HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Hall of Fame

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-24-2005, 06:57 PM
  #1
Kimi
Registered User
 
Kimi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Country: England
Posts: 3,516
vCash: 500
Hall of Fame

I've got a question regarding the Hall of Fame. Why isn't it call the Hall of Greatness? Most of the post here are who is better, and people post thing like trophy lists for each of them, one has more and therefore is greater and should go in, and then an argument after that.

The way I see the Hall of Fame is thatís what it is. A hall that houses the Famous players, not just the greats. Take Lindros for example, he was meant the be the next big thing, and was for a while. It made him famous, that huge trade to Flyers his dominance on the ice and all the disappointment all at to this fame. If you ask me, he should be in the hall for that.

Was the Hall of Fame design just for the greats? Or was it a hall for the famous? I donít know much, I just wonder what some of you guys thinkÖ

Kimi is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 07:08 PM
  #2
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimi3013
I've got a question regarding the Hall of Fame. Why isn't it call the Hall of Greatness? Most of the post here are who is better, and people post thing like trophy lists for each of them, one has more and therefore is greater and should go in, and then an argument after that.

The way I see the Hall of Fame is thatís what it is. A hall that houses the Famous players, not just the greats. Take Lindros for example, he was meant the be the next big thing, and was for a while. It made him famous, that huge trade to Flyers his dominance on the ice and all the disappointment all at to this fame. If you ask me, he should be in the hall for that.

Was the Hall of Fame design just for the greats? Or was it a hall for the famous? I donít know much, I just wonder what some of you guys thinkÖ
I give the Hall the respect it deserves. I consider it interesting but far from the definitive list of the greatest players of all time. Too many players are in that I think are not deserving of the honor so, I take HOF selections with a very large grain of salt.

Back to your main point. Hall of "fame" is quite accurate. It is not exactly the hall of greatness - perhaps, that is what I will name my list.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 07:27 PM
  #3
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 10,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Too many players are in that I think are not deserving of the honor so, I take HOF selections with a very large grain of salt.
Interesting that you take Hall of Fame voting with a grain of salt, but do not do so for awards voting.

tom_servo is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 08:51 PM
  #4
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
Interesting that you take Hall of Fame voting with a grain of salt, but do not do so for awards voting.
I tire of going through this over and over again but, here goes:

The awards are voted on by people that actually saw the players play. Every season was voted on by the people that covered the league. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best we have? Yes. Award winners supplemented with relevant statistics is very effective.

Tell me, who on the Hall of Fame selection committee has seen Eddie Shore play? Cy Denneny? Howie Morenz? OK, having said that, how can they compare the value of, say, Pat Lafontaine to those players? If they are basing it on what they saw, their selection process is sadly lacking. If they are basing it on raw stats - without really analyzing them - their selection process is hurting again.

Make sense, Tom?

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 09:24 PM
  #5
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo

The awards are voted on by people that actually saw the players play.
you know nothing about these awards

chooch* is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 09:53 PM
  #6
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch
you know nothing about these awards
Why do you bother even chiming in on anything? Make a point or abstain. You are a fool, I don't even know why I bother responding to your childish drivel.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 11:42 PM
  #7
DETROIT SKABOY
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Livonia Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 649
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DETROIT SKABOY Send a message via MSN to DETROIT SKABOY Send a message via Yahoo to DETROIT SKABOY
makes sense
if it was hall of greatness less people would make it in
perhaps we should start one

DETROIT SKABOY is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 03:13 PM
  #8
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,685
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I give the Hall the respect it deserves. I consider it interesting but far from the definitive list of the greatest players of all time. Too many players are in that I think are not deserving of the honor so, I take HOF selections with a very large grain of salt.

Back to your main point. Hall of "fame" is quite accurate. It is not exactly the hall of greatness - perhaps, that is what I will name my list.
You never miss a chance, do you? Do you wear a shirt that you scribbled "Appreciate My System!" on?

It is called the Hall of Fame because that is simply the traditional name for these things. As far as it being a definitive list of the greatest players, it isn't. It isn't supposed to be.. such a thing is impossible. No one is ever going to agree on who the greatest players are. You standing up with a list of your formulaic output saying "Here it is, these are the great ones" isn't any more definitive than just one of the Hall voters standing up and saying "Here are the players I think are great". You both have your ideas of what greatness is and how it is quantified. The difference is no one else claims that they're "right" because they realize it is an opinion. When enough people have that opinion it becomes conventional wisdom (which is often the result of collective idiocy, but anyhow). Either way, no one is right. You aren't wrong about who is great (though you're usually alone), you are just wrong in thinking that you're right. And it is getting really annoying.

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 03:19 PM
  #9
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
You never miss a chance, do you? Do you wear a shirt that you scribbled "Appreciate My System!" on?

It is called the Hall of Fame because that is simply the traditional name for these things. As far as it being a definitive list of the greatest players, it isn't. It isn't supposed to be.. such a thing is impossible. No one is ever going to agree on who the greatest players are. You standing up with a list of your formulaic output saying "Here it is, these are the great ones" isn't any more definitive than just one of the Hall voters standing up and saying "Here are the players I think are great". You both have your ideas of what greatness is and how it is quantified. The difference is no one else claims that they're "right" because they realize it is an opinion. When enough people have that opinion it becomes conventional wisdom (which is often the result of collective idiocy, but anyhow). Either way, no one is right. You aren't wrong about who is great (though you're usually alone), you are just wrong in thinking that you're right. And it is getting really annoying.
I have some advice for you. Don't read my posts.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 03:20 PM
  #10
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,685
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Why do you bother even chiming in on anything? Make a point or abstain. You are a fool, I don't even know why I bother responding to your childish drivel.
Ditto.

He did make a point, albeit not one with much depth. It was, however, quite direct. He says you don't know anything about these awards and in terms of how you sanctify them, I'd tend to agree.

You honestly think the Hall voters by and large didn't see the players up for vote play? You think the award voters all have? PLEASE. The Hall of Fame is exactly like the awards. They are all to be taken with a grain of salt. Both are swayed by personal bias, differing opinions on what is more important in a player, differing levels of viewing of each player by each voter, country of origin, team played for, popularity, etc, etc. In fact, popularity is as reliable a comparitive tool as awards are.

Of course you don't agree which makes me wrong, or so says every smart ass little kid who still believe in Santa.

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 03:21 PM
  #11
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,685
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I have some advice for you. Don't read my posts.
No why would I do a thing like that? The irony, of course, is that you just complained about another poster and even questioned why you respond to him. Makes a man wonder, no?

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 03:33 PM
  #12
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
No why would I do a thing like that? The irony, of course, is that you just complained about another poster and even questioned why you respond to him. Makes a man wonder, no?
I gave you that advice for YOUR benefit. Your blood pressure seems to be getting out of control by reading my stuff.

I have no problem with your critiques but please don't have a stroke while typing your replies.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:03 PM
  #13
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,685
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I gave you that advice for YOUR benefit. Your blood pressure seems to be getting out of control by reading my stuff.

I have no problem with your critiques but please don't have a stroke while typing your replies.
Ah, I see... very similar to your "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" comment. Very often people come up with such comments and it always comes off as a defensive measure. What on Earth would make you think I'm angry? Through text at that.

If I don't agree with someone I'm mad? Hell, if you think I'm arguing with any fervor at this point I don't know what you'd think of my temperament if I were actually invested. And I still wouldn't be angry at that point.

Stick to the issues as these little jabs aren't going to make you look any better.

It is amazing how often this seems to happen... maybe I need rage counseling?

Aside from this odd little side-story, the advice may have been for my benefit, but it'd apply as well to you. If you think it applies poorly to you then that may give you some idea of how irrelevant it was to me.

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:08 PM
  #14
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
Ditto.

He did make a point, albeit not one with much depth. It was, however, quite direct. He says you don't know anything about these awards and in terms of how you sanctify them, I'd tend to agree.

You honestly think the Hall voters by and large didn't see the players up for vote play? You think the award voters all have? PLEASE. The Hall of Fame is exactly like the awards. They are all to be taken with a grain of salt. Both are swayed by personal bias, differing opinions on what is more important in a player, differing levels of viewing of each player by each voter, country of origin, team played for, popularity, etc, etc. In fact, popularity is as reliable a comparitive tool as awards are.

Of course you don't agree which makes me wrong, or so says every smart ass little kid who still believe in Santa.
Hall voters have not seen every player in NHL history play. Award voters are only voting for one season. They have seen the players during that one season so they are in good position to make a judgment for that year. Are their picks perfect? No. That is why I have included runners up in addition to the award winners in my ratings.

Award voters are in much better position than Hall voters. If Hall voters are basing their picks on stats and watching players, how can they possibly compare today's stars with those of the 20s? Where is the bar? But, that is why I have created my system. I found the Hall of Fame to not be a measure of the greatest players of all time.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:11 PM
  #15
hfboardsuser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Tell me, who on the Hall of Fame selection committee has seen Eddie Shore play? Cy Denneny? Howie Morenz? OK, having said that, how can they compare the value of, say, Pat Lafontaine to those players? If they are basing it on what they saw, their selection process is sadly lacking. If they are basing it on raw stats - without really analyzing them - their selection process is hurting again.
You do know the HHOF selection committee changes, right? It's not like the damn thing opened last year.

Quote:
If they are basing it on what they saw, their selection process is sadly lacking.
Quote:
The awards are voted on by people that actually saw the players play.
This is like out of that Sunday comics game "Spot the Difference", except there's no answer.

hfboardsuser is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:26 PM
  #16
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg
You do know the HHOF selection committee changes, right? It's not like the damn thing opened last year.





This is like out of that Sunday comics game "Spot the Difference", except there's no answer.
The guys that elected Denneny, Lalonde and Morenz are not the guys on the committee today. So, how does the committee of today compare Pat Lafontaine with guys like Denneny, Lalonde and Morenz? Or, do they just start fresh and not consider where Lafontaine's career stacks up with the all-time greats?

Who is the worst player in the Hall? Does the committee know? That is my point.

The guys that vote for awards have seen all the players in action during the same season so it is all in context.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:26 PM
  #17
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,685
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Hall voters have not seen every player in NHL history play. Award voters are only voting for one season. They have seen the players during that one season so they are in good position to make a judgment for that year. Are their picks perfect? No. That is why I have included runners up in addition to the award winners in my ratings.

Award voters are in much better position than Hall voters. If Hall voters are basing their picks on stats and watching players, how can they possibly compare today's stars with those of the 20s? Where is the bar? But, that is why I have created my system. I found the Hall of Fame to not be a measure of the greatest players of all time.
Hall voters don't vote for every player in history. I don't imagine many players from the 1920's are currently up for Hall vote. I'm no expert on precisely each individual voting, but certainly they've watched the guys from the past couple decades who are the ones, by vast majority, coming up for election. If I'm wrong there let me know, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I was playing with some hyperbole when I said they see as much of the players they vote for as year-by-year awards, but it certainly isn't far off and would be subject to a case-by-case basis anyhow. There is always major concern among fans and some voters of all the sports leagues, including the college levels, that many voters simply don't have the necessary knowledge to vote on the awards. In other words, many of them aren't watching the amount of games they should and so forth. To be frank, I don't trust the people voting for the Hall or the awards at all, especially when it comes to writers voting. Sports writers are among the most biased people imaginable.

It is a very good question how they measure players from one era and another. The simple answer is that they all use their own criteria and that is for the best. You'd think that then collectively the results are pretty good. Sure, your system shows different results than the Hall voters. Well, for starters there have been many different Hall voters through time. It would be down-right frightening if you were able to come up with the same list that many different people through many many years came up with. However, that means you found the Hall of Fame to have a different measure of greatness than your system. It doesn't mean it isn't a measure of greatness any less than yours. Because who says yours is perfect? Perhaps you think it is, but then you have a bunch of people who disagree, thinking yours isn't a measure of greatness.

That's just it, we aren't supposed to agree. To say though that the Hall isn't a place for the greatest players of all-time simply isn't fair to those who are in it. It may not be a place for every single great and it may be a place for some not-so-greats, but it does a good job all things considered. It is the only Hall of Fame we have (well, there's the international one). Part of the fun is arguing who we think should and shouldn't make it. Saying "well, here is a list of exactly who should and shouldn't make it according to some strict statistical criteria, nothing else considered" isn't very fun. However, saying "well this and that, blah blah, plus he finished 20th in my system's list and all the other guys in the top 25 are already in the Hall" takes your system and makes its output relevant and interesting... without being so absolute about it.

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:34 PM
  #18
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
Hall voters don't vote for every player in history. I don't imagine many players from the 1920's are currently up for Hall vote. I'm no expert on precisely each individual voting, but certainly they've watched the guys from the past couple decades who are the ones, by vast majority, coming up for election. If I'm wrong there let me know, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I was playing with some hyperbole when I said they see as much of the players they vote for as year-by-year awards, but it certainly isn't far off and would be subject to a case-by-case basis anyhow. There is always major concern among fans and some voters of all the sports leagues, including the college levels, that many voters simply don't have the necessary knowledge to vote on the awards. In other words, many of them aren't watching the amount of games they should and so forth. To be frank, I don't trust the people voting for the Hall or the awards at all, especially when it comes to writers voting. Sports writers are among the most biased people imaginable.

It is a very good question how they measure players from one era and another. The simple answer is that they all use their own criteria and that is for the best. You'd think that then collectively the results are pretty good. Sure, your system shows different results than the Hall voters. Well, for starters there have been many different Hall voters through time. It would be down-right frightening if you were able to come up with the same list that many different people through many many years came up with. However, that means you found the Hall of Fame to have a different measure of greatness than your system. It doesn't mean it isn't a measure of greatness any less than yours. Because who says yours is perfect? Perhaps you think it is, but then you have a bunch of people who disagree, thinking yours isn't a measure of greatness.

That's just it, we aren't supposed to agree. To say though that the Hall isn't a place for the greatest players of all-time simply isn't fair to those who are in it. It may not be a place for every single great and it may be a place for some not-so-greats, but it does a good job all things considered. It is the only Hall of Fame we have (well, there's the international one). Part of the fun is arguing who we think should and shouldn't make it. Saying "well, here is a list of exactly who should and shouldn't make it according to some strict statistical criteria, nothing else considered" isn't very fun. However, saying "well this and that, blah blah, plus he finished 20th in my system's list and all the other guys in the top 25 are already in the Hall" takes your system and makes its output relevant and interesting... without being so absolute about it.
I think the issue is simply that you don't like it that I consider my system "the gospel"

OK, let's put it this way. I don't consider it "gospel" but I treat it as more accurate than anything else available. The system makes all kinds of sense to me and I think it is a better way that just "eyeballing it" or just having personal opinions and biases.

Perfect? No. It it THE authoritative system? No. But I like it. A lot.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:50 PM
  #19
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,685
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I think the issue is simply that you don't like it that I consider my system "the gospel"

OK, let's put it this way. I don't consider it "gospel" but I treat it as more accurate than anything else available. The system makes all kinds of sense to me and I think it is a better way that just "eyeballing it" or just having personal opinions and biases.

Perfect? No. It it THE authoritative system? No. But I like it. A lot.
Alright, but I don't see myself how it is better than personal opinions. After all, it is just a mathematical result of what your opinions of greatness are.

And again, it isn't my only issue with it (see Lindros vs Forsberg for example).

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 06:00 PM
  #20
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
Alright, but I don't see myself how it is better than personal opinions. After all, it is just a mathematical result of what your opinions of greatness are.

And again, it isn't my only issue with it (see Lindros vs Forsberg for example).
Personal opinions are many times based on having seen a certain player more than another. Some people would say that Lafontaine was greater than Mike Bossy because they never saw Bossy play. The stats and awards, used properly, help us to consider the players we have never seen.

With my system, every player gets an equal opportunity to make his case. I don't discount players that I have never seen.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 08:17 PM
  #21
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I don't discount players that I have never seen.
Who have you seen anyway?

Ombongo, you overlook that sentiment plays a big role in many of the subjective awards like the Smythe or the AllStar selections (or they just go on scoring) and that there is a story behind many of the "objective" awards like the Art Ross.

Give it a rest. Your "system" is for kids.

Read some Dick Irvin books and come back better informed to this site.

chooch* is offline  
Old
05-26-2005, 11:02 AM
  #22
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch
Who have you seen anyway?

Ombongo, you overlook that sentiment plays a big role in many of the subjective awards like the Smythe or the AllStar selections (or they just go on scoring) and that there is a story behind many of the "objective" awards like the Art Ross.

Give it a rest. Your "system" is for kids.

Read some Dick Irvin books and come back better informed to this site.
Dick Irvin books.

That wouldn't explain your Montreal bias now would it?

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-26-2005, 12:15 PM
  #23
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
My problem with the Awards is how vague some are. Some are straightforward. The Art Ross and Jennings for instance. Everything else is VERY subjective.

The Hart? Best player that season or Most Valuable to his team? Often different things. (Iginla vs Theodore for example)

The Vezina? Is goalie more deserving putting up great numbers on a strong team or putting up above average numbers on a bad team? (Brodeur vs Luongo)

The Selke? Does a defensive forward need goals to get this or not? Years ago Kurri was overlooked for this award a LOT. Now if you don't bag at least twenty to go with your defensive play you have no chance.

And my favorite, the Norris. Do you value offence or defence from a blueliner? Defence wins championships but not awards. No defensive blueliner has won the Norris since Langway in 83 despite many worthy performances.

Add to this there is a certain regional bias. Eastern writers and voters don't see as many Western teams or games. They vote on what they say and if I were intheir shoes I would vote for players I saw more of. Not out of favortism, but I'd simply feel better voting for a player I had seen more of. Granted, it's not as bad as it once was, but it is present.

Add it all up and all it means to me is the only reliable awards are the ones atached to statistics.

Malefic74 is offline  
Old
05-26-2005, 12:21 PM
  #24
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefic74
My problem with the Awards is how vague some are. Some are straightforward. The Art Ross and Jennings for instance. Everything else is VERY subjective.

The Hart? Best player that season or Most Valuable to his team? Often different things. (Iginla vs Theodore for example)

The Vezina? Is goalie more deserving putting up great numbers on a strong team or putting up above average numbers on a bad team? (Brodeur vs Luongo)

The Selke? Does a defensive forward need goals to get this or not? Years ago Kurri was overlooked for this award a LOT. Now if you don't bag at least twenty to go with your defensive play you have no chance.

And my favorite, the Norris. Do you value offence or defence from a blueliner? Defence wins championships but not awards. No defensive blueliner has won the Norris since Langway in 83 despite many worthy performances.

Add to this there is a certain regional bias. Eastern writers and voters don't see as many Western teams or games. They vote on what they say and if I were intheir shoes I would vote for players I saw more of. Not out of favortism, but I'd simply feel better voting for a player I had seen more of. Granted, it's not as bad as it once was, but it is present.

Add it all up and all it means to me is the only reliable awards are the ones atached to statistics.
Award selections are not perfect and neither are most statistics.

But, award selections and runners up, are better than no eyewitness accounts at all. Other than goals and assists, there really isn't an NHL stat that gives us an accurate representation of a player's worth.

Award votes do have their bias but, I think that at least 80% of voters do an honest attempt at getting it right. So, by rewarding the winner and the runner up, I think I capture a close to accurate picture of the best players each season.

With defensive defensemen, I think that most of them just happen to score a lot, as well. To be a complete player you need to play offensively AND defensively. Many players that are great defensively but cannot score are missing half their game. But, the players that contribute both defense and scoring means they are well rounded and often better players. Pronger, Stevens and Bourque come to mind. To contribute ONLY defensively or ONLY offensively means you have to be amazing at your craft to be the best defenseman in the league. Langway did it and Coffey did it as well. Not very often do you see a completely one dimensional player win the Norris. Usually the player scores a lot but plays in his own end very well, too.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-26-2005, 12:51 PM
  #25
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Award selections are not perfect and neither are most statistics.

But, award selections and runners up, are better than no eyewitness accounts at all. Other than goals and assists, there really isn't an NHL stat that gives us an accurate representation of a player's worth.

Award votes do have their bias but, I think that at least 80% of voters do an honest attempt at getting it right. So, by rewarding the winner and the runner up, I think I capture a close to accurate picture of the best players each season.
I generally agree here. But why not reward all three nominees with some kind of weighted system? Is there a reason you leave them out?

Malefic74 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:51 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.