View Single Post
Old
02-03-2013, 08:09 PM
  #1
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,935
vCash: 500
HOH Top 40 Goalies - Participants Survey

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
Age CountPercent
Under 20 00%
20-29 835%
30-39 1148%
40-49 14%
50-59 00%
60+ 29%
Did not answer 14%

The project participants were primarily aged 20-40.

Q2: Nationality
Country CountPercent
Canada 1148%
United States 1043%
Sweden 14%
Slovakia 14%

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.

Region CountPercent
Atlantic Canada 29%
Quebec 313%
Ontario 313%
Western Canada 313%

Q3: Favourite NHL team (Multiple mentions accepted)
Team CountPercent
Pittsburgh Penguins 417%
Toronto Maple Leafs 417%
Carolina Hurricanes 313%
Montreal Canadiens 313%
Boston Bruins 29%
Hartford Whalers 29%
Ottawa Senators 29%
Anaheim Ducks 14%
Buffalo Sabres 14%
Chicago Blackhawks 14%
Colorado Avalanche 14%
Quebec Nordiques 14%
Detroit Red Wings 14%
New Jersey Devils 14%
Vancouver Canucks 14%
Vancouver Millionaires 14%
Washington Capitals 14%
None 14%

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

Q4: Playing experience
Level CountPercent
I have played organized hockey at a major junior level (or equivalent) or higher 00%
I have played organized hockey at a competitive level 522%
I have played organized hockey at a low level 730%
I have played recreational hockey only 939%
I have not or have very rarely played hockey 29%

Q5: Goaltender experience
Level CountPercent
I have played goaltender at the major junior level (or equivalent) or higher 00%
I have played goaltender at a competitive level 14%
I have played goaltender in low level organized hockey 313%
I have played goaltender in recreational hockey 626%
I have not or have rarely played goaltender 1357%

Q6: Coaching experience
Level CountPercent
I have coached hockey at a competitive level or higher 313%
I have coached hockey at a low level 29%
I have not coached hockey 1878%

Q7: What era or eras of hockey were your favourite to watch? (Multiple responses accepted)
Era CountPercent
Original Six NHL (1946-1967) 29%
Expansion/WHA NHL(1968-1979) 29%
1980s NHL (1980-89) 522%
Early 90s NHL (90-96) 1357%
Turn of century NHL (97-04) 835%
Post-lockout NHL (06-present) 835%
Soviet era international hockey (pre-1992) 29%
Post-Soviet era international hockey (1992 and later) 417%

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.

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.)

Source 1 2 3 4 5 Count Average
Personal observation - Watching on TV at the time 0 0 8 7 7 22 3.95
Personal observation - Watching archived video of past games 0 4 8 8 3 23 3.43
Personal observation - In attendance at the game 7 4 2 7 2 22 2.68
Statistics - Advanced/adjusted stats 1 2 7 7 6 23 3.65
Statistics - Traditional (hockey card) stats 3 5 7 8 0 23 2.87
Contemporary opinion - Awards voting results 0 1 5 10 7 23 4.00
Contemporary opinion - Quotes from newspaper archives and other contemporary sources 0 1 6 8 8 23 4.00
Contemporary opinion - As experienced personally 0 1 4 14 4 23 3.91
Secondary sources - Opinions and anecdotes from observers and participants looking backwards - whether in books, later interviews, or other sources 1 3 4 12 3 23 3.57
Secondary sources - Other goalie rankings published 6 7 7 2 1 23 2.35

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.
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Count Average
Stanley Cup playoff performance 0 0 2 6 15 23 4.57
Regular season performance (NHL) 0 0 1 10 12 23 4.48
Performance in international tournaments 0 3 11 4 5 23 3.48
Performance in other domestic leagues 2 7 8 6 0 23 2.78
Shot-stopping performance 0 2 2 9 10 23 4.17
All non-shot-stopping factors (puck handling, integration with skaters, rebound control, etc) 1 5 10 5 2 23 3.09
Technical innovation 1 5 10 7 0 23 3.00
Technical excellence 2 7 9 4 1 23 2.78
Peak performance 0 0 4 14 5 23 4.04
Durability/consistency 0 0 9 8 6 23 3.87
Longevity 0 1 7 12 3 23 3.74
Personality/being a good teammate 10 7 2 2 2 23 2.09

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


Last edited by overpass: 02-05-2013 at 08:02 PM.
overpass is offline   Reply With Quote