Round 2, Vote 6 (HOH Top Wingers)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

More time to talk about Bure!

I don't think it's funny

 

[Captain Bowie]

I don't think it's funny

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[quoipourquoi]

What does a 5 year VsX look like between these guys?

Don't know if anyone ever answered this. Unweighted:

St. Louis, 97.8
Kurri, 93.3
Bure, 92.1
Hull, 91.7
Iginla, 90.5

Insert usual disclaimers about VsX.

 

[sr edler]

Don't know if anyone ever answered this. Unweighted:

St. Louis, 97.8
Kurri, 93.3
Bure, 92.1
Hull, 91.7
Iginla, 90.5

Insert usual disclaimers about VsX.

Thanks. What does 'unweighted' mean here?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

It's kind of inconsiderate to the person taking votes for voters to keep missing the deadlines. Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular (I've been a little late myself once or twice), but the person taking votes is a volunteer, who schedules the time to tally the votes around his real-life schedue.

Now HT will probably have to extend voting which throws his whole schedule off, and might have to result in more rounds that go on too long like this one.

Yes, the deadline had to be extended due to lack of votes. We got additional votes in overnight, and the results will be released later today when I can find some time.

Also yes, it is an inconvenience when voters miss the deadline. I schedule time to tally the votes based on when the voting period ends, but for the last several rounds there's always a small group of voters that miss it, and I end up having to squeeze it in the next day. I would greatly appreciate it if the participants get their votes in within the 2 day voting period for future rounds

 

[BraveCanadian]

Thanks. What does 'unweighted' mean here?

That they didn't bother doing the useless calculation to put even more emphasis on peak seasons.

IMO, it doesn't make much difference and makes no sense when we're already taking a limited number of years in the first place.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That they didn't bother doing the useless calculation to put even more emphasis on peak seasons.

IMO, it doesn't make much difference and makes no sense when we're already taking a limited number of years in the first place.

The weighing makes sense for the VsX calculation used to compare 10 year primes, which is the preferred length for comparing post-expansion players. In that case, the 8th, 9th, 10th seasons really are weighed significantly less than the best ones. Agree that it's a borderline useless complication for 7 year VsX - the one preferred in any comparison involving pre-expansion players. And for 5 year, it would be totally useless.

By the way, I like how a 5 year VsX-5 was suddenly created because Bure had exactly 5 strong years. I'm assuming a Brett Hull fan would want to look at a 3 year VsX. Martin St. Louis would really dominate 2 year Vs-X I'm sure with his two Art Rosses. I wonder who wins 4 year VsX.

___________

Edit: This is all explained in the VsX thread on the By the Numbers board. But briefly, the weights try to value prime a player's best years slightly more. But not the 1st or 2nd best years, which could be ouliers. It's assumed that a player's 3rd best year is the best representation of his true talent.

So the weights assigned in the 7 year Vs X sample (listed in order from the weights given to a player's 1st best years, 2nd best year, etc): 18, 19, 20, 19 18, 17, 16

A 10 year VsX sample keeps going and the weights start to become different enough to where I'd say the 8th-10th best seasons really are given noticeably lower weights than the best: 18, 19, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13

The reason seasons are being given weights is that VsX-7 and VsX-10 year numbers attempt to be "all-in-one" determinations of a player's offensive value when comparing him to a player from a different era.

10 years is picked for post-expansion players, as it is assumed to be the average length of a player's prime post-expansion.

7 years is picked when comparing players from all of history because 7 years is assumed to be the average length of a player's prime before World War 2, and it would be unfair to older players to use a longer time frame.

___________

In other words, VsX-7 and VsX-10 are NOT measures of peak value. The were specifically created to measure the quality of a player's prime regular season scoring, by using a sample that is assumed to be the average length of a scoring prime.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Three Line vs Four Line Rotation

No one said we have to celebrate the greatest per-minute scorers of all-time...

So you don't think it's the least bit relevant that from 99-00 to 01-02, Bure:

- Played 16% more minutes than Recchi but scored 10% more points,
- Played 19% more minutes than Iginla but scored 11% more points,
- Played 24% more minutes than Naslund but scored 11% more points,
- Played 35% more minutes than Elias but scored 11% more points,
- Played 28% more minutes than Shanahan but scored 11% more points,
- Played 43% more minutes than Palffy but scored 19% more points,
- Played 41% more minutes than Robitaille but scored 21% more points

I think it's a valid point to consider. Wouldn't they have scored some more points if they played as much as he did? Wouldn't he have scored a few less if he played as little as they did?





A healthy Wendel Clark and/or Cam Neely and/or Mario Lemieux could have changed that.

Same applies to the distinction between players in a three line vs four line rotation, two line vs three line totation, players being extra shifted, or teams pre 1929-30 playing with shorter game day rosters than others.

 

[MXD]

What happened with the suggestion to vote for 10 players (as opposed to 8) and to "target" a group of "inductees" of 5 players (as opposed to 4)?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What happened with the suggestion to vote for 10 players (as opposed to 8) and to "target" a group of "inductees" of 5 players (as opposed to 4)?

That was supposed to happen starting in round 6 and obviously didn't. Wish you had remembered before we all voted already. Of course, its not your job to remember

 

[MXD]

That was supposed to happen starting in round 6 and obviously didn't. Wish you had remembered before we all voted already. Of course, its not your job to remember

Yeah... I forgot to mention that it was indeed supposed to start for round 6.

Even then... 10 votes for 11 players would just have been a bit wrong. At least one player would have had to been made available.

Suggestion : Whenever we get to 25, 30 or 35... Let's switch ? (Not saying we should go out of our way to get to these numbers...)

 

[seventieslord]

Jeez, I totally forgot about that...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah... I forgot to mention that it was indeed supposed to start for round 6.

Suggestion : Whenever we get to 25, 30 or 35... Let's switch ? (Not saying we should go out of our way to get to these numbers...)

Maybe there will be a big time natural break and we can add 5 this round even though we voted for 8, rather than the 10 we were supposed to. Unlikely, but happened before

 

[MXD]

Maybe there will be a big time natural break and we can add 5 this round even though we voted for 8, rather than the 10 we were supposed to. Unlikely, but happened before

Any combo of 10 in the next three rounds would also work. But would feel like slowing up the process in order to speed it up (in the end, we'd get only one week faster, provided 1 week per vote).

Any combo of 15 in 4 rounds would also work but would not result in any kind of faster process whatsoever.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Yeah... I forgot to mention that it was indeed supposed to start for round 6.

Even then... 10 votes for 11 players would just have been a bit wrong. At least one player would have had to been made available.

Suggestion : Whenever we get to 25, 30 or 35... Let's switch ? (Not saying we should go out of our way to get to these numbers...)

Jeez, I totally forgot about that...

Maybe there will be a big time natural break and we can add 5 this round even though we voted for 8, rather than the 10 we were supposed to. Unlikely, but happened before

Any combo of 10 in the next three rounds would also work. But would feel like slowing up the process in order to speed it up (in the end, we'd get only one week faster, provided 1 week per vote).

Any combo of 15 in 4 rounds would also work but would not result in any kind of faster process whatsoever.

Seventies, perhaps it slipped your mind, there was an enormous natural break in the aggregate list to deal with which made it impossible to add 5 last round.

It went like this...
4th player added
MASSIVE GAP (largest on the entire list)
3 players within 2 points of eachother.

Fortunately, this round the opposite has happened and the 4th/5th guys to add are only separated by 2 pts so there will be 5 candidates added for a total of 12.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Seventies, perhaps it slipped your mind, there was an enormous natural break in the aggregate list to deal with which made it impossible to add 5 last round.

It went like this...
4th player added
MASSIVE GAP (largest on the entire list)
3 players within 2 points of eachother.

Fortunately, this round the opposite has happened and the 4th/5th guys to add are only separated by 2 pts so there will be 5 candidates added for a total of 12.

We still should have voted for 10 this round, not 8.

IMO, that was the most important tweak to the rules from last time.

Too late now though. Not a huge deal.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

We still should have voted for 10 this round, not 8.

IMO, that was the most important tweak to the rules from last time.

Too late now though. Not a huge deal.

Yes, probably would've been better to start last vote; however, it would not have made any difference to the end product...

Only one "not ranked" vote was cast for the 4 guys that were voted in, and a 9th for Blake wouldn't have been enough to change his position. Also, the large gap between 4th and 5th means that neither Firsov or St. Louis would have been able to catch up and make the list, even if all of their "not ranked" votes had been 9ths.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes, probably would've been better to start last vote; however, it would not have made any difference to the end product...

Only one "not ranked" vote was cast for the 4 guys that were voted in, and a 9th for Blake wouldn't have been enough to change his position. Also, the large gap between 4th and 5th means that neither Firsov or St. Louis would have been able to catch up and make the list, even if all of their "not ranked" votes had been 9ths.

There's no "probably" about it; the rules we all agreed on said we should do the change before Round 6. 5 rounds of 4, followed by 8 rounds of 5 for 13 rounds total. Obviously with minor changes based on breaks in the voting.

Also, one of Firsov and/or St. Louis wouldn't have had to catch up if we were adding 5 like we were supposed to after voting for 10.

But anyway, it's not a huge deal - we've been 1 player "behind" on our final list before; so I'm sure we can catch up and add 6 in some round in the future.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

There's no "probably" about it; the rules we all agreed on said we should do the change before Round 6. 5 rounds of 4, followed by 8 rounds of 5 for 13 rounds total. Obviously with minor changes based on breaks in the voting.

Also, one of Firsov and/or St. Louis wouldn't have had to catch up if we were adding 5 like we were supposed to after voting for 10.

But anyway, it's not a huge deal - we've been 1 player "behind" on our final list before; so I'm sure we can catch up and add 6 in some round in the future.

Would've been a judgement call on whether to add 5 or not anyway...the biggest possible spread between Firsov and MSL would've been 8pts, and that's assuming all of Firsov's "no ranks" had him 9th, and all of MSL's still had him not ranked, the combination of which is pretty unlikely. We can't be sure, but odds are those two still finish within a few pts of each other and we only induct 4.

Like you said, we're only one behind, we'll either catch up at some point or just add an extra at the final vote (barring there's no ties!!! )

 

[tarheelhockey]

Would've been a judgement call on whether to add 5 or not anyway...the biggest possible spread between Firsov and MSL would've been 8pts, and that's assuming all of Firsov's "no ranks" had him 9th, and all of MSL's still had him not ranked, the combination of which is pretty unlikely. We can't be sure, but odds are those two still finish within a few pts of each other and we only induct 4.

I was kind of wondering about this but couldn't find a way to say it clearly.

If we're adding players based on natural breaks in the list, is it even meaningful to say we're adding 4 or adding 5? Doesn't the natural break make the decision for us, AFTER the vote is said and done?

 

[seventieslord]

I was kind of wondering about this but couldn't find a way to say it clearly.

If we're adding players based on natural breaks in the list, is it even meaningful to say we're adding 4 or adding 5? Doesn't the natural break make the decision for us, AFTER the vote is said and done?

No, we always have a goal of how many to vote in. Natural breaks can change that, but the breaks have to really force our hand.