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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Top 60 centers of All Time Rules Discussion - Proposed Rules in Post 100

View Poll Results: Top 50 or 60 centers of all time?
Top 50 centers of all time 17 37.78%
Top 60 centers of all time 28 62.22%
Voters: 45. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2013, 04:07 PM
  #26
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,599
vCash: 500
Constraints

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Yes in my opinion (although appropriately discounted/augmented if necessary).
Yes, especially within era constraints. Example goalies - Broda and Durnan both at a Leafs training camp at the same time then taking different paths to NHL success. Likewise a Tretiak and Hasek comparison using their respective home league performance.

Conversely a Bobby Hull and Alex Ovechkin junior performance comparable would not have any commonality.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 04:13 PM
  #27
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 28,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Yes in my opinion (although appropriately discounted/augmented if necessary).
I think thats fair. Source materials vetted for accuracy of course.... I might also suggest a non-voting Arbitrator (volunteer) be appointed to act as Co-Administrator in order to insure such should disputes arise over issues of criteria, validity of source materials in order to insure as much as possible the overall objectivity & integrity of the project.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 04:20 PM
  #28
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 40,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The other way to look at it is that close votes are guaranteed to happen at some point, and if you keep trying to avoid them earlier, you'll be stuck with them later anyway.
I'm ok with close votes. A problem arises when you have a small cluster of guys who are debated extensively and then the last spot is up for grabs as an afterthought. Just based on the past two lists, I feel like that break point happens right around 4-5.

I mean, to be completely honest I'd be fine with doing 60 rounds of 1 induction at a time. But I don't think we'd have enough patience for that

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 05:30 PM
  #29
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ted1971 View Post
When can We start voting?
1) Hopefully, we get the rules and the "is he a center or not?" things ironed out by the end of the weekend.

2) Next, the Preliminary Discussion Thread will be put up to help people with their Round 1 lists. Generally, the focus is largely on European stars and pre-NHL players who are harder to research with traditional tools.

3) Round 1 voting will open sometime in late September if all goes according to schedule. The NHL season starts on Oct 1, and I would like to catch posters who don't really post here during the offseason.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 08:42 PM
  #30
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,319
vCash: 500
60 centers. 60 wingers. Done deal!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 08:42 PM
  #31
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Admins could be given more discretion about the number of players to add in a round when there is a break in Round 2 voting.

In the defenseman project, we added 5 guys per round. But look at round 3:
PlayerTotal11th12th13th14th15th16th17th18th19th20thnone
Brad Park17666340200000
King Clancy16748231111000
Paul Coffey15563322130010
Pierre Pilote14922555010100
Sprague Cleghorn9910315123221
Al MacInnis9610222414320
Tim Horton9410203344310
Earl Seibert8001110551241
Scott Stevens7701012315710
Chris Pronger5000021113364
Brian Leetch12000000200415

We could have a rule that if more than X number of votes separate spots 4 and 5 and less than Y number of votes separate spots 5 and 6, then only the top 4 are added that round.

I'm not sure what to do in situations like Vote 7 though - where 5th place was way behind 4th place, but was still a fair amount over 6th:

PlayerTotal31st32nd33rd34th35th36th37th38th39th40thnone
Jack Stewart15984203110000
Guy Lapointe14807343110000
Scott Niedermayer12042122044000
Marcel Pronovost11131213322101
Lionel Conacher8530221210215
Zdeno Chara7300312232024
Alexei Kasatonov6810221300316
J.C. Tremblay6701210341016
Jacques Laperriere6302013014125
Butch Bouchard4301120100329
Rob Blake4000021013237
Larry Murphy32010101101410
Carl Brewer24001001022112
Ebbie Goodfellow18000001014211

The other way to look at it is that close votes are guaranteed to happen at some point, and if you keep trying to avoid them earlier, you'll be stuck with them later anyway.
I would have supported leaving Cleghorn out in that example and letting him get discussed with the next round (with the intention of adding an extra that round)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 12:30 AM
  #32
jigglysquishy
Registered User
 
jigglysquishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
60

The more the merrier. Plus, I am quite curious to hear a lot of discussions on evaluating modern players. A guy like Sid or Thornton makes for a great discussion.

jigglysquishy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 01:30 AM
  #33
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
60

The more the merrier. Plus, I am quite curious to hear a lot of discussions on evaluating modern players. A guy like Sid or Thornton makes for a great discussion.
Agree fully

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 07:05 AM
  #34
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,599
vCash: 500
Modern Players

Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
60

The more the merrier. Plus, I am quite curious to hear a lot of discussions on evaluating modern players. A guy like Sid or Thornton makes for a great discussion.
Very premature in the case of Crosby. Joe Thornton is interesting as he has become a very efficient center.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 07:39 AM
  #35
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Very premature in the case of Crosby.
Does that mean you don't consider Crosby for Top 60 Centers?

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 10:20 AM
  #36
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,599
vCash: 500
Premature

^^^ Premature as in Jeremy Roenick. 25 and before,post 25 or full career. Same three scenarios for Crosby. Little merit to going there.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 11:38 AM
  #37
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
^^^ Premature as in Jeremy Roenick. 25 and before,post 25 or full career. Same three scenarios for Crosby. Little merit to going there.
Yes, it is very likely that whatever ranking we give guys like Crosby or Malkin now will not be accurate in 5yrs time. The only thing we can do is treat them as if their career ended today due to a non-hockey related reason (illness, car crash, etc.). It's either that or make some kind of rule that requires X number of years at the professional level for active players to be eligible.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 12:35 PM
  #38
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Yes, it is very likely that whatever ranking we give guys like Crosby or Malkin now will not be accurate in 5yrs time. The only thing we can do is treat them as if their career ended today due to a non-hockey related reason (illness, car crash, etc.). It's either that or make some kind of rule that requires X number of years at the professional level for active players to be eligible.
I don't like that idea.

quoipourquoi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 01:25 PM
  #39
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
^^^ Premature as in Jeremy Roenick. 25 and before,post 25 or full career. Same three scenarios for Crosby. Little merit to going there.
Really?

I'm a huge career guy but some guys peaks you simply can't dismiss like that.

I really would love to hear the convoluted argument as why he wouldn't be on any persons top 60 list.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 01:33 PM
  #40
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Yes, it is very likely that whatever ranking we give guys like Crosby or Malkin now will not be accurate in 5yrs time. The only thing we can do is treat them as if their career ended today due to a non-hockey related reason (illness, car crash, etc.). It's either that or make some kind of rule that requires X number of years at the professional level for active players to be eligible.
We should judge all players on what they actually did, some guys were given some credit for lost WW2 years and yet the same crowd will sometimes punish modern players for lost lockout time.

Yes Sid very may well rise in any list put out in 5 or 10 years time but there is no way we should deny or ignore the fact that he deserves to be on the current top 60 list either.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 01:42 PM
  #41
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
We should judge all players on what they actually did, some guys were given some credit for lost WW2 years and yet the same crowd will sometimes punish modern players for lost lockout time.

Yes Sid very may well rise in any list put out in 5 or 10 years time but there is no way we should deny or ignore the fact that he deserves to be on the current top 60 list either.
The lockout/WW players are different from players like Crosby/Malkin because we know what they did both before and after that missed time.

I didn't mean to come across as if I thought Crosby doesn't belong on the list with his to date accomplishments. He will be on mine. Not sure where yet, but he will be there.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 01:43 PM
  #42
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I don't like that idea.
My guess would be that most posters would agree with you, but I suppose it could be put to a vote if those of the opposite opinion want it.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 01:46 PM
  #43
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,599
vCash: 500
Or He May Fall

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
We should judge all players on what they actually did, some guys were given some credit for lost WW2 years and yet the same crowd will sometimes punish modern players for lost lockout time.

Yes Sid very may well rise in any list put out in 5 or 10 years time but there is no way we should deny or ignore the fact that he deserves to be on the current top 60 list either.
Who is being punished for lost lockout time?

Did is the past tense not the future. Two bolded phrases do not compute logically.

Or Crosby may fall. Artificially slotting him on projections and fantasy type career length and accomplishments is not exactly history but fiction.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 02:03 PM
  #44
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Did is the past tense not the future. Two bolded phrases do not compute logically.

Or Crosby may fall. Artificially slotting him on projections and fantasy type career length and accomplishments is not exactly history but fiction.
I think generally, in these sorts of projects and the ATD, players are evaluated on what they have done.

Not forecasts.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 03:01 PM
  #45
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I think generally, in these sorts of projects and the ATD, players are evaluated on what they have done.

Not forecasts.
Yes, in fact "evaluating players on what they have already done" has been a rule for every one of these projects. And it will be again.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 03:03 PM
  #46
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 8,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Really?

I'm a huge career guy but some guys peaks you simply can't dismiss like that.

I really would love to hear the convoluted argument as why he wouldn't be on any persons top 60 list.
Roenick will probably make my top-60 list, though at least in part because his post-injury production is underrated due to the timing of the dawn of dead puck hockey.

I'm definitely for having a list of sixty.

I am somewhat concerned that later parts of the list will end up being somewhat polluted as it was in past HOH lists - not because of who comes up for discussion, but rather because of who doesn't. The treatment we gave Frank Nighbor in the original top-100 ranking is the best example of the potential weaknesses of the methodology here. Although this may sound slightly elitist, I would suggest that once we get past the top-20 or so, some "inner circle" group (the list reviewers, perhaps? Though this is perhaps self-serving, as I am one of them) should be allowed to vote amongst themselves and nominate one player who wouldn't otherwise be on the ballot for each round. Just being nominated doesn't mean that this player will actually get voted in, but it will help to prevent any Nighbor-level unjustices in this project.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 03:04 PM
  #47
dr robbie
Let's Go Pens!
 
dr robbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,640
vCash: 500
I'd go with 60. Center is historically one of the most deep groups of players and wouldn't like to leave anyone off the list (even though, we will have to obviously).

dr robbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 03:08 PM
  #48
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Roenick will probably make my top-60 list, though at least in part because his post-injury production is underrated due to the timing of the dawn of dead puck hockey.

I'm definitely for having a list of sixty.

I am somewhat concerned that later parts of the list will end up being somewhat polluted as it was in past HOH lists - not because of who comes up for discussion, but rather because of who doesn't. The treatment we gave Frank Nighbor in the original top-100 ranking is the best example of the potential weaknesses of the methodology here. Although this may sound slightly elitist, I would suggest that once we get past the top-20 or so, some "inner circle" group (the list reviewers, perhaps? Though this is perhaps self-serving, as I am one of them) should be allowed to vote amongst themselves and nominate one player who wouldn't otherwise be on the ballot for each round. Just being nominated doesn't mean that this player will actually get voted in, but it will help to prevent any Nighbor-level unjustices in this project.
I think spending a good month on the preliminary discussion thread, where we focus largely on pre-consolidation guys and Europeans (in other words, the guys who are going to be missed by a quick scan of hockey-reference.com stats, and official NHL awards) helps with this a lot. I don't think we had much substantive discussion at all before sending in lists for the Top 100 lists (although I only participated in the second Top 100 list myself so I might be remembering wrong).

The way you can tell if a guy was hurt by the process is that he was added ahead of anyone else as soon as he became available, right? That never happened in the goalies project, and only happened once in the defenseman project - when Hod Stuart and Ching Johnson were added 1/2 as soon as they became available. Other guys were added as soon as they became available (Eddie Gerard IIRC but a few others too in both projects), but in the 3-5 spots, which I don't think indicates they would have gone any higher if they had come up earlier.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 03:28 PM
  #49
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,893
vCash: 500
Assuming we do a list of top 60 (which isn't decided yet), what procedure do you guys want to do?

Does anyone think 15 rounds of adding 4 is feasable? I feel like Rounds 11-12 were were the defenseman project really lost steam (that one was 12 rounds of adding 5).

A compromise that I briefly mentioned earlier is 5 rounds of adding 4 (to get to the Top 20), then 8 more rounds of adding 5 (to get to 60) - 13 rounds in all.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2013, 05:50 PM
  #50
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Assuming we do a list of top 60 (which isn't decided yet), what procedure do you guys want to do?

Does anyone think 15 rounds of adding 4 is feasable? I feel like Rounds 11-12 were were the defenseman project really lost steam (that one was 12 rounds of adding 5).

A compromise that I briefly mentioned earlier is 5 rounds of adding 4 (to get to the Top 20), then 8 more rounds of adding 5 (to get to 60) - 13 rounds in all.
This might sound a little unorthodox at first, but I think the 1st round could be a round of 5. Those guys have been discussed so much already that I have a hard time believing any real new information will come about, the top 3 in particular seem like it would be virtually impossible for their order to change.

Hawkey Town 18 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 09:08 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.