A couple thoughts on these projects, mainly as they pertain to the top 100 players project.
It's basically mandatory that lists include players before WWII and with primarily non-NHL careers, but which players and how high must they be ranked? Perhaps it can be made more explicit if lists of each are developed. For instance, from a list of the top 50 players pre-1946 or top 50 Europeans, it can be stated that the top X players from each of these lists must be included on the list of Y players submitted for the top 100 project. Otherwise it seems unfair to penalize people who include few or no players from these lists.
Again, I get the idea that we could construct a more accurate list by doing sublists (pre-1946 or top 50 Europeans) first. But the first list "early era players" is exactly where the HOHHOF process got bogged down and I don't think many of us want to repeat it. And the "top 50 Europeans" option is losing this current poll by a fairly big margin, so their just doesn't appear to be the interest.
Again, if the purpose of the project is to include all hockey players from all eras, it's not "penalizing" people who choose to neglect certain classes of players. It's simply recognizing that those people don't embrace the spirit of the project that the majority wish to do. Nothing wrong with that - there's no saying the majority is right, especially on an internet message board! But the project works best if the participants share a common view on what the ultimate goal is.
There are two reasons for not including pre-1946 players and non-NHL players in the top 100. First, a voter may believe that the players just weren't good enough compared to NHL players of the past 65 years. While that sound ludicrous to most, it's not an easily disprovable position.
And it's not easily disprovable that Europeans don't care about the Stanley Cup and therefore can't be relied on to lead their teams in the playoffs. I still think it goes against the spirit of the project.
Second, is that the data is so unreliable for these players. Even if a voter has the inclination to include many of these players on a top 100 list, it's so difficult to properly compare and place these players that it's almost like throwing darts in many cases. It's hard enough to compare players from the O6 to players in the 80's or players from the 70's to players of the past two decades. The uncertainty factor becomes so large, that it seems justifiable to rank a player #60 or #150.
How is the data unreliable? We have Hart voting and All Star voting for almost every season they were voted on. We have accurate scoring finishes for the NHL. Post-consolidation (1926), there really should be no question as to the accuracy of the data. Even going back a decade or two earlier, we at least have quality scoring data, as well as some supplementals for the NHA, PCHA, and WHL.
Trail of the Stanley Cup, Ultimate Hockey, etc are all solid resources. And honestly, I think it should be mandatory (though with no way to enforce it obviously) for any participants to at least skim ALL the discussions for the last 2 top 100 lists. The information is out there, at least back to the 1920s and IMO earlier.
I guess what really surprised me while recently looking at the last top 100 project was that one of the lists rejected looked rather coherent, but was rejected for not including European players. It was Pnep's list, which uses an objective point system. His list was later (revised first?) included, but still the criteria should be either left up to the participants or more explicitly stated IMO.
Perhaps you are unaware, but the criteria WAS explicitly stated - the lists were to include all players who ever played hockey, whether they played in the NHL or not.
Seriously though, the HOHHOF list was dominated by 2-4 posters each time. The HOH Top 100 list had 10-20 people seriously involved in discussion in each round. It's quite clear to me which project was more successful.
