Playoff Performers - Participant Survey

[quoipourquoi]

Participation by Voting Round

Poster | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | Vote 4 | Vote 5 | Vote 6 | Vote 7 | Vote 8 | Total
BenchBrawl | 55 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 72
Black Gold Extractor | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11
blogofmike | 35 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36
bobholly39 | 47 | 18 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 74
Canadiens1958 | 59 | 46 | 59 | 17 | 35 | 26 | 34 | 9 | 285
drmagg | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
Johnny Engine | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2
Kyle McMahon | 20 | 18 | 10 | 15 | 16 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 103
Mike Farkas | 12 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 38
MXD | 65 | 36 | 43 | 29 | 33 | 13 | 15 | 9 | 243
quoipourquoi | 51 | 22 | 29 | 26 | 23 | 5 | 15 | 7 | 178
seventieslord | 22 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 49
TheGeneral | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0

Survey

Age

Selection | #
20-29 | 1
30-39 | 7
60+ | 1

Province/State

Selection | #
Alberta | 2
Michigan | 1
Pennsylvania | 1
Quebec | 4
No Permanent Address | 1

Favorite Team

Selection | #
Edmonton Oilers | 2
Mighty Ducks of Anaheim | 1
Montreal Canadiens | 4
Pittsburgh Penguins | 1
Washington Capitals | 1

Favorite Series

Selection
1971 Boston Bruins vs. Montreal Canadiens
1993 Los Angeles Kings vs. Toronto Maple Leafs
1993 Los Angeles Kings vs. Montreal Canadiens
1994 New Jersey Devils vs. New York Rangers
2003 Minnesota Wild vs. Vancouver Canucks
2009 Detroit Red Wings vs. Pittsburgh Penguins
2010 Montreal Canadiens vs. Washington Capitals
Montreal Canadiens vs. Boston/Quebec

Playing Experience

Selection | #
I have played organized hockey at a major junior level or higher | 0
I have played organized hockey at a competitive level | 2
I have played organized hockey at a low level | 4
I have played recreational hockey only | 0
I have not or have very rarely played hockey | 3

Coaching Experience

Selection | #
I have coached hockey at a competitive level or higher | 2
I have coached hockey at a low level | 1
I have not coached hockey | 6

How important were the following sources of information to you in rating players?
(1 is Not Important at All, 5 is Extremely Important)

Personal Observation

Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
Watching on TV | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3|3.67
Watching Archived Video | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2|3.11
In Attendance at the Game | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0|1.56

Statistics

Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
Advanced/Adjusted Stats | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2|3.44
Statistics - Traditional (Hockey Card) Stats | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 1|3.44

Contemporary Opinion

Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
Conn Smythe Results | 0 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 0|3.11
Quotes from Newspaper Archives and Other Contemporary Sources | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 2|4.00
As Experienced Personally | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1|3.56

Secondary Sources

Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
Opinions and Anecdotes from Observers and Participants Looking Backwards| 1 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 1|3.33
Retro Conn Smythe Results | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0|2.56

How important were the following factors to you in rating players?
(1 is Not Important at All, 5 is Extremely Important)

Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total
Peak Performance | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4|4.11
Durability/Consistency | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1|3.78
Personality/Being a Good Teammate | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0|2.33
Team Success | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2|3.56
Performance in Defeat | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0|2.78

Desired Projects for the Future

Selection | #
Best Single-Season Teams | 3
Top-100 Players | 2
Best Peak Players | 1
Best Defensive Players | 1
Update Previous Lists | 1

Click to read more...

 

[bobholly39]

I participated a lot less in the later votes and I apologize, I got real busy with stuff. I also have less historical knowledge than most.

That being said i actively read everything that was posted - so as to make sure that when I submitted votes I did so in a fair and well reasoned way. Which conversely is why i didn't submit a vote on the very last round - i simply didn't have time to keep up with everything and didn't want to cast a vote in the dark.


Very fun and enriching experience overall participating in this project. Very much look forward to the next one - whether i'm an actual participant, or simply someone who contributes where he may.

 

[seventieslord]

1994 New Jersey Devils vs. New York Islanders

I wonder what series this person actually meant...

 

[quoipourquoi]

I wonder what series this person actually meant...

*Corrected


Especially bad typo, since that was my answer!

 

[Michael Farkas]

I remember it like it was yesterday, "Flatley! Flatley! Flatley!"

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So 4 of 9 participants surveyed were fans of the Canadiens. Considering the composition of the final list... that seems about right.

Nothing against the most storied franchise in hockey, but this is why these projects need larger and more diverse samples of voters.

 

[ImporterExporter]

So 4 of 9 participants surveyed were fans of the Canadiens. Considering the composition of the final list... that seems about right.

Nothing against the most storied franchise in hockey, but this is why these projects need larger and more diverse samples of voters.

The turnout in this one seemed far lower than past projects. Is that a fair assumption?

If so, I think that coincides with this being the "worst" top 40/60 list compiled. Numerous folks overrated and others under. Simply not enough folks to bring certain players back to their mean.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So 4 of 9 participants surveyed were fans of the Canadiens. Considering the composition of the final list... that seems about right.

Nothing against the most storied franchise in hockey, but this is why these projects need larger and more diverse samples of voters.

Especially if we go with Best Single-Season Teams next year. I mean, the Canadiens might dominate regardless, but still.

 

[bobholly39]

So 4 of 9 participants surveyed were fans of the Canadiens. Considering the composition of the final list... that seems about right.

Nothing against the most storied franchise in hockey, but this is why these projects need larger and more diverse samples of voters.

Can't speak for others.

But i'm a Montreal Canadiens fan. But that's today. I wasn't born in the 70s or 60s...so I feel as though that had 0 weight in this project for me.

If anything I feel as though I tend to be more bias when it comes to modern vs older players, and that usually has me thinking lower of Canadiens than most, since most of those are in the 50s-70s era.

3 out of 9 aint bad.

 

[Michael Farkas]

They also have done a lot of winning in the playoffs...which, no doubt, helps in this venue...

- Signed, not a Habs fan, despite the avatar.

 

[quoipourquoi]

They also have done a lot of winning in the playoffs...which, no doubt, helps in this venue...

- Signed, not a Habs fan, despite the avatar.

For sure. The only ones that really caught me off-guard were Savard (+16 spots) and Lemaire (+9 spots) gaining ground when the field became wide open.

 

[bobholly39]

Especially if we go with Best Single-Season Teams next year. I mean, the Canadiens might dominate regardless, but still.

Not to go off topic but how does that even work?

Best single-season regular season only, or also playoffs?

I expect it'll be exceptionally hard to rank that. I also hate the idea of breaking up dynasties. 1984 Oilers vs 1985....or 87 vs 88. How do you differentiate really? And if you don't - and if you think Oilers were the best dynasty, do they just rank top 4? Seems kind of boring.


I guess same idea if you do peak individual seasons. Do you rank Gretzky once, or once per season? If it's once per season he likely appears 10x in the top 25.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'd like an updated top 100 list. It's been almost a decade since that was done originally.

 

[bobholly39]

I'd like an updated top 100 list. It's been almost a decade since that was done originally.

I'd like that too.

I think a list of Peaks would be most fun and not something that's ever been done. But top 100 overall probably has more worth/value to it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The turnout in this one seemed far lower than past projects. Is that a fair assumption?

If so, I think that coincides with this being the "worst" top 40/60 list compiled. Numerous folks overrated and others under. Simply not enough folks to bring certain players back to their mean.

The turnout in the best non-NHL Europeans was pretty bad too. I actually suggested cancelling that project based on turnout, but theokritos convinced me to keep going, because at least the small group of voters was a diverse group, many of them non-regulars on HOH, who could provide different perspectives than what we normally see here.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd like an updated top 100 list. It's been almost a decade since that was done originally.

The original plan was actually to revisit the Top 100 players list after we slogged through all the positional lists. But then we got distracted by top Europeans and top playoffs lists.

One benefit to doing a top 100 overall list, is that because of all the positional lists, it should be really accessible and easy for more posters to come up with lists.

 

[MXD]

So 4 of 9 participants surveyed were fans of the Canadiens. Considering the composition of the final list... that seems about right.

Nothing against the most storied franchise in hockey, but this is why these projects need larger and more diverse samples of voters.

You know... I really can't be against what you said in the 2nd paragraph. Bigger pannels makes for more involved users, which makes for more avenues of discussion.

I also know that you aren't targeting me personnally with your first paragraph.

Still, I thought we were quite a bit beyond that in the "Projects". It's not perfect, but it tends to be significantly better than the other HOH threads, not to mention the other HF threads.

The turnout in this one seemed far lower than past projects. Is that a fair assumption?

If so, I think that coincides with this being the "worst" top 40/60 list compiled. Numerous folks overrated and others under. Simply not enough folks to bring certain players back to their mean.

The low amount of participants might be explained by the fact that...

It was REALLY difficult. Referring to a very specific example, I still can't believe that I was the only one to rank Charlie Gardiner. While the reminder of the panel probably wonder what the **** I was thinking.

As for this :

Numerous folks overrated and others under. Simply not enough folks to bring certain players back to their mean

Totally agree. There was also a significant waning in the interest in the discussions. And I should never be the biggest poster in a single project

For sure. The only ones that really caught me off-guard were Savard (+16 spots) and Lemaire (+9 spots) gaining ground when the field became wide open.

A bit surprised to.... even if I was pretty vocal about one of these (Savard).

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm throwing my hat officially into the "Top 100 Players of All Time". I really think there is a lot to review and obviously a good number of active and recently retired types are going to move up into the fold IMO. Plus it seems like the type of project that will attract A LOT of people.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oh and for the record, I don't think I'm immune to bias myself. Probably would have been the highest vote for Scott Stevens if I had gotten my **** together fast enough to vote at large before Vote 8 ... although at least then he wouldn't have been tied with Brodeur

 

[quoipourquoi]

The turnout in the best non-NHL Europeans was pretty bad too. I actually suggested cancelling that project based on turnout, but theokritos convinced me to keep going, because at least the small group of voters was a diverse group, many of them non-regulars on HOH, who could provide different perspectives than what we normally see here.

We were talking about canceling this too. At the end of the day, I'm glad we didn't. And I think we're likely to keep tackling historical blindspots instead of going for the conventional - even if it means accepting open ballot submissions instead of thirty Round 1 ballots lifted from previous ATD, HOH, and media lists.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Not to go off topic but how does that even work?

Best single-season regular season only, or also playoffs?

I expect it'll be exceptionally hard to rank that. I also hate the idea of breaking up dynasties. 1984 Oilers vs 1985....or 87 vs 88. How do you differentiate really? And if you don't - and if you think Oilers were the best dynasty, do they just rank top 4? Seems kind of boring.


I guess same idea if you do peak individual seasons. Do you rank Gretzky once, or once per season? If it's once per season he likely appears 10x in the top 25.

We'll do a preliminary thread in late Summer or the Fall to see how people want to do it. Perhaps we'll allow each team of a dynasty to qualify individually or perhaps we'll determine dynasties/pseudo-dynasties in advance and have the aggregate list determine the representative. It will be season/playoff combined though.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Will we be holding a vote to see what the next projoect ends up being?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaches

Top 40 or so coaches, head coaches and assistants. Provide insight into the concept of team, building a team, line and roster structure, player deployment, team dynamics.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Will we be holding a vote to see what the next projoect ends up being?

No. We're kind of having the same conversation in two threads, but we're doing something for the NHL's 100th anniversary, so get to work on your top-100 list!! It just won't be a discussion project.

 

[bobholly39]

Top 40 or so coaches, head coaches and assistants. Provide insight into the concept of team, building a team, line and roster structure, player deployment, team dynamics.

How do you even rank that though?

With players you can look at stats. Do stats tell the whole story? No - so having testimonials and experiences obviously helps a lot too.

But there's no stats for coaches. Even for current coaches - Babcock. What makes him so great? You just see the finished product on ice - most of what makes a good coach is what happens in the background, which outsiders don't really know.

Similar idea to ranking best captains. Even looking at just current day NHL. Toews? Crosby? How do we know Pacioretty isn't actually a better captain then them? Being a captain is about what happens off the ice - that's even more important for a coach.

I just find coaches difficult. Obviously - just my 2 cents, and if enough posters feel they have enough knowledge to rank coaches, than great.

Just make sure this doesn't become a ranking of the winningest coaches, if so it seems kind of useless.