There is nothing conspiracy-driven in calling out people for redoing the same projects, which doesn't really move the needle much in the arena of discovery. There is nothing groundbreaking in using the same old metrics to move around slightly, already well established entities (players), while sprinkling in active or recently retired players who didn't qualify the last time positional lists were done. That's precisely what is going to unfold.
I think there is plenty to still uncover about the players. Is it as groundbreaking as coaches would be? Probably not. But then again, coaches is likely not as groundbreaking as the women's project would be- if covering new ground is your goal, the women's hockey project is likely the one with the most room for new knowledge.
The shining beacon of light in the pre-consolidation project was the volume of written evidence, not just about goals and assists, but what people actually thought of the players. How were they viewed by fellow players? Coaches, fans, refs, writers, etc. That was mandatory because trying to go numbers heavy in that era is a tough sell, namely due to the split leagues, wildly changing rules, and depth of talent from one league to the next.
And that's the rub. Numbers were still tallied and used but non numerical factors played a larger role in determining value.
I'm... aware of how the pre-consolidation project went. There is no reason we can't do that in the positional lists as well. Looking over the participants, it looks like many of the people are involved again here. Logically, we should expect the same level/style of discussion.
Will some people focus on stats? Sure. But that would likely happen in a coaches project as well, which you seem to glance over.
Are we going to be introducing anything new in the numbers department for these projects? Or will we basically be counting VsX (and other advanced studies), trophy shares, AS shares, with the occasional spat about something between the lines?
Why do we need new numbers? You seem to be hung up on the numbers, in much the same way you are accusing others of being. The gold is going to be in reading the contemporary thoughts and introducing the contemporary players into these discussions.
Will we be learning anything new about the players? Very little. That's not a bold statement.
Perhaps I am more optimistic than you are. I think there is plenty out there for us to talk about.
Beyond adding new faces (mainly active players), will there be anything at all that is actually fresh?
This strikes me as a loaded question, kind of like "besides what is new, what other new things are there?". I, for one, am interested in seeing how the new players stack up against the established names. I'm interested in seeing how we look at the established names with new information that will be brought to light.
And it isn't like the coaches would be new names either. The ATD section already has bios for a ton of coaches, and they are even already loosely ranked.
Players have already been analyzed to death. The vast majority of the folks we're talking about at this level are well documented.
Some of them have. Others haven't. Plus this isn't about just analyzing the players- it is about ranking them against one another. For example, Roy and Hasek has been discussed a ton on this board. Even against each other. That doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to getting into that debate again and trying to change hearts and minds.
Interest, to me, is borne out of the quest for knowledge and understanding. I'm personally more interested in learning about something in which I know less about, not more. Doing the same thing over and over is bleeping boring.
You do the ATD each year, which is basically the same thing each year, haha. I imagine we'll see more new research/information/comparisons in this project than we see in the average ATD. Especially if you participate, as you are one of the more consistent researchers there.
As a couple of people have said, there just isn't interest in a coaches project at this time.
Coaching would absolutely require more reading and juggling of non statistical factors. That scares people because they're not definitive like an equation. It's more perception is reality and I don't look at that as a problem, seemingly, like most do. Debate is healthy. With enough material and discussion, you can certainly end up with a thoughtful analysis of an entity that doesn't center around numbers. There truly is no perfect solution or right/wrong way. I feel there is far more to learn and more rewarding conclusions to end up at by branching away from players.
There is plenty to debate in the positional lists, and there are plenty of numbers in a coaches project for people to throw around in lieu of good conversation (though I feel like it must be said- numbers aren't bad. They shouldn't be the only thing we focus on, but they are a useful tool to use when appropriate).
You are trying to assign a motive to something without any evidence to support your assertion, and, worse, you are not extending that line of thought to your preferred project. It is an intellectually dishonest argument, IMO.
It's just a bit of a bummer to see almost no desire beyond maybe 3-4 people. Maybe it'll change in the years to come, but the voting and written opposition make that seem unlikely. considering it's coming from the most prominent names.
Or people have different priorities right now. For example, I am indeed interested in a coaches project; I am simply more interested in other things at this time.
I have no dog in this fight but Michael Farkas is spot on.
I don't know if I'm reading this wrong, but I hope you participate. You have a chance to help be the change you want to see in these projects- join in and provide the quotes and contemporary thoughts like you would do for the coaching project. That is what I plan to do, and judging by some of the other participants' comments, that is what they are planning as well.
