Which HOH ranking project should we do next?

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

Because more than just first place votes should count.

Example:

Goalies

Scenario: Voters ranked their top 3 of 10 listed goalies. These are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place votes for Hasek, Roy, and Brodeur:

name|1st|2nd|3rd
Hasek|5|6|4
Roy|5|4|5
Brodeur|6|0|1

In the above scenario, I think the will of the voters is clear that Hasek and Roy should be ranked above Brodeur. They got significantly more second and third place votes. But since Brodeur got just a single additional first place vote, he'd be selected as #1 if we just use the polls.

The goal is constructing the best possible list; it should not matter if the polls function makes throwing together a list less time-consuming.

*In the real list, we'll likely rank 5 players at a time, but I didn't feel like making up numbers for 5 goalies.

 

[charliolemieux]

Because more than just first place votes should count.

Example:

Goalies

Scenario: Voters ranked their top 3 of 10 listed goalies. These are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place votes for Hasek, Roy, and Brodeur:

name|1st|2nd|3rd
Hasek|5|6|4
Roy|5|5|5
Brodeur|6|0|1

In the above scenario, I think the will of the voters is clear that Hasek and Roy should be ranked above Brodeur. They got significantly more second and third place votes. But since Brodeur got just a single additional first place vote, he'd be selected as #1 if we just use the polls.

The goal is constructing the best possible list; it should not matter if the polls function makes throwing together a list less time-consuming.

*In the real list, we'll likely rank 5 players at a time, but I didn't feel like making up numbers for 5 goalies.

I don't make many polls, is there not a multiple picks, option?

I would have people pick their top 3 out of 10 then take the top 3 or 4 vote getters and discuss the order for the next 2 spots.

So out of a list of 10.
Players A,B,C & D are the top vote getters.
We then discuss the merits of those players as to which order they go in on the overall list. If you want to take only 1 or 2 or all 4 is another matter.

I guess it is similar to what you are thinking. I think.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

With the current vote split, I think the best course of action is have everyone who wants to participate rank the following 3 choices 1-3 (in a new thread):

Top 100 players (16 votes), Top Europeans (10 votes), Top Players By Position starting with Goalies (8)

Overall, the "by position" choices got 15 votes, which means goalies got more than half of them.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Edit: Once we decide the project, we'll next decide which players all eligible - all players, only NHLers, only non-NHLers (in the case of the Euros project), etc.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

With the current vote split, I think the best course of action is have everyone who wants to participate rank the following 3 choices 1-3 (in a new thread):

Top 100 players (16 votes), Top Europeans (10 votes), Top Players By Position starting with Goalies (8)

Overall, the "by position" choices got 15 votes, which means goalies got more than half of them.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Edit: Once we decide the project, we'll next decide which players all eligible - all players, only NHLers, only non-NHLers (in the case of the Euros project), etc.

I'd rather just have a generic "by position" option, and if it happens to win, do a separate poll to decide which position to start with. Maybe all the people that voted for Top 100 or Top Europeans have goalies as their last choice of position to start with?

 

[plusandminus]

I think a "top Europeans" would be most interesting, at least for me. I think it is also the type of project I would be most interested in participating in.

That kind of project would be very educating as it would make people need to learn more about international tournaments, games between NHL teams and European teams, and domestic leagues.

It would be also be something new, as opposed to do another list of "best NHL players ever", which I think the last project pretty much looks like (I'm exaggerating). While I'm sure participants in earlier projects have spent time learning more about hockey outside of NHL, I guess perhaps 90 % of the stats, awards, etc. looked upon were NHL related. (I may be wrong.) If being lazy, it would be possible for a participant to make a list by just looking on seasonal scoring lists, awards, cups and alltime lists per position.

If doing a "top Europeans" project, I think participants would look more outside of NHL, look more at domestic leagues, more international play, and learn more about those things. The North American participants likely would expand their large hockey knowledge even more. If Europeans participating, they might be able to bring a lot into the discussions.


From an educational point, I also think that positional rankings may be educating, maybe especially if focusing on goalies, or perhaps defencemen, rather than forwards.
I don't see a point in mixing "European only" and "positional". Either a list of all Europeans no matter position, or a positional list of all players (world).

I personally think one should draw the line at say 1960. But the opinions of the hardcore guys are important.

If ranking six players, 6-5-4-3-2-1 points sounds good. 7-5-4-3-2-1 perhaps even better. Not 1-1-1-1-1-1.


In the end, I think the hardcore guys here that administrates the project, should be the ones ultimately deciding. (And OK if they do it by letting everyone vote.)
I think their experience from previous projects is valuable.

 

[plusandminus]

So:
World or Europeans?
Positional or non-positional?
Alltime or since year xxxx?

If looking at the current poll, I think it would be fair to say that "World" may include most of the positional votes too, if so making its lead even larger. Looks like another NHL list with some Europeans doing well in the 1970s Summit Series and Canada Cups thrown in.

Not knowing what the 4 "unspecified" votes look like, I would say it's 16-16 between "positional" and "non-positional". The outcome between the two seem to depend on what the guys voting "European" would chooseif having to decide between those two.

If positional wins, I think you should vote again regarding which position (unless some position, like goalies, stands out very much).

"Alltime" or "since year" is not directly something one can vote upon.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Top 3 options are too close to eliminate one from the poll.

Please vote here:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=969681

 

[unknown33]

Questions Top 50 players by postion:
Is it seperated in G/D/F, G/D/C/W or G/D/C/LW/RW?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Questions Top 50 players by postion:
Is it seperated in G/D/F, G/D/C/W or G/D/C/LW/RW?

I figured we'd decide how to separate the forwards if that option is chosen.

My preference would be G/D/F, but I know a lot of other posters wanted to separate the forwards. If we started with D or G, we wouldn't have to necessarily make the decision right away about what to do with the forwards.

 

[unknown33]

I figured we'd decide how to separate the forwards if that option is chosen.

My preference would be G/D/F, but I know a lot of other posters wanted to separate the forwards. If we started with D or G, we wouldn't have to necessarily make the decision right away about what to do with the forwards.

I guess there will be more than Top 50 forwards selected if it's split up into G/D/F?
What is your preference?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I guess there will be more than Top 50 forwards selected if it's split up into G/D/F?
What is your preference?

My preference is something like Top 75 forwards, Top 50 defensemen, Top 30/50 goalies.

If forwards is split up, I guess it would be something like top 50 centers and top 50 wings? Or top 50 centers, top 25 RWs, top 25 LWs? It might interest others, but I really don't know if I'm interested in going down to the 50th best LW, for example.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

My preference is something like Top 75 forwards, Top 50 defensemen, Top 30/50 goalies.

If forwards is split up, I guess it would be something like top 50 centers and top 50 wings? Or top 50 centers, top 25 RWs, top 25 LWs? It might interest others, but I really don't know if I'm interested in going down to the 50th best LW, for example.

I like the bolded idea the best. I think it would be good to separate right and left wings, but doing 50 of each is probably too much. Center is such a deep position that 50 works well there.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

From the other thread:

I see the By-Position option as the same thing as doing a top 100, but with a chance to do it with more detailed analysis.

It's similar, but it's not entirely the same, as consensus top 50 player Cyclone Taylor will not be eligible for any of the "by position" lists, nor will other rovers from the early era.

Then, everyone's opinions will vary as to how much their time at forward should affect the placement of guys like Dit Clapper and Red Kelly on a "by position" list.

 

[Hardyvan123]

From the other thread:



It's similar, but it's not entirely the same, as consensus top 50 player Cyclone Taylor will not be eligible for any of the "by position" lists, nor will other rovers from the early era.

Then, everyone's opinions will vary as to how much their time at forward should affect the placement of guys like Dit Clapper and Red Kelly on a "by position" list.

I know it will be hard for some to do but can't we designate a position for guys like Clapper and Kelly.

Kelly is best known as a Dman and we can slot him there.

Every system will be tough even forwards would be dominated by centers as they have more defensive responsibility and were often the top scorers too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I know it will be hard for some to do but can't we designate a position for guys like Clapper and Kelly.

Kelly is best known as a Dman and we can slot him there.

Every system will be tough even forwards would be dominated by centers as they have more defensive responsibility and were often the top scorers too.

Yes, of course Kelly and Clapper were primarily defensemen. But part of their "all time value" is what they did at forward, so there's a chance they'll be ranked lower on a defenseman list than a player's list. And that's okay. But it is a difference between the two lists.

Red Kelly, for example, is probably #6 or 7 among primarily defensemen on a "top 100 players" list (depending on how you consider his career vs. Potvin), but on a "defenseman-only" list, he's almost surely below Potvin and there's probably a case to rank him below Robinson or Fetisov, as well.

 

[overpass]

Yes, of course Kelly and Clapper were primarily defensemen. But part of their "all time value" is what they did at forward, so there's a chance they'll be ranked lower on a defenseman list than a player's list. And that's okay. But it is a difference between the two lists.

Red Kelly, for example, is probably #6 or 7 among primarily defensemen on a "top 100 players" list (depending on how you consider his career vs. Potvin), but on a "defenseman-only" list, he's almost surely below Potvin and there's probably a case to rank him below Robinson or Fetisov, as well.

There are two ways to do this. Rank players based on their performance at the position only, or rank based on the whole career of players who played primarily at the position.

I prefer the latter method. Especially for centre/wing players. We would have just have to decide on positions for multiposition players before starting.

 

[seventieslord]

There are two ways to do this. Rank players based on their performance at the position only, or rank based on the whole career of players who played primarily at the position.

I prefer the latter method. Especially for centre/wing players. We would have just have to decide on positions for multiposition players before starting.

I prefer the latter as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Honours and Contributions

There are two ways to do this. Rank players based on their performance at the position only, or rank based on the whole career of players who played primarily at the position.

I prefer the latter method. Especially for centre/wing players. We would have just have to decide on positions for multiposition players before starting.

Players who received individual honours at multiple positions, Clapper and Delvecchio were All Stars at two positions or contributed to team success - Stanley Cups wins at different positions - Red Kelly, as examples, should be considered at both, otherwise they get shorted at both which defeats the prime objective of the effort. Also by limiting consideration to one position the effort can be "gamed" or manipulated.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Players who received individual honours at multiple positions, Clapper and Delvecchio were All Stars at two positions or contributed to team success - Stanley Cups wins at different positions - Red Kelly, as examples, should be considered at both, otherwise they get shorted at both which defeats the prime objective of the effort. Also by limiting consideration to one position the effort can be "gamed" or manipulated.

The way I understood his post was that we would select one position list for a player to be ranked under, but would consider his entire career and accomplishments at all positions when evaluating him. For example: We decide Red Kelly should be ranked as a defenseman, but when evaluating his career and/or making arguments for or against him we include his time as a forward.

Am I right on this overpass?

 

[seventieslord]

Players who received individual honours at multiple positions, Clapper and Delvecchio were All Stars at two positions or contributed to team success - Stanley Cups wins at different positions - Red Kelly, as examples, should be considered at both, otherwise they get shorted at both which defeats the prime objective of the effort. Also by limiting consideration to one position the effort can be "gamed" or manipulated.

yeah, but Kelly, Clapper would not even be up for consideration in a top-50 by position list. (maybe Clapper if it was a top-50 RW list)

 

[Canadiens1958]

???????????????

yeah, but Kelly, Clapper would not even be up for consideration in a top-50 by position list. (maybe Clapper if it was a top-50 RW list)

Kelly not a top 50 dman???????

 

[unknown33]

Kelly not a top 50 dman???????

Not hard to figure out that he means forward/center.

 

[seventieslord]

Kelly not a top 50 dman???????

Not hard to figure out that he means forward/center.

correct. (And correct that it's not hard to figure out my error.)