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, 03:25 PM
  #151
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
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.
Chronologically then, some would have little interest early on, as they'd rather talk about the Original Six era and later (THEREBY TRYING TO RUSH THE PROCESS TO 'HURRY UP' AND GET TO THE INTERESTING-TO-THEM ERAS). Others might become less interested as it finally progresses to the Gretzky vs. Lemieux kind of modern debates.

Simultaneous era discussions are better than chronological discussions because it lets ALL eras be discussed at all times. Some days my head is in the 1930s and other days in the 1970s. It'd be nice for posters to be able to contribute to whichever they feel like on that day.

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 03:36 PM
  #152
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Chronologically then, some would have little interest early on, as they'd rather talk about the Original Six era and later (THEREBY TRYING TO RUSH THE PROCESS TO 'HURRY UP' AND GET TO THE INTERESTING-TO-THEM ERAS). Others might become less interested as it finally progresses to the Gretzky vs. Lemieux kind of modern debates.
Not to sound arrogant again, but maybe posters who have little interest in eras before the Original 6 shouldn't participate in a project whose goal is to enshrine the best and/or most significant players in hockey's history? I mean, how informed is a yes/no vote (or a yes/no/maybe) vote if the poster doesn't really care?

Quote:
Simultaneous era discussions are better than chronological discussions because it lets ALL eras be discussed at all times. Some days my head is in the 1930s and other days in the 1970s. It'd be nice for posters to be able to contribute to whichever they feel like on that day.
Valid point.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 04:39 PM
  #153
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
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."
that's what I came to realize pretty early as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Chronologically then, some would have little interest early on, as they'd rather talk about the Original Six era and later (THEREBY TRYING TO RUSH THE PROCESS TO 'HURRY UP' AND GET TO THE INTERESTING-TO-THEM ERAS). Others might become less interested as it finally progresses to the Gretzky vs. Lemieux kind of modern debates.
Maybe I'm arguing semantics now, but who would do a Geretzky vs. Lemieux debate in this type of project?


seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 04:41 PM
  #154
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

Maybe I'm arguing semantics now, but who would do a Geretzky vs. Lemieux debate in this type of project?

If you're inducting exactly one player per era per class, you kind of have to, unfortunately....

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 05:18 PM
  #155
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 28,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If you're inducting exactly one player per era per class, you kind of have to, unfortunately....
...And that would be somewhat strange. The point isn't about who gets in first (and that might happen with Gretzky and Lemieux, between Hull, Richard, Beliveau and Harvey (and so on).

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 05:25 PM
  #156
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 28,005
vCash: 500
Okay... So we have evidence there is some interest...

Actually, I'd like to co-run this thing. I just don't want to be alone (and co-running also means being able to cast a vote...). I really just don't want to boss who's gonna decide everything (somebody HAS to take charge, since Mahovlich is gone for a while).

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 07:01 PM
  #157
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
I'd like to co-run this thing.
You volunteer to do the administrative work or you want to make the decisions? Temporarily to get it off the ground or for the duration?

Ideally, voting by participants ought to decide leadership as well as format and procedure. What's needed is a temporary schedule of getting the decision makers (ie. voters) in place, a way of determining membership in the project.

Suggested 1st order of business: GET A LIST OF "INTERESTED" PARTICIPANTS.
Then, after that, options can be further discussed, summaried and voted on in terms of focus and direction of the project. Thereafter, once the basic framework has been set up, then a membership pledge (commitment statement) could be made to claim a spot as a voter and THOSE members would then choose the administrator(s).

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 07:06 PM
  #158
insomniac
High on Hockey
 
insomniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 456
List of Interested Participants:

JoshLind

insomniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 07:25 PM
  #159
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,143
vCash: 500
List of Interested Participants (in order of appearance):

Edler Statesman
jkrx
tarheelhockey
MXD
seventieslord
TheDevilMadeMe
Jarick
Cognition
pappyline
SidGenoMario
Leafs Forever
kaiser matias
Crosbyfan
John Flyers Fan
Dom
Anton Carter
Dreakmur
Hockey Outsider
finchster
Hardyvan123
Peter9
vippe
JFA87-66-99
VMBM
reckoning
overpass
Weztex
VanIslander
tony d
DJ Man
BraveCanadian
Merya
Starchild74
JoshLind
.
.
.

Consider PMing other posters you know who would seem like assets to this project (eg., is immersed in the history of the game).

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 10:34 PM
  #160
Vector
Registered User
 
Vector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Junktown
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,200
vCash: 500
I would be willing to participate.

Vector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 11:25 PM
  #161
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
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.
I'll take your non answer as the answer then.

For the record Fetisov is in my Hall, I'd just like some objectivity on these matters.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 12:50 AM
  #162
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
List of Interested Participants (in order of appearance):

Edler Statesman
jkrx
tarheelhockey
MXD
seventieslord
TheDevilMadeMe
Jarick
Cognition
pappyline
SidGenoMario
Leafs Forever
kaiser matias
Crosbyfan
John Flyers Fan
Dom
Anton Carter
Dreakmur
Hockey Outsider
finchster
Hardyvan123
Peter9
vippe
JFA87-66-99
VMBM
reckoning
overpass
Weztex
VanIslander
tony d
DJ Man
BraveCanadian
Merya
Starchild74
JoshLind
.
.
.

Consider PMing other posters you know who would seem like assets to this project (eg., is immersed in the history of the game).
Interested, yes. Not totally sure how qualified I am (as of now) or how much daily/weekly research and work it would require, or if I had time to do that. But we'll see if/when/what happens. I'll let the bigger brains on the board decide how this project will be carried out. Hopefully, then the 'rules' will be available to us simpletons (who necessarily don't speak English as their mother tongue), and after that, one can make the final decision if he/she wants to participate.

Of the 'eras' seventieslord suggested, I feel pretty confident having enough - or close enough - knowledge on the "expansion era" (1967-1989). So if there will indeed be subcommittees, that is the era I would be looking for. Hopefully, every era will get enough knowledgeable/interested/enthusiastic people to work on them. ¨


Last edited by VMBM: 11-11-2010 at 01:11 AM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 12:56 AM
  #163
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
I don't know if I'm right for this. I think I'd have a blast participating, but a) I'd need to do more research on hockey I wasn't around to see and especially pre-expansion hockey so it depends on how soon you do it, and b) I think a lot of important people here hate me. That being said, I think I know a whole damn lot about what I do know. Feel free to keep me on the "interested" list.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 01:03 AM
  #164
insomniac
High on Hockey
 
insomniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 456
For the record, my knowledge of the game applies mostly to the post-expansion NHL. Compared to others on the boards, I don't think I'd be much help at all for the pre-expansion era.

insomniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 04:39 AM
  #165
steve141
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 868
vCash: 500
For this project to mean anything I think it would be essential to have a clear set of criteria for induction. Otherwise there is no limit to the amount of arguments that could be put forward for a players induction ("leadership", "intangibles", "fan-favourite"...). We have already seen about a dozen criteria put forth in this thread ("great", "skilled", "significant"...). I'm not saying that none of those is important, I'm just saying that the criterias should be well defined in advance.

For example, I suspect that Scott Niedermayer will be a devisive player. I think he is a lock for the NHL's HHOF, whereas Mark Howe is not. Good arguments could be made for both, but one of the mostc common arguments for Niedermayer is that he "won at all levels". Will winning the Memorial Cup be a valid argument in the new HOF? If so junior tournaments should be something we consider for all players, not just Scott Niedermayer.

On the other hand, I can easily see why the HHOF will prefer Niedermayer over Howe. Niedermayer is more "famous" than Howe. From the sound of some posters we should be focusing purely on the Hockey aspect of the Hall of Fame, not the Fame aspect. Regardless of how you rank their skill sets, no one can convince me that Lindros, Forsberg or the whole KLM line aren't more famous than Dionne or Stastny. How big a consideration is that?

Another poster mentioned "significant". What makes a player significant? To me, a significant player is primarily a player who has a big impact on the game and/or changes how the game is played. E.g. the introduction of the butterfly style of goaltending was significant, regardless of how skilled you think Hall and other early butterfly goaltenders were.

Or, for a current example: While Henrik Zetterberg is undoubtedly a more skilled player than Tomas Holmstrom, I'd argue that Holmstrom has had the greater impact on how the game is played. There were net-front presences before him, but none has embodied the role to a greater extent than him, and other teams have tried hard to emulate it. By this I mean that there could be a place in the HOF for players that reinvented a certain role, even if they weren't the most skilled players.

For Salming, do we only consider his on ice accomplishments, or the fact that he broke barriers and inspired Swedish hockey players for decades? If we take this in consideration, do we also make the same consideration for Tumba? Is it the North American Hall of Fame or the Worldwide HOF?

To me we would need something like this (these are examples only):

To be eligible for the HOF a player must meet one or several of the following criteria:

Criteria A) Player must be regarded as one of the most skilled of his era (Richard, Hull…)
Criteria B) Player has made an impression on the general public (Henderson, Lindros…)
Criteria C) Player changed how the game of hockey is played (Orr, Hall/Roy…)
Criteria D) Player was a big part of establishing hockey in new markets (Firsov, Tumba…)


Finally, please don't let this post start an argument about Howe, Niedermayer, Hall or Holmstrom, they are just examples. I'd rather see a discussion of the criterias. Are we only considering their hockey skills, or is there more to it?

steve141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 09:26 AM
  #166
DJ Man
Registered User
 
DJ Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 444
vCash: 500
The Ice House

A competing project could begin with the Official Hall of Fame and systematically nominate, debate and -- by supermajority vote -- remove people. The challenge would be to build a case that "This guy was a good player, but --." No trashing here: acknowledge that they all were good or we wouldn't be discussing them, but, "Hey, let's not get carried away."

The process would try to focus first "worst" inductees. As these drop out, a new baseline begins to establish itself. When they get to talking about players who clearly belong, the vote stalls and the project dies a natural death, and a new and improved, but leaner, Hall results. A by-product will be a list of non-Hall players (used for comparisons) that perhaps do merit consideration for promotion.

To avoid a rehash of the past year's discussions, I'd suggest avoiding recent cases at the start. You have to be in for three years before they can kick you out, and it should require the same 75% vote to do so. Defenders of the man's right to stay would, of course, argue for a vote to let him slide, so to speak.


(I suggested something like this years ago on the SABR forum, and we actually began such a project with the Baseball H of F. We focused on people like Lloyd Waner, George Kelly, Jesse Haines and such, and most were dismissed without too much dissent. The nominating person had to present a summary of the neo-rejectee's career, after which we imagined his plaque being taken off the wall at Cooperstown and relocated in Frankie Frisch's Gas House for Very Good But Not Great players, on the other side of the tracks. [Frisch being responsible in the 1970s for the massive induction of his former teammates and old cronies.] "To gas or not to gas?" was the whimsical question, but perhaps "Off the wall?" would have been more delicate.

(This project died after about a dozen bounces (which is okay) when the forum began a systematic revisit of the actual H of F votes from 1937 on to the present. they actually got through this, albeit with a small number of voters.)


Or course, if there is any interest at all, any further discussion of this idea should be moved elsewhere. We now return you to the real discussion.

DJ Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 09:30 AM
  #167
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
I don't know if I'm right for this. I think I'd have a blast participating, but a) I'd need to do more research on hockey I wasn't around to see and especially pre-expansion hockey so it depends on how soon you do it, and b) I think a lot of important people here hate me. That being said, I think I know a whole damn lot about what I do know. Feel free to keep me on the "interested" list.
You should participate in the next All-Time draft if you want to be motivated (forced?) into researching players from all eras of the game. Considering you love to argue, I think you'd be perfect.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 10:44 AM
  #168
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve141 View Post
For this project to mean anything I think it would be essential to have a clear set of criteria for induction. Otherwise there is no limit to the amount of arguments that could be put forward for a players induction ("leadership", "intangibles", "fan-favourite"...). We have already seen about a dozen criteria put forth in this thread ("great", "skilled", "significant"...). I'm not saying that none of those is important, I'm just saying that the criterias should be well defined in advance.

For example, I suspect that Scott Niedermayer will be a devisive player. I think he is a lock for the NHL's HHOF, whereas Mark Howe is not. Good arguments could be made for both, but one of the mostc common arguments for Niedermayer is that he "won at all levels". Will winning the Memorial Cup be a valid argument in the new HOF? If so junior tournaments should be something we consider for all players, not just Scott Niedermayer.

On the other hand, I can easily see why the HHOF will prefer Niedermayer over Howe. Niedermayer is more "famous" than Howe. From the sound of some posters we should be focusing purely on the Hockey aspect of the Hall of Fame, not the Fame aspect. Regardless of how you rank their skill sets, no one can convince me that Lindros, Forsberg or the whole KLM line aren't more famous than Dionne or Stastny. How big a consideration is that?

Another poster mentioned "significant". What makes a player significant? To me, a significant player is primarily a player who has a big impact on the game and/or changes how the game is played. E.g. the introduction of the butterfly style of goaltending was significant, regardless of how skilled you think Hall and other early butterfly goaltenders were.

Or, for a current example: While Henrik Zetterberg is undoubtedly a more skilled player than Tomas Holmstrom, I'd argue that Holmstrom has had the greater impact on how the game is played. There were net-front presences before him, but none has embodied the role to a greater extent than him, and other teams have tried hard to emulate it. By this I mean that there could be a place in the HOF for players that reinvented a certain role, even if they weren't the most skilled players.

For Salming, do we only consider his on ice accomplishments, or the fact that he broke barriers and inspired Swedish hockey players for decades? If we take this in consideration, do we also make the same consideration for Tumba? Is it the North American Hall of Fame or the Worldwide HOF?

To me we would need something like this (these are examples only):

To be eligible for the HOF a player must meet one or several of the following criteria:

Criteria A) Player must be regarded as one of the most skilled of his era (Richard, Hull…)
Criteria B) Player has made an impression on the general public (Henderson, Lindros…)
Criteria C) Player changed how the game of hockey is played (Orr, Hall/Roy…)
Criteria D) Player was a big part of establishing hockey in new markets (Firsov, Tumba…)


Finally, please don't let this post start an argument about Howe, Niedermayer, Hall or Holmstrom, they are just examples. I'd rather see a discussion of the criterias. Are we only considering their hockey skills, or is there more to it?
Niedermayer should not be divisive. Forget the winning and the difficulty of separating player from team - He was good enough as an individual player.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 12:24 PM
  #169
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 44,669
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Niedermayer should not be divisive. Forget the winning and the difficulty of separating player from team - He was good enough as an individual player.
His point is simply that we all have different ideas of what makes a player "good enough", so that needs to be clarified up front so we are all on the same page.

I can very easily see someone arguing that Niedermayer is not good enough to get into some kind of highly-elite HOF that only accepts a few players per generation.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 12:30 PM
  #170
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
His point is simply that we all have different ideas of what makes a player "good enough", so that needs to be clarified up front so we are all on the same page.

I can very easily see someone arguing that Niedermayer is not good enough to get into some kind of highly-elite HOF that only accepts a few players per generation.
I agree. If the point of this is to have a much more elite HOF than the current one (and that was suggested at some point), then Niedermayer could certainly be controversial.

Which is why we need to know what the goals of this HOF are before starting the project.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 12:36 PM
  #171
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,290
vCash: 500
I propose myself to do the Inductees thread.

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 01:11 PM
  #172
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,483
vCash: 500
Count me in as interested. Whatever criteria and procedure that the catalysts in here determine is fine by me.

Kyle McMahon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 02:32 PM
  #173
andreydali19
They're relentless
 
andreydali19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Liv. of Mich.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,933
vCash: 500
Can I be counted for interest in involvement?

andreydali19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 02:37 PM
  #174
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,126
vCash: 500
I want to participate. I want to vote.

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2010, 11:53 PM
  #175
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,784
vCash: 500
I think we need to determine what method to use before proceeding. This is a fundamental decision and once we reach a consensus, we can move onto the smaller details.

Here’s a comparison of the four major methods that have been proposed.

[01] Chronological inductions

Summary: starting with a certain year (presumably in the 1930’s or 1940’s), we will vote on eligible players, year by year. Players with X% of the votes will be inducted. Potentially, players will no longer be eligible for induction under certain circumstances (to be discussed at a later time).

Advantages:
  • Depth of discussion. This method would provide the fullest, richest discussion of each player. All members would be free to contribute to discuss any player. Under this method, I envision long and detailed discussions summarizing the pros and cons of each candidate. Our discussion threads would provide detailed documentation to justify all of our decisions.
  • Ownership. The HOH group would be able to take full ownership for the results of our project, as we’re starting from scratch, and working our way up to a completed Hall of Fame.
  • Ease of comparison. Since we would discuss candidates chronologically, we would generally be comparing players from the same era during any particular discussion.
  • Organization. In contrast to method #2, our discussions would be organized and focus (limited to the candidates up for debate in a specific year). Realistically I doubt there would be more than 10-15 candidates we’d need to look at in any induction year. We wouldn’t have to deal with the problem of discussion 300 candidates at the same time.

Disadvantages:
  • Time. This project would require a massive time commitment. Realistically, we would require close to two years to complete the project (assuming a starting year of 1945, and ten days of discussion and voting per year).
  • Voter interest & competence. Not every voter would be interested in, or knowledgeable about, particular eras. If a voter doesn’t know anything about players prior to the 1970’s, they may feel inclined to not participate for the first year of the project. (This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – maybe it’s better for people to “rotate in” based on their eras of expertise. Nobody would force a participant to vote on an era they’re not knowledgeable about).

[02] Mass inductions

Summary: we can have each voter submit a list of every candidate they feel is worthy of induction, and induct all consensus candidates (.e. players with >90% of votes). Alternatively, we can start with the HOH Top 100 Players thread, and add on players as necessary.

Advantages:
  • Efficiency. This project could likely be completed in a few weeks or a few months, tops.
  • High standards. By only inducting consensus candidates, we would ensure that our Hall only has the very best players in hockey history.

Disadvantages:
  • Lack of discussion. If every voter simply provides a list of each player they find worthy of the HOF , we would have very little discussion. This is true regardless of if we’re starting from scratch, or if we use the Top 100 list as a starting point. I’m sure there would be some discussion about which players everybody is including on their list but it would pale in comparison to the in-depth, year-by-year discussion we would have under method #1. Also, from a practical perspective, it would be almost impossible to have a coherent discussion about 100+ candidates all in one shot.
  • Lack of comparability. If there’s one large induction class, by necessity we’d have to compare everyone from hockey history all at once. How can we possibly expect people to compare (for example) Morenz, Bobrov and Yzerman? Under methods 1 and 3, our discussions our limited to one era at a time.

[03] Era specific inductions

Summary: we will divide hockey history into specific eras. Members of each era committee can recommend worthwhile candidates. At certain dates, a voting committee will vote for or against each candidate recommended by each group.

Advantages:
  • In-depth, era-specific discussions. Each subcommittee would be able to generate an expert-level of knowledge about a specific era. Our threads would provide focused, detailed, clear discussions about all the relevant candidates within a particular era.
  • Best use of the voters' time. If the subcommittees do their job, they would be able to recommend the most relevant candidates to the voting committee, probably with either a “must induct” or “should induct” recommendation. This ensures that the voters don’t waste their time discussion every long shot candidate (they would be screened by the sub-committee) and can focus on the most worthy players.
  • Interest of voters. It would be nice to be able to discuss every era at once – you can talk about Shore and Morenz, and not have to wait a year to discuss Orr and Clarke. Alternatively, voters would be able to focus their time on the one or few periods that interest them most. Either way, voters choose what they want to discuss.

Disadvantages:
  • Defining eras. How would we go about defining eras? I can’t think of a non-arbitrary way to do this. What would we do when a player’s career spans two (or more) eras? Do we only look at their accomplishments within one era? This seems unfair and it penalizes players with good longevity.
  • Forced equality. I disagree that every era should have the same number of inductees. This wouldn’t be a problem initially (where we’d always be eager to induct players to build up the Hall). However, after a while, why should we be forced to induct, say, an Original Six player just because we’re inducting players from other eras? Every era is not necessarily equal.
  • Voter knowledge. Even if the subcommittees are highly knowledgeable, an overall voting committee would need to vote on each candidate that the subcommittee recommends. Who would sit on the voting committee? How can we expect them to simultaneously compare candidates from six different eras?
  • The first vote. How exactly would this work? For the initial vote, would each subcommittee recommend 20-25 different “must induct” candidates (i.e. the best players of their era)? Then we’re essentially doing a mass induction (see method #2). If not, what would the limit be? Having a limit on the number of player inducted in each round would result in us having all kinds of different tiers to the Hall (i.e. some would look down on Hawerchuk because he was inducted in, say, the 6th round, while Messier was inducted in the 3rd round). Obviously Messier is better than Hawerchuk but isn’t the point of the Hall to have everyone inducted equally - either they're good enough for the Hall or they're not?

[04] Reverse inductions

Summary: we will start with the current Hall of Fame inductees. Members can recommend that certain players be removed from the Hall.

Advantages:
  • Uniqueness. I think this is a pretty interesting concept – I don’t think this has ever been done in hockey before. The idea of a reverse Hall of Fame ceremony is fascinating.

Disadvantages:
  • Negativity. I feel like we should try to celebrate hockey’s greatest players. Although I find this approach interesting, it seems quite negative. I’d feel more comfortable saying why a player is good enough to be in the Hall, rather than trying to tear down the career of someone like Gillies or Pulford. (Clearly, there will be a lot of negative discussion when voters are discussing borderline candidates – but I don’t want this kind of negativity to be the main focus of the project).
  • Inductees. There are a lot of eligible players who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame who, for whatever reason, are not. Makarov, Howe and Gilmour are just three examples. I think it’s wrong that these players, by definition, can’t be inducted in the HOH HOF just because the official HOF hasn’t inducted them.

I’m in favour of Method 1. The main drawback is the amount of time it will take, but is this really such a bad thing? I’ve been on HOH for close to six years - there are always people joining and leaving but I’m confident that the HOH community will stay strong, and we’ll have the ability and desire to complete this project. The advantages of Method 1 (extensive, well-documented discussions; focused, era-specific analysis; and complete ownership of the final HOF list) are clear.

Let’s try to reach a consensus on which method to use before we move on to other details.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 11-12-2010 at 12:03 AM.
Hockey Outsider 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 11:28 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.