Which HOH ranking project should we do next?

[Uncle Rotter]

I may be the only one, but I'd like to see "Greatest players in international play"

 

[charliolemieux]

Call it what you want. If the goal is to do an "all-time" list, regardless of era, and someone omits Eddie Shore, Howie Morenz, and Bill Cook, guess whether his list is accepted or not?
I
see no point in numerical minimums. If the participant is actually serious about the project, they won't be necessary.

What an elitist attitude.

You going to omit lists that don't have Howe, Lemieux, Gretzky or Orr in the top 4 next?

C'mon, doing 100 at a time everyone is going to miss someone.

The best way is what was mentioned before, but with expanded numbers.

List 30 players and pick only 5.

With the slight differences between players there is going to be 15-20 candidates for every spot after #4. lol

By only taking a small # of players each time it ensures more of a "cream of the crop".

After the "next" top 5 are picked you should put them in order with another vote.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sounds like a minimum of 3 to me. Seriously, can the majority of voters know for sure that Howie Morenz was better than Teemu Selanne? I doubt they honestly can know that, since the league has changed so much since that time. So if it's not flabbergasting for Selanne to be omitted, it shouldn't be for Morenz to be. If someone wants to rank Morenz #5 and omit Selanne entirely, that seems justifiable too.

Of course we can't know "for sure" who was better. Can we know "for sure" who was better between Gretzky and Howe? Or hell, even Gretzky and Lemieux? If certainty is your requirement, then history is the wrong field for you, my friend. Perhaps you should stick to mathematical sciences and statistics, which you are very good at.

For me, I look at Morenz's 3 Hart trophies. I look at the fact that he was arguably the league's best goal scorer and best playmaker over the course of his career (Joe Primeau was close in assists and Charlie Conacher close in goals, but nobody over the course of Morenz's career was close to both). And finally, I look to a poll conducted in 1950, where Morenz won in a landslide vote, the "best player of hockey's first half century). Selanne doesn't have anything close to that level of accomplishment.

It comes down to what is obvious to some or many or most is not obvious to others. At times it was blatantly obvious that the world revolved around the Earth, that a good bloodletting would cure ye of what ails ye, or that human sacrifice brought a bumper crop.

Again, this is history, not science.

Diversity of opinion should be celebrated, not stifled IMO. The dissenters can be criticized or even ridiculed, but their votes rejected? Casting a ballot and knowing you must include certain choices sounds a lot like a Soviet election to me.

Diversity of opinion is absolutely celebrated and I find it insulting that you think otherwise. The HOH Top 100 lists always strived to recruit a variety of participants from various age groups, various nationalities, and various fanbases.

I should clarify, however. Diversity of informed opinion and intellectual curiosity were, are, and will be celebrated. Willful ignorance cloaked as opinion, should not be celebrated. Celebrating willful ignorance sounds a lot like a neo-nazi book burning to me. (See what I did there?)

And I'm sorry, if you don't know who Howie Morenz, Eddie Shore, or Bill Cook were or don't feel comfortable placing their accomplishments into context, then you should probably learn before participating in a project based on the "all-time" history of the sport.

If this is someone's pet project, that's all fine and good I suppose, but if it's meant to be open to participation from anyone, then that's what it should be.

This is the continuation of what was, by far, the most successful project in this board's history, a project that had about 30 participants for the first version, and about 30 posters for the second one.

In case you didn't notice, the entire preliminary discussion as to the parameters of this project has been open to discussion and polling.

Calling such an open project a "pet project" sounds like the temper tantrum of a child (or tea party member) willing to hold his family (or country) hostage if his specific wishes go against what the majority decided.

If it's that important for certain players to be included, to the point of possible rejection of the entire ballot, then it should be explicitly mandatory IMO.

I have nothing to say but, "it worked fine last time!" If a poster's thoughts on hockey history are so at odds with the goals of the project that he cannot create a list within the spirit of the project (something extremely loosely interpreted), then why should he be allowed to sabotage the project for those who did agree on what the goals should be?

 

[Czech Your Math]

I'm not trying to discredit this project, it's quite an endeavor.

Just seems better to eliminate the gray area and either allow all submissions or only those that meet specific criteria.

The only danger in allowing any and all ballots is the omission of important players (which can be rectified by specifying that certain players must be included) and the "outlier" effect of having some players ranked extremely high or low on some ballots which radically alters their ranking. A possible solution for the latter effect is to use the preferential method of counting ballots, where if player A is ranked higher than player B on the majority of ballots, then player A is higher in the rankings. However, this method takes longer and there is the possibility of the occasional paradox (A>B, B>C, C>A).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You going to omit lists that don't have Howe, Lemieux, Gretzky or Orr in the top 4 next?

Nope. There was a list that had Orr something like 12th previously and that list was accepted. Though it was much criticized by the majority after the fact.

C'mon, doing 100 at a time everyone is going to miss someone.

Yup. Someone forgot Paul Coffey last time and his list was accepted. He was embarrassed after the fact. In the future, I think the procedure would be that if someone omitted an "obvious" pick (perhaps someone in the top 60 last time), he would be asked if it was on purpose and given a chance to correct the error. If it was on purpose, his list would be accepted unless it shows an outright bias, just like always.

The best way is what was mentioned before, but with expanded numbers.

List 30 players and pick only 5.

I can't see this working. Can you honestly see us discussing the pros and cons of 30 players at once? Even 15 got a little messy during the 2009 version of the list.

With the slight differences between players there is going to be 15-20 candidates for every spot after #4. lol

I don't disagree with you here, but the the top candidates are determined by the aggregate lists sent in by the voters during the first round. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of 15 candidates from the aggregate list, with 5 getting in. Of course, this is something that will be determined by the majority of participants, like every step along the way. Last thing we want is for someone to accuse us of making this a "pet project."

By only taking a small # of players each time it ensures more of a "cream of the crop".

True.

After the "next" top 5 are picked you should put them in order with another vote.

This is exactly what we did the last two times and I assume what we will do again. Are you familiar with the procedures used the previous two times?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not trying to discredit this project, it's quite an endeavor.

Just seems better to eliminate the gray area and either allow all submissions or only those that meet specific criteria.

In the past, all lists were accepted that didn't include obvious biases. I think only 3 lists were ever rejected, 1 for not listing a single non-NHL Euro (we were specifically instructed to include them, no number given), 1 for being incredibly biased towards modern players, I forget about the 3rd.

Perhaps the problem is that we are entering this with opposite assumptions? I assume that almost everyone who wishes to participate will do so because they believe in the project. And even if they don't agree with all the details, they'll conform to procedures to make it a worthwhile effort. You seem to believe that people will try to see what they can "get away with" to try to bend the project to their personal wishes.

The only danger in allowing any and all ballots is the omission of important players (which can be rectified by specifying that certain players must be included) and the "outlier" effect of having some players ranked extremely high or low on some ballots which radically alters their ranking.

For omitting certain players, I think that now that we have a baseline (the previous lists), if "highly ranked" players are omitted, we should ask the list maker to explain why. Anything resembling a decent explanation, and it's okay. This thing is subjective. Most obvious omissions will be in error, however, and the list maker will have a chance to correct them.

The outlier effect is a problem. Last time, everyone sent in Top 120 lists. 1st place = 120 points, 2nd place = 119 points. Seemed to work quite well for constructing an aggregate list after round 1.

In round 2 (voting after discussion), we didn't quite get the math right. In 2008, 10 names were listed, 1-5 were ranked and top 5 were added. This led to an overrating of guys getting outlier high votes. In 2009, 15 names were listed, all 15 were ranked, top 10 were added. This led to the opposite problem - underrating of guys getting outlier low votes. I'm sure we can come up with a happy medium.

A possible solution for the latter effect is to use the preferential method of counting ballots, where if player A is ranked higher than player B on the majority of ballots, then player A is higher in the rankings. However, this method takes longer and there is the possibility of the occasional paradox (A>B, B>C, C>A).

Did the points method I just outlined address this issue?

 

[overpass]

What an elitist attitude.

I assume the next iteration of the list will have the same guidelines and purpose as previous lists - to celebrate the history of hockey, and players from all eras. In that case, all participants should agree up front to include players from all eras. The project won't work if some participants are refusing to include titans from earlier eras like Howie Morenz. If someone doesn't care about the history of the game, then why are they participating? It's not meant to be elitist, but there are standards and must be standards if the project will be worth anything.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Fine Line

I assume the next iteration of the list will have the same guidelines and purpose as previous lists - to celebrate the history of hockey, and players from all eras. In that case, all participants should agree up front to include players from all eras. The project won't work if some participants are refusing to include titans from earlier eras like Howie Morenz. If someone doesn't care about the history of the game, then why are they participating? It's not meant to be elitist, but there are standards and must be standards if the project will be worth anything.

Very fine and delicate distinction. Howie Morenz presents us with a complete portfolio of work. Active players are tricky with a partial portfolio. Sidney Crosby?

 

[Czech Your Math]

Of course we can't know "for sure" who was better. Can we know "for sure" who was better between Gretzky and Howe? Or hell, even Gretzky and Lemieux? If certainty is your requirement, then history is the wrong field for you, my friend. Perhaps you should stick to mathematical sciences and statistics, which you are very good at.

You are right, there is no absolute certainty in these matters. What I was referring to is how the degree of uncertainty increases dramatically when dealing with non-NHL data (esp. when that is player's prime) or with data from eras that are far apart in time and/or quality. A study of history does not preclude scientific analysis.

For me, I look at Morenz's 3 Hart trophies. I look at the fact that he was arguably the league's best goal scorer and best playmaker over the course of his career (Joe Primeau was close in assists and Charlie Conacher close in goals, but nobody over the course of Morenz's career was close to both). And finally, I look to a poll conducted in 1950, where Morenz won in a landslide vote, the "best player of hockey's first half century). Selanne doesn't have anything close to that level of accomplishment.

The issue is how much different the league was then compared to now in terms of quality and competition. There seem to be quite varying opinions as to how large the differences are between eras. Some are of the "they don't make them like they used to" opinion and actually have a disproportionate high number of O6 and/or pre-WWII players on their lists. Others are of the "some of the worst cars today could outrace the best of 75 years ago" opinion and have a disproportionate low number from these past eras. It's not simple to say which is right, as there are many changes in between... population increases, higher participation rates in hockey, changes in equipment, league expansion, the addition of overseas talent, changes in league parity, etc. When combined, these make the uncertainty tremendous and allow for huge disparities in opinion, without either extreme being necessarily false.

Diversity of opinion is absolutely celebrated and I find it insulting that you think otherwise. The HOH Top 100 lists always strived to recruit a variety of participants from various age groups, various nationalities, and various fanbases.

I should clarify, however. Diversity of informed opinion and intellectual curiosity were, are, and will be celebrated. Willful ignorance cloaked as opinion, should not be celebrated. Celebrating willful ignorance sounds a lot like a neo-nazi book burning to me. (See what I did there?)

The only ignorance I see is having neither an entirely open process (all ballots accepted), nor an explicitly defined criteria (you must include these players at minimum... nothing wrong with that IMO) for ballots. Otherwise it's a gray area that leaves the participants unclear as to what is exactly expected and those with the power to reject ballots in a gray area as to which ballots are acceptable.

BTW, Hitler was Time's Man of the Year (see what I did there?).

And I'm sorry, if you don't know who Howie Morenz, Eddie Shore, or Bill Cook were or don't feel comfortable placing their accomplishments into context, then you should probably learn before participating in a project based on the "all-time" history of the sport.

I know who they were, but you are right that it's difficult for me (and probably many) to give them their proper place with much certainty. I don't plan to participate in this project, but whether or not I do, wanted to give my honest opinion as to what might be a way to improve the process for all involved in the present or future.

This is the continuation of what was, by far, the most successful project in this board's history, a project that had about 30 participants for the first version, and about 30 posters for the second one.

In case you didn't notice, the entire preliminary discussion as to the parameters of this project has been open to discussion and polling.

Calling such an open project a "pet project" sounds like the temper tantrum of a child (or tea party member) willing to hold his family (or country) hostage if his specific wishes go against what the majority decided.

I wasn't trying to discredit the project, but honestly wasn't sure whether it was completely open or subject to the whims of a select self-appointed committee. It's a fine project and I didn't mean to step on too many toes by posting a possible improvement for the consideration of those involved.

I have nothing to say but, "it worked fine last time!" If a poster's thoughts on hockey history are so at odds with the goals of the project that he cannot create a list within the spirit of the project (something extremely loosely interpreted), then why should he be allowed to sabotage the project for those who did agree on what the goals should be?

I don't think anyone's trying to sabotage this project, I am certainly not. However, I don't think someone who submitted a list that was entirely objective (using a point system he created) based solely on NHL data should have their efforts rejected as too barbaric for your project. I don't think that person was trying to subvert the spirit of the project or sabotage it. I would guess if you had an entirely open process or a strictly defined criteria, that wouldn't have been an issue. I'm sure it worked fine last time, and will work fine this time, whatever the format or methodology. The exception would be for someone who puts in the effort to participate only to find their list "rejected" for vaguely justifiable reasons.

 

[overpass]

I actually think having strictly defined criteria may be a bad idea, in the sense that pre-defined criteria are more open to being gamed.

Pre-defined criteria may also encourage people to participate who aren't really interested in earlier eras. If one of the standards is "have at least 15 pre-WWII players in your top 100" and someone doesn't have any on his list, he could just stick his top 15 pre-WWII guys in at the bottom of his list and feel good about participating because he met the standards.

 

[Hardyvan123]

In the past, all lists were accepted that didn't include obvious biases. I think only 3 lists were ever rejected, 1 for not listing a single non-NHL Euro (we were specifically instructed to include them, no number given), 1 for being incredibly biased towards modern players, I forget about the 3rd.

Perhaps the problem is that we are entering this with opposite assumptions? I assume that almost everyone who wishes to participate will do so because they believe in the project. And even if they don't agree with all the details, they'll conform to procedures to make it a worthwhile effort. You seem to believe that people will try to see what they can "get away with" to try to bend the project to their personal wishes.



For omitting certain players, I think that now that we have a baseline (the previous lists), if "highly ranked" players are omitted, we should ask the list maker to explain why. Anything resembling a decent explanation, and it's okay. This thing is subjective. Most obvious omissions will be in error, however, and the list maker will have a chance to correct them.

The outlier effect is a problem. Last time, everyone sent in Top 120 lists. 1st place = 120 points, 2nd place = 119 points. Seemed to work quite well for constructing an aggregate list after round 1.

In round 2 (voting after discussion), we didn't quite get the math right. In 2008, 10 names were listed, 1-5 were ranked and top 5 were added. This led to an overrating of guys getting outlier high votes. In 2009, 15 names were listed, all 15 were ranked, top 10 were added. This led to the opposite problem - underrating of guys getting outlier low votes. I'm sure we can come up with a happy medium.



Did the points method I just outlined address this issue?

what exactly is "incredibly biased towards modern players?"

The reason I bring it up is because I have a working model on my list that takes into account the number of high caliber players, both in the NHL or various top leagues before the NHL and the total number of players period and various areas they came from.

Of course this is not set in stone but provides me with a rough guideline of % of players from each era ect..

Simply put 3 Harts in 1930 don't exactly equate to 3 Harts in post 1990 or 80 ect...

Is there going to be a problem if on a hypothetical ballot a guy has 50% after 1980 retirement and a handfull of players pre WW2?

This is why it would be better IMO to compare apple with apples or at least as close as we can get to it, although a top 100 all time is intriguing I'm worried that there is a built in bias against modern players.

This bothers me for the fact that we are comparing guys that we have a ton of information for, both positive and against to past players where there is much less information and the information that is on the record was built using different journalist standards with very little critical analysis for the most part.

I think as long as guys have reasonable arguments with the lists they submit they should be accepted

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

what exactly is "incredibly biased towards modern players?"

The reason I bring it up is because I have a working model on my list that takes into account the number of high caliber players, both in the NHL or various top leagues before the NHL and the total number of players period and various areas they came from.

Of course this is not set in stone but provides me with a rough guideline of % of players from each era ect..

Simply put 3 Harts in 1930 don't exactly equate to 3 Harts in post 1990 or 80 ect...

Is there going to be a problem if on a hypothetical ballot a guy has 50% after 1980 retirement and a handfull of players pre WW2?

This is why it would be better IMO to compare apple with apples or at least as close as we can get to it, although a top 100 all time is intriguing I'm worried that there is a built in bias against modern players.

This bothers me for the fact that we are comparing guys that we have a ton of information for, both positive and against to past players where there is much less information and the information that is on the record was built using different journalist standards with very little critical analysis for the most part.

I think as long as guys have reasonable arguments with the lists they submit they should be accepted

Link to rejected lists:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=539270

Took me approximately 40 seconds to find, because I knew where to look.

Just to make it easier for others, this is how I found this:

1. Click on the stickied thread at the top of this board for the 2009 update of the Top 100 list.
2. Click on "Listed here are links to all the old lists: HOH Top 100 Final List" at the bottom of the first post.
3. Click on "Rejected lists" towards the bottom of the first post of the old list.

Most of the information posters have been asking for can be found by browsing the stickied threads and other threads it links to.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Perhaps the problem is that we are entering this with opposite assumptions? I assume that almost everyone who wishes to participate will do so because they believe in the project. And even if they don't agree with all the details, they'll conform to procedures to make it a worthwhile effort. You seem to believe that people will try to see what they can "get away with" to try to bend the project to their personal wishes.

If you are speaking of people in general, I think the latter belief has a preponderance of evidence for it. However, as pertains to this project, I share the former belief with you that the participants believe in the integrity of this project. All I suggested was a way to simplify the process of submitting the initial list. While only a few lists may have been rejected in the past, how many were dissuaded from submitting lists due to vague criteria that they didn't really understand ("oh no, if I don't have Joe Malone in my top 80, my list will be rejected and I'll be forever ridiculed").

For omitting certain players, I think that now that we have a baseline (the previous lists), if "highly ranked" players are omitted, we should ask the list maker to explain why. Anything resembling a decent explanation, and it's okay. This thing is subjective. Most obvious omissions will be in error, however, and the list maker will have a chance to correct them.

The outlier effect is a problem. Last time, everyone sent in Top 120 lists. 1st place = 120 points, 2nd place = 119 points. Seemed to work quite well for constructing an aggregate list after round 1.

In round 2 (voting after discussion), we didn't quite get the math right. In 2008, 10 names were listed, 1-5 were ranked and top 5 were added. This led to an overrating of guys getting outlier high votes. In 2009, 15 names were listed, all 15 were ranked, top 10 were added. This led to the opposite problem - underrating of guys getting outlier low votes. I'm sure we can come up with a happy medium.

I would suggest possibly incorporation the preferential voting system during the latter stages of the process. Doing so in the initial ranking from the initial lists would be too cumbersome. However, utilizing this in the second and/or final stages would allow more players to be considered each time. If you use a group of ten players for each five spots, that would allow plenty of players into each discussion without allowing outlier votes to disproportionately affect the results.

 

[charliolemieux]

Nope. There was a list that had Orr something like 12th previously and that list was accepted. Though it was much criticized by the majority after the fact.


Yup. Someone forgot Paul Coffey last time and his list was accepted. He was embarrassed after the fact. In the future, I think the procedure would be that if someone omitted an "obvious" pick (perhaps someone in the top 60 last time), he would be asked if it was on purpose and given a chance to correct the error. If it was on purpose, his list would be accepted unless it shows an outright bias, just like always.


I can't see this working. Can you honestly see us discussing the pros and cons of 30 players at once? Even 15 got a little messy during the 2009 version of the list.



I don't disagree with you here, but the the top candidates are determined by the aggregate lists sent in by the voters during the first round. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of 15 candidates from the aggregate list, with 5 getting in. Of course, this is something that will be determined by the majority of participants, like every step along the way. Last thing we want is for someone to accuse us of making this a "pet project."



True.





This is exactly what we did the last two times and I assume what we will do again. Are you familiar with the procedures used the previous two times?

Why Are you discussing 30 or even 15 at a time?

The whole purpose of doing a poll is to quickly eliminate people.

Take the list of 30 and vote. You only need to really discus the top 5-7 vote getters as to who is next in line.

The top 4 is basically agreed upon, so how hard can it be to narrow #5 down to 5 or 6 guys?

List 30, discuss the top 5. There might be guys who make the top 5 for #8 but not for #9. Or whatever.

IF you actually debated 15 guys at once it had to be frustrating.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why Are you discussing 30 or even 15 at a time?

The whole purpose of doing a poll is to quickly eliminate people.

Take the list of 30 and vote. You only need to really discus the top 5-7 vote getters as to who is next in line.

The top 4 is basically agreed upon, so how hard can it be to narrow #5 down to 5 or 6 guys?

List 30, discuss the top 5. There might be guys who make the top 5 for #8 but not for #9. Or whatever.

IF you actually debated 15 guys at once it had to be frustrating.

Are you under the impression we are using the "poll" feature on hfboards? We are not, for reasons discussed in the past.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Link to rejected lists:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=539270

Took me approximately 40 seconds to find, because I knew where to look.

Just to make it easier for others, this is how I found this:

1. Click on the stickied thread at the top of this board for the 2009 update of the Top 100 list.
2. Click on "Listed here are links to all the old lists: HOH Top 100 Final List" at the bottom of the first post.
3. Click on "Rejected lists" towards the bottom of the first post of the old list.

Most of the information posters have been asking for can be found by browsing the stickied threads and other threads it links to.

I have looked at the thread in the past and with the 1st rejected list there is a huge problem IMO.

The 2nd quote states that it is 99.9% free of intentional players when in fact it has at least 2 guys that were on almost entirely for their non NHL contributions and several other who had large international contributions to their resumes that might prop them up on the submitters list IMO.

Not having Morenz on the top 120 was the most glaring problem but maybe he just missed it.

the comments section is what I thought it would be, various posters commenting on why it didn't look like their lists, although it should be obvious that every list will be different and even within defined criteria each poster will have some personal criteria to judge and make their lists.

I'm with Czech you math on this, we should endevour to be as inclusive as possible in this task.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I actually think having strictly defined criteria may be a bad idea, in the sense that pre-defined criteria are more open to being gamed.

Pre-defined criteria may also encourage people to participate who aren't really interested in earlier eras. If one of the standards is "have at least 15 pre-WWII players in your top 100" and someone doesn't have any on his list, he could just stick his top 15 pre-WWII guys in at the bottom of his list and feel good about participating because he met the standards.

Yeah, the last thing anyone would want is more people feeling good about participating in a supposedly open process.

Seriously, I understand concerns about the project being co-opted by a bunch of hooligans that will put Crosby in their top 5, but then what's to stop that now and who can definitively say they're wrong?

When people want to limit the scope of the project (to post WWII and/or to NHL only) then this is summarily rejected. So I guess it's a self-limiting project to include those willing to spend dozens of hours researching dozens of pre-WWII and non-NHL players. That's fine, except even after all that research, there's some who believe that (due to lack of reliable data, disparity in league quality, etc.) those players can't be ranked very accurately at all, which to some extent negates the purpose of all that research.

I'm not trying to ruin this project, nor pretending I could make it so much better. I'm speaking for those who may not bother to express their views, or are afraid of submitting a list that will be rejected or ridiculed. I have tremendous respect for this project and for the work of many posters in this forum.

I give you the view of an outsider, someone who may not have the vast knowledge of hockey history that many here do. If that view is not accepted, that's okay, it's still great fun to participate and/or follow the results of this project.

My unsolicited view on how the process could be improved is as follows:

- initial lists could be published anonymously, but those participating in further voting and discussion are not anonymous

- consider using the preferential system at least partially in voting, to lessen the impact of outliers (if the majority prefer player A to player B, doesn't matter if some have player A very low or player B very high)

- consider either making it a completely open process (and accepting that some may not include desired proportions from older eras or non-NHL careers... that can be worked out with further voting) or giving more definitive direction to those voting (e.g., establish a pool of pre-WWII players and non-NHL players and require that "at least X of these Y players must be included" or something to that effect) to limit the scope of research necessary to participate in the project

 

[Hardyvan123]

Very fine and delicate distinction. Howie Morenz presents us with a complete portfolio of work. Active players are tricky with a partial portfolio. Sidney Crosby?

I think for any active players we have to take what they have done and judge them on that, not what they might do.

As a longevity guy I'm not sure that I am comfortable putting Crosby or AO in my top 100 yet but will look at it more closely as we proceed.

Both are in the discussion though.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

As a lurker in this section and a fan of the original top-100 thread, I'd rather see more arguments and comparisons of the next 100 (or 50 or whatever) best players than some re-hash-by-position of the players that have already been talked about

 

[steve141]

7 of 15 might work. I was wondering if he wanted to do something like give the top 15 candidates and only add 5 of them. That would definitely give more power to the discussions.

IMO, a list of 20 candidates would just be too hard to keep track of in the discussions.

Agree, twenty would be too much. We want the discussions to be focused enough that we can really dig into the finer details of Hall vs Sawchuk etc.

I think the number of candidates needs to be at least double to the number voted in, i.e. 5/10, 5/15, 7/15 might all work, but 10/15 would be too limiting for the discussion. If you vote in 10 out of 15 it gets to be more of a question of who to leave off rather than who to put in, which is contrary to the goal of celebrating the history of hockey.

 

[steve141]

As a lurker in this section and a fan of the original top-100 thread, I'd rather see more arguments and comparisons of the next 100 (or 50 or whatever) best players than some re-hash-by-position of the players that have already been talked about

That's the point of doing a by-position list. The old top 70 only had 11 goalies. By going 50 goalies deep we are essentially looking at the top 350 players or so.

 

[steve141]

What are the steps needed to get going then?

Something like this?

1. Find at least three volonteer organizers. This is a key step to avoid the situation in the last project.

2. Agree on the actual project (Top 100 overall/Top 50 by position both seem to have enough support). I know TDMM had thoughts on what the best way to decide was. I'd be fine with letting the organizers choose project also, we need to give them some perks for volonteering their time.

3. Establish procedure. List submission criteria, how many to include in each round, how long each round should be etc.

4. Accept submissions.

5. GO!

I'd prefer if we make sure that we do all of the above before someone starts the project, to avoid the HOH HOF situation.

So, step 1: Do we have any volonteer organizers?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What are the steps needed to get going then?

Something like this?

1. Find at least three volonteer organizers. This is a key step to avoid the situation in the last project.

2. Agree on the actual project (Top 100 overall/Top 50 by position both seem to have enough support). I know TDMM had thoughts on what the best way to decide was. I'd be fine with letting the organizers choose project also, we need to give them some perks for volonteering their time.

3. Establish procedure. List submission criteria, how many to include in each round, how long each round should be etc.

4. Accept submissions.

5. GO!

I'd prefer if we make sure that we do all of the above before someone starts the project, to avoid the HOH HOF situation.

So, step 1: Do we have any volonteer organizers?

So long as it's a project I'm interested in, I would be an administrator of the project, assuming nobody has a problem with that.

I think 3 is a good number of administrators. If 1 of the 3 admins has to drop out do to other commitments, then an effort should be made to find another.

I'm against the administrators picking the project they want - I think it should be the other way around. The board picks the project, and then possible administrators decide if it's a project they would enjoy administering. For example, if the board picks something like "top players since expansion," there is nothing wrong with it, but I would not be particularly interested.

So I think your steps 1 and 2 can be done simultaneously.

Anyway, assuming things don't change and the "top Europeans" list doesn't get more votes, I think 2 polls need to be made to decide format:

Poll 1: Start with a big Top 100 list of all positions this year and complete it OR start going into Top 50 by positions (with the goal of a new Top 50 by position list each of the next couple of years)?

Poll 2: Should the lists try to represent all players from all time or a specific group of players (best of NHL, best since WW2, etc)?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just to clarify, the goal of this project was to ultimate do a new one every year, if interest remains (which I think it will, we just got stuck on whether to finish the last list or not).

So we are really just voting on where to start.

For example, IF the Top 100 list wins (which is far from certain), this could be a "schedule" for the next few years:

2011: Top 100 players
2012: Top 50 goalies
2013: Top 50 defensemen
2014: Top 75 forwards (could be broken down further into Wings and Centers or whatever)
2015: Top 50 Europeans
2016: Top 100 players updated

This vote is really just to determine our starting point, assuming all goes well.

 

[charliolemieux]

Are you under the impression we are using the "poll" feature on hfboards? We are not, for reasons discussed in the past.

Why are you ignoring such a useful tool to get numbers to a more managable amount?

Even if all you can do is narrow it down to the top 2 or 3 out of 10, it is alot easier than discussing all 10 at once.

I would think a 2 step process would be easier than trying to it all at once.