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, 08:01 PM
  #51
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosbyfan View Post
I think it would be good to figure out how many we want in, then figure out a both fun and accurate way to get there.

I think it would be good to start at, say, Expansion, and then go in chronological and reverse chronological order, one per year, with voting every week

After a year watching Hockey History "unfold" we have 104 players, and are caught up to present day.

If someone could work the obvious kinks out of that it would be a fun start, and year two could have a different set of rules, keep things exclusive etc.(so we don't have 200+ after year 2)
The thing is... The Hall is like it is now because of... Procedures.
If the Hall procedure would be slightly different, then the Hall would be a WHOLE LOT of different.

While your idea of going forwards and backwards is interesting... I think it's somewhat ... TOO interesting, in a way. And it would be tough to manage, trust me.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 08:38 PM
  #52
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Some concerns.

What exactly would the purpose of this be? To be more elite than the HHOF? To be more inclusive? The HHOF has more early era (pre-NHL) players than most posters here at HfBoards ever talk about (except in the ATDs), yet there are a lot less Soviets and other internatonal greats, to put it mildly.

Would there be extensive profiles? That is what a Hall is about anyways, to be a place to go and look and learn and APPRECIATE THE GREATS OF THE PAST. I have no personal interest in researching or profiling Bobby Clarke or Mario Lemieux, as these guys are talked about so much already. But I am VERY interested in early era and international greats as well as all-time great special skill sets of the NHL (e.g., defensive dmen, fighters, playoff heroes, other usually overlooked nonscoring Hall considerations). The All-Time Drafts here at HfBoards have produced a lot of debates, profiles and considerations of greatness that go beyond scoring stats to look at roles on a line and on a team.

I have wanted for years to do a Top-1000 All-Time List which honors the various roles and performances in the history of the game, and the ATDs have been feeding that desire with all that goes into building teams from the best of the past. This project could be broken down into subgroups, some focusing on goaltenders, others dmen, etc. (instead of the old comparing apples with oranges, wingers with blueliners), a grand masterplan project with various people working on various parts, coming together into a unified whole at the end.

Your Hall of Fame idea seems to be less about ranking and more about cutoff point between in/out, involving a lot of negative arguments showing what a player hasn't done, why they shouldn't be included. I'm not so into that. I'm more into the appreciation of hockey history.

If you guys want to have some fun arguing between Lindros or Forsberg and vote a lot to show up the HHOF with just a lot of spent energy and a list to show for it, then I'll probably pass. But if there is a clear focus and productive output in terms of profiles and illuminating lists then I may be interested.
That would (or would not) be the point, depending on our approach.

For one, I just cannot write players profile. I'm a writer -- but I just cannot write something - even something semi-serious - in something that isn't my first language.

Somebody could actually write why somebody made it, and why was he worthy, and hopefully going further than "he made it because he had seven Top-5 in points" ... I can do lots of things, but I just cannot do that kind of writeup.

This said, what happened with Edler Statesmen/Mahovlich?

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 08:46 PM
  #53
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Why is he quoted as having one name but his profile has the other?

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 09:25 PM
  #54
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
I would certainly be in for this project.

I'm generally a harder marker than most. Definitely some forwards that need to be removed from the Hall. Generally defenseman get the shaft.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 09:33 PM
  #55
Dom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 647
vCash: 500
The thing that you won't be able to replicate is that the people voted in in 1945 were voted using the point of view of the time, which we don't have. That's why I think it is best to do year by year inductions to emulate that. A good example is that the Richard-Howe debate was a lot closer and maybe even on Richard's side in 1960 than in 1980. I know that they are both shoe-ins but it's a good example that the time at which evaluation of which was better was done is very important.

Dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 09:39 PM
  #56
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
I would certainly be in for this project.

I'm generally a harder marker than most. Definitely some forwards that need to be removed from the Hall. Generally defenseman get the shaft.
The thing is -- the HHOF Committee HAD to vote, and we would have to emulate that.

I prefer a chronological approach as well.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 09:57 PM
  #57
Dom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 647
vCash: 500
A chronological vote starting in 1945 would also slightly offset the fact that in 1920, there were around 80 top level professional hockey players, 120 in 1945 and around 700 in 2010.

Would you do an NHL only HOF, a NHL biased HOF
or try to remove as much bias as possible?

Dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 10:30 PM
  #58
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,147
vCash: 500
I just don't see how emulating the chronological HOF process adds to the project, except in a fantasy-draft sense of reliving old decisions. If the purpose here is to select the greatest players out of the whole corpus of NHL history, it seems flawed to force ourselves to pick a set number of players from each time period.

Using the Richard/Howe example, it seems a little silly to pretend that 1960-1980 didn't happen when deciding which one to vote for.

It almost seems like some of us are talking about a different project than others...

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 10:33 PM
  #59
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I just don't see how emulating the chronological HOF process adds to the project, except in a fantasy-draft sense of reliving old decisions. If the purpose here is to select the greatest players out of the whole corpus of NHL history, it seems flawed to force ourselves to pick a set number of players from each time period.

Using the Richard/Howe example, it seems a little silly to pretend that 1960-1980 didn't happen when deciding which one to vote for.

It almost seems like some of us are talking about a different project than others...
Well that's going to come up when we're deciding on how to do the project.

I think the idea is that the process is an end in itself, as it will create discussion learning etc. It's not just a ranking. If it were just a ranking a HoF format is unnecessarily convuluted.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 10:34 PM
  #60
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,705
vCash: 500
I'm definitely interested in participating as a voting member.

DaveG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 10:38 PM
  #61
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,932
vCash: 500
I'd be very interested in this!

As long as it would be a World Hockey Hall of Fame, where players from all countries are considered. The biggest thing for me would be considering things beyond just skill on the ice. Maurice Richard, for example, was an icon for French Canada, so he get's bonus points fot that. There are also the Salmings and Fetisovs who made way for their countrymen. Obviously, only the best of the best get in, but there should be more to it than just hockey skill. Does that make sense to people?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 10:39 PM
  #62
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,382
vCash: 500
I'm in. Will post more thoughts later.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 10:57 PM
  #63
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Belgorod
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 7,645
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to finchster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I'd be very interested in this!

As long as it would be a World Hockey Hall of Fame, where players from all countries are considered. The biggest thing for me would be considering things beyond just skill on the ice. Maurice Richard, for example, was an icon for French Canada, so he get's bonus points fot that. There are also the Salmings and Fetisovs who made way for their countrymen. Obviously, only the best of the best get in, but there should be more to it than just hockey skill. Does that make sense to people?
That sort of path leads to the Henderson's, Eruzione's of the world getting in.

Any Hall of Fame should reward elite level play and talent.

finchster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:04 PM
  #64
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I just don't see how emulating the chronological HOF process adds to the project, except in a fantasy-draft sense of reliving old decisions. If the purpose here is to select the greatest players out of the whole corpus of NHL history, it seems flawed to force ourselves to pick a set number of players from each time period.

Using the Richard/Howe example, it seems a little silly to pretend that 1960-1980 didn't happen when deciding which one to vote for.

It almost seems like some of us are talking about a different project than others...
In my opinion, if you don't do a chronological process, you are basically re-doing the Top 100 list under a different name with a different cutoff point.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:08 PM
  #65
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
In my opinion, if you don't do a chronological process, you are basically re-doing the Top 100 list under a different name with a different cutoff point.
Agreed.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:09 PM
  #66
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I'd be very interested in this!

As long as it would be a World Hockey Hall of Fame, where players from all countries are considered. The biggest thing for me would be considering things beyond just skill on the ice. Maurice Richard, for example, was an icon for French Canada, so he get's bonus points fot that. There are also the Salmings and Fetisovs who made way for their countrymen. Obviously, only the best of the best get in, but there should be more to it than just hockey skill. Does that make sense to people?
I agree. And to further that, I think any credible World Hockey Hall of Fame would include guys like Bobrov for their historical significance despite the fact that they "didn't compete against the world's best."

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:11 PM
  #67
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,248
vCash: 500
Although I would participate in this, I like what VI is saying more than I like this idea. the exclusivity we seek, would inevitably lead to some negative arguments being put forth. Not because we're bad people who don't appreciate the players, but when it comes down to some borderline candidates, due process dictates that those who are for and against it must put their best feet forward.

I think the ATD, MLD, and AAA draft are more worthwhile endeavors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Would there be extensive profiles? That is what a Hall is about anyways, to be a place to go and look and learn and APPRECIATE THE GREATS OF THE PAST. I have no personal interest in researching or profiling Bobby Clarke or Mario Lemieux, as these guys are talked about so much already. But I am VERY interested in early era and international greats as well as all-time great special skill sets of the NHL (e.g., defensive dmen, fighters, playoff heroes, other usually overlooked nonscoring Hall considerations).
Give it a few more years - As more and more posters keep joining these drafts and mimicking my bio style, more and more players will get the full bio treatment. Eventually I'll be picking players specifically because there hasn't been a good bio done. I don't think the day where the hfboards servers have full player bios of the top-1000 players within them, is that far away.

Quote:
I have wanted for years to do a Top-1000 All-Time List which honors the various roles and performances in the history of the game, and the ATDs have been feeding that desire with all that goes into building teams from the best of the past.
Best way to do a top-1000 list is what we've been doing now - consistently refine our ATD/MLD draft list. Every year it looks better and better. We praise the strong picks, criticize the poor ones, and provide supporting info for such claims.

If you want an instant personal top-1000 list, try this. Draw up a 42-team draft with 25 picks per team (this would leave room for 50 coaches to be selected, so 8 assistants) and then play the part of all 42 GMs, over and over, until you've made all 1050 selections. For the first 100 or so picks, you're drafting the BPA, but soon after you're looking at complementary players, positional needs, and the elite role players over the lesser secondary scorers. the draft list you create is as close to a top-1000 as you'll ever see. Better than 1000 picks spread out over two drafts, as some niche players rise or fall in value based on draft size (Shayne Corson and Kent Nilsson, for example)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:11 PM
  #68
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
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.
I'd be interested and I think we should have some idea on how many members we might end up at.

It seems to me that the current Hall had certian criteria early on and it became harder to get into the hall soemwhere along the way.

There is an over abundance of players from certain era's , hopefully our Hall will be truly great.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:14 PM
  #69
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I agree. And to further that, I think any credible World Hockey Hall of Fame would include guys like Bobrov for their historical significance despite the fact that they "didn't compete against the world's best."
Unfortunately, I agree. Zabrodsky too. Which means our HHOF would not be attempting to be representative of the best of all-time; rather, it would be the most significant players of all-time, to their respective eras and surroundings.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:27 PM
  #70
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by finchster View Post
That sort of path leads to the Henderson's, Eruzione's of the world getting in.

Any Hall of Fame should reward elite level play and talent.
That's a double edged sword though. There are many international players that aren't in the HHoF that are deserving mostly because they never played (or at least didn't play much) in the NHL. I'd argue that Jan Suchy, Tumba Johansson, Vesvolod Bobrov among numerous others belong in the hall for their contributions to the sport in their respective countries.

DaveG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:38 PM
  #71
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton Carter View Post
That's a double edged sword though. There are many international players that aren't in the HHoF that are deserving mostly because they never played (or at least didn't play much) in the NHL. I'd argue that Jan Suchy, Tumba Johansson, Vesvolod Bobrov among numerous others belong in the hall for their contributions to the sport in their respective countries.
The difference between them and Eruzione/Henderson, though, is that they never had the chance to be NHL stars.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:51 PM
  #72
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by finchster View Post
That sort of path leads to the Henderson's, Eruzione's of the world getting in.

Any Hall of Fame should reward elite level play and talent.
It should be a combination of a player's talent/career and their significance/legacy. Often, these will go hand in hand, but no always. An outstanding result on one side of the equation could outweigh a weakness on the other, but it would have to be pretty damn convincing!

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:52 PM
  #73
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Unfortunately, I agree. Zabrodsky too. Which means our HHOF would not be attempting to be representative of the best of all-time; rather, it would be the most significant players of all-time, to their respective eras and surroundings.
Bobrov and Zabrodsky were two of the guys I was thinking of

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 11:53 PM
  #74
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Belgorod
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 7,645
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to finchster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton Carter View Post
That's a double edged sword though. There are many international players that aren't in the HHoF that are deserving mostly because they never played (or at least didn't play much) in the NHL. I'd argue that Jan Suchy, Tumba Johansson, Vesvolod Bobrov among numerous others belong in the hall for their contributions to the sport in their respective countries.
I didn’t mean that, what I mean are players getting in on “sentimental value”. When you start electing players based on more than “just skill” that is the danger you run. Just so we are clear, I believe there are many players who deserve to be in the HHOF that aren’t because they never played in the NHL.

finchster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 12:04 AM
  #75
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Belgorod
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 7,645
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to finchster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It should be a combination of a player's talent/career and their significance/legacy. Often, these will go hand in hand, but no always. An outstanding result on one side of the equation could outweigh a weakness on the other, but it would have to be pretty damn convincing!
I would argue that players should get in on their play. If a certain player has done something to futher the game but his career wasn't up to snuff, he should be elected as a builder.


Last edited by finchster: 11-09-2010 at 12:14 AM.
finchster 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 04:41 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.