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.

Round 2, Vote 6 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2012, 03:53 PM
  #226
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,460
vCash: 500
quick survey:

Were you guys satisfied with the candidates this round?

We have 4 rounds left to get to 40. The last 2 rounds will definitely have more than 10 candidates.

Do you think we should expand the number of candidates now (for round 7) or wait until round 9?

With the natural breaking points on the list, we could have either 10 or 13 candidates next round.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 04:13 PM
  #227
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
quick survey:

Were you guys satisfied with the candidates this round?

We have 4 rounds left to get to 40. The last 2 rounds will definitely have more than 10 candidates.

Do you think we should expand the number of candidates now (for round 7) or wait until round 9?

With the natural breaking points on the list, we could have either 10 or 13 candidates next round.
Well... I'd say, go as planned, but still use "natural" breaking points.

As far as the candidates, they definitely seemed weaker than last time I voted (...i missed vote 5, though), but it's nothing abnormal.

As for WHO was available, well, actually, with ONE exception, I can't say that I would have voted a guy who wasn't available in the Top-4. I mean, I could probably have voted for a guy like JJ Roach or Tom Barrasso in the Top-8. But Top-4? Extremely unlikely.

The somewhat "sad" thing is that the most "recent" goalie was Grant Fuhr. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's kinda sad every recent goalie (21 teams+NHL) was actually a dynasty goalie. And that both of their primes came before the Dead Puck Era... which started, roughly, 18 years ago.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 04:41 PM
  #228
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Were you guys satisfied with the candidates this round?
It was an ok group. The lack of a post-80s goalie in recent rounds has been strange.

Quote:
Do you think we should expand the number of candidates now (for round 7) or wait until round 9?
Personally I think larger numbers of candidates is detrimental to discussion.

Quote:
With the natural breaking points on the list, we could have either 10 or 13 candidates next round.
IMO, natural breaking points supersede the ballot template. I trust the admins to judge whether it makes sense to change the number of candidates in order to reflect the spirit of the master list.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 04:55 PM
  #229
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post



Personally I think larger numbers of candidates is detrimental to discussion.
.
I get this. Whichever round we decide to increase the number of candidates (Round 7 or 9) will be given extra time for discussion. (But as you know, more time doesn't help matters if the discussion just goes in circles).

The voting format (only vote your top 8, anything below that can be written off) is designed in part to help deal with larger lists of candidates.

The benefit to more candidates earlier of course is the ability to fix "mistakes" on the aggregate list that was put together without detailed discussion of players.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 06:35 PM
  #230
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,157
vCash: 500
I am OK with increasing the number of candidates at this point. The more choices the better. Agree we only vote on the top eight.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 06:36 PM
  #231
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
My concerns about measuring the merit of an entire league's history based on the success of one squad that was literally full of the best players in the league, and then another squad with talent horded by Patrick, in an environment where the rules differed East/West in a very short playoff structure have already been discussed.
I'm confused here. So the PCHA winning the Stanley Cup doesn't count because one team was literally full of the best players and the other was full of hoarded talent? Sounds like a pretty deep league...
(What do you think the NHA champs looked like?)

As Cs58 showed back a few pages too, Holmes actually had a winning record with Seattle under the eastern rules so I'm not sure we should be so quick to dismiss all these series wins on that basis alone. Even the lowly Portland Rosebuds went 1-2 under NHA rules in 1916. I think the failure to adapt under Eastern rules very well may have been something that hurt Vancouver and Lehman more than the rest of the PCHA, which makes some sense seeing as Seattle got 4 players who were already teammates in the NHA to start their club.

Quote:
Outside of the 40s/50s? Not many. But anyone unfamiliar with the NBA after those years likely still walks away from watching those games wondering how a team could ever beat them, and that's the point about frame of reference re: a lot of those quotes.
Again, so what does this mean for the people who played the game their whole lives? Surely Art Ross's experience reffing the 1918 Stanley Cup wouldn't be subject to this concern.

Quote:
First of all, I've never been trying to pass off the PCHA as a "joke" league, so I'm getting kind of annoyed at the creative vocabulary being attributed to me in these responses. Don't know about being a "rebel" league (like I guess you could say about the WHA of the 70s, but it isn't the origin of either league that interests me in the comparison), just not an "equivalent" league whose awards and accolades stand up at full face value under scrutiny of direct comparison of those in the NHA/NHL. IMO, of course.
For not voting in this process, I have nothing but respect for you taking the time to articulate your thoughts about Lehman. You certainly aren't obligated to do any of this yet you're still here humoring me.

You nailed my use of the word rebel, just mentioning the league's origins, it wasn't meant to be a shot at you or how feel about Lehman or the PCHA.

Quote:
Basically, in terms of "merit of accomplishment", I see the PCHA comparing better with the OHA Sr. and/or OPHL (which re-stocked the NHA when the PCHA started nabbing NHA players) than the NHA/L, given that names like Howie Morenz, Clarence/Hap Day (among others who went on to at least moderate success in the NHL that can be found in that league during the early part of the century), and given that in the years leading up to the PCHA, the OHA/OPHL challenged regularly for the Stanley Cup, and had about as much success.
This is exactly why I asked the question I did. If I agreed with this statement then I'd entirely understand the PCHA doubting, but it's simply not true.

The OHA/OPHL won exactly 0 games when challenging for the Stanley Cup. How is that about as much success?


Last edited by Rob Scuderi: 12-16-2012 at 06:43 PM.
Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 06:47 PM
  #232
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
The OHA/OPHL won exactly 0 games when challenging for the Stanley Cup. How is that about as much success?
OHA went 0-5 in Cup challenge games and was outscored 17-3
OPHL went 0-4 in Cup challenge games and was outscored 35-15

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 07:18 PM
  #233
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I get this. Whichever round we decide to increase the number of candidates (Round 7 or 9) will be given extra time for discussion. (But as you know, more time doesn't help matters if the discussion just goes in circles).

The voting format (only vote your top 8, anything below that can be written off) is designed in part to help deal with larger lists of candidates.

The benefit to more candidates earlier of course is the ability to fix "mistakes" on the aggregate list that was put together without detailed discussion of players.
Honestly, I think it would be best if the admins consulted each other and came to a decision. Without seeing the Round 1 results, knowing the potential "mistake" candidates we're talking about, and knowing where the natural breaks lie... the rest of us are making a more or less arbitrary judgment whether it would be better to have more candidates.

The variables in this situation are so specific, I'd think you already have in mind what the pros and cons would be. You're in the best position to make an informed decision here.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 01:00 AM
  #234
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
I'm confused here. So the PCHA winning the Stanley Cup doesn't count because one team was literally full of the best players and the other was full of hoarded talent? Sounds like a pretty deep league...
(What do you think the NHA champs looked like?)
Not really. The 1914/15 Millionaires weren't just the best team of that season, that was arguably one of the two best squads (along with the '17 Metropolitains) in the history of the PCHA. I don't see the strength of the 1915 Millionaires (nor the Patrick-assembled Mets) as anywhere near an accurate representation of the overall "calibre" of the league between 1912 and 1924 that also included New Westminster at times, Portland at others, and the . And the fact that the PCHA's only Cups were won out West, under predominantly Western rules, just further taints it for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
As Cs58 showed back a few pages too, Holmes actually had a winning record with Seattle under the eastern rules so I'm not sure we should be so quick to dismiss all these series wins on that basis alone. Even the lowly Portland Rosebuds went 1-2 under NHA rules in 1916. I think the failure to adapt under Eastern rules very well may have been something that hurt Vancouver and Lehman more than the rest of the PCHA, which makes some sense seeing as Seattle got 4 players who were already teammates in the NHA to start their club.
Well, fwiw, I have Holmes ahead of Lehman, so maybe I at least get that one "right". He always had the advantage for me, though, what with the NHA and NHL seasons he has under his belt on top of what we have from the career overlap between himself and Lehman, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
Again, so what does this mean for the people who played the game their whole lives? Surely Art Ross's experience reffing the 1918 Stanley Cup wouldn't be subject to this concern.
True. Anything with Art Ross confirmed as a source deserves to be taken near full measure. That would make one, though, out of how many more that C1958 alludes to as "media fluff", due to the unverifiable author(s)? But still, you're right. The Globetrotters thing was only ever meant to be an exaggeration to make a point, though. I'm not surprised it hasn't held up to the rigorous beat down of an HF counter-argument, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
For not voting in this process, I have nothing but respect for you taking the time to articulate your thoughts about Lehman. You certainly aren't obligated to do any of this yet you're still here humoring me.
Not "humouring" at all. I have no trouble having my opinion challenged, but quickly take issue with how some go about doing that. Posts like yours deserve a reply, because they are challenging without being derisive. I'm not always as successful attempting the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
You nailed my use of the word rebel, just mentioning the league's origins, it wasn't meant to be a shot at you or how feel about Lehman or the PCHA.

This is exactly why I asked the question I did. If I agreed with this statement then I'd entirely understand the PCHA doubting, but it's simply not true.

The OHA/OPHL won exactly 0 games when challenging for the Stanley Cup. How is that about as much success?
Again though, given that I believe (willing to be corrected) that the NHA/L played under the same rules as its local "alternate" leagues; the OHA and OPHL. As such, I'm not surprised that the difference in talent played out the way it did, but I also think that Montreal team was particularly strong... whatever. Having said all that, neither the PCHA, nor the OHA, nor the OPHL has won a Cup against an NHA/L team out East (let alone under predominantly Eastern rules), making all three "O-fer" in that regard (or "about as much success" - I know, I'm stretching/pushing, but if you're going to ask...).

In all honesty, though, I consider the OHA/OPHL as more of the AHL of the time, given the number of great players that spent age 20-25 ripping through there on their way to NHL greatness. So that leaves the PCHA closer to the KHL in my comparison - both on a lower level than the NHA/L. Whether or not you understand or agree with the reckoning, that's part of the framework behind why I don't put a whole lot in Lehman or his PCHA career, and why you won't see me put a big push on to raise voting support for anyone else like Eddie Oatman - himself a 10X consecutive PCHA all-star player/coach. It just doesn't mean much to me, especially if it's an honour earned after seasons with less than 20 games played.

I know it's not their fault for the times, but it's not my fault that there have been a lot of amazing players who built up more extensive and "credible" career value over the past 100 NHL seasons since, either. I don't feel bad for leaving someone like Lehman to the side for a bit, and don't understand the pressure to come out with some mathematically acceptable per decade distribution through out the AT lists as a measure of "respect" and knowledge of past eras. I understand the danger of "what have you done for me lately", but I think this board sometimes goes a bit over the edge in the name of credibility, or something.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 02:33 AM
  #235
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,098
vCash: 500
I will have results posted early tomorrow.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 03:45 AM
  #236
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I will have results posted early tomorrow.
Seems impossible to have next round done by Christmas if we don't start until tomorrow, so we might as well expand the list of candidates now if we have to extend the round anyway IMO.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-17-2012 at 04:02 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 06:56 AM
  #237
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I will have results posted early tomorrow.
Humm.. Does that mean Early Monday or Early Tuesday? I mean... technically, you posted that message on monday

MXD is online now   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 10:55 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.