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.

HOH Top 60 Wingers of All-Time Rules Discussion thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-12-2014, 11:47 AM
  #1
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,081
vCash: 500
HOH Top 60 Wingers of All-Time Rules Discussion thread

Here is a link to the rules from the centers project:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=100

Areas that need discussion (feel free to add more):

Eligibility and Ranking Criteria
  • What to do about players who were both C and W, were determined eligible for the centers list here, and didn't make the top 60. I'm talking Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris, who just missed the cut, but also perhaps someone modern like Patrick Marleau (and no, this thread is NOT the place to discuss Marleau's merits as a player). Should such players be eligible for the wingers list, or did they already have their chance and lose it?

Voting
  • Round 1 - What is the time frame for accepting lists? We want at least a month of preliminary discussion first. Last year, we extended the time frame to include the start of the NHL season. Do we want to wait that long this year?
  • Round 2 - AT LEAST A FEW VOTERS THOUGHT IT TOOK TOO LONG. Adding 4 per round made the thing last 15 rounds (plus a 16th round as a tiebreaker which probably won't happen again). Possible changes - add 4 per round to get a top 20, then add 5 per round = 13 rounds. Add 5 per round every round - 12 rounds.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 11:49 AM
  #2
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Here is a link to the rules from the centers project:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=100

Areas that need discussion (feel free to add more):

Eligibility and Ranking Criteria
  • What to do about players who were both C and W, were determined eligible for the centers list here, and didn't make the top 60. I'm talking Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris, who just missed the cut, but also perhaps someone modern like Patrick Marleau (and no, this thread is NOT the place to discuss Marleau's merits as a player). Should such players be eligible for the wingers list, or did they already have their chance and lose it?

Voting
  • Round 1 - What is the time frame for accepting lists? We want at least a month of preliminary discussion first. Last year, we extended the time frame to include the start of the NHL season. Do we want to wait that long this year?
  • Round 2 - AT LEAST A FEW VOTERS THOUGHT IT TOOK TOO LONG. Adding 4 per round made the thing last 15 rounds (plus a 16th round as a tiebreaker which probably won't happen again). Possible changes - add 4 per round to get a top 20, then add 5 per round = 13 rounds. Add 5 per round every round - 12 rounds.
My own opinion - the only area I feel strongly on is that Round 2 took too long. My favored solution is to add 4 per round to reach a list of 20, then add 5 per round to get to 60. It allows more detailed discussion of players for the first 5 rounds, but still shortens the overall project by 2 rounds.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 11:58 AM
  #3
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Eligibility and Ranking Criteria
  • What to do about players who were both C and W, were determined eligible for the centers list here, and didn't make the top 60. I'm talking Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris, who just missed the cut, but also perhaps someone modern like Patrick Marleau (and no, this thread is NOT the place to discuss Marleau's merits as a player). Should such players be eligible for the wingers list, or did they already have their chance and lose it?
My feeling is that if we decided they were a center, then they should remain a center for the purpose of this list. I'm thinking of Red Kelly, who could easily have made the center list but wasn't eligible because he was previously judged to be a defenseman.

I don't think it makes sense to penalize players for being too good at multiple positions, or alternately to reward players who weren't good enough at a particular position.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 12:00 PM
  #4
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
My feeling is that if we decided they were a center, then they should remain a center for the purpose of this list. I'm thinking of Red Kelly, who could easily have made the center list but wasn't eligible because he was previously judged to be a defenseman.

I don't think it makes sense to penalize players for being too good at multiple positions, or alternately to reward players who weren't good enough at a particular position.
Kelly couldn't make the center list because he was already on as a defenseman, though. Likewise, Henrik Zetterberg wouldn't be eligible as a W because he already made the C list. It would only be for players who haven't made a list yet.

I'm not a big proponent either way; just want to clarify that only players who haven't made any other lists would be eligible. There were some really close calls between C and W (Bernie Morris in particular), where the decision to make him a C was semi-arbitrary (in Morris's case, it was determined that his career was close to 50/50, but his best playoffs were as a C).


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 06-12-2014 at 12:07 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 12:13 PM
  #5
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,767
vCash: 500
I guess it won't matter too much either way, it just strikes me as odd to say "this guy is a center... wait, he's not a good enough center to make the list... now he's a winger".

Really though, it's not a huge deal either way if we're really just talking about Morris. One guy who's really close between the two positions won't upset the apple cart.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 01:39 PM
  #6
bigbuffalo313
Registered User
 
bigbuffalo313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Are we including a tiebreaker this time?

bigbuffalo313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 02:16 PM
  #7
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I guess it won't matter too much either way, it just strikes me as odd to say "this guy is a center... wait, he's not a good enough center to make the list... now he's a winger".
I 100% agree.

We went to the trouble of determining what position to consider every prominent player for the purposes of listmaking. We can't go back on that now.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 07:31 PM
  #8
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I 100% agree.

We went to the trouble of determining what position to consider every prominent player for the purposes of listmaking. We can't go back on that now.
I am also very much in favor of this. A player should be a eligible for one list only.

I also believe that we should stick to the criteria laid out in the centers project saying that a players time at positions other than what he's being considered for should still count towards his resume. In other words, if a player played both wing and center and he has been decided eligible for the wings project then his time at center should also count for him.

Regarding tiebreakers, I believe that we should at least use the tiebreaker of whichever player was ahead of the other on more lists wins the tiebreak. Beyond that requires further discussion IMO.

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:22 AM
  #9
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
I am also very much in favor of this. A player should be a eligible for one list only.

I also believe that we should stick to the criteria laid out in the centers project saying that a players time at positions other than what he's being considered for should still count towards his resume. In other words, if a player played both wing and center and he has been decided eligible for the wings project then his time at center should also count for him.

Regarding tiebreakers, I believe that we should at least use the tiebreaker of whichever player was ahead of the other on more lists wins the tiebreak. Beyond that requires further discussion IMO.
I prefer that as a tiebreaker, too.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 10:21 AM
  #10
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,081
vCash: 500
Having 3 ties last time was pretty weird. We had 1 tie during the defenseman project and none during the goaltenders project. So I wouldn't worry too much about coming up with a better tiebreaking procedure.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 10:24 AM
  #11
Art of Sedinery
Registered User
 
Art of Sedinery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,964
vCash: 500
I don't have anything to add to the actual rules of the process. You guys have all done this before and know the best way to do things. I am just excited to take part this time. Already started working on my list!

Art of Sedinery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 12:12 PM
  #12
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
I am also very much in favor of this. A player should be a eligible for one list only.

I also believe that we should stick to the criteria laid out in the centers project saying that a players time at positions other than what he's being considered for should still count towards his resume. In other words, if a player played both wing and center and he has been decided eligible for the wings project then his time at center should also count for him.

Regarding tiebreakers, I believe that we should at least use the tiebreaker of whichever player was ahead of the other on more lists wins the tiebreak. Beyond that requires further discussion IMO.
Agree with this.

we voted on designations they should prevail.

On the tiebreaker 2 thoughts,

1) what's wrong with a tie?

2) only the guys tied should actually be involved in any tiebreaker, not guys who are close and then sneak in the back door

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 12:46 PM
  #13
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,813
vCash: 500
Since I haven't participated in any position rankings yet I need to clarify this:

Are we deciding that a player counts as a certain position and then including his entire body of work, or are we only including the player's body of work at that specific position?

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 12:48 PM
  #14
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmad View Post
Since I haven't participated in any position rankings yet I need to clarify this:

Are we deciding that a player counts as a certain position and then including his entire body of work, or are we only including the player's body of work at that specific position?
Entire body of work, otherwise Kelly wouldn't be ranked in the top 10 for his half career on D, as good as it was.

Although others will disagree to be sure.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 12:50 PM
  #15
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmad View Post
Since I haven't participated in any position rankings yet I need to clarify this:

Are we deciding that a player counts as a certain position and then including his entire body of work, or are we only including the player's body of work at that specific position?
Entire body of work.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 06-13-2014 at 07:18 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 01:22 PM
  #16
bigbuffalo313
Registered User
 
bigbuffalo313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Agree with this.

we voted on designations they should prevail.

On the tiebreaker 2 thoughts,

1) what's wrong with a tie?

2) only the guys tied should actually be involved in any tiebreaker, not guys who are close and then sneak in the back door
A tie isn't that bad. A top 60 list with 61 players is.

bigbuffalo313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:38 PM
  #17
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbuffalo313 View Post
A tie isn't that bad. A top 60 list with 61 players is.
Well if having 61 on a 60 list is that bad, those 2 guys should go to overtime, to make it a 60 list then IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:38 PM
  #18
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbuffalo313 View Post
A tie isn't that bad. A top 60 list with 61 players is.
Agreed. Such a unique situation, I can't see it happening again.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 03:02 PM
  #19
bigbuffalo313
Registered User
 
bigbuffalo313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well if having 61 on a 60 list is that bad, those 2 guys should go to overtime, to make it a 60 list then IMO.
We had another vote with the top vote getters from the previous round who didn't make it, just like every other round.

If you only wanted the two people who tied to be eligable, then what is the purpose of having a second round. Just have the aggregate list because if someone has a certain spot on that list, why should they be able to have the chance to move up

bigbuffalo313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 03:08 PM
  #20
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbuffalo313 View Post
We had another vote with the top vote getters from the previous round who didn't make it, just like every other round.

If you only wanted the two people who tied to be eligable, then what is the purpose of having a second round. Just have the aggregate list because if someone has a certain spot on that list, why should they be able to have the chance to move up
Not really sure what you mean here but in principle if 2 guys are tied they should be in the tiebreaker period, those are my thoughts on the matter and it makes sense when you think about it, 2 guys tied to get a resolution of which one was better, or more deserving whatever, then it's between those 2 guys, unless it's a 3 way tie of course...lol.

In the cited example of the centers project 2 guys tied , not 3 or 6, thus 2 guys should be in the tiebreaker IMO.

Others may disagree everyone has an opinion on it, that's mine.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 04:04 PM
  #21
bigbuffalo313
Registered User
 
bigbuffalo313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 2,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Not really sure what you mean here but in principle if 2 guys are tied they should be in the tiebreaker period, those are my thoughts on the matter and it makes sense when you think about it, 2 guys tied to get a resolution of which one was better, or more deserving whatever, then it's between those 2 guys, unless it's a 3 way tie of course...lol.

In the cited example of the centers project 2 guys tied , not 3 or 6, thus 2 guys should be in the tiebreaker IMO.

Others may disagree everyone has an opinion on it, that's mine.
The tiebreaker we had didn't break the tie though so we had to have a vote and what is the point of the vote for two people?

bigbuffalo313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 01:43 AM
  #22
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Agree with this.

we voted on designations they should prevail.

On the tiebreaker 2 thoughts,

1) what's wrong with a tie?

2) only the guys tied should actually be involved in any tiebreaker, not guys who are close and then sneak in the back door
This is the same as the first tiebreaker of who's ahead on more lists, it completely eliminates all of the other candidates and only considers how the two in question rank in respect to one another. Often this is also a tie, as was the case at the end of the centers project

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 03:32 AM
  #23
ted1971
History Of Hockey
 
ted1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: south jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,425
vCash: 500
Is there a time frame on the start of this?

ted1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 10:47 AM
  #24
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Here is a link to the rules from the centers project:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=100

Areas that need discussion (feel free to add more):

Eligibility and Ranking Criteria
  • What to do about players who were both C and W, were determined eligible for the centers list here, and didn't make the top 60. I'm talking Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris, who just missed the cut, but also perhaps someone modern like Patrick Marleau (and no, this thread is NOT the place to discuss Marleau's merits as a player). Should such players be eligible for the wingers list, or did they already have their chance and lose it?

Voting
  • Round 1 - What is the time frame for accepting lists? We want at least a month of preliminary discussion first. Last year, we extended the time frame to include the start of the NHL season. Do we want to wait that long this year?
  • Round 2 - AT LEAST A FEW VOTERS THOUGHT IT TOOK TOO LONG. Adding 4 per round made the thing last 15 rounds (plus a 16th round as a tiebreaker which probably won't happen again). Possible changes - add 4 per round to get a top 20, then add 5 per round = 13 rounds. Add 5 per round every round - 12 rounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ted1971 View Post
Is there a time frame on the start of this?
once the rules are settled we can start the preliminary discussion.

- I think we're all on the same page on the first point, as far as who to count as a winger.

- let's talk about the time frame for accepting lists. I think a month is a good plan. I don't see the need to wait for the start of the NHL season. What does everyone else think?

- If people thought it took too long, we could certainly do what TDMM said and make it 12 rounds long instead of 15. Any major objections?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 10:57 AM
  #25
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
once the rules are settled we can start the preliminary discussion.

- I think we're all on the same page on the first point, as far as who to count as a winger.
Seems like it.

Also I would say that we basically agree on the tiebreak procedure (1st, who is ahead of who on more ballots, 2nd, leave it a tie)

Quote:
- let's talk about the time frame for accepting lists. I think a month is a good plan. I don't see the need to wait for the start of the NHL season. What does everyone else think?
You need at least a month from the START of the preliminary discussion thread before starting to accept lists. I think you want to give a couple weeks notice before starting the preliminary round, as well. Exact time frame doesn't matter to me much - we ran the last few preliminary rounds starting in Aug, with accepting lists from mid Sept-early Oct, but we don't have to wait that long this time if we are ready.

Quote:
- If people thought it took too long, we could certainly do what TDMM said and make it 12 rounds long instead of 15. Any major objections?
I preferred the 13 round option (5 rounds of 4, then 8 rounds of 5) but not a huge deal. I thought doing 4 per round worked very well at the beginning last time and the project didn't start to drag until the end

TheDevilMadeMe 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 12:53 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.