HOH Top-40 Goalies Voter Record - Taco MacArthur
- Thread starter seventieslord
- Start date
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Now here's a list for discussion!
Not to be overly critical, but, based on your voting it looks like some of the rankings on the original list may have been pulled from a hat.
Tretiak 36th, but 4th in the second round.
Durnan 6th, but 8th in the third round.
Parent 7th, but 8th in the fifth round.
Connell 13th, but is only 6th in the ninth round.
Johnny Bower goes 1st in one found, 3rd in the next, first again in the next.
Benedict 9th, Vezina 33th?
Fuhr 16th, Billy Smith 35th?
Not a specific criticism of your list, but more something I've noticed in general. I keep seeing Mike Richter pop up on lists; I don't know how you can include Mike Richter without including Chris Osgood ahead of him. Or in your specific case you included Kelly Hrudey but did not include from his time such as Mike Vernon, Kirk McLean, Reggie Lemelin, Pete Peeters, Bob Froese, or Glen Hanlon. Seriously? Kelly Hrudey? He was good... but not THAT good.
I also noticed a kind of dissonance on these lists.
You have Tim Thomas ranked extremely highly, which can only be due to his very high peak in a long and otherwise unremarkable career that he spent primarily in the minors and Europe.
Bernie Parent backs up the "peak" argument with his ranking of 7th on your list.
Yet you did not rank Pelle Lindbergh on your list at all, Liut ranks very low despite having multiple all-star selections and Hart nominations, including a second-place finish to Gretzky.
And there's also Ed Belfour; his play in the early 90s was an incredible display of goaltending. He won two Vezinas in his first three seasons of professional hockey, playing against a peak Patrick Roy (whom you ranked third).
And then there's Durnan vs. Brimsek; Honestly that's a comparison where I can't see how Durnan can come away a clear winner by the kind of gap you have. Brimsek was either the best goalie or the second-best goalie in the league in every season he played. While Durnan can claim six first-team selections in seven seasons, two of those were war years where Brimsek didn't play (and it was during his prime). Times were different then as far as scouting, but Durnan played three years for the Montreal Royals before the Canadiens even took interest in him.
Seeing the lists there are a number of these "inconsistencies" as far as judgments that simply baffle me. Goalies being ranked a certain way for an amazing peak (Thomas, Parent, Liut, etc.) despite having an otherwise "good" or even simply mediocre career, and other goalies being ranked a certain way for being consistently "very good" without a significantly defined peak (Luongo, Osgood, Brodeur, Richter, Vernon) but most lists will not follow one method or the other, but both at the same time. Just applying one to some goalies and one to others. Thomas, of course, always gets the "how good was his peak/prime" treatment without the full career evaluation. But other goalies, like Liut, might really sink or swim on which method is used. Liut had a couple really strong years but was otherwise pretty mediocre. He was like Thomas, but not quite as extreme in his different "versions" (he was in the NHL in his "low" years, and he wasn't dominating the world and carrying his team to the Cup at his "high" end.)
So "peak" Liut might rank highly. "Career" Liut probably shouldn't be on the list. If we're using the same method for everyone of course.
I also noticed a kind of dissonance on these lists.
You have Tim Thomas ranked extremely highly, which can only be due to his very high peak in a long and otherwise unremarkable career that he spent primarily in the minors and Europe.
Bernie Parent backs up the "peak" argument with his ranking of 7th on your list.
Yet you did not rank Pelle Lindbergh on your list at all, Liut ranks very low despite having multiple all-star selections and Hart nominations, including a second-place finish to Gretzky.
And there's also Ed Belfour; his play in the early 90s was an incredible display of goaltending. He won two Vezinas in his first three seasons of professional hockey, playing against a peak Patrick Roy (whom you ranked third).
And then there's Durnan vs. Brimsek; Honestly that's a comparison where I can't see how Durnan can come away a clear winner by the kind of gap you have. Brimsek was either the best goalie or the second-best goalie in the league in every season he played. While Durnan can claim six first-team selections in seven seasons, two of those were war years where Brimsek didn't play (and it was during his prime). Times were different then as far as scouting, but Durnan played three years for the Montreal Royals before the Canadiens even took interest in him.
Seeing the lists there are a number of these "inconsistencies" as far as judgments that simply baffle me. Goalies being ranked a certain way for an amazing peak (Thomas, Parent, Liut, etc.) despite having an otherwise "good" or even simply mediocre career, and other goalies being ranked a certain way for being consistently "very good" without a significantly defined peak (Luongo, Osgood, Brodeur, Richter, Vernon) but most lists will not follow one method or the other, but both at the same time. Just applying one to some goalies and one to others. Thomas, of course, always gets the "how good was his peak/prime" treatment without the full career evaluation. But other goalies, like Liut, might really sink or swim on which method is used. Liut had a couple really strong years but was otherwise pretty mediocre. He was like Thomas, but not quite as extreme in his different "versions" (he was in the NHL in his "low" years, and he wasn't dominating the world and carrying his team to the Cup at his "high" end.)
So "peak" Liut might rank highly. "Career" Liut probably shouldn't be on the list. If we're using the same method for everyone of course.
I have noticed a little bit of a trend where an elite peak gets ignored if the rest of the career is only slightly below that peak. It's like an inherent assumption that.. if the goalie could keep it up for a whole career, how good could they really have been?
Yeah. I haven't looked at all the lists, and don't know if it's actually occurred (although I'm sure someone on these board holds this opinion) but it's like placing Tim Thomas ahead of Ed Belfour. Sure, Thomas got the Smythe. But Chara was just as worthy. And Belfour could have won it in 1992 had his team not been up against Mario's insane offense machine.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
EagleBelfour
Registered User
Bill Durnan at #6 is eye-popping, but no players looks more out of place than Seth Martin at #17.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,542
- 4,948
Maybe Tretiak at #36.
BTW what has Dzurilla achieved to rank 18 spots above Tretiak?
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I agree. Most everyone talked about how their top-60 was more difficult than anticipated, and a few noted that they simply didn't have time to put together a fully-researched list. Round 1 was simply about creating an order for Round 2 candidates. Round 2 was where the most meaningful voting took place.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,542
- 4,948
But only because the other contributors DID NOT send in lists like the one in question. If everyone goes into round 1 with Tretiak at #36, thinking it doesn't matter because round 2 is what counts, then he doesn't even come up before vote 8 or 9.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I'm talking in terms of critiquing other formers' voting record. Personally I don't care much where anyone ranked players in Vote 1, as it's Vote 2 that reflects an opinion that is informed by about two weeks of focused debate.
As far as I can tell, no goalie's ranking was directly affected by his placement on the aggregate Round 1 list.
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
- Sep 3, 2009
- 3,378
- 2
Why would anyone approach their original list that way, already knowing ahead of time what you're pointing out?
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
In the same range as Richter, Theodore, Giguere and Moog... it's an unusual choice, but not a crazy one.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Why not let 100 people vote and let them all in?
If this list is excepted at the outset, I can't imagine anyone else's who is serious about the project being rejected for content.
Perhaps I just remember his Kings years, where he was average in the regular season, seldom outproduced his backups by very much (if at all), and was one of the worst playoff goalies of the time period (88-93).
Among contempraries I'd easily take a Ron Hextall over Hrudey, and very probably Kirk McLean.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
And Jon Casey, and Mike Vernon, Kirk McLean, Reggie Lemelin, Pete Peeters, Bob Froese, Glen Hanlon, Brian Hayward, and Don Beaupre.
To name a few.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,542
- 4,948
Tretiak at #36 makes sense if you believe international hockey has very little value compared to NHL hockey (level of competition, sample size). But then you cannot rank Holeček #10, Martin #17, Dzurilla #18. Taco himself obviously didn't think his original ranking of Tretiak was so good when round 2 came around.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,542
- 4,948
Not at all. But Seventies asked what was bad and I pointed out one ranking that you were not happy with yourself, in other words, one that the author of the list himself considers "bad".
I'd rather want to know what your reasoning was at the time you made the list. No offence implied and no need for a "hairshirt".
Ad
Latest posts
-
Post-Series Talk: Dallas Stars defeat the Vegas Golden Knights, 4-3
- Latest: RorschachWJK
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 10Staked: $12,250.00Event closes- Updated:
