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 7 (2009 update)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2009, 05:00 PM
  #126
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
The Process is just fine. You are sniping at it because it allows for equality of opinions and freedom of choice.

The fact of the matter is, most people do not agree with you, thus, the results are not coming out the way you want them to, or see them, and so, you are attacking the process as well as the voters who disagree with you, when in fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the process at all.

Making little sniping remarks about the process itself to a guy who is doing all the work for nothing out of the wish to provide a good fair list where everyone can have a say like it is his fault just about everyone disagrees with your myopic opinion is classless.

For the record, Big Phil been using the "Deer in the headlights" line for years, long before you were ever around, and it is not some fancy original line from you. Ego much?

Your minor critiques or Richard and Irvin Jr do not excuse some of the other ridiculous obvious pro Habs, Anti-European rankings that you have mentioned.

Hasek not in the top 50?(In fact, No euro over 37th)? Hainsworth over Sawchuk? Lemaire over Dionne? Henri Richard over Bossy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Don't get carried away with the high per-game totals. higher scoring and smaller rosters meant that every player was bound to have a higher per-game ratio. the important thing to know is that Denneny was in the top-4 in goals in the NHL (which was a half-league at the time) eight times.



I agree, and so does everyone else. This is why there are more centers on last year's top-100 list than LW and RW combined. (32 to 25, not counting Abel/Delvecchio who were C/LW)



...pro Montreal, pro cups, anti-old players, anti-european.

Can't wait to see his top-120 list.

Or will it even be released now? As I understand it, he's not part of the process anymore.
...Guys.... Why?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 05:22 PM
  #127
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,872
vCash: 500
Bias and PM Confidentiality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
The Process is just fine. You are sniping at it because it allows for equality of opinions and freedom of choice.

The fact of the matter is, most people do not agree with you, thus, the results are not coming out the way you want them to, or see them, and so, you are attacking the process as well as the voters who disagree with you, when in fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the process at all.

Making little sniping remarks about the process itself to a guy who is doing all the work for nothing out of the wish to provide a good fair list where everyone can have a say like it is his fault just about everyone disagrees with your myopic opinion is classless.

For the record, Big Phil been using the "Deer in the headlights" line for years, long before you were ever around, and it is not some fancy original line from you. Ego much?

Your minor critiques or Richard and Irvin Jr do not excuse some of the other ridiculous obvious pro Habs, Anti-European rankings that you have mentioned.

Hasek not in the top 50?(In fact, No euro over 37th)? Hainsworth over Sawchuk? Lemaire over Dionne? Henri Richard over Bossy?
So you know my complete rankings - thank you for posting and admitting that it was back channeled to a select few giving them a distinct advantage in the process. So much for the fairness or no bias and true debate of opinions that you preach.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 05:42 PM
  #128
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,490
vCash: 50
It only came to be known after your bias was shown, no different than the rejected lists from the process last time.

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 06:03 PM
  #129
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So you know my complete rankings - thank you for posting and admitting that it was back channeled to a select few giving them a distinct advantage in the process. So much for the fairness or no bias and true debate of opinions that you preach.
A few of the biased rankings became known the moment as few of us asked after you were sacked from the project. Precisely those 5 biased ones. Everyone's list becomes publically posted after the process is over.

Since you were sacked, there was no reason to keep your list secret anymore. The project is over as far as you are concerned Or did you manage to miss the fact when you were soliloquizing that you were banned from this project yesterday?


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 09-12-2009 at 06:09 PM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 06:50 PM
  #130
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,872
vCash: 500
Not Accurate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
A few of the biased rankings became known the moment as few of us asked after you were sacked from the project. Precisely those 5 biased ones. Everyone's list becomes publically posted after the process is over.

Since you were sacked, there was no reason to keep your list secret anymore. The project is over as far as you are concerned Or did you manage to miss the fact when you were soliloquizing that you were banned from this project yesterday?
The issue first came to my attention in early August and has continued with snippets revealing my list. Latest prior to the kangaroo court ban was a request by FF to make my Hainsworth / Benedict comparison. Since Hainsworth was not eligible for discussion at the time the post created a bias.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 07:07 PM
  #131
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The issue first came to my attention in early August and has continued with snippets revealing my list. Latest prior to the kangaroo court ban was a request by FF to make my Hainsworth / Benedict comparison. Since Hainsworth was not eligible for discussion at the time the post created a bias.
Uh huh.
Try to cry and rationalize why you were sacked all you want.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 08:22 PM
  #132
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You're referring to me, apparently, and who else?

And I don't recall anyone having a problem with the points I brought up, or the way I brought them up.

Would anyone care to speak up if they thought that, perhaps, my post from 11:26 EST yesterday was a harsh critique of the process? Maybe I want too far and didn't realize it.
Your post was fine. You posted where you disagreed with the results. Of course everyone is going to disagree with some of the results. It was slightly off-topic to the thread, but I don't think it was inflammatory. Criticizing results is a lot different than criticizing the process (a process which everyone involved in the project was aware of before they joined).

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 08:37 PM
  #133
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Your post was fine. You posted where you disagreed with the results. Of course everyone is going to disagree with some of the results. It was slightly off-topic to the thread, but I don't think it was inflammatory. Criticizing results is a lot different than criticizing the process (a process which everyone involved in the project was aware of before they joined).
And a process which is inherently equal and fair to all who participate.

Everyone gets the same amount of votes. Everyone gets to plead their cases. Most of us all know each other and each others opinions from the get go, just like last year, because we have posted together for so long.

Blaming the process for not having the results one wanted is wrong. The result of the majority opinions from knowledgeable posters. If some are in the minority about something, then they will be displeased because they think others should see it their way.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 09:11 PM
  #134
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,872
vCash: 500
Frank Nighbor

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Your post was fine. You posted where you disagreed with the results. Of course everyone is going to disagree with some of the results. It was slightly off-topic to the thread, but I don't think it was inflammatory. Criticizing results is a lot different than criticizing the process (a process which everyone involved in the project was aware of before they joined).

Note the introduction of an ineligible Frank Nighbor into the Denneny / Joliat / Stewart discussion this round by two distinct posters - seventieslord and HO.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=679425&page=3

Obviously each is making a very strong comment about the process when they making such posts that are outside the scope of the debate. This has the following negative effect. Votes for Denneny, Joliat or Stewart get delayed so that they slip into the round where Nighbor might be eligible. So the vote is no longer about merit but about strategy.

Did anyone complain about the process being criticized and subverted by the two posters in question? No. Were the two posters reprimanded? No.

If you want to call the resulting ratings accurate be my guest.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-12-2009 at 09:15 PM. Reason: typo
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 09:30 PM
  #135
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Note the introduction of an ineligible Frank Nighbor into the Denneny / Joliat / Stewart discussion this round by two distinct posters - seventieslord and HO.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=679425&page=3

Obviously each is making a very strong comment about the process when they making such posts that are outside the scope of the debate. This has the following negative effect. Votes for Denneny, Joliat or Stewart get delayed so that they slip into the round where Nighbor might be eligible. So the vote is no longer about merit but about strategy.

Did anyone complain about the process being criticized and subverted by the two posters in question? No. Were the two posters reprimanded? No.

If you want to call the resulting ratings accurate be my guest.
Both voters called into question the fact that other voters were underrating said players, and were disappointed that those players were not eligible.

You belittled the process itself(Multiple times), not the voters who inevitably decide when those players become eligible. Big difference.

Second. Few, if anyone will "Delay" votes just to make player A closer to player B. It was widely discussed and agreed upon that if you think player A deserves to be X high, but so does B, then vote for A to be X high, and make a case for player B so that they will make out better in revisions.

You are trying to make this sound like a reality TV show.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 09:38 PM
  #136
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Note the introduction of an ineligible Frank Nighbor into the Denneny / Joliat / Stewart discussion this round by two distinct posters - seventieslord and HO.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=679425&page=3

Obviously each is making a very strong comment about the process when they making such posts that are outside the scope of the debate.
Don't put words into my mouth (or seventies'). Neither of us were making a "very strong comment" about the process, except maybe in your mind.

I strongly believe that this project -- which includes a diversity of perspectives (voters are different ages, different nationalities and have different frameworks for analyzing hockey), encourages the analysis of quantitative and qualitative information, fosters open, respectful debate, and promotes the exchange of raw data and original research -- is an excellent way to help hockey fans learn about and evaluate history's greatest players. I am a firm believer in the process we have in place.

For the record, there isn't a single rule that prohibits us from talking about players ineligible for voting. I think you're confused with Rule #1, which simply says "please try to stay on-topic in the thread". It doesn't tell us never to discuss players not currently up for discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
This has the following negative effect. Votes for Denneny, Joliat or Stewart get delayed so that they slip into the round where Nighbor might be eligible. So the vote is no longer about merit but about strategy.
This is ridiculous and untrue. I never said anything in this thread about where Nighbor deserved to be ranked (either in the absolute, or relative to Denney, Joliat and Stewart).

Either prove me wrong or retract your statement and apologize.

There's no need for me to speak on behalf of seventies here, but he never told anybody not to vote for Denneny, Joliat or Stewart on the grounds that Nighbor was not up yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Did anyone complain about the process being criticized and subverted by the two posters in question? No. Were the two posters reprimanded? No.
Again, Seventies and I never criticized the process. That's a desperate attempt to drag us down with you.
With that said, we possibly violated Rule #1 (though, as I already discussed, bringing up a player not up for voting is not necessarily a violation of Rule #1).

Here's the difference between us. I can admit I made a mistake.

I possibly broke rule #1. I apologize for that. I will accept any "reprimands" FissionFire deems necessary.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 09-12-2009 at 09:50 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 09:58 PM
  #137
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Agree, I also "possibly" broke Rule 1. However, I was discussing a top-100 player and in relation to this project so I think my infraction was minimal.

Consider it a little bit of pre-posturing for Nighbor. If the voters start to recognize now that he is better than all the players currently eligible, then he should hopefully be an instant induction when his name finally comes up. that can only be a good and constructive thing.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 10:25 PM
  #138
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 500
Thing is, EVERY poster is guilty of violating one or more of the rules at some point during the project C1958. They are very loosely enforced. It's only when this practices becomes habitual and/or disruptive that I even say something. It's only after I say something multiple times that I get to the point where I actually am forced to do something. You've been given a tremedous amount of leeway and patience from Day 1 in this, so you really have nobody to blame but yourself. I banned you for repeatedly ignoring my warnings but I could easily have chosen your willful and habitual violations of Rules 1,3,5 which caused substantial disruptions. You just weren't capable of keeping yourself from continually pushing the limits. You played chicken. You lost. I'm not Jesus, my patience isn't infinite.

I also thought it was funny that you call out Hockey Outsider for criticizing the process. Had you known anything about the origins of this you'd know that HO, not myself, was the one with the original idea and he created most of the original project guidelines that were presented for group discussion and tweaked. My role in this project is simply to act as a moderator for the discussions and to tally the numbers. I don't submit lists. I don't vote. I do offer my opinions but ultimately I can't alter the results with anything but my arguments. It's hilarious that you are saying that HO is attacking his own creation. Nice try.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 10:29 PM
  #139
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,872
vCash: 500
Bottom Line

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Don't put words into my mouth (or seventies'). Neither of us were making a "very strong comment" about the process, except maybe in your mind.

I strongly believe that this project -- which includes a diversity of perspectives (voters are different ages, different nationalities and have different frameworks for analyzing hockey), encourages the analysis of quantitative and qualitative information, fosters open, respectful debate, and promotes the exchange of raw data and original research -- is an excellent way to help hockey fans learn about and evaluate history's greatest players. I am a firm believer in the process we have in place.

For the record, there isn't a single rule that prohibits us from talking about players ineligible for voting. I think you're confused with Rule #1, which simply says "please try to stay on-topic in the thread". It doesn't tell us never to discuss players not currently up for discussion.



This is ridiculous and untrue. I never said anything in this thread about where Nighbor deserved to be ranked (either in the absolute, or relative to Denney, Joliat and Stewart).

Either prove me wrong or retract your statement and apologize.

There's no need for me to speak on behalf of seventies here, but he never told anybody not to vote for Denneny, Joliat or Stewart on the grounds that Nighbor was not up yet.



Again, Seventies and I never criticized the process. That's a desperate attempt to drag us down with you.
With that said, we possibly violated Rule #1 (though, as I already discussed, bringing up a player not up for voting is not necessarily a violation of Rule #1).

Here's the difference between us. I can admit I made a mistake.

I possibly broke rule #1. I apologize for that. I will accept any "reprimands" FissionFire deems necessary.
Bottom line is that you did not accept that it was not Frank Nighbor's turn in the process and introduced him into the debate thereby circumventing the process. If you were perfectly satisfied with and believed in the process then Frank Nighbor would not have been introduced.Not following the process is a criticism of the process unless you subscribe to the "do as I say and not as I do" school of thought.

The same point holds for others who did likewise.

If you do not agree with my opinions, fine. Say so and I will gladly recuse myself if asked properly. But save everyone the self-righteous posturing.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 10:36 PM
  #140
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Bottom line is that you did not accept that it was not Frank Nighbor's turn in the process and introduced him into the debate thereby circumventing the process. If you were perfectly satisfied with and believed in the process then Frank Nighbor would not have been introduced.Not following the process is a criticism of the process unless you subscribe to the "do as I say and not as I do" school of thought.

The same point holds for others who did likewise.

If you do not agree with my opinions, fine. Say so and I will gladly recuse myself if asked properly. But save everyone the self-righteous posturing.
Both voters called into question the fact that other voters were underrating said players, and were disappointed that those players were not eligible.

You belittled the process itself(Multiple times), not the voters who inevitably decide when those players become eligible. Big difference.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 10:59 PM
  #141
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,872
vCash: 500
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
Thing is, EVERY poster is guilty of violating one or more of the rules at some point during the project C1958. They are very loosely enforced. It's only when this practices becomes habitual and/or disruptive that I even say something. It's only after I say something multiple times that I get to the point where I actually am forced to do something. You've been given a tremedous amount of leeway and patience from Day 1 in this, so you really have nobody to blame but yourself. I banned you for repeatedly ignoring my warnings but I could easily have chosen your willful and habitual violations of Rules 1,3,5 which caused substantial disruptions. You just weren't capable of keeping yourself from continually pushing the limits. You played chicken. You lost. I'm not Jesus, my patience isn't infinite.

I also thought it was funny that you call out Hockey Outsider for criticizing the process. Had you known anything about the origins of this you'd know that HO, not myself, was the one with the original idea and he created most of the original project guidelines that were presented for group discussion and tweaked. My role in this project is simply to act as a moderator for the discussions and to tally the numbers. I don't submit lists. I don't vote. I do offer my opinions but ultimately I can't alter the results with anything but my arguments. It's hilarious that you are saying that HO is attacking his own creation. Nice try.
I knew from the start that HO was the originator.

You consider yourself a moderator but your were also an active participant. Blatant conflict of interest.

Also you were actively encouraging the flaunting of the process with comments that hinted at my list in early August, prior to the conclusion of the process while trying to bait me with posts about what you were looking forward to (Benedict / Hainsworth comparison). You used privileged information to make the offending post in question. Again a blatant conflict of interest.

I believe you offered to resign if you were biased.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2009, 11:16 PM
  #142
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,490
vCash: 50
Bait you? Jeez dude, just go away, you are worse than a petulant child. You have repeatedly mentioned being a coach; and I just have to say that I find it hard to imagine anyone so discontented and querulous working with children. You act like a child yourself.

Or how about this:

You are right. We (the overwhelming majority that are sick of your antics) are all wrong.
You win.
You proved it is all a big conspiracy against you.
You can go away now, secure in the knowledge that our list will be useless without your input. We are all just moving on foolishly without your sagacity.
Thanks though, bye-bye now.

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 12:34 AM
  #143
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,354
vCash: 500
I'll make my case for Kennedy.

Playoffs: In the five years Toronto won the Stanley Cup, Kennedy led the playoffs in goals twice and assists once. He either led the playoffs in scoring, or finished second, during four of those five years. During his "off" year in 1951 he dropped to fourth in playoff scoring. During his career, Kennedy score more playoff poins than everyone except Richard, Lindsay and Howe (source). I'm fairly sure no player up for voting now has a playoff scoring record as good as Kennedy's.

For whatever it's worth, Kennedy won three retro Conn Smythe trophies. Kennedy wasn't a great playoff performer because he won a lot of Cups--he was a great playoff performer because he consistently scored at an elite rate during the playoffs (and had great intangibles as discussed below).

Intangibles: Conn Smythe called Kennedy the "greatest competitor in hockey". He was known as a "remarkable leader with an infectious combination of determination and confidence", who was an "antagonistic forechecker" (source). Kennedy was a "a proud defensive player and a superior faceoff specialist" (source). He was known for his "relentless hard work and dogged determination" (source). By all accounts it sounds like Kennedy has all intangibles of Clarke, Mikita or Trottier, he was just less talented offensively.

Awards: Kennedy has more years as a Hart nominee than any other player available for voting (four years).

Offense: During the span of his career (1944-1955), Kennedy was ranked 2nd (to Elmer Lach) in assists and 5th (to Richard, Howe, Lindsay and Lach) in scoring (source). If you omit 1944 and 1945 (when many of the league's best players were overseas), Kennedy ranks 3rd in assists and 4th in points (source). If you take out 1947 as well (one could argue that Kennedy was in prime condition in 1946 when most of the other elite players in the league were recovering from the war), he's still 3rd in assists and 4th in points (source). He had three years as a top-five scorer.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:41 AM
  #144
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
You'd really shake your head if you ever saw where I would rank him.
Quite simply one of the most dominant hockey players I have ever seen. I don't much care about stats and career length or injuries so any list I made would look significantly different than most here. Very very few who could take over a game when on the ice. He could.
I had Forsberg 48th.

I think I look at this exercise in a similar way to you. Obviously stats and heresay have to be used with players never seen. But I feel more comfortable arguing for a player I actually watched play.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:44 AM
  #145
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
From my "consistency in goalscoring" thread and its sister thread, "consistency in playmaking" -

(I'll throw in Nighbor too, just for fun)

Goalscoring: top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20
Stewart 3-8-13-14-14
Denneny 3-5-8-9-11
Joliat 1-3-4-9-12
Nighbor 1-4-6-7-8

Playmaking: top-2, top-5, top-10, top-15, top-20
Stewart 0-0-1-6-8
Denneny 2-3-5-6-6
Joliat 0-4-6-7-8
Nighbor 2-5-7-8-11
Just thought I'd add in to the discussion here. Nels Stewart is probably the most one dimensional player to ever play the game. Could he score? Yes. Was he a playmaker? No. Did he win battles in the corners? No. Could he skate with the puck in transition? No. Did he have any defensive game at all? No, Nels Stewart is arguably the worst defensive player to ever have a regular job at the NHL level. Was he a physical force? No, his high PIM totals are from being lazy and dirty. He hurt his team taking stupid penalties.

Honestly, at least Bure could move the puck in transition...

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 12:02 PM
  #146
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Don't put words into my mouth (or seventies'). Neither of us were making a "very strong comment" about the process, except maybe in your mind.

I strongly believe that this project -- which includes a diversity of perspectives (voters are different ages, different nationalities and have different frameworks for analyzing hockey), encourages the analysis of quantitative and qualitative information, fosters open, respectful debate, and promotes the exchange of raw data and original research -- is an excellent way to help hockey fans learn about and evaluate history's greatest players. I am a firm believer in the process we have in place.

For the record, there isn't a single rule that prohibits us from talking about players ineligible for voting. I think you're confused with Rule #1, which simply says "please try to stay on-topic in the thread". It doesn't tell us never to discuss players not currently up for discussion.



This is ridiculous and untrue. I never said anything in this thread about where Nighbor deserved to be ranked (either in the absolute, or relative to Denney, Joliat and Stewart).

Either prove me wrong or retract your statement and apologize.

There's no need for me to speak on behalf of seventies here, but he never told anybody not to vote for Denneny, Joliat or Stewart on the grounds that Nighbor was not up yet.



Again, Seventies and I never criticized the process. That's a desperate attempt to drag us down with you.
With that said, we possibly violated Rule #1 (though, as I already discussed, bringing up a player not up for voting is not necessarily a violation of Rule #1).

Here's the difference between us. I can admit I made a mistake.

I possibly broke rule #1. I apologize for that. I will accept any "reprimands" FissionFire deems necessary.
Amen to that.

Maybe heard Frank Nighbor's name once before I got to this site and it shows in that I am one who overlooked him on my list. Having been a History major in college I can't believe it took so long for me to get here and really learn about the history of the game I enjoy the most.

That said, I'm dissapointed that it had to come to this, being Canadiens58's banning.
Just from the fact that he has a wealth of knowlegde about the history of the game and a really different outlook. Then again, it is understandable why many got fed up with his condesending style.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 12:08 PM
  #147
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,612
vCash: 500
Now guys, I must tell you that I'm a little pissed at what happened yesterday.

ushvinder comes up with outrageous stuff since he discovered this part of the hfboards, and he continues to do so. Yesterday, he targeted C-1958 with a post that is actually, wrong in facts. Even though I really disagree about C-1958 original comment (that Forsberg isn't a Top-100 player, he'll probably be a Top-5 for me in this round), that is an opinion, and I was keying on a factal error. Then everybody jumped at ushvinder's defense, actually ACCEPTING his statement that Gretzky and Lemieux were great competition (...they were, and I think modern players were rightly penalized. In other words, competition level wasn't that great IF grey-bearded Gretz and Hodgkin-ridden Lemieux were still at the top the league, no matter how great players they were).

Then, I'm bashed for having Kurri as 15th for this round, which is an opinion that, I think, I'm entitled to have. As I said, in my list, he's sandwiched between two HHOF'ers, and will be sandwiched between two HHOF'ers unless he happens to be elected close to a guy like Forsberg who isn't eligible, or to a guy like Mikhailov, who isn't in the HHOF because, well, he didn't play in the good league and was born in a "bad" country in a "bad" era. What does the guy receives? NO WARNING, AT ALL, unless he received one and I wasn't aware. Then, ushvinder goes up to rant about Moore's effectiveness with the Blues and the Leafs, which is basically like blaming Lemieux for not notching any point in 94-95 (actually, somebody has to come with an "adjusted health care by era"...).

And that is coming from a guy that has, in past, shown a terrible anti-Hab bias (hey, if C-1958 can be blamed for his allegedly pro-Habs bias in impunity, I SHOULD be able to do the same for somebody else, right?! I refer you to the many posts by ushvinder in regards to Lafleur, Plante, Moore). And that's without talking about my original post that kindof sparked this debate yesterday, when ushvinder said absolutely NOTHING, ******* nothing about the "subjective" rankings of Moore that I brought up (those ones should actually receive more attention, and are extremely relevant when it comes to guys that had their careers defined by their peaks AND whose game cannot be described only by numbers), and instead focused on my ranking of Jari Kurri in order to attack my credibility in regards to Moore, or even as a whole.


Last edited by MXD: 09-13-2009 at 12:36 PM.
MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 12:18 PM
  #148
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,490
vCash: 50
All of that (in my opinion), is just debate though, albeit "heated debate".

No one else that I've noticed, please correct me if I'm wrong, outside of C1958 bashes the process itself. Acting as if everyone that disagrees with him is somehow conspiring together against him, and this after six rounds of his factual inaccuracies (that he incessantly refused to acknowledge), and endless derailing of common sense debate.

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 01:13 PM
  #149
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Just thought I'd add in to the discussion here. Nels Stewart is probably the most one dimensional player to ever play the game. Could he score? Yes. Was he a playmaker? No. Did he win battles in the corners? No. Could he skate with the puck in transition? No. Did he have any defensive game at all? No, Nels Stewart is arguably the worst defensive player to ever have a regular job at the NHL level. Was he a physical force? No, his high PIM totals are from being lazy and dirty. He hurt his team taking stupid penalties.

Honestly, at least Bure could move the puck in transition...
In terms of his propensity to place high in goals compared to assists, the only center I can think of who outdoes him is Garry unger.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 02:18 PM
  #150
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 500
The decision on C1958 has been made. If there are questions or concerns about it please PM me, or Hockey Outsider if you prefer. Let's try to keep that out of the voting threads now since it's not relevant to the players up for voting.

FissionFire 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 05:20 PM.

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.