I know your theory on player seasons, but Y will comprise less than 10% of the list.I got my votes in, ranking everything even though there's a few I wouldn't participate in.
I do have a question for people, about an updated sample. Using goaltenders as an example, the season cutoff for that project was 2011-12. So all the NHL goalie-seasons from 1917-18 through 2011-12 comprises a sample of X (and it doesn't really matter what sort of games played cutoff you use). Now, we have the new goalie-seasons between 2012-13 and 2023-24, comprising a sample of Y. Holding the games played constant between both samples, what percentage do people think that new sample Y comprises of the full sample X+Y?
Quick will be interesting to me. I find him grossly overrated by some, but those same people would think I have him grossly underrated. I just don't see a lot of meat on the bone outside of 2011-12. I mean, yeah, when he was good, he was elite, but how often was he truly good?Lundqvist will rise
Thomas will drop
Price, Vasilevsky, and Hellebucyk will all be on the list and likely do well. Quick likely gets on too.
Well, I'm guessing you probably did get your vote in on time. I hope you will find time to participate. I think you're a valuable poster around here.Not sure if it's too late but I sent in my votes. I tried to balance two considerations - how much new ground is being covered, and how likely are we to get good levels of participation.
Redo Positional Lists | 8 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 9 | 138 |
Fill in old awards/all-stars | 9 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 111 |
Redo 100/200/ update to 300 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 94 |
Teams | 5 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 93 |
HOH HOF | 6 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 91 |
Peaks/Primes/Seasons | 4 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 88 |
Builders | 1 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 87 |
Coaches | 2 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 83 |
Subset lists | 3 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 80 |
Women's List | 10 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 70 |
I think that is a question, which is why I tried to lay it out that way when describing the options for the vote. I think it could go either way.But for the near future it looks like positional lists rule the day. My concern: did we just lock ourselves in for the next 4 years at the exclusion of everything else? It just feels like next year we'll just say "well, we did goalies, now it's time for defensemen", and so on. Is that what y'all voted on? or was your vote really just to choose what we do this year?
I had it third. My top 2 went top 2.Who were the other beautiful people that voted highly on a women's list? I can see I was the only one that had it first.
I guess this could be accurate for some, but I think you are overlooking a couple several less conspiracy-driven reasons why people don't want to do coaching-The trend in voting certifies what I've been saying.
If it does not involve players, it will never be examined on this board. The reason? Math. Most of the main posters here are numbers geeks (no offense intended, i find it fascinating to be completely honest, even if my understanding pales in comparison).
These projects are largely (at least post consolidation) centered around numbers. There are defined algorithms that certain people have come up with that makes it "easier" to quantify analysis and reach a conclusion.
It's "easier" to say player A had a VsX of X and player B was lower by 6.7 points so player A is a greater offensive performer over a certain threshold of time.
We see it with advanced studies that move the raw counting stats to adjusted based on numerous factors, those factors generally being numeric in nature.
@ChiTownPhilly post, coupled with overpasses weeks ago, pretty much summed up why these projects will never venture away from the players. We could redo lists 10 times over the next century and never move to other arenas.
And why?
Because there is no known mathematical avenue to explore beyond raw counting stats. There is no VsX for coaches. There is no adjusted save %. There are no real awards given to coaches beyond COTY and that particular counting stat only reaches so far back in hockey history.
Basically, with little to no math, there apparently cannot be any real consensus or analysis done to obtain legitimate results (ie, ranking people 1 through whatever). I find that to be a ridiculously narrow mindset. The idea that we can't come to a respectable conclusion for non-players is so foreign to me.
Sure, analyzing builders and coaches and teams would certainly require more focus and a deeper look into the breach, but to me, at this point of my life, seems to be the only real path worth taking as far as learning and expanding my own personal knowledge of this great sport.
I seek challenge and continuing down the same paths over and over again, is not that.
As far as I am concerned, you and @Dr John Carlson are the admins since you volunteered. I don't see any reason to put that up for any kind of debate or vote. If another person wants to volunteer to help out they can obviously be added, but there is no point in debating something that doesn't seem to be controversial in the first place.So, how are administrators going to be chosen? I know that both I and @Dr John Carlson have volunteered. The offer is still good on my end for sure.
I had builders as my number one option, and coaches/teams somewhere near the bottom, so I'm in half-agreement with this, but only half.Sure, analyzing builders and coaches and teams would certainly require more focus and a deeper look into the breach, but to me, at this point of my life, seems to be the only real path worth taking as far as learning and expanding my own personal knowledge of this great sport.
I seek challenge and continuing down the same paths over and over again, is not that.