12-30-2018, 03:15 AM(This post was last modified: 12-30-2018, 03:17 AM by ArGarBarGar.)
Responding to all these non-HOF zealots trying to assassinate my character, and also people who asked questions for my podcast.
Topics include:
Who Hall of Fames the Hall of Fame?
Danny Foster and his 7 Turd Fergusons: how many Fergusons is enough?
Smeb Nation!
Cannellini is boring but we are talking a bit about him anyway
Some HOF players deserve my defending them
Christmas happened last week, didn't you know?
Thanks @Inf1d3l @kit @Slappydoodle @JKortesi81, @Bonk and @Boomcheck for questions. Also Slappy and Bonk I am really sorry but in the podcast I assumed my podcast would be longer than yours, so I edited my podcast in post to make sure it was by at least 1 second.
Also Rich and Luke I am sorry for mixing you two up as far as the person looking for me as a guest for your podcasts. I saw the request as I was recording and assumed it was Luke and not Adam. I'm on a dumb roll today.
12-30-2018, 05:01 AM(This post was last modified: 12-30-2018, 05:49 AM by DeletedAtUserRequest.)
Just finished beancast 17.. so a couple of notes...
I didnt come to you about pedersen because i honestly felt and still feel like this was a real injustice that merits a discussion. but TBH it's good that the topic is now out in the open cause the awards are always the one discussed and contested but HOF topics are rarely discussed... and there are allot of people that have questions on how players get inducted... so you coming onto the Beancast, answering some questions and running down the process can only help.
I think you did a great job breaking it all down on this episode.. ill just make a few counters which i hope adds discussion to the thought process moving forward...
I dont understand why longevity seems to be a non factor for the committee and if it does have value its on the negative side.. In the discussions in my thread it got used against Pederson while a Timo Haas who no question was amazing... literally played the minimum amount he could to qualify for a hall of fame entry...while leaving his team mid stardom with a shit ton of TPE on the table for them to swallow. The whole longevity piece within the voting seems backwards to me.
Challenge Cups seem to be a non factor with the voting and i think its an extremely unfair accolade to completley dismiss because its the ultimate achievement in our league, and if it was an easy task everyone would have a bunch of them under there name. Here we have the single greatest winner in SHL history with 5.. this is a special achievement within a special achivement and it got completley overlooked in the voting and in the discussions that followed. and when it was discussed in the thread you heard allot of... 'ahh he was on a great team thats why they won all those championships'.. when in fact it was he that helped make them great!.. again the thinking seems selectively backwards.
I hope your not to upset with Izzy. Ive always had allot of admiration for what you do here on the site...its never personal... strictly about the league as were both passionate about the SHL.
12-30-2018, 05:01 AMMike Izzy Wrote: I dont understand why longevity seems to be a non factor for the committee and if it does have value its on the negative side.. In the discussions in my thread it got used against Pederson while a Timo Haas who no question was amazing... literally played the minimum amount he could to qualify for a hall of fame entry...while leaving his team mid stardom with a shit ton of TPE on the table for them to swallow. The whole longevity piece within the voting seems backwards to me.
I really don't think longevity is discounted in the hall at all, and I even brought up comparable players who are currently in the hall. Just because one guy who had a shorter career was voted in over another who had a longer career isn't necessarily an endorsement of short careers over long. Fleming himself played 14 seasons which is still pretty long, so is that not a demonstration that the hall will vote in guys who had long careers? What about guys like Big Z or Sarantez or Lloren?
12-30-2018, 05:01 AMMike Izzy Wrote: Challenge Cups seem to be a non factor with the voting and i think its an extremely unfair accolade to completley dismiss because its the ultimate achievement in our league, and if it was an easy task everyone would have a bunch of them under there name. Here we have the single greatest winner in SHL history with 5.. this is a special achievement within a special achivement and it got completley overlooked in the voting and in the discussions that followed. and when it was discussed in the thread you heard allot of... 'ahh he was on a great team thats why they won all those championships'.. when in fact it was he that helped make them great!.. again the thinking seems selectively backwards.
I don't think Challenge Cups are discounted in the hall, either. When you are one of the best players on a team like that it will factor in. However when there were teammates who on the exact same team won or were nominated for individual accolades (look at Randleman and Joe K and Nuck and Izzy and even Anrikkanen to an extent) does that not throw a bit of a wrench into the "he was on a great team which is why he didn't win any awards" argument? And doesn't that knock him down a little bit when talking about him being immortalized as one of the greats? We are just talking first ballot, here. I do believe that his resume warrants him being put in at some point, just that there is an argument to be made he wasn't a first ballot worthy candidate. And unfortunately for some players it is dependent on who they are competing against in a specific ballot which leads to guys like Haas or Fleming taking 2-4 tries to get in.
As I said in the podcast I am very intrigued at the next two seasons of HOF-eligible players. There are probably 7 worthy candidates being added to the list in addition to guys like Pedersen and Manious, so this is probably going to lead to some guys being 2nd or 3rd ballot guys just because of the competition.
Alonzo Garbanzo Final Tallies (Among Defensemen):
2nd in Goals (208), All-Time Assists Leader (765)*, All-Time Points Leader (973), 3rd in Hits (2587), All-Time Blocked Shots Leader (1882)* *All-Time Leader Among All Skaters Player Profile | Update Thread
Some interesting points talked about. But regarding the Danny Foster case I think the minimum should be that the Turd gets renamed to the Danny Foster award/trophy.
Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)
I'm only about halfway through the cast but the Pedersen/HOF discussion seems to be largely over so some thoughts from me:
The longetivity vs. peak discussion is one that will probably never be resolved completely, there are just different philosophies when it comes to this and both are valid. I for one value longetivity probably the most out of all the HOF-committee members and yes, it's probably because longetivity was my thing with my first player who is now in the HOF and who in a sense was the guy who kicked of the long careers who have become the norm nowadays. Therefore I had Pedersen higher on my ballot than anyone else in the committee and was disappointed when he didn't make it in, same goes for Manious. Quite frankly I think they were more deserving than Fleming or Haas, but it's not outrageous either that the latter two made it in, there still are good arguments for both.
So even though I voted "against" him, I'm still with ArGar in most of the points that he makes. However, one thing I would disagree with is how your portrayed the legacy score. It's more than a mere gimmick, it's one of the main sources that people based their HOF-decisions on at this point and it's not like you haven't pushed to make it that either. I for one am not a huge fan of the legacy score concept, but I acknowledge its usefulness and have started using it more and more over the years. With that being said, I think there have been some issues with the legacy score in recent seasons that are a bigger problem than we might want to admit: Players not being updated or having their points missing, some of them being updated incorrectly, wrong files being linked and only being fixed halfway through the voting etc... It's quite likely that some of these issues have affected the votings for the last few classes and we need to do a better job to make sure that this doesn't happen as much in the future.
12-30-2018, 11:29 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: I'm only about halfway through the cast but the Pedersen/HOF discussion seems to be largely over so some thoughts from me:
The longetivity vs. peak discussion is one that will probably never be resolved completely, there are just different philosophies when it comes to this and both are valid. I for one value longetivity probably the most out of all the HOF-committee members and yes, it's probably because longetivity was my thing with my first player who is now in the HOF and who in a sense was the guy who kicked of the long careers who have become the norm nowadays. Therefore I had Pedersen higher on my ballot than anyone else in the committee and was disappointed when he didn't make it in, same goes for Manious. Quite frankly I think they were more deserving than Fleming or Haas, but it's not outrageous either that the latter two made it in, there still are good arguments for both.
So even though I voted "against" him, I'm still with ArGar in most of the points that he makes. However, one thing I would disagree with is how your portrayed the legacy score. It's more than a mere gimmick, it's one of the main sources that people based their HOF-decisions on at this point and it's not like you haven't pushed to make it that either. I for one am not a huge fan of the legacy score concept, but I acknowledge its usefulness and have started using it more and more over the years. With that being said, I think there have been some issues with the legacy score in recent seasons that are a bigger problem than we might want to admit: Players not being updated or having their points missing, some of them being updated incorrectly, wrong files being linked and only being fixed halfway through the voting etc... It's quite likely that some of these issues have affected the votings for the last few classes and we need to do a better job to make sure that this doesn't happen as much in the future.
I will admit that the last couple seasons I have not had an updated list from the get-go. But other than the point issue with Pedersen from my understanding it has been accurate before more than a couple people have put their votes in, and each time you were one of those people who doesn't rely on that in the first place. Yes it is a problem, but I am not sure it is as significant to the votes as asserted. Either way, I need to do a better job in that regard, that much is certain.
This next legacy update will likely take longer as I go through each player individually to verify their numbers are accurate.
Alonzo Garbanzo Final Tallies (Among Defensemen):
2nd in Goals (208), All-Time Assists Leader (765)*, All-Time Points Leader (973), 3rd in Hits (2587), All-Time Blocked Shots Leader (1882)* *All-Time Leader Among All Skaters Player Profile | Update Thread
12-30-2018, 11:29 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: So even though I voted "against" him, I'm still with ArGar in most of the points that he makes. However, one thing I would disagree with is how your portrayed the legacy score. It's more than a mere gimmick, it's one of the main sources that people based their HOF-decisions on at this point and it's not like you haven't pushed to make it that either. I for one am not a huge fan of the legacy score concept, but I acknowledge its usefulness and have started using it more and more over the years. With that being said, I think there have been some issues with the legacy score in recent seasons that are a bigger problem than we might want to admit: Players not being updated or having their points missing, some of them being updated incorrectly, wrong files being linked and only being fixed halfway through the voting etc... It's quite likely that some of these issues have affected the votings for the last few classes and we need to do a better job to make sure that this doesn't happen as much in the future.
Disclaimer, not a HOF committee member! But I've admittedly never put a ton of stock into the raw "legacy score" number, not out of disrespect to it so much as just knowing it is often an incomplete product. Active players aren't fully tallied up yet with their career scoring numbers, etc. I use the League of Accomplished Players more as a resource to see which awards have been earned, then just try to line that up with people of similar resumes when going through my own mental exercises for figuring out HOF cases.
HERE STOPPY REPLY TO RED
Speaking of which, it was interesting to hear you (ArGar) just go right ahead and lump me into the Hall. And don't forget Visser (I'm sure you didn't forget him so much as you were just trying to move the conversation along). More importantly, thank you for providing further evidence that the "Good players on good teams get overlooked" narrative is overblown.
And to RED's point, I am now a TWO-time Challenge Cup Champion so you'll need to update that Probably the last time you'll ever have to touch my bio in there again unless Winnipeg repeats.
Cool to hear you talk about being in this draft class. I admittedly always wanted to recreate into a Reddit draft (to avoid the big fish/small pond thing you mentioned, tbh), so this ended up being a wet dream with its size + the caliber of recreates. It's been awesome, and the regular season hasn't even started yet.
It's more of an issue with how the HOF is voted on then. Well, it's not an issue. I will have one more question to follow up on it.
This past ballot, has any member put down a name or two but left the rest of it blank? Like they only found a certain number of people worthy, or does everyone use up all their votes?
On the Izzy point. Pedersen will get in due to peak. It's not overlooked, in fact I can make the case it is looked too closely at. Lots of members have gotten in due to longevity due to peak and all the names I generally mentioned in the questions were longevity guys.
RE Foster
Think the award should be renamed to the Furguson-Foster Award to honor Danny's contribution. He isn't just a bum and has been a solid contributor as a defenseman. This does bring up one KEY point.
People view PIMs very very negatively, to the point where it used as a battering ram against you in awards discussions. There is a major disconnect between hockey and the sim in this regard. People just look at PIMs as some raw number and that it is always a disadvantage. They don't look to see if the guy jumped/slashed someone who had been abusing their players or if they got into a fight and took one of the opposing team's better players off the ice.
What happens when the next Lindros-esque player rolls through the SHL? We going to kill him for being physical/getting into fights and having PIMs while putting up 40+ points? They won't view the PIMs positively because it's just a raw number and they don't put context to it.
For the Enforcer build I think we should 'remove' it and allow players to make a guy using the other build templates with the option of starting with low discipline.
Somewhere in the early S20s I believe in this one Merica/JT discussion they believed that points should be valued way more than physicality That it's harder to score than get hits etc.
RE Xmas Stuff
Yeah having a King size mattress ain't bad.
Dunk & Egg are great prequels. You got the written version or comics? Got all three or just one?
12-31-2018, 04:43 AM(This post was last modified: 12-31-2018, 04:45 AM by Slappydoodle.)
So, a lot of good points made and a quality listen.
I will ague forever that awards, user reps and to a lesser extent points are too heavily factored into HOF and that well rounded two way players are too easily disregarded for awards in general. This has been a long-standing problem for me since well before the current issues.
I would also happily argue Manius over Wolker (or Clayton for that matter) all day, but will spare you at this time.
As for the LOAP, I am obviously not a guy that puts a ton of stock into SHL awards, despite (or in part because of) having been on the committee for a few seasons now. With all due respect, it would not be something I would put much weight into when deciding my vote, especially as it factors in to some extent user based awards as opposed to purely player based. I think of it as more a historical reference than a tool, if that makes any sense.
The idea that PIM’s are considered a negative influencer in committee members minds is slightly troublesome for me. I see it as a further sign of points based bias while attempting to minimize the defensive and physical sides of hockey players..
One other thing I would like to clarify, neither Bonk nor I have ever suggested a media wing to the HOF. We have both in fact gone on record as thinking it a bad idea. It is simply something we have been asked to comment on a few different times. I do think the league could use some sort of user recognition beyond simply the Onoprienko, as that should be reserved for only the true immortals. Not a pressing issue to me though, either way.
I think it was a coin flip between who would you rate higher -Manious or Wollker. Iwould argue that Manious is hall of fame worthy, also I ranked him higher than Wollker when I did my defensive rankings. Manious was a more well-rounded player for sure. But, Wollker was really really good for a long stretch also, if I played one more season I arguably would be top 5 in all-time defensive scoring (sitting 8th as it is). So I don't think it's that horrendous that the HOF Committee gave Wollker the votes over Manious this time around. But I wouldn't be upset if it had been manious who got in over Wollker this time around.
12-31-2018, 04:43 AMSlappydoodle Wrote: The idea that PIM’s are considered a negative influencer in committee members minds is slightly troublesome for me. I see it as a further sign of points based bias while attempting to minimize the defensive and physical sides of hockey players..
Is it, though? I certainly don't give a damn about PIMs.
Also since Randleman wasn't claimed by a team and was in regression this offseason, I am pretty sure he is eligible for the Hall in S46, which is going to make things even more difficult for players.
12-31-2018, 04:43 AMSlappydoodle Wrote: The idea that PIM’s are considered a negative influencer in committee members minds is slightly troublesome for me. I see it as a further sign of points based bias while attempting to minimize the defensive and physical sides of hockey players..
Is it, though? I certainly don't give a damn about PIMs.
Also since Randleman wasn't claimed by a team and was in regression this offseason, I am pretty sure he is eligible for the Hall in S46, which is going to make things even more difficult for players.
12-31-2018, 04:43 AMSlappydoodle Wrote: The idea that PIM’s are considered a negative influencer in committee members minds is slightly troublesome for me. I see it as a further sign of points based bias while attempting to minimize the defensive and physical sides of hockey players..
Is it, though? I certainly don't give a damn about PIMs.
I never once looked at PIMs in voting when I was on the awards committee except for the Ferguson (duh). I have no idea where this is coming from. I'm not convinced the current committee does either. Case in point: Alexis Metzler and the Stevens.
S41: Not nominated, 41 points, 139 hits, 79 SB, 60 PIM
S42: Wins Stevens, 52 points, 169 hits (nice!), 68 SB, 86 PIM (4th in league, 5 behind Ferguson winner Dakota Reid)
S43: Nominated, 44 points, 153 hits, 81 SB, 86 PIM (2nd in league, well behind Fedor Shirobokov)
S44: Nominated, 46 points, 169 hits (nice!), 70 SB, 69 PIM (nice!, 9th in league)
If PIMs were being used as this so-called battering ram, Metzler would be getting disqualified from some of these conversations (especially in S44, when he was tied for third in DMan scoring and 'people only look at points for the Stevens' *wanking motion*. But it's not, so it didn't.
Yeah I have to second that, no idea where that "HOF Committee cares to much about PIMs" idea is coming from. I basically don't take them into account at all and I also never see them mentioned in any HOF-discussions unless we are talking about the extreme cases like the Ferguson race.
12-31-2018, 05:09 AMMuerto Wrote: I think it was a coin flip between who would you rate higher -Manious or Wollker. Iwould argue that Manious is hall of fame worthy, also I ranked him higher than Wollker when I did my defensive rankings. Manious was a more well-rounded player for sure. But, Wollker was really really good for a long stretch also, if I played one more season I arguably would be top 5 in all-time defensive scoring (sitting 8th as it is). So I don't think it's that horrendous that the HOF Committee gave Wollker the votes over Manious this time around. But I wouldn't be upset if it had been manious who got in over Wollker this time around.
Wolker was an awesome player and deeply worthy of the Hall. I have no desire to diss him in any way.
ArGarBarGar![[Image: IeEV7Iv.png]](https://i.imgur.com/IeEV7Iv.png)
![[Image: OnGNB1G.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/OnGNB1G.gif)
![[Image: cgv4vCv.png]](http://i.imgur.com/cgv4vCv.png)
|![[Image: 95lCCDx.png]](http://i.imgur.com/95lCCDx.png)
|![[Image: KgwtJeY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/KgwtJeY.png)
|
|
![[Image: KSelich.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/KSelich.gif)
![[Image: vhY18i8.png]](http://i.imgur.com/vhY18i8.png)
![[Image: Raptors.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/323061921261551616/626488103170998304/Raptors.png)
![[Image: gs89eGV.png]](http://i.imgur.com/gs89eGV.png)
![[Image: eE2UQZC.png]](https://i.imgur.com/eE2UQZC.png)
Probably the last time you'll ever have to touch my bio in there again unless Winnipeg repeats.![[Image: tuxpi-com-1618108119.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/C1x90XCp/tuxpi-com-1618108119.jpg)
![[Image: nQDbTbM.png]](https://i.imgur.com/nQDbTbM.png)
![[Image: hA5o4UG.png]](https://i.imgur.com/hA5o4UG.png)
![[Image: draft-aa.png?ex=6623d02e&is=66115b2e&hm=...6f7f7fe7e&]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/748193758763548763/1226175777284952185/draft-aa.png?ex=6623d02e&is=66115b2e&hm=ee818b541f551f18b56215d0ecacc06ecd418956774715b00ddb8a36f7f7fe7e&)
S76 SMJHL DRAFT 3RD OVERALL PICK 
