HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
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, 06:48 PM
  #1
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,599
vCash: 500
HOH Top-40 Goalies Voter Record - Canadiens1958

Round 1 List:


# Name
1 Jacques Plante
2 Patrick Roy
3 Terry Sawchuk
4 Martin Brodeur
5 Glenn Hall
6 Ken Dryden
7 Dominik Hasek
8 Vladislav Tretiak
9 Turk Broda
10 Bill Durnan
11 Bernie Parent
12 Clint Benedict
13 Georges Vezina
14 Roy Worters
15 George Hainsworth
16 Johnny Bower
17 Charlie Gardiner
18 Frank Brimsek
19 Billy Smith
20 Tiny Thompson
21 Grant Fuhr
22 Tony Esposito
23 Harry Lumley
24 Chuck Rayner
25 Hugh Lehman
26 Hap Holmes
27 Ed Belfour
28 Alec Connell
29 Ed Giacomin
30 Rogie Vachon
31 Al Rollins
32 Dave Kerr
33 Riley Hern
34 Percy Lesueur
35 John Bouse Hutton
36 Normie Smith
37 Gerry Cheevers
38 Tom Barrasso
39 Curtis Joseph
40 Mike Richter
41 Vladimir Dzurilla
42 Jiri Holecek
43 Mike Liut
44 Gump Worsley
45 Chris Osgood
46 Mike Vernon
47 John Ross Roach
48 Lorne Chabot
49 Pelle Lindbergh
50 John Vanbiesbrouck
51 Henrik Lundqvist
52 Roger Crozier
53 Olaf Kolzig
54 Nikolai Khabibulin
55 Ryan Miller
56 Jean-Sebastien Giguere
57 Tim Thomas
58 Andy Moog
59 Roberto Luongo
60 Charlie Hodge

Players on the top-40 not ranked:

None

Players on the top-40 ranked below #50:

Henrik Lundqvist (51)
Tim Thomas (57)
Roberto Luongo (59)

Players exclusive to this list and no more than two others:

None

Players ranked highest on this list:

Martin Brodeur (4) – One of 6 lists to have Brodeur 4th
Chuck Rayner (24) – One of 2 lists
Al Rollins (31)
Riley Hern (33)
John Bouse Hutton (35) – one of 2 lists

Players ranked lowest on this list:

Dominik Hasek (7)
Gump Worsley (44)
John Vanbiesbrouck (50)
Roberto Luongo (59)
Charlie Hodge (60)

Note that Hodge was only on 6 lists, so other participants ranked him even lower.

Round 2 voting record:

Round1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th
1PlanteRoyBrodeurSawchukDrydenHallHasek 
2SawchukBrodeurDrydenTretiakBrodaDurnanParentBenedict
3BrodaDurnanGardinerParentBrimsekBowerVezinaBenedict
4BrodaDurnanParentWortersBowerSmithThompsonEsposito
5ParentWortersHainsworthBowerSmithThompsonFuhrLumley
6HainsworthSmithThompsonHolmesFuhrLumleyLehmanVachon
7        
8        
9        
10ConnellRollinsKerrHernCheeversDzurillaLiutRoach

Round 2 Participation Record

RoundRankPosts
11114
2165
3166
4263
5224
6248
7817
8318
91013
10227
Total2455


Last edited by seventieslord: 02-08-2013 at 12:02 AM.
seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 07:17 PM
  #2
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,961
vCash: 500
It's funny that one of the few times (the only time?) that I purposely used my knowledge as an administrator in an argument, it was actually to use your Round 1 list in defense of your Round 2 Hasek vote.

If I wanted to, I could have asked why you were so vehemently against me when I wanted to rank Lehman 21st and above Hap Holmes, when you only had him down in 25th and one spot above Holmes on your initial list. Or I could have asked if you were just being a contrarian when you argued vehemently against me when I said that Rayner had a case to go in the 29-32 range possibly above Lumley, when you ranked Rayner only 1 spot below Lumley (and apparently higher than anyone else had him ranked).


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 02-06-2013 at 08:03 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 07:59 PM
  #3
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,004
vCash: 500
Funny (or rather sad) that someone who accuses others of stategic voting likely does it himself.
Or do you just change your mind every two weeks if Brodeur or Sawchuk should be ranked higher?

unknown33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:11 PM
  #4
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Funny (or rather sad) that someone who accuses others of stategic voting likely does it himself.
Or do you just change your mind every two weeks if Brodeur or Sawchuk should be ranked higher?
It changed by one spot. I see nothing wrong with that given that there was a lot of discussion occuring inbetween those two votes.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:18 PM
  #5
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
It changed by one spot. .
Twice - reversed. Look at the Round 1 list.

unknown33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:22 PM
  #6
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Twice - reversed. Look at the Round 1 list.
I still don't see that as being an issue though. My opinion on #4 changed, like, five times before the first vote.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:24 PM
  #7
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,718
vCash: 500
Yeah, I probably flip flopped more than anyone. So many of the one on one battles were so close it was hard to have a consistent opinion.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:25 PM
  #8
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Twice - reversed. Look at the Round 1 list.
Don't be surprised if there's A LOT of change from the Round 1 lists to how people voted in Round 2. There definitely was for me, and a lot more than just one spot. Several of the other participants said the same.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:33 PM
  #9
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Initial List

Overlooked in the initial list review is the fact that ties were not permitted. Specifically you could not list:

10.) Goalie A and Goalie B tied.
12.) Goalie C

So the one spot shifts are part of the process.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:35 PM
  #10
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Overlooked in the initial list review is the fact that ties were not permitted. Specifically you could not list:

10.) Goalie A and Goalie B tied.
12.) Goalie C

So the one spot shifts are part of the process.
In a perfect world ties would be an option, but I think it would lead to a lot more work for the vote talliers...considering the way the project went, where candidates from the same Round 1 tier were made available at the same time, I doubt it would make any difference.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:37 PM
  #11
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,932
vCash: 500
Elephant in the room time:

Hasek in 7th.

I think it's defensible, I think the mainstream hockey media has him around #5-7 as well, but it's certainly not where I had him, and I'd like to hear the reasoning that led to him being there on your ballot in Round 1 and staying there on your ballot in Round 2.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:38 PM
  #12
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Don't be surprised if there's A LOT of change from the Round 1 lists to how people voted in Round 2.
I am not. In nearly all cases.
However if you check this poster's previous voting records it does surprise me.

I'll leave it at that.

unknown33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:49 PM
  #13
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Hasek #7

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Elephant in the room time:

Hasek in 7th.

I think it's defensible, I think the mainstream hockey media has him around #5-7 as well, but it's certainly not where I had him, and I'd like to hear the reasoning that led to him being there on your ballot in Round 1 and staying there on your ballot in Round 2.
See the relevant parts of post #3 in the following thread.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1343355

Add the long, almost four season, adaptability curve coming to the NHL, plus the facts that he was never a unanimous 1st team AST in his prime, at times on a near par with Joseph and Dafoe.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:55 PM
  #14
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,015
vCash: 500
Gentle reminder - we aren't allowed to talk about infractions (or their consequences) on the boards in public.

Having said that, infractions do have consequences, and the site applies those consequences consistently.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 08:59 PM
  #15
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
See the relevant parts of post #3 in the following thread.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1343355

Add the long, almost four season, adaptability curve coming to the NHL, plus the facts that he was never a unanimous 1st team AST in his prime, at times on a near par with Joseph and Dafoe.
Confused by the bolded...in 1998 he received 50 1st place votes and 3 2nd place votes out of 53 voters, or 259 out of 265 possible points (97.7%). This has to be one of the highest "All Star Shares" of all time.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 09:20 PM
  #16
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,995
vCash: 500
I don't really want to be a party to this process at the end here, as I'm a tiny bit unsure as to what purpose it serves being in individual threads like this (not being snarky, just being honest).

I'll say the consistent part of the Hasek being 7th thing is - and C1958 can correct me if I'm putting words in his mouth incorrectly - is the anticipatory nature of the goalies ahead of him. The reflexive Hasek was not the best first-shot goalie ever, but he's probably the best second (and more) shot goalie ever. The six goalies ahead of Hasek on C1958's vote are very good in terms of their hockey sense and anticipation ability, to the best of my knowledge, which makes them extremely adaptable, finite traits for sustainability.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 09:21 PM
  #17
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,345
vCash: 500
Correct me if I'm wrong but since 1950-51 only two goaltenders have been unanimous first-team all-stars: Terry Sawchuk (1952) and Tony Esposito (1970). If that point is used against Hasek, it should be used consistently against Roy, Plante, Hall, Dryden, etc.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 09:34 PM
  #18
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I don't really want to be a party to this process at the end here, as I'm a tiny bit unsure as to what purpose it serves being in individual threads like this (not being snarky, just being honest).
I'll just quote FissionFire from 2008:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
The transparency of all the voting phases was one of the most important aspects of the project. I've been very up-front the entire time I felt in stating that at the end of the project all the lists and votes would be made public. Back in the planning phases (was that really 7 months ago?) there was no objection to this and in fact most felt it was an outstanding idea which would help lend even more credibility to the list and further remove any questions of a tainted process or favoritism by Hockey Outsider or myself in compiling every phase of the process. While I don't think anyone who has followed most or all of this project would think anything of that sort occured, it's very possible that others viewing this list later may have that opinion. In many ways, by making everything completely open to the public, this helps make the list a primary-source document which skeptics and independently verify through their own investigation. Who knows, maybe in 10-15 years we'll have people looking back on this list and using it as a reference source much the same we've used the THN list ourselves.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...58&postcount=9

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 09:47 PM
  #19
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,995
vCash: 500
Fair enough, I guess - respectfully to the administrators of the project, who have done terrific, yeoman-like work throughout - my point is: why are they each in their own threads, inviting discussion that likely won't garner anything but negative reactions. Whether those reactions are publicly-stated or not.

If it were released in a PDF file and attached somewhere, that'd make more sense to me. I'm not sure how easy or reasonable that is, but I'm just throwing out an idea.

To invite 27 discussions about individual posters voting habits is a twist I didn't quite expect to be honest. I guess there's nothing wrong with it, in a vacuum, I would just guess that in a few threads, it's going to require excess moderation...like this one perhaps.

It just seems like it makes more work for the moderators unnecessarily, I would think...but I could very well be mistaken.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 09:50 PM
  #20
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
1999 AST / Vezina

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Confused by the bolded...in 1998 he received 50 1st place votes and 3 2nd place votes out of 53 voters, or 259 out of 265 possible points (97.7%). This has to be one of the highest "All Star Shares" of all time.
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.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 10:03 PM
  #21
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Elephant in the room time:

Hasek in 7th.

I think it's defensible, I think the mainstream hockey media has him around #5-7 as well, but it's certainly not where I had him, and I'd like to hear the reasoning that led to him being there on your ballot in Round 1 and staying there on your ballot in Round 2.
At a loss for words.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 10:04 PM
  #22
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,646
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.
Then what does it say about Brodeur?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 10:09 PM
  #23
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 593
Yeah that's a bit of blasphemy ranking Hasek at seventh, but then again i know a longtime Sabres-fan that does NOT think he's an all-time great. Probably just a sore loser or secretly legally blind.

Darth Yoda is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 10:15 PM
  #24
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Close

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I don't really want to be a party to this process at the end here, as I'm a tiny bit unsure as to what purpose it serves being in individual threads like this (not being snarky, just being honest).

I'll say the consistent part of the Hasek being 7th thing is - and C1958 can correct me if I'm putting words in his mouth incorrectly - is the anticipatory nature of the goalies ahead of him. The reflexive Hasek was not the best first-shot goalie ever, but he's probably the best second (and more) shot goalie ever. The six goalies ahead of Hasek on C1958's vote are very good in terms of their hockey sense and anticipation ability, to the best of my knowledge, which makes them extremely adaptable, finite traits for sustainability.
Close but you have to ask the key follow-up question. What are the consequences of not being the best first-shot goalie ever?

Well the consequences are that there are more second, third etc shots that good or great first-shot goalies do not see or have to stop. If a goalie cannot efficiently control rebounds deflecting / clearing pucks to corners or boards but leaves rebounds in the slot why should such a goalie get credit for inefficiency or putting his team at risk? Nice youtube and late night sports hilites result but that is not the purpose of goaltending. A team wants the fewest number of such hilites either goals or saves.

Add the consequences of other weaknesses that no one has disputed, the poor puck handling and poor use of defensive skaters. Get the puck out of the defensive zone as quickly as possible. Few SOGs from beyond the goalies defensive zone and even fewer non ENG goals.

Weaknesses do not deserve credit.

Like the old view that there is a virtue or advantage to knowing what to do if someone is lost in the woods. True, but there is a greater advantage to knowing how not to get lost in the woods in the first place.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 10:26 PM
  #25
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,015
vCash: 500
I can't support Hasek seventh, but I will say that when my voting record is posted, you'll see plenty of vascillation on my part.

There were a lot of persuasive arguments in the threads (that's the point of the threads), and I changed my mind as a result.

Chalupa Batman 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 02:17 PM.

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.