Project time!

[Dennis Bonvie]

I forget where it was mentioned, but someone said that some old participants left on sour terms...? The only one I know about his killion from way back...I wish TDMM was still around, qpq seemed to just disappear...

Really miss that guy.

 

[seventieslord]

Qpq definitely left. He and TDMM were going in circles about players like Kariya and Schreiner, and qpq somehow got so annoyed that he logged off and never came back.

TDMM just slowly lost interest. Or more accurately, put less of a priority on posting here after getting engaged.

 

[Professor What]

Qpq definitely left. He and TDMM were going in circles about players like Kariya and Schreiner, and qpq somehow got so annoyed that he logged off and never came back.

TDMM just slowly lost interest. Or more accurately, put less of a priority on posting here after getting engaged.

Weren't we in a project when that happened? It seems I remember you taking over administrative duties midstream.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That's interesting...qpq was a mod here and seemed pretty invested. I know that he and I had some really different perspectives on things, especially goalies, but I thought our conversations were always productive and light...didn't seem like a guy who would rage quit over a discussion.

Big Phil seemed like another mild mannered guy. Like, a guy you'd talk to at a bar about hockey in the 70's or whatever...

I got the sense that TDMM probably lives a subway ride away from me...maybe I can put a little scare into him *cracks knuckles* - the only thing I need to know is where he lives and what he looks like and approximate height/weight so I can estimate if I can run away from him fast enough without kicking my ass kicked, and we're all set...

 

[The Pale King]

Sent my voting in to seventieslord. Looking forward to whatever we settle on, that said, I have a clear preference for redoing a positional list.

 

[seventieslord]

That's interesting...qpq was a mod here and seemed pretty invested. I know that he and I had some really different perspectives on things, especially goalies, but I thought our conversations were always productive and light...didn't seem like a guy who would rage quit over a discussion.

Big Phil seemed like another mild mannered guy. Like, a guy you'd talk to at a bar about hockey in the 70's or whatever...

I got the sense that TDMM probably lives a subway ride away from me...maybe I can put a little scare into him *cracks knuckles* - the only thing I need to know is where he lives and what he looks like and approximate height/weight so I can estimate if I can run away from him fast enough without kicking my ass kicked, and we're all set...

He's an avid hiker, so even if you win the initial race you still have to worry about him catching up to you through sheer endurance.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Welp, I'm boned.

Also, thanks to a PM, I see that I somehow missed the last posts of Big Phil...what a wild ride that was. No idea where I was for that, but...whew...

I think it's much easier to lie on the internet if you don't start by posting under your own name and approximate t-shirt size haha

 

[DitchMarner]

Oh my God!!! Just read that Hull thread that contains the final posts from Big Phil. So intriguing and entertaining!!!

Back when I used to just browse, he was one of my favorite posters to read material from. I definitely thought he was an older guy. He pulled off the act very well! People lie on the internet. Lying about your age isn't the worst thing you can do (on its own). But to concoct a facade and to lead people to believe you witnessed things you didn't or that you had an older, wiser perspective than you had when you did witness them is really shitty. People come here to learn things.

Still, he seems to have a good sense of older players. I think he has at least done his home work. Or maybe he just wrote things he heard from his father. The character was definitely part of what made him stand out on here. I can see why he didn't want to throw away years of work. But he really made himself look foolish in those last few posts. Sometimes it's best to make an admission and own up to what you did. This revelation definitely makes me miss and respect him less.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Really miss that guy.

I miss all the (former) posters named on this page. I've read regularly on here for the better part of fifteen years, and they were definitely some of those I learnt a great deal from. Fake persona or not, I don't think the opinions presented were just made up out of thin air.

I agree with Farkas that the goalie positional list would be most interesting to do again. That's where I think we see the most changes compared to when it was made last time. It's also the position I find to be the hardest to really gauge.

The 2012 list for reference:

HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time

This is the final list of the top goaltenders from all of hockey history, as determined by the History of Hockey community at HFBoards: RankPlayerHeightWeightBornDiedCareerNationality 1Patrick Roy6'1"2101965 1985-2003Canada 2Dominik Hašek6'1"1651965 1980-2011Czech 3Jacques...

forums.hfboards.com

I see a lot of things changing there...

 

[Professor What]

I agree with Farkas that the goalie positional list would be most interesting to do again. That's where I think we see the most changes compared to when it was made last time. It's also the position I find to be the hardest to really gauge.

The 2012 list for reference:

HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time

This is the final list of the top goaltenders from all of hockey history, as determined by the History of Hockey community at HFBoards: RankPlayerHeightWeightBornDiedCareerNationality 1Patrick Roy6'1"2101965 1985-2003Canada 2Dominik Hašek6'1"1651965 1980-2011Czech 3Jacques...

forums.hfboards.com

I see a lot of things changing there...

I think there are some recent guys that could move up significantly/move into the list, and I think some of the pre-consolidation guys could move up as well. Also, I think there are some guys on that list that are overrated. I could see some of them moving down.

 

[bobholly39]

I have no idea who did or didn't vote yet. Do we have a good turnout so far?

There are a lot of active participants on this forum who don't generally participate in these projects. It would be great to get some more members to participate.

Especially if we're redoing the positional list - which we probably are. The more voters the better the results I think.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If we end up not having a big number, I'd consider maybe doing a bit of a different course than our previous projects. I don't know what that exactly is, but maybe a deeper dive into each round because we aren't able to share as much of the workload necessary. Like, if we have 12 people instead of 28, everyone of the 12 has to pull a little more weight to make it a well-researched deal.

I don't know...I don't want to sit around with a solution searching for a problem that I'm not sure we have yet. But especially if this turns into a goalie or even a defensemen project, the evolution of those positions are different - the understanding is different - than it was for forwards...

 

[Professor What]

I have no idea who did or didn't vote yet. Do we have a good turnout so far?

There are a lot of active participants on this forum who don't generally participate in these projects. It would be great to get some more members to participate.

Especially if we're redoing the positional list - which we probably are. The more voters the better the results I think.

Based on what seventies told me when I checked in with him and then people who have said that they've voted since, I know of at least eleven. We'd have to let seventies weigh in to know for sure though.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

If we end up not having a big number, I'd consider maybe doing a bit of a different course than our previous projects. I don't know what that exactly is, but maybe a deeper dive into each round because we aren't able to share as much of the workload necessary. Like, if we have 12 people instead of 28, everyone of the 12 has to pull a little more weight to make it a well-researched deal.

I don't know...I don't want to sit around with a solution searching for a problem that I'm not sure we have yet. But especially if this turns into a goalie or even a defensemen project, the evolution of those positions are different - the understanding is different - than it was for forwards...

If it's goalies we do, I'd really love to see a comprehensive study on the quality of goals given up in the playoffs by modern goalies who might come up for voting. Say maybe Luongo onwards, as we should have video of close to every playoff game after the lockout.

I drafted Mitch Korn in this year's ATD, and when putting together a brief bio on him, this passage really stuck with me:

Korn keeps his own stats, ones that he believes are valuable to the evaluation of a goalie’s effectiveness. Mostly because he doesn’t trust the ones generally accepted as a way to judge a goalie.

“If Steven Stamkos shoots the puck from there, and Tie Domi shoots from the same spot, doesn’t that make a difference?” he asked.

“Did the goal come from a pass? Was there a guy at the back door we had to worry about? How many seconds did the shooter have?”

He won’t reveal the specifics on what he measures, but the broad strokes are interesting. “I don’t evaluate you on the saves you make, but on the goals you give up,” he said. “If we can eliminate what some would refer to as ‘bad goals,’ what else do you want from him?

“Should have had, could have had and pretty much no chance. If we can diminish the shouldas, and lessen our couldas…”

I think it's very doable to put together a tally of each modern goalie's 'shouldas', 'couldas', and 'no chance' goals in the postseason with a bit of extra time and elbow grease, and that would be very illuminating. Of course, my heart is in the early days, so I imagine I'd take a dive into the old newspapers and spend a few months there instead...

 

[seventieslord]

Based on what seventies told me when I checked in with him and then people who have said that they've voted since, I know of at least eleven. We'd have to let seventies weigh in to know for sure though.

We have 15 votes right now.

 

[Michael Farkas]

“I don’t evaluate you on the saves you make, but on the goals you give up,” he said. “If we can eliminate what some would refer to as ‘bad goals,’ what else do you want from him?

Man...that sounds really, really familiar...hmph.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Mitch Korn is a goalie god.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm not sure if I'll be able to participate in the next project (whatever it ends up being). Between work and some travel plans, the next five months are going to be very busy. (I'm sure I'll still stop by and comment, but I don't think I can commit to being a voting participant). Should I send in my votes anyway?

 

[Professor What]

I'm not sure if I'll be able to participate in the next project (whatever it ends up being). Between work and some travel plans, the next five months are going to be very busy. (I'm sure I'll still stop by and comment, but I don't think I can commit to being a voting participant). Should I send in my votes anyway?

I'll send you my ballot, and you can send a copy of it in. Lol

 

[Staniowski]

If it's goalies we do, I'd really love to see a comprehensive study on the quality of goals given up in the playoffs by modern goalies who might come up for voting. Say maybe Luongo onwards, as we should have video of close to every playoff game after the lockout.

I drafted Mitch Korn in this year's ATD, and when putting together a brief bio on him, this passage really stuck with me:



I think it's very doable to put together a tally of each modern goalie's 'shouldas', 'couldas', and 'no chance' goals in the postseason with a bit of extra time and elbow grease, and that would be very illuminating. Of course, my heart is in the early days, so I imagine I'd take a dive into the old newspapers and spend a few months there instead...

There's nothing groundbreaking about what Mitch Korn is saying about evaluating goaltenders. All smart hockey people have always thought the same.

Korn is basically just saying Save Percentage sucks, and he's correct.

The example of Stamkos vs Domi is good; he's saying if the two of them shoot from the same spot (same situation), it might be a great scoring chance for Stamkos, and not a scoring chance at all for Domi. There are hundreds of other examples in demonstrating similar issues with Save Percentage.

Re: a formula or measurement of what he does, it would be very difficult. It takes watching and smarts.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm not sure if I'll be able to participate in the next project (whatever it ends up being). Between work and some travel plans, the next five months are going to be very busy. (I'm sure I'll still stop by and comment, but I don't think I can commit to being a voting participant). Should I send in my votes anyway?

There's a lot of value in having very rational and objective voters - who take the time to read everything posted - even if they can't contribute a ton of content or research.

Personally - I think you should send in a vote, and I also hope you'd participate in a project, even if most of what you do is just vote each round.

In the top 100 project we had close to 30 voters, and many didn't post much, but the high # of votes made the results stronger in the end.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Project time!

Also... re-quotation time(!)

I'd be most interested in a Hall of Fame project... and would be highly motivated if it were to take the shape of something like---

Top (n) [n being 20, or two-dozen, or 25] Hall of Fame eligible individuals not in the Hockey Hall of Fame, but most worthy of induction.

To begin with, there are at least a dozen- but probably more like 15+ non-inducted male players that are superior to the (")average(") male Hall-of-Fame player-- and would raise the level of the Hall of Fame immediately upon their induction. However, the issue doesn't end there.

Enough female players have been inducted into the Hall of Fame for us to work out a rough current baseline for women competitors. Are there any women who are above that line, or at least close enough to merit immediate consideration? That could be a beneficial conversation.

Then, there's the matter of European coach/builder types like Chernyshev and Kostka/Pitner. Worth considering, no? Finally, there are the players who might not appear on many top 200 lists- yet still merit discussion as potentially deserving pioneers, like Zábrodský and Bobrov.

Something that might have value outside the cyber-gates of the HF community, I think--

 

[Professor What]

Did we have a cut-off date set for voting? I know that a week was suggested, but I don't remember anything more than seeing a recommendation.

 

[Michael Farkas]

My impression is Friday. Not sure if that was actually stated, but that seems about right. I imagine we're fairly close to 18-20 votes at this point, which would be a decently plump number, if true...

 

[rmartin65]

Not to be the guy that quotes himself, but last week I suggested a deadline of Friday, 9 August-

Since it sounds like we have the procedure down- let’s give it a week (through next Friday, 9 August) for people to get their votes in. We’ll hold the second vote over the next week, give a couple weeks for sign-ups, a couple weeks for list formation/research/initial discussion, and look to start in September.

Sound good to people?

I don't believe anybody commented on it at the time, but I stand by this. We've had over a week to discuss potential projects. Let's avoid what happened last year and keep moving forward.