HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Creating our own Hall of Fame?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2010, 12:34 AM
  #76
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,073
vCash: 500
I got news from Mahovlich.
He still wants to participate.

There are a few cases where the "non-ice" relevance of a player overshadows it's career - but those aren't extremely common.

As for Zabrodsky, Malecek, Baker -- it will have to be considered. Still, I'd like to get guys in because of what they've done. Now, it's not a problem for a guy like Maurice Richard (he'd get in, whether there was 500 or 200 000 souls at his funeral), but what for the Fridge?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 01:10 AM
  #77
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
I would like to participate but would have to get around the two minor obstacles of knowing little about hockey before I was born* and a lot of people on the history board hating me.

*by which I mean I know the normal names and dates that everyone knows about but, like almost everyone, know little about what actually happened

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 05:25 AM
  #78
Peter9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
I would have thought that one of the main things that informs the vote on the non-unanimous or controversial candidates would be the discussion around those who are fully deserving without question. Only the appreciation of what makes the latter players truly great can make the vote on the other, controversial players an informed one. So I think there ought to be discussion about every player before he is voted in.

I have other comments, but they will have to wait until I have time. I'm sleepy now.

Peter9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 05:39 AM
  #79
vippe
Registered User
 
vippe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,420
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to vippe
Will be interesting to follow this, just dont let it take too long until you are up to date so to speak

vippe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 07:25 AM
  #80
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,312
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.
I'm not saying it must be completely non-chronological, but doing it in a year-by-year format introduces all the same weaknesses as the real-life HoF voting process. Basically it would just be a reenactment/fantasy exercise... which could be interesting in it's own right, but IMO kind of trivializes the project.

If the idea here is to have a "cornerstone" project, one which defines the forum consensus as to who is in/out of the pantheon, we shouldn't put ourselves in a position to vote for weaker candidates based on the timing of their eligibility.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 07:29 AM
  #81
JFA87-66-99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,312
vCash: 500
I would like to be involved in this project as well. Great Idea

JFA87-66-99 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 07:43 AM
  #82
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
The difference between them and Eruzione/Henderson, though, is that they never had the chance to be NHL stars.
I wonder how our Hall would treat guys like Krutov and Fetisov, who both played in the NHL, and were far from impressive.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 08:41 AM
  #83
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter9 View Post
I would have thought that one of the main things that informs the vote on the non-unanimous or controversial candidates would be the discussion around those who are fully deserving without question. Only the appreciation of what makes the latter players truly great can make the vote on the other, controversial players an informed one. So I think there ought to be discussion about every player before he is voted in.
I agree that there should be some mechanism for discussion of every player, but I'm not sure I agree that we should have an extended discussion of Gretzky, Orr, etc before voting them in. It's going to take forever to do all the necessary research and arguments anyway, let alone if we go over shoo-ins with a fine-toothed comb.

Perhaps a useful solution would be to go ahead and vote in a certain number of "indispensable" figures and discuss what would qualify other players to gain entry with that elite group. For example, vote in the following goalies: <Sawchuk, Roy, Plante, Dryden, Hall, Bower, Hainsworth, Durnan> and then start a thread specifically to discuss the standard that those players set for induction. Meanwhile we can work on writing a proper bio and have a thread dedicated to discussion of each of them individually as part of their ceremonial profile.

Basically that allows us to get to the "action" in a reasonable amount of time, while also giving the generational talents their due part in the discussion.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 09:44 AM
  #84
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I wonder how our Hall would treat guys like Krutov and Fetisov, who both played in the NHL, and were far from impressive.
Well, Fetisov is already in the Hockey Hall of Fame.
Krutov -- then it's ENTIRELY another story.

But let's keep discussions for the "project", shall we?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 10:32 AM
  #85
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Krutov was a bum in the NHL. Fetisov - far from impressive?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 10:40 AM
  #86
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I wonder how our Hall would treat guys like Krutov and Fetisov, who both played in the NHL, and were far from impressive.
Better than you do, for sure.

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 10:47 AM
  #87
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I wonder how our Hall would treat guys like Krutov and Fetisov, who both played in the NHL, and were far from impressive.
If the fantasy Hall doesn't induct Fetisov, you might as well call in the "NHL Hall of Fame," because it would be even more NHL-centric than the current one.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 10:50 AM
  #88
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,102
vCash: 500
I'm intrigued by this idea, and would like to make a few suggestions:

a) Maybe we could start by grouping players by their birthdates: one week vote on players born from 1880-1884, next week 1885-1889, etc. until we've gone through all the decades to get an initial "inner circle" core group. I like the idea of the early players being the first ones inducted, and having some votes where they are the only ones eligible ensures that they get the proper consideration.

We could group them based on year of retirement like the actual HHOF does, but sometimes it can be sketchy trying to decide what retirement date to use; Their last NHL season? Their last season in an international tournament? When they officially announced their retirement? Besides, do we really need to wait for Lidstrom or Brodeur to retire before deciding if they're good enough?

b) For each vote a member can nominate a candidate, then if another member seconds the nomination then that candidate is on that weeks ballot. Perhaps limit members to only one nomination and one second per round so it's not just one person dominating the process. Once there's a set amount of candidates (5? 10?), then the vote is held.

c) Maybe have a very high threshold for induction for the first round of eligibility (perhaps 90%) to ensure only the true greats get in on the first crack, then lower it to maybe 75% for subsequent rounds when players who didn't make it the first time can have their cases revisited.

d) If a player gets rejected again, then put a limit of a certain amount of rounds before he can be nominated again. To prevent posters from continuously doing the same routine for their pet cause every round.

e) I like the idea of candidates being eligible in both the player and builder categories if they were accomplished in both.

f) Anyone who wants to vote should be allowed to, as long as there's none of the "Vote for Rory"-type silliness going on. If we restrict it to only a few people, then that prevents newcomers who may discover this midway through the process from participating. After all, we were all newbies here at some point.

g) Voters should be required to state "Yes" or "No" for every candidate in each round. If someone forgets to vote one week, it shouldn't count as a "No".

h) A separate thread is made for the inductees, complete with pictures, bios, stats and quotes. Similar to the ATD roster threads. But this thread should be perhaps having posting privileges restricted to just moderators, so it can remain as solely a tribute to the inductees and not arguments about why "this guy" didn't deserve to be inducted before "that guy".


Just my two cents.

reckoning is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 10:53 AM
  #89
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
I'm intrigued by this idea, and would like to make a few suggestions:

a) Maybe we could start by grouping players by their birthdates: one week vote on players born from 1880-1884, next week 1885-1889, etc. until we've gone through all the decades to get an initial "inner circle" core group. I like the idea of the early players being the first ones inducted, and having some votes where they are the only ones eligible ensures that they get the proper consideration.

We could group them based on year of retirement like the actual HHOF does, but sometimes it can be sketchy trying to decide what retirement date to use; Their last NHL season? Their last season in an international tournament? When they officially announced their retirement? Besides, do we really need to wait for Lidstrom or Brodeur to retire before deciding if they're good enough?

b) For each vote a member can nominate a candidate, then if another member seconds the nomination then that candidate is on that weeks ballot. Perhaps limit members to only one nomination and one second per round so it's not just one person dominating the process. Once there's a set amount of candidates (5? 10?), then the vote is held.

c) Maybe have a very high threshold for induction for the first round of eligibility (perhaps 90%) to ensure only the true greats get in on the first crack, then lower it to maybe 75% for subsequent rounds when players who didn't make it the first time can have their cases revisited.

d) If a player gets rejected again, then put a limit of a certain amount of rounds before he can be nominated again. To prevent posters from continuously doing the same routine for their pet cause every round.

e) I like the idea of candidates being eligible in both the player and builder categories if they were accomplished in both.

f) Anyone who wants to vote should be allowed to, as long as there's none of the "Vote for Rory"-type silliness going on. If we restrict it to only a few people, then that prevents newcomers who may discover this midway through the process from participating. After all, we were all newbies here at some point.

g) Voters should be required to state "Yes" or "No" for every candidate in each round. If someone forgets to vote one week, it shouldn't count as a "No".

h) A separate thread is made for the inductees, complete with pictures, bios, stats and quotes. Similar to the ATD roster threads. But this thread should be perhaps having posting privileges restricted to just moderators, so it can remain as solely a tribute to the inductees and not arguments about why "this guy" didn't deserve to be inducted before "that guy".


Just my two cents.
I like all these with one huge concern about the proposed voting practice. If you make voting an open process (allowing any poster to vote or not), it might be really hard to reach a 90% threshold, considering there may be posters who are biased against certain eras, are biased against non-NHL accomplishments, or posters who simply think the Hall of Fame should have about 20 names in it and not more.

It might sound arrogant, but realistically, if you want the project to be "credible" to outsiders, you need some kind of screening process for participants (the Top 100 list had such a process automatically built in by requiring participants to first submit a Top 120 list of their own and rejecting the few lists that neglected a certain era or class of player).


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-09-2010 at 11:14 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 11:01 AM
  #90
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I like all these with one huge concern about the proposed voting practice. If you make voting an open process (allowing any poster to vote or not), it might be really hard to reach a 90% threshold, considering there may be posters who are biased against certain eras, are biased against non-NHL accomplishments, or posters who simply think the Hall of Fame should have about 20 names in it and now more.
I understand that. I just don't know how to go about deciding who should or shouldn't be allowed to vote. We all have differing views and biases. Maybe anyone can vote unless there's an actual tangible reason why a certain poster shouldn't? I really don't know what the proper procedure should be.

reckoning is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 11:40 AM
  #91
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
I am big on b) and e).

As for g): Maybe we should talk about this one further. the wwhof site discussed the limitations of a simple yes/no process. Maybe all the voters should rank their inductees. This allows more weight to be given to the inductees that have the strongest support. On the other hand, it would make vote tallying more labour-intensive, and make the threshold-meeting criteria messy.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 12:15 PM
  #92
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I like all these with one huge concern about the proposed voting practice. If you make voting an open process (allowing any poster to vote or not), it might be really hard to reach a 90% threshold, considering there may be posters who are biased against certain eras, are biased against non-NHL accomplishments, or posters who simply think the Hall of Fame should have about 20 names in it and not more.

It might sound arrogant, but realistically, if you want the project to be "credible" to outsiders, you need some kind of screening process for participants (the Top 100 list had such a process automatically built in by requiring participants to first submit a Top 120 list of their own and rejecting the few lists that neglected a certain era or class of player).
Suggestions for screening, if it is decided to go with a more open process instead of a selected group:

1. Make an up-front statement of purpose that all participants must agree to. For example, if it is decided that the Hall will cover a certain time period, than all participants must consider accomplishments from that time period, and really should support at least some players from that time period. Even if they think they have a legitimate and principled argument that players from that time period are not as good as modern players, the project is honoring players from that time period and they must be considered.

2. Ballots should be public. All voters should post a brief statement with their yes/no on the ballot, indicating why they are voting for or against the candidate. This would show that participants have done at least some research and have some knowledge about the candidate. It would also allow participants to engage with one another on their ballots.

3. If the project structure allows for first-time voters to join after it has started, maybe a rule could be put in place for them to post a preliminary ballot in advance of the deadline, so the group can be satisfied that they are sufficiently informed and on board with the spirit of the project.

4. There should be a small screening committee that can challenge and disallow ballots if they appear to be poorly informed or against the spirit of the project. Although care should be taken that this is only used for the right reasons, not to threaten or chase away legitimate differences of opinion.

Other thoughts - I like the idea of going chronologically. I think it would enhance the journey, in the sense of going through history. It also adds a major level of difficulty to compare players across eras - the game has changed, and the amount and sources of information available has also changed.

Also, regarding the ballot - instead of a simple yes/no options, another idea would be a yes/no/maybe later option. A sufficient number of Yes votes would select a player, a sufficient number of No votes would drop a player from the ballot. Maybe later would be for those voters who are basically saying "I don't see it yet, but you might be able to convince me."

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 12:34 PM
  #93
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,503
vCash: 500
As a poster who is very much 'pro-Europe', I'll say this much...

Despite all the obvious difficulties/problems/whatnot this potential project would have, IMO there's been a HUGE improvement concerning the knowledge and interest on European hockey during the 6-7 years I've been around HoH (active or less active). For example, about 5 years ago a concept like "Mikhailov-Petrov-Kharlamov" didn't really mean anything here to the North American posters. Maybe it's been vice versa too; I've certainly learned a bunch, even though still not an expert on NA hockey history by any means.

Maybe the heavily biased people, if there are such (well, hands up, who's not at least a little biased), would more or less balance each other out. I'm certainly not suggesting any hockey quizzes that one would have to pass in order to participate (). But maybe the voting should somehow be made so 'difficult' that only those who are really interested/committed to the project would bother to go through with it. But heck, what do I know really?

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 02:02 PM
  #94
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Also, regarding the ballot - instead of a simple yes/no options, another idea would be a yes/no/maybe later option. A sufficient number of Yes votes would select a player, a sufficient number of No votes would drop a player from the ballot. Maybe later would be for those voters who are basically saying "I don't see it yet, but you might be able to convince me."
I like this.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 02:09 PM
  #95
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
I'm intrigued by this idea, and would like to make a few suggestions:

a) Maybe we could start by grouping players by their birthdates: one week vote on players born from 1880-1884, next week 1885-1889, etc. until we've gone through all the decades to get an initial "inner circle" core group. I like the idea of the early players being the first ones inducted, and having some votes where they are the only ones eligible ensures that they get the proper consideration.

We could group them based on year of retirement like the actual HHOF does, but sometimes it can be sketchy trying to decide what retirement date to use; Their last NHL season? Their last season in an international tournament? When they officially announced their retirement? Besides, do we really need to wait for Lidstrom or Brodeur to retire before deciding if they're good enough?

b) For each vote a member can nominate a candidate, then if another member seconds the nomination then that candidate is on that weeks ballot. Perhaps limit members to only one nomination and one second per round so it's not just one person dominating the process. Once there's a set amount of candidates (5? 10?), then the vote is held.

c) Maybe have a very high threshold for induction for the first round of eligibility (perhaps 90%) to ensure only the true greats get in on the first crack, then lower it to maybe 75% for subsequent rounds when players who didn't make it the first time can have their cases revisited.

d) If a player gets rejected again, then put a limit of a certain amount of rounds before he can be nominated again. To prevent posters from continuously doing the same routine for their pet cause every round.

e) I like the idea of candidates being eligible in both the player and builder categories if they were accomplished in both.

f) Anyone who wants to vote should be allowed to, as long as there's none of the "Vote for Rory"-type silliness going on. If we restrict it to only a few people, then that prevents newcomers who may discover this midway through the process from participating. After all, we were all newbies here at some point.

g) Voters should be required to state "Yes" or "No" for every candidate in each round. If someone forgets to vote one week, it shouldn't count as a "No".

h) A separate thread is made for the inductees, complete with pictures, bios, stats and quotes. Similar to the ATD roster threads. But this thread should be perhaps having posting privileges restricted to just moderators, so it can remain as solely a tribute to the inductees and not arguments about why "this guy" didn't deserve to be inducted before "that guy".


Just my two cents.
a) I prefer grouping them by "year of pro retirement". Pro retirement has to be somewhat "lax" -- European leagues are pro leagues, AHL is a pro league, international tourneys are pro, and so on.

I think we should also disregard comebacks. There is a few locks that made a come back (Lafleur, Boucher, Fetisov, G. Howe), but they all spent some years off. Nobody in the HHOF knew Lafleur or Fetisov would be back, and Boucher's comeback came prior to the creation of the HHOF. As for Brodeur and Lidstrom, if we "emulate" the HHOF processus, we'd have to wait, unless we just don't update the Hall when it's over and decide to accept whoever is worthy at this point.

But then, how do you treat a guy like Crosby? ... Maybe not the best example -- how do you treat a guy a like Henrik Sedin?

b) I don't think we absolutely NEED this, but if we're to use such process, then your idea is absolutely awesome.

c) If we emulate the Hall, we can just create an "old-timer", distinct category, with only ONE vote per member of the committee. Not against the higher thresold on the first crack - that COULD be what we'd consider the "inner core".

d) Good idea. It's either this, or a minimum of votes necessary (let's say 20%)

e) As long as Toe Blake the builder doesn't prevent Toe Blake the player to get in, all for it. Not happening if we go for a "chronological Hall".

f) I think some screening would be necessary, but not much. As long as we do not see any absurdity.

g) This, + the posters shoud have a set numbers of "yes" to cast. That MIGHT brings us to similar results to the HHOF (like, voting in a weak crop, or borderline candidates), but think about this : Let's say that there are 2 shoo-ins (ex. Lemieux, Mikita), and a bunch of borderline candidates, amongst them the best are Paul Thompson, Michel Goulet and Alex Yakushev, and the number of "yes" I capped at three. A perfect case for votes splitting. Weak crops will probably mean not everybody "agreeing" on a player.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I like all these with one huge concern about the proposed voting practice. If you make voting an open process (allowing any poster to vote or not), it might be really hard to reach a 90% threshold, considering there may be posters who are biased against certain eras, are biased against non-NHL accomplishments, or posters who simply think the Hall of Fame should have about 20 names in it and not more.

It might sound arrogant, but realistically, if you want the project to be "credible" to outsiders, you need some kind of screening process for participants (the Top 100 list had such a process automatically built in by requiring participants to first submit a Top 120 list of their own and rejecting the few lists that neglected a certain era or class of player).
I think 90% is high as well. I suggested 80%. Not to mention -- 80% is much easier to work with than 90%. While there WILL be biases, if a member MUST cast a "YES", and votes for, say, Belosheikin when Clarke is up for voting, for Tanti while Firsov is up for voting, or for Ezinicki while Yzerman is available, or for Gregg Sheppard when Henri Richard is available (Euro bias, NA bias, Era bias, Team bias, respectively) then the "Chairs" will take appropriate measures. (sorry for stating the obvious)

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I am big on b) and e).

As for g): Maybe we should talk about this one further. the wwhof site discussed the limitations of a simple yes/no process. Maybe all the voters should rank their inductees. This allows more weight to be given to the inductees that have the strongest support. On the other hand, it would make vote tallying more labour-intensive, and make the threshold-meeting criteria messy.
It will indeed be way harder to tabulate all, not to mention it opens the door for further biases.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 03:03 PM
  #96
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
g) This, + the posters shoud have a set numbers of "yes" to cast. That MIGHT brings us to similar results to the HHOF (like, voting in a weak crop, or borderline candidates), but think about this : Let's say that there are 2 shoo-ins (ex. Lemieux, Mikita), and a bunch of borderline candidates, amongst them the best are Paul Thompson, Michel Goulet and Alex Yakushev, and the number of "yes" I capped at three. A perfect case for votes splitting. Weak crops will probably mean not everybody "agreeing" on a player.
Let's say there are two shoo-ins (Lemieux, Mikita) plus Thompson, Yakushev, and Dave Keon. I bet Keon gets in simply because everyone has a third vote and would feel obligated to use, and Keon is just barely a step ahead of the other two.

Alternatively, the two seasons surrounding the lockout saw the last games of Francis, Hull, Larionov, Leetch, Lemieux, MacInnis, Messier, Oates, Robitaille, Stevens, and Yzerman. If we are capping inductions at 3, and kicking candidates out of the pool after rejection, we're going to be in some trouble getting all the qualified candidates in.

I like the idea of reviewing the candidates chronologically, but the timeline should not restrict eligibility. Likewise, the voters shouldn't be artificially influenced into choosing a certain number of inductees. For that reason I suggest having no minimum or maximum. If the consensus is that someone is qualified, he is qualified. If consensus is that he is not, he is not. If we're doing this the right way, over-inclusivity should not be a problem.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 03:10 PM
  #97
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Keon, just barely a step ahead of Thompson and Yakushev?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 03:10 PM
  #98
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Let's say there are two shoo-ins (Lemieux, Mikita) plus Thompson, Yakushev, and Dave Keon. I bet Keon gets in simply because everyone has a third vote and would feel obligated to use, and Keon is just barely a step ahead of the other two.

Alternatively, the two seasons surrounding the lockout saw the last games of Francis, Hull, Larionov, Leetch, Lemieux, MacInnis, Messier, Oates, Robitaille, Stevens, and Yzerman. If we are capping inductions at 3, and kicking candidates out of the pool after rejection, we're going to be in some trouble getting all the qualified candidates in.

I like the idea of reviewing the candidates chronologically, but the timeline should not restrict eligibility. Likewise, the voters shouldn't be artificially influenced into choosing a certain number of inductees. For that reason I suggest having no minimum or maximum. If the consensus is that someone is qualified, he is qualified. If consensus is that he is not, he is not. If we're doing this the right way, over-inclusivity should not be a problem.
It's actually the votes that are "capped" -- thus that "cap" effects the maximum number of inductions.

And if we're going this way, the players will obviously be eligible for more than a round.

But you raise a point very valid point, though...

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 03:25 PM
  #99
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Keon, just barely a step ahead of Thompson and Yakushev?
The point being, he's a middling selection who would get in based on the number of votes that committee members were obliged to use rather than on his qualifications alone.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 04:14 PM
  #100
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The point being, he's a middling selection who would get in based on the number of votes that committee members were obliged to use rather than on his qualifications alone.
that's my issue, though - Keon is far from a middling selection. He's present on any top-100 list and is one of the ten best defensive forwards of all-time.

seventieslord 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 09:00 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.