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
Notices

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
11-10-2010, 11:16 AM
  #126
Merya
Jokerit & Finland
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Helsinki
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,290
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.
I am interested in this. Who are the top ten defensive forwards all time?

Merya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 11:22 AM
  #127
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merya View Post
I am interested in this. Who are the top ten defensive forwards all time?
It wouldn't be right of me to start this discussion here, after I just tried to redirect a different discussion to another thread.

If you search, this has been discussed in the HOH section quite a few times. If you want to start a new thread, you could do that too.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 11:23 AM
  #128
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,292
vCash: 500
The chronological approach would not take 5 years if we choose to start in 1945. We don't have to debate 2 full weeks either. Keeping the original HOF starting point and allowing something like 10-days debates reduces the full project to less than two years, which is less time that has been allowed to both top-100. Some might think it's a long time frame but I find it very reasonable for something that, once established, could become an extraordinary, unique and permanent feature for years to come on HFBoards. That's an incredibly original project with some of the most knowledgable hockey fans I've ever read. We might as well do it seriously and beware not to rush it.

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 11:26 AM
  #129
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
Yeah, if we do two weeks per year starting in 1945 we're looking at 3 years, tops, after a few key holidays are thrown in. (for example, we may want to just drag out the years that start in mid-december right through to mid-january)

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 11:32 AM
  #130
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,420
vCash: 500
Having subcommittees each focus on a different era would result in multiple inductees from EVERY era every time there is an induction ceremony: a true all-time hall of fame. This way, those who like to argue more about post-expansion NHL hockey can do so by joining that subcommittee or contributing to that subcommittee's thread. Six eras, six subcommittees and six inductees as a result each induction ceremony. That way the history of hockey would be honored, the inductees would be balanced by era, posters can contribute for the time period they are interested in, and division of labor ensures more gets done.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 12:43 PM
  #131
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Bear in mind the relatively simple top-100 list was not completed.
Only because one single poster quit - the guy who happened to have all the files for the project. It certainly wasn't due to lack of motivation by the majority.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 12:47 PM
  #132
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 45,256
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Having subcommittees each focus on a different era would result in multiple inductees from EVERY era every time there is an induction ceremony: a true all-time hall of fame. This way, those who like to argue more about post-expansion NHL hockey can do so by joining that subcommittee or contributing to that subcommittee's thread. Six eras, six subcommittees and six inductees as a result each induction ceremony. That way the history of hockey would be honored, the inductees would be balanced by era, posters can contribute for the time period they are interested in, and division of labor ensures more gets done.
I like this. It would also create a nicely organized discussion in the forum, as there would always be six running threads, each focusing on a different set of players.

6 inductees per 2 weeks = 156 inductees per year, subtract some to account for delays and we're probably looking at 130-140 inductees per year. That's double the pace of taking 3 per retirement year in 2-week intervals, without sacrificing much (any?) quality of debate.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 12:54 PM
  #133
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Having subcommittees each focus on a different era would result in multiple inductees from EVERY era every time there is an induction ceremony: a true all-time hall of fame. This way, those who like to argue more about post-expansion NHL hockey can do so by joining that subcommittee or contributing to that subcommittee's thread. Six eras, six subcommittees and six inductees as a result each induction ceremony. That way the history of hockey would be honored, the inductees would be balanced by era, posters can contribute for the time period they are interested in, and division of labor ensures more gets done.
I like the idea of subcommittees for research purposes, but it seems like this proposal would result in every "era" having an exactly equal number of inductees, which is kind of an arbitrary result IMO.

I also would propose that if we do go the subcommittee route, a separate subcommittee for players who spent their prime in Europe be formed.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 12:55 PM
  #134
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Only because one single poster quit - the guy who happened to have all the files for the project. It certainly wasn't due to lack of motivation by the majority.
...which I have asked for twice, with nary a response.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 12:56 PM
  #135
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
...which I have asked for twice, with nary a response.
Definitely a reason to give access to source files to multiple posters for the next big project.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 01:12 PM
  #136
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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.
Actually, he was 31-32 (born in April 20, 1958) in 1990. I doubt he was badly burned out yet by late 80s/early 90s. First and foremost, I think he just struggled to adapt. But how well a 30+ year old player from a totally different kind of system playing his 1st NHL game should do actually?

I mean, if we would rate the players from the Green Unit, for instance, based on the NHL careers, then Igor Larionov would probably come out on top. And everyone - or nearly everyone -, who saw them playing for USSR in the '80s, knows that Fetisov, Makarov and Krutov were better and more important players than Larionov in their primes.

And again I name Peter Stastny as an example; in addition to his 'NHL qualities' (eg. size), he was lucky enough to play in the NHL when he was still young and I guess just approaching his peak. But his NHL career doesn't make him a better player than Makarov in my book. And he wasn't really that much better than, say, his CSSR teammates Hlinka and Novy who were outperforming him in Czechoslovakia but who had only moderate NHL successes when playing there in their 30ies (though Hlinka actually had 2 pretty good seasons, PPG-wise).


Last edited by VMBM: 11-10-2010 at 01:21 PM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 01:18 PM
  #137
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 45,256
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I like the idea of subcommittees for research purposes, but it seems like this proposal would result in every "era" having an exactly equal number of inductees, which is kind of an arbitrary result IMO.
Not just for this reason, but I think we're going to have to be very very rigid about knowing when to say "no". There is a point where certain eras should simply stop inducting any more candidates, and it would be a good idea to discuss that boundary before we begin.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 01:19 PM
  #138
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I like the idea of subcommittees for research purposes, but it seems like this proposal would result in every "era" having an exactly equal number of inductees, which is kind of an arbitrary result IMO.
We get so many "all-time" best players at this or that threads that don't mention anyone pre 70s except for maybe a couple of O6 era guys. There would be a distinctive modern bias to a HOF (?!!!) if there's not specific consideration for eras.

The arbitrariness could be addressed by having subcommittees provide finalist shortlists, no era is guaranteed to be represented (however odd that seems to me) because each era could have a 2-3 player shortlist added to the all-time pool for voting (it is up to the subcommittee to marshall the evidence to inform voters of the historical significance of honoring stars from THAT era, as we have knowledgeable posters like MXD who admits on this very thread that Hod Stuart is the only one of many early era stars he knows about. The subcommittee would debate, research and assemble together profiles of the finalists for each induction vote round. There has to be a research, profiule and educate component to this or else the biases of voters will emerge. The most knowledgeable, informed decisions ought to be made, which means assembling arguments, not just loosy goosy discussions and it's subcommittee members who would assemmble and assure that happens.

Every induction final committee-of-the-whole vote round could include 2-3 players from each era (after earlier decisions and voting on shortlists), so that would mean 12-18 finalists if there are six eras, and from those finalists the final round of voting would choose for induction the top six, regardless of era.

While this would overcome the arbitrariness issue, I still maintain having each era represented each induction ceremony would be cool, and there certainly are greats of each era worthy of hall of fame remembrance. The HHOF has a lot of early NHL and pre-NHL inductees, and while those in the ATDs have argued for/against certain guys as having been hall worthy, no doubt there is no reason to have less eras represented than the actual HHOF in Toronto does!

And again, the division of labour and interest is valuable with sub-committees each working on a different era, open to all to contribute, but with subcommittee members responsible for keeping track of what is discussed, assembling the cases for certain players, candidates for subcommittee voting, they widdling down longlists to shortlists of candidates to bring to the committee-of-the-whole for everyone's voting.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 01:26 PM
  #139
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
There is a point where certain eras should simply stop inducting any more candidates, and it would be a good idea to discuss that boundary before we begin.
I disagree. THAT would be when the hall is very big.** How many inductees would the hall accommodate? (or need we stop? couldn't it go until the greats are gone, then open a new "wing" of the hall for the Very Goods, etc).

Getting clear at to what the endproduct is to be about can help greatly.

** (especially if eras are broadly combined into sets for final voting round, e.g.,
ERA SET I: pre-consolidation NHL/WHL, NHA/PCHA and earlier Stanley Cup challenge eras;
ERA SET II: post-consolidation early NHL and O6 eras;
ERA SET III: post-expansion, WHA and High Flyin' 80s eras, which'd include the height of Soviet/Czechoslovakian hockey internationally;
ERA SET IV: Dead Puck and New NHL eras).


Last edited by VanIslander: 11-10-2010 at 02:01 PM.
VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 01:27 PM
  #140
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
We get so many "all-time" best players at this or that threads that don't mention anyone pre 70s except for maybe a couple of O6 era guys. There would be a distinctive modern bias to a HOF (?!!!) if there's not specific consideration for eras.
Not if you do a chronological approach starting in 1945! Especially if you include some kind of "Old Timer's category."

Quote:
The arbitrariness could be addressed by having subcommittees provide finalist shortlists, no era is guaranteed to be represented (however odd that seems to me) because each era could have a 2-3 player shortlist added to the all-time pool for voting (it is up to the subcommittee to marshall the evidence to inform voters of the historical significance of honoring stars from THAT era, as we have knowledgeable posters like MXD who admits on this very thread that Hod Stuart is the only one of many early era stars he knows about. The subcommittee would debate, research and assemble together profiles of the finalists for each induction vote round. There has to be a research, profiule and educate component to this or else the biases of voters will emerge. The most knowledgeable, informed decisions ought to be made, which means assembling arguments, not just loosy goosy discussions and it's subcommittee members who would assemmble and assure that happens.

Every induction final committee-of-the-whole vote round could include 2-3 players from each era (after earlier decisions and voting on shortlists), so that would mean 12-18 finalists if there are six eras, and from those finalists the final round of voting would choose for induction the top six, regardless of era.
This seems viable. Small concern that some subcommittees might have stricter standards than others, but if each subcommittee has to nominate 2-3 people, then the larger committee has the option to accept between all or none from each subcommittee, I think it could work.

Quote:
While this would overcome the arbitrariness issue, I still maintain having each era represented each induction ceremony would be cool, and there certainly are greats of each era worthy of hall of fame remembrance. The HHOF has a lot of early NHL and pre-NHL inductees, and while those in the ATDs have argued for/against certain guys as having been hall worthy, no doubt there is no reason to have less eras represented than the actual HHOF in Toronto does!
Obviously, we want to represent every era. But I don't like being forced to give them all "equal representation," when the eras themselves are somewhat arbitrarily defined, and often encompass quite different lengths of time.

Quote:
And again, the division of labour and interest is valuable with sub-committees each working on a different era, open to all to contribute, but with subcommittee members responsible for keeping track of what is discussed, assembling the cases for certain players, candidates for subcommittee voting, they widdling down longlists to shortlists of candidates to bring to the committee-of-the-whole for everyone's voting.
Oh, if we don't do a chronological approach (pretending we are the actual hall), then this is the best way to go about doing it.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 01:32 PM
  #141
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 45,256
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
I disagree. THAT would be when the hall is very big.
Yes, it's more of an endgame scenario. I'm just opposed to anything that leads to arbitrary or "induced" voting.

Quote:
couldn't it go until the greats are gone, then open a new "wing" of the hall for the Very Goods, etc).
I actually really like that idea, we should have somewhere to put the rejected candidates that won't feel like they've been snubbed. That will reduce the urgency to get favorite players inducted to the HOF if they don't quite belong.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 02:11 PM
  #142
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
How many inductees would the hall accommodate? (or need we stop? couldn't it go until the greats are gone, then open a new "wing" of the hall for the Very Goods, etc).
Which is why what we've already been doing for years in the ATD and MLD is a more worthwhile endeavor. Not to mention competitive, fun, and educational.

Anyone interested in this, should be even more interested in trying out an all-time draft. Based on how research and discussion-intensive this project looks like it will be, an ATD isn't really much more work, if at all.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 02:33 PM
  #143
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
I disagree. THAT would be when the hall is very big.** How many inductees would the hall accommodate? (or need we stop? couldn't it go until the greats are gone, then open a new "wing" of the hall for the Very Goods, etc).

Getting clear at to what the endproduct is to be about can help greatly.

** (especially if eras are broadly combined into sets for final voting round, e.g.,
ERA SET I: pre-consolidation NHL/WHL, NHA/PCHA and earlier Stanley Cup challenge eras;
ERA SET II: post-consolidation early NHL and O6 eras;
ERA SET III: post-expansion, WHA and High Flyin' 80s eras, which'd include the height of Soviet/Czechoslovakian hockey internationally;
ERA SET IV: Dead Puck and New NHL eras).
Wow, I really disagree that each of these eras should receive equal representation.

Pre-1926 should have as many inductees as 1926-1967? I just can't get behind that at all. There are many greats worthy of enshrinement during this period, but to be forced to induct as many as you will from the 41 subsequent years (during which time hockey became much better organized and more popular)? Did high level hockey go back 41 years before 1926? (Yes, I know there was competitive hockey in the 1890s, but you really want to induct as many people from then as from the 1960s?)

Also, the dead puck era has not gone on long enough and not had enough retirees to the point that it should get as many inductees as the other eras (especially the 1926-1967 and 1967 to 1995 eras).

If we do it by era, we need to do a far more precise job of trying to get the eras as equal as possible. Right now, I see Era Sets II and III as having far more all-time greats than I and IV.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-10-2010 at 02:39 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 02:57 PM
  #144
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
If we're going to do era sets that deserve equal representation, my contention is that the year thresholds should get shorter and shorter as you go forward in time. For example:

The Pre-Stanley Cup and challenge era (1880-1912) - 32 years
The NHA/PCHA prewar years (1912-1942) - 30 years
The war years and the rest of the O6 era (1942-1967) - 25 years
The expansion era up to the european invasion (1967-1989) - 22 years

...or something like that.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 03:05 PM
  #145
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
If we're going to do era sets that deserve equal representation, my contention is that the year thresholds should get shorter and shorter as you go forward in time. For example:

I. The Pre-Stanley Cup and challenge era (1880-1912) - 32 years
II. The NHA/PCHA prewar years (1912-1942) - 30 years
III. The war years and the rest of the O6 era (1942-1967) - 25 years
IV. The expansion era up to the european invasion (1967-1989) - 22 years

...or something like that.
Then V. The european invasion 1990-2010 - 20 years.

Looks good! Indeed, something like that could work.

Some posters would contribute a lot more to the subcommittee work on era sets III and IV, while others (like me) on earlier era sets I and II. Some would contribute a lot to all sets. Each set would have a subcommittee plus open debate for all HOF participants.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 03:08 PM
  #146
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,292
vCash: 500
I don't think having subcommittees is such a good idea.

- It multiplies the job and amount of discussion for people wanting to have a word in several/all era. Thus it will probably dilute those debates since not everyone have many hours per days to put on those.

- On the other hand, it could result in a disparity of standards between one era and the other, since many other posters would only participate in a particular subcommittees. Having a chronological approach set a straight and common bar right at the beggining.

- It starts with the premise that every era should be represented equally, which would certainly hurt players from stronger eras.

- Having people only participate in particular subcommittees erases a lot of the ''educational'' part of the project.

- Once the whole thing is finished, we still would have to create a completely new process of induction for future years instead of simply going on with the yearly voting.

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 03:10 PM
  #147
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
If we're going to do era sets that deserve equal representation, my contention is that the year thresholds should get shorter and shorter as you go forward in time. For example:

The Pre-Stanley Cup and challenge era (1880-1912) - 32 years
The NHA/PCHA prewar years (1912-1942) - 30 years
The war years and the rest of the O6 era (1942-1967) - 25 years
The expansion era up to the european invasion (1967-1989) - 22 years

...or something like that.
This is probably best if you want all eras to be "equal."

The 1926 consolidation just seems like a natural historical cut off point to make discussions easier, though, but I'm not sure that it works well as a divide if the goal is to have eras be "equal."

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 03:15 PM
  #148
Starchild74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
I think that the idea of creating a Hall of fame on this site is pretty cool. Especially the conversations on how to seperate the Greats from the good players.

Reading the posts on here I think it would also be cool to start at a certain year and then go forward electing players into the Hall. However as one pointed out this could take a little while to do depending on how many players are elected and how long it takes to elect the players

There are players Like Orr, Gretzky etc.... who their will be no arguments about then of course others who to this day are still debated on whether they are truly a great of just a very good. player. I think that is the essenceo of this to discuss the players who are borderline in any era

Here are a few idea I have for this. Now of course the fun in doing this is starting from the beginning and doing it chronologically. However these could work as well

Instead of starting from a certain year like let's say 1945 go with a certain time frame instead. For example what you do is say players who played from 1917-1930 and then have everyone who is voting pick let's say their top 10 players or so. Not necessarilly in order just 20 players that they feel should be in. For this proccess you can say that a 80% vote in is the mandate. If There are 20 people participating. Then a player must be on at least 16 of the lists. Those guys get into the Hall. The rest of the players that were mentioned are then voted on by yes or no. Let's say for this proccess you raise it to 85% then a player would need at least 17 votes to get in. You can also make a rule that if a player gets let's say anything above 70% but less then 85% are put on a "good" list for later. Now of course the years and numbers of players I am using is just an example.

If you do this. Once all the greats are into the Hall and waiting for others to retire. You pick a random order and every week a participant can nominate a candidate from the "good" list and then every one comments and votes on whether he should be in. For this proccess maybe it has to be a 90% vote in. This way arguments can be made as to whether these players on that list are deserving to be in. Also being able to nominate a player would allow everyone a chance to make an argument for the ones they feel belong there. Have a discussion about one player only and then let everyone vote on that one player.

If you go with the HHOF and say a player must be retired for at least 3 years to be inducted. Every year when the 3 years are up those players go on a vote. For this you can say that it has to be again 90% to get in. Those who don't must have let's say 75% to be put on the "good" list

The only reason I think this would work with tickering of course is because this way more time would be given to discussing the border line players and not wasting that time on the players where their will be no discussion about how great they are.

Starchild74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 03:16 PM
  #149
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weztex View Post
- On the other hand, it could result in a disparity of standards between one era and the other, since many other posters would only participate in a particular subcommittees. Having a chronological approach set a straight and common bar right at the beggining.
This is my biggest concern with the subcommittee idea. Different people naturally have different standards and it would be nice to have similar standards between eras.

Quote:
- It starts with the premise that every era should be represented equally, which would certainly hurt players from stronger eras.
My second biggest concern. It puts a lot of power into the initial determination of "era." Obviously, you start off by inducting the obvious ones from each era, but at some point, you may reach a time when you are being forced to induct weaker candidates from certain eras.

Quote:
- Having people only participate in particular subcommittees erases a lot of the ''educational'' part of the project.
From a selfish perspective, I love the idea of starting in 1945 (or some other early date) and really being forced to concentrate on the early era of hockey first. A chronological approach is definitely the best if the goal is to learn and show how the game has evolved, rather than picking out the all-time greats, regardless of time.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 03:19 PM
  #150
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weztex View Post
- Having people only participate in particular subcommittees erases a lot of the ''educational'' part of the project.
It can do the opposite, as everyone can contribute to each thread (we're only talking about 4 or 5 probably) and yet some members would be subcommittee members, responsible to do EXTRA work, like keep track of arguments made and summarize them, assemble info relevant to players' profiles.

Instead of staying quiet when a discussion doesn't interest one, one can go to another thread about contribute there. By the end of the subcommittee process there would be a shortlist of VERY detailed bios written-up, arguments summarized, presented formally to the whole for further debate and final round of voting. It could be very educational. I fear the dismissive 'i don't know much about "old timers" (what a term!) attitude that could lead to decisions based on lack of knowledge. If there's a combined single debate all along, then 70+% of the chatter will be about the modern NHL, just based on poster interest in the Hfboard History board, and so discussions abd deliberations about the past will be biased against, in all likelihood. That is possible.

VanIslander 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 01:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.