HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Creating our own Hall of Fame?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-08-2010, 04:09 PM
  #26
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 500
Out of my head...

Come up with x players (let's say 20, for the sake of the argument)

up to 20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
80-90
90-00
00-10

By "years of eligibility".

2 per "era", + 2 others (total of 20)
3 per "era", + 3 others (total of 30)

That would ONLY work for the players. (Cannot figure how this would work for non players).

30 automatic inductions, but also scattered throughout many eras.

Then... I don't know.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:11 PM
  #27
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The more I think about it, the more I'm opposed to the idea of using a "years of eligibility" model. That's really quite arbitrary, as there's no specific reason to believe that the number of years corresponds to the number of worthy players.

I propose we auto-induct the obvious/noncontroversial by a vote of acclamation, then set a time limit (say, 1 month) during which we discuss 5 new additions. If we auto-induct 30 players, then add 5 per month, that's 90 players inducted within the first year.

How we select those 5 players, and what we do after the first year, are matters for discussion. But I think this would be the best way to get the project off the ground quickly AND leave a reasonable amount of time for intense debate over each individual inductee. Remember we're talking about a sizeable committee who will need to do research and come to a consensus, that can't be done in a week.
You really have a point.
Still... That Hall would be... Let's say we won't have the same constraints.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:33 PM
  #28
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
I think it's important that you agree on a number that's going to be inducted inaugurally before starting voting, so that people don't vote/not vote out of misconceptions out of how exclusive it's supposed to be.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:42 PM
  #29
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,155
vCash: 500
Speaking of constraints, one more thought: we should avoid having players perpetually on the ballot after they've been rejected. Part of the reason that guys like Ciccarelli and Federko get in is because of weak years where there are few obvious candidates. When that happens, votes go to the "best of the rest" and that's how we ended up here.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:48 PM
  #30
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
I think it's important that you agree on a number that's going to be inducted inaugurally before starting voting, so that people don't vote/not vote out of misconceptions out of how exclusive it's supposed to be.
The purpose of the inaugural vote is primarily to avoid unnecessary debate over players who will end up getting 100% approval regardless. To that end I think the easiest solution would be for every committee member to submit 30 or 40 players they consider shoo-ins, and induct any player who appears on every single ballot (which by definition makes them noncontroversial).

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:51 PM
  #31
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Speaking of constraints, one more thought: we should avoid having players perpetually on the ballot after they've been rejected. Part of the reason that guys like Ciccarelli and Federko get in is because of weak years where there are few obvious candidates. When that happens, votes go to the "best of the rest" and that's how we ended up here.
Indeed.
However, that's kinda related to the "chronological approach".

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:55 PM
  #32
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The purpose of the inaugural vote is primarily to avoid unnecessary debate over players who will end up getting 100% approval regardless. To that end I think the easiest solution would be for every committee member to submit 30 or 40 players they consider shoo-ins, and induct any player who appears on every single ballot (which by definition makes them noncontroversial).
Of course. When I say "inaugural" I don't just mean that. I mean of all the players who haven't retired yet. If, after that, you go decade by for the non-consensus picks some people who went in think there'd be 30 per decade may not have voted for x player had they realized there's only be 10, and vice-versa.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:56 PM
  #33
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The more I think about it, the more I'm opposed to the idea of using a "years of eligibility" model. That's really quite arbitrary, as there's no specific reason to believe that the number of years corresponds to the number of worthy players.

I propose we auto-induct the obvious/noncontroversial by a vote of acclamation, then set a time limit (say, 1 month) during which we discuss 5 new additions. If we auto-induct 30 players, then add 5 per month, that's 90 players inducted within the first year.

How we select those 5 players, and what we do after the first year, are matters for discussion. But I think this would be the best way to get the project off the ground quickly AND leave a reasonable amount of time for intense debate over each individual inductee. Remember we're talking about a sizeable committee who will need to do research and come to a consensus, that can't be done in a week.
It depends on whether we care more about the process or results. If all we care about are results, I don't see why we don't just auto induct the top 50 or top 70 of the last HOH Top 100 list.

If you care about the process (pretend we are going through history chronologically like a real hall of fame), then that's a different matter.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 05:02 PM
  #34
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It depends on whether we care more about the process or results. If all we care about are results, I don't see why we don't just auto induct the top 50 or top 70 of the last HOH Top 100 list.

If you care about the process (pretend we are going through history chronologically like a real hall of fame), then that's a different matter.
That's what I'd prefer.
It would just be... well, much longer.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 05:08 PM
  #35
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It depends on whether we care more about the process or results. If all we care about are results, I don't see why we don't just auto induct the top 50 or top 70 of the last HOH Top 100 list.

If you care about the process (pretend we are going through history chronologically like a real hall of fame), then that's a different matter.
Beat me to it. That is what I was about to suggest. Could even use it it if we wanted to go chronologically. just split up the top 100 list that way. Why reinvent the wheel, we have already done a lot of the spade work. hell if we could get access to Fissionfire's data, our work is almost done.

BTW, I like the WWHOF method. I think they did a good job until 2007. Why did they stop? I know Joe Pelletier was a member of that group & he posts here occasionally. Joe, what happened?

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 05:09 PM
  #36
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
Of course. When I say "inaugural" I don't just mean that. I mean of all the players who haven't retired yet. If, after that, you go decade by for the non-consensus picks some people who went in think there'd be 30 per decade may not have voted for x player had they realized there's only be 10, and vice-versa.
Got it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It depends on whether we care more about the process or results. If all we care about are results, I don't see why we don't just auto induct the top 50 or top 70 of the last HOH Top 100 list.

If you care about the process (pretend we are going through history chronologically like a real hall of fame), then that's a different matter.
Just my point of view, but as a matter of integrity the committee alone should be the ones signing off on inductions. If all committee members happen to agree on every single one of the top 50 or 70, great, but that ought to be discovered via balloting or voting rather than lifted wholesale from the other thread.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 05:24 PM
  #37
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Beat me to it. That is what I was about to suggest. Could even use it it if we wanted to go chronologically. just split up the top 100 list that way. Why reinvent the wheel, we have already done a lot of the spade work. hell if we could get access to Fissionfire's data, our work is almost done.

BTW, I like the WWHOF method. I think they did a good job until 2007. Why did they stop? I know Joe Pelletier was a member of that group & he posts here occasionally. Joe, what happened?
There is at least two persons of the WWHOF posting here...

Actually, I really like their methods, and my suggestions are mainly "tweaks" of theirs.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 05:26 PM
  #38
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,189
vCash: 500
For the record, I'm okay with someone else taking this and running with it... I'd just like to be a part of it.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 05:47 PM
  #39
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 500
What's the WWHoF?

SidGenoMario is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 05:54 PM
  #40
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,785
vCash: 500
I am interested and would like to partake in this. Not sure of methodlogy myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
What's the WWHoF?
Good question I too would like to know.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 05:57 PM
  #41
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
What's the WWHoF?
http://www.chidlovski.com/wwhhof/index.htm

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 05:58 PM
  #42
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
I am interested and would like to partake in this. Not sure of methodlogy myself.



Good question I too would like to know.
http://www.chidlovski.com/wwhhof/index.htm

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 06:09 PM
  #43
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,785
vCash: 500
Interesting- seems like they wanted to do the same thing as us. Though I can already see things I disagree with even in their more elite version.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 06:28 PM
  #44
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Beat me to it. That is what I was about to suggest. Could even use it it if we wanted to go chronologically. just split up the top 100 list that way. Why reinvent the wheel, we have already done a lot of the spade work. hell if we could get access to Fissionfire's data, our work is almost done.

BTW, I like the WWHOF method. I think they did a good job until 2007. Why did they stop? I know Joe Pelletier was a member of that group & he posts here occasionally. Joe, what happened?
Well, the data of the first Top-100 is still available?
There were well over 200+ names on it.

And still, that works only if we only consider the players.

For the record, I have (or had...) the raw data (e.g., the 39 spreadsheets) of the last Top-100.


Last edited by MXD: 11-08-2010 at 06:39 PM.
MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 06:38 PM
  #45
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 500
One thing before we continue -- I thought of putting this up a few months ago.

That's why I came up so quickly with how I imagine this project.

The thing is -- I'm just not sure I can run this. I'm currently on leave from work, and might return to work if everything goes well in a few weeks... or in a few months. I think the bulk of time the projet will take is mainly setting this up, and coming up with an ideal procedure.

For the rest, it's like

- Adding the votes
- Coming up with names to put on the ballots (and even then, is it really necessary? Let's say we put ... Dean Prentice on the ballots. Great player -- still, if the guy gets more than 5 votes on any given year, I'd be extremely surprised).
- Back to the ballots, they may STILL have some relevance. Let's say that, for whatever reason, somebody votes Jean Beliveau in for the 1973 "round" - if we don't go with automatic inductions and keep the 3 years waiting time. That's basically one vote loss, 'cause Beliveau isn't eligible in 1973. That's why a minimum of research is necessary.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 07:05 PM
  #46
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Well, the data of the first Top-100 is still available?
There were well over 200+ names on it.

And still, that works only if we only consider the players.

For the record, I have (or had...) the raw data (e.g., the 39 spreadsheets) of the last Top-100.
Considering players only then, it seems we already have the data with the top 200. Unless we want to go farther than 200, can we not simply debate the last 25 or so.

Makes it a simpler project IMO. Didn't Tar heels already volunteer to run it?

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 07:10 PM
  #47
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,288
vCash: 500
Some concerns.

What exactly would the purpose of this be? To be more elite than the HHOF? To be more inclusive? The HHOF has more early era (pre-NHL) players than most posters here at HfBoards ever talk about (except in the ATDs), yet there are a lot less Soviets and other internatonal greats, to put it mildly.

Would there be extensive profiles? That is what a Hall is about anyways, to be a place to go and look and learn and APPRECIATE THE GREATS OF THE PAST. I have no personal interest in researching or profiling Bobby Clarke or Mario Lemieux, as these guys are talked about so much already. But I am VERY interested in early era and international greats as well as all-time great special skill sets of the NHL (e.g., defensive dmen, fighters, playoff heroes, other usually overlooked nonscoring Hall considerations). The All-Time Drafts here at HfBoards have produced a lot of debates, profiles and considerations of greatness that go beyond scoring stats to look at roles on a line and on a team.

I have wanted for years to do a Top-1000 All-Time List which honors the various roles and performances in the history of the game, and the ATDs have been feeding that desire with all that goes into building teams from the best of the past. This project could be broken down into subgroups, some focusing on goaltenders, others dmen, etc. (instead of the old comparing apples with oranges, wingers with blueliners), a grand masterplan project with various people working on various parts, coming together into a unified whole at the end.

Your Hall of Fame idea seems to be less about ranking and more about cutoff point between in/out, involving a lot of negative arguments showing what a player hasn't done, why they shouldn't be included. I'm not so into that. I'm more into the appreciation of hockey history.

If you guys want to have some fun arguing between Lindros or Forsberg and vote a lot to show up the HHOF with just a lot of spent energy and a list to show for it, then I'll probably pass. But if there is a clear focus and productive output in terms of profiles and illuminating lists then I may be interested.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 07:40 PM
  #48
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
I think the idea is that the HHOF is too inclusive. This would also I imagine be process-oriented and therefore generate discussion. If it were just for the sake of ranking well... they already have the HOH list.

You're right that the point of the Hall of Fame is to remember/tribute, not to rank and judge for the sake of it like a magazine or something. So I think if this is going to be serious it has to be done with patience and care. Focusing on who those players were and why they're there would be an important part of. Perhaps for every inductee someone who's an expert on that player could write a ~1500 word profile on him. That would make it worthwhile.

Wow, 23 000 posts and 7 yearold account got banned.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 07:40 PM
  #49
kaiser matias
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,914
vCash: 500
While I don't post much on here, I am constantly reading the threads. Would definetely want to take part in something like this. Have recently taken an interest in the early foundation of hockey, and have been working on the initial class of HHOF inductees on Wikipedia as a result of that. Count me in for anything that comes up.

kaiser matias is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 07:42 PM
  #50
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,669
vCash: 500
I think it would be good to figure out how many we want in, then figure out a both fun and accurate way to get there.

I think it would be good to start at, say, Expansion, and then go in chronological and reverse chronological order, one per year, with voting every week

After a year watching Hockey History "unfold" we have 104 players, and are caught up to present day.

If someone could work the obvious kinks out of that it would be a fun start, and year two could have a different set of rules, keep things exclusive etc.(so we don't have 200+ after year 2)

Crosbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.