I find the 7th pretty ridiculous, but you have a point. Without seeing the entire ballot it's hard to draw conclusions.
If they ranked the goalies something like:
1-Hall
2-Brodeur
3-Roy
4-Plante
5-Sawchuk
6-Dryden
7-Hasek
Then at least they were consistent with their voting even if I don't agree with it.
Not that I disagree, but... what's your rationale for those rankings?
Looking at the voting in Round 2 of the best defensemen thread, I can't find a vote comparable to this 7th for Hasek in any of the voting, let alone this kind of disparity involving a consensus top 3 player.
Looking at the voting in Round 2 of the best defensemen thread, I can't find a vote comparable to this 7th for Hasek in any of the voting, let alone this kind of disparity involving a consensus top 3 player.
To be honest, I could see an argument for Hasek 4th (with Hall ahead of him), but that's really far-fetched.
I certainly don't, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.
I think Hasek being ranked outside of the top 4 goalies is totally like ranking Gretzky outside of the "Big 4", given the respective echelon's we're talking here. Just think for a second about who you'd be comparing Gretzky to if you made a list of the top 7 centres. Based on past HOH lists, that would peg him at Bobby Clarke/Mark Messier level, which is pretty hard to defend, imo.
Hey, you never know. Stan Fischler would be arguing for Gretzky to be below Frank Boucher. And if Dick Beddoes were still with us he'd have Gretzky below Kennedy and Apps, around Sergei Shepelev.
Hey, you never know. Stan Fischler be arguing for Gretzky to be below Frank Boucher. And if Dick Beddoes were still with us he'd have Gretzky below Kennedy and Apps, around Sergei Shepelev.
Fischler and Beddoes would have been rejected by their original lists.
Not that I disagree, but... what's your rationale for those rankings?
I was just spitballing an order of goalies favouring career length, games played, consistency etc. etc... rather than peak. I don't even think Brodeur received a 2nd place vote, it was just an example of a ballot where Hasek may have been 7th.
EDIT. Specifically NHL career length, games played, consistency.
I was just spitballing an order of goalies favouring career length, games played, consistency etc. etc... rather than peak. I don't even think Brodeur received a 2nd place vote, it was just an example of a ballot where Hasek may have been 7th.
EDIT. Specifically NHL career length, games played, consistency.
Voting Roy 4th is like having Gretzky as 4th amongst Centers.
Not overall.
By what you said, Roy would NECESSARILY be 2nd to Hasek in the list. He wasn't.
Take out the outliers (Roy's 4th, Hasek 7th) and both players are equals. Hasek wasn't robbed of the 1st here. He was certainly robbed of a tie, though. I had Hasek 3rd and COMPLETELY stand by my opinion.
Well, if it's not « someone else », it would be some kind of... problem. I mean, couldn't vote him behind a concept or an object, even if, on a pure statistical basis, I probably voted Hasek behind some generic vegetal lifeform.
Totally overlooked is that 1-3 of the eligible voters simply did not vote, which influences the rankings more, 7 - 21 potential votes.
Have to agree. My first reaction was that the one vote was ridiculous. (And I do thinking there is merit to ignoring one high and one low on the ballots, even if it will mean my votes for Hugh Lehman and Georges Vezina won't be counted.) But upon further inspection, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and sometimes people have controversial opinions. But these opinions would matter less if there was more votes...
__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Looking at the voting in Round 2 of the best defensemen thread, I can't find a vote comparable to this 7th for Hasek in any of the voting, let alone this kind of disparity involving a consensus top 3 player.
Your last place vote for Sprague Cleghorn in Vote 3 almost cost him a spot that round. There were others later on. Suchy and Chara would have both gone earlier if it weren't for a small number of voters consistently voting them "not top 10"
Your last place vote for Sprague Cleghorn in Vote 3 almost cost him a spot that round. There were others later on. Suchy and Chara would have both gone earlier if it weren't for a small number of voters consistently voting them "not top 10"
Please, how is that comparable?
Cleghorn got votes across the board from 1-10. I had him last and 1 voter had him first. No consensus on him at all. A player that no voter ever saw play.
Hasek had 23 votes in the top 3 and then one 7th. No comparison.
Funny you mention Chara and Suchy. Both Europeans. And a small number of voters is much different than one voter.
Just for the record, it wasn't me lol
I wasn't even a voter, as Devil pointed in the main thread.
And just for the record, even if it hadn't been pointed out that neither of us had votes, I wasn't assuming it was you. Despite our exchanges so far, and my not necessarily agreeing with your ranking order or how you get to the final result, I'm pretty confident that you wouldn't have had either guy outside the top 3/4 (unless I really got under your skin to such a degree, lol).
Seventh for Hasek is defensible (although I had him #2) - it just depends upon which factors one finds valuable.
And these are seven great goalies - it's not necessarily an insult to say that one of them is seventh-best.
Not sure I agree. Multiple Harts and Pearsons seems to be a big deal when it comes to the skating positions, and you need your fingers AND toes to count the number of guys who can lay claim to that. The only goalie in history with the same claim, who is also second only to Jacques Plante in Vezinas trophies, and broke a LOT of the individual performance statistic records (regular AND post season) set by everyone else he's being compared to in this round, can "legitimately" end up outside the top 4 or 5 goalies of all time?
... sorry, I can't even agree just a little bit. It's certainly nice to see my favourite goalie of all-time come out on top in round 1, but to see the guy that I consider the best of all time get a 7th place vote... vomit. But I'm more than willing to see the explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24
I mean if someone places a HIGH, HIGH premium on elite level playoff performances, I guess a Hasek vote at 6-7 makes a little more sense. I also voted him 2nd, but I don't think it's absolutely the most ridiculous thing ever.
Even then, you know who held the record for shutouts in a post season before Brodeur broke it in '02/03. And you know who has posted the 2nd, 18th, and 23rd highest single post season SV% numbers all time (22nd being the highest single post season among all the other Round 1 candidates). And you know who holds the best overall playoff SV% among all of the guys in Round 1 voting... just for starters. I mean, that's talking "level" as best you can without incorporating team elements like # of Cup wins, wins (or losses, for that matter, which could hurt a guy like Roy, for example) just as much as his wins help him), and even GAA. 6-7th starts becoming slightly less ludicrous with the playoff/consistency angle... but...
Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 10-26-2012 at 06:55 PM.
I get a chuckle when Roy at #4 is called an outlier. Didn't 3 votes have him at # 3. I was the guy that put him at #4 and I have no problem with it.. In my opinion the differences between the top 4 is razor thin and I saw the careers of all 4. There does seem to be a kind of group think here that Roy & Hasek are 1-2.
I get a chuckle when Roy at #4 is called an outlier. Didn't 3 votes have him at # 3. I was the guy that put him at #4 and I have no problem with it.. In my opinion the differences between the top 4 is razor thin and I saw the careers of all 4. There does seem to be a kind of group think here that Roy & Hasek are 1-2.
BTW, I had Hasek at #2.
Yeah, while it may have been the lowest vote for him, I see absolutely nothing odd about Roy at 4.
I'm no stats guy, I'll admit, but it seems to me that there have to be rises and falls on either side of the mean/max of a distribution curve, and 4th place is certainly part of a distribution curve that includes multiple 3rd place finishes. A 7th place vote, though, separated by 4 spots (well, 3 I suppose, given my wording) from the next lowest ranking, is an "outlier". Remember, not one single person considered Hasek 4th, 5th, or 6th on the list.
Long story short, "outlier" means it clearly and distinctly lies outside of the "bulk" of the result distribution. Even worse, it actually had an impact on the final result, despite lying so far outside every other vote.
Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 10-26-2012 at 07:08 PM.
Yeah, while it may have been the lowest vote for him, I see absolutely nothing odd about Roy at 4.
It just means that, statistically, the goalies who ended up with the most 3rd place votes and the most 4th place votes (not to mention, Plante and Hall were nearly majoritarily ranked 3rd and 4th) are EXTREMELY LIKELY to have been ranked ahead of the guy who finished first overall.
Which I called an outlier (and not an anomaly; Anomaly is the word I should have used for Hasek 7th), and statistically, it's exactly what it is. Take out the lowest and the highest votes for each, and they're equals.
I'm no stats guy, I'll admit, but it seems to me that there have to be rises and falls on either side of a distribution curve, and 4th place is certainly part of a distribution curve that includes multiple 3rd place finishes. A 7th place vote, though, separated by 4 spots from the next lowest ranking, is an "outlier".
I'm no stats guy, I'll admit, but it seems to me that there have to be rises and falls on either side of the mean/max of a distribution curve, and 4th place is certainly part of a distribution curve that includes multiple 3rd place finishes. A 7th place vote, though, separated by 4 spots (well, 3 I suppose, given my wording) from the next lowest ranking, is an "outlier". Remember, not one single person considered Hasek 4th, 5th, or 6th on the list.
Long story short, "outlier" means it clearly and distinctly lies outside of the "bulk" of the result distribution.
Exactly. Using MXD's definition of an outlier, Sawchuks #2 is one and Hall is a double outlier. He has a #1 and a #7.
It's exactly what they are, statistically speaking.
I'm going to let the stats guys take it after this, but looking at this sample diagram:
you'd be telling me that -3 and 3 are "outliers". I'm saying that an outlier in this example would perhaps be -5 and 5, or -6 and 6. Even -4 and 4 round out the ends of the distribution curve, so... not outliers imo. But this is a pretty silly tangent.
Cleghorn got votes across the board from 1-10. I had him last and 1 voter had him first. No consensus on him at all. A player that no voter ever saw play.
Hasek had 23 votes in the top 3 and then one 7th. No comparison.
Funny you mention Chara and Suchy. Both Europeans. And a small number of voters is much different than one voter.
You're right, this is more extreme if you want to call it that. For some reason, I thought the Cleghorn vote was more of an outlier than it was. Should have checked the votes. Someone voted Salming much lower than everyone else, but that didn't affect the final total.
Nothing wrong with an "outlier" vote as long as you have a reason for it.
I'm going to let the stats guys take it after this, but looking at this sample diagram:
you'd be telling me that -3 and 3 are "outliers". I'm saying that an outlier in this example would perhaps be -5 and 5, or -6 and 6. Even -4 and 4 round out the ends of the distribution curve, so... not outliers imo. But this is a pretty silly tangent.
Well, in that graph, +3, in a relatively small group, is close to zero occurences. Way closer than zero than to one.
I mean, OBVIOUSLY, Hasek at 7th is more abnormal. Hasek 4th would have been kindof the same than Roy 4th (if that would have been the case, they would have been tied).
Still, if you take out the lowest vote for each, they'd be equals.
