HOH Top 40 Goalies - Participants Survey

[overpass]

Now that the results of the HOH Top 60 Goalies project are complete, here are the results of a survey of the participants. 22 of 27 participants who submitted a list for Round 1 and were eligible for Round 2 have sent their responses for this survey.

Q1: Age

The project participants were primarily aged 20-40.

Q2: Nationality

The survey also broke down Canadians by region. Sorry Americans - I didn't realize you were so well represented in the project or I might have done the same for you.

Click to read more...

 

[overpass]

Q3: Favourite NHL team (Multiple mentions accepted)

The project had a wide range of fans from different NHL teams.

Q4: Playing experience

Q5: Goaltender experience

 

[overpass]

Q6: Coaching experience

Q7: What era or eras of hockey were your favourite to watch? (Multiple responses accepted)

The responses here are not surprising, considering the age demographics.

One respondent added "junior hockey", which is a category that probably should have been included.

 

[overpass]

Q8: Please rate the following sources of information in importance to your opinions on this project from 1 to 5, where 1 is not important at all and 5 is extremely important. (Please respond thinking only of those players for whom the category applies. Obviously none of us watched Georges Vezina in person. For example, if you have watched 10 players in the project in person, and you would give Personal observation - in attendance at the game a ranking of 3 in importance for those 10 players, please respond with 3.)

The eye test was an important factor in ranking goaltenders that participants saw. However, because of the scope of the project, statistics and contemporary opinion on the goaltenders were the main sources for many of the older goalies.

9. How important were the following factors to you in rating goaltenders? Please rate each on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important at all and 5 is extremely important.
One respondent also mentioned that the ability to integrate a team by understanding and fulfilling a role was important.

Q10: Comments/feedback/suggestions?
There were several positive comments about the project.

• Three comments saying it was a lot of fun/learned a lot
• Three comments thanking the admins for their work in putting the project together

Suggestions (all are single mentions, I'm paraphrasing so individuals can't be easily identified):

• The people creating the aggregate list should be clearly identified before voting and should not participate in discussion or voting, to prevent bias.
• Broader discussion about more players rather than just 3-4 players who are up for voting.
• More justification for votes in the discussion - i.e. high votes for a player who hasn't been discussed or has been dismissed, or low votes for a player on whom the discussion is generally positive.
• Didn't like trying to change the project from 40 to 50 goalies, or the loose deadlines for voting.
• Biased against traditionalists.
• Too many personal attacks during discussions

 

[seventieslord]

- it's scary that a goalie's playoff performance (which is a sample size typically 1/10 to 1/5 of their career) is valued as much as their regular season performance.

- who would want to administrate this and then not participate? What bias would it prevent if we found people willing to do that?

 

[overpass]

- who would want to administrate this and then not participate? What bias would it prevent if we found people willing to do that?

I believe the issue is that in the second round of discussion, most of the participants don't know what the aggregate and individual lists from Round 1 looked like, and the admins do know.

I agree that it seems unlikely that someone would put in the work to administrate without taking part in the discussions and voting at all.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Judges and Moderators

- it's scary that a goalie's playoff performance (which is a sample size typically 1/10 to 1/5 of their career) is valued as much as their regular season performance.

- who would want to administrate this and then not participate? What bias would it prevent if we found people willing to do that?

Moderators and administrators of all types of debates and discussions do not participate in the actual debate or discussions. Observe various political debates.

Then you have judges at various levels of the legal system throughout Canada and the USA that manage the fairness of the process without representing a side in the process.

In a hockey context, referees and linesmen do not go on the ice equipped with hockey sticks so they can play the puck.

 

[unknown33]

Moderators and administrators of all types of debates and discussions do not participate in the actual debate or discussions. Observe various political debates.

Then you have judges at various levels of the legal system throughout Canada and the USA that manage the fairness of the process without representing a side in the process.

In a hockey context, referees and linesmen do not go on the ice equipped with hockey sticks so they can play the puck.

None these make any sense.
The role of the administrator of this project is vastly different to all of those you've listed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

True

I believe the issue is that in the second round of discussion, most of the participants don't know what the aggregate and individual lists from Round 1 looked like, and the admins do know.

I agree that it seems unlikely that someone would put in the work to administrate without taking part in the discussions and voting at all.

And as such that creates a bias and advantage in their presentations while putting the other participants at a distinct disadvantage. The administrators know going in where the key breakpoints are in the aggregate list and can strategically argue while the rest are denied this knowledge and resulting advantages.

 

[seventieslord]

And as such that creates a bias and advantage in their presentations while putting the other participants at a distinct disadvantage. The administrators know going in where the key breakpoints are in the aggregate list and can strategically argue while the rest are denied this knowledge and resulting advantages.

that's absurd.

 

[kmad]

And as such that creates a bias and advantage in their presentations while putting the other participants at a distinct disadvantage. The administrators know going in where the key breakpoints are in the aggregate list and can strategically argue while the rest are denied this knowledge and resulting advantages.

I don't think the administrators have any interest in manipulating the outcome of the project.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

- it's scary that a goalie's playoff performance (which is a sample size typically 1/10 to 1/5 of their career) is valued as much as their regular season performance.

I doubt many voters were thinking of this kind of math when they filled out the question. I know I wasn't.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Moderators and administrators of all types of debates and discussions do not participate in the actual debate or discussions. Observe various political debates.

Then you have judges at various levels of the legal system throughout Canada and the USA that manage the fairness of the process without representing a side in the process.

In a hockey context, referees and linesmen do not go on the ice equipped with hockey sticks so they can play the puck.

Thanks for letting us know that you're the one who made that comment. You've been consistently taking shots at the administrators of the project, basically ever since Frank Brimsek was added before Bill Durnan and Turk Broda (though I don't know if that's why you're doing it). So I'll evaluate the merits of the comment in light of that context.

And as such that creates a bias and advantage in their presentations while putting the other participants at a distinct disadvantage. The administrators know going in where the key breakpoints are in the aggregate list and can strategically argue while the rest are denied this knowledge and resulting advantages.

If that's the way you feel about the way seventieslord and I behaved ourselves, you are welcome not to not participate in any projects I may admin in the future.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I doubt many voters were thinking of this kind of math when they filled out the question. I know I wasn't.

And yet, what was the number one line of argument in support of Roy over Hasek? Playoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

By the way, thanks for doing this, overpass. Overpass has been a de facto unofficial assistant administrator for the project. Most important, helping us to run Excel functions on the aggregate list that neither 70s nor I really knew how to do. I also asked if he could run the participant survey, since he did so for the defenseman project.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Democracy

- it's scary that a goalie's playoff performance (which is a sample size typically 1/10 to 1/5 of their career) is valued as much as their regular season performance.

- who would want to administrate this and then not participate? What bias would it prevent if we found people willing to do that?

Yet the point of view in question is important to real important to 20 out of 22 of the respondents,a near unanimous view.

 

[MXD]

Crap, I forgot to answer...

OH well, gotta send it regardless sooner or later, IF I'm being told the results will be taken in consideration.

 

[overpass]

Crap, I forgot to answer...

OH well, gotta send it regardless sooner or later, IF I'm being told the results will be taken in consideration.

If you send it I'll add it to the results.

Edit: Added.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I thought the number of Montreal fans looked a little low.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Moderators and administrators of all types of debates and discussions do not participate in the actual debate or discussions. Observe various political debates.

Then you have judges at various levels of the legal system throughout Canada and the USA that manage the fairness of the process without representing a side in the process.

In a hockey context, referees and linesmen do not go on the ice equipped with hockey sticks so they can play the puck.

Moderators and judges are financially compensated.

This is suppose to be for the enjoyment of all concerned.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

And as such that creates a bias and advantage in their presentations while putting the other participants at a distinct disadvantage. The administrators know going in where the key breakpoints are in the aggregate list and can strategically argue while the rest are denied this knowledge and resulting advantages.

How does that give anyone an advantage? I didn't know there was a strategy to presenting a case for or against a player.

Sounds like sour grapes from someone who wanted to manipulate the process.

 

[Killion]

Moderators and judges are financially compensated.

Not always. There are innumerable situations whereby individuals quite voluntarily and without compensation of anykind whatsoever act as moderators, referee's, adjudicators... depends on the situation, circumstances, goals & objectives. It may be Old Fashioned Mr.Bonvie, but those of us "of a certain age" (over 45, less than 95) come from a school whereby even in a "strictly for fun environment" for"the enjoyment of all" real world rules are in fact applied. Moderators & Administrators are not permitted to participate in order to insure utterly & completely that questions of integrity wont even be raised. Its not a slight against anyone, its simply procedure. Indeed, there are a number of chat boards out there that are Moderated by people who dont ever post or contribute to whatever the dialogue might be, but their watchin, editing, deleting, Warning & Infracting people.... believe me. Know all about it. You think youve carte blanche then BAM! They dont participate in the conversations, dont set the tone, not there to voice an opinion, there strictly to keep decorum, mediate disputes quietly & privately off-board. Anything more frowned upon. Complete, total & utter objectivity. Cold, clear concise Spockian Logic the only thing they employ.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not always. There are innumerable situations whereby individuals quite voluntarily and without compensation of anykind whatsoever act as moderators, referee's, adjudicators... depends on the situation, circumstances, goals & objectives. It may be Old Fashioned Mr.Bonvie, but those of us "of a certain age" (over 45, less than 95) come from a school whereby even in a "strictly for fun environment" for"the enjoyment of all" real world rules are in fact applied. Moderators & Administrators are not permitted to participate in order to insure utterly & completely that questions of integrity wont even be raised. Its not a slight against anyone, its simply procedure. Indeed, there are a number of chat boards out there that are Moderated by people who dont ever post or contribute to whatever the dialogue might be, but their watchin, editing, deleting, Warning & Infracting people.... believe me. Know all about it. You think youve carte blanche then BAM! They dont participate in the conversations, dont set the tone, not there to voice an opinion, there strictly to keep decorum, mediate disputes quietly & privately off-board.

Guess what, Mr. Killion? Mr. Bonvie is in that very age group. And speaking in the third person shows just how well into it he is.

The poster I was responding to took the comparison out of the LaLaLand of boards and chat rooms to court judges and politcal debate moderators and hockey officials. I understand that moderators here on my screen are not paid. But I still do not see how the people who put in all the work of setting up this procedure and keep track of votes and everthing else going on are somehow unfairly at an "advatage" by doing so.

 

[Killion]

The poster I was responding to took the comparison out of the LaLaLand of boards and chat rooms to court judges and politcal debate moderators and hockey officials. I understand that moderators here on my screen are not paid. But I still do not see how the people who put in all the work of setting up this procedure and keep track of votes and everthing else going on are somehow unfairly at an "advantage" by doing so.

Well literally perhaps, but if we use a little imagination..... like the Parish Priest who in 1946 was Refereeing a game in St. Justine Quebec, un-paid, strictly volunteer. A young Roch Carrier jumping onto the ice as 6th man in wearing his Leafs jersey that Mr. Eaton sent to his home by mistake. Given a penalty. Has a Hissy Fit. Sent to the Tabernac to ask for forgiveness. Instead asking the Creator to "send me, right away, one hundred million moths to eat my Toronto Maple Leafs jersey". Theres a case of someone "volunteering" to referee, moderate, adjudicate, dispense justice. No stick in the Pretre's hands. Just a Whistle.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Well literally perhaps, but if we use a little imagination..... like the Parish Priest who in 1946 was Refereeing a game in St. Justine Quebec, un-paid, strictly volunteer. A young Roch Carrier jumping onto the ice as 6th man in wearing his Leafs jersey that Mr. Eaton sent to his home by mistake. Given a penalty. Has a Hissy Fit. Sent to the Tabernac to ask for forgiveness. Instead asking the Creator to "send me, right away, one hundred million moths to eat my Toronto Maple Leafs jersey". Theres a case of someone "volunteering" to referee, moderate, adjudicate, dispense justice. No stick in the Pretre's hands. Just a Whistle.

So there's an example (hockey-related, even) of someone who volunteered for a task. How does that relate to this case, where no one volunteered to do this without also participating? (Follow-up: since no one volunteered to do this without also participating, was the preferred outcome that it not happen at all?)

Back to the question you were responding to: how did the people administering this process gain an advantage by being involved?