HOH Top-40 Goalies Voter Record - Canadiens1958

[seventieslord]

Round 1 List:
HOH Top-40 Goalies Voter Record - Canadiens1958 - HFBoards

Players on the top-40 not ranked:

None

Players on the top-40 ranked below #50:

Henrik Lundqvist (51)
Tim Thomas (57)
Roberto Luongo (59)

Players exclusive to this list and no more than two others:

None

Players ranked highest on this list:

Martin Brodeur (4) – One of 6 lists to have Brodeur 4th
Chuck Rayner (24) – One of 2 lists
Al Rollins (31)
Riley Hern (33)
John Bouse Hutton (35) – one of 2 lists

Players ranked lowest on this list:

Dominik Hasek (7)
Gump Worsley (44)
John Vanbiesbrouck (50)
Roberto Luongo (59)
Charlie Hodge (60)

Note that Hodge was only on 6 lists, so other participants ranked him even lower.

Round 2 voting record:

Round 2 Participation Record

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's funny that one of the few times (the only time?) that I purposely used my knowledge as an administrator in an argument, it was actually to use your Round 1 list in defense of your Round 2 Hasek vote.

If I wanted to, I could have asked why you were so vehemently against me when I wanted to rank Lehman 21st and above Hap Holmes, when you only had him down in 25th and one spot above Holmes on your initial list. Or I could have asked if you were just being a contrarian when you argued vehemently against me when I said that Rayner had a case to go in the 29-32 range possibly above Lumley, when you ranked Rayner only 1 spot below Lumley (and apparently higher than anyone else had him ranked).

 

[unknown33]

Funny (or rather sad) that someone who accuses others of stategic voting likely does it himself.
Or do you just change your mind every two weeks if Brodeur or Sawchuk should be ranked higher?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Funny (or rather sad) that someone who accuses others of stategic voting likely does it himself.
Or do you just change your mind every two weeks if Brodeur or Sawchuk should be ranked higher?

It changed by one spot. I see nothing wrong with that given that there was a lot of discussion occuring inbetween those two votes.

 

[unknown33]

It changed by one spot. .

Twice - reversed. Look at the Round 1 list.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Twice - reversed. Look at the Round 1 list.

I still don't see that as being an issue though. My opinion on #4 changed, like, five times before the first vote.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Yeah, I probably flip flopped more than anyone. So many of the one on one battles were so close it was hard to have a consistent opinion.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Twice - reversed. Look at the Round 1 list.

Don't be surprised if there's A LOT of change from the Round 1 lists to how people voted in Round 2. There definitely was for me, and a lot more than just one spot. Several of the other participants said the same.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Initial List

Overlooked in the initial list review is the fact that ties were not permitted. Specifically you could not list:

10.) Goalie A and Goalie B tied.
12.) Goalie C

So the one spot shifts are part of the process.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Overlooked in the initial list review is the fact that ties were not permitted. Specifically you could not list:

10.) Goalie A and Goalie B tied.
12.) Goalie C

So the one spot shifts are part of the process.

In a perfect world ties would be an option, but I think it would lead to a lot more work for the vote talliers...considering the way the project went, where candidates from the same Round 1 tier were made available at the same time, I doubt it would make any difference.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Elephant in the room time:

Hasek in 7th.

I think it's defensible, I think the mainstream hockey media has him around #5-7 as well, but it's certainly not where I had him, and I'd like to hear the reasoning that led to him being there on your ballot in Round 1 and staying there on your ballot in Round 2.

 

[unknown33]

Don't be surprised if there's A LOT of change from the Round 1 lists to how people voted in Round 2.

I am not. In nearly all cases.
However if you check this poster's previous voting records it does surprise me.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hasek #7

Elephant in the room time:

Hasek in 7th.

I think it's defensible, I think the mainstream hockey media has him around #5-7 as well, but it's certainly not where I had him, and I'd like to hear the reasoning that led to him being there on your ballot in Round 1 and staying there on your ballot in Round 2.

See the relevant parts of post #3 in the following thread.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1343355

Add the long, almost four season, adaptability curve coming to the NHL, plus the facts that he was never a unanimous 1st team AST in his prime, at times on a near par with Joseph and Dafoe.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Gentle reminder - we aren't allowed to talk about infractions (or their consequences) on the boards in public.

Having said that, infractions do have consequences, and the site applies those consequences consistently.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

See the relevant parts of post #3 in the following thread.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1343355

Add the long, almost four season, adaptability curve coming to the NHL, plus the facts that he was never a unanimous 1st team AST in his prime, at times on a near par with Joseph and Dafoe.

Confused by the bolded...in 1998 he received 50 1st place votes and 3 2nd place votes out of 53 voters, or 259 out of 265 possible points (97.7%). This has to be one of the highest "All Star Shares" of all time.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't really want to be a party to this process at the end here, as I'm a tiny bit unsure as to what purpose it serves being in individual threads like this (not being snarky, just being honest).

I'll say the consistent part of the Hasek being 7th thing is - and C1958 can correct me if I'm putting words in his mouth incorrectly - is the anticipatory nature of the goalies ahead of him. The reflexive Hasek was not the best first-shot goalie ever, but he's probably the best second (and more) shot goalie ever. The six goalies ahead of Hasek on C1958's vote are very good in terms of their hockey sense and anticipation ability, to the best of my knowledge, which makes them extremely adaptable, finite traits for sustainability.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Correct me if I'm wrong but since 1950-51 only two goaltenders have been unanimous first-team all-stars: Terry Sawchuk (1952) and Tony Esposito (1970). If that point is used against Hasek, it should be used consistently against Roy, Plante, Hall, Dryden, etc.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't really want to be a party to this process at the end here, as I'm a tiny bit unsure as to what purpose it serves being in individual threads like this (not being snarky, just being honest).

I'll just quote FissionFire from 2008:

The transparency of all the voting phases was one of the most important aspects of the project. I've been very up-front the entire time I felt in stating that at the end of the project all the lists and votes would be made public. Back in the planning phases (was that really 7 months ago?) there was no objection to this and in fact most felt it was an outstanding idea which would help lend even more credibility to the list and further remove any questions of a tainted process or favoritism by Hockey Outsider or myself in compiling every phase of the process. While I don't think anyone who has followed most or all of this project would think anything of that sort occured, it's very possible that others viewing this list later may have that opinion. In many ways, by making everything completely open to the public, this helps make the list a primary-source document which skeptics and independently verify through their own investigation. Who knows, maybe in 10-15 years we'll have people looking back on this list and using it as a reference source much the same we've used the THN list ourselves.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=15022458&postcount=9

 

[Michael Farkas]

Fair enough, I guess - respectfully to the administrators of the project, who have done terrific, yeoman-like work throughout - my point is: why are they each in their own threads, inviting discussion that likely won't garner anything but negative reactions. Whether those reactions are publicly-stated or not.

If it were released in a PDF file and attached somewhere, that'd make more sense to me. I'm not sure how easy or reasonable that is, but I'm just throwing out an idea.

To invite 27 discussions about individual posters voting habits is a twist I didn't quite expect to be honest. I guess there's nothing wrong with it, in a vacuum, I would just guess that in a few threads, it's going to require excess moderation...like this one perhaps.

It just seems like it makes more work for the moderators unnecessarily, I would think...but I could very well be mistaken.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1999 AST / Vezina

Confused by the bolded...in 1998 he received 50 1st place votes and 3 2nd place votes out of 53 voters, or 259 out of 265 possible points (97.7%). This has to be one of the highest "All Star Shares" of all time.

1999 AST saw Hasek with 35 first, Dafoe 10 first and Joseph 6 first, Brodeur 3, Tugnutt 2. Dafoe and Joseph are not even close to top 10 All Time.

Balance against different voters for the 1999 Vezina, 1st place votes Joseph 10, Hasek and Dafoe, 8 each.

Not a question of finding one highest and running with it. Look at possible counter balances, diversity of opinions, media voters, GM voters, etc.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Elephant in the room time:

Hasek in 7th.

I think it's defensible, I think the mainstream hockey media has him around #5-7 as well, but it's certainly not where I had him, and I'd like to hear the reasoning that led to him being there on your ballot in Round 1 and staying there on your ballot in Round 2.

At a loss for words.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

1999 AST saw Hasek with 35 first, Dafoe 10 first and Joseph 6 first, Brodeur 3, Tugnutt 2. Dafoe and Joseph are not even close to top 10 All Time.

Balance against different voters for the 1999 Vezina, 1st place votes Joseph 10, Hasek and Dafoe, 8 each.

Not a question of finding one highest and running with it. Look at possible counter balances, diversity of opinions, media voters, GM voters, etc.

Then what does it say about Brodeur?

 

[Pominville Knows]

Yeah that's a bit of blasphemy ranking Hasek at seventh, but then again i know a longtime Sabres-fan that does NOT think he's an all-time great. Probably just a sore loser or secretly legally blind.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Close

I don't really want to be a party to this process at the end here, as I'm a tiny bit unsure as to what purpose it serves being in individual threads like this (not being snarky, just being honest).

I'll say the consistent part of the Hasek being 7th thing is - and C1958 can correct me if I'm putting words in his mouth incorrectly - is the anticipatory nature of the goalies ahead of him. The reflexive Hasek was not the best first-shot goalie ever, but he's probably the best second (and more) shot goalie ever. The six goalies ahead of Hasek on C1958's vote are very good in terms of their hockey sense and anticipation ability, to the best of my knowledge, which makes them extremely adaptable, finite traits for sustainability.

Close but you have to ask the key follow-up question. What are the consequences of not being the best first-shot goalie ever?

Well the consequences are that there are more second, third etc shots that good or great first-shot goalies do not see or have to stop. If a goalie cannot efficiently control rebounds deflecting / clearing pucks to corners or boards but leaves rebounds in the slot why should such a goalie get credit for inefficiency or putting his team at risk? Nice youtube and late night sports hilites result but that is not the purpose of goaltending. A team wants the fewest number of such hilites either goals or saves.

Add the consequences of other weaknesses that no one has disputed, the poor puck handling and poor use of defensive skaters. Get the puck out of the defensive zone as quickly as possible. Few SOGs from beyond the goalies defensive zone and even fewer non ENG goals.

Weaknesses do not deserve credit.

Like the old view that there is a virtue or advantage to knowing what to do if someone is lost in the woods. True, but there is a greater advantage to knowing how not to get lost in the woods in the first place.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I can't support Hasek seventh, but I will say that when my voting record is posted, you'll see plenty of vascillation on my part.

There were a lot of persuasive arguments in the threads (that's the point of the threads), and I changed my mind as a result.