Your preferences on the next HOH Project (read post)

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, at 21-21 and nothing else really even above half that amount, I'd say that's a scenario we could probably cut to right now...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would like to give posters who only stop by on weekdays a few days to vote. It's possible that a two-way runoff could turn into a three-way runoff, even if unlikely.

 

[Sanf]

Only one I would consider participating in myself is pre-consolidation. Not interested in discussing Brendan Shanahan, sorry.

I would also like @Sanf to get the proper opportunity to sort out his bookmarks/notes once and for all. I'm interested in what's in there.

Haha! I sometimes have attention span of goldfish when I do research. I often find something interesting then I go to sidetrack from some detail of it and the journey is on. So it is often more easier to refind things from archives than from my notes and bookmarks.

Even at writing at that I went and checked if this "saying" is also in English language and apparently human attention span is today lesser than goldfish one. Though I doubt that is reliable research.

In more serious note I don´t know if I vote on this because I feel it would obligate me to be a participant (atleast in my own head ). But like I said in another thread I doubt I have nothing really significant to give to other projects than the Best Pre-Consolidation Players.

 

[VanIslander]

Next Best Players of all-time (#101-200 best players of all-time - doesn't have to be 100 though)

... 22 votes

Best Pre-Consolidation Players

... 21 votes


.. NO other option has more than 11...

Hence, a 2-option head-to-head run-off vote is warranted!

 

[bobholly39]

I would like to give posters who only stop by on weekdays a few days to vote. It's possible that a two-way runoff could turn into a three-way runoff, even if unlikely.

If you end up doing a 3-way poll - i think we should still eventually end with a run-off poll of just two options as a step 3. Because if we do a 3-way i'm voting best single season. But if it came down to 2 other options, i'd still like my vote to count.

 

[bobholly39]

Regarding "best single season", I suppose it's about best individual single seasons?

Some have pointed out that one should limit it to one season per player. However, I think it would be hard just to determine which season is the best for guys like Gretzky, Mario and others.

That might be solved by lettering everyone pick his own preferred season, for example either Gretzky 1983-84 or 1985-86. Then just focus on Gretzky's best season, regardless of when it occured. Focus on who rather than when.
Example...
Voter A think that Gretzky 1983-84 is the best ever, followed by Orr 1970-71 and Gretzky 1985-86.
Voter B think Gretzky 1985-86 was best, followed by Orr 1970-71, Mario 1992-92, and Gretzky 1983-84.
Then just agree that both think Gretzky had the best season ever, followed by Orr.
Aggregated: Gretzky 1st+1st. Orr 2nd+2nd.

(If being forced to consider either the 1983-84 or 1985-86 season for Gretzky, one would get a different
outcome.
Using 1983-84. Voter A picks Gretzky, Orr... Voter B picks Orr, Mario, Gretzky...
Aggregated: Orr 1st+2nd, Gretzky 1st+3rd.
Using 1985-86. Voter A picks Orr, Gretzky... Voter B pick Gretzky, Orr, Mario...
Aggregated: Gretzky and Orr both 1st+2nd.
So even if both think Gretzky had the best season ever, only one of them has Gretzky as number 1. And an aggregation would in one case even put Orr as number 1.)

I agree with TDMM that one doesn't need to get too detailed now. But I just pointed out the above anyway, in case it might affect how someone here would think regarding trying to determine "best single season".

The bolded is exactly what I would do. It's impossible if not - and also boring and meaningless. Spending weeks trying to differentiate between 20 of Gretzy/Orr/Lemieux seasons seems...useless?

I think we'd have to present the results and votes in a way that reflect that. So for example, in each voting round, if Lemieux came up it could be listed as:

Lemieux (one of 1989, 1993, 1996 - or other), instead of listing a specific season or none at all. And when we provide the final project result - we similarly present it in some way "these are some seasons that were considered for Lemieux...'.

So - give a bit of guidance in the OP (and the people running project could decide this on their own) as to which seasons we should consider per player - some only have 1, some might have 3-4 you could pick from - but in the end each person makes up their own mind, even if it's a season not even listed (sticking to Lemieux - maybe someone is convinced 1988 is his best season).

For the discussion rounds - people who are providing data analysis would have to include more than one season per player outside of obvious cases (Kucherov 2019) - because people who are trying to rank Lemieux probably need to look at both 1989 and 1993 data.

 

[Professor What]

Haha! I sometimes have attention span of goldfish when I do research. I often find something interesting then I go to sidetrack from some detail of it and the journey is on.

A kindred spirit. I know EXACTLY what you're talking about because I do the same thing all the time. If I'm not careful, a quick project that should just take an hour or two can easily turn into an all day affair.

 

[ted2019]

Haha! I sometimes have attention span of goldfish when I do research. I often find something interesting then I go to sidetrack from some detail of it and the journey is on. So it is often more easier to refind things from archives than from my notes and bookmarks.

Even at writing at that I went and checked if this "saying" is also in English language and apparently human attention span is today lesser than goldfish one. Though I doubt that is reliable research.

In more serious note I don´t know if I vote on this because I feel it would obligate me to be a participant (atleast in my own head ). But like I said in another thread I doubt I have nothing really significant to give to other projects than the Best Pre-Consolidation Players.

You can vote and not have to participate. It's always good to have new voices in this section.

 

[Voight]

Switch my birth years vote for duos

 

[bobholly39]

Has Connor McDavid done enough by now to be the de-facto choice for 101th ranking, or is he still too early in his career 5 years in to be so? When we did the top 100 it was only 3 seasons - but with 5 seasons now he probably already has a better prime than many in the top 100 thanks to his level of play. I'm certainly considering putting him #1 on my list.

Also - who are some of the names who'd be in contention for spot #200 - does anyone have a guess? Is someone like Matt Sundin going way higher than 200, or lower, or right around there? Do we reach a hall of very good player like Vincent Damphousse, or nowhere near that at #200?

We can probably do a run off poll now.

 

[VanIslander]

24 votes
24 votes
11 votes...

C'mon there is a CLEAR two-way race for a run-off vote.

Please put the TWO options up for vote!

 

[ted2019]

Has Connor McDavid done enough by now to be the de-facto choice for 101th ranking, or is he still too early in his career 5 years in to be so? When we did the top 100 it was only 3 seasons - but with 5 seasons now he probably already has a better prime than many in the top 100 thanks to his level of play. I'm certainly considering putting him #1 on my list.

Also - who are some of the names who'd be in contention for spot #200 - does anyone have a guess? Is someone like Matt Sundin going way higher than 200, or lower, or right around there? Do we reach a hall of very good player like Vincent Damphousse, or nowhere near that at #200?

We can probably do a run off poll now.

You could put who you want on your list @101. I probably wouldn't have McDavid there as there are guys like Iginla/Bower/Bure/Maltsev/Niedermayer/Blake/Abel still available. I'm almost positive that he would be in my top 115 probably.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

OT, but IMO, the biggest "snubs" in the top 100 - Iginla, Ullman, Maltsev, Martinec in no particular order.

I will put up the next poll tomorrow.

 

[bobholly39]

Iginla was available for 3 rounds of voting prior to #100 and he never really came close. Based on voting he would have ranked 101, but never was a factor before. I don't think he's a snub, as much as "he's right there in next group".

I don't think there are any glaring snubs in the top 100 tbh. Everyone who absolutely needed to be on there, was.

 

[Merya]

A kindred spirit. I know EXACTLY what you're talking about because I do the same thing all the time. If I'm not careful, a quick project that should just take an hour or two can easily turn into an all day affair.

I call this google-hell or wiki-hell. It really robs the rest of the day and most of the night too untill I crash into bed with too much information buzzing in my head.

 

[buffalowing88]

Has Connor McDavid done enough by now to be the de-facto choice for 101th ranking, or is he still too early in his career 5 years in to be so? When we did the top 100 it was only 3 seasons - but with 5 seasons now he probably already has a better prime than many in the top 100 thanks to his level of play. I'm certainly considering putting him #1 on my list.

Also - who are some of the names who'd be in contention for spot #200 - does anyone have a guess? Is someone like Matt Sundin going way higher than 200, or lower, or right around there? Do we reach a hall of very good player like Vincent Damphousse, or nowhere near that at #200?

We can probably do a run off poll now.

I would have McDavid locked in as 101. I don't think as highly of Iginla. He's probably going to wind up around 120-130 for me. I don't believe Perreault made it, in the last Top 100, for instance, and I've been reading Dryden's book and he seemed to think very highly of him. I would place him ahead of Iginla. As for 200, I have to still figure that out. There's certainly a guy like Mogilny who deserves credit around there...I just want to hear the opinions of everyone, but for now I'm set on McDavid but open to interpretation.

 

[sr edler]

I call this google-hell or wiki-hell.

The type of research we're talking about here isn't through Wikipedia though, but Wikipedia is where your research end up (sometimes). You research through newspaper archives (Google News Archive Search or The Ottawa Citizen on Newspapers.com) or through old digitalized books (Official rules for ice hockey, speed skating, figure skating and curling : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive).

 

[Merya]

The type of research we're talking about here isn't through Wikipedia though, but Wikipedia is where your research end up (sometimes). You research through newspaper archives (Google News Archive Search or The Ottawa Citizen on Newspapers.com) or through old digitalized books (Official rules for ice hockey, speed skating, figure skating and curling : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive).

It's just what I call the situation described by the poster I quoted.