Top 100 List: Thoughts & Suggestions

[FissionFire]

With the Top 100 list nearly complete, I feel that now is a good time focus away from the list itself and evalute the pro's and con's of the project as a whole.

First off, I want to thank everyone who participated in this project. This list took quite a bit of time and energy to compile and the 26 member voting panel made it happen. Without the great insights, debates, and conversations they provided throughout this voluntary process none of this would be possible. Now we have 18 voting threads filled with primary source quotes, historical anecdotes, facts, stats, and just plain excellent reading on some of hockey histories greatest players.

I'd also like to thank all the non-participants who joined into the debating process. Without the fresh perspectives and strong arguments many of you provided, this project could have become very stale with the same debaters talking circles around one another. These fresh faces helped keep the voters on their toes and gave the project alot of differing perspectives to consider. I sincerely hope that those of you who opted not to participate on a voting level this time will strongly consider taking a larger role next time.

I want to thank some of the behind-the-scenes posters who also were vital in this project. The 5 member Review Committee during Round 1 all donated their time freely to review all the submitted lists and did a wonderful job weeding out the few badly biased entries. Although I cannot thank them publically you know who you are and I want to thank you all for your invaluable help in this project.

I also would be remiss to not recognize the man without whom none of this would have ever happened - Hockey Outsider. He started the ball rolling on this and was a driving force in the early stages to get this project off the ground. His thoughts and ideas on how to structure the voting process were the framework that this entire list is built around. Without his foresight and contributions, we wouldn't have the 18 excellent voting threads or the Top 100 list for everyone to see. I may have been more visible in the organization, but Hockey Outsider was by far the most important. A hearty round of applause for organizing quite possibly the best project since the formation of the ATD.

I hope I didn't miss anyone. If I did I strongly apologize and just PM and I'll correct the oversight immediately.

With that complete, I'll move onto business:

What parts of this project do you feel should be retained?
What parts of this project do you feel should be changed?
What issues need to be addressed?

Basically, what did we do right and what do we need to reevaluate before the next update?

Off the top of my head, one issue that I feel we should discuss is the Round 2 voting procedure. Currently participation in the voting for Round 2 is optional. Do we want to continue keeping it that way or make it mandatory? As the list went on the voter participation tapered off a bit but I'm not sure that it plummeted to a level that should cause concern (outside of one vote where there were extenuating circumstances). Out of the 17 completed votes to date almost all of them had 75% participation or higher.

A second issue is the rules. I plan on consolidating them into a single post for reference before the update. I know there was alot of initial confusion during some of this and I hope to prevent that next time. I'll present a rough draft rules list in this thread when I complete it for everyone to review and comment on before making a finalized draft.

Thirdly, I'd like to begin discussing a timeframe for the first update to avoid the "ast minute" nature that this list originally took on (by necessity). I think we need to establish a firm starting date, as well as an ending date, to prevent it from dragging on too long. My initial thought for a starting date is the last day of games prior to the 2009 All-Star game. This would give me the entire 2009 All-Star break to compile the Round 1 lists and hopefully get us into Round 2 faster. For an ending date, I think with a list already compiled and many excellent voting threads already available for reference that the debate period can be condensed. My thoughts were 3 days per vote, 2 votes per week. This would give us a 10-week total time for the update if we reverted to 5 additions per vote.

While on the subject of the update, another issue we need to discuss is what procedures and rules to use for it. I think a shorter debate period for each vote should be implemented since most of these guys have been thoroughly debated already and the threads are available for reference still. I also think that with a list already in place, the voters will have a better idea on where to focus their arguments and a general idea as to what players will be ranked near one another. This should give them plenty of time in advance to prepare their cases instead of having to adjust "on the fly" as the names pop up. I think we should maintain the Round 1 / Round 2 format for the update for the same QC reasons for evaluating new participants. I also feel prior to the Round 1 lists being due, that an "official" debating thread should be established for posters to present their cases for a player being moved up or down the list, or being added to it in place of someone else. This is very important to have IMO since the Round 1 lists provide the basis for the Round 2 voting eligibility pool. We also need to determine how many spots per vote we will be doing. Do we stick with 5 per vote, or extend it to a larger number? I plan on keeping the first Round 2 vote as only being for spots 1-4 since it's pretty obvious who those 4 will be, just not the order, and this will allow us to continue debating for the 5th spot in a different thread where we can focus more closely on it.

Another issue is ties. Do we want to continue to allow them? If not, what should the tiebreaker procedures be?

A final issue that I'd like to address is the way votes are tabulated. I'd like to continue with the point system in Round 1 (1st = 120pts, 120th = 1pt) as I feel it's probably the easiest way to compile the aggregate. My main question is should we keep the Round 2 voting the same? Currently it uses the same system as Round 1. Should we maintain this or transition more to a weighted system like the NHL awards voting uses? Should we give a 1st place vote more weight? In a vote for 5 spots, a 1st is currently worth 5pts, 2nd is 4pts, 3rd is 3pts, 4th is 2pts, and 5th is 1pt. Should we stagger this out more? Conversely, should we value a player actually getting listed more than a player who doesn't? We've had a few situations where a player listed on more ballots but consisntenly ranked lower has beat a player ranked on fewer ballots but consistently much higher (see the Ray Bourque vote for an example of this). Going with an awards-style voting system will emphasize ranking over placing, whereas continuing the current system will place more importance on placing over ranking.

I think that about covers everything. Hopefully I didn't miss something. I strongly encourage everyone, voters and non-voters alike, to chime in on these issues and to add any additional ones of their own I may have missed.

EDIT: One other thing of far lesser importance, but how would you guys prefer I post the each voters initial list and voting record? Should I put each voters stuff into separate threads or make one consolidated thred for all of them? I ask because I'm guessing the lists themselves will generate some discussion and I didn't know if you guys prefered separating the discussion out to better see any comments on your specific list or just consolidate it and filter through the single thread.

Click to read more...

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I love all that work that has gone into this! The threads have been a great source of knowledge and different viewpoints. I'm curious when you will do "updates"... for the active players. It seems like the off-season is the best time each year when the awards have been given and you know the SC champs.

EDIT: One other thing of far lesser importance, but how would you guys prefer I post the each voters initial list and voting record? Should I put each voters stuff into separate threads or make one consolidated thred for all of them? I ask because I'm guessing the lists themselves will generate some discussion and I didn't know if you guys prefered separating the discussion out to better see any comments on your specific list or just consolidate it and filter through the single thread.

I think seperate threads is the way to go... they'll each probably generate plenty of discussion.

 

[dcinroc]

I signed on to this board after the process was already underway, and I really enjoyed the reading the debates and discussions. I think I learned a lot and gained a new appreciation for lots of players that I had heard of but knew little about (especially pre-1950s players).

I am curious about how an update would work.

Start fresh, as if the current list had never been done? Or would it begin with a debate about the current list in the form of arguments for addition or deletion?

Personally, if there was one change I would consider making to the process, it might be to seperate goalies and skaters onto seperate lists (Top-25 goalies or so). Ranking goalies seems to be a fraught and difficult process in itself...figuring out how to compare them to the skaters strikes me as extraordinarily difficult.

Another thought would be a series of sticky threads that lists players from each era who have received substantial support with a brief summary of their accomplishments. No arguments, just "biographical data" such as stats, awards, adjusted stats, etc.

 

[FissionFire]

I love all that work that has gone into this! The threads have been a great source of knowledge and different viewpoints. I'm curious when you will do "updates"... for the active players. It seems like the off-season is the best time each year when the awards have been given and you know the SC champs.


I think seperate threads is the way to go... they'll each probably generate plenty of discussion.

The only problem with doing it in the offseason is that many people aren't active or on vacation which reduces the voter pool. Since the updates are yearly I don't know if it really matters that the 2009 award winners and Cup champs will be known yet since he didn't know the 2008 results before the majority of this list was completed. There also aren't many players listed currently that are still active; Hasek is now retired and Chelios or Sakic are unlikely to do much of anything to strongly move himself up the list at this point in his career. Maybe a guy like Thornton or Iginla could try to sneak into the bottom of the list, but that's probably not likely either. Really, only Brodeur and Lidstrom are likely to make a significant move upwards on the list still with Niedermayer and Pronger candidates for sneaking onto it near the bottom. What other active players really have a case for getting added where waiting until the end of the season would make a big difference?

 

[Dark Shadows]

With the Top 100 list nearly complete, I feel that now is a good time focus away from the list itself and evalute the pro's and con's of the project as a whole.

First off, I want to thank everyone who participated in this project. This list took quite a bit of time and energy to compile and the 26 member voting panel made it happen. Without the great insights, debates, and conversations they provided throughout this voluntary process none of this would be possible. Now we have 18 voting threads filled with primary source quotes, historical anecdotes, facts, stats, and just plain excellent reading on some of hockey histories greatest players.

I want to thank you for taking the time to compile everything and do this.

Second, can we put the 18 voting threads into some kind of sticky section of its own so it does not get archived in 6 months like everything else? Some great notes and quotable material there.

Special thanks to all those you named as well

With that complete, I'll move onto business:

What parts of this project do you feel should be retained?
What parts of this project do you feel should be changed?
What issues need to be addressed?

Nothing. everything went pretty smoothly and almost perfect. Just to make it easier on you, I suggest a hard date for voting and a static date to have votes due by. 1 week to vote on everything, must be in Sunday night/Monday Morning at 11:59pm, or something like that.

Not sure if it is necessary to remove voting privileges if someone misses a round. I almost missed one myself. It just happens if life is busy.

Of course, I would also recommend suspending voting during things like Xmas Vacation(But by the sounds of it, we would be starting at all star break anyways)

A solid format for the first 50 would be voting on 5 spots per vote. After 50, to speed things up, make it a vote on 7-10 spots like we did

Off the top of my head, one issue that I feel we should discuss is the Round 2 voting procedure. Currently participation in the voting for Round 2 is optional. Do we want to continue keeping it that way or make it mandatory? As the list went on the voter participation tapered off a bit but I'm not sure that it plummeted to a level that should cause concern (outside of one vote where there were extenuating circumstances). Out of the 17 completed votes to date almost all of them had 75% participation or higher.

I don't think it should be mandatory. Sometimes, someone is going to miss a round. However, if they miss 2-3 rounds without even a peep or explanation.....? Why bother joining if you are not going to vote and comment?

I have a feeling we may have a larger pool of voters second time around so you should not have to deal with the pain of keeping everyone on track.

A second issue is the rules. I plan on consolidating them into a single post for reference before the update. I know there was alot of initial confusion during some of this and I hope to prevent that next time. I'll present a rough draft rules list in this thread when I complete it for everyone to review and comment on before making a finalized draft.

Sounds good

Thirdly, I'd like to begin discussing a timeframe for the first update to avoid the "ast minute" nature that this list originally took on (by necessity). I think we need to establish a firm starting date, as well as an ending date, to prevent it from dragging on too long. My initial thought for a starting date is the last day of games prior to the 2009 All-Star game. This would give me the entire 2009 All-Star break to compile the Round 1 lists and hopefully get us into Round 2 faster. For an ending date, I think with a list already compiled and many excellent voting threads already available for reference that the debate period can be condensed. My thoughts were 3 days per vote, 2 votes per week. This would give us a 10-week total time for the update if we reverted to 5 additions per vote.

For the first revision, I would advise against this for the first 50 spots. I have a feeling more people than last time are going to join in discussion and 3 days just seems too short.

The 1 Week timeframe on a specific day was my favorite format because I always knew to vote on said day, and because it gave me time to jump in an debate. If I get busy, I might miss entire rounds of voting by this method. In about 4 years, it will be a different story because I won't know what to do with my time other than golf

While on the subject of the update, another issue we need to discuss is what procedures and rules to use for it. I think a shorter debate period for each vote should be implemented since most of these guys have been thoroughly debated already and the threads are available for reference still. I also think that with a list already in place, the voters will have a better idea on where to focus their arguments and a general idea as to what players will be ranked near one another. This should give them plenty of time in advance to prepare their cases instead of having to adjust "on the fly" as the names pop up. I think we should maintain the Round 1 / Round 2 format for the update for the same QC reasons for evaluating new participants. I also feel prior to the Round 1 lists being due, that an "official" debating thread should be established for posters to present their cases for a player being moved up or down the list, or being added to it in place of someone else. This is very important to have IMO since the Round 1 lists provide the basis for the Round 2 voting eligibility pool. We also need to determine how many spots per vote we will be doing. Do we stick with 5 per vote, or extend it to a larger number? I plan on keeping the first Round 2 vote as only being for spots 1-4 since it's pretty obvious who those 4 will be, just not the order, and this will allow us to continue debating for the 5th spot in a different thread where we can focus more closely on it.

5 per vote for the first 50. After that, 7 to 10 sounds about right.

Another issue is ties. Do we want to continue to allow them? If not, what should the tiebreaker procedures be?

I never had ties in my votes so Ill abstain from giving an opinion. I see nothing wrong if others like them, I just like to have a clear cut spot for people.

A final issue that I'd like to address is the way votes are tabulated. I'd like to continue with the point system in Round 1 (1st = 120pts, 120th = 1pt) as I feel it's probably the easiest way to compile the aggregate. My main question is should we keep the Round 2 voting the same? Currently it uses the same system as Round 1. Should we maintain this or transition more to a weighted system like the NHL awards voting uses? Should we give a 1st place vote more weight? In a vote for 5 spots, a 1st is currently worth 5pts, 2nd is 4pts, 3rd is 3pts, 4th is 2pts, and 5th is 1pt. Should we stagger this out more? Conversely, should we value a player actually getting listed more than a player who doesn't? We've had a few situations where a player listed on more ballots but consisntenly ranked lower has beat a player ranked on fewer ballots but consistently much higher (see the Ray Bourque vote for an example of this). Going with an awards-style voting system will emphasize ranking over placing, whereas continuing the current system will place more importance on placing over ranking.

I still like the trophy voting format

I think that about covers everything. Hopefully I didn't miss something. I strongly encourage everyone, voters and non-voters alike, to chime in on these issues and to add any additional ones of their own I may have missed.

I think we should have a "pre game" thread before we hand in our master lists. A thread in which each of the previous voting panel are allowed to bring up 3 players they think are somehow far too low, or not mentioned and make a case for them.

I say this because of the various players from abroad and from early era's who were drastically overlooked on many lists and came far later than they should have, or not at all.

EDIT: One other thing of far lesser importance, but how would you guys prefer I post the each voters initial list and voting record? Should I put each voters stuff into separate threads or make one consolidated thred for all of them? I ask because I'm guessing the lists themselves will generate some discussion and I didn't know if you guys prefered separating the discussion out to better see any comments on your specific list or just consolidate it and filter through the single thread.

My original master list is better off being burnt and never mentioned again. I made the thing in a very short time and without really thinking(Less than half a day) and rushed it in. So no, I don't want people seeing it

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Second, can we put the 18 voting threads into some kind of sticky section of its own so it does not get archived in 6 months like everything else? Some great notes and quotable material there.

I'd like those to be saved in some way as well... perhaps one huge thread stickied (and locked) with links from the original Top 100 sticky to where that 'thread' starts?

Really, only Brodeur and Lidstrom are likely to make a significant move upwards on the list still with Niedermayer and Pronger candidates for sneaking onto it near the bottom. What other active players really have a case for getting added where waiting until the end of the season would make a big difference?

Honestly, I am really just interested as to where Lidstrom will end up. I think if everyone knew this year that Lidstrom would get another Norris (many probably accepted it at that point already) and would captain the Wings to a Cup (definitely not a given), he might have moved up a few spots already.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Second, can we put the 18 voting threads into some kind of sticky section of its own so it does not get archived in 6 months like everything else? Some great notes and quotable material there.

I'm willing to try something. Merging the threads would make one thread that's way over the 1000-post limit; on the other hand, if we had eighteen new stickied threads at the top of the forum, it would be a bit cumbersome. Any ideas/suggestions?

 

[Dark Shadows]

I'm willing to try something. Merging the threads would make one thread that's way over the 1000-post limit; on the other hand, if we had eighteen new stickied threads at the top of the forum, it would be a bit cumbersome. Any ideas/suggestions?

Create a Sub-section specifically for storing stickies in Hockey history. Why clutter the top of the page when we can do this?

Kind of like how the Hockey General section has a sub section for polls. Make a sub section for items we do not want to see archived, sticky them in their own sub section, and presto, no clutter on the main page.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Create a Sub-section specifically for storing stickies in Hockey history. Why clutter the top of the page when we can do this?

Kind of like how the Hockey General section has a sub section for polls. Make a sub section for items we do not want to see archived, sticky them in their own sub section, and presto, no clutter on the main page.

That works for me. Except that I don't know how to do that.

Actually, I think that an administrator has to do that, but I will check and see (if that sounds good to those involved in the project). I think it'd be a great resource.

 

[dcinroc]

I'm willing to try something. Merging the threads would make one thread that's way over the 1000-post limit; on the other hand, if we had eighteen new stickied threads at the top of the forum, it would be a bit cumbersome. Any ideas/suggestions?

The sheer volume of debate posts is one reason I suggested perhaps having "biographical stickies." That way, relevant data could be permanently available and easily accessed without having to save every comment about every player. Only players who received a certain threshhold of support would be included on the sticky.

That could probably be done with 4 or 5 stickies.

1. Pre-O6 players

2. O6 era

3. Post-Expansion (the largest thread due to the volume of players)

4. Russians

5. Europeans

Further, having just the bios rather than a catalogue of debates might fuel fresh debates with all participants having ready access to the data.

 

[reckoning]

I agree with most of the suggestions so far. The one area that maybe could be improved would be the discussion about which players belong on the lists beforehand. Last time around we were all anxious to get it started, and there seemed to be an aura of secrecy around who we were picking. So things may have been rushed a little, which would've caused some of us to forget players or just make bad choices. For example I left out Frank Nighbour and Doug Bentley, both of which I was wrong to do. During the past few months there's been several times when somebody would say "I should've rated so-and-so higher" or "I can't believe I forgot that guy!". Being left off one list may well result in delaying a player's opportunity to get voted in by a round or two.

It seemed like whenever a Soviet player came up, he'd always get in on the first crack usually with the most votes. That indicates that he might have gotten in earlier if given the chance. A lot of us may have changed our minds during the process based on some very good arguments. Is there a way to have these debates before the lists are submitted?

I know it's impossible to have 100+ debates going on at once, but maybe a thread where we can create a "suggested ballot" listing the 200-400 most likely candidates, preferably broken down by era and position, with maybe a short 2 or 3 sentence write-up explaining their accomplishments, reputation, qualifications, etc. This would give everyone something to view and double-check against their own list before submitting their lists. Creating this thread would be too much work for one person, but could be done if we all chip in.

Edit: It seems like dcinroc has just suggested the same thing.

I agree with Thornton's suggestion about how many players should be voted in for each of the rounds. I'm fine with shortening the voting period to speed up the process, but it will most certainly result in less people voting. How would you feel about say...if somebody misses a vote that the top five players from that group on their original list would count as their vote for that round?

Count me down for keeping the "points system" for voting as it is. Staggering it creates too much of an opportunity for one person to throw things out of whack.

I also think we should have a quick run-off vote to break any ties.

I also would be remiss to not recognize the man without whom none of this would have ever happened - Hockey Outsider. He started the ball rolling on this and was a driving force in the early stages to get this project off the ground. His thoughts and ideas on how to structure the voting process were the framework that this entire list is built around. Without his foresight and contributions, we wouldn't have the 18 excellent voting threads or the Top 100 list for everyone to see. I may have been more visible in the organization, but Hockey Outsider was by far the most important. A hearty round of applause for organizing quite possibly the best project since the formation of the ATD.

Agreed. We'd been talking about this for awhile, but Mr. Outsider was the one who took the initiative to actually get things started. And don't be modest FF: you've done a tremendous job running this week-by-week, keeping everything on topic, sending out reminders on votes, and most importantly you somehow managed to have the patience of a saint when it came to dealing with ushvinder's weekly complaints.

My original master list is better off being burnt and never mentioned again.

Don't worry. My credibility will be forever killed when people see who I had at #119. What happened is that I did a top 100, then the official rules stated it was to be 120. So I just listed the 10-12 players I remembered as having just missed my top 100, then threw on names of players I'd want on my team to finish it off.

I think most of us will have at least one LOL-moment on our respective lists.

 

[overpass]

A final issue that I'd like to address is the way votes are tabulated. I'd like to continue with the point system in Round 1 (1st = 120pts, 120th = 1pt) as I feel it's probably the easiest way to compile the aggregate. My main question is should we keep the Round 2 voting the same? Currently it uses the same system as Round 1. Should we maintain this or transition more to a weighted system like the NHL awards voting uses? Should we give a 1st place vote more weight? In a vote for 5 spots, a 1st is currently worth 5pts, 2nd is 4pts, 3rd is 3pts, 4th is 2pts, and 5th is 1pt. Should we stagger this out more? Conversely, should we value a player actually getting listed more than a player who doesn't? We've had a few situations where a player listed on more ballots but consisntenly ranked lower has beat a player ranked on fewer ballots but consistently much higher (see the Ray Bourque vote for an example of this). Going with an awards-style voting system will emphasize ranking over placing, whereas continuing the current system will place more importance on placing over ranking.

I think the best way to go is to have voters rank all 10 players available for discussion, instead of only 5. This allows voters who have strong preferences against players to register those. As it is, a minority of voters who heavily favour a candidate can push him through over a candidate who is widely but not strongly supported. I think many of the divergences from the master list can be explained by this. This may make more work for the voters, but I think it would more accurately capture the group's opinion of each player.

I also think that a process to make players available for voting at different times, rather than strictly from the master list, would be good. Maybe a nomination process of some kind?

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think the system worked, and I'd try to maintain the status quo as much as possible.

The only change I'd make is try to expidite Round 2 a little more. I love the discussions, but I don't see the harm in voting for 10 players per vote, and I definitely don't think there'd be any harm in voting for 10 per vote for spots 51-100.

I think some of the issues that occurred early on in this process will be eliminated now that we've done this once before.

 

[LapierreSports]

Thanks for the great list guys. I read every post and really enjoyed it.

I would also have seperate lists for players and goalies.

Personnally, I have a really hard time ranking skaters and goalies in a same list. I would even do it by forwards, defense and goalies.

 

[seventieslord]

- I think we completely blew away the list done by the THN panel a decade ago. I haven't looked at it yet, but after I do I am sure we will be able to point out a number of players who moved 10 or more spots (independent of euro, pre-NHL, and recently established players being added, that is) as players who were either grossly under-or-overrated by that panel. For example, I know Mike Gartner made the list and I don't think he should be even close. We didn't do it through arbitrarily compiled and submitted lists compiled by an aggregate score; we did it by logically and constructively debating the merits of each player.

- I think there is opportunity to move certain players upwards to reflect how easily they got inducted. I would look at any player who was the top voted player in their wave, in their first wave of eligibility, of course. Wouldn't it be safe to say that with all the support player X got, he'd have gotten in ahead of the player just above him, or maybe 2-3 players, if he had been eligible in the previous wave. I don't have time to find concrete examples but I am sure they're there. These players should be placed against the players they never had a chance to go up against.

- Tiebreaking is a must. I think the only reason we currently have ties, is because we didn't establish a tiebreaking procedure in advance. The easiest way would be to look at each ballot individually and see which player was rated ahead of which player more often. I think that would resolve 2/3 of ties, most due to the fact that there was an odd number of voters, the others due to natural variance. The other times, where there are an even number of voters and player X tops player Y the same amount of times the opposite happens, then a further step would have to be taken. Perhaps, we temporarily call it a tie, then during the time that the next wave is being debated, we have a secondary thread called "Player X vs. Player Y: tiebreaker" and we go at it in there. First person to change their mind about the players due to debates presented, swings the vote.

- When I submit a top-120 for the next list, I expect it to be quite a bit different from what I submitted last time around; in fact, I expect it to be quite similar to what we've compiled here. I hope no one minds that; I do truly believe in what we've done and have the utmost respect for the collective opinion of the great panel we've assembled. There are players I feel we've underrated and overrated and I will certainly reflect that in my updated list, but don't be surprised to see something that looks quite similar to this top-100.

- I hope no one overcompensates in their rankings and votes. Don't try to make your opinion count more than others'. If I love Syd Howe and think he could be a borderline top-100 player, then I should put him at 105 and if no one else agrees we don't debate his merits. I should not place him at 45 to give him a better shot at getting in just because I know he won't get as much support from others. On that note, I would not want to spite another player by dropping their ranking or leaving them off completely. I was thinking, that with the approval process already in place, we could take it a step further. We should look at all the names who made the top-70 and "expect" to see their names on all top-120 lists. If a list comes in without it, the approver could reply to the submitter and say "I noticed Max Bentley is not on your list at all - was this an oversight or is he truly not in your top-120?" then that person would have a chance to reply and say "oops, my bad... put Bentley at #46" or confirm that he did not want to rank him. I hope this does not appear that I want us all to make "cookie cutter" lists but there is a certain number of names we should expect to see on each top-120 or else we should question their absence. Maybe that number isn't 70 but it has to be at least 50.

- I have been the most outspoken advocate of a fair voting points system that numerically represents the "value" of placing where you rank. I think I was primarily responsible for the fact that we all submitted a top-120 so that a 100th-ranked player earned 21 points and the 99th earned 22, and so on. It's not perfect, but it is certainly better than 1 point for 100th, 2 points for 99th, and so on. If there were only 100 hockey players in history to choose from, the latter system would be fine, but that is not the case. There has to be points for appearance on a list, otherwise you will run into situations where one person has a player ranked 70th, earning 31 points, and even though he was named only on that list, he'd score higher than a player who placed 99th on 10 lists and 100th on 10 other lists, earning 30 points. So, although I like the compromise we came to, I think it could be improved further.

- I also like the way we've been compiling points for each round's votes. The reason is, we're dealing with a small and definite number of players each round, rather than a practically indefinite number as we do when we submit our lists. To give the first place vote 7 points, for example, and the seventh place vote 1 point, isn't such a mathematical atrocity. I would personally improve it, though, by having every voter rank all eligible players so that each player who didn't make the list isn't considered equal to the others - they are differentiated. This way, the player I considered 7th and therefore worthy of induction, is getting more than one point more than the player I thought was 12th (instead of just 1-0 the discrepancy is 7-2 or something like that, if you follow). Or, we can simply use appearance points by using a 13-12-11-10-9-8-7 system instead of a 7-6-5-4-3-2-1 system. What we absolutely cannot do, however, is have an NHL trophy-style voting points system. Just because they do it doesn't mean it's right. How many times have you seen a player whose vote total is (1-0-0) ahead of one whose votes read (0-0-3)? It's ridiculous - what's better, that one person thinks you're the best, or that three people think you're one of the best? We all know the answer.

I can talk about voting point structures in more detail later and I hope to be able to put up a good mathematical case for a system next time around. Don't get me wrong, the way we did it isn't completely bad, and it got the job done. But it can be tweaked.

 

[BM67]

I think we should vote for everyone on the list each time. This would solve the need for just a 1-4 vote, as if everybody ranks all 10 players up we can get a clear view of #5. It would also clear up the "didn't receive as many votes" problem.

As for the sticky thread debate, I'd say create 1 thread that contains links to all the other threads should work.

Allowing 10 players per vote, plus having at least one G, D and/or a "European/pre-26 guy" on the list, (so maybe 12-13 guys) would help some.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I think we should vote for everyone on the list each time. This would solve the need for just a 1-4 vote, as if everybody ranks all 10 players up we can get a clear view of #5. It would also clear up the "didn't receive as many votes" problem.

As for the sticky thread debate, I'd say create 1 thread that contains links to all the other threads should work.

Allowing 10 players per vote, plus having at least one G, D and/or a "European/pre-26 guy" on the list, (so maybe 12-13 guys) would help some.

We have that already. The problem is, after 6 months or so(Depending on the type of board), if nobody has posted in those threads recently, they will be archived and the links broken.

 

[BM67]

We have that already. The problem is, after 6 months or so(Depending on the type of board), if nobody has posted in those threads recently, they will be archived and the links broken.

I have bookmarked threads that are years old that still work.

 

[seventieslord]

...As have I. I don't get what all this archiving nonsense is. As far as I can see, all threads are still active.

 

[pappyline]

I think it went well & FF did a fantastuic job. Some pretty good suggestions have been offered.

-I like the idea of ranking all the players under consideration each round.
-Like the idea ro have about 10 players up for vote each round. Except for the first round. Everybody pretty much agrees on the top 4 (but not the order) so not much sense in having 10 players up in that round.
-Don't like ties & like seventieslord's suggestion to break them.
-Several have suggested some sort of pre-discussion. Reckoning mentioned some Soviet players got in as soom as they came up. Also. in the last round, Jackson, Gardiner & Doug Bentley got voted in right away. Might have got in earlier if hadn't been left off so many top 120 lists.
-Got to encourage people to vote every around. If someone misses 3-4 rounds without a good excuse, maybe they should be dropped.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I think it went well & FF did a fantastuic job. Some pretty good suggestions have been offered.

-I like the idea of ranking all the players under consideration each round.
-Like the idea ro have about 10 players up for vote each round. Except for the first round. Everybody pretty much agrees on the top 4 (but not the order) so not much sense in having 10 players up in that round.
-Don't like ties & like seventieslord's suggestion to break them.
-Several have suggested some sort of pre-discussion. Reckoning mentioned some Soviet players got in as soom as they came up. Also. in the last round, Jackson, Gardiner & Doug Bentley got voted in right away. Might have got in earlier if hadn't been left off so many top 120 lists.
-Got to encourage people to vote every around. If someone misses 3-4 rounds without a good excuse, maybe they should be dropped.

I dislike that bolded Idea.

Case in Point, Yzerman was up for voting when the 21-25 panel came around, yet good arguments for other players made people see the light and vote him in much later. If we were forced to vote for all 10 players who were up between 21 and 30, Yzerman would have gotten in earlier than he should have.

The way we did it this time was fine.

 

[pappyline]

I dislike that bolded Idea.

Case in Point, Yzerman was up for voting when the 21-25 panel came around, yet good arguments for other players made people see the light and vote him in much later. If we were forced to vote for all 10 players who were up between 21 and 30, Yzerman would have gotten in earlier than he should have.

The way we did it this time was fine.

Why do you think that? Only counting the top 5 votes. he was at or near the bottom. I would think counting all ten he would have still been at the bottom in voting for the 21+ range. I think the problem with Yzerman is that too many people over=rated him on their top 120 list and he came up too soon which is why we need some pre=round 2 discussions.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

I've been eagerly following this from the start and I have to say all you guys did a superb job, especially with the occasional bilros-types coming in to add their drivel. I learned a ton and as corny as it sounds it's inspired me to learn more about hockey's history. Thanks to you all

 

[seventieslord]

I dislike that bolded Idea.

Case in Point, Yzerman was up for voting when the 21-25 panel came around, yet good arguments for other players made people see the light and vote him in much later. If we were forced to vote for all 10 players who were up between 21 and 30, Yzerman would have gotten in earlier than he should have.

The way we did it this time was fine.

You're missing the point. We don't mean we want to induct all ten, we just want to rank each one. this provides some differentiation between all players, instead of just 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, not top-5, not top-5, not top-5, not top-5, not top-5. Basically, it will lead to more accurate results based on the aggregate of opinions.

Yzerman would have ended up in the same place - just look at his voting results in his first two times around, instead of nonexistent votes he'd have some votes for 6th, 7th, place, etc. every player would be accounted for with the same number of votes. Yzerman would have still slipped to where he did.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I’m very pleased with this project. The final product, the actual top 100 list, is, in my opinion, the most thoroughly-researched and balanced list ever assembled on this topic (though there can & will be improvement in future editions). Admittedly I’m biased, so let me elaborate on those two comments.

The biggest strength of this project is its transparency & documentation. We obviously don’t have the credentials of THN’s committee; this list’s credibility is determined based on our discussions, not on the name/reputation of the contributors. I’m very impressed by the in-depth analysis of every player on this list, and how thoroughly it was all documented. Anybody is free to disagree with any of our rankings—but our rationale for each position should be apparent once a reader looks over our discussions. The quality of discussion has been extremely high – very few arguments are simplistic ( “counting Cupsâ€, comparing statistics across eras without adjustments/contexts, etc).

The other major strength is that, unlike the THN list, we take a unified view of hockey history. We don’t pretend that the NHL always has been the only professional hockey league—there are numerous European and non-NHL professional players (ie NHA, PCHA, WCHL, etc) on our list. There are comments (both legitimate, IMO) that we’re underrepresenting Europeans and pre-’26 players. However we’ve done a great considering the strengths of various leagues at different times. This can be further improved over time (I agree with Reckoning's comment that European players are almost immediately voted -- they might have gone earlier had they done better in Round 1 aggregate voting).

I want to thank all the voters for taking the time to make such great arguments. Hopefully there are even more voters next time and newcomers are welcome and encouraged. In particular I’d like to thank FissionFire once again for all of his hard work. If I didn’t start this, somebody else would have—the project really got underway when FF agreed to do several tedious but essential administrative tasks.

Here are some thoughts about next time:

- I also agree that we should maintain the Round 1/Round 2 format. Quality control is essential—I realize that there is a conflict of interest in that the voters also screen the lists, but I’d say that this conflict is preferable to letting anybody vote. (I haven’t seen the results of QC but as per FF’s comments, he seems to be quite liberal – only lists with major biases/omissions against entire leagues/eras are omitted).

- I don’t have an issue with ties. If, after our final analysis, the voters believe that two players are equal, than that should be an acceptable outcome. If the votes say two players are equal, why change the results with an arbitrary rule?

- I wouldn’t be in favour of mandatory participation for now (75% is a great rate, anyway). If people don’t have time to participate some weeks, that’s fine. Forcing people to vote would likely result in decisions based on less research.

- I’d be in favour of having shorter voting rounds next time, though I’d prefer (after Vote 1 where we choose the big four) to keep it to 10 candidates, 5 players selected per weeks. Changing the format midway through, like we did this time, isn’t a major flaw, but I like the idea of consistency throughout the project. 3-4 days per round should be okay next time.