As we see how goaltending has changed and what the numbers mean and how it all works, we won't be so quick to throw a two-hit wonder into the upper reaches of goaltending history...there were plenty of goalies that could actually hack it in the NHL for most of their careers that would have been better, but like you said, time will tell...and it will tell...it won't just suggest...
If we were to go back and do this all over again, I'd certainly give a lot less credence to "eye candy" and more to consistency and longevity. Just a lesson learned about goalies, I guess.
Should we cast our votes based on that list? I'm confused as to what point you are making.
Also, that list included no vetting, no discussion, and a simple 1-100 points system. There could have been one rogue voter placing Chabot 35th, for 66 points, for all we know. Which would trump 10 people putting a different player 95th.
And if that truly was why some people voted the way they did, it would have been nice of them to speak up about it first and see if that line of thinking Stands up to any scrutiny. (Maybe they knew it doesn't?)
Should we cast our votes based on that list? I'm confused as to what point you are making.
Also, that list included no vetting, no discussion, and a simple 1-100 points system. There could have been one rogue voter placing Chabot 35th, for 66 points, for all we know. Which would trump 10 people putting a different player 95th.
And if that truly was why some people voted the way they did, it would have been nice of them to speak up about it first and see if that line of thinking Stands up to any scrutiny. (Maybe they knew it doesn't?)
my point is that a team of experts from arguably the NHL's most coveted magazine had Chabot much higher in 2 separate all-time lists compared to ours. Five spots difference or so, fine, but roughly 25 spots higher doesnt make sense.
THN wouldnt just make some crappy list where, as you say, just ONE peroson out of many had him high while all the others had him low.
Last edited by intylerwetrust: 01-29-2013 at 02:09 PM.
my point is that a team of experts from arguably the NHL's most coveted magazine had Chabot fairly high in 2 separate all-time lists. I think that says something, and maybe most us of underestimated him.
Differences in level/depth of scrutiny and "priorities" factors in there quite a bit, I'd say.
Hurr-durr, voting for Chabot makes one 'rogue voter', but sabotaging the whole process by voting Hasek 7th by a pro-Royist is A-OK. Hilarious.
Assuming the 7th-Place voter is the same person who rated Hasek low on his HOH Top 70 from four years ago, he isn't a "pro-Royist," and in fact believed Roy to be sixth among goalies behind the usual suspects and Tretiak. There was never any sabotage, and we'll have all of the lists in front of us soon enough. seventieslord was merely explaining the difference between our process and that of THN.
Assuming the 7th-Place voter is the same person who rated Hasek low on his HOH Top 70 from four years ago, he isn't a "pro-Royist," and in fact believed Roy to be sixth among goalies behind the usual suspects and Tretiak. There was never any sabotage, and we'll have all of the lists in front of us soon enough. seventieslord was merely explaining the difference between our process and that of THN.
Perhaps.
Guess I just took it personal, given that I had Chabot 34th on my original list.
Though I think a list with Hasek 7th and Roy 6th should have been rejected outright.
I disagree. That's essentially saying the belief that Ken Dryden is better than Patrick Roy and Dominik Hasek is wrong.
I just checked and at best it could've been Roy 4th and Hasek 7th. But we'll see soon enough.
And it's not just belief that Dryden is better than either of Hasek and Roy, it's belief that Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, Dryden and whoever (Tretiak?) are all better than the two best modern era goalies. It's willful denigration of whole era.
my point is that a team of experts from arguably the NHL's most coveted magazine had Chabot much higher in 2 separate all-time lists compared to ours. Five spots difference or so, fine, but roughly 25 spots higher doesnt make sense.
THN wouldnt just make some crappy list where, as you say, just ONE peroson out of many had him high while all the others had him low.
Except it's quite possible that it wasn't a "team of experts" and may have been 1-2 people.
Kinda like what happened here, I guess.
And yes, that is exactly how the list was put together... a 1-100 point system. So the exact scenario I described could have happened.
Regardless, how many of these experts saw him play? How many realized he was the 8th most recognized and decorated goalie of the generation?
I just checked and at best it could've been Roy 4th and Hasek 7th. But we'll see soon enough.
And it's not just belief that Dryden is better than either of Hasek and Roy, it's belief that Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, Dryden and whoever (Tretiak?) are all better than the two best modern era goalies. It's willful denigration of whole era.
Conversely, though, wouldn't having Roy and Hasek over Plante, Sawchuck, Hall, and Dryden be a willful denigration of THEIR era? It works both ways.
Hurr-durr, voting for Chabot makes one 'rogue voter', but sabotaging the whole process by voting Hasek 7th by a pro-Royist is A-OK. Hilarious.
Soon enough you'll know who is responsible for that and can call them out on it if you wish. And the vote was not sabotage motivated, but based on honestly held opinions.
The votes were what they were. What were we to do? The best thing to do was have a system that was transparent a d could only be corrupted on the micro level (I.e. maybe Hasek loses a spot) as opposed.to the macro level (Chabot gets onto a list he has no business on)
Thanks for letting us know what the argument for Chabot is (really wish you did so before voting). But it basically comes down to 1-2, maybe 3 people out of 23 people who made the THN list voting for him. And it really has to be that few, since he finished 84th on an aggregate list where the voters only voted for their top 50s.
Yes, apparently they each sent in top 50 lists and THN created a top 100 from it. For this project, we all sent in top 60 lists just to create a top 40.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
Should we cast our votes based on that list? I'm confused as to what point you are making.
Also, that list included no vetting, no discussion, and a simple 1-100 points system. There could have been one rogue voter placing Chabot 35th, for 66 points, for all we know. Which would trump 10 people putting a different player 95th.
And if that truly was why some people voted the way they did, it would have been nice of them to speak up about it first and see if that line of thinking Stands up to any scrutiny. (Maybe they knew it doesn't?)
Worse than that. They only voted for top 50 for a top 50 list then expanded it to top 100 without voting again, right?
Look, having Plante, Hall and Sawchuk over both of Roy and Hasek can be understood. Having Dryden over them, well, that's rather hard to defend. Having Dryden and Tretiak over them, in addition to the first three, is, to me, just indefensible.
Guess I just took it personal, given that I had Chabot 34th on my original list.
Though I think a list with Hasek 7th and Roy 6th should have been rejected outright.
I had Connell something like 30th on my original list and lowered him quite a bit based on the arguments presented. I don't understand why placement on your original list should matter about anything.
And no, having a minority opinion was not a basis for rejection.
I had Connell something like 30th on my original list and lowered him quite a bit based on the arguments presented. I don't understand why placement on your original list should matter about anything.
And no, having a minority opinion was not a basis for rejection.
I had Chabot 34th and seventies is talking about 'rogue voter' having him 35th. That's what set me off.
Just how insane can an opinion be while still remaining considered 'minority' instead of 'insanity'?
Most people believe he has business on the list. Not enough people believed Chabot did. This was a possible systemic failure in the THN list's process that we foresaw and avoided.
