Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Only (registered) hockey coaches would be able to vote. Or former coaches.
That would be an interesting list.
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
Only (registered) hockey coaches would be able to vote. Or former coaches.
That would be an interesting list.
Matsun
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2010
- 616
- 508
I've suggested before that we do a NHL version of what RealGM did for the NBA were they went over each season and ranked the top 5 players over the regular season+playoffs:
''-The criteria of "best season" is meant to emulate MVP thinking. Obviously different people think about MVP differently, so it's okay that the same holds for our POY. That said, this is a proof-in-pudding award. If a player got injured, got disgruntled, etc one season, that has to be factored in.
-Voting weights will be just like the MVP: 10-7-5-3-1. This will be used note only to determine POYs, but we'll also track POY shares over players' careers.
-Each voting will take 3 days. I'll add them up at the end. You can change your voting after you post it up until I do the final count, but please do it by editing your original post to make it easier for me.
-Votings will overlap since they aren't dependent on each other, so sometimes we'll have more than one voting "live" at once.''
So you not only end up with a list of who was the best player in each season in history, you also get a different kind of all time ranking created over time by our MVP shares. When we get to WW2 we could look at our current MVP shares and see who we have as the all time top 10 at that point. We can track at what season Howe becomes the GOAT, and if he get surpassed. Here is the RealGM spreadsheet and all time MVP shares rankings, updated for this season:
Here is the thread explaining the project and links to the voting:
It would be a huge project, but I think it would be really fun.
''-The criteria of "best season" is meant to emulate MVP thinking. Obviously different people think about MVP differently, so it's okay that the same holds for our POY. That said, this is a proof-in-pudding award. If a player got injured, got disgruntled, etc one season, that has to be factored in.
-Voting weights will be just like the MVP: 10-7-5-3-1. This will be used note only to determine POYs, but we'll also track POY shares over players' careers.
-Each voting will take 3 days. I'll add them up at the end. You can change your voting after you post it up until I do the final count, but please do it by editing your original post to make it easier for me.
-Votings will overlap since they aren't dependent on each other, so sometimes we'll have more than one voting "live" at once.''
So you not only end up with a list of who was the best player in each season in history, you also get a different kind of all time ranking created over time by our MVP shares. When we get to WW2 we could look at our current MVP shares and see who we have as the all time top 10 at that point. We can track at what season Howe becomes the GOAT, and if he get surpassed. Here is the RealGM spreadsheet and all time MVP shares rankings, updated for this season:
Here is the thread explaining the project and links to the voting:
It would be a huge project, but I think it would be really fun.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
People have long voiced concerns over people being too heavily reliant on wins and Cup victories to compile a list, but I think that's only applicable to preliminary rankings and varies from person to person. The regular HoH folks who participate are going to have a solid base of knowledge.
In my personal studies of Pete Green (almost surely my most important research to date) a few years ago, and Punch Imlach this year, I have found and continue to find a bountiful amount of important information that is neither counting stats or Cup wins.
It's the one project we have never seriously attempted here. Ever. And I find dodging the best ever coaches, a real missed opportunity to not only compile a studied ranking but come up with so much new information on numerous coaches. We have people here capable of digging up sizable troves of hits.
You aren't going to have all that much more added to positional lists. Some active players will show up. A few folks will rise or fall slightly, but in the grand scheme, there is so much more to be gained by giving our undivided attention to coaches.
We could certainly come up with attributes that coaches are to be judged on. We obviously need to be cognizant of era, talent on a roster, did the coach walk into a winner already or help build one, consistency, peak, longevity, innovation to the game, how much contemporary praise did they get, so on and so forth.
There are so many areas to explore beyond just wins. Sure, that's part of the equation but I think the HoH section and people who would participate are astute enough to not overly rely on a singular stat or record.
Just my .02 but coaches are important enough to draft in the ATD. And this board has never given them a look. I'd really like to see that change.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 12,045
- 6,517
Not having all the info is kinda the point with these things, because then you have to run and get the info. If you already have all the info, why even do any of this in the first place. I don't get it.
No offence to anyone, but I don't want to discuss Drew Doughty or Erik Karlsson or Henrik Lundqvist or Connor McDavid or Vasilevskiy on HOH. This is supposed to be a history board.
Also, good luck trying to fetch back guys who haven't been posting here for nearly 4 years and left on sour terms.
I'm probably not going to do any project here, but if I was forced to gun to the head style, then women's project or coaching project, or something along those lines, would make the most sense because then you would have to do actual work, and possibly learn new things, instead of just whining over and over again about the same old tired things.
Ralph Winsor for instance is a really interesting case of a player who went into coaching young (early 20s) and ran a famous system at Harvard in the early decades of the 1900s. Coached the US national team as well at the 1932 Olympics.
No offence to anyone, but I don't want to discuss Drew Doughty or Erik Karlsson or Henrik Lundqvist or Connor McDavid or Vasilevskiy on HOH. This is supposed to be a history board.
Also, good luck trying to fetch back guys who haven't been posting here for nearly 4 years and left on sour terms.
I'm probably not going to do any project here, but if I was forced to gun to the head style, then women's project or coaching project, or something along those lines, would make the most sense because then you would have to do actual work, and possibly learn new things, instead of just whining over and over again about the same old tired things.
Ralph Winsor for instance is a really interesting case of a player who went into coaching young (early 20s) and ran a famous system at Harvard in the early decades of the 1900s. Coached the US national team as well at the 1932 Olympics.
Yeah, this is where I fall too. Learning is the fun part for me; the projects/rankings are just a good way to inspire the research and discussion that lead to that learning.
I would participate in a coach project, just like I would participate in a women's hockey project. With both, however, I am concerned that we would get a ton of participation or debate after the first couple rounds (if at all, honestly).
I don't get this line of thinking. What all those players have done is already a part of hockey history. History is history; I don't care if it happened 20 minutes ago or 120 years ago, what has been accomplished should be discussed in a historical setting and context.
Projecting out what current players are doing has no business here, but debating the merits of the 2024 Hart winner vs the 1924 Hart winner sounds plenty historical to me.
I didn't realize some of those posters had left on sour terms; that is too bad.
Felidae
Registered User
- Sep 30, 2016
- 11,662
- 14,593
Surprised I haven't seen it thrown around here yet, but what about a GM ranking? At least you wouldn't have to worry about the discussion revolving around intangibles, team stats, etc unlike coaches, and GM decisions are certainly easier to discuss than coaching decisions.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
My thing about coaching is that the information isn't really acquirable. At least with virtually everyone that has played in the last 80 years, there's some footage. But with coaching, that's sort of the unseen hand. Sure, we'll pick off the "easy" ones like Bowman...but I fear it will be too results-based. Some of the biggest aspects of coaching don't happen in the games.
If a coach had the 1977 Montreal Canadiens and just yelled really loudly, he could have possibly gotten similar results as Bowman did because the team was so strong. Conversely, you could have a wizard tactician and player development guy who was handed the [insert terrible roster here] and dragged what was otherwise a last place team into a first round series win.
There aren't as many avenues to succeed in coaching as compared to being a player. So, it's easy to get stuck in bad situations and not get a chance in a good one.
With game accounts, a writer (or whoever) is much more likely to be able to pick out the excellence of a player than the genius (or failures) of a coach...
I'm much more likely to read that Eddie Shore had a great game, and was supported dutifully by Lionel Hitchman. I'm much less likely to read that Art Ross helped usher in the first known instance of neutral zone surfing, encouraging Shore to skate with the puck carrier where ever and allow Hitchman to "lead" the pairing by calling out and picking up the switch as a means of stopping Howie Morenz.
I'm sure we'll find some tidbits out there. But look, there's only so many combinations to reasonably stack five guys. Everyone plays some 1-2-2 at some point.
If we wanted to really put an emphasis on innovators...guys that were the first to do something, then maybe you'd have something interesting. Another route would be to listen to interviews, there's a couple of former coaches that currently do color commentary that just seem so oblivious that I'm surprised (well, in one case, not surprised) they even held a coaching job at any level...
I'm not saying "no"...but a Cups and wins count-off isn't going to be a very interesting project. And I feel like the tendency to fall back on that is going to be very strong.
Goaltending seems to be voodoo to a lot of folks, even folks in the game...look at what happened with our goalie list...the only two guys from the 80's were the two guys that won the Cups...? That's pretty convenient.
3 of the 4 guys from the 70's were the Cup winners of the 70's and the gold medal winner of the 70's (and Esposito). Maybe that's right. Maybe. But I'm not convinced we really did the work there in retrospect. It's been over 10 years and there's a lot more video available too, so the situation has improved. But those two decades were the first real challenge (because there were only six guys in the league at a time before that for the most part) and we went, "well, the goalies that had Super Team '76, Gretzky, and Arbour/Potvin/Trottier were the best...moving on. BRODEUR TRAP!"
Like, all of a sudden there was an attempt at context because more people saw that and there was a buzzword around the 90's Devils...
I'm not saying it's wrong...it could be the most perfect list in creation...but I question the process at some points there and that's with tons of available resources. Likely 10x what we'll have for coaches and we still defaulted to Cup/wins counting there I feel like...
If a coach had the 1977 Montreal Canadiens and just yelled really loudly, he could have possibly gotten similar results as Bowman did because the team was so strong. Conversely, you could have a wizard tactician and player development guy who was handed the [insert terrible roster here] and dragged what was otherwise a last place team into a first round series win.
There aren't as many avenues to succeed in coaching as compared to being a player. So, it's easy to get stuck in bad situations and not get a chance in a good one.
With game accounts, a writer (or whoever) is much more likely to be able to pick out the excellence of a player than the genius (or failures) of a coach...
I'm much more likely to read that Eddie Shore had a great game, and was supported dutifully by Lionel Hitchman. I'm much less likely to read that Art Ross helped usher in the first known instance of neutral zone surfing, encouraging Shore to skate with the puck carrier where ever and allow Hitchman to "lead" the pairing by calling out and picking up the switch as a means of stopping Howie Morenz.
I'm sure we'll find some tidbits out there. But look, there's only so many combinations to reasonably stack five guys. Everyone plays some 1-2-2 at some point.
If we wanted to really put an emphasis on innovators...guys that were the first to do something, then maybe you'd have something interesting. Another route would be to listen to interviews, there's a couple of former coaches that currently do color commentary that just seem so oblivious that I'm surprised (well, in one case, not surprised) they even held a coaching job at any level...
I'm not saying "no"...but a Cups and wins count-off isn't going to be a very interesting project. And I feel like the tendency to fall back on that is going to be very strong.
Goaltending seems to be voodoo to a lot of folks, even folks in the game...look at what happened with our goalie list...the only two guys from the 80's were the two guys that won the Cups...? That's pretty convenient.
3 of the 4 guys from the 70's were the Cup winners of the 70's and the gold medal winner of the 70's (and Esposito). Maybe that's right. Maybe. But I'm not convinced we really did the work there in retrospect. It's been over 10 years and there's a lot more video available too, so the situation has improved. But those two decades were the first real challenge (because there were only six guys in the league at a time before that for the most part) and we went, "well, the goalies that had Super Team '76, Gretzky, and Arbour/Potvin/Trottier were the best...moving on. BRODEUR TRAP!"
Like, all of a sudden there was an attempt at context because more people saw that and there was a buzzword around the 90's Devils...
I'm not saying it's wrong...it could be the most perfect list in creation...but I question the process at some points there and that's with tons of available resources. Likely 10x what we'll have for coaches and we still defaulted to Cup/wins counting there I feel like...
Last edited:
jigglysquishy
Registered User
My preference is always players. Coaching, GMs, builders are all fun categories. But on ice players is why we actually watch the sport.
Everytime we've had a discussion about a new project in the past 2 years, everyone comes up with their own ideas and nothing ever gets done. ie - I could easily try and make a renewed push at peaks, but there simply wasn't enough widespread interest.
If this forum really wants to do this, I think doing something that would get the most participation is important - and that sounds like redoing the positional rankings is going to be it.
If this forum really wants to do this, I think doing something that would get the most participation is important - and that sounds like redoing the positional rankings is going to be it.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I'd support a new positional list I think. I also think our goalie list is the worst one we have. Barrasso? Thomas? Give me a break...
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Agreed.
The fact that I can't watch coaches "coach" makes it pretty hard to rank them.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,401
- 3,305
Assessments vary so widely for coaches.
For example, take Kent Douglas's assessment of the coaches he played for. He said Eddie Shore was the best coach he ever played for, and Punch Imlach was the worst. (He also said Turk Broda, his tier II junior coach in the Toronto system, was completely clueless and only had his job because he was a former Leaf great.)
Eddie Shore was actually the owner of the Springfield Indians, not the game day bench coach. He always hired someone else to coach the games (including Imlach for one season). But Shore ran the training camp and practices, designed the systems that the team played, and he spent time coaching players 1-on-1 to improve their weaknesses. So he did have a reputation in his day as a coach, even though he isn't listed as the coach of record in the history books.
Shore had a reputation for knowing more about hockey than anyone else in the world. He had spent his career as a player trying to master the game, and he continued doing so as a team owner. His emphasis on teaching balance and using all edges as a skater was well ahead of his time, and he always spent the first week of training camp on skating fundamentals. Which frustrated some players, especially those who didn't skate to Shore's standard and didn't think they needed to learn anything. Shore himself was a marvelous skater who was in great shape even in his 50s and 60s, and he could skate and demonstrate all the drills better than any of the players. When he was in his mid-60s, his son Ted filmed him demonstrating all his skating training and drills. Now that's one piece of lost hockey film that I'd love to see.
Brian Kilrea said Shore constantly emphasized that the puck moved faster than you could skate, and drilled the team on moving without the puck and passing to the open man. He said the Springfield team passed twice as much as their opponents, and they didn't dump the puck in. During the 1972 Summit Series, Bill White told reporters that as far as he was concerned, the Russians weren't doing anything new. It was all stuff that Eddie Shore had taught them in Springfield.
Shore specialized in cheaply acquiring players who were distressed assets, coaching them up and improving them, and then getting a good return for them. As the rink owner, he could and would spend an hour or two a day using the ice to work with an individual player, and he would do so for any player who asked. I read an account from the mid-1940s of a player who had graduated junior hockey, wanted to make it in senior hockey, and he came to Shore for help. Shore spent an hour on the ice with him each day for a week before the player took the train home. I don't remember the name now but I looked up the player and he was a low scoring high PIM winger in junior who didn't make it as a senior and probably had no chance. But Shore put in the work with this young man who had asked for help.
He was especially good with defencemen, which isn't surprising considering he was an all time great himself. Douglas, White, Ted Harris, Bob McCord, and Dale Rolfe were all Shore projects. He got a lot of press for turning Douglas around, because it was so fast and dramatic, and because the Leafs sent him five players for Douglas after only one season.
Shore's individual coaching for Douglas included:
Punch Imlach, on the other hand, was not a teacher of hockey at all. As a player, he never played at a higher level than senior hockey. As a coach, he didn't even run practices in Toronto, he delegated that to some of the senior players. Per Punch and his supporters, his main skills were man management and team motivation. Douglas and other detractors said Imlach was a self-promoter and a fraud who knew how to work the media but didn't know hockey. In their view, Imlach took all the credit when the team won, and blamed the players when they lost. Douglas considered that the players basically coached the team themselves, and Imlach had nothing to do with their success. He described Imlach's coaching as being limited to saying "Next line."
Imlach also alienated two young star players in Frank Mahovlich and Carl Brewer. They should have been the foundation for Toronto's post-dynasty success, along with Dave Keon.
So how do you rate Eddie Shore versus Punch Imlach as a coach? Is it all about the NHL and winning the Stanley Cup, or do Shore's player development and innovation count for anything? Was Imlach actually a great leader and motivator, or just great with the media? Did Imlach make his mark on the Leafs with his style of play? Or did he just continue the Maple Leaf way that had been established throughout the organization for years, including their sponsored minor hockey and junior hockey teams?
And then consider we have zero film or video of Imlach's Quebec Aces, and zero film or video of Shore's Springfield Indians.
It could be a fun project, but I wouldn't expect anywhere near the amount of consensus there has been for the projects on players.
For example, take Kent Douglas's assessment of the coaches he played for. He said Eddie Shore was the best coach he ever played for, and Punch Imlach was the worst. (He also said Turk Broda, his tier II junior coach in the Toronto system, was completely clueless and only had his job because he was a former Leaf great.)
Eddie Shore was actually the owner of the Springfield Indians, not the game day bench coach. He always hired someone else to coach the games (including Imlach for one season). But Shore ran the training camp and practices, designed the systems that the team played, and he spent time coaching players 1-on-1 to improve their weaknesses. So he did have a reputation in his day as a coach, even though he isn't listed as the coach of record in the history books.
Shore had a reputation for knowing more about hockey than anyone else in the world. He had spent his career as a player trying to master the game, and he continued doing so as a team owner. His emphasis on teaching balance and using all edges as a skater was well ahead of his time, and he always spent the first week of training camp on skating fundamentals. Which frustrated some players, especially those who didn't skate to Shore's standard and didn't think they needed to learn anything. Shore himself was a marvelous skater who was in great shape even in his 50s and 60s, and he could skate and demonstrate all the drills better than any of the players. When he was in his mid-60s, his son Ted filmed him demonstrating all his skating training and drills. Now that's one piece of lost hockey film that I'd love to see.
Brian Kilrea said Shore constantly emphasized that the puck moved faster than you could skate, and drilled the team on moving without the puck and passing to the open man. He said the Springfield team passed twice as much as their opponents, and they didn't dump the puck in. During the 1972 Summit Series, Bill White told reporters that as far as he was concerned, the Russians weren't doing anything new. It was all stuff that Eddie Shore had taught them in Springfield.
Shore specialized in cheaply acquiring players who were distressed assets, coaching them up and improving them, and then getting a good return for them. As the rink owner, he could and would spend an hour or two a day using the ice to work with an individual player, and he would do so for any player who asked. I read an account from the mid-1940s of a player who had graduated junior hockey, wanted to make it in senior hockey, and he came to Shore for help. Shore spent an hour on the ice with him each day for a week before the player took the train home. I don't remember the name now but I looked up the player and he was a low scoring high PIM winger in junior who didn't make it as a senior and probably had no chance. But Shore put in the work with this young man who had asked for help.
He was especially good with defencemen, which isn't surprising considering he was an all time great himself. Douglas, White, Ted Harris, Bob McCord, and Dale Rolfe were all Shore projects. He got a lot of press for turning Douglas around, because it was so fast and dramatic, and because the Leafs sent him five players for Douglas after only one season.
Shore's individual coaching for Douglas included:
- Getting his weight down. Shore concluded that Douglas was drinking too much in the way of liquids, including water, milk, and pop (so the papers said). Douglas was leaner and quicker after cutting back on his water consumption.
- Controlling his temper. Shore convinced Douglas that he didn't have to retaliate immediately and get a penalty. There would always be an opportunity later when he could get his revenge cleanly and avoid the penalty box. (The papers were happy to point out the irony in Eddie Shore teaching this lesson.)
- Improving his balance when engaging the opponent. Shore taught Douglas to use a half-hit to bump the opponent off balance and take the puck, rather than laying out a full bodycheck that would take him out of the play with the opponent.
- Douglas said Shore had dozens of other little tricks that he passed on.
Punch Imlach, on the other hand, was not a teacher of hockey at all. As a player, he never played at a higher level than senior hockey. As a coach, he didn't even run practices in Toronto, he delegated that to some of the senior players. Per Punch and his supporters, his main skills were man management and team motivation. Douglas and other detractors said Imlach was a self-promoter and a fraud who knew how to work the media but didn't know hockey. In their view, Imlach took all the credit when the team won, and blamed the players when they lost. Douglas considered that the players basically coached the team themselves, and Imlach had nothing to do with their success. He described Imlach's coaching as being limited to saying "Next line."
Imlach also alienated two young star players in Frank Mahovlich and Carl Brewer. They should have been the foundation for Toronto's post-dynasty success, along with Dave Keon.
So how do you rate Eddie Shore versus Punch Imlach as a coach? Is it all about the NHL and winning the Stanley Cup, or do Shore's player development and innovation count for anything? Was Imlach actually a great leader and motivator, or just great with the media? Did Imlach make his mark on the Leafs with his style of play? Or did he just continue the Maple Leaf way that had been established throughout the organization for years, including their sponsored minor hockey and junior hockey teams?
And then consider we have zero film or video of Imlach's Quebec Aces, and zero film or video of Shore's Springfield Indians.
It could be a fun project, but I wouldn't expect anywhere near the amount of consensus there has been for the projects on players.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Perhaps we could do a vote by PM? The votes will be released publicly afterwards.
We could brainstorm to lay all the potential ideas out on the table - and then clean it up by consolidating similar things (the position lists could be one item, for example, or if peaks and primes were suggested, that could be one item on the list) - and then every potential participant can send me the list of ideas, ranked from first to last. One has to come out on top.
And we should be able to trust that this idea will be the one that does the best job of pleasing the most participants and disappointing the fewest. There are plenty of supporters and detractors of most of the "mainstream" ideas that we've tossed around but one has to come out on top, just like Bobby Hull came out as the #5 player on the last HOH list, despite 18 of 30 voters not putting him there.
I could be the vote collector.
We could brainstorm to lay all the potential ideas out on the table - and then clean it up by consolidating similar things (the position lists could be one item, for example, or if peaks and primes were suggested, that could be one item on the list) - and then every potential participant can send me the list of ideas, ranked from first to last. One has to come out on top.
And we should be able to trust that this idea will be the one that does the best job of pleasing the most participants and disappointing the fewest. There are plenty of supporters and detractors of most of the "mainstream" ideas that we've tossed around but one has to come out on top, just like Bobby Hull came out as the #5 player on the last HOH list, despite 18 of 30 voters not putting him there.
I could be the vote collector.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
If you look at where the discussion has gone it's been centred around four projects
1. Re-do positional lists leading into a new top 100 (200?300?). This is the frontrunner. It's been over 10 years since we did positional and if we expand the lists there is new territory.
2. Women. The most research and I think the most rewarding, but I also think we would struggle to get more than 5-7 participants. Maybe people will want to partake in 5 years with some more PWHL under our belts.
3. Peaks. Could be a fun discussion, but is ultimately limited. Would be similar to the playoff project where it is a subset of a career.
4. MVP/All Stars. I like this one but feel it's different enough from the normal projects it's almost a sideproject that can run concurrently. With the massive undertaking of 130 seasons it would certainly need to be done in chunks.
1. Re-do positional lists leading into a new top 100 (200?300?). This is the frontrunner. It's been over 10 years since we did positional and if we expand the lists there is new territory.
2. Women. The most research and I think the most rewarding, but I also think we would struggle to get more than 5-7 participants. Maybe people will want to partake in 5 years with some more PWHL under our belts.
3. Peaks. Could be a fun discussion, but is ultimately limited. Would be similar to the playoff project where it is a subset of a career.
4. MVP/All Stars. I like this one but feel it's different enough from the normal projects it's almost a sideproject that can run concurrently. With the massive undertaking of 130 seasons it would certainly need to be done in chunks.
Professor What
Registered User
I wouldn't participate in the peaks project. I don't find it to be worthwhile. I agree with you on the All-Stars project and how it could be done. That's a very long-term project. I'm far from opposed to the women's project, but again, I just question what I could offer. We need more research on the board.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,369
- 15,371
We can also consider ranking players in different "specialist" categories - goal scoring, playmaking, defensive forwards, defensive defensemen, etc.
It covers new ground (we've never done these rankings before). It probably doesn't require a ton of deep research (that could be an argument for or against). This might be a good "easy" project that buys us some more time (ie the women project would require lots of time/effort to research - I'm not sure if we're there yet, and I'm not sure if there's been enough movement to justify the considerable time/effort to redo the positional projects).
It covers new ground (we've never done these rankings before). It probably doesn't require a ton of deep research (that could be an argument for or against). This might be a good "easy" project that buys us some more time (ie the women project would require lots of time/effort to research - I'm not sure if we're there yet, and I'm not sure if there's been enough movement to justify the considerable time/effort to redo the positional projects).
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
Yes, every time this thread comes up, the (lack of an) outcome seems to be the same. I like seventieslord's idea of PMing a ranked ballot to settle on a topic. Once that's actually established and settled on, then I'm certain there'd be substantially more interest and participation. But the topic actually needs to be established first.
I also agree with the thought that the re-doing the positional lists is the right move. I'd participate in any topic though, I think.
I'd be happy to help with administrative duties. It's the slow season at work for the next couple of months so I have time/energy to burn.
I also agree with the thought that the re-doing the positional lists is the right move. I'd participate in any topic though, I think.
I'd be happy to help with administrative duties. It's the slow season at work for the next couple of months so I have time/energy to burn.
Professor What
Registered User
Happy to hear that! I'd be interested to hear from some people that have worked as project admins in the past for some tips on what to do and how to do it.
Anyway, I kind of wonder how long we're looking at before we're ready to do a women's project. Is it just a matter of time to do research or do we, as someone else suggested need to have a few seasons of the PWHL under our belts before enough people would feel comfortable taking it on?
I also don't think I'd have a real interest in the "subset" project ideas. As a rule, the thing that interests me is judging players based on their full careers, though I'd make an exception for the playoffs.
Professor What
Registered User
So, where are we at right now? Are we going to PM votes to someone? If we vote, however we do it, we need to stick with it this time. We've had votes before and they didn't get honored.
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
I would be wholly invested in a coaches project.
Guys like Tikhonov, Imlach, Ross, ... need more top-10ish love!
Guys like Tikhonov, Imlach, Ross, ... need more top-10ish love!
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Let's summarize what we have.
- redo a positional list
- top all-time 100 or 200 again
- women's list
- coaches
- subset lists (defensive forwards, goal scoring, etc)
- best peak, prime, season, etc
- fill in awards and Allstars for old seasons
What else should be added to the ballot?
- redo a positional list
- top all-time 100 or 200 again
- women's list
- coaches
- subset lists (defensive forwards, goal scoring, etc)
- best peak, prime, season, etc
- fill in awards and Allstars for old seasons
What else should be added to the ballot?
That looks about right to me. Are you still volunteering to compile the votes?
