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

[Michael Farkas]

I agree with 70s.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Let's not generalize main board and history posters. I want to be really firm about us not going down that road.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

As someone who never participates in these lists but always learns a ton from reading them... I'm looking forward to this one!

But what happened to TDMM? I always liked his contributions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

List

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.

Viable compromise would be two lists by voters - one generated by those that submitted lists and one by those that did not.

Possible contrasts could be interesting.

 

[Sentinel]

So are you guys just going to come up with the list of eligible non-submitting voters? That can be a separate voting project

 

[quoipourquoi]

Viable compromise would be two lists by voters - one generated by those that submitted lists and one by those that did not.

Possible contrasts could be interesting.

That's what I'd rather do.

 

[BenchBrawl]

How confident are we in the actual 13 participants we already have as far as their commitment to vote every round?

I will vote in every round, can most of them promise the same? If we have 10 votes per round it's not a lot, but it's decent.If you boost that by 1-5 votes from respected/trusted non-participants (e.g. Sturminator, TheDevilMadeMe if he ever comes back while the project is ongoing, any ATD veteran or regular HOH section poster, a new guy who gives away a good vibe like Socrates), it seems enough to finish the project with a good level of quality.

Just to play the devil's advocate for a second, wouldn't two separate lists be an admission that we don't even trust the standard of quality of our own main list?

 

[MXD]

I have a pretty good track record of actually voting.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

How confident are we in the actual 13 participants we already have as far as their commitment to vote every round?

I will vote in every round, can most of them promise the same? If we have 10 votes per round it's not a lot, but it's decent.If you boost that by 1-5 votes from respected/trusted non-participants (e.g. Sturminator, TheDevilMadeMe if he ever comes back while the project is ongoing, any ATD veteran or regular HOH section poster, a new guy who gives away a good vibe like Socrates), it seems enough to finish the project with a good level of quality.

Just to play the devil's advocate for a second, wouldn't two separate lists be an admission that we don't even trust the standard of quality of our own main list?

Two list would have the opposite effect. Show that we do have confidence in the list and are not afraid of the list being questioned.

 

[bobholly39]

What's the point of having two list of voters? I don't get it.

This is my first project I'd participate in and I'll definitely try to be active every round.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'm not too concerned about the voting since the meat of this project is the discussions, but I do worry about hit-and-run voting to bolster a personal favorite, which would detract from the project. The easiest solution is to just stick to the original mandate that you must submit a list to vote, but I'm not going to stand in the way if a different approach is taken. If there are people who would like to contribute to the discussions, but will only do so if they are given a vote, then give them a vote I say. The more quality discussion, the better.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm not too concerned about the voting since the meat of this project is the discussions, but I do worry about hit-and-run voting to bolster a personal favorite, which would detract from the project. The easiest solution is to just stick to the original mandate that you must submit a list to vote, but I'm not going to stand in the way if a different approach is taken. If there are people who would like to contribute to the discussions, but will only do so if they are given a vote, then give them a vote I say. The more quality discussion, the better.

This is my feeling as well. I'd like as many people who want to discuss the topic to feel welcome to do so - whether they submitted a vote or not. And if it takes having the extra incentive of being allowed to cast ballots without first contributing a list, I don't mind keeping two scorecards.


But we're not including or excluding people for being trustworthy or regulars. We need to be really careful about not making people who don't normally come to HOH feel unwelcome.

 

[Iceman]

I wouldn't mind participating in the voting proccess, if you decide to allow others to vote. I didn't have time to submit a list earlier.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

This is my feeling as well. I'd like as many people who want to discuss the topic to feel welcome to do so - whether they submitted a vote or not. And if it takes having the extra incentive of being allowed to cast ballots without first contributing a list, I don't mind keeping two scorecards.

and besides, they're not polls. how many hit and runners would even bother to send a pm anyway? those extra few mouse clicks should help ensure the genuineness of participants to a point.

 

[MXD]

I don't get the point of the two lists either, and besides, wouldn't it be more complicated for absolutely nothing?

But new users should... probably be encouraged to fill a Round 1 (Top-60) list, even if it's only ready by Vote 2 or whatever.

 

[bobholly39]

How would it even work if people submitted lists during round 2? Would we re-organize the Aggregate list according to the new lists sent in each round? Or just ignore those new lists, but use them as a "buy in" to be eligible to vote so to speak?

 

[MXD]

How would it even work if people submitted lists during round 2? Would we re-organize the Aggregate list according to the new lists sent in each round? Or just ignore those new lists, but use them as a "buy in" to be eligible to vote so to speak?

Changes would only have a Prospective effect during Round 2 (or else THAT would be very complicated), and besides, it's not like 52 new Round 1 (Top-60) lists will be received.

 

[seventieslord]

How would it even work if people submitted lists during round 2? Would we re-organize the Aggregate list according to the new lists sent in each round? Or just ignore those new lists, but use them as a "buy in" to be eligible to vote so to speak?

I would expect that we'd reorganize the aggregate list on the fly, yes.

 

[MXD]

I would expect that we'd reorganize the aggregate list on the fly, yes.

...But I would also expect no change to the Vote already underway.

 

[bobholly39]

...But I would also expect no change to the Vote already underway.

Oh yeah that's an absolute given. No change whatsoever to the vote already on the way or it's just dumb. I just meant for future voting rounds.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Two lists would make for very poor presentation. However, I'm not opposed to linking to any secondary list in the usual footnotes.

 

[bobholly39]

We have 13 people who submitted lists?

How about this.

We allow people to submit lists up to votes 1 and 2 as previously suggested. If someone submits a list, they're "in" and can vote starting next round (or current round if enough time). Aggregate lists gets re-shuffled accordingly for next voting round based on the new list received (time permitting).

We have 13 voters. Anyone who didn't submit a list is welcome to send in votes by PM each round. The goal is for us to have 13 votes per round. If all 13 "list-voters" vote, no other votes are count. If only 11 voters voted, we tabulate 2 of the "non-list" voters.

In terms of how to pick which 2 of the non-list voters get selected if there are more than 2. Either a first come first serve basis, maybe with the added caveat that if said voter got a vote last round, others get preferential treatment above him.

So "non-list" voters are welcome to vote every around. And every round some of those votes will be counted, and in other rounds less so, depending on total votes.

I think that's somewhat fair. Would take a bit of work in terms of tracking for the people counting the votes, but i don't think it would be too terribly complicated.


Also - if we want to open it up to more "non-list voters" - instead of shooting for 13 total voters per round, we can shoot for 15 before it gets capped off.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Two lists would make for very poor presentation. However, I'm not opposed to linking to any secondary list in the usual footnotes.

It would be more of the footnote variety - a beta test of open ballots. Like the AHL testing shootouts. The top-40 list is going to be one voted on by people with Round 1 lists. But I don't mind keeping track of anyone's #1-10 after each vote if they want to offer it.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Have all the lists been screened yet?

 

[MXD]

It would be more of the footnote variety - a beta test of open ballots. Like the AHL testing shootouts. The top-40 list is going to be one voted on by people with Round 1 lists. But I don't mind keeping track of anyone's #1-10 after each vote if they want to offer it.

But then we should allow for the submitting of Round 1 lists (read, Top-60) during Vote 1 or Vote 2 of Round 2.

Because 13 participants is... well, it works, it's just that there's very little leeway.