Runoff for the next HOH Project

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Which one should we do next?

Click to read more...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It seems like the demand is high for both projects. It's not a question of should we do one and skip the other. Over the next couple of years, both will get done - it's just a matter of which one will be done first.

For that reason, I prefer the "next" top 100. The longer we wait between the original top 100 project and this one, the less validity the 2nd list will have. Even a year in between isn't ideal, but there probably isn't enough movement that it really changes things. The problem is, if we do the pre-consolidation list first, by the time we're done it probably doesn't make sense to do the next top 100 at all (or if we do, there will be some consistency issues). We'd might as well save it until 2030 or whenever we do the next full update.

I think the pre-consolidation project is probably more interesting and useful. But that's not the question. One project is time sensitive, the other isn't (not like evaluating the players from 1926 and earlier will be any harder or less thorough if we do it in 2022 rather than 2021).

 

[Professor What]

I still can't vote, so I'll once again post my preference. I'd like to tackle the pre-consolidation project first because I think I'd by far learn the most from it. I want to echo @Hockey Outsider in saying both should be done, since I think both have great value, however, I actually think the next 100 might be better served a little later simply because we'll have a better view of someone like McDavid. Since the plan is that we'd all do 1-220 lists, if I'm being honest, I'd have to admit that I don't really know what to do with him after just five years. I felt the same way about Crosby and Ovi at that point in their careers. Just one more year might not change that much, but I'd value any additional data on him, and outside of him and Draitsaitl, I don't see anyone else that looks to break super high into lists.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Pre-consolidation all the way. More to learn from it.

My knowledge of the Cup Challenge era leaves a lot to be desired. That project would be a perfect opportunity to fill the gaps. I would also enjoy reading discussions on the relative strenght of the NHA/WH(C)L/PCHA in any given year. Stuff like that.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don’t mind running the #101-200 project if it does win the vote, but I guess my thought would be... why this project?

Granted, the ATD extends well beyond 100 names, so there may be some value for future drafters in comparing these players who are on a slightly lower tier than the players already named 1-100, but beyond that, I don’t know that I see too much of a use.

At best, I think in going over the records of players who weren’t eligible in the original project, we might come to a realization that the community is truly sleeping on some players - maybe even to the point that they should have been named in the last project.

We started to see with at least three players at the end of the last project (Gardiner and Belfour and Firsov) that they went #1 in their first round of eligibility.

If we see that enough times in a 101-200 project, maybe it will be worth it after all, but I guess I mostly foresee the project getting hung up on the respective weight each of us places younger or injured stars versus healthy and less acclaimed compilers. And I don’t know that Kucherov vs. Delvecchio is going to generate new evidence as opposed to just divide people along lines of already or not yet but soon.

I think after 70 or so names (only 66 players were named on all 32 ballots last project), it starts to get lean in terms of truly great players with full careers. So committing almost a year to a project that tests the room’s temperature on a dozen players like Johnny Bucyk and Mats Sundin for every player whose resume turns out to be substantially better than most expected wouldn’t necessarily be my cup of tea.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don’t mind running the #101-200 project if it does win the vote, but I guess my thought would be... why this project?

Granted, the ATD extends well beyond 100 names, so there may be some value for future drafters in comparing these players who are on a slightly lower tier than the players already named 1-100, but beyond that, I don’t know that I see too much of a use.

At best, I think in going over the records of players who weren’t eligible in the original project, we might come to a realization that the community is truly sleeping on some players - maybe even to the point that they should have been named in the last project.

We started to see with at least three players at the end of the last project (Gardiner and Belfour and Firsov) that they went #1 in their first round of eligibility.

If we see that enough times in a 101-200 project, maybe it will be worth it after all, but I guess I mostly foresee the project getting hung up on the respective weight each of us places younger or injured stars versus healthy and less acclaimed compilers. And I don’t know that Kucherov vs. Delvecchio is going to generate new evidence as opposed to just divide people along lines of already or not yet but soon.

I think after 70 or so names (only 66 players were named on all 32 ballots last project), it starts to get lean in terms of truly great players with full careers. So committing almost a year to a project that tests the room’s temperature on a dozen players like Johnny Bucyk and Mats Sundin for every player whose resume turns out to be substantially better than most expected wouldn’t necessarily be my cup of tea.

I'm asking myself the same question.

To respond to your ATD comment, if anything the HoH Projects have been detrimental to the ATDs, because too many participants followed the rankings religiously and the draft became too predictable.

 

[ImporterExporter]

If these are the only 2 options, I'm with BB.

Pre Consolidation.

The amount of information I unearthed (some of you saw this with Pete Green's bio) on a handful of players while searching for the all time draft last year was quite staggering. Newspapers.com has been a boon to investigating the early era's.

A year ago there wasn't much known about Pete Green. I'd wager nobody would rate Tommy Gorman ahead of him today.

Smokey Harris was another one that really stood out. Multiple additional AS nods for starters that weren't previously known. A defensive reputation that was probably only bested by the Nighbor/Walker clan.

101-200 interests me, just not as much as looking deeper into the formative years of pro hockey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We started to see with at least three players at the end of the last project (Gardiner and Belfour and Firsov) that they went #1 in their first round of eligibility

That's a sign that we may not have had enough players available in a round.

Its inevitable at some point.

But if we do a top 101-200, we should allow discussion of 15ish names per round, not 10.

 

[plusandminus]

I still can't vote, so I'll once again post my preference. I'd like to tackle the pre-consolidation project first because I think I'd by far learn the most from it. I want to echo @Hockey Outsider in saying both should be done, since I think both have great value, however, I actually think the next 100 might be better served a little later simply because we'll have a better view of someone like McDavid. Since the plan is that we'd all do 1-220 lists, if I'm being honest, I'd have to admit that I don't really know what to do with him after just five years. I felt the same way about Crosby and Ovi at that point in their careers. Just one more year might not change that much, but I'd value any additional data on him, and outside of him and Draitsaitl, I don't see anyone else that looks to break super high into lists.

But a few years from now there will be other star players that are in the same age as McDavid or Crosby is now? Wouldn't this basically always be a problem?
There might always be one or two "generational talents", or a few top-100 players, being at the beginning, middle or end of their career?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don’t mind running the #101-200 project if it does win the vote, but I guess my thought would be... why this project?

Granted, the ATD extends well beyond 100 names, so there may be some value for future drafters in comparing these players who are on a slightly lower tier than the players already named 1-100, but beyond that, I don’t know that I see too much of a use.

At best, I think in going over the records of players who weren’t eligible in the original project, we might come to a realization that the community is truly sleeping on some players - maybe even to the point that they should have been named in the last project.

We started to see with at least three players at the end of the last project (Gardiner and Belfour and Firsov) that they went #1 in their first round of eligibility.

If we see that enough times in a 101-200 project, maybe it will be worth it after all, but I guess I mostly foresee the project getting hung up on the respective weight each of us places younger or injured stars versus healthy and less acclaimed compilers. And I don’t know that Kucherov vs. Delvecchio is going to generate new evidence as opposed to just divide people along lines of already or not yet but soon.

I think after 70 or so names (only 66 players were named on all 32 ballots last project), it starts to get lean in terms of truly great players with full careers. So committing almost a year to a project that tests the room’s temperature on a dozen players like Johnny Bucyk and Mats Sundin for every player whose resume turns out to be substantially better than most expected wouldn’t necessarily be my cup of tea.

I thought the players by position lists had excellent discussion for the most part.

 

[plusandminus]

I think after 70 or so names (only 66 players were named on all 32 ballots last project), it starts to get lean in terms of truly great players with full careers. So committing almost a year to a project that tests the room’s temperature on a dozen players like Johnny Bucyk and Mats Sundin for every player whose resume turns out to be substantially better than most expected wouldn’t necessarily be my cup of tea.

As a Swede I just again feel the need to say that Mats Sundin is very highly regarded among Swedes. Playing for Sweden he was at least as good as Peter Forsberg, for example multiple times being elected as the best player on his position during best-on-best tournaments. A superb leader and someone one could basically always rely on stepping up when it mattered the most. He also led TOR in goals and points for a huge number of seasons, as well as produced at a high PPG rate during playoffs. I think he was probably better than more than half of the players who won multiple Stanley Cups during his days, but unfortunately (sort of like Salming) was stuck on an unsuccessful TOR team.
Okay, now I've said this (again). I couldn't wait for the top-101 to top-200 or so project.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Agreed with everything Hockey Outsider said.

 

[Professor What]

But a few years from now there will be other star players that are in the same age as McDavid or Crosby is now? Wouldn't this basically always be a problem?
There might always be one or two "generational talents", or a few top-100 players, being at the beginning, middle or end of their career?

In a few years, yes, and I agree that there's always going to be some turnover, but I don't see who's going to significantly shake things up in the next year or two other than McDavid and Draitsaitl (another guy who's probably going to come up and whom another year or two will likely help define), and the odds are we'd see someone that was going to create a major shakeup coming. If we were talking a five year wait, it would be a different story.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't immediately see the value of a delayed extension of the top 100...I would rather wait, cycle the positional ones again (now armed with the knowledge gained from the pre-consolidation world), and then do that...

The thing about the top 200 is that maybe now Connor McDavid is a top 100 player (just as an example), so sticking him at 101 does what...? Is that really where he belongs...? Or is it just as high as he can go because we already did a list...?

I don't want to focus on the few exceptions because there is something to be said about extending the list further...but it doesn't solve a problem for me. That said, on the flip side, I'm a little concerned about what we may learn pre-consolidation and how it is applied. I don't want to unearth the notion that Percy LeSeuer or whoever was the unquestioned deity for all time hockey canon up until 1905 according to a consensus of all living humans at the time and then have him end up 19th overall on our next top 100 list...in other words, I really want to know who the absolute cream of the crop was and decide if they're even really relevant to us. And maybe in the process some hero finds some more film for us or we can make some more connections to decide just how good the quality was at certain points...

That's what I want to use this project for...maybe the 1920's was like the War years, maybe it wasn't that impressive to be great then...and maybe Morenz and Nighbor and Shore are all too high (I know, but, by extension) or given too much credit...maybe one of them should have risen way ahead of the others and pushed the others down...those are the kind of things that I'm after...

I'm not super interested in Allan Cameron, for instance...

To use a scouting analogy, if I'm at the World Juniors, I have a few teams with four lines of players to look at...if I'm looking at Belarus or Kazakhstan's team, chances are I'm only looking at their very best player at very best...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't necessarily see the reason to use one single player to determine what projects we do and don't do.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I disclaimed my own point within it (if that was, in fact, directed at me)...I don't disagree. But it's not a positive either...

 

[tarheelhockey]

IMO, we have much more to gain from getting a clearer sense of pre-consolidation hockey than from determining which player is 199th best and which is 200th.

Both projects have value, but to me there’s a clear cut difference in how valuable they are.

 

[ted2019]

I'm happy with doing either, but as I've said before in the other thread, the timing to do a #101-200 is now while the iron is still smoldering.

 

[Professor What]

I'll go ahead and retract my objection to the timing thing. As I said on another thread, I have a problem with getting hung up on details, and that's probably what I'm doing here. My apologies on that.

 

[quoipourquoi]

IMO, we have much more to gain from getting a clearer sense of pre-consolidation hockey than from determining which player is 199th best and which is 200th.

Both projects have value, but to me there’s a clear cut difference in how valuable they are.

I think player ranking is more pyramid shaped than linear, so it’ll probably be another 100 years before I feel fundamentally different about the 150th best player and the 200th. And that’s, like, 10 weeks of time in the project. Just seems like diminishing returns at a point.

To me, all the calls to expand the voting block beyond 10 players per round after about 2/3rds of the last project is a red flag that we can do a tight list up to a point, and after that, it’s an under-revealing grab bag that will age terribly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I To me, all the calls to expand the voting block beyond 10 players per round after about 2/3rds of the last project is a red flag that we can do a tight list up to a point, and after that, it’s an under-revealing grab bag that will age terribly.

Every project before the last Top 100 increased the number of candidates in later rounds. It's an acknowledgement that the first round of lists is just a rough draft.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Anyway, my thoughts:

1) if we are only going to do one project, it should be pre-consolidation.

2) if we are doing both, the next 100 should come first for reasons HO said.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'd rather do pre-consolidation, then re-do the Top 60 defensemen list (as the oldest positional project, it is overdue).

 

[sr edler]

One of the projects seems to have great potential for informative discussions, the other seems more opinion-based or open for contemporary players or favorite players with active careers. We really want to discuss McDavid, Kucherov & Hedman at length on the history board in a project over 2 or 3 months?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

One of the projects seems to have great potential for informative discussions, the other seems more opinion-based or open for contemporary players or favorite players with active careers. We really want to discuss McDavid, Kucherov & Hedman at length on the history board in a project over 2 or 3 months?

This is a good point.

It would be nice if posters could have restrained conversations on HOH about active players, but...