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
11-09-2010, 04:20 PM
  #101
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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.
Why not just simply start with the top100 list and vote on those players and then start thinking about other players?

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 04:30 PM
  #102
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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.
So pick someone else you consider middling to illustrate the point.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 04:42 PM
  #103
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Why not just simply start with the top100 list and vote on those players and then start thinking about other players?
I'm not interested in that and I don't think many others are, either. It would be more like a rehashing of the top-100 than anything.

I think it goes without saying that anyone top-100 worthy should get into a HHOF that ultimately has 150-200 names in it, but I'd like to come to that final point naturally and not artificially.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 05:12 PM
  #104
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I'm not interested in that and I don't think many others are, either. It would be more like a rehashing of the top-100 than anything.

I think it goes without saying that anyone top-100 worthy should get into a HHOF that ultimately has 150-200 names in it, but I'd like to come to that final point naturally and not artificially.
Not saying we should just pick a name from the list and just induct him. The procedure should still involve voting and motivating or else it would just be redundant.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 05:37 PM
  #105
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,353
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.
Capping the amount per year is a bad idea in my mind as it works against modern players simply for chronological reasons and there is no basis in fact for doing this.

If anything a cap for early periods then expand the cap to recognize the growth of hockey and the pools of players.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 06:49 PM
  #106
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,252
vCash: 500
Hey hey!

09-24-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weztex View Post
We at hfboards should put up our own Hall of Fame. There's enough knowledgable and critical posters on this site to build up a commitee like they did at the WWHOF. Our results and debates would surely a lot more interesting than those two condesending institutions that are the HHOF and the WWHHOF.

I think I'll work on that.
02-06-2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weztex View Post
BTW I've stated maybe a year ago that I'd like to organize a HFboards Hockey Hall of Fame a little in the vein of the WWHOF. Does this top-100 prevent such a proposal or would people still be willing to participate. It's a long term project thought, I would/could not work on before the summer.
I didn't get any positive answer back then. I'm very glad the idea is resurfacing. I'm certainly in.

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 06:56 PM
  #107
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,252
vCash: 500
I would be all in favor of a chronological order, emulating the Hall of Fame process for those reasons :

1. It creates a complete different work than the top 100. DOing a large basic list would basically be a rerun of the last few years.

2. It allows a better representation of the different eras of the game and the historical importance of their star players.

3. It allows us to compare our vision of the game to HOF commitee's one and probably recreate some though decisions they had to make.

4. It would simply be more fun.

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 07:06 PM
  #108
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weztex View Post
I would be all in favor of a chronological order, emulating the Hall of Fame process for those reasons :

1. It creates a complete different work than the top 100. DOing a large basic list would basically be a rerun of the last few years.

2. It allows a better representation of the different eras of the game and the historical importance of their star players.

3. It allows us to compare our vision of the game to HOF commitee's one and probably recreate some though decisions they had to make.

4. It would simply be more fun.
All good points. If it is decided to do a chronological approach (and that seems to be what the majority here are leaning towards), the big question becomes... what year to start?

Edit: Just as an example, if we start in 1945 and set a hard cap of 4 (or 3) inductees per year, that should satisfy people who are worried that there will be too many early era guys getting in.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-09-2010 at 07:40 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 08:01 PM
  #109
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
All good points. If it is decided to do a chronological approach (and that seems to be what the majority here are leaning towards), the big question becomes... what year to start?

Edit: Just as an example, if we start in 1945 and set a hard cap of 4 (or 3) inductees per year, that should satisfy people who are worried that there will be too many early era guys getting in.
Birth year or retirement year of 1945?

If it's retirement and we have a hard cap the standard goes up for players that retire after the mid 70's (Brad Park comes to mind but he is in for sure IMO).

Maybe this isn't as big a problem as the current Hall if the 06 and before are held to a high standard.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 08:06 PM
  #110
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,085
vCash: 500
Regarding chronologically...

IDEA: HAVE A SUB-COMMITTEE FOR EACH ERA PREPARE CANDIDATES TO BRING TO THE BROADER COMMITTEE TO DEBATE AND VOTE ON. The sub-committee would be responsible for researching and profiling candidates to compete against each other for induction; they'd hone a shortlist and present as much relevant data (stats, awards, memorable moments, playoff performances, praises from peers, descriptions by historians in published books, newspaper reports, etc).

I would gladly be part of a sub-committee for the earliest era of hockey.

Some will be more eager to be an active heavy contributor to the sub-committee for the post-consolidation early NHL era, Original Six Era, Early Expansion era, High Flyin' Eighties Era or Dead Puck Era (too early for a post-lockout new NHL era? hell, for those who like to talk about crosby and ovechkin let them be on THAT sub-committee. Others can join the conversation, but the subcommittee members would have a responsibility to direct, collect and organize info, keep track of reasoning, assemble arguments, etc).

Induct at least one from every era each time there is a formal induction ceremony! MUCH better than what the HHOF did rushing in a half century of guys so quickly en masse.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 08:25 PM
  #111
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
All good points. If it is decided to do a chronological approach (and that seems to be what the majority here are leaning towards), the big question becomes... what year to start?

Edit: Just as an example, if we start in 1945 and set a hard cap of 4 (or 3) inductees per year, that should satisfy people who are worried that there will be too many early era guys getting in.
Actually, I think it would be better to put a hard cap on the numbers of votes, as opposed to the number of inductees per year.

That way, the older players will be in contention with, well, old players. (and so on)

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 08:29 PM
  #112
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Krutov was a bum in the NHL. Fetisov - far from impressive?
When was Fetisov impressive in the NHL?

Was he ever a top 10 dman? Top 15? Top 20?

I know he was older when he made the NHL but plenty of Hall Dmen, and probably most of them, were still top 10-20 during some of their 30's. (or top 10 for 06 Dmen)

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 08:29 PM
  #113
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Regarding chronologically...

IDEA: HAVE A SUB-COMMITTEE FOR EACH ERA PREPARE CANDIDATES TO BRING TO THE BROADER COMMITTEE TO DEBATE AND VOTE ON. The sub-committee would be responsible for researching and profiling candidates to compete against each other for induction; they'd hone a shortlist and present as much relevant data (stats, awards, memorable moments, playoff performances, praises from peers, descriptions by historians in published books, newspaper reports, etc).

I would gladly be part of a sub-committee for the earliest era of hockey.

Some will be more eager to be an active heavy contributor to the sub-committee for the post-consolidation early NHL era, Original Six Era, Early Expansion era, High Flyin' Eighties Era or Dead Puck Era (too early for a post-lockout new NHL era? hell, for those who like to talk about crosby and ovechkin let them be on THAT sub-committee. Others can join the conversation, but the subcommittee members would have a responsibility to direct, collect and organize info, keep track of reasoning, assemble arguments, etc).

Induct at least one from every era each time there is a formal induction ceremony! MUCH better than what the HHOF did rushing in a half century of guys so quickly en masse.
I'm not sure about your last idea (inducing somebody of each era), mainly because it wouldn't work with a chronological approach (I think).

However, the sub-commitees thing is actually a must if we go by a "yes-no-maybe" procedure (instead of entering names).

In that case, I'd gladly volunteer for the pre O-6 era, cause I'll admit that I really don't know enough about the early era (I know basically nothing beyond Hod Stuart).

The "resumes" should be not THAT long, though. At some point, it's up to everyone to make its own research.

(And from now, I'm waiting on HO's input on the subject )

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 08:32 PM
  #114
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
What determines the "era" that a player belongs to? Birth year? Retirement year? Years that encompasses the majority of his prime?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 08:39 PM
  #115
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Regarding chronologically...

IDEA: HAVE A SUB-COMMITTEE FOR EACH ERA PREPARE CANDIDATES TO BRING TO THE BROADER COMMITTEE TO DEBATE AND VOTE ON. The sub-committee would be responsible for researching and profiling candidates to compete against each other for induction; they'd hone a shortlist and present as much relevant data (stats, awards, memorable moments, playoff performances, praises from peers, descriptions by historians in published books, newspaper reports, etc).

I would gladly be part of a sub-committee for the earliest era of hockey.

Some will be more eager to be an active heavy contributor to the sub-committee for the post-consolidation early NHL era, Original Six Era, Early Expansion era, High Flyin' Eighties Era or Dead Puck Era (too early for a post-lockout new NHL era? hell, for those who like to talk about crosby and ovechkin let them be on THAT sub-committee. Others can join the conversation, but the subcommittee members would have a responsibility to direct, collect and organize info, keep track of reasoning, assemble arguments, etc).

Induct at least one from every era each time there is a formal induction ceremony! MUCH better than what the HHOF did rushing in a half century of guys so quickly en masse.
This is a very good idea IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 09:16 PM
  #116
tony d
The franchise
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,285
vCash: 500
I'd be interested in this. Be lots of great arguments I figure. Hopefully we do this.

tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 09:19 PM
  #117
DJ Man
Registered User
 
DJ Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
I'd be very interested in following the process under a chronological approach.

Your committee could review each year's retirement class with the aim of inducting the deserving players. It'd be nice to hear arguements based upon the standards of the time, tempered of course by knowledge of the extended history.

I don't really like the idea of shooing in the "obvious" choices. Let 'em come up in turn and get their unanimous vote if they really deserve it.

Also, build in a process for reversing a bad decision later by a new electorate when good new arguments are put forward.

Starting here and using a leisurely pace would permit consideration of changes in the game (war, rules, expansion, etc.) as they occur. I'm not sure that one week would permit sufficient give and take, point and counterpoint and so on, but maybe.

Whatever, it should be interesting.

DJ Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 10:11 PM
  #118
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
What determines the "era" that a player belongs to? Birth year? Retirement year? Years that encompasses the majority of his prime?


If we're using the sub-committees thing, the main goal of those committees will be to make sure that every guy that has a chance to get a single "YES" vote be on the ballot (as long as the number of "YES", or simply inductions, are capped).

Using Pre O-6 example... Amongst the Top-100, there are some "completely included" cases, such as Charlie Conacher. Then, there are "obvious" cases, like Morenz. Sure, Morenz played pre-merger, but he's really a pre o-6 guy. Then, there are the "both categories" players, like King Clancy.

If I overlook those guys, somebody will notice. It's not really a problem. It might be problematic for, let's say, non Top-100 players. Then, the job of the subcommittes would be to make sure nobody is left out -- doesn't matter if a guy is suggested by two committes.

Keeping the pre O-6 example for "fringe" or "non top-100" candidates, I'd make sure to list the Gordie Drillons (career spent entirerly in the pre O-6), the Alec Connells (an obvious case of pre O-6, but two pretty good years in the pre-merger era) and the Neil Colvilles (had AST berths both O6 and Pre O6). Those are three guys that I'd consider likely to get a single vote, so I'd suggest their names. I'd probably not suggest a guy like Ken Reardon (all of his AST berths were O6, but played roughly 20% of his career pre O-6), though.

Nobody will miss the Clancys if they aren't on the ballots -- but it's something else for the Colvilles (and a guy getting 3 AST berths at two different positions while missing 3 seasons due to WW2 is certainly not a bad candidate).

My two cents.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 03:19 AM
  #119
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
When was Fetisov impressive in the NHL?

Was he ever a top 10 dman? Top 15? Top 20?

I know he was older when he made the NHL but plenty of Hall Dmen, and probably most of them, were still top 10-20 during some of their 30's. (or top 10 for 06 Dmen)
Please take your bickering somewhere else. This thread isn't for discussing where to rank certain players.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 05:14 AM
  #120
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Please take your bickering somewhere else. This thread isn't for discussing where to rank certain players.
My bad, I thought this forum was for discussion of ideas as I was responding to another posting this thread.

I'm still fairly new here, is it necessary to create a new thread to respond to a post?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 07:20 AM
  #121
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,519
vCash: 500
The problem with taking it 1 year at a time is that it expands the timeframe of the project to an almost impractical scope.

For example, if we induct a retirement class every 2 weeks on a rigid schedule (which IMO is optimistic), we'll get through 26 inductions per year... meaning it'll take 4 years to cover the lifetime of the Habs alone.

It seems to me that a choice needs to be made:
Go 1 year at a time
OR
Have extensive, detailed research and debate

I like the idea of clustering the candidates by era or decade, and voting in at least 1 from each cluster each time we vote. If we can induct 5 or more members per month, the scope becomes more realistic.

Bear in mind the relatively simple top-100 list was not completed.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 08:54 AM
  #122
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The problem with taking it 1 year at a time is that it expands the timeframe of the project to an almost impractical scope.

For example, if we induct a retirement class every 2 weeks on a rigid schedule (which IMO is optimistic), we'll get through 26 inductions per year... meaning it'll take 4 years to cover the lifetime of the Habs alone.

It seems to me that a choice needs to be made:
Go 1 year at a time
OR
Have extensive, detailed research and debate

I like the idea of clustering the candidates by era or decade, and voting in at least 1 from each cluster each time we vote. If we can induct 5 or more members per month, the scope becomes more realistic.

Bear in mind the relatively simple top-100 list was not completed.
This sounds like a much bigger undertaking.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 09:28 AM
  #123
Dom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
To compensate for the hard cap in yearly inductions, a maximum number of years on the ballot after retirement could be used, just like for the baseball hall of fame. If you're not in the Hall 15 years after retirement, you don't deserve to be there.

Dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 09:38 AM
  #124
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
This sounds like a much bigger undertaking.
It definitely is, but we are still dealing with the same amount of manpower that we had for the 100. If we couldn't get through that project I don't see us doing double or triple the work on this one.

Again, imagining that we cover one "year" per 2 weeks, I don't see us sustaining enthusiasm for this project consistently for the next 5 years. Something has to be done to reduce the time commitment.

We can either rush through the years quickly and with a minimum of research/discussion (still it would take 2 years to get through all of them at a pace of 1 per week) and that will pretty much ruin the project's credibility.

Or we can come up with a way to cluster the candidates together, either chronologically or by role or by some other method. That IMO is the only way this thing is going to get finished and still contain a decent amount of discussion for each candidate.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 11:12 AM
  #125
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
When was Fetisov impressive in the NHL?

Was he ever a top 10 dman? Top 15? Top 20?

I know he was older when he made the NHL but plenty of Hall Dmen, and probably most of them, were still top 10-20 during some of their 30's. (or top 10 for 06 Dmen)
He was still a 20+ minute defenseman throroughout his 30s, right till age 38, and even on good teams with Stanley Cup capability. He was 29 in 1990, at a time when it was still very common for 30-year olds to be burned out. (not many players were playing till they were old) Soviets in particular were said to be burned out by 30 thanks to the year-round training and lifestyle, Tikhonov, and the number of tournaments they were put through. That is indeed why they finally allowed these 10-year veterans to leave to the NHL.

If you want to smear Fetisov or have an objective conversation about his place in history, the onus is on you to start that thread.

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 06:29 AM.

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.