HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

HOH Top 40 Goalies - Participants Survey

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-04-2013, 08:47 PM
  #26
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 500
Here's a link to the comparable Top Defensemen participant survey.

Not all questions are exactly comparable because I changed some slightly, but here are some comparisons.

1. Nationality - we went from 68% Canadian participants to 48% Canadian participants. Primarily because more Americans participated - 27% in the Defensemen project and 43% in the Goalies project.

Important sources in rating players - some differences between the positions/projects.

Source Goalies Defencemen Difference
Personal observation - Watching on TV at the time 4.0 3.5 +0.5
Personal observation - Watching archived video of past games 3.4 2.7 +0.7
Personal observation - In attendance at the game 2.7 3.0 -0.3
Statistics - Advanced/adjusted stats 3.7 3.5 +0.2
Statistics - Traditional (hockey card) stats 2.9 3.2 -0.3
Contemporary opinion - Awards voting results 4.0 4.0 0.0
Contemporary opinion - Quotes from newspaper archives and other contemporary sources 4.0 3.6 +0.4
Contemporary opinion - As experienced personally 3.9 3.4 +0.5

Factors of importance (only including ones that were in both surveys - some were only in one or the other)
Factor Goalies Defencemen Difference
Stanley Cup playoff performance 4.6 4.1 0.5
Regular season performance (NHL) 4.5 4.2 0.3
Performance in international tournaments 3.5 3.1 0.4
Peak performance 4.0 4.4 -0.4
Longevity/length of career 3.7 2.9 0.8

Unfortunately I changed the wording slightly on some of the questions which means they aren't as comparable as they could be. For example I don't think 3.0 in Durability for defencemen can be compared to 3.9 in Durability/consistency for goalies.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 09:16 PM
  #27
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Im not claiming they did nor is anyone else, far from it.
C1958 seems to be claiming that they did:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...php?p=59004347

C1958, please correct me if that's not what you're saying (and in that case, perhaps clarify your remarks).

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 10:08 PM
  #28
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Defer To Overpass

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I don't think anyone had the intention to take advantage of being an admin in the project. Not at all. And I'm not even sure that anyone has suggested that is the case.

As someone who has seen the aggregate lists before discussions, I think there is the potential for that knowledge to influence what you research and what you argue. I chose to research Glenn Hall in the first round of voting, with a focus on his playoffs. Now I thought it was an interesting topic and an important one that could use some research. But I also knew that Hall was ranked fourth on the aggregate list and was in a position where he could finish anywhere from fourth to sixth in the voting. I didn't have an agenda in my study of Hall, I think it was honest inquiry and I might have chosen that topic anyway - but it was informed by the knowledge that Hall was in a "swing" position. I can't lock that knowledge out of my brain when I go to post in the discussion.

Same thing when I posted about Tretiak later - I really thought more should be posted about him, but I also knew he and Brimsek were neck and neck for 8th in round 1 voting.

So maybe in an ideal world you'd have an admin who did nothing but run the project and who never posted anything. But like you said, that was never an option since nobody was offering to be that admin. I wasn't, you weren't, C1958 wasn't. TDMM and seventieslord did volunteer to administer the project and deserve a lot of credit for that.
Taco,

Defer to Overpass' post who understands and explains the point from an administrator/participant position.

If all 27 participants had exactly the same data about the aggregate list at the start then all the 27 could interpret and prepare accordingly, just like overpass.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 10:10 PM
  #29
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Taco,

Defer to Overpass' post who understands and explains the point from an administrator/participant position.

If all 27 participants had exactly the same data about the aggregate list at the start then all the 27 could interpret and prepare accordingly, just like overpass.
I agree that they could have the potential to influence if they chose to do so.

Your post, however, seems to imply that they chose to do so.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 10:42 PM
  #30
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
No

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
I agree that they could have the potential to influence if they chose to do so.

Your post, however, seems to imply that they chose to do so.
No, my post is that all 27 participants did not start with exactly the same information.

Using overpass' example. He knew that Hall was 4th while the other participants who were not administrators knew him as one of 7 presented in alphabetical order.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 10:45 PM
  #31
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
No, my post is that all 27 participants did not start with exactly the same information.

Using overpass' example. He knew that Hall was 4th while the other participants who were not administrators knew him as one of 7 presented in alphabetical order.
Very early in the process, there was a consensus that knowing what was on the aggregate list had the potential to bias one's round 2 vote, so the fewer voters who knew the exact order of the list, the better. But someone has to do the work.

This is the exact same procedure that was in effect during the defensemen project. Why the sudden problem with it now?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 10:48 PM
  #32
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
No, my post is that all 27 participants did not start with exactly the same information.

Using overpass' example. He knew that Hall was 4th while the other participants who were not administrators knew him as one of 7 presented in alphabetical order.
I understood your post completely. However, it does not answer my question.

You keep ignoring my question (why, I have no idea, but I'll say it so boldly this time that you can't possibly skip over it).

Your post implies that the administrators of this poll used their (potential - you have no idea if they actually looked at it or not) additional information to their advantage.

ARE YOU (OR ARE YOU NOT) SAYING THAT?

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 11:48 PM
  #33
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Very early in the process, there was a consensus that knowing what was on the aggregate list had the potential to bias one's round 2 vote, so the fewer voters who knew the exact order of the list, the better. But someone has to do the work.

This is the exact same procedure that was in effect during the defensemen project. Why the sudden problem with it now?
Exactly.

I was not comfortable with the situation in the Defenseman Project but chose to observe the effects in the Goalie Project..

The issue arose because I realized at the start of the first vote that I was being re-active as opposed to being pro-active in my preparations.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1247157&page=3

Even then I was using a modified approach for Jacques Plante initiated by overpass for Glenn Hall, tarheels then did Sawchuk in a similar fashion.

It was then that I realized the importance of the aggregate list in preparations. If a participant does not have access to the aggregate list then they are always playing catch-up. If all participants have access to the aggregate list but some choose not to use it that is another situation.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 11:56 PM
  #34
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Well, you've found a new way to avoid answering my question.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 12:05 AM
  #35
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Aggregate List

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
You keep ignoring my question (why, I have no idea, but I'll say it so boldly this time that you can't possibly skip over it).

Your post implies that the administrators of this poll used their (potential - you have no idea if they actually looked at it or not) additional information to their advantage.

ARE YOU (OR ARE YOU NOT) SAYING THAT?
My point is basic. Inherent in not having access to the aggregate list is that I started each round re-active and late, a disadvantage to me.. Whether others experienced the same effect is a point for others to comment on and discuss.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 02-05-2013 at 12:07 AM. Reason: Typo
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 12:08 AM
  #36
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
I can't believe that you won't answer a direct question, so I'm going to say it differently.

One of the rules of this discussion is the trusting of one another's motives - in particular, this rule was used to your benefit in the early rounds of voting.

That same trust includes the administrators.

Are you suggesting that that rule should no longer apply (alternatively, that you should be exempted from this rule)?

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 12:32 AM
  #37
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post

Even then I was using a modified approach for Jacques Plante initiated by overpass for Glenn Hall, tarheels then did Sawchuk in a similar fashion.

It was then that I realized the importance of the aggregate list in preparations. If a participant does not have access to the aggregate list then they are always playing catch-up. If all participants have access to the aggregate list but some choose not to use it that is another situation.
You can't seriously think that overpass needed to peek at the aggregate list to know that Glenn Hall was going to come up for a vote early in the project, probably in the first round.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 02-05-2013 at 03:55 AM. Reason: spelling
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 07:53 AM
  #38
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,413
vCash: 500
From what I can recall, each round took basically the same format:

1) Generalized rankings and spitballing

2) Quick consensus elimination of the candidates who were clearly not top-8 material (this is the part that makes me slightly uncomfortable)

3) Focus on the goalies who appear to be most competitive for top-4 status. Maybe 6 per round on average.

I don't really see how an admin could dramatically affect this process based on knowing where the breaks lie. Sure, he could target his research toward the guys near the break point -- but there were 25 of us left to focus on the other candidates. As an example, overpass' work on Hall didn't stop me from working on Sawchuk.

Maybe if we went back and really combed through our discussions we would find a case of a goalie going un-researched or un-discussed at a critical moment. But that would be a very minor factor in the final rankings and not something I think should be pinned on 2 participants because they happened to know the aggregate list in advance.

TBH, I feel like this discussion is a bit of a sideshow unless there is a specific case where admin manipulation is in evidence.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 11:34 AM
  #39
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
TBH, I feel like this discussion is a bit of a sideshow unless there is a specific case where admin manipulation is in evidence.
Oh no, good grief no. To even intimate such isnt on in my book. Indeed, 70's, TDMM, overpass & Taco are to be congratulated & thanked most profusely for guiding this boat home. Enjoyed countless hours reading the thread & rankings, learned much, edifying, and though I might disagree with some of the rankings & inclusions, highly entertaining, and thats what its all about...

Good Job Guys. Much appreciated!

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 11:44 AM
  #40
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Indeed, 70's, TDMM, overpass & Taco are to be congratulated & thanked most profusely for guiding this boat home.
Thanks! Although I didn't do a dang thing (other than wag my stick around a few times).

It was a fun process, and I'd like to commend both the people running it and the people participating in it - the discussions were legendary for the most part, heated for some part, but always compelling and interesting.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 04:55 AM
  #41
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
I think we've improved upon the procedures during the Top 100 lists in some ways, but one thing we have not been as successful at was getting as many European posters involved.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 06:34 AM
  #42
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Questionable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think we've improved upon the procedures during the Top 100 lists in some ways, but one thing we have not been as successful at was getting as many European posters involved.
Questionable interpretation. The survey after the project looked at region not provenance by nation of birth. So Europeans by birth living in North America were included under the North American umbrella. Likewise Canadians by birth living in the USA.

The real weakness of the project was the age demographic. Only three were identified as over 40 and one - Pappyline had to struggle to be allowed to participate after a rather cavalier rejection.

Conversely various other projects of a similar nature - THN, the ongoing Ultime Classement project about the Canadiens reach out to balance the age demographic. The Ultimate Classement includes a balance of participants from O6 reporters who saw NHL hockey including the likes Stan Fischler, Bob Verdi and others combined with recently retired NHLers. Only weakness in the Ultime Classement is the exclusion of fantasy or ATD types.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 07:16 AM
  #43
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The real weakness of the project was the age demographic. Only three were identified as over 40 and one - Pappyline had to struggle to be allowed to participate after a rather cavalier rejection.

Conversely various other projects of a similar nature - THN, the ongoing Ultime Classement project about the Canadiens reach out to balance the age demographic.
What for?

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 09:24 AM
  #44
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This is the exact same procedure that was in effect during the defensemen project. Why the sudden problem with it now?
Just because you fail to identify a problem at an earlier time doesn't mean you shouldn't address it once you have managed to identify it later on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
One of the rules of this discussion is the trusting of one another's motives... That same trust includes the administrators.

Are you suggesting that that rule should no longer apply...?
The rule is necessary to keep the arguments on topic instead of ad personam, but it should not prevent us from discussing whether the system itself has flaws, right? As for the "taking advantage" question: bad intentions doesn't have to be involved, as overpass has demonstrated very well in Post #23:

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I didn't have an agenda in my study of Hall, I think it was honest inquiry and I might have chosen that topic anyway - but it was informed by the knowledge that Hall was in a "swing" position. I can't lock that knowledge out of my brain when I go to post in the discussion.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 11:12 AM
  #45
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The rule is necessary to keep the arguments on topic instead of ad personam, but it should not prevent us from discussing whether the system itself has flaws, right? As for the "taking advantage" question: bad intentions doesn't have to be involved, as overpass has demonstrated very well in Post #23:
Obviously the system has flaws (since no one is willing to administer this project without participating). No one's arguing that it doesn't have flaws, so where's the discussion?

Point out someone who says that there's no flaw in the system, and then we've got something to discuss.

Beyond that, there are those who are questioning others' motives in this thread. That will not stand.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 11:14 AM
  #46
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,835
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Obviously the system has flaws (since no one is willing to administer this project without participating). No one's arguing that it doesn't have flaws, so where's the discussion?

Point out someone who says that there's no flaw in the system, and then we've got something to discuss.

Beyond that, there are those who are questioning others' motives in this thread. That will not stand.
I was'nt a part of this project unfortunately, but looking from the outside in i must say i have seldom found any beef, as unbeefy as this. You can go into any mental institution you wish and find plenty of these kind of things, if in fact anyone there is a hardcore hockey historian.

Darth Yoda is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 12:42 PM
  #47
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Obviously the system has flaws (since no one is willing to administer this project without participating). No one's arguing that it doesn't have flaws, so where's the discussion?

Point out someone who says that there's no flaw in the system, and then we've got something to discuss.
It's consensus that the system has flaws, but how to deal with the flaws is up to discussion: you either keep the number of voters who know the aggregate list as small as possible OR you make the aggregate list available to everybody so that every voter is in the same position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Beyond that, there are those who are questioning others' motives in this thread. That will not stand.
That's not necessarily how I read post #6 which I guess you are thinking of. "The administrators...can strategically argue". The wording is not unambiguous, but the clarification (or correction if you want) is in post #28 which embraces what overpass said. At least that's the way I read it and I don't have a beef in the whole thing.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 12:49 PM
  #48
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
That's not necessarily how I read post #6 which I guess you are thinking of. "The administrators...can strategically argue". The wording is not unambiguous, but the clarification (or correction if you want) is in post #28 which embraces what overpass said. At least that's the way I read it and I don't have a beef in the whole thing.
If that's how C1958 meant it, I gave him ample opportunity to clarify his remarks. The fact that he continues to dodge the (exceptionally direct) question suggests that he feels otherwise.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 02:11 PM
  #49
ot92s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Odd that nobody thought to release the aggregate list to everyone before-hand in these situations. If you were looking to reduce confounds and the administrator just HAD to be involved it seems to be a no-brainer. Was it considered? If not maybe it should be considered as a principle in the future.

ot92s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 02:16 PM
  #50
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Questionable interpretation. The survey after the project looked at region not provenance by nation of birth. So Europeans by birth living in North America were included under the North American umbrella. Likewise Canadians by birth living in the USA.

The real weakness of the project was the age demographic. Only three were identified as over 40 and one - Pappyline had to struggle to be allowed to participate after a rather cavalier rejection.

Conversely various other projects of a similar nature - THN, the ongoing Ultime Classement project about the Canadiens reach out to balance the age demographic. The Ultimate Classement includes a balance of participants from O6 reporters who saw NHL hockey including the likes Stan Fischler, Bob Verdi and others combined with recently retired NHLers. Only weakness in the Ultime Classement is the exclusion of fantasy or ATD types.
And you continue to take shots at me. Remember where I said that you are welcome not to participate in any future projects I do on this site? Let me change that a little bit: You are not welcome to participate in any future projects I do on this site. And if I don't administer the next project (and after the experience I had administering this one, that would be a desirable outcome), I will highly recommend to whoever does that they not permit you to participate either.

Do you think we all forgot that you were banned by FissionFire (who had nothing to do with this current project) in the middle of the 2009 Top 100 (now top 70) project for repeatedly trying to undermine the project, it's procedures, and it's administrators after the early voting didn't go your way? Sound familiar? You've pulled this crap during 2 of the last 3 ranking projects on the history site, both of them with completely different groups of administrators.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.