If we do forwards next, we'll then have a discussion as to whether to split it up into LW/C/RW or do them all together. For now, we'll decide if we do forwards or goalies next.
The project itself won't start until well after the playoffs are over
When we do forwards, if we break them up by position , can we designate any players that might come up so there is a general agreement so that guys get rated fairly.
For example if a guy play wing and center we could have a general discussion and then vote and if the majority view him as a center then we will rank him as a center for the project.
Just an idea, maybe people have some other thoughts?
When we do forwards, if we break them up by position , can we designate any players that might come up so there is a general agreement so that guys get rated fairly.
For example if a guy play wing and center we could have a general discussion and then vote and if the majority view him as a center then we will rank him as a center for the project.
Just an idea, maybe people have some other thoughts?
Yes, we're in no hurry to start, so before we do forwards, I was planning on having a lengthy discussion on how to classify guys who played multiple positions and whether it's even possible. Probably start with a list of every multipositional guy from the first 10 rounds of the ATD and see what we come up with
Forwards is such a large task. The number of guys to mull through is larger than D + goalies combined. It just makes sense to get goalies done and leave the big task for later.
Can I be involved if I wasn't in the defenseman project?
Anyone can be be involved if your list passes muster with the screening committee (bascially if you don't neglect any eras or Europeans in general). The more the better - id love to get more than the 23 participants from last time.
I also think we should split the forward positions , I think we'll miss some rich discussions (especially between some RWs) if we don't do that and I feel it's too big of a pool for the discussion to be focused on some players vs players which is the real goal of this thing to have a good list.
I vote RW personally , which should be the second most interesting position after D in my mind.
Another idea is to put the wingers all togethers but I still prefer each position being ranked appropriately , the project would feel more complete and in the end we do a real list with all players.
Since there's a lot less RW , we aren't forced to do the top 60 . top 40 would be fine for the wingers , top 60 for the centers and top 40 for the goalie.
Forwards is such a large task. The number of guys to mull through is larger than D + goalies combined. It just makes sense to get goalies done and leave the big task for later.
I honestly think goalies might be the tougher task - mainly because we, as a community know very little about goalies prior to 1950 - there are no easy stats to guide us like ther are with forwards. If we do goalies, I'm planning on starting a dedicated preliminary research thread to pre-1950 goalies that will run for some time before we start accepting lists.
But you're right - the actual list for goalies will be a lot shorter. If we split up forwards, I could see us doing both wings as separate projects this summer (back to back) since the wings will be the shortest projects, then take another long break before centers. That's if we split forwards up though.
Not splitting forward would be a bad idea , mainly because the role of centers and wingers are quite differant enough to warrant not putting them all in the same basket.At the very least split the wingers and centers , but splitting the wingers would also be cool , considering the list will be shorter.It's not like the vast majority of posters won't be there in 2 years still talking about hockey history.
For the same reason I liked seeing defensemen done first, I'd like to see goalies done next. Tend to get overshadowed and under-represented against forwards on all-time lists. A comprehensive ranking of goalies is more unique and just a lot more interesting to me at this point.
Voted forwards for selfish reasons (I already have a preliminary list done), but I guess it doesn't really make much of a difference in which order it will go. I'll be participating in both projects anyway unless something drastic happens.
I think the forward list should not be further divided into positions for a couple of reasons:
1) There have been a ton of guys playing more than one position, deciding on how to value that could get difficult and result in widely inconsistent submitted lists.
2) When ranking the whole forward pool all the players discussed are going to be excellent. To an outside observer it seemed like the discussion in the defensemen project died down a bit towards the end, one of the reasons for that possibly being that the players in the lower end of the list just weren't all that exciting. I could very easily see how the final admissions to a RW or LW list could suffer the same fate.
3) I have a list ready for forwards not separated by positions, and I'd like for it to be relevant
Not splitting forward would be a bad idea , mainly because the role of centers and wingers are quite differant enough to warrant not putting them all in the same basket.At the very least split the wingers and centers , but splitting the wingers would also be cool , considering the list will be shorter.It's not like the vast majority of posters won't be there in 2 years still talking about hockey history.
Great minds think alike. Although I think just a winger list and just a center list would work nicely. Of course, we'll surely run into some of the same things we did with a few of our defensemen but that was bound to happen anyway, and that's what the top 100 projects are supposed to sort out.
I like the idea of goalies as the next project for the record. Tony and myself did a bit of a mini-list on it while we were working on our ATD and MLD lists last season. Hopefully he still has it as the flash drive that I had it on was stolen.
I defintiely want to participate and do goalies. As we've seen on the ATD board recently, there is some discussion about where they fit in the grand scheme of things.
I'd like to participate, and I think forwards would be too much for me right now. Voted goalies.
I think breaking up wingers and centres is good, but I don't really think there's much of a gap between the role of right and left wingers. I think there's actually more difference between guys who play their off-wing vs. guys who play on their right side.
I voted goalies for the same reason I voted defencemen - people have already done forward lists to death. It's rare to see a goalie ranking extending further than a top 10 though.
I voted netminders, mainly because Hardyvan123 voted forwards.
Maybe it's just me, but I have a feeling some guys voted against guys on the D list for similar reasons, who knows, maybe I should really push for guys I don't like eh?
Maybe it's just me, but I have a feeling some guys voted against guys on the D list for similar reasons, who knows, maybe I should really push for guys I don't like eh?
You're going to make this difficult for me, aren't you?
Anyway, I don't like the idea of splitting wingers into left/right. In the modern game the players don't skate their wings anyway. They are all over the ice. In different situations they even lineup on a different side for faceoffs. Wingers and centers are pretty clear. Left wing/right wing, not really.
You're going to make this difficult for me, aren't you?
Anyway, I don't like the idea of splitting wingers into left/right. In the modern game the players don't skate their wings anyway. They are all over the ice. In different situations they even lineup on a different side for faceoffs. Wingers and centers are pretty clear. Left wing/right wing, not really.
Separating Wingers and Centers would be a pretty good idea I think.
The Goalie list would be really hard and the lists would be quite different I would think given that team context can influence a lot of a goalie's perceived worth and thus makes it more subjective than forwards.
It could be possible to split the W's, but it will have to be "smaller" lists. I mean... Instead of doing Top-70 Wingers, it should be Top 35 RW and Top-35 LW. That makes 70 wingers, but that's a bit beside the point.
