Top 100 List: Thoughts & Suggestions

[FissionFire]

Slight change on the lists.....

Highest/Lowest rankings are being changed to only include players from the final Top 100 list.

 

[Dark Shadows]

It's been bumped - I added a post to the end of the thread, and I can see it at the top of the first page of this forum.

But as we've established - that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone can see it.

http://hfboards.com/archive/index.php/t-461069.html

This thread was created in 2008, yet its already been archived and its original direct link broken.

Is there any way to prevent this from happening to all our voting rounds

 

[ck26]

When / if we re-do this, 85 of the players will be the exact same names as this list, and the thought of that bores me terribly. Let's change the pool of players we're voting on.

Let's try top 100 centers. Top 100 OHL alumni. Top 100 Sunbelt NHL'ers. Perhaps change the criteria. Players that revolutionized hockey somehow. Players who were heart-and-soul captain types. Most talented (but not neccessarily successful) players.

Anything to get a bunch of new names into the discussion.

 

[Koivu84*]

Old Time plays get overated, I suspect most of these posters have never seen most the guys in their top 20.

 

[dcinroc]

Old Time plays get overated, I suspect most of these posters have never seen most the guys in their top 20.

That's why it's called "history."

I never met Napolean Bonaperte, either, but he's clearly one the greatest generals who ever lived. Easily top 5

 

[Pwnasaurus]

That's why it's called "history."

I never met Napolean Bonaperte, either, but he's clearly one the greatest generals who ever lived. Easily top 5

But war is so much different now, the battlefields are different, the rules are different, the technology, it's impossible to compare...

 

[pappyline]

But war is so much different now, the battlefields are different, the rules are different, the technology, it's impossible to compare...

Doesn't matter. A brillant military commander is brillant regardless of the era which is why they study Bonaparte's tactics in military academies today.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Old Time plays get overated, I suspect most of these posters have never seen most the guys in their top 20.

I suspect you were too young to have seen Gretzky play

 

[Pwnasaurus]

Doesn't matter. A brillant military commander is brillant regardless of the era which is why they study Bonaparte's tactics in military academies today.

Yeah, I was joking and comparing it to how a few certain folks say that comparing players across eras is a task that should not be done.

 

[pappyline]

Yeah, I was joking and comparing it to how a few certain folks say that comparing players across eras is a task that should not be done.

Should have realized you were joking.

 

[FissionFire]

When / if we re-do this, 85 of the players will be the exact same names as this list, and the thought of that bores me terribly. Let's change the pool of players we're voting on.

Let's try top 100 centers. Top 100 OHL alumni. Top 100 Sunbelt NHL'ers. Perhaps change the criteria. Players that revolutionized hockey somehow. Players who were heart-and-soul captain types. Most talented (but not neccessarily successful) players.

Anything to get a bunch of new names into the discussion.

The updates will hopefully pull in new people with new arguments and they won't take nearly as long. I think this is definitely something to consider in the future. I think this season we'll focus on the update since I suspect alot of peoples lists will change and there will be several new participants. After that we can revert to a bi-annual update and in the off years possibly incorporate some of the different ideas you mentioned.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

When / if we re-do this, 85 of the players will be the exact same names as this list, and the thought of that bores me terribly. Let's change the pool of players we're voting on.

Anything to get a bunch of new names into the discussion.

For the most part I agree. I'm really not too interested in revisiting a "Dionne vs Mahovlich" or "Chelios vs Robinson" debate again, for example. Because for the most part, I think the arguments and cases for each player were thoroughly covered, so I can't for see very much new information coming to light.

I'd propose that everyone who participates submits their top 120, and an agregate list is made, just like we did to begin this project. But only players with noteworthy movement are re-debated and re-voted on.

 

[Dark Shadows]

For the most part I agree. I'm really not too interested in revisiting a "Dionne vs Mahovlich" or "Chelios vs Robinson" debate again, for example. Because for the most part, I think the arguments and cases for each player were thoroughly covered, so I can't for see very much new information coming to light.

I'd propose that everyone who participates submits their top 120, and an agregate list is made, just like we did to begin this project. But only players with noteworthy movement are re-debated and re-voted on.

I don't know about that. For the first revision, I expect a much larger pool of voters this time around, because of all the guys we had participating but not voting last time saying they could not wait till they had a vote.

 

[seventieslord]

I have seen some mention that defensemen and goalies have been under-represented, others say it's about right based on the standard 6-man lineup. When I thought about what the ratio would look like, I imagined we'd end up with a ratio more resembling a 23-man lineup - 13, 7, 3. So about 56 forwards, 30 defensemen, and 14 goalies.

Not saying what we did was wrong, but would someone like to convince me why the ratio we ended up at is correct and a ratio found above makes less sense?