Toggle sidebar

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Voting Results (Part 1)

Nathaniel Skywalker

Nathaniel Skywalker

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,782
5,287
ehhedler said:
Did this non-participant happen to be... ageless?


ba_dum_tss_pirates_band_of_misfits.gif
Click to expand...
No I didn’t submit any vote.

I’m a lil surprised that Howe finished 2nd above Orr. Lemieux finished 4th I guess there’s no changing the concencus opinion on him.
 
Captain Bowie

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
Ageless said:
No I didn’t submit any vote.

I’m a lil surprised that Howe finished 2nd above Orr. Lemieux finished 4th I guess there’s no changing the concencus opinion on him.
Click to expand...
Don't take the gentle ribbing too personal. I hope you stick around and continue to read and participate as the project moves along. So much good information comes out of these things, I have learned a ton myself just reading this subforum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ageless and Hockey Outsider
seventieslord

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,111
7,178
Regina, SK
quoipourquoi said:
Yes. JoseTheodore2002 seems to be the missing ballot of the 32 participants - though we did receive a ballot from a non-participant. However doing Open Balloting might be tough with my schedule this year.
Click to expand...

I am in favour of open balloting, but with strict limits.

- This should be someone that we know. Has posted a lot in the HOH or ATD section before. Big Phil, MS, Jack Slater, vadim sharifijanov, BillyShoe, pitseleh, Robert Gordon Orr, and so on. Those are some of the best candidates but I'm not saying we need to limit it to the best dozen or so. There are potentially a few hundred who'd be acceptable.
- Depending on our confidence in their objectivity, we should have seen them in the thread in the discussion. They should have made a few posts and replied to a few posts by others, indicating they are reading what's being said.
- They should not have the appearance of just "having a horse in the race" - i.e. they suddenly showed up when Pavel Bure was up for voting
- Their vote should definitely not have that appearance
- If they just show up for the first time in round 8 then I'd wonder about them being here with an agenda. If round 8 is their 4th vote then they're all good by then. We build trust in them as they commit more time to the project.

There's no set formula I can give for whether we should accept a ballot from a non-participant. It would have to be decided on a case by case basis. But I do like the idea of having it based on as many (informed, objective) opinions as possible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Art of Sedinery
TheDevilMadeMe

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
I'm against having anyone who didn't submit a round 1 list participating.

I'd be for extending the deadline for anyone "we know is a good regular" to submit a round 1 list... really until the results from Vote 1 were posted... but I guess that's past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DannyGallivan and BenchBrawl
quoipourquoi

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
To me, the open ballots were less about altering the HOH list (which they didn’t) and more about incentivizing non-regulars to follow along throughout by keeping track of their opinions based on the discussion - even if they came on board halfway through or only when Player X, Y, or Z came up.

Honestly, I’d love to keep track of how someone active in the discussions is thinking, because then maybe next time, they will submit a Round 1 list.

I’d like people to feel a part of it as much as possible - even if there are still rules regarding who counts as an HOH voter. Having said that, I think Open Balloting here wouldn’t make as much sense since the Polls board is doing the same list. And keeping track of 32 people is enough to keep me busy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobholly39, Art of Sedinery, overg and 1 other person
Michael Farkas

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,407
7,929
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
I'll pass on the open ballot. I have one ridiculous situation where I would consider taking a single open ballot, but I don't even want to go down that road. You had 200 years to make a list and participate, you opted not to or whatever, that's it. We would love to have you contribute to constructive discussion, you can use that to affect the vote...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon, Canadiens1958, overg and 1 other person
Hockey Outsider

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,115
14,275
Mean Gene said:
Don’t the ballot with Gretzky 7th should be rejected?
Click to expand...

There might be some benefit to having a "trimmed" ballot - that is, dropping the highest and lowest rank for each player in each round. That would limit the impact of strategic voting (since any extreme outlier opinions - positive or negative - would be tossed out).

But I don't think we can do this for two reasons. One, it would be a lot of work to do that manually. Two, it's not fair to change the rules partway through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD, seventieslord, Mean Gene and 1 other person
BadgerBruce

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,557
2,185
quoipourquoi said:
To me, the open ballots were less about altering the HOH list (which they didn’t) and more about incentivizing non-regulars to follow along throughout by keeping track of their opinions based on the discussion - even if they came on board halfway through or only when Player X, Y, or Z came up.

Honestly, I’d love to keep track of how someone active in the discussions is thinking, because then maybe next time, they will submit a Round 1 list.

I’d like people to feel a part of it as much as possible - even if there are still rules regarding who counts as an HOH voter. Having said that, I think Open Balloting here wouldn’t make as much sense since the Polls board is doing the same list. And keeping track of 32 people is enough to keep me busy.
Click to expand...

I’ve read every single post related to this project. Prior to the site migration/upgrade some months ago, I read every post in all of the “Top Players” threads, too.

This time around, I hit a few “Like” buttons but did not want to go beyond that for several reasons. Let me briefly explain a few.

As a non-participant in the project, I did not want my words to influence any of the actual participants. The individuals willing to commit to projects of this magnitude should, in my view, possess largely unfettered collective ownership of the process and the results. Nobody likes a backseat driver.

Secondly, my views often differ sharply from the norm, and I cannot see how the project participants can stay on-task if interlopers jump in with (somewhat) contrarian views. Last thing I’d like to be in this life is a sideshow, someone who has no vested interest in the project outcome but still gums up the works for 31 (or is it 32?) other people.

Finally, some of the participants in this (and all of the other predecessor projects) do not even pretend to be open-minded. It’s during these projects that the History board most resembles the Main board. War footing. Agendas everywhere. Self-discipline and control ... poof! Gone. The admirable search for even contingent truths is frequently undermined by 5-6 people who are rudely dismissive of otherwise well-meaning and thoughtful posters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billcook, Ageless and Canadiens1958
The Macho King

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,712
29,153
BadgerBruce said:
I’ve read every single post related to this project. Prior to the site migration/upgrade some months ago, I read every post in all of the “Top Players” threads, too.

This time around, I hit a few “Like” buttons but did not want to go beyond that for several reasons. Let me briefly explain a few.

As a non-participant in the project, I did not want my words to influence any of the actual participants. The individuals willing to commit to projects of this magnitude should, in my view, possess largely unfettered collective ownership of the process and the results. Nobody likes a backseat driver.

Secondly, my views often differ sharply from the norm, and I cannot see how the project participants can stay on-task if interlopers jump in with (somewhat) contrarian views. Last thing I’d like to be in this life is a sideshow, someone who has no vested interest in the project outcome but still gums up the works for 31 (or is it 32?) other people.

Finally, some of the participants in this (and all of the other predecessor projects) do not even pretend to be open-minded. It’s during these projects that the History board most resembles the Main board. War footing. Agendas everywhere. Self-discipline and control ... poof! Gone. The admirable search for even contingent truths is frequently undermined by 5-6 people who are rudely dismissive of otherwise well-meaning and thoughtful posters.
Click to expand...
I want to respond a bit to this.

First - while I agree the voters own the results, I think contributions from non-voters can help make a better list. More information is good. I'm pro-advocacy for positions (even/especially contrarian ones), as long as it's not homer-based (not to say homers can't have opinions - they likely have the most information about an individuals career - although admittedly that will likely be more relevant when the people discussed are not as universally known).

On the war-footing/open-mindedness... eh. Some people are going to be able to move, some aren't. The hope is collective group gets to a good answer, but the format does tend to drown out some of the less confrontational of the bunch.

Edit: Basically, if you have relevant information I want you to share it. If you have a good argument I want to hear it. If you're here to advocate for Pavel Bure as a top 10 player because you're just a huge Panthers fan, I want you to go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD, overg and Hockey Outsider
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
-->