HOHHOF -- Early Era -- Round 4 Results

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

View Users: View Users
  1. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,559
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    Here are the results for Round 4 of the History of Hall Hall of Fame -- Early Era group.

    There were 26 voters (104 votes) submitted this time around. Participation level was quite stable, but won't be going much down at this point.

    As expected, the voting was a bit less streamlined than in round 3 -- which was expected, due to the results of the previous rounds.

    The History of Hockey Hall of Fame is please to welcome, for its first unanimous selection...

    A highly-skilled and elusive shooter, who led a Quebec team to the Stanley Cup and scored the first goal in the NHL history...

    - C/LW Joe Malone


    History of Hockey Hall of Fame -- Round 4



    Reflexions?
    - My biggest fear was that would couldn't come up with a potential leader of the pack, which would have made the next round really problematic. At this point, both Bain and Stuart are in a rather good position.

    - Interesting jump by Frank McGee.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2011
  2. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,304
    Likes Received:
    1,279
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    LOL @ Malone getting 100% of the vote.

    I said I'd vote for the top 4 of the group of 6 pre-WW1 players this time, and I'm probably sticking with it.

    Dan Bain, Hod Stuart, and Tommy Phillips are locks for me this time. Unless anyone can make a really good case for someone else to be inducted before Frank McGee, he's my fourth vote.
     
  3. finchster

    finchster Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    9,601
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Moscow
    Good result, I kind of figured no one would but Malone would get in.

    My votes will be Bain, Stuart, Phillipps and Grant.
     
  4. seventieslord

    seventieslord Student Of The Game

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    31,930
    Likes Received:
    747
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Regina, SK
    Phillips has one P, guys :)
     
  5. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,182
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    So is it "Hillips" or "Phillis"?
     
  6. Hardyvan123

    Hardyvan123 [email protected]

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    17,552
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver
    I second this all 4 guys are in my Hall, lets get things moving.

    Good to see Malone in.
     
  7. DaveG

    DaveG Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    41,269
    Likes Received:
    12,377
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Brewer/Medical Software
    Location:
    Winston-Salem NC
    Awards:
    I'm going consensus this time, though frankly that's rather awesome that Malone was unanimous this time. First one yet, right?
     
  8. finchster

    finchster Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    9,601
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Moscow
    I will agree to vote in this pattern with everyone for the sake of getting things moving, but I think that Mike Grant should also be on everyone’s radar. I will make a case for him later, but if everyone is set Frank McGee I will vote that way in the interest of speeding our project up.
     
  9. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,182
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    Since when is the goal of this to get as many players as possible?

    There's no reason to resort to collusion here. Just vote for the players you believe in.
     
  10. finchster

    finchster Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    9,601
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Moscow
    I agree with the three players most want to vote for anyway, I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to speed up the process a little and vote in collusion once and a while if the project will benefit.

    Through four rounds we have elected seven players; Bowie, Benedict, Cleghorn, Lalonde, Malone, Nighbor, and Taylor. I don’t think we run the risk of electing too many players, not at this stage.
     
  11. pappyline

    pappyline Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,495
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    Mass/formerly Ont
    Going with McGee, Bain,Stuart & Phillips.
     
  12. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,182
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    How does the project benefit if we vote dishonestly?

    As I said before, the goal of this study is not to vote the most players inducted.

    7 players in rounds is plenty. There's no reason to change the strategy now, especially when that stategy is akin to cheating.
     
  13. DaveG

    DaveG Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    41,269
    Likes Received:
    12,377
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Brewer/Medical Software
    Location:
    Winston-Salem NC
    Awards:
    On my part it's not nearly so much about collusion as it that almost all that are receiving votes are guys who I honestly want to see in anyway. Why not help that process along a bit? Once we get a bit farther in is when I'm going to be sticking to my guns.
     
  14. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,304
    Likes Received:
    1,279
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    In my opinion, there are at least 10-15 early era players left that any credible Hall of Fame would include. And THEN we can actually get about talking about guys who may or may not be worthy of inclusion. So I don't see any problem with voting for 4 of the most popular choices now.

    And just for the record, even if I was just voting on my own personal order, Phillips and Stuart would top the list.

    Bain, McGee, and Grant are certainly viable choices for the other two spots, so I don't mind voting the guys who seem to be getting the most support. Again, if hear a compelling argument for why someone else (like Grant) really deserves it over McGee.

    Are we doing a separate dicussion thread for next round or will it all be in this one? I have new information I would like to post, but don't want to post it in the wrong thread.
     
  15. RabbinsDuck

    RabbinsDuck Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Brighton, MI
    Call it a "consensus" if that goes down easier for you.

    We're not voting in a vacuum, and discussion and debate should be encouraged in order to round up a proper majority to induct deserving players.

    I have not seen a single case written for why any player inducted so far (or close to being inducted) does 'not' deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, so I am all for forming a general consensus and voting them in sooner than later. This gives more time and rounds to discuss the merits of lesser known players and actually give a chance for a case to be made for them. I can pretty much guarantee the likelihood of an early era "write-in" actually being inducted later on is right about nil.

    So if I am the lone guy voting for Hobey Baker right now, I'd stop throwing my vote away, get in the more obvious players who actually have a chance at this point, so that we can more quickly get to a point where Baker might actually have a chance of being inducted.
     
  16. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,182
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    To what end? Why is there a rush to get more guys in?

    Are we willing to "help the process along" if it kills the integrity of the project?
     
  17. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,182
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    At our current pace, we'll get 10-15 of them in.
     
  18. DaveG

    DaveG Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    41,269
    Likes Received:
    12,377
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Brewer/Medical Software
    Location:
    Winston-Salem NC
    Awards:
    I think that's a valid question, for the early era maybe about the first 6 rounds depending on how many get in the next two rounds.

    And frankly I don't think it's killing the integrity of the project to do such for obvious candidates. To get a lot of the obvious candidates out of the way leaves room for the major debates. A guy like Dan Bain or Georges Vezina won't have an issue getting in, but some of the guys behind them could be in for a real fight to make it, so the question is what is more of a disservice? Pushing through a good sized batch that are clearly worthy, or gridlock keeping the focus of discussion on about 20 or so candidates from this era, getting about 15 in, when there are far more behind them that are also well deserving? I'm not saying either way is the right way frankly, I'd just rather see the gridlock when we're debating the merits of voting in Hobey Baker then when we're debating the merits of voting in Cy Denneny.
     
  19. Dennis Bonvie

    Dennis Bonvie Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Messages:
    13,797
    Likes Received:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Unknown
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I'm with you.

    I'm in no hurry and I probably should be, more so than most.
     
  20. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,559
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    For the record, I'll only change my vote that went to Malone.
     
  21. Hardyvan123

    Hardyvan123 [email protected]

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    17,552
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Here is my thinking since my post seems to have started this. I have no problem with voting on the 4 guys, who absolutely deserve to get in, ahead of some personal favorites.

    It does not matter who gets in which order.

    One thing I won't do though is to vote for "another guy" (who I don;t think is a lock) to get a vote for "my guy" that would be collusion but to vote for the 4guys that really should be on almost everyones list still at this point doesn't ruin any credibility to this project IMO.

    If anyone thinks that Dan Bain, Hod Stuart, Tommy Phillips and Frank McGee don't belong in our version of the hall then I'm all ears.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"