original "overtime hero." Do we even have complete stats for the leagues Bain played in? Seems pretty wrong to me to completely discount anyone who played in Western Canada in the time period simply because we don't have full stats for the league.
     
  23. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    The spread was inevitable, especially to the north and across the prairies.

    Without the Patricks, it doesn't spead to the BC.

    Hockey was played in Winnipeg long before they won the Stanley Cup. The first organized league was started in 1892, and the first unorganized hockey was played for years before.
     
  24. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    As I said, it's still just 4 seasons. He was very good in the play-offs, but his regular season scoring is unimpressive.

    Why would we vote a guy in when we don't know if he was a dominant player?

    Right now, he's got historical significance on his side. Untill all the guys who were both known to be great players and historically significant, can't justify voting for an unknown.

    Otherwise, why aren't we voting James Creighton? He played and he was very significant. Was he good? Who knows.... but he was significant!
     
  25. Hardyvan123

    Hardyvan123 [email protected]

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    17,552
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Bowie has been on my ballot since the 1st one and I have Malone and McGee from the last one and will probably add Benedict as well.

    I see all four making the hall in time, maybe having so many worthy guys available all at once is slowing us down a bit.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"