Crease
Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
- Jul 12, 2004
- 24,766
- 27,709
- Player Eligibility
- All goalies who played at least one game for the New York Rangers
- Players will be judged only on their accomplishments as a New York Ranger
- Preliminary Discussion Thread
- Anyone may participate in this thread, even if he does not plan on taking part in the voting phase
- Any eligible goalie may be discussed
- Posters are encouraged to share information about goalies in this thread and to take information shared into account when constructing their own lists
- Brief comparisons between players are permitted, but detailed cases and debates should be saved for the voting rounds
- Please do NOT rank players outright in this thread
- Voting
- Round 1
- All participants submit a list of 9 goalies ranked in order
- All eras MUST be considered
- To make it easier to aggregate the submitted lists, please list players using their most commonly used name; e.g. Henrik Lundqvist, not King Henrik
- Lists should be submitted via PM to me
- Deadline for list submission is July 27; this thread will remain open until the deadline
- Players will be assigned a point value on the list based on ranking
- Players will be awarded 9 points for a 1st place vote down to 1 point for a 9th place vote
- An aggregate list of the top 9 goalies will be compiled ranking them in order of the most total points
- Participants MUST submit a list in Round 1 to be eligible for Round 2
- Round 2
- The top 6 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
- Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
- Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five (5) days. Administrators may extend the discussion period if it remains active
- Final voting will occur for two (2) days, by PM
- Top 3 players will be added to the HFNYR Top 6 Goalies of All-Time list
- Results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 3 places with remaining players until a list of 6 goalies is obtained
- Round 1
- Quality Assurance
- Lists may be subject to an evaluation process
- The submitter of a questionable list will be given an opportunity to defend or justify any selection under question or to correct errors and resubmit
- Participants Code of Conduct
- Participants must recognize that this is a collaborative project and that we all share the same goals, no matter how much we disagree on individual ranking
- Participants should treat each other with respect and must not openly question the motivations of other participants