Project time!
- Thread starter Professor What
- Start date
-
ALL Pickem Pools are now open - NFL Survivor, NFL Pickem AND NHL Survivor Click here for info and to join a pool
Professor What
Registered User
Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention. We were also talking about expanding the lists, which we have discussed before. I suggested pushing the goalie list out to 50 or 60 and the other positions out to 80. It was also suggested that we set a long term goal of putting them all out to 100.
I'm in. I'd prefer to go with the goalies first simply for the reason that I like the idea of building these lists from the net out, but I won't complain with a top D list.
We really need to not do what happened the last time we tried a project, and debated what project to do until nobody wanted to do a project anymore. Let's pick one and go with it. It has been over a decade since the position lists came out, so I think there will be plenty of material to talk about- especially if we expand the lists (which I think we should).
We really need to not do what happened the last time we tried a project, and debated what project to do until nobody wanted to do a project anymore. Let's pick one and go with it. It has been over a decade since the position lists came out, so I think there will be plenty of material to talk about- especially if we expand the lists (which I think we should).
DitchMarner
TheGlitchintheSwitch
I know a lot more about forwards and defensemen than I do about goalies. Goalies just don't interest me that much for whatever reason. If you read my posts, you may have noticed hardly any pertain to goaltending/goaltenders. I'd still like to read the discussion for a project, though!
I say do top 60 (or so) goaltenders or top 80 to top 100 defensemen this year.
I say do top 60 (or so) goaltenders or top 80 to top 100 defensemen this year.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
I still vote we do a women's project. But if not I'm game for a positional list
I'd consider a women's project as well; I just worry about the level of participation.
Professor What
Registered User
I'm not opposed to the women's project, but I kind of feel like it should start out as something of a side project where a few people that do have knowledge about it take it on and come up with a rough list before the whole board took it on. I've said in the past that I'd participate, but honestly, I don't know what I'd have to offer.
buffalowing88
Registered User
You advocate for this every time the topic comes up here and I appreciate it but I just don't think there's interest. Women's hockey doesn't have a comprehensive enough history to really dig deep into and I don't think there are enough strong opinions from posters about these players that would warrant a fun discussion.
Professor What
Registered User
I'd like to ask if there's anyone else that would be interested in helping administer the project. I'd like to have someone to work with on it.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
If we're going to do one we should bring back some old regulars to participate.
@quoipourquoi
@TheDevilMadeMe
@Batis
All were big contributors and haven't posted this year.
There were 32 voters in the last top 100. There were only 16 in the pre-merger. We should aim to have at least 20, preferably more than 25, to be involved for positional lists.
@quoipourquoi
@TheDevilMadeMe
@Batis
All were big contributors and haven't posted this year.
There were 32 voters in the last top 100. There were only 16 in the pre-merger. We should aim to have at least 20, preferably more than 25, to be involved for positional lists.
Professor What
Registered User
I think we should be able to get a bigger group for this. It doesn't feel as niche as the pre-merger project (which I absolutely think needed to be done). I don't have ways of reaching out to former posters, but if someone does, I think it would be great to get some of them involved again. Not just on the project, but on the forum in general.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
I think we really need a new top 100. And I look forward to it.
But I'm not really sure I'll still be around in 2028-29, let alone be able to remember 100 hockey players by name.
Respectfully, I believe the top Dmen and Goalie lists are 7 and 6 years older/more out of date than the top 100 list. I think we really need to get started on those before addressing the top 100 for the third time.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
To me, those lists are not as significant as the top 100.
I would argue they are more significant, because they address and shed light on players who are talked about less.
Doing the top 100 again so soon just feels lazy, IMO.
Professor What
Registered User
In fact, if we expand, I imagine we'll be talking about players that have never been discussed in a project before. New ground.
The Pale King
Go easy on those Mango Giapanes brother...
Haven't participated in one of these before but would love to get involved with whatever the next one is, particularly if we are expanding the number of players (or slots I guess is more accurate) involved.
I'll definitely participate in a positional project. I don't dislike the idea of starting with goalies first. If for no other reason then, there seem to be a lot more active defenseman in the NHL today who can still impact their ranking this upcoming season, than goalies.
Professor What
Registered User
So, what do you say we do a top 60 goalies project? Everybody submits an initial list of 80?
jigglysquishy
Registered User
I think
That 60-80 spot for goalies will be rough. I only have a top 30 right now.
I think this is an appropriate scale.
That 60-80 spot for goalies will be rough. I only have a top 30 right now.
Professor What
Registered User
Looks like what we have today is:
Top 40 goalies (2013)
Top 60 defensemen (2012)
top 60 centers (2014)
top 60 wingers (2015)
I also like the idea of making the lists longer - so that even though there'll be a lot of rehashing in the rankings, there's also some strong worth to the rankings by adding more spots.
One question - why 60 centers to 60 wingers/defensemen - when there are technically 2 wingers and 2 defensemen for every center? I know there's been more star centers than other positions, but does it still warrant a 2 to 1 ratio? Is there any worth to having a higher count of defensemen/wingers than centers, or is that dumb?
My suggestion would be:
Top 60 goalies - everyone submits initial list of 80 (or 100?)
Top 80 centers - everyone submits initial list of 100 (or 120?)
Top 80 or 100 for both defensemen and wingers - everyone submits a initial list of +20-40.
Top 40 goalies (2013)
Top 60 defensemen (2012)
top 60 centers (2014)
top 60 wingers (2015)
I also like the idea of making the lists longer - so that even though there'll be a lot of rehashing in the rankings, there's also some strong worth to the rankings by adding more spots.
One question - why 60 centers to 60 wingers/defensemen - when there are technically 2 wingers and 2 defensemen for every center? I know there's been more star centers than other positions, but does it still warrant a 2 to 1 ratio? Is there any worth to having a higher count of defensemen/wingers than centers, or is that dumb?
My suggestion would be:
Top 60 goalies - everyone submits initial list of 80 (or 100?)
Top 80 centers - everyone submits initial list of 100 (or 120?)
Top 80 or 100 for both defensemen and wingers - everyone submits a initial list of +20-40.
Professor What
Registered User
Top 60 for the goalies and top 80 for the others is what I suggested. I see what you're saying about the lengths of the lists though. I could certainly see a longer list for defensemen if we wanted to talk about that. I think there's probably more star power left there than at wing.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I'd like to suggest a top 20/30 coaches list of all time.
It's not the first time I've brought this up, but I really do believe we're seeing an injustice in not giving coaches a real evaluation.
We've done just about every player list possible. Some, more than once.
A few years back I opened the lid on Pete Green's accomplishment and that really got the juices flowing in terms of a coaching project, at least for me. There is so much readily available information on these men and I don't think it THAT difficult to get a good group of HoH regulars to discuss and dissect how we value coaches. I don't see legitimate reasons as to why we can't undertake ranking coaches. We have readily available records, many great bio's already built and numerous people able to access newspapers.com and other online platforms with a lot of great info.
I think it valuable to talk about the different eras, innovations, roles, etc that coaches played.
It just seems like such an omission to not at least attempt a project that shines the light on very important names.
It's not the first time I've brought this up, but I really do believe we're seeing an injustice in not giving coaches a real evaluation.
We've done just about every player list possible. Some, more than once.
A few years back I opened the lid on Pete Green's accomplishment and that really got the juices flowing in terms of a coaching project, at least for me. There is so much readily available information on these men and I don't think it THAT difficult to get a good group of HoH regulars to discuss and dissect how we value coaches. I don't see legitimate reasons as to why we can't undertake ranking coaches. We have readily available records, many great bio's already built and numerous people able to access newspapers.com and other online platforms with a lot of great info.
I think it valuable to talk about the different eras, innovations, roles, etc that coaches played.
It just seems like such an omission to not at least attempt a project that shines the light on very important names.
Professor What
Registered User
My concerns with a coaches project would be how much of it might hinge on nothing but wins and intangibles. Wins are already an overemphasized goalie stat, and some put way too much weight on Stanley Cups. The intangibles would get us into stuff like people arguing over leadership.
