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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

HOH Top-40 Goalies Voter Record - Canadiens1958

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-06-2013, 10:30 PM
  #26
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
1999 AST saw Hasek with 35 first, Dafoe 10 first and Joseph 6 first, Brodeur 3, Tugnutt 2. Dafoe and Joseph are not even close to top 10 All Time.

Balance against different voters for the 1999 Vezina, 1st place votes Joseph 10, Hasek and Dafoe, 8 each.

Not a question of finding one highest and running with it. Look at possible counter balances, diversity of opinions, media voters, GM voters, etc.
You argue Dafoe isn't close to top-10 all-time, so Hasek should be lower. He was routinely beating Roy and Brodeur, who you ranked 2nd and 4th.

Of course, you ranked Durnan considerably above Brimsek and Brodeur above Hasek, despite the fact that the lower-ranked goalie dominated the era the two played together.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 10:30 PM
  #27
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
1999 AST saw Hasek with 35 first, Dafoe 10 first and Joseph 6 first, Brodeur 3, Tugnutt 2. Dafoe and Joseph are not even close to top 10 All Time.

Balance against different voters for the 1999 Vezina, 1st place votes Joseph 10, Hasek and Dafoe, 8 each.

Not a question of finding one highest and running with it. Look at possible counter balances, diversity of opinions, media voters, GM voters, etc.
When you use the word "never" it is a question of only finding one.

EDIT: And for a diversity of opinions, he also received 24 of 26 1st place Vezina votes that year, with the other two being 2nd place, or 126 out of a possible 130pts (96.9%).


Last edited by Hawkey Town 18: 02-07-2013 at 01:09 AM.
Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 01:22 AM
  #28
Plural
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 29,284
vCash: 50
I never thought of Hasek's (in)ability to take control of the first shot so much of an issue. Due to the fact that he was so damn good with 2nd shots. I kind of get the idea where C1958 is going with.

Purely judging by traditional hockey criteria Hasek made a mistake every time he let a rebound. So that is where he gets penalized and frankly, i have no problem with that line of thinking.

Basically it just comes down to consistency. I don't have enough knowledge about other goalies, but is there another goalie with an obvious weakness but he makes up for it in other areas?

Plural is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 03:44 PM
  #29
pluppe
Registered User
 
pluppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 693
vCash: 500
I hope this post is allowed as I have really tried to be factual and I think this is the right place to put it.

I feel that C1958s Hasek votes tainted this whole project, at least for me, and I did not follow it much after the first round because of it. You may think that I should not complain since I am not a participant but I feel I have to speak my mind.

The "allowed rebounds argument" is a garbage argument. Goaltending is about preventing goals and all stats (gaa, comparisons to backups, playing with more pp shots against, etc) show that Haseks rebound control did not prevent him from doing so better than all of his contemporaries. It resembles saying player A, who scored 40 goals, is a better goalscorer than player B, that scored 60 goals, because he has a better shooting%. Or that player A, who registered 14 seconds round the ice, is a faster skater than player B, who registered 12 seconds, because his stride is more like the one you teach at practice. Or that I am a better golfer than Jim Fyruk because my swing i prettier. Hasek found a way thats better than what common wisdom preaches. It is written over his whole resume. Deal with it.

Voting Dzurilla 41 also seems strange as no weight seem to be put on Haseks International resume. Is Dzurilla really that much more acclaimed internationally?

I also think it is interesting to note that C1958, being a fan of Montreal, votes two Canadiens goalies #1 & #2 while voting Hasek, their usually biggest contender for the top spot, as far away from them as he can (while sticking another Canadiens goaltender inbetween while he is at it). I claim this is a tactical vote.

And I am glad that TDMM also remembers how C1958 is perhaps the largest reason that the second top 100 project only reached 70. In Sweden we have a saying that goes "One time is no time, twice is a habit". I hope that it is not allowed to happen again because I really appreciate the work all of you put in and it is fantastically educational. If not by banning then perhaps by thinking about eliminating outliers in voting. I think the results of this outlier shows the need. When there pretty much is a consensus top 3 a #7 vote has a relatively huge impact. This system really premiers tactical voting. Especially if you are the only one doing it. That one votes like this and then goes and questions the integrity of others that has put in a lot of hard work is unfortunate.

pluppe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 03:58 PM
  #30
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluppe View Post
I hope that it is not allowed to happen again because I really appreciate the work all of you put in and it is fantastically educational. If not by banning then perhaps by thinking about eliminating outliers in voting. I think the results of this outlier shows the need. When there pretty much is a consensus top 3 a #7 vote has a relatively huge impact.
That sounds suspiciously like quashing dissenting opinions. I don't think projects such as these are best served by promoting "group think" amongst the voters.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 04:11 PM
  #31
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
That sounds suspiciously like quashing dissenting opinions. I don't think projects such as these are best served by promoting "group think" amongst the voters.
And with Brodeur (0-0-2) and Sawchuk (0-1-0) not receiving much support for Top-Three despite public opinion, I think we've already seen our share of "group think." There were greater surprises in this project than someone having a different order of the top-seven goaltenders than everybody else.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 04:18 PM
  #32
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
And with Brodeur (0-0-2) and Sawchuk (0-1-0) not receiving much support for Top-Three despite public opinion, I think we've already seen our share of "group think." There were greater surprises in this project than someone having a different order of the top-seven goaltenders than everybody else.
I'd be considerably more worried if there WEREN'T tallies that had different orders.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 04:35 PM
  #33
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,620
vCash: 500
Other Goalies

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
I never thought of Hasek's (in)ability to take control of the first shot so much of an issue. Due to the fact that he was so damn good with 2nd shots. I kind of get the idea where C1958 is going with.

Purely judging by traditional hockey criteria Hasek made a mistake every time he let a rebound. So that is where he gets penalized and frankly, i have no problem with that line of thinking.

Basically it just comes down to consistency. I don't have enough knowledge about other goalies, but is there another goalie with an obvious weakness but he makes up for it in other areas?
Virtually all goalies in the project had a weakness(especially if off ice issues are considered) but rank high because of their ability to overcome or adapt and their ability to recognize needs and integrate a team.

Short list of goalies that had stamina and / or consistency issues.
Ordering reflects an as they come to mind approach and does not reflect a complete list- Roberto Luongo, Tim Thomas, Gump Worsley, Rogie Vachon, Ed Giacomin, Gerry Cheevers, Billy Smith, Tony Esposito.

Regardless the weaknesses have to be accounted for just as the strengths have to be accounted for.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 05:21 PM
  #34
MXD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 33,886
vCash: 500
I dislike

+ Hasek 7th in both rounds. I see the argument for Hasek 4th, but not 7th. But then again, I see the argument for Sawchuck being 7th, and you had him 3rd.

+ Luongo at 59th, below the terrific duo of Osgood/Vernon

+ Holecek below Dzurilla.

I like...

+ Chuck Rayner is really where he is supposed to be.

+ The big gap between Connell and Roach in the last round.

Interesting :

I think you had Worsley closer to his real spot, even though you were the one who initially ranked him the lowest. I know I overrated him, and the panel mostly did as well.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 05:24 PM
  #35
MXD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 33,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluppe View Post

I also think it is interesting to note that C1958, being a fan of Montreal, votes two Canadiens goalies #1 & #2 while voting Hasek, their usually biggest contender for the top spot, as far away from them as he can (while sticking another Canadiens goaltender inbetween while he is at it). I claim this is a tactical vote.
Sorry, but there are weak arguments, there are fallacious arguments, and then, there is YOUR argument, who ends up being both in extreme measure.

One name : Gump Worsley.

You MIGHT disagree with Hasek 7th (like I do), but if you take out Hasek of the equation, you'd realize that MOST posters have an Hab first and another Hab second, regardless of the order... And in the final ranking, IF YOU TAKE OUT HASEK, you have an Hab first and a Hab second.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 05:30 PM
  #36
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 12,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluppe View Post
I hope this post is allowed as I have really tried to be factual and I think this is the right place to put it.

I feel that C1958s Hasek votes tainted this whole project, at least for me, and I did not follow it much after the first round because of it. You may think that I should not complain since I am not a participant but I feel I have to speak my mind.

The "allowed rebounds argument" is a garbage argument. Goaltending is about preventing goals and all stats (gaa, comparisons to backups, playing with more pp shots against, etc) show that Haseks rebound control did not prevent him from doing so better than all of his contemporaries. It resembles saying player A, who scored 40 goals, is a better goalscorer than player B, that scored 60 goals, because he has a better shooting%. Or that player A, who registered 14 seconds round the ice, is a faster skater than player B, who registered 12 seconds, because his stride is more like the one you teach at practice. Or that I am a better golfer than Jim Fyruk because my swing i prettier. Hasek found a way thats better than what common wisdom preaches. It is written over his whole resume. Deal with it.

Voting Dzurilla 41 also seems strange as no weight seem to be put on Haseks International resume. Is Dzurilla really that much more acclaimed internationally?

I also think it is interesting to note that C1958, being a fan of Montreal, votes two Canadiens goalies #1 & #2 while voting Hasek, their usually biggest contender for the top spot, as far away from them as he can (while sticking another Canadiens goaltender inbetween while he is at it). I claim this is a tactical vote.

And I am glad that TDMM also remembers how C1958 is perhaps the largest reason that the second top 100 project only reached 70. In Sweden we have a saying that goes "One time is no time, twice is a habit". I hope that it is not allowed to happen again because I really appreciate the work all of you put in and it is fantastically educational. If not by banning then perhaps by thinking about eliminating outliers in voting. I think the results of this outlier shows the need. When there pretty much is a consensus top 3 a #7 vote has a relatively huge impact. This system really premiers tactical voting. Especially if you are the only one doing it. That one votes like this and then goes and questions the integrity of others that has put in a lot of hard work is unfortunate.
Nice post.

Clearly we have a voter with a big time agenda.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 05:40 PM
  #37
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,620
vCash: 500
List

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
I dislike

+ Hasek 7th in both rounds. I see the argument for Hasek 4th, but not 7th. But then again, I see the argument for Sawchuck being 7th, and you had him 3rd.

+ Luongo at 59th, below the terrific duo of Osgood/Vernon

+ Holecek below Dzurilla.

I like...

+ Chuck Rayner is really where he is supposed to be.

+ The big gap between Connell and Roach in the last round.

Interesting :

I think you had Worsley closer to his real spot, even though you were the one who initially ranked him the lowest. I know I overrated him, and the panel mostly did as well.
Roberto Luongo is very weak against an east-west game and integrating a team / recognizing its needs. Basically the same goalie with the Islanders, Panthers, Canucks although the teams were very different. Osgood/Vernon were not "Eye Candy" goalies but they recognized what their team needed to be successful.

Dzurilla/Holecek. View them as a tie listed in alphabetical order. Both were plug in goalies suitable in the Czechoslovakian initial LWL defensive system. Each was best suited for certain opponents or certain offences.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 05:45 PM
  #38
MXD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 33,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Roberto Luongo is very weak against an east-west game and integrating a team / recognizing its needs. Basically the same goalie with the Islanders, Panthers, Canucks although the teams were very different. Osgood/Vernon were not "Eye Candy" goalies but they recognized what their team needed to be successful.

Dzurilla/Holecek. View them as a tie listed in alphabetical order. Both were plug in goalies suitable in the Czechoslovakian initial LWL defensive system. Each was best suited for certain opponents or certain offences.
Wow. Your honesty has to be commanded!

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2013, 05:52 PM
  #39
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,620
vCash: 500
Team Aspect

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Sorry, but there are weak arguments, there are fallacious arguments, and then, there is YOUR argument, who ends up being both in extreme measure.

One name : Gump Worsley.

You MIGHT disagree with Hasek 7th (like I do), but if you take out Hasek of the equation, you'd realize that MOST posters have an Hab first and another Hab second, regardless of the order... And in the final ranking, IF YOU TAKE OUT HASEK, you have an Hab first and a Hab second.
Very surprised that posters even raise the team aspect. If we eliminate the non NHL international goalies, there are few(distinct minority) goalies left who actually played with JUST ONE NHL TEAM.

The multi team goalies tend to benefit from playing for different teams as their skills may be examined under different team circumstances. Specifically Brodeur, Broda, Dryden, Durnan all get the "team" argument used against them. While others, including Plante and Hall reap the benefits of their performances with expansion or other teams in St. Louis, plus Plante in Toronto where his SV% surpassed his regular season Montreal numbers.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 12:01 AM
  #40
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,940
vCash: 500
FYI, added record of participation

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 01:56 AM
  #41
Plural
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 29,284
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Virtually all goalies in the project had a weakness(especially if off ice issues are considered) but rank high because of their ability to overcome or adapt and their ability to recognize needs and integrate a team.

Short list of goalies that had stamina and / or consistency issues.
Ordering reflects an as they come to mind approach and does not reflect a complete list- Roberto Luongo, Tim Thomas, Gump Worsley, Rogie Vachon, Ed Giacomin, Gerry Cheevers, Billy Smith, Tony Esposito.

Regardless the weaknesses have to be accounted for just as the strengths have to be accounted for.
I get the feeling that you penalize Hasek for his inability to close the first shot. Is that right?

In traditional way i would agree with you, but i can't really see how that would be as big of minus than you put weight on it. In the end, Hasek put out some all-time great season's even with the "flaw".

In traditional sense forward has three options with the puck and the order of the options is this:

1. Shoot
2. Pass
3. Skate it up yourself

Would you blame Oates for not shooting when there was definitely a better spot to shoot than pass? No, since he made up for the inability by other aspect. Kind of same thing with Hasek. Altough i admit it is easier to account for in goalies. A shot is a shot. A rebound is a rebound.

I still have really, really hard time seeing Hasek as far as 7th.

This project put's me in my place as i arrogantly thought i knew the order of 4 best goalies all-time, which i definitely did not. Every goalie has their arguments and i would never accuse someone in this project about being ignorant.

But i do disagree with Hasek at 7th.

Plural is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 05:43 AM
  #42
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,620
vCash: 500
Comparables

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
I get the feeling that you penalize Hasek for his inability to close the first shot. Is that right?

In traditional way i would agree with you, but i can't really see how that would be as big of minus than you put weight on it. In the end, Hasek put out some all-time great season's even with the "flaw".

In traditional sense forward has three options with the puck and the order of the options is this:

1. Shoot
2. Pass
3. Skate it up yourself

Would you blame Oates for not shooting when there was definitely a better spot to shoot than pass? No, since he made up for the inability by other aspect. Kind of same thing with Hasek. Altough i admit it is easier to account for in goalies. A shot is a shot. A rebound is a rebound.

I still have really, really hard time seeing Hasek as far as 7th.

This project put's me in my place as i arrogantly thought i knew the order of 4 best goalies all-time, which i definitely did not. Every goalie has their arguments and i would never accuse someone in this project about being ignorant.

But i do disagree with Hasek at 7th.
Let's complete the bolded with a goal is a goal.

Historically and on this board the forwards who are viewed as garbage collectors - scorers on rebounds are downgraded. Yet a goal is a goal whether it is on a incredible end to end rush or a rebound tap in cheapie.

So if such forwards get downgraded severely then it is only reasonable that goalies that create the rebounds, especially unnecessary rebounds get downgraded also.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 06:05 AM
  #43
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,300
vCash: 500
The thing about rebounds is that any ensuing shots are significantly more likely to go in. So, a goalie that has a problem with giving up juicy rebounds will see it reflected in his save percentage. Given how well Hasek fared in that regard, there are a number of explanations: a. his tendency to give up rebounds has been overstated; b. he gave up more rebounds than average, but was a much better-than-average second and third shot goalie; c. he was much better at stopping the puck than all other goalies in all other situations.

Regardless, I don't see how this can be a serious critique of Hasek's game.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 06:28 AM
  #44
Plural
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 29,284
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Let's complete the bolded with a goal is a goal.

Historically and on this board the forwards who are viewed as garbage collectors - scorers on rebounds are downgraded. Yet a goal is a goal whether it is on a incredible end to end rush or a rebound tap in cheapie.

So if such forwards get downgraded severely then it is only reasonable that goalies that create the rebounds, especially unnecessary rebounds get downgraded also.
Agreed. I guess you had some very good reasons to rank Hasek at 7th. Obviously, i don't share the opinion. But nevertheless i am satisfyied that you can give real reasons for your ranking.

One voter did not change the outcome of this project. Roy and Hasek were neck and neck before voting and they are the same after.

Plural is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 08:42 AM
  #45
pluppe
Registered User
 
pluppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
That sounds suspiciously like quashing dissenting opinions. I don't think projects such as these are best served by promoting "group think" amongst the voters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
And with Brodeur (0-0-2) and Sawchuk (0-1-0) not receiving much support for Top-Three despite public opinion, I think we've already seen our share of "group think." There were greater surprises in this project than someone having a different order of the top-seven goaltenders than everybody else.
This would of course be done in a structural manner similar to the systems used in some sports where the highest and lowest votes are constantly stricken. Thus limiting the damage one vote can make. I think this was discussed in the discussion thread and decided against because of the reasons you state but I feel that the reasons for it are now obvious.

pluppe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 08:49 AM
  #46
pluppe
Registered User
 
pluppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Sorry, but there are weak arguments, there are fallacious arguments, and then, there is YOUR argument, who ends up being both in extreme measure.

One name : Gump Worsley.

You MIGHT disagree with Hasek 7th (like I do), but if you take out Hasek of the equation, you'd realize that MOST posters have an Hab first and another Hab second, regardless of the order... And in the final ranking, IF YOU TAKE OUT HASEK, you have an Hab first and a Hab second.
It is not having Roy and Plante #1 and #2 that I argue against. But it shows what the poster wants to see. And we also know wich team he prefers. And in my eyes his argumentation against Hasek is biased, weak and fallacious. And by voting against Hasek in an extreme measure (compared to everybody else) I question the reasoning.

Would you react if an Edmonton fan voted Gretzky 1st and Orr 7th stating weak arguments as durability, non vocal leadership or a single really bad game? I think you could question this even though Gretzky as #1 is normal.

pluppe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 08:50 AM
  #47
pluppe
Registered User
 
pluppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Agreed. I guess you had some very good reasons to rank Hasek at 7th. Obviously, i don't share the opinion. But nevertheless i am satisfyied that you can give real reasons for your ranking.

One voter did not change the outcome of this project. Roy and Hasek were neck and neck before voting and they are the same after.
Atually, in a way it did just that.

pluppe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 09:29 AM
  #48
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 29,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Let's complete the bolded with a goal is a goal.
And yet, they seemed harder to come by against Hasek than any goalie I've ever seen - including Roy.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 10:03 AM
  #49
Plural
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 29,284
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluppe View Post
Atually, in a way it did just that.
Well, for me they were 1A/1B as is shown in the results too. Not much of a difference. Given Hasek 4th spot instead of 7 would he have gone ahead of Roy?

Plural is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 10:39 AM
  #50
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Well, for me they were 1A/1B as is shown in the results too. Not much of a difference. Given Hasek 4th spot instead of 7 would he have gone ahead of Roy?
No. More than that, Canadiens1958's list was never rejected for this or any other position, whereas the lowest vote for Roy came from a list that was originally rejected.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1336403

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Agreed. I guess you had some very good reasons to rank Hasek at 7th. Obviously, i don't share the opinion. But nevertheless i am satisfyied that you can give real reasons for your ranking.

One voter did not change the outcome of this project. Roy and Hasek were neck and neck before voting and they are the same after.
pluppe is right about one thing though. A single voter could have changed the outcomes of this project by producing a Top-60 list, participating in the project, voting, and subsequently defending the positions taken - like Canadiens1958 did.

I like that TAnnala - despite being a non-voter - came in here with a positive attitude and was receptive to Canadiens1958's reasoning, even in disagreement. But I don't like the words "biased, weak and fallacious" being tossed at a voting member by other non-voters who haven't put their credibility on the line with their own list.

quoipourquoi 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 09:47 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.