Round 2 Voting Results (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well, in that graph, +3, in a relatively small group, is close to zero occurences. Way closer than zero than to one.

I mean, OBVIOUSLY, Hasek at 7th is more abnormal. Hasek 4th would have been kindof the same than Roy 4th (if that would have been the case, they would have been tied).

Still, if you take out the lowest vote for each, they'd be equals.

You say that as if removing a median event and an asymptotic event are equivalent operations in terms of impact on the result.

edit: Oh and sorry, I didn't understand the underlined section.

 

[MXD]

You say that as if removing a median result and an asymptotic result are equivalent operations.

Well, they aren't exactly, since it would end up being a tie, as opposed to a first and a second.

I was just exposing a fact. If you take Hasek's lowest vote and Roy's lowest vote, you end up with a tie. If you want to add non-factual and subjetive elements, or interpret my words, there isn't much I can do.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The end result is they finished extremely close to each other, almost in a virtual tie.
One 7th place vote, while seeming a little out of place to most, doesn't really change anything.

Whether Roy finishes 1-3 points up on Hasek or if Hasek had of finished 1-3 points up on Roy.

That's a definite 1a/1b situation no matter who actually finishes ever so slightly ahead.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well, they aren't exactly, since it would end up being a tie, as opposed to a first and a second.

I was just exposing a fact. If you take Hasek's lowest vote and Roy's lowest vote, you end up with a tie. If you want to add non-factual and subjetive elements, or interpret my words, there isn't much I can do.

Dude, no need to get harsh. Go back and look at the underlined part and check out the words you used. It's hard to understand, that's all.

The end result is they finished extremely close to each other, almost in a virtual tie.
One 7th place vote, while seeming a little out of place to most, doesn't really change anything.

Well, actually, it changed the order in the end. I didn't double-check the scoring system (have always thought absolute top finishes should count more than runner ups, but that's neither here nor there), but even a 5th place vote would have been an outlier for Hasek. Would even a 5th instead of a 7th have tied or surpassed Roy's total? That's where I'm coming from. I like the result, but I think it's wrong and tainted (even by a single vote). I would have preferred Roy "winning" "legit", even if I'm adamant about my personal opinion of Hasek.

 

[MXD]

Dude, no need to get harsh. Go back and look at the underlined part and check out the words you used. It's hard to understand, that's all.

Well, I was exposing a fact... That was ... QUITE clear.

Well, actually, it changed the order in the end. I didn't double-check the scoring system (have always thought absolute top finishes should count more than runner ups, but that's neither here nor there), but even a 5th place vote would have been an outlier for Hasek. Would even a 5th instead of a 7th have tied or surpassed Roy's total? That's where I'm coming from.

A 5th would make Hasek behind Roy by 1 point.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Well, actually, it changed the order in the end. I didn't double-check the scoring system (have always thought absolute top finishes should count more than runner ups, but that's neither here nor there), but even a 5th place vote would have been an outlier for Hasek. Would even a 5th instead of a 7th have tied or surpassed Roy's total? That's where I'm coming from.

Hasek would of needed a 4th place vote instead of that 7th to tie Roy and a 3rd or better to pass him.

Like I said, it's obviously a 1a/1b situation and who evers name actually ends up holding that #1 spot is almost irrelevant.


Voting tabulation is quite obviously 1=7, 2=6, 3=5, 4=4, 5=3, 6=2, 7=1

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well, I was exposing a fact... That was ... QUITE clear.

Don't worry about it if this is just some English as a second language thing. The grammar and spelling has enough little mistakes to make it hard to figure out exactly what you're suggesting and what would result. "Hasek 4th the same than Roy 4th"? I don't really know what to do with that.

This was a much better way to word it:

If you take Hasek's lowest vote and Roy's lowest vote, you end up with a tie.

although it has already been mentioned earlier in the thread, so I'm aware.

A 5th would make Hasek behind Roy by 1 point.

Cheers, I appreciate it.

Hasek would of needed a 4th place vote

Sorry this had to be you, given the nature of some of our replies to each other, but it's would have -> would have -> would've. As a former English teacher, that one bothers me more than most due to its frequency online (and yeah, I dangle my participles on the regular up in here, regardless... come at me! ). I know, I know... no one needs the grammar police.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Sorry this had to be you, given the nature of some of our replies to each other, but it's would have -> would have -> would've. As a former English teacher, that one bothers me more than most (and yeah, I dangle my participles on the regular up in here, regardless... come at me! ). I know, I know... no one needs the grammar police.

I do it all the time now, I never used to. Usually I catch myself but it still slips through once in a while.
I blame texting and twitter.

And being a former English teacher makes some sense. I knew you weren't a former Math teacher...sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I do it all the time now, I never used to. Usually I catch myself but it still slips through once in a while.
I blame texting and twitter.

And being a former English teacher makes some sense. I knew you weren't a former Math teacher...sorry, couldn't resist

Haha, well played (can't say I don't deserve it). I do have a Physics minor (concentration astronomy/astrophysics) to go with my Chem major, though! Oh boy, I just realized I've been out of university for well over a decade at this point. Ouch. (English was a "get me to Japan" thing )

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Yet the original lists are reviewed and some are rejected.

I wasn't involved in the screening process (and I'm not participating in this project officially, though I do occasionally contribute to the threads), so I can't comment on how the screening process worked - but you need some sort of quality control or else the project could easily be derailed by people who have an obvious bias or deficiency in their knowledge of goalies (i.e. no non-NHL goalies, or no goalies before WWII etc).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I wasn't involved in the screening process (and I'm not participating in this project officially, though I do occasionally contribute to the threads), so I can't comment on how the screening process worked - but you need some sort of quality control or else the project could easily be derailed by people who have an obvious bias or deficiency in their knowledge of goalies (i.e. no non-NHL goalies, or no goalies before WWII etc).

And to be clear, ranking a single player a tier below the majority opinion is not even close to grounds for rejection.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

And to be clear, ranking a single player a tier below the majority opinion is not even close to grounds for rejection.

That's fine.

But someone picking Hasek last out of those 7 players seems to be incredibly off base to virtually everyone else voting.

23 out of 24 people who alledgedly know what they are doing have Hasek in the top 3, one guy has him 7th.

 

[Hardyvan123]

That 7th place vote for Hasek seems really out of whack, and that's what cost him the 1st slot. Regardless, Roy and Hasek came out with pretty much a tie, which I think is the correct result.

I actually deleted a comment I had typed about that vote. I can't see how Hasek could possibly be the weakest goalie in that group.

But, to be diplomatic, the fact that a well-informed voter holds such an opinion suggests that there is a rational case to be made defending it, and that alone could be considered a sort of tiebreaker between Hasek and Roy.

I just hope it's really a rational argument.

Putting Hasek 7th is indeed strange on the surface and it will be very interesting to see the rational for it.

Goalies are really hard to rate but the 1-2 seemed quite distinct, things will get even more interesting in the next round and beyond.

 

[quoipourquoi]

For the record, I had Hasek in 2nd.

 

[Czech Your Math]

A preferential voting system would throw away the opinions of anyone who didn't rank Hasek or Roy 1-2. If a voter thinks one, but not the other is top 2 worthy, that's not exactly a fringe opinion that should be tossed in the garbage.

Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology, but I meant that in order to determine who is ranked higher, player A or player B, one simply counts who is ranked higher on more ballots. It doesn't matter how much higher (1-2 or 1-7) on any single ballot, only which is higher on more ballots. The whole point of such a system is that no ballot is discarded, yet no ballot can unduly influence the results.

 

[Theokritos]

Voting Roy 4th is like having Gretzky as 4th amongst Centers.

Not overall.

By what you said, Roy would NECESSARILY be 2nd to Hasek in the list. He wasn't.

My point was simpler:

Gretzky 4th overall is unusual, but not Dick-Beddoes-esque. Like Roy 4th IMO.
Gretzy 7th among centers is not just unusual, it's Dick-Beddoes-esque. Like Hašek 7th IMO.

In other words, Hašek got beddoes-ized here.

Which I called an outlier (and not an anomaly; Anomaly is the word I should have used for Hasek 7th)

Whatever you want to call it: Hašek 7th is not in the same sense unusual as Roy 4th.

 

[pluppe]

It will be interesting to see what team the one who voted Hasek at 7 is a fan of.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

It will be interesting to see what team the one who voted Hasek at 7 is a fan of.

Honestly, the people casting aspersions in this thread are 20 times worse than the event itself. And it's a heck of a lot easier to criticize others when you aren't actually burdened with having to complete your own ballot.

Please drop it - the votes will eventually come out, and until then, it's distracting.

 

[pluppe]

Honestly, the people casting aspersions in this thread are 20 times worse than the event itself. And it's a heck of a lot easier to criticize others when you aren't actually burdened with having to complete your own ballot.

Please drop it - the votes will eventually come out, and until then, it's distracting.

I´m sorry if you see it that way. That was kind of a cheap shot and I apologize. I really appreciate all the awesome work that you and the other participants are doing. I could never find the time too do the hard work myself.
That vote just left a very bad taste for me and it seems that others feel the same. In the bigger picture it of course does not matter. It´s the discussions and the knowledge and learning that they generate that I see as the main point of the project. And all that is of course untainted. But when you do a list you still put your hopes and opinions into it. Even if you are not a full time participant. And you get mad when it doesn´t feel right. And then sometimes you express it in a bad way.

Though I believe this is the place to discuss the voting I agree that the personal critique is better expressed when the voting becomes official and I do apologize.

 

[Cruor]

Though I believe this is the place to discuss the voting I agree that the personal critique is better expressed when the voting becomes official and I do apologize.

No need to over do it, a 7th place vote in light of Hasek's record and this voting record is outlandish. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize it when it's supposed to form an official list, and it would be beneficial for the credibility of the list if contrarian opinions were articulated and defended in public.

P.S.

I saw earlier that the poster had Brodeur as his #1, but I see no number one votes for him in the list? Am I misinterpreting something?

 

[Czech Your Math]

Honestly, the people casting aspersions in this thread are 20 times worse than the event itself. And it's a heck of a lot easier to criticize others when you aren't actually burdened with having to complete your own ballot.

Please drop it - the votes will eventually come out, and until then, it's distracting.

I mostly agree. I'm not participating in this project for two reasons: First, at the time it started, I didn't have the time to properly participate. Second, I didn't believe my knowledge at present to be sufficient to increase the validity of the results.

I've always defended the rights of any potential participant to be part of these types of projects, regardless of how comprehensive or "mainstream" is their hockey knowledge. To me, using subjective criteria to decide whether to accept someone's ballot or to accept their voting in each round reeks of elitism.

While most may agree that certain votes seem strange, it is diversity of opinion that needs to be encouraged, not discouraged. Otherwise, one ends up with something like many national elections... people arguing vehemently over issues within a narrow spectrum, rather than questioning just how broad the spectrum should be (and the premise that such spectrum should be limited at all). There's an implication that these types of projects need to be limited to a select group comprised of participants which conform in large degree to each other's viewpoints. This is exactly the type of thinking which needs to be avoided IMO, unless one wants the equivalent of voting limited to male property owners of a certain color.

Of course, I also defend the right for participants to criticize the votes of others, but this can be done with some measure of respect. It would be helpful, perhaps even expected out of respect for fellow participants, if those with "unusual" viewpoints defend them in some manner. However, I don't believe that should be a requirement, as the holder of such viewpoint may not wish to be subject to excessive ridicule and may recognize that trying to convince others of his/her viewpoint is basically a waste of time.

I see only two clear courses of action, although there are possibly others:

1. Modify or develop an alternative voting system which allows for full participation, but minimizes the effects of "outlier" votes.

2. Continue to educate the voting populace, which I believe is at least part of the purpose of these projects.

If the participants are restricted in some manner, then the criteria must be objective and given from the start. IOW, if it's a requirement to include at least X goalies from before WWII or at least Y goalies which never played in the NHL, then it better be spelled out clearly. To allow subjective review and discarding of participants ballots has always been unacceptable to me.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Voting Hasek 5th would be controversial, but less outrageous than 7th. And that controversial-but-not-outrageous ranking would produce the same result, Hasek being #2 and Roy #1.

So while I'm baffled as to the rationale behind the #7 vote, it doesn't seem to me that it's "tainted" the final result much if at all. I consider Hasek #1 but that doesn't mean every single person needs to agree in order for this list to be legitimate.

 

[Cruor]

I mostly agree. I'm not participating in this project for two reasons: First, at the time it started, I didn't have the time to properly participate. Second, I didn't believe my knowledge at present to be sufficient to increase the validity of the results.

I've always defended the rights of any potential participant to be part of these types of projects, regardless of how comprehensive or "mainstream" is their hockey knowledge. To me, using subjective criteria to decide whether to accept someone's ballot or to accept their voting in each round reeks of elitism,

I´d posit selecting 27 eligible voters is elitism. And if you somehow disagree with it, why not open the vote up for the public? I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you see a danger of having an open vote you should have very specific rules for those deemed good enough to vote. In this context the Hasek at #7 vote is very much debatable.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Public Voting

I´d posit selecting 27 eligible voters is elitism. And if you somehow disagree with it, why not open the vote up for the public? I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you see a danger of having an open vote you should have very specific rules for those deemed good enough to vote. In this context the Hasek at #7 vote is very much debatable.

Actually the vote was open to the public. Every member of the board was eligible to submit a list of their Top 60 Goaltenders for consideration and admission to the next step which you posit is elitism when in fact it is meritocracy.

That only 27 board members were willing to do the actual work of building a list of Top 60 Goaltenders for submission is testimony to their willingness to work, their knowledge and dedication to the project.

Which brings us to the final point - the kibitzer element. Zero effort to build a Top 60 Goaltender list, yet the ability to generate more than 60 reasons why they did not submit a list, yet with an expectation and sense of entitlement that their comments be considered and replied to.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I´d posit selecting 27 eligible voters is elitism. And if you somehow disagree with it, why not open the vote up for the public? I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you see a danger of having an open vote you should have very specific rules for those deemed good enough to vote. In this context the Hasek at #7 vote is very much debatable.

AFAIK, the 27 voters weren't "selected" per se. Rather, anyone who wished to participate was allowed to submit their initial ballots. The only barrier to voting is the possibility that some initial ballots do not "pass inspection" and are therefore discarded, which also prevents participation in the later rounds of voting. It's this subjective standard for keeping/discarding ballots with which I don't agree. IMO either all ballots should be kept or there should be clear, objective criteria from the start which must be followed in order to participate.

I believe it's been alluded to that a ballot or two were discarded in this project (and I know that ballots were discarded for similar projects in the past). For instance, someone said their ballot was discarded because it had a couple of ineligible names. My concern would be whether the voter was contacted and allowed to clarify or modify his ballot, or if it was simply discarded without further inquiry.

For the most part, it should be a self-selecting process: Anyone who is willing to have his ballot eventually made public, follows the objective criteria given, and spends the time to submit an initial ballot (as well as participate in further discussion and/or later voting rounds) should be considered eligible for this type of project.