I think Id add Bill Durnan there to Honorable Mentions.... Turk Broda another.
I do not think NBCSN went back that far period because with the exception of Tretiak every other goalie they skipped over was retired by 1951 (3 in 1950 or 1951 and the other 3 in the 1920s or 1930s. That said, I was pleasantly surprised a more mainstream TV special came pretty close to matching a hardcore enthusiast hockey community's assessment.
Wow, that's a good question. I was thinking of Hasek's incredible peak in the last half of the 1990s when I was writing that. I suppose Roy's best season, relative to his peers, might have been 1991-92. But I think Hasek's peak was still more dominant. As a Canadian, we sometimes fall too much in love with our own and overlook worthy players elsewhere. Roy was very good, but I think he's overrated on these boards. Hasek literally willed teams to wins - and he did it time and time and time again. To me, the 1998 Olympics was the greatest example I can think of vis-à-vis a goaltender intimidating world-class players. He intimidated Canada in the semis and shut down a good Russian team in the finals. He made a mediocre Sabres team a Stanley cup threat.
So... I made a massive post and the forum ate it. I'm rather depressed about that.
To sum it up, I was doing a comparison of using various different scoring systems based on the same voting results (with the objective of separating the values of the votes a little more, and to eliminate outliers such as phantom 7th place votes for Hasek, etc).
The ultimate result, at least in regards to the Hasek vs Roy debate, is that while Hasek won slightly (and I mean very slightly; by less than 1% in some of the systems) in most, I ultimately consider their results a tie.
One bit of math I wish to preserve was an absurd look at the original scoring system, and my reason for disliking it.
24 voter sample size
Player A: 15 first place votes, 1 third place vote, 8 seventh place votes. = 118 votes
Player B: 19 2nd place votes, 5 7th place votes = 119 votes
Player C: 30 3rd place votes = 120 pts
The ultimate result? A player that receives no first or second place votes takes 1st place. Another player that receives 19/24 2nd place votes ranks behind one that took no 1st OR 2nd place votes. A player 62.5% of voters thinks is worthy of 1st place ranks behind two players that received no votes for 1st place.
While indeed absurd, it does point out possible flaws in the scoring system. I suppose I'll have to join in next time (I really should post here more often)...
He typed it wrong. 3rd place should get 5 points if there are 7 names up and 24 X 5 = 120. I don't see anything wrong with those results, though
I think you'd see something "wrong" with the results of any voting in which a guy got over half the 1st place votes, but only 1 3rd, and 8 7th place finishes; let alone the 2nd place guy getting almost consensus #2 voting support, but no votes at all pegging him anything between that and 7th place.
Even if the potential math is sound enough, the situation that you'd have to imagine is fairly absurd - enough so, imo, that the scoring system would be a secondary or tertiary "concern" at best.
*Oooh! Oooh! Pick me! I know this one!* (flails his scholarly arm wildly)
I went through round 2, vote 1 in it's entirety (skimmed over the oldies as I have no real frame of refence aside from the stats provided), 1958 Habs vote, and this one and am thoroughly impressed by 1. The quality of discourse. 2. The consideration afforded all athletes in question. 3. See #1. Also cool to see my boyhood idol edge the Dominator in what's basically a tie.
Someone compared Hasek to Peyton Manning - No, no, no - Hell no. In three words - Hasek was exciting, effective, and unorthodox. Peyton Manning shares only one of those traits with Hasek - Barry Sanders and Favre would be more apt NFL comparisons.
Thank you for putting so much time, effort and information into this.