HoH Project: Pre-Consolidation

[Batis]

Just want to echo this response:



If we are doing a good job of the arguments, the voters don't necessarily need to have that much expertise in the era to start the project. They need to know some really basic fundamentals* of the era, in order to have a framework for comparing players to each other. But they don't need to have any pre-conceived ideas of how the players stack up to each other... it's almost better if they don't, because we should be breaking new ground rather than reinforcing old assumptions.

I assume this is what @seventieslord means by Round 2 voters being a priority. We have enough Round 1 list-makers to get us started, but the real progress happens during the debates. As long as a voter has enough fundamental knowledge* to follow the debates, they're on solid ground.


* Thinking about what constitutes "basic knowledge" in this project:

• Understanding generally that the pre-consolidation era involved multiple top-tier leagues operating at the same time, so we can't take "3rd best scorer in the NHL" at face value to mean "3rd best scorer in the world". We have to compare across leagues.
• Understanding generally that in the early days, not all of the best players were professionals. So, some non-top-tier leagues are going to be relevant in this project, and not all players will have the amateur-to-pro career arc that we expect in the modern era.
• An understanding that the Stanley Cup was determined by challenges, not tournaments, so the relevance of repeatedly winning (or repeatedly losing, or never winning) a Stanley Cup was slightly different than it is today.
• A broad knowledge of how the rules changed from the 1880s to the 1920s: the use of the Rover position, evolving ideas of offside, evolving usage of forward passing, evolving rules for the goalies. Again, just a broad knowledge... specific details will be noted in the arguments, so no need to already have them in your head.
• A general understanding that because of all the above, stats can vary widely between players who performed at the same level.

If you have finished reading those bullet points, you now have the general understanding that you need in order to participate. No need to be an expert, just be prepared to hear these topics talked about and you're good to go.

It might not be a bad idea, perhaps in the discussion thread that starts the project, to develop some sort of "primer" for the participants who feel less prepared for a deep dive on this topic. Just a basic overview of which leagues are relevant, how the rules changed over time, etc.

Thank you for this very helpful post. In that case you can sign me up as a participant as well.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'm really interested in who we put #1. It was a foregone conclusion in the players, centres, wingers, and defenseman list who would go 1. I thought we might put Richard #1 in playoff performers, but we ended up with Gretzky. I loved the Euro list since there was an actual fight for 1.

Frank Nighbor was the highest ranked player in the 2018 list. Taylor, Cook, and Lalonde not that far behind. Is this the order they place in here?

Malone went second to Cook in 2008, before all the research into Nighbor's defensive play. Did we swing too far the other way against Malone?

Do we finally get a list with Frank McGee on it? How will voters handle situations like his where players deliberately did not go pro on principle?

Vezina or Benedict for best pre consolidation goalie?

Very exciting project. Looking forward to deep dives so we can separate the legends from the players.

 

[Pominville Knows]

I'll join. Perfect timing since the subject has been interesting me the last few months.

 

[VanIslander]

If Hockey Outsider & seventieslord are in, then i would be in.

With one If.

My life is busy these days so,... i can commit to 5 to 6 hours a week, but... i can't be sure of when that would be. So please have a minimum one-week window for whatever participation is expected, no sudden short-term deadline.

So, i'm all in if i would receive adequate notice of a sufficient lead time.

 

[JackSlater]

I have close access to a historian who is employed by the government of Canada. I'm going to check if there is access to any relevant database stemming from that.

 

[kaiser matias]

I'm interested, but may be a more passive observer at this stage. I can't guarantee my activity, and so don't want to promise I can contribute and then not follow through.

Great topic idea though, this is one of my favourite eras to look into.