HOH Top Non-NHL Europeans: Rules Discussion thread (see post 205 for new rules draft)

[tarheelhockey]

This is going the way of the HOH Hall of Fame.

 

[Theokritos]

This is going the way of the HOH Hall of Fame.

I wasn't around back then. Care to elaborate?

 

[Batis]

2-1 so far. Do we need another poll?

I think that option 1 (After Discussion) is the best way to go.

 

[Theokritos]

Second poll under way now.

 

[steve141]

I strongly think we should determine who's eligible or not before we start the project. Otherwise some players run the risk of being ranked too low simply because not all voters understood that they were eligible.

However, there's only about 10 players who are really debateable. Make a list of those players and lets reach a concensus about those. That's how we did it for the positional lists. Here's the thread:

HOH Top Forwards - Determining positions.

Keep it simple, no need to list every single player, just the ones whose eligibility is non-obvious.

 

[steve141]

I wasn't around back then. Care to elaborate?

I was a planned HOH project where the rules discussion dragged on for so long that the entire project ran out of steam.

If this thing is going to happen I think we need to close the rules discussion as soon as possible and move on to actually ranking players.

 

[Theokritos]

Agreed we should get this thing under way. Once the second poll is done we're set to start I think.

 

[Ben Grimm]

This is going the way of the HOH Hall of Fame.

After Housley's election, that does seem like a great idea though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

After Housley's election, that does seem like a great idea though.

Housley would never make it into a HOH Hall of Fame.

 

[Batis]

This was brought up earlier but I don't recall whether we reached an agreement on how to do. Are we going to rank the eligible players based on their whole career or only based on their time in Europe + international play?

 

[Theokritos]

Are we going to rank the eligible players based on their whole career or only based on their time in Europe + international play?

My take:

We should handle this analogous to the positional projects: The best wingers list is not a ranking of players who only played wingers, it's a ranking of players who played the majority of their career as wingers.

The idea was to consider their whole career in the positional project, not only the time they spent as wingers. IMO this is in line with & bolstered by the poll here where the option "Let's rank all Europeans, based on what they did outside of the NHL or WHA" was defeated.

 

[Batis]

My take:



The idea was to consider their whole career in the positional project, not only the time they spent as wingers. IMO this is in line with & bolstered by the poll here where the option "Let's rank all Europeans, based on what they did outside of the NHL or WHA" was defeated.

I agree that it is better to consider the whole career of all eligible players.

 

[VMBM]

I agree that it is better to consider the whole career of all eligible players.

It will be interesting to see e.g. how people rank Krutov and Larionov. Based on their Soviet/international career, IMO there is no contest whatsoever, but if and when we have to think about the whole career, it changes things quite a bit. However, at least for now, I have Krutov clearly above Larionov - I guess it is okay to favour (international) peak over the whole career, or...?

 

[Batis]

It will be interesting to see e.g. how people rank Krutov and Larionov. Based on their Soviet/international career, IMO there is no contest whatsoever, but if and when we have to think about the whole career, it changes things quite a bit. However, at least for now, I have Krutov clearly above Larionov - I guess it is okay to favour (international) peak over the whole career, or...?

I agree that there is no doubt whatsoever about that Krutov was clearly better than Larionov during their primes. He was just clearly ahead both when it comes to award recognition and when it comes to stats. And I personally value being clearly the better player over a 10-year prime period more than Larionovs kind of longevity (being a good player for a very long time). But that is of course a question of what one values more peak/prime value or longevity. I certainly see and understand the case for Larionov ahead of Krutov, but I just can't bring myself to rank them like that.

 

[steve141]

Let's say we manage to start the thread this week. 3-4 weeks of discussion until we start submitting lists?

I'd say try to use the same format as in the wingers project. Here's the rules posted by seventieslord:

1. Eligibility and Ranking Criteria
   • Any person who spent the majority of his career playing as a winger or who has the majority of his accomplishments as a winger is eligible
   • It is highly recommended that you use these guidelines to determine whether a player qualifies as a "winger" for the purposes of this project (link)
   • A player who qualifies as a winger should be ranked based on his overall accomplishments as a forward or hockey player.
   • Players should be judged only on their accomplishments as hockey players
   • Players currently active are eligible, but should be ranked based only on what they have already done
2. Preliminary Discussion Thread
   • Anyone may participate in this thread, even if he does not plan on taking part in the voting phase
   • Any winger may be discussed
   • Posters are encouraged to share information about players in this thread and to take information shared into account when constructing their own lists
   • Brief comparisons between players are permitted, but detailed cases and debates should be saved for Round 2 of Voting
   • Please do NOT rank players outright in the preliminary thread
3. Voting
   • Round 1
     • All participants submit a list of 80 wingers ranked in order
     • All eras MUST be considered, and consideration should be given to both NHL and non-NHL players
     • To make it easier to aggregate the submitted lists, please list players using their most commonly used name; e.g. Dickie Moore, not Richard Moore; Gordie Howe, not Gordon Howe
     • Lists may be submitted via email to [email protected] or via PM to seventieslord. Excel format is preferred, but a top to bottom list of 80 is fine too
     • We will be accepting lists until August 8 Please PM seventieslord if you can't make this timeframe and would like to participate
     • Players will be assigned a point value on the list based on ranking
     • Players will be awarded 80 points for a 1st place vote down to 1 point for a 80th place vote
     • An aggregate list of the top wingers will be compiled ranking them in order of the most total points
     • Participants MUST submit a list in Round 1 to be eligible for Round 2
   • Round 2
     • The top 8-10 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
     • Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
     • Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five (5) days. Administrators may extend the discussion period if it remains active
     • Final voting will occur for two (2) days, via PM
     • For the first 5 rounds, participants will vote for their top 8 players from the available candidates. 1st place votes will be worth 8 points, 2nd place votes worth 7 points, etc. The top 4 vote getters will be added to the final list.
     • For rounds 6-13, participants will vote for their top 10 players from the available candidates. 1st place votes will be worth 10 points, 2nd place votes worth 9 points, etc. The top 5 vote getters will be added to the final list
     • If there are major breaks in the Round 2 voting totals, we will add more or less than the targeted 4 or 5 players in certain rounds
     • The number of players available for discussion at once will increase from 8 as we move down the list, based on natural breaks in the aggregate list put together in Round 1
     • Tiebreak procedure: If two players are tied in voting points after a round, the higher ranking will go to the player who was ahead on a greater number of ballots. If they are still tied, it will remain a tie on the final list.
4. Quality Assurance
   • Lists will be subject to an evaluation process
   • The submitter of a questionable list will be given an opportunity to defend or justify any selection under question or to correct errors and resubmit
   • The complete voting record of every participant will be released at the end of the project
5. Participants Code of Conduct
   • Participants must recognize that this is a collaborative project and that we all share the same goals, no matter how much we disagree on individual ranking
   • Participants should treat each other with respect and must not openly question the motivations of other participants
   • Repeatedly violating these rules may result in ban from this project and possibly similar future projects on the History of Hockey board

The only big question I see as unsettled is how many players we are ranking. If this list is going to contain any players other than those already ranked in the positional lists, we will probably need more than 40. 50 or 60 seems good to me. 50 might be preferable, since we are starting rather late in the season. Can we get a quick consensus around one number instead of having another poll? 50 or 60?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd say try to use the same format as in the wingers project. Here's the rules posted by seventieslord:





The only big question I see as unsettled is how many players we are ranking. If this list is going to contain any players other than those already ranked in the positional lists, we will probably need more than 40. 50 or 60 seems good to me. 50 might be preferable, since we are starting rather late in the season. Can we get a quick consensus around one number instead of having another poll? 50 or 60?

By my count, there were actually only 19 "non-NHL-Europeans" ranked on the positional projects.

Fetisov (8 D)
Vasiliev (25 D)
Kasatonov (38 D)
Suchy (49 D)
Pospisil (58 D)

Tretiak (8 G)
Holecek (20 G)

Maltsev (33 C)
Petrov (49 C)
Larionov (51 C)
Nedomansky (57 C)

Makarov (6 W)
Kharlamov (13 W)
Mikhailov (20 W)
Firsov (26 W)
Martinec (32 W)
Krutov (44 W)
Yakushev (48 W)
Balderis (54 W)

 

[steve141]

By my count, there were actually only 19 "non-NHL-Europeans" ranked on the positional projects.
[...]

OK, maybe 40 is fine aswell then. I have no real opinion. Anyone else have a preference?

 

[Theokritos]

OK, maybe 40 is fine aswell then. I have no real opinion. Anyone else have a preference?

Counting Soviet players alone you get to 25-30 rather quickly. A top 50 or 60 seems the preferable option to me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Counting Soviet players alone you get to 25-30 rather quickly. A top 50 or 60 seems the preferable option to me.

Remember, if we use the same format as the positional projects, if we want a final top 60 list, it means everyone who participates has to submit his or her own list of 80 names.

 

[Theokritos]

Remember, if we use the same format as the positional projects, if we want a final top 60 list, it means everyone who participates has to submit his or her own list of 80 names.

Seventieslord came up with a list of 80 players two months ago. Not his top 80 necessarily, but 80 he would pick above Ville Peltonen. I don't agree that all names on the list belong above Peltonen, but on the other hand the list is not exactly heavy on pre-1960s players and we're doing an all-time ranking, right? So a list of 80 isn't that unrealistic to me.

How about the following idea: We make it a top 50 for the time being (preliminary list: 70 players), but after some preliminary discussion and before we start accepting ballots we'll see how much of a challenge it is to get 70 names together. If those working on their lists have a hard time we'll leave it at 50 (70), if they're doing well we could still ask them whether they would mind making it a top 60 (80) instead.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Seventieslord came up with a list of 80 players two months ago. Not his top 80 necessarily, but 80 he would pick above Ville Peltonen. I don't agree that all names on the list belong above Peltonen, but on the other hand the list is not exactly heavy on pre-1960s players and we're doing an all-time ranking, right? So a list of 80 isn't that unrealistic to me.

How about the following idea: We make it a top 50 for the time being (preliminary list: 70 players), but after some preliminary discussion and before we start accepting ballots we'll see how much of a challenge it is to get 70 names together. If those working on their lists have a hard time we'll leave it at 50 (70), if they're doing well we could still ask them whether they would mind making it a top 60 (80) instead.

I'd prefer to pick a number and stick with it, even if it means another dreaded vote. No need to make this extra complicated (edit: once it starts, I mean)

 

[steve141]

I'd prefer to pick a number and stick with it, even if it means another dreaded vote. No need to make this extra complicated (edit: once it starts, I mean)

OK, then I'm launching 50 as the best option. Why? Because when we did the positional lists we added on average 30 spots per list compared to the established top 100 overall list. If we now already have 19 names from the established positional lists, adding 31 more, will mean that we have to research about the same number of "new" players.

I feel that this project will require more work than previous projects because the players are less familiar. For this reason maybe we should settle for the shorter list to ensure high quality in our discussions.

 

[Theokritos]

I'd prefer to pick a number and stick with it, even if it means another dreaded vote. No need to make this extra complicated (edit: once it starts, I mean)

OK, then I'm launching 50 as the best option. Why? Because when we did the positional lists we added on average 30 spots per list compared to the established top 100 overall list. If we now already have 19 names from the established positional lists, adding 31 more, will mean that we have to research about the same number of "new" players.

I feel that this project will require more work than previous projects because the players are less familiar. For this reason maybe we should settle for the shorter list to ensure high quality in our discussions.

Okay with me.

 

[seventieslord]

60. It's more consistent with our other lists.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would prefer 50, or even 40. The wingers project really dragged near the end, and it looks like we have, if anything, fewer interested posters in this project.

I'd rather do a shorter list the right way than do a longer list with the end just thrown together.