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 Goaltenders - Top 40 or Top 50?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-09-2013, 07:57 AM
  #1
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,028
vCash: 500
HOH Top Goaltenders - Top 40 or Top 50?

Top 50? Not a chance...these guys suck...relatively speaking...I'm looking at now a solid handful of guys that did nothing outside of a 2 or 3 year stretch...that's crap. I can't see a way where I'm voting to do a top 50...not because I'm not enjoying this, but I feel no strong desire to recognize a few guys for being good for <20% of their careers...

FWIW, tarheel, I have Vanbiesbrouck as a cut above that group...fought through different eras, weak teams, and was universally recognized as a very good goalie throughout his career...in a big league, with lots of moving parts, I tend to favor how consistently you could bring your game to the forefront. The talent level in terms of technical skill really evens out as you get closer to today. It's the consistency in which you can bring that talent to the forefront that becomes valuable.

Beezer (off hand) was like top-6 in Vezina voting for something like 7 of 16 years in his pro career, or some such. Luongo also ranks pretty well by that metric playing on an awful team for the bulk of it...

I view that as a lot better than a guy that 2 good seasons on a couple of dream teams (Richter) or a guy with 2 recognizable seasons in a 17-year pro career that (relatively) rarely featured NHL action (Thomas)...who then quit on his teammates...

How's that for waking up on the wrong side of the bed...

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 12:23 PM
  #2
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 500
50 vs 40

Rather disappointing to see the original premise done away with.

Top 40 required a submission of 60 candidate names that created an aggregate pool. 50 would/should have required a submission of 75 candidate names. Effectively 15 goalies were removed from consideration if the list goes to 50.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 12:29 PM
  #3
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Rather disappointing to see the original premise done away with.

Top 40 required a submission of 60 candidate names that created an aggregate pool. 50 would/should have required a submission of 75 candidate names. Effectively 15 goalies were removed from consideration if the list goes to 50.
That's what I'm worried about. It would be scary to vote for the #50 goaltender if less than half of us had him on our ballot. But if there's 10 goalies after our Top 40 who have appeared on 80-95% of the ballots, sure, let's rank them.

quoipourquoi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:27 PM
  #4
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Rather disappointing to see the original premise done away with.

Top 40 required a submission of 60 candidate names that created an aggregate pool. 50 would/should have required a submission of 75 candidate names. Effectively 15 goalies were removed from consideration if the list goes to 50.
Personally, I'd rather stick with just 40, but there's an easy way to test for this...

Assuming the number of candidates each round were to remain at 15, then in a Top 50 vote the last round would consist of the goalies who finished 46th-60th in Round 1. So we need to compare the goaltender who finished 60th in the worst possible scenario with the one who finished 61st in the best possible scenario.

First, look at the point total of the goaltender who finished 61st in Round 1, and calculate a new point total assuming all the lists he wasn't ranked on would have had him 61st had the Round 1 lists been expanded.

If this newly calculated point total boosts his Round 1 total above the 60th placed goaltender's Round 1 total, then it would not be valid to proceed to 50 without first expanding the Round 1 lists.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:51 PM
  #5
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,150
vCash: 500
The more I think about it, the more it seems like a bad idea to go beyond 40 unless we are willing to submit new aggregate lists. Here's why:

1) Our group of voters was not screened in such a way as to represent a particular demographic balance -- be it age, or geography, or fan bias, or whatever. We are just a group of people who self-selected, and there's a solid likelihood that we are biased as a group in some small ways (for example, we are seriously short on European perspective even though we work hard to be informed in our opinions). This isn't always a huge issue, but it might affect rankings at the margins.

2) The farther we go down the list, the more our results are subject to variance. For example, if a goalie appears on all 27 of our lists, chances are that we could pick 27 people off the street to submit lists and we'd still get that guy on every list (or close to it). We could walk into the HHOF, poll 27 staffers and he'd still be there on all 27 lists. That guy is a lock, and the only thing to sort out is his ranking. But now let's say there's a guy who appears on 16 out of 27 lists. Well, if we polled 27 people on the street he might show up on only 12 lists; but the HHOF folks might have him on 20. With that guy, variance in opinions is very significant as it is enough to swing him between non-consideration and strong consideration.

Put 1) and 2) together and we have a problem once we arrive at marginal candidates. Our biases, however small, really start to matter when the difference between consideration and non-consideration is only a couple of ballots. And we don't have the luxury of relying on majority opinion after a certain point, either, so we are basically just taking whatever candidates our specific self-selected group happens to favor, rather than those which we can say with a fair amount of confidence are universally considered worthy. And the margins are so close that there's not even a way for us to self-correct for bad decisions, seeing as we have guys like Joseph getting inducted while having more NR votes than 1st place votes.

It would seem to me that expanding the list to 50 is virtually guaranteed to produce results that are as much the result of voter bias as rational consensus. My suggestion would be to stop at 40 as we intended to do from the beginning.


Last edited by tarheelhockey: 01-09-2013 at 02:08 PM.
tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:12 PM
  #6
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 500
Skewed

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
.
The original premise is not done away with. It is nothing more than an idea being tossed around. If we go that route, we can certainly look at the idea of having everyone submit another 10 names in addition to their original list, or something like that.

But that really wouldnít be necessary. How likely is it that we would miss a player in the top-50 who a bunch of voters would have placed 61st-75th on their original submission?

The goalies that would get the 41st-50th spots are all up for discussion now, plus three more. Those three more arenít going to be guys who no one had on their radar.



The goalie with the 41st-most consideration on the aggregate list was on 25 of 27 ballots. The next three were on 24. One was on 23. The goalies in 47th, 48th, 49th, and 50th on the aggregate list, based on how many people ranked them, were on 22, 22, 20, and 19 lists, respectively. So itís not like we would be likely to end up inducting anyone with only fringe support.
Point is that the goalies in the 61 to 75 slots on each list do not get appropriate credit to participate higher. Quite possible that they could have dropped some of the #50-60 finalists lower.

The margin between the 55th and 65th slots on my list was very small. If you allow for similar situations on the other 26 lists then the bottom five on the aggregate 60 could have been different.

Even if you ask for the next 15, the aggregate 60 will not change plus the next 15 will reflect discussions to date as opposed to being part of an original list going in.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:17 PM
  #7
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
That's what I'm worried about. It would be scary to vote for the #50 goaltender if less than half of us had him on our ballot. But if there's 10 goalies after our Top 40 who have appeared on 80-95% of the ballots, sure, let's rank them.
When seventieslord, overpass, and I all agree that there is a large enough sample of votes to extend the project IF we wanted to, I would like to think we know what we're talking about.

Only 1 goalie in the top 59 of the aggregate list was on less than half the ballots. That gives us 5+9 = 14 candidates for spots 46-50 on the list if we want. Once we get past that point, the list gets thinner and we can't go further.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-09-2013 at 02:33 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:20 PM
  #8
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
HOH Top Goaltenders - Top 40 or Top 50?

I honestly didn't think this would lead to an argument - just vote if you want to extend the list, I thought. But I guess that was naive.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:29 PM
  #9
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The more I think about it, the more it seems like a bad idea to go beyond 40 unless we are willing to submit new aggregate lists. Here's why:

1) Our group of voters was not screened in such a way as to represent a particular demographic balance -- be it age, or geography, or fan bias, or whatever. We are just a group of people who self-selected, and there's a solid likelihood that we are biased as a group in some small ways (for example, we are seriously short on European perspective even though we work hard to be informed in our opinions). This isn't always a huge issue, but it might affect rankings at the margins.
This is also one of my concerns, particularly with respect to European goalies, goalies from the early eras of hockey, and currently active goalies. I think there may be a bit of a structural bias against all three of those groups simply because of the composition of the voting pool. But I think that's probably simply unavoidable, and since it's already affected the rest of the list, I don't think that's a reason to stop because we're scared of maybe it continuing on to an extra 10 guys as well.

I think the info seventieslord and TDMM have posted shows that it will be no problem to do so and with all the effort expended so far it makes sense to keep going. I would possibly support potential additional measures, if they make sense, that might reduce the likelihood of missing anybody who someone could potentially be advocated into consideration for the top 50, whether that is increasing the size of the available pool for the last couple of rounds, having an additional round of discussion in terms of who to add to the candidates' lists or whatever. But to be honest, I think the inertia of existing opinion probably makes it quite unlikely that somebody would come from nowhere and get wide enough support, even to sneak in on one of the lower spots of the list.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:35 PM
  #10
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I think we need to be cautious about going down this road. Strong arguments for fringe goalies are great, but not every fringe goalie is going to have an active advocate. If we introduce a bunch of fringe candidates, even just in the name of discussion, we run a significant chance of making bad decisions that wouldn't have been made otherwise.

Without the aggregate list in front of me I can't be specific about what I'm saying here, but: it would be a good idea to cut the list of candidates off at a conservative place. A short list of candidates to place in order is not a bad thing when finishing the project. A long list that includes fringe candidates, one of whom might catch lightning in a bottle due to a single persuasive argument, is more likely to cause avoidable errors than to make a better list.
Again, we’ve already introduced 47 names to the discussion, none of who would be a freak show in a top-50. We’d only need three more and there are plenty of quality names out there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Point is that the goalies in the 61 to 75 slots on each list do not get appropriate credit to participate higher. Quite possible that they could have dropped some of the #50-60 finalists lower.
.
Yes, 61-75 could impact 50-60. That’s quite possible, as you said. Could they impact 41-50 though? That’s a very, very long shot.

Just to be clear, are you saying that even though they have no hope of getting in, we would be doing a great disservice by not discussing 1-2 guys in the 61-75 range who might have otherwise been in the 58-60 range if we submitted expanded lists?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:41 PM
  #11
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
You guys really need to stop treating the administrators of the project like we don't know what we're doing. When seventieslord, overpass, and I all agree that there is a large enough sample of votes to extend the project IF we wanted to, I think we know what we're talking about.
Bear with us -- we're being asked to comment on how to utilize a list we can't see. I think I speak for the group when I say the hypothetical pitfalls being discussed are not comments on the admins at all. You guys have done a great job here.

Quote:
Only 1 goalie in the top 59 of the aggregate list was on less than half the ballots. That gives us 5+9 = 14 candidates for spots 46-50 on the list if we want. Once we get past that point, the list gets thinner and we can't go further.
To me, for the reasons stated in the longer post above, 50% of ballots is much too low a cutoff. That would mean we'd be giving top-50 consideration to a guy who didn't belong in the top-60 according to half the group. Not only does that bring up questions about whether our results are a true consensus, it also puts a strain on the group to give fair consideration to all 14 final candidates (something we have not done in any round to date, because it's always been easy to cut off the bottom tier and leave them undiscussed).

It just seems to me that the potential problems of lengthening the list greatly outweigh the potential benefits.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:42 PM
  #12
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
The highest any goalie has jumped from Round 1 to Round 2 is Georges Vezina, who went up 7 spots. Chuck Rayner went up 6 spots. No other goalie has gone up more than 4 spots so far. (We're a quite conservative bunch, aren't we?)

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:49 PM
  #13
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,028
vCash: 500
Boy, did I get confused for a second...I was like, "I don't recall making a thread..."

My thoughts are pretty clear though...top 40...hell, I would have been fine with top 30...

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:53 PM
  #14
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Boy, did I get confused for a second...I was like, "I don't recall making a thread..."

My thoughts are pretty clear though...top 40...hell, I would have been fine with top 30...
Heh, sorry about that. Moved the posts here. There's no way to make a later post appear before an earlier post even if you move the earlier posts from another thread, so you are stuck looking like the thread starter.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:05 PM
  #15
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 500
Hypotheticals

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

Yes, 61-75 could impact 50-60. Thatís quite possible, as you said. Could they impact 41-50 though? Thatís a very, very long shot.

Just to be clear, are you saying that even though they have no hope of getting in, we would be doing a great disservice by not discussing 1-2 guys in the 61-75 range who might have otherwise been in the 58-60 range if we submitted expanded lists?
Point is that it is the purpose of the project to discuss hypotheticals or affirm your "No Hope" thesis.

The project has to be transparent and fair.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:07 PM
  #16
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Do we just include our vote for this when we send in our Round 9 rankings?

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:21 PM
  #17
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkey town 18 View Post
do we just include our vote for this when we send in our round 9 rankings?
yes!

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 04:19 PM
  #18
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The project has to be transparent and fair.
Yeah, hey? We shouldn't be just pushing through a new procedure, we should be openly discussing its merits! Shame on us.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 04:21 PM
  #19
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Yeah, hey? We shouldn't be just pushing through a new procedure, we should be openly discussing its merits! Shame on us.
We might even allow the members of the project who are affected by the change to vote on it.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 06:00 PM
  #20
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Boy, did I get confused for a second...I was like, "I don't recall making a thread..."

My thoughts are pretty clear though...top 40...hell, I would have been fine with top 30...
Agreed.

With only Top 60 defensemen, 50 seems way too many for goalies.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 07:51 PM
  #21
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post

To me, for the reasons stated in the longer post above, 50% of ballots is much too low a cutoff. That would mean we'd be giving top-50 consideration to a guy who didn't belong in the top-60 according to half the group.
To be clear, there are 52 goalies who were on at least 19 of 27 ballots in Round 1. A couple of them have fewer points than a couple of guys who will be added over them (due to those other guys being on fewer ballots but ranked higher on them), but if those guys over them convince the majority of people that they belong (and there have been consistently at least 21 voters in Round 2), I don't see the problem.

I really don't see "not enough Round 1 sample" being a valid concern here. There were defensemen added to the final Top 60 list who were barely on half the ballots in Round 1.

Quote:
Not only does that bring up questions about whether our results are a true consensus, it also puts a strain on the group to give fair consideration to all 14 final candidates (something we have not done in any round to date, because it's always been easy to cut off the bottom tier and leave them undiscussed).
Round 2 is the only thing that matters. If they finished in the top 4 out of 14 candidates in the Round 2 vote, that sounds like pretty close to consensus to me. As for not being able to give all of them fair consideration in the final round, that's going to be true no matter where the cut off is, right?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 07:53 PM
  #22
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Agreed.

With only Top 60 defensemen, 50 seems way too many for goalies.
If you think there is no point in discussing guys past 40, that's a very valid reason to stop.

The fact is that we CAN easily go to 50 with the sample we have. The question is "do we want to?"

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:01 PM
  #23
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,110
vCash: 2498
I'd like to, but obviously for the last 2 rounds the top 5 get in IMO.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:10 PM
  #24
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
I'd like to, but obviously for the last 2 rounds the top 5 get in IMO.
Or, have just three more rounds including this one, and induct six each time. then we are only having one more round than initially agreed.

To have more diverse ballots and to account that we're voting for more players, we could each rank 12 instead of 8.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:17 PM
  #25
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Or, have just three more rounds including this one, and induct six each time. then we are only having one more round than initially agreed.

To have more diverse ballots and to account that we're voting for more players, we could each rank 12 instead of 8.
I am not in favor of adding 6 goalies in any round. Goalie is too hard a position to evaluate to expand that much, IMO. 4+4+5+5 is much better than 6+6+6 I think

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 06:00 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.