Warning - this is a long and probably self-indulgent post (but maybe it's of interest to some).
It’s hard to believe that it’s been twenty years since I joined HFBoards. I had been a member of a few different message boards in the past, but never stayed long. I would have been surprised to hear that I’d still be here two decades later.
I was frustrated by the state of the NHL in 2005. Maybe I was naive, but I didn’t think that either side would be dumb enough to cancel the entire season. It was obviously the right business move long-term, but it was frustrating to lose an entire season. (I’m still a fan, obviously, but I don’t think I’ve ever fully recaptured the passion and enthusiasm I once had - but it's hard to say how much of that is due to lingering resentment over the lockout, and how much is due to getting older and having far more demands on my time). On the other hand, the quality of the on-ice product had been deteriorating for many years. Irrespective of the business considerations, the post-lockout NHL, with more focus on speed and skill, has been more entertaining. (There's less physicality, of course, and a middle ground between the two extremes probably would have been even better). And, not that this was his fault, but back in 2005, I was irritated by the amount of media hype that Crosby received.
While I’m listing grievances - I don’t like shootouts, and I don’t know what the problem was with tie games, but I realize I’m in the minority for both topics.
I know a lot of hockey fans are insecure about the NHL being only the 4th largest league in North America. I've never cared. Comparing revenue between the NHL and other leagues has no impact on my experience as a fan. I want to make sure the league profitable enough to be sustainable, so that it's still here in another 20 (or 108) years. Beyond that, popularity (and profitability) is irrelevant.
There have been many positive changes on HFBoards. The interface is better than it’s ever been (search functionality, ability to like posts, automatic notifications when people reply, etc). For what it’s worth, I think the moderators do a lot of hard work for little recognition. (They’re like referees - you don’t hear much when they do their jobs well, but there’s a lot of complaints when they’re human enough to make a mistake).
Another positive change - there’s much more information available these days. It used to be an ordeal to figure out (for example) how many times a player was a Hart trophy finalist, or who ranked 17th in even strength scoring in 1981, or which player recorded the most assists per game in the playoffs between 1935 and 1941. Twenty years ago, this data either wasn’t available to the public, or it would take hours to compile. It’s not just quantitative information - it’s far easier to access decades-old articles from magazines and newspapers. Twenty years ago, you’d have to go to a library and use microfiche to find out what someone in the 1950’s said about Ted Kennedy. Now you can look it up while you’re sitting on the subway.
Generally speaking, people are much more open to using data to support their arguments. Most people understand that save percentage, although imperfect, is much more representative of a goalie’s performance than wins or GAA. Similarly, most people understand that scoring levels have fluctuated wildly throughout NHL history, and 80 points in 1954 (or 2004) is vastly different than it was in 1984. These two points probably sound obvious, but I assure you, this wasn’t the case two decades ago. It’s helpful when most posters have a certain minimum level of statistical literacy.
On the other hand, there’s so much data available, people can pick and choose whatever they want to support their arguments. There are so many (so-called) advanced stats - goals for and against, expected goals, shots, corsi, and fenwick. You can break each of those down into raw numbers, or percentages. You can look at them at 5v5, even strength, or all situations. You can take the actual numbers, or look at them on a relative basis. Then you can consider other factors, like zone states, or on-ice save and shooting percentages. It’s not hard for people to pick whichever statistics support their predetermined conclusion. I see this happen all the time. (People have always done that, of course, but it’s certainly easier when there’s vastly more data to choose from).
One of the obvious negative trends is there’s more polarization. People are less likely to try to understand the position of their “opponent”. It’s clear that many posters aren’t trying learn the truth about a given topic, but are simply trying to preach. (This trend, unfortunately, extends far beyond HFBoards). I’m always amused how some posters will quote my research in certain areas as if it’s a definitive conclusion (if it supports their position), but will discard my posts outright (when it challenges their preferred outcome). Another observation - twenty years ago, you’d expect fans to attack you if you said something critical about a player on their favourite team. Fair enough - that’s understandable for a message board. Nowadays it’s hard to say something positive about a star player without the opposing fan base trying to downplay the accomplishment.
I've had my share of disagreements with certain posters over the years. I've never taken it personally (and I hope they haven't either). These types of back-and-forth discussions promote critical thinking skills. Nobody should care about who wins an argument on an internet message board - but I sincerely think that my written communication skills have improved due to the numerous debates I've had here. The ability to explain complex data in a clear, understandable manner has helped me tremendously throughout my career.
I feel fortunate to have watched so much great hockey over the past twenty years. We’ll need to see how the rest of his career unfolds, but McDavid could end up as the 5th greatest player of all-time (and maybe even higher than that). Ovechkin is on the verge of breaking Gretzky’s goal-scoring record; this was unthinkable twenty years ago. Yes, he has his flaws, but when you think about how his career can be summarized (“all-time leader in goals scored, nine Richard trophies, three Hart trophies, Conn Smythe winner in Washington’s only Stanley Cup ever, big hitter”), he’ll probably be ranked very favourably by future fans. Crosby is a more balanced player, who, like Jean Béliveau, is very good or great at pretty much everything (rather than having some overwhelming strengths, but also some obvious weaknesses). I think he’s a better player than Ovechkin, and has had a better career, but I’m not sure if he’ll be remembered as such by future fans (especially if McDavid surpasses him, which appears likely).
There have been so many other things to celebrate. Winnipeg getting its team back. Pronger having three Conn Smythe worthy runs on three separate teams. Gagner scoring eight points in a game. Canada winning an Olympic gold on home ice. Jagr having a huge bounce-back season in 2006 (and still being good enough to lead a division winner in scoring at age 43). Chicago becoming a quasi-dynasty. Karlsson dragging the Sens to the Stanley Cup finals. Kucherov becoming the first winger (and only fifth player) to ever reach 100 assists in a season. Las Vegas making it to the Stanley Cup finals in their inaugural season, and winning the trophy five years later. Bergeron winning more Selke trophies than anyone else in history. Kopitar having a HOF career despite being from Slovenia (a country that had never before produced an NHL player - something that I didn’t fully appreciate until I visited Ljubljana last year).
HFBoards’ History forum is as strong as ever. There are lots of random discussion threads, but the All-Time Drafts and Top X Player projects help give structure to the discussions. It’s remarkable to see 10-30 people invest two to four months on each of these endeavours. I’d encourage anyone reading this to try each of these projects at least once. (I wrote a series of posts about my experience with the ATD,
starting here). It helps that now we have some commonly accepted metrics (ie Vezina trophy shares, VsX adjusted scoring, on/off ice goal differentials, etc). That’s not to say that the discussions have become math exercises, but it helps ensure that posts are objective and fact based. Twenty years ago, a lot of the player comparisons were based solely on subjective impressions (“my father said X was good defensively”) or flawed inputs (comparing plus/minus across different teams, roles, and eras).
Even when the facts are agreed upon, people can weigh things differently. For example, someone might inherently value passing, two-way play, and playoff performances, and they might not care very much about longevity. Someone with this framework would presumably rank Peter Forsberg higher than most. That's perfectly acceptable, as long as they're consistent in using that evaluation framework. (If that same poster also rated Dave Andreychuk very high, then they're probably being inconsistent - and that should be called out). Much of the time, particularly for modern players, there's little disagreement about what they accomplished on the ice. The debates are more philosophical, about what attributes are valuable.
There’s been a lot of turnover during the past twenty years. The saddest was hearing about Canadiens1958’s untimely death (he was, I believe, 68). Some of his ideas were wacky, but he always challenged the conventional wisdom, and he enriched our forum. (I wrote more about him
here). Big Phil left in disgrace after the truth about his identity was discovered, but I wish he was still here. It was obvious that he watched a lot of hockey (even if it was less than he had originally claimed), and he was able to articulate his positions effectively and simply. Presumably that’s why he was successful in getting a book published before he was 30. Some of my other favourite posters who are no longer here include Iain Fyffe (he had a deep understanding of both stats and hockey history - he would have been a great resource here, but was about a decade too early), Darryl Shilling (same comment), pitseleh, raleh, God Bless Canada, quoipourquoi, Ogopogo (who developed an interesting and comprehensive player ranking system - though he refused to acknowledge any factors that couldn't be captured in his formula), BM67 (who pioneered what eventually became the VsX system), and Sturminator (perhaps the best debater we’ve had - he made significant contributions towards fine-tuning VsX, and then building a consensus within this forum). The good news is there’s no shortage of people joining this forum. (I remember when posters like seventieslord and overpass - two of the most important contributors on HOH - were the rookies).
As for myself? I still post when I can. I try to focus on quality over quantity. There are weeks when I’ll make twenty posts, but also months where I don’t write anything. I’ve created lots of studies and metrics that require annual updates, and I find that process relaxing. (I invested a lot of time around 2010 to automate all of these databases. Now, if I want to calculate who got the most votes for the Norris trophy between 1959 and 1964, or if I want to see how many players have finished top five in goals while ranking 10th or lower in Hart voting, or calculating who has the best VsX result for assists over their best four non-consecutive seasons - I can pull this data within a couple of minutes. Here's a
link to the key posts). My biggest mistake is (and always has been) engaging with super fans. Many people can’t be objective about their favourite players (or teams). A 500 word response based on facts and data won’t be persuasive to someone who has an emotional attachment to a player.
Outside of HFBoards, the past twenty years have been good. I got married, moved twice, and bought a business. I’m arguably in better shape now than I was twenty years ago, which still amazes me. (I definitely have less hair though). My two biggest interests, outside of hockey, are hiking and rock music. I’ve hiked thousands of kilometres all over the world (including in the Rockies, the Andes, Patagonia, the Alps, the Atlas Mountains, and Mount Kilimanjaro). I could have visited more countries if my goal was to check names off of a list, but I prefer to travel slowly and thoroughly through each destination. I’ve now seen concerts from many of the greatest bands from many subgenres - classic rock (The Who, Deep Purple, Alice Cooper, Wishbone Ash), heavy metal (Sabbath, Priest, Maiden, Slayer, Megadeth, Queensryche, Rage Against the Machine) and progressive rock (Yes, King Crimson).
HFBoards is part of my life. There’s a good chance that, if it’s still here in two decades, I’ll be here too. (
@Bear of Bad News - remind me, when do the pension cheques start coming?)
)
