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.

The HOHHOF : Registration and Procedure

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-23-2010, 04:11 PM
  #26
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
I'm also interested in being on the Early Era Committee as long as "early era" does not mean NHL. This is not going to be an NHL hof is it? By early era I assume is meant pre-consolidation professional leagues (NHA/PCHA/WHL/etc) and amateur cup challenge, 1890s to mid-1920s.

If 1930s NHLers are going to be part of the early era committee work then I'm not as interested because I know very well that a lot of 1930s NHLers are valued a lot more around here than earlier pre-NHL hockey greats.

If it's a history of hockey hof and not a nhlhof with a few token others thrown in, then have a pre-NHL committee. (plus hockey outsider suggested an International Hockey Committee to focus on soviets, czechs and the like, international greats who never played in the nhl - this is a great idea, and there are several knowledgeable posters at hfboards who reside in and know european hockey history well)
I was against it at first, but an early era committee would probably be a must if we start in 1945 (as suggested). This said, that committee will have :

- Not be a pre-NHL committee. It doesn't make sense to have the Western leagues players eligible for this committee, but not the pre-merger NHL players (if anything, the game evolved more in the five years following the merger than in the five years preceding the merger). It will have to be a pre-merger committee or a pre NHA committee.

- Be careful about the numbers of inductions. That relates the competitive process vs. non-competitive process. It would make no sense to have more players from, let's say, 1895 to 1926, than from 1926 to 1945.

In regards to the European Committee..

I'm all for it, as long as europeans do not appear on "separate" ballots (just for the sake of reasearch).

The same could be said about the other era : we'll need to have some people doing the necessary research, if only to get the exact retirement dates so we don't have votes for Maurice Richard in 1958 (extreme example, I know).

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 05:40 PM
  #27
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,228
vCash: 500
per-merger makes 10 times more sense than pre-NHL.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 05:50 PM
  #28
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
per-merger makes 10 times more sense than pre-NHL.
I tend to agree. To expound about what MXD said about, I don't see why it should be easier for Moose Johnson to get in than for Georges Boucher, just because one played in the PCHA and one played in the NHA/pre-merger NHL.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 07:03 PM
  #29
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,015
vCash: 500
E-mail sent.

I'd also be interested in being on the proposed early era sub committee.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 07:07 PM
  #30
VanIslander
Hope for better 2015
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,742
vCash: 500
Geez, I specified it shoud be 1890s to 1920s and not include the 1930s so if you used any charity in interpretation you would have seen I was talking about a pre-NHL consolidation early era committee, since the WHL folded in 1925 and the NHL gained Chicago and Detroit and became the premier forum for top level hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD
Be careful about the numbers of inductions. That relates the competitive process vs. non-competitive process. It would make no sense to have more players from, let's say, 1895 to 1926, than from 1926 to 1945.
I'm more concerned about the opposite having: many more inducted from the 19 years from the early NHL post consolidation than from the 31 years before that. Just look at the players valued in the ATDs and you can see a 5-to-1 ratio against the earlier era!!

Again, making it an NHLHOF is better than token inductions to non-NHLers. While the HHOF neglects the Soviets and Czechoslovakian greats too much, it does at least a half-decent job of honouring early era greats.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 07:33 PM
  #31
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,737
vCash: 500
Email sent.

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 09:33 PM
  #32
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Moscow
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 8,326
vCash: 500
I am interested, e-mail has been sent

finchster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 09:55 PM
  #33
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,642
vCash: 500
I'm in.

I'm not sure a filtering process is necessary, but I think there has to be some kind of process to ensure that all participants are along with the spirit of the project and don't have their own agenda.

I don't think you should have to be an expert to participate, as long as you are willing to learn and do research to fill gaps in your knowledge. My preference would be some kind of requirement for everyone to post something in the discussion, so we don't have uninformed or overly biased voters doing hit-and-run voting. People can have their own points of view and that's fine, but they should be discussed as part of the process.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 10:09 PM
  #34
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
While the HHOF neglects the Soviets and Czechoslovakian greats too much, it does at least a half-decent job of honouring early era greats.
They have roughly the right amount, but some really odd choices. I'm looking forward to see our results compared to the HHOF.

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 10:15 PM
  #35
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,540
vCash: 500
I'm interested. Email sent.

I have a few discussion points I wanted to bring up. (Based on the assumption that we're generally following this format: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=242)


1. Gaining eligibility. Are players eligible three years after retirement? We could make it five years or even ten for the sake of adding a twist, but not sure if this really adds any value to the project.

Let's be consistent here. I don't care if we're talking about Wayne Gretzky, or a player who died while playing. No exceptions to the three (or five or ten) year rule.


2. Voting requirement. In order to ensure that we have a high standard, we should require a candidate to receive at least 80% of the available votes to be enshrined. To be clear, "available" votes means that we'd only consider voters participating in that round. If there are 25 voters but only 20 vote in a certain round, a player would need at least 16 votes (80% of of 20) to be enshrined.


3. Losing eligibility. I think that candidates should be removed from the ballot if they have not been voted in after 10 years. This has several benefits:

a) it will ensure that we do not fall into the trap that the actual Hall of Fame fell into, by (usually) inducting weaker players through a kind of veterans committee. Since we will (likely) have a special committee for early-era players, I don't think we need a veterans committee at all, and having one would likely lower our standards.

b) this will ensure the project is efficient. We're ensuring that we don't waste time talk about the same borderline candidates over and over. Once they had their ten chances, we move on. Nobody wants to keep discussing Dick Duff in the 2006 inductions.

c) I suppose you could argue that we may lose a couple of candidates along the way - but my response is that if a player can't make it after ten tries, what would change on the eleventh? It's not like there would be new information that wasn't previously available


4. Criteria. I think it's essential that we clarify what criteria are necessary for earning a spot in the Hall of Fame. Otherwise, the discussions will be anarchic. Are we voting for...

a) the best hockey players

b) the best hockey players, plus considering their fame or significance to hockey history?

I think we need to leave "best hockey players" intentionally vague. Presumably all the voters would take into account their peak, prime, longevity, consistency, playoff performance and international performances.

For example, Mike Modano is likely a borderline player under a) but would be a lock under b) taking into account his significance as an elite American player, not to mention his significance to the (North) Stars franchise. So do we strictly want to look at the best players (and leave any considerations regarding historical significance in a seperate builders category?)

A more controversial example: by any reasonable standard Vsevolod Bobrov would almost certainly not qualify under a), and almost certainly would qualify under b). It all depends on what criteria we use.


5. Number of votes. Are we going to do a simple "yes" vote (i.e. each voter has X number of votes that they can give to various candidates)? If so, how many votes would be appropriate?

Something more ambitious and interesting is a weighted system (maybe each person gets five votes, weighted 10-8-7-6-3 or something like that)? Maybe Igor Larionov had stronger support overall than Ron Francis in the real-life2007 vote, but Francis got into the Hall because he had weaker support from a larger number of voters. This could have a big impact, and would be quite interesting.


6. First year of voting. Let's for the moment assume that we'll have a separate committee dealing with players who peak pre-consolidation (1926). We'd need to figure out exactly who falls into the "early era" before proceeding, but let's assume we have that ironed out.

When should we start? Most of the players who peaked pre-1926 likely retired by the early 1930's. The firs group of stars post-consolidation would have peaked from, say, 1926 to 1930. Given the average career length back then, the first generation of post-consolidation stars likely would have retired by the mid to late 1930's. Thus, if have our first vote in 1940, we'd be able to discuss the first generation of post-consolidation players just after they've retired (which sounds right to me). Of course the pre-consolidation stars would be covered by our early era committee.


7. First-time votes. It seems to me like the actual Hall of Fame sometimes makes players wait a few years if they're not the best-of-the-best. I don't think we should consciously try to make worthy players (but not the very best) wait a year. If Dale Hawerchuk is a HOF calibre player, what are we proving by intentionally not voting for him in his first year?

(Of course sometimes there are too many other worth candidates, so a good player might need to wait a few years before earning enough votes. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't "sabotage" our votes just for the sake of making certain players wait).


8. Documentation. Let's be honest, compared to the actual Hall of Fame committee, we're nobodies. That doesn't mean we don't know a ton about hockey history - it just means that we need to prove that we do. The best way to do that is to document our discussions. We don't need to start from scratch (a large amount of our arguments can be borrowed from the two iterations of the Top 100, and from the various ATD's). The bottom line though, unless we clearly explain our arguments, our project will have no credibility. There's no way we can enforce this but I hope that everyone who signs up realizes that without written arguments, our project won't be taken seriously.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 11-23-2010 at 10:55 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 10:35 PM
  #36
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,270
vCash: 500
Interested. Email sent.

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 10:53 PM
  #37
DJ Man
Registered User
 
DJ Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
I'd be happy to serve or assist in some administrative capacity. I'd rather not get involved in the voting. (Although I watched every game that I could from about 1961-73 and read a lot of history for earlier years, I've had only sporadic contact with the game since then: no coverage in the Deep South in the 1970s and 1980s). E-mail sent.

Don
"DJ Man"

DJ Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 11:00 PM
  #38
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Moscow
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 8,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
For example, Mike Modano is likely a borderline player under a) but would be a lock under b) taking into account his significance as an elite American player, not to mention his significance to the (North) Stars franchise. So do we strictly want to look at the best players (and leave any considerations regarding historical significance in a seperate builders category?)
A player should be inducted due to his elite play. If not a great player, but a player with historical significance should be recognized as being a builder.

For example:
Uwe Krupp is not a HHOF, but I think Krupp is the first German developed player to make the NHL. Krupp is also the only German NHL player to win the Stanley Cup and is involved heavily in German hockey as the head coach of their national team. If someone argues Krupp had an important impact on German hockey and is convincing then he should be recognized as a builder for example. Entering as a builder should also be a more difficult route in the HOHHOF.

I personally donít have an opinion on Krupp or know enough of German hockey, just an example.

finchster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 11:21 PM
  #39
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by finchster View Post

For example:
Uwe Krupp is not a HHOF, but I think Krupp is the first German developed player to make the NHL.
Another U.K. made it before him, and his case is also a pretty good one for the HHOF, even though he's no HHOF by common standard.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 11:35 PM
  #40
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Moscow
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 8,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Another U.K. made it before him, and his case is also a pretty good one for the HHOF, even though he's no HHOF by common standard.
Uli Hiemer, right.

finchster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 11:37 PM
  #41
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by finchster View Post
Uli Hiemer, right.
Hummm, I actually meant Udo Kiessling...

Yeah, he played like, one game...

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 11:39 PM
  #42
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post


1. Gaining eligibility. Are players eligible three years after retirement? We could make it five years or even ten for the sake of adding a twist, but not sure if this really adds any value to the project.

Let's be consistent here. I don't care if we're talking about Wayne Gretzky, or a player who died while playing. No exceptions to the three (or five or ten) year rule.
I don't see any reason to make them wait more than 3 years. I'd say either they are eligible as soon as they retire, or 3 years later.
Quote:
4. Criteria. I think it's essential that we clarify what criteria are necessary for earning a spot in the Hall of Fame. Otherwise, the discussions will be anarchic. Are we voting for...

a) the best hockey players

b) the best hockey players, plus considering their fame or significance to hockey history?

I think we need to leave "best hockey players" intentionally vague. Presumably all the voters would take into account their peak, prime, longevity, consistency, playoff performance and international performances.

For example, Mike Modano is likely a borderline player under a) but would be a lock under b) taking into account his significance as an elite American player, not to mention his significance to the (North) Stars franchise. So do we strictly want to look at the best players (and leave any considerations regarding historical significance in a seperate builders category?)

A more controversial example: by any reasonable standard Vsevolod Bobrov would almost certainly not qualify under a), and almost certainly would qualify under b). It all depends on what criteria we use.
I strongly prefer B. It's the Hall of Fame, not the All Time Draft.

Quote:
6. First year of voting. Let's for the moment assume that we'll have a separate committee dealing with players who peak pre-consolidation (1926). We'd need to figure out exactly who falls into the "early era" before proceeding, but let's assume we have that ironed out.

When should we start? Most of the players who peaked pre-1926 likely retired by the early 1930's. The firs group of stars post-consolidation would have peaked from, say, 1926 to 1930. Given the average career length back then, the first generation of post-consolidation stars likely would have retired by the mid to late 1930's. Thus, if have our first vote in 1940, we'd be able to discuss the first generation of post-consolidation players just after they've retired (which sounds right to me). Of course the pre-consolidation stars would be covered by our early era committee.
I don't have a strong preference, but if we are starting in the 1940s, why don't we just start in 1945 like the real Hall?

Quote:
7. First-time votes. It seems to me like the actual Hall of Fame sometimes makes players wait a few years if they're not the best-of-the-best. I don't think we should consciously try to make worthy players (but not the very best) wait a year. If Dale Hawerchuk is a HOF calibre player, what are we proving by intentionally not voting for him in his first year?

(Of course sometimes there are too many other worth candidates, so a good player might need to wait a few years before earning enough votes. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't "sabotage" our votes just for the sake of making certain players wait).
A corollary to this is that the actual Hall made players wait a few years if the player was... how do I put this... a big d-bag. It could be fun to role play and only vote for Eddie Shore on his second year of eligibility for that reason. We need to decide beforehand if we're going to do that (and it sounds like you think we shouldn't).

Quote:
8. Documentation. Let's be honest, compared to the actual Hall of Fame committee, we're nobodies. That doesn't mean we don't know a ton about hockey history - it just means that we need to prove that we do. The best way to do that is to document our discussions. We don't need to start from scratch (a large amount of our arguments can be borrowed from the two iterations of the Top 100, and from the various ATD's). The bottom line though, unless we clearly explain our arguments, our project will have no credibility. There's no way we can enforce this but I hope that everyone who signs up realizes that without written arguments, our project won't be taken seriously.
Agree 100%.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2010, 11:47 PM
  #43
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Grumpier OLD MAN inn
Country: United Nations
Posts: 60,970
vCash: 50
email sent

count me in

__________________
"If the Detroit Red Wings are defying gravity" by consistently contending without the benefit of high draft picks, "the Edmonton Oilers are defying lift.

Welcome to Edmonton Connor McDavid--the rest of you HA HA HA HA HA HA
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2010, 12:00 AM
  #44
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
A corollary to this is that the actual Hall made players wait a few years if the player was... how do I put this... a big d-bag. It could be fun to role play and only vote for Eddie Shore on his second year of eligibility for that reason. We need to decide beforehand if we're going to do that (and it sounds like you think we shouldn't).
If we're going to stick to on-ice things, the player's personality shouldn't matter that much. But, much like the real committee, I guess it's up to the individual to decide whether or not to factor in personality.

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2010, 03:54 AM
  #45
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post

I strongly prefer B. It's the Hall of Fame, not the All Time Draft.
Seconded

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2010, 04:14 AM
  #46
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I strongly prefer B. It's the Hall of Fame, not the All Time Draft.
Agreed 100%

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2010, 04:18 AM
  #47
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I'm in.

I'm not sure a filtering process is necessary, but I think there has to be some kind of process to ensure that all participants are along with the spirit of the project and don't have their own agenda.

I don't think you should have to be an expert to participate, as long as you are willing to learn and do research to fill gaps in your knowledge. My preference would be some kind of requirement for everyone to post something in the discussion, so we don't have uninformed or overly biased voters doing hit-and-run voting. People can have their own points of view and that's fine, but they should be discussed as part of the process.
I agree that this should be open to everyone who truly wishes to learn and participate. We do not want people who are not going to take this seriously and paricipate in an honest way.

I believe I do have a good solution here:
With every vote, you need to submit a small blurb explaining why you voted a certain way. It doesn't have to be long, but it should demonstrate that you've actually done some research and given it some serious thought.

Is that too much to ask?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2010, 04:42 AM
  #48
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
I am in

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2010, 05:27 AM
  #49
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
i'm interested

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2010, 05:58 AM
  #50
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
3. Losing eligibility. I think that candidates should be removed from the ballot if they have not been voted in after 10 years. This has several benefits:

a) it will ensure that we do not fall into the trap that the actual Hall of Fame fell into, by (usually) inducting weaker players through a kind of veterans committee. Since we will (likely) have a special committee for early-era players, I don't think we need a veterans committee at all, and having one would likely lower our standards.

b) this will ensure the project is efficient. We're ensuring that we don't waste time talk about the same borderline candidates over and over. Once they had their ten chances, we move on. Nobody wants to keep discussing Dick Duff in the 2006 inductions.

c) I suppose you could argue that we may lose a couple of candidates along the way - but my response is that if a player can't make it after ten tries, what would change on the eleventh? It's not like there would be new information that wasn't previously available.
I have not looked through the list of players yet, so I'm not sure if it could happen, but I suppose it is possible, so I'll bring it up:

There might be a scinario where all the current players kind of suck, and a player who was previously eliminated is legitimately better than all or most of the current guys. How do we handle that?

Maybe I'm making this too difficult, and maybe we already have enough "commitees", but I think every ballot should have a spot reserved for a player who was previously passed over. That player would be determined by a commitee who would discuss the "forgotten" players and decide who might have a shot if they were back on the ballot.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:23 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.