Top-40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread

[MXD]

We need to have large rounds to include a greater number of players in the discussion each round than we usually do. that should prevent players being kept down artificially.

Then, if we end up in situations where a player is voted top-2 right away after becoming eligible (which will be quite the achievement considering we'll probably have 10 incumbents from the past round), we immediately hold another vote with that player, including those whom he never had a chance to be voted with in the previous round. Just to make sure there's no one already in that he should be ahead of.

That seems like a sensible solution : first, make sure the "issue" is less likely to happen, then, if it does, act upon it.

I'm not sure I quite understand why expanding this to Top-2 would be necessary, unless #1 is also a new incumbent. Hell, I'd have no issue ordering the whole thing up if #1-to-3 in a given round were all new incumbents, but that's... probably very unlikely, no?

 

[bobholly39]

If people are worried about their lists - instead of having more names to vote on each round, why not allow for extra time for people to update their lists if they want to?

ie:

Post the aggregate lists in a new thread. Open up for a week of discussion. Give people time to ask questions about specific players, and reconsider their rankings.

ie: Let's say someone has Gilmour ranked #9 in their list. But then they see him ranked #73 in the aggregate list. Maybe that voter reconsiders, and resubmits a list with Gilmour ranked considerably lower.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Here's my thoughts:

These are about the discussions; the vote itself is just the gravy on top. We've never done this topic before, so let's not go in with the mindset that we're going to nail it and have the definitive list for all time (or even right now). But we're going to gain greater insight into these players than we had before we started, and that's more than I can say for a repeat of the top-100.

I expect that while a new concept without external media rankings and an ATD to fall back on has led to a hesitance for others to attempt a list, the discussion will be extremely passionate and informative - both from voters and non-voters.

We'll accept additional lists throughout Vote 1 and Vote 2, but I think we should proceed business as usual upon completion of the screening.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Here's my thoughts:

These are about the discussions; the vote itself is just the gravy on top. We've never done this topic before, so let's not go in with the mindset that we're going to nail it and have the definitive list for all time (or even right now). But we're going to gain greater insight into these players than we had before we started, and that's more than I can say for a repeat of the top-100.

I expect that while a new concept without external media rankings and an ATD to fall back on has led to a hesitance for others to attempt a list, the discussion will be extremely passionate and informative - both from voters and non-voters.

We'll accept additional lists throughout Vote 1 and Vote 2, but I think we should proceed business as usual upon completion of the screening.

This is how I see it as well. More voters would be nice, but it is what it is. I'm looking forward to the discussions and learning new stuff I didn't know about or hadn't researched before. How the vote actually plays out is secondary to the process, at least for me.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Here's my thoughts:

These are about the discussions; the vote itself is just the gravy on top. We've never done this topic before, so let's not go in with the mindset that we're going to nail it and have the definitive list for all time (or even right now). But we're going to gain greater insight into these players than we had before we started, and that's more than I can say for a repeat of the top-100.

I expect that while a new concept without external media rankings and an ATD to fall back on has led to a hesitance for others to attempt a list, the discussion will be extremely passionate and informative - both from voters and non-voters.

We'll accept additional lists throughout Vote 1 and Vote 2, but I think we should proceed business as usual upon completion of the screening.

Agreed, but we should still vote even if we're low in number.

I'm fairly convinced many people didn't send a list because they were afraid of looking like fools due to their ignorance of who the best playoff players were pre-O6.Newsflash, I had a vague idea, but nothing more, myself, and my ideas came from this thread or the players I invested in knowing more during the various ATDs I participated in.Too bad if someone didn't send a list for that reason.I suggest to those people to send one and to hell with how silly the list might look in insight.

 

[bobholly39]

Here's my thoughts:

These are about the discussions; the vote itself is just the gravy on top. We've never done this topic before, so let's not go in with the mindset that we're going to nail it and have the definitive list for all time (or even right now). But we're going to gain greater insight into these players than we had before we started, and that's more than I can say for a repeat of the top-100.

I expect that while a new concept without external media rankings and an ATD to fall back on has led to a hesitance for others to attempt a list, the discussion will be extremely passionate and informative - both from voters and non-voters.

We'll accept additional lists throughout Vote 1 and Vote 2, but I think we should proceed business as usual upon completion of the screening.

There have been a lot more active participants in this thread than 13 people. I hope more decide to submit throughout votes 1 and 2.

Let's start, i'm excited

 

[quoipourquoi]

Let's start, i'm excited

Just waiting for the all-clear from the screener on the late-submissions. Assuming all goes according to plan, we have a clear voting break after 13 players on the aggregate list. We'll score them on ballots of #1-10 with three unranked players. Top-5 will make the list.

After that, how many should we add to the pool per round? Would we want to add marginally more than the five names that get subtracted?

 

[MXD]

Just waiting for the all-clear from the screener on the late-submissions. Assuming all goes according to plan, we have a clear voting break after 13 players on the aggregate list. We'll score them on ballots of #1-10 with three unranked players. Top-5 will make the list.

After that, how many should we add to the pool per round? Would we want to add marginally more than the five names that get subtracted?

I'd be all for it in theory.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Just waiting for the all-clear from the screener on the late-submissions. Assuming all goes according to plan, we have a clear voting break after 13 players on the aggregate list. We'll score them on ballots of #1-10 with three unranked players. Top-5 will make the list.

After that, how many should we add to the pool per round? Would we want to add marginally more than the five names that get subtracted?

Throwing a cold number in the universe: 7

 

[seventieslord]

I agree with 7. That way the pool gets two players larger each round, and it should.

 

[Theokritos]

One potential way to increase the voter pool would be to allow posters who were voters in two or more of the positional projects to vote without submitting a preliminary list. I think we could consider those folks knowledgable enough to make a solid contribution anyway. Looking at the numbers, this would make about 10 additional posters eligible to vote in the playoff project. I assume some of them would be interested in participating, but don't have the time to compile a preliminary list this time around. Of course, the question is whether the 13 participants who have already submitted a list are on board with given other people a bye. It's a tradeoff: others get to participate without the preliminary work you had to do, but on the other hand the whole project you've done that work for would benefit from a larger pool of voters.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I agree with 7. That way the pool gets two players larger each round, and it should.

I'll look at the splits when I get home. 7 added per round gives us 62 names total and a final vote from a pool of 27. If 27 in one round is too much, I believe there was a major break at 58 names.

 

[MXD]

One potential way to increase the voter pool would be to allow posters who were voters in two or more of the positional projects to vote without submitting a preliminary list. I think we could consider those folks knowledgable enough to make a solid contribution anyway. Looking at the numbers, this would make about 10 additional posters eligible to vote in the playoff project. I assume some of them would be interested in participating, but don't have the time to compile a preliminary list this time around. Of course, the question is whether the 13 participants who have already submitted a list are on board with given other people a bye. It's a tradeoff: others get to participate without the preliminary work you had to do, but on the other hand the whole project you've done that work for would benefit from a larger pool of voters.

No issue.

 

[seventieslord]

I'll look at the splits when I get home. 7 added per round gives us 62 names total and a final vote from a pool of 27. If 27 in one round is too much, I believe there was a major break at 58 names.

yeah, don't be scared to follow breaks, too. if it's sometimes 6 added, sometimes 7, sometimes 8, 4, 5, 9, that's fine.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I guess my hesitance to allow entry to past participants without the requisite top-60 list would be the perception that HOH projects are becoming less about open invitations to those who wish to participate and more about prioritizing the opinions of regulars. But if there's no one left in the forum to perceive you in any which way, then it might not matter.

 

[Kant Think]

One potential way to increase the voter pool would be to allow posters who were voters in two or more of the positional projects to vote without submitting a preliminary list. I think we could consider those folks knowledgable enough to make a solid contribution anyway. Looking at the numbers, this would make about 10 additional posters eligible to vote in the playoff project. I assume some of them would be interested in participating, but don't have the time to compile a preliminary list this time around. Of course, the question is whether the 13 participants who have already submitted a list are on board with given other people a bye. It's a tradeoff: others get to participate without the preliminary work you had to do, but on the other hand the whole project you've done that work for would benefit from a larger pool of voters.

If this option is considered, I would be interested in taking part in the process.

I have read every single post of every single top-xx list, as they were being debated, I have been an almost daily (sometimes weekly) reader of the history board for at least 15 years now and have read numerous hockey / history of hockey books (Yes, please, give me my life back).

I don't post all that much, although I would certainly take the time if I was a voter. I was planning on sending a list but time was lacking.

I know it's not entirely fair since I didn't do the work of compiling a list, but maybe voters-only could have half a vote?

I put my fate in your hands.

 

[Sturminator]

One potential way to increase the voter pool would be to allow posters who were voters in two or more of the positional projects to vote without submitting a preliminary list. I think we could consider those folks knowledgable enough to make a solid contribution anyway. Looking at the numbers, this would make about 10 additional posters eligible to vote in the playoff project. I assume some of them would be interested in participating, but don't have the time to compile a preliminary list this time around. Of course, the question is whether the 13 participants who have already submitted a list are on board with given other people a bye. It's a tradeoff: others get to participate without the preliminary work you had to do, but on the other hand the whole project you've done that work for would benefit from a larger pool of voters.

I would vote in round two if this rule were adopted, having been active in both the centers and European projects.

 

[MXD]

Actually, as a non-admin, the only restriction I would impose for "new" voters (or people who submit a list after the beginning of Round 2) is that they can only change Round 1 Results prospectively (and not retrospectively).

In other words, suppose Round 2 Vote 1 is already underway, with the players debated being, well, Player1 up to Player 10.

With the new user list, Player 12 supersedes Player 10, and Player 28 jumps to #17 (which, I gather, would make him a candidate sooner).

Player 12 wouldn't be a candidate during Vote 1; he'd come up as he should, during Vote 2. That is because there might already be a few pages of discussion on Players 1-to-10 and would slightly **** things up. However, Player 28 wouldn appear during Vote 2 instead of during Vote 4.

Hence, Prospective.

 

[Theokritos]

I guess my hesitance to allow entry to past participants without the requisite top-60 list would be the perception that HOH projects are becoming less about open invitations to those who wish to participate and more about prioritizing the opinions of regulars.

It would be a one-time thing to counter the low number of voters in this particular project. We don't have to make it the new custom for HOH projects. Also, we're still open to anybody else who submits a list.

If this option is considered, I would be interested in taking part in the process.

No offence, but I was referring to people who have voted in the last couple of projects and I can't find your name among the participants there... Seriously, people need to submit lists. The option I'm proposing is to make people eligible who have submitted at least two positional lists before. That would be the requirement for those who don't submit a list for this project.

I would vote in round two if this rule were adopted, having been active in both the centers and European projects.

It was on purpose that I only mentioned the positional projects but not the European project: the former ones are those who are relevant here IMO as they cover the entire Stanley Cup history, like the project at hand does. But you also voted in the Goaltenders project, so yes, you would be among those who become eligible.

But I'm only proposing this. It's up to the 13 "original" voters to say yes or no to the proposal.

 

[seventieslord]

as an original voter, I say yes to allowing past participants to vote, and also yes to this interesting new "The Hockey Socrates" fellow.

 

[MXD]

No offence, but I was referring to people who have voted in the last couple of projects and I can't find your name among the participants there... Seriously, people need to submit lists. The option I'm proposing is to make people eligible who have submitted at least two positional lists before. That would be the requirement for those who don't submit a list for this project.

Then, what I suggested just above, would it be a good compromise? It will probably mean a somewhat hastily-compiled list, but I don't recall anyone saying it was particularily happy about how their own turned out.

It was on purpose that I only mentioned the positional projects but not the European project: the former ones are those who are relevant here IMO as they cover the entire Stanley Cup history, like the project at hand does. But you also voted in the Goaltenders project, so yes, you would be among those who become eligible.

But I'm only proposing this. It's up to the 13 "original" voters to say yes or no to the proposal.

I have absolutely no issue with this. ... Actually, I might have ONE, and that doesn't have anything to do with Sturm. See PM.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I want people to feel encouraged to participate in the discussion as much as they can - even if they can't do Round 1. Especially Socrates.

How about this: in addition to the standard top-40 list we always do with the Round 1 participants, I totally have no problem collecting open ballots for Votes #1-8 from literally anyone who sends in their #1-10 from a voting pool - and assembling a second ranking after each vote. Think of it as the Ted Lindsay Award of HOH projects. It'll maintain the integrity of our Round 1/2 project while giving people who can't make a Round 1 list a reason to participate in the discussion as much as ever.

 

[bobholly39]

as an original voter, I say yes to allowing past participants to vote, and also yes to this interesting new "The Hockey Socrates" fellow.

Same for me.

The only thing I'd add is I wouldn't really want just anyone being able to come in and vote at anytime because i think that would cheapen the process a bit if we get too many such votes. So there have to be some limits in place.


What if - say - we allow a maximum of 5 votes per round from people who haven't submitted lists? First come first serve. So if you get 7 voters that round, you only count the first 5.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The only thing we absolutely need to make sure is that no "main board poster", largely unknown to everyone on this board, comes in and do a hit-and-run vote with an underlying philosophy that "modern players are just better!1!1!!1, Crosby > Gretzky".

 

[seventieslord]

The only thing we absolutely need to make sure is that no "main board poster", largely unknown to everyone on this board, comes in and do a hit-and-run vote with an underlying philosophy that "modern players are just better!1!1!!1, Crosby > Gretzky".

yeha, or any other agenda. You got me thinking, how can we just let people come in and vote if they're randoms that we haven't vetted through years of knowing them on this board, AND they haven't submitted a list in advance? Seems like we may risk some agenda based one-offs.

And I don't ask much. Even this Hockey Socrates guy is just fine by me. In his one post he proved he gets it and he cares. But someone whose first contribution to this or any of our projects is a wacky vote in the playoff project? sounds scary.