Players exclusive to this list and no more than two others:
Sean Burke (46) – was on two more lists
Jose Theodore (53) – was on one more list
Dan Bouchard (58) – was on one more list
Players ranked highest on this list:
Bill Durnan (6)
Alec Connell (13)
Seth Martin (17)
Vladimir Dzurilla (18)
Evgeni Nabokov (43)
Kelly Hrudey (56)
Players ranked lowest on this list:
Ken Dryden (12)
Turk Broda (25)
Georges Vezina (33)
Vladislav Tretiak (36)
Ed Giacomin (52)
Paddy Moran (59)
Moran was left off 9 lists.
Round 2 voting record:
Round
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
1
Roy
Hasek
Plante
Hall
Brodeur
Sawchuk
Dryden
2
Brodeur
Sawchuk
Brimsek
Tretiak
Dryden
Broda
Parent
Benedict
3
Bower
Brimsek
Belfour
Esposito
Broda
Parent
Vezina
Durnan
4
Esposito
Belfour
Bower
Broda
Durnan
Worters
Thompson
Parent
5
Bower
Worters
Parent
Holecek
Thompson
Fuhr
Smith
Worsley
6
Thompson
Fuhr
Smith
Worsley
Lehman
Hainsworth
Lumley
Holmes
7
Worsley
Lumley
Fuhr
Barrasso
Joseph
Vachon
Vanbiesbrouck
Rayner
8
Joseph
Barrasso
Vachon
Vanbiesbrouck
LeSueur
Liut
Luongo
Connell
9
Vachon
Vanbiesbrouck
LeSueur
Liut
Luongo
Connell
Cheevers
Chabot
10
Participation Record:
Round
Rank
Posts
1
19
9
2
12
10
3
18
3
4
10
12
5
14
3
6
9
6
7
14
8
8
12
6
9
13
9
10
19
1
Total
15
67
Now here's a list for discussion!
Not to be overly critical, but, based on your voting it looks like some of the rankings on the original list may have been pulled from a hat.
Tretiak 36th, but 4th in the second round.
Durnan 6th, but 8th in the third round.
Parent 7th, but 8th in the fifth round.
Connell 13th, but is only 6th in the ninth round.
Johnny Bower goes 1st in one found, 3rd in the next, first again in the next.
Benedict 9th, Vezina 33th?
Fuhr 16th, Billy Smith 35th?
Not a specific criticism of your list, but more something I've noticed in general. I keep seeing Mike Richter pop up on lists; I don't know how you can include Mike Richter without including Chris Osgood ahead of him. Or in your specific case you included Kelly Hrudey but did not include from his time such as Mike Vernon, Kirk McLean, Reggie Lemelin, Pete Peeters, Bob Froese, or Glen Hanlon. Seriously? Kelly Hrudey? He was good... but not THAT good.
I also noticed a kind of dissonance on these lists.
You have Tim Thomas ranked extremely highly, which can only be due to his very high peak in a long and otherwise unremarkable career that he spent primarily in the minors and Europe.
Bernie Parent backs up the "peak" argument with his ranking of 7th on your list.
Yet you did not rank Pelle Lindbergh on your list at all, Liut ranks very low despite having multiple all-star selections and Hart nominations, including a second-place finish to Gretzky.
And there's also Ed Belfour; his play in the early 90s was an incredible display of goaltending. He won two Vezinas in his first three seasons of professional hockey, playing against a peak Patrick Roy (whom you ranked third).
And then there's Durnan vs. Brimsek; Honestly that's a comparison where I can't see how Durnan can come away a clear winner by the kind of gap you have. Brimsek was either the best goalie or the second-best goalie in the league in every season he played. While Durnan can claim six first-team selections in seven seasons, two of those were war years where Brimsek didn't play (and it was during his prime). Times were different then as far as scouting, but Durnan played three years for the Montreal Royals before the Canadiens even took interest in him.
Seeing the lists there are a number of these "inconsistencies" as far as judgments that simply baffle me. Goalies being ranked a certain way for an amazing peak (Thomas, Parent, Liut, etc.) despite having an otherwise "good" or even simply mediocre career, and other goalies being ranked a certain way for being consistently "very good" without a significantly defined peak (Luongo, Osgood, Brodeur, Richter, Vernon) but most lists will not follow one method or the other, but both at the same time. Just applying one to some goalies and one to others. Thomas, of course, always gets the "how good was his peak/prime" treatment without the full career evaluation. But other goalies, like Liut, might really sink or swim on which method is used. Liut had a couple really strong years but was otherwise pretty mediocre. He was like Thomas, but not quite as extreme in his different "versions" (he was in the NHL in his "low" years, and he wasn't dominating the world and carrying his team to the Cup at his "high" end.)
So "peak" Liut might rank highly. "Career" Liut probably shouldn't be on the list. If we're using the same method for everyone of course.
And there's also Ed Belfour; his play in the early 90s was an incredible display of goaltending. He won two Vezinas in his first three seasons of professional hockey, playing against a peak Patrick Roy (whom you ranked third)
I have noticed a little bit of a trend where an elite peak gets ignored if the rest of the career is only slightly below that peak. It's like an inherent assumption that.. if the goalie could keep it up for a whole career, how good could they really have been?
I have noticed a little bit of a trend where an elite peak gets ignored if the rest of the career is only slightly below that peak. It's like an inherent assumption that.. if the goalie could keep it up for a whole career, how good could they really have been?
Yeah. I haven't looked at all the lists, and don't know if it's actually occurred (although I'm sure someone on these board holds this opinion) but it's like placing Tim Thomas ahead of Ed Belfour. Sure, Thomas got the Smythe. But Chara was just as worthy. And Belfour could have won it in 1992 had his team not been up against Mario's insane offense machine.
Yeah. I haven't looked at all the lists, and don't know if it's actually occurred (although I'm sure someone on these board holds this opinion) but it's like placing Tim Thomas ahead of Ed Belfour. Sure, Thomas got the Smythe. But Chara was just as worthy. And Belfour could have won it in 1992 had his team not been up against Mario's insane offense machine.
No, he was not.
That said, I don't think anyone placed Thomas ahead of Belfour.
I think people should rather look at the Round 2 than Round 1 voting, in the end that's what matters for the final ranking.
I agree. Most everyone talked about how their top-60 was more difficult than anticipated, and a few noted that they simply didn't have time to put together a fully-researched list. Round 1 was simply about creating an order for Round 2 candidates. Round 2 was where the most meaningful voting took place.
I think people should rather look at the Round 2 than Round 1 voting, in the end that's what matters for the final ranking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
Most everyone talked about how their top-60 was more difficult than anticipated, and a few noted that they simply didn't have time to put together a fully-researched list. Round 1 was simply about creating an order for Round 2 candidates. Round 2 was where the most meaningful voting took place.
But only because the other contributors DID NOT send in lists like the one in question. If everyone goes into round 1 with Tretiak at #36, thinking it doesn't matter because round 2 is what counts, then he doesn't even come up before vote 8 or 9.
But only because the other contributors DID NOT send in lists like the one in question. If everyone goes into round 1 with Tretiak at #36, thinking it doesn't matter because round 2 is what counts, then he doesn't even come up before vote 8 or 9.
I'm talking in terms of critiquing other formers' voting record. Personally I don't care much where anyone ranked players in Vote 1, as it's Vote 2 that reflects an opinion that is informed by about two weeks of focused debate.
As far as I can tell, no goalie's ranking was directly affected by his placement on the aggregate Round 1 list.
But only because the other contributors DID NOT send in lists like the one in question. If everyone goes into round 1 with Tretiak at #36, thinking it doesn't matter because round 2 is what counts, then he doesn't even come up before vote 8 or 9.
Why would anyone approach their original list that way, already knowing ahead of time what you're pointing out?
I'm talking in terms of critiquing other formers' voting record. Personally I don't care much where anyone ranked players in Vote 1, as it's Vote 2 that reflects an opinion that is informed by about two weeks of focused debate.
As far as I can tell, no goalie's ranking was directly affected by his placement on the aggregate Round 1 list.
Why not let 100 people vote and let them all in?
If this list is excepted at the outset, I can't imagine anyone else's who is serious about the project being rejected for content.
Tretiak at #36 makes sense if you believe international hockey has very little value compared to NHL hockey (level of competition, sample size). But then you cannot rank Holeček #10, Martin #17, Dzurilla #18. Taco himself obviously didn't think his original ranking of Tretiak was so good when round 2 came around.
Taco himself obviously didn't think his original ranking of Tretiak was so good when round 2 came around.
I've said on multiple occasions (and publicly in the threads) that, in retrospect, I wasn't very happy with my original list. If you want me to put on yet another hairshirt, go for it.
