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.

Creating our own Hall of Fame?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-08-2010, 02:14 PM
  #1
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,054
vCash: 500
Creating our own Hall of Fame?

We have an amazing collection of hockey minds in this section, and I think it's a great idea that was suggested by seventieslord in the "Blow up the HOF" thread - to create our own Hall of Fame, in lieu of another top 100 list.

Of course we face a few challenges.

1) Selection committee - I know a lot of us feel differently about different players. This may cause a lot of infighting, but at the same time the unintended collective finickiness could create a level of standards so high that it inadvertently accomplishes exactly what we're setting out to do.

2) Induction protocol:
a) Original class? The HoF was established in 1945, and had a blowout year in 1962. We would have to craft an original class that covered the legends of the game, or, alternately, vote on one player for each season of the NHL (not necessarily one who was eligible that season).
b) Inductions per year? I'd prefer one or two, but I know other people would feel differently. The tighter we keep the induction limits, the creamier the crop.
c) Eligibility? Do we stick with 3 years? Do we expand to 10? Do we allow active players (Hasek, Jagr)?
d) Categories? Would we stick with just a players' category? Do we know enough collectively to bother with a builders' or with an officials' category?

Of course, if consensus is different, I'd be open to changing anything. This is just to get the ball rolling as this is something I'd like to see happen.

Thoughts?

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 02:24 PM
  #2
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,206
vCash: 500
I would definitly like to be apart of this and I think we got more than enough people instrested to do this.

Quote:
Of course we face a few challenges.

1) Selection committee - I know a lot of us feel differently about different players. This may cause a lot of infighting, but at the same time the unintended collective finickiness could create a level of standards so high that it inadvertently accomplishes exactly what we're setting out to do.
Well, heated arguments is what a forum is about. If a majority is for induction then minority may aswell shut his piehole and accept it.

[QUOTE]2) Induction protocol:
a) Original class? The HoF was established in 1945, and had a blowout year in 1962. We would have to craft an original class that covered the legends of the game, or, alternately, vote on one player for each season of the NHL (not necessarily one who was eligible that season).
b) Inductions per year? I'd prefer one or two, but I know other people would feel differently. The tighter we keep the induction limits, the creamier the crop.
c) Eligibility? Do we stick with 3 years? Do we expand to 10? Do we allow active players (Hasek, Jagr)?
d) Categories? Would we stick with just a players' category? Do we know enough collectively to bother with a builders' or with an officials' category?

I'd say that we vote in 6 players from the start. 3 post- and 3 pre-expansion. My guess is that we all agree on that there is more than 6 players who should get in. (My guess would be that Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr from post- and Howe, Morenz and Shore from pre- will be the first inductees)

No active players but the 3 year rule is fine by me.

I wouldnt bother with officials but builders could be intresting.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 02:33 PM
  #3
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,054
vCash: 500
The thing is, if we start with a small Hall, we'd have to induct aggressively. I would think it would be a better idea if we inducted a large number to start with (50? 75? 93?), and then went 1 or 2 per year after that.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 02:37 PM
  #4
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahovlich View Post
The thing is, if we start with a small Hall, we'd have to induct aggressively. I would think it would be a better idea if we inducted a large number to start with (50? 75? 93?), and then went 1 or 2 per year after that.
I agree with this. IMO, it could be accomplished fairly quickly with a "vote by acclamation" process. Presumably guys like Gretzky, Orr, Sawchuk would be uncontested and therefore no need to keep them out for any period of time.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 02:40 PM
  #5
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahovlich View Post
We have an amazing collection of hockey minds in this section, and I think it's a great idea that was suggested by seventieslord in the "Blow up the HOF" thread - to create our own Hall of Fame, in lieu of another top 100 list.

Of course we face a few challenges.

1) Selection committee - I know a lot of us feel differently about different players. This may cause a lot of infighting, but at the same time the unintended collective finickiness could create a level of standards so high that it inadvertently accomplishes exactly what we're setting out to do.

2) Induction protocol:
a) Original class? The HoF was established in 1945, and had a blowout year in 1962. We would have to craft an original class that covered the legends of the game, or, alternately, vote on one player for each season of the NHL (not necessarily one who was eligible that season).
b) Inductions per year? I'd prefer one or two, but I know other people would feel differently. The tighter we keep the induction limits, the creamier the crop.
c) Eligibility? Do we stick with 3 years? Do we expand to 10? Do we allow active players (Hasek, Jagr)?
d) Categories? Would we stick with just a players' category? Do we know enough collectively to bother with a builders' or with an officials' category?

Of course, if consensus is different, I'd be open to changing anything. This is just to get the ball rolling as this is something I'd like to see happen.

Thoughts?
1) On point. Nothing to say about this. Participation in the HOH and/or ATD should be mandatory.
2)
a) I don't think the 1945 date is mandatory, but let's not start in 1917 'cuz every playing pre NHL will be in.
b) Induction should be according to approval of committee. If it's zero, it's zero. If it's 5, it's five (regardless of players/non-players). Actually, players/non-players might be a start for limiting the numbers of players.
c) Do it like the Hall. 3 years after last pro game played, and disregard "comebacks" after those years (in others words, Howe, Lafleur and F. Boucher -- that I'd call locks for 1st ballot induction). Howe and Lafleur played pro after induction, and Boucher came back before 1945). We should keep the HOHHOH open, and add guys on a consistent basis. I see no point in getting Hasek in right now, and everybody knows he's getting in.
d) I think we know enough on execs and non-players as a whole, but probably keep it to execs/coaches. I like what the WWHHOF did with the "builders". Guys could be in for both categories (blocking Toe Blake as a non-player because he's in as a player makes no sense, IMO.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 02:45 PM
  #6
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,054
vCash: 500
Something I forgot to touch on:

How do we elect who will be in the committee?

We have a lot of regulars here, but as we're starting with nothing, how would we choose who to elect? How do we choose the number of people on the committee?

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 02:47 PM
  #7
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahovlich View Post
The thing is, if we start with a small Hall, we'd have to induct aggressively. I would think it would be a better idea if we inducted a large number to start with (50? 75? 93?), and then went 1 or 2 per year after that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I agree with this. IMO, it could be accomplished fairly quickly with a "vote by acclamation" process. Presumably guys like Gretzky, Orr, Sawchuk would be uncontested and therefore no need to keep them out for any period of time.
Actually, I prefer to set the induction year a little bit earlier, but no "automatic" induction.

There is also something else...

Let's say that I say I deem worthy for the Hall (exemple : Bill Gadsby) is at his LAST SEASON as an inductee, during Sawchuck's first season. WE all agree that Olmstead is a lesser player than Sawchuck, but I might think it's better to vote for Olmstead, because that's his last year.

Let's say that I have two votes, but one of them goes to (fictionnal case), Jean Beliveau -- a guy I deem better than Sawchuck -- who is also at his 1st year of eligibility.

So I WON'T be voting Sawchuck in -- but I'll vote for him next season instead, a similar case happens (pretty unlikely...)

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 02:50 PM
  #8
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahovlich View Post
Something I forgot to touch on:

How do we elect who will be in the committee?

We have a lot of regulars here, but as we're starting with nothing, how would we choose who to elect? How do we choose the number of people on the committee?
Hummm....
Number of people actually have to be manageable.

If we go the WWHOF way (which is, baseball way, certain percentage of votes needed to get in), a "workable" number has to be chosen.

Let's say, 80%...

So we'd have to pick either 15, 20, 25, 30, 35...

75%
Then, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36....

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 02:54 PM
  #9
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,826
vCash: 500
I also think the "oldtimer" category is extremely interesting...
But it has to start
- X numbers of years after the start year (and keep that X number), and a guy would be eligible for the old timer category, X years after his 1st induction year.

- Limited number of votes for old-timers.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 02:56 PM
  #10
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,054
vCash: 500
80% and 20 members sounds good to me.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:01 PM
  #11
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahovlich View Post
80% and 20 members sounds good to me.
It is. But it will depend on the interest. If 40 people show up, well...
(will obviously be more complicated)
Again, having a HHOF whose discussion will be which of F. Mahovlich and A. Bathgate is making it in the end would be a little .... pointless.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:09 PM
  #12
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
I would participate.

the committee would have to be ever-evolving because this is a project that could take 2-3 years and it would be difficult to foresee everyone being present and available that entire time.

the most enjoyable parts for me, would be to go to bat for the few truly deserving non-inductees, and to campaign strongly against some of the more recent mediocre inductees.

I wonder if we need to establish a ballpark figure of how many players we expect to induct by the end of it. If we do, then it makes it easier to establish which players meet that cutoff during the process. If we don't, we may end up in a situation where we induct more borderline (by our standards) candidates earlier and less later, or the other way around, and who's in and out influences our future judgments later.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:15 PM
  #13
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I would participate.

the committee would have to be ever-evolving because this is a project that could take 2-3 years and it would be difficult to foresee everyone being present and available that entire time.

the most enjoyable parts for me, would be to go to bat for the few truly deserving non-inductees, and to campaign strongly against some of the more recent mediocre inductees.

I wonder if we need to establish a ballpark figure of how many players we expect to induct by the end of it. If we do, then it makes it easier to establish which players meet that cutoff during the process. If we don't, we may end up in a situation where we induct more borderline (by our standards) candidates earlier and less later, or the other way around, and who's in and out influences our future judgments later.
Let's say....
One year per two weeks.

Starting in 1945.
That's over two years.

I'd actually be FOR "starting" the process a little bit earlier than 1945.

One "year" per week?
Over a year.

I don't think the ballpark is a great idea, IF WE WANT TO COMPARE WITH THE HHOF.

I mean, we know that if they have the choice between F. Mahovlich and B. Federko in... they get Mahovlich in, not Federko. And putting a number of inductees before starting the whole thing would be just like doing another Top-100.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:21 PM
  #14
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I would participate.

the committee would have to be ever-evolving because this is a project that could take 2-3 years and it would be difficult to foresee everyone being present and available that entire time.

the most enjoyable parts for me, would be to go to bat for the few truly deserving non-inductees, and to campaign strongly against some of the more recent mediocre inductees.

I wonder if we need to establish a ballpark figure of how many players we expect to induct by the end of it. If we do, then it makes it easier to establish which players meet that cutoff during the process. If we don't, we may end up in a situation where we induct more borderline (by our standards) candidates earlier and less later, or the other way around, and who's in and out influences our future judgments later.
I think it would go beyond 2 to 3 years. I would be hoping to establish this as a continuing cornerstone of the HoH board community that gets passed down through the years.

Idea:

Each week, starting Saturday, January 1, 2011, we start a selection process to induct two players the following Friday. After a year, we'd have 104. After that, we can go month by month, selecting two per month, potentially for a year. After another year, we induct every 3 months, then after that we do six, then annually.

104+24+8+4 = 140 members once we start the regular, annual inductions.

Is that too few?

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:24 PM
  #15
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahovlich View Post
I think it would go beyond 2 to 3 years. I would be hoping to establish this as a continuing cornerstone of the HoH board community that gets passed down through the years.

Idea:

Each week, starting Saturday, January 1, 2011, we start a selection process to induct two players the following Friday. After a year, we'd have 104. After that, we can go month by month, selecting two per month, potentially for a year. After another year, we induct every 3 months, then after that we do six, then annually.

104+24+8+4 = 140 members once we start the regular, annual inductions.

Is that too few?
Okay, so it's not HHOF replica thing...

I think the WWHHOF procedure was nice. I just think setting the bar higher (80% is higher) and giving less votes (or just don't split votes for player or non-players...) might give a good result.

It would also "cancel" some of the contraints the HHOF has to do with.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:25 PM
  #16
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,167
vCash: 500
I would join as a voting member and be involved in discussions, but I'll leave it to you guys to figure out the process.

I am curious as to just how exclusive you want this HOF to be.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:28 PM
  #17
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahovlich View Post
I think it would go beyond 2 to 3 years. I would be hoping to establish this as a continuing cornerstone of the HoH board community that gets passed down through the years.

Idea:

Each week, starting Saturday, January 1, 2011, we start a selection process to induct two players the following Friday. After a year, we'd have 104. After that, we can go month by month, selecting two per month, potentially for a year. After another year, we induct every 3 months, then after that we do six, then annually.

104+24+8+4 = 140 members once we start the regular, annual inductions.

Is that too few?
That's actually more than the WWHHOF at this point.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:31 PM
  #18
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
That's actually more than the WWHHOF at this point.
Yet they have Mike Gartner.

I don't get it.

Either way, that would be years down the line. Suggest an alternate strategy.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:39 PM
  #19
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
There is also something else...

Let's say that I say I deem worthy for the Hall (exemple : Bill Gadsby) is at his LAST SEASON as an inductee, during Sawchuck's first season. WE all agree that Olmstead is a lesser player than Sawchuck, but I might think it's better to vote for Olmstead, because that's his last year.

Let's say that I have two votes, but one of them goes to (fictionnal case), Jean Beliveau -- a guy I deem better than Sawchuck -- who is also at his 1st year of eligibility.

So I WON'T be voting Sawchuck in -- but I'll vote for him next season instead, a similar case happens (pretty unlikely...)
I'm not sure I follow. Is there some sort of term limit on eligibility? And why would Sawchuk not be eligible from the very start?

I do think, though, that this illustrates why we shouldn't attempt to cap or manipulate the number of inductees. We shouldn't be in the mentality that it's "Either X or Y, so I'm voting for X". If a player is qualified, that should be enough to get him in.

Similarly, I think we really need to avoid the "Because we let in X, now Y has to get in" mentality. In relation to both statistical achievements (everybody over 500 goals) and comparables (Adam Oates = Joe Thornton) because no matter how well-founded the argument may be, it always ends up causing "downward creep" in the pool of inductees.

Finally, I propose a period of at least 2 weeks per round of inductions to begin, simply because it's so common for valuable forumers to be out of commission for a week due to vacations, etc.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:52 PM
  #20
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahovlich View Post
Yet they have Mike Gartner.

I don't get it.

Either way, that would be years down the line. Suggest an alternate strategy.
If we want to "go fast", I don't think there's an alternate strategy than asking the users to enter 200 names, and to "induce" guys with 70% of the votes

(which is a very, very bad idea!)

So...
Here's some "backbone"

- Start year : 1935. It gives ten more years. And makes sure all the era have equal representation.
- Needs 80% to get in.
- Each "voter" gets five votes, but that number goes toward BOTH players and non-players. Eligibily criteria would be the same for non players (so we don't have the problem of ... let's say, Toe Blake the winger being out because of Toe Blake the coach). Every person must cast votes -- our Hall will have a "worst player induced", so if somebody refuse to vote for, let's say, Henri Richard, because he/she doesn't deem him worthy (and thinks is the best candidate...), that person cannot opt out. That person could vote for, let's say, Bugsy Watson (or something less obvious, like Barry Ashbee), so there has to be some kind of "moderation". Let's not keep somebody out for the sake of keeping somebody out.

- Votes sould submitted weekly. That's a thing the "committee" should decide, though. Weekly votes would take roughly two years, because there would be some research needed in regards to eligibility. Bi-weekly votes would be darn long.

- Candidatures (for induction, not for committee) is something that has to be discussed. It will need some research, but nobody will give non eligible players.

- 3 years since retired.

That's enough brainstorming for now.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:56 PM
  #21
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
I'm not sure I follow. Is there some sort of term limit on eligibility? And why would Sawchuk not be eligible from the very start?
Well, if we opt for a chronological approch, Sawchuck won't be eligible from the start.

Quote:
I do think, though, that this illustrates why we shouldn't attempt to cap or manipulate the number of inductees. We shouldn't be in the mentality that it's "Either X or Y, so I'm voting for X". If a player is qualified, that should be enough to get him in.
I'm against caping out (my opinion). In my example, I would vote Sawchuck on the 2nd year, if he isn't in yet (which he probably will).

Quote:
Similarly, I think we really need to avoid the "Because we let in X, now Y has to get in" mentality. In relation to both statistical achievements (everybody over 500 goals) and comparables (Adam Oates = Joe Thornton) because no matter how well-founded the argument may be, it always ends up causing "downward creep" in the pool of inductees.
I agree, even though we might all do this, subconsciously.
Quote:
Finally, I propose a period of at least 2 weeks per round of inductions to begin, simply because it's so common for valuable forumers to be out of commission for a week due to vacations, etc.
I can't disagree. Still, if we go for a chronological approach, it might take 4 years.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 03:59 PM
  #22
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,054
vCash: 500
I don't think I'd be in favor of the chronological approach.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:00 PM
  #23
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,656
vCash: 500
What a fascinating idea.

It would be fun to see you guys do 2-4 players per week to represent each additional "year" of eligibility. Would be interesting to read the arguments for specific players, which is something a person like myself with very limited hockey history knowledge could learn.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:02 PM
  #24
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Well, if we opt for a chronological approch, Sawchuck won't be eligible from the start.
True. This is why I think it would be a good idea to, in some form or fashion, start with a quick&dirty vote on players who are completely non-controversial. Guys like Sawchuk and Richard shouldn't be held out, nor should they bump earlier players off the ballot. Just send 'em in and let's spend our energy on discerning the non-unanimous candidates.


Quote:
I can't disagree. Still, if we go for a chronological approach, it might take 4 years.
Not if we reduce the number of candidates early on!

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:06 PM
  #25
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,428
vCash: 500
The more I think about it, the more I'm opposed to the idea of using a "years of eligibility" model. That's really quite arbitrary, as there's no specific reason to believe that the number of years corresponds to the number of worthy players.

I propose we auto-induct the obvious/noncontroversial by a vote of acclamation, then set a time limit (say, 1 month) during which we discuss 5 new additions. If we auto-induct 30 players, then add 5 per month, that's 90 players inducted within the first year.

How we select those 5 players, and what we do after the first year, are matters for discussion. But I think this would be the best way to get the project off the ground quickly AND leave a reasonable amount of time for intense debate over each individual inductee. Remember we're talking about a sizeable committee who will need to do research and come to a consensus, that can't be done in a week.

tarheelhockey 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 08:56 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.