HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Aggregate List & Individual Records

[Dr John Carlson]

I don't like the way Google Sheets embeds here, and I don't like how the forum's tables have a habit of breaking, so I'll just provide the links directly:

Aggregate List

Individual Round 1 Lists

Individual Round 2 Voting

Individual Extras

Hopefully, these should be clear, but if not, let me know and I can rearrange the formatting. And, most of this was calculated by hand apart from the aggregate list, so if you spot any errors, please let me know.

Click to read more...

 

[MXD]

Wow. No Highest, No Lowest, No Unique. Most boring Round 1 List. There was just somebody a bit higher (Charlie Gardiner, Chuck Rayner, Semyon Varlamov) on guys I were high on, or a bit lower (Vladislav Tretiak, Connor Hellebuyck, Tuukka Rask) on guys I was low on.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

A few items of note...

Most of the risers from 2012 to 2024 were new entrants; mostly goalies who hadn't proven enough when the first project was underway. I believe the only inactive goalies to move up more than 1 placement were Bower at +3 and LeSueur at +2. However, there were a few notable droppers from 2012:

Tim Thomas: -21
Ed Giacomin: -20
Rogie Vachon: -16
Gump Worsley: -15
Chuck Rayner: -15
Tony Esposito: -12

Esposito, Rayner, and Thomas hardly changed from their finishes on the aggregate list, so it seems our mind had already been made up on those three. However, Giacomin, Worsley, and Vachon all dropped at least 7 spots from their aggregate position.

Biggest movers upward from the aggregate include:

Paddy Moran: +13
Connor Hellebuyck: +11
Riley Hern: +7

I think this makes sense; two oldies who voters may not have been fully familiar with, and Hellebuyck, who's in the midst of likely another Vezina season.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I kept a (separate) list as we went so make a "new" top 60 for me.

The biggest risers between my prelim list and my final list

Holtby +24
McNeil +24
Hern +23
Rinne +20
Fleury +15
Quick +15
Shesterkin +13
Bobrovsky +13
Rask +12
Vasilevskiy +11

Mostly active goalies, so that was clearly a blindspot for me. McNeil wasn't on my prelim, but I came away very impressed in the newspaper reports. Hern another big riser so thank you @rmartin65

Biggest droppers
Worters -13
Giacomin -13
Chabot -13
Worsley -10
Broda -8

A mixture of dynasty guys, guys who had tremendous stats, and Giacomin.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Overall, I read somewhere in excess of 1000 newspaper game reports. I don't want to ever do that again, but I will probably talk myself into it. I would love to split the workload with someone. I learned a lot about hockey, how teams were covered, and how things changed. A few standout names to me

Terry Sawchuk
I had largely dismissed him coming into the project. We talk of a "big 6" and I thought he was the weakest. But man, the actual game reports are immensely flattering. The entire 50s Red Wings dynasty he is just a stud. And then the team gets weak and he comes back in the 60s and he's second only to Howe in terms of praise. Those post-Lindsay/Kelly Wings were weak in general and particularly weak on depth. The defensive acumen was low and Sawchuk got minimal support. Game after game he's praised as the only thing preventing a blowout. And I always dismissed 1967 as him being just an old backup. But it's a Conn Smythe calibre run and the greatest goaltending duo performance in NHL history.

Johnny Bower
I looked at him as a lesser Turk Broda, the beneficiary of a defensive juggernaut. But the game reports are immensely flattering. Throughout the 60s Dynasty he is praised very highly. But even into the 50s he is given lots of love. A battler, a stud, and someone that would be the best goalie of an era in a sane era.

Tom Barrasso
This forum doesn't like him. He's not popular. But in those 1991 and 1992 runs he's the #2 praised player to Mario Lemieux. He grew on me a lot.

I gotta say, the O6 was just brutal to goalies. HHOFers lose their job regularly. Management treats them terribly. Guys play hurt all the time. And they're not little injuries. Concussions, pucks to the face, pulled groins, ACL injury. And guys are just back out there. The 20s and 30s is a tough guy league, but I don't think any era is tougher than being a goalie in the O6.


For non-goalies

Bobby Orr
Man, does he just get praise. Like the religious reverence he gets in the 1970-1974 time period is something I've never read for any other player. I know he's Bobby Orr, but actually reading it game-by-game you get a sense of just unreal dominance.

Bobby Hull
Another guy who gets praised all over the place. Mikita, very much less so. Hall is overworked and given no support. Pilote does his best. But Hull is a superstar of superstars.

Frank Boucher
He is the most praised playoff performer 1925-1945. Just a force.

Frank Nighbor
We love him and I feel we still undersell him a bit. He's easily the most praised player in the 1910-1925 time period and might be the most praised player until Richard comes along.

Mike Bossy
I always looked at Bossy as the third wheel on the Islanders' dynasty. But he is just a clutch goal-scoring machine. Trottier has less star power than I expected, Potvin about what I expected, but Bossy is just game-after-game of goals. 6 months ago I was not a Bossy fan, but I definitely am now.

Mark Messier
I flipped through some regular season games and he doesn't get near the level of praise as he does in the playoffs. The 1984 Finals is an all-time finals.

Rocket Richard
I want to dig into him more, but just a playoff monster. Might be the most praised player I've seen across all players in the playoffs.

Reading through the decline of newspaper coverage is surreal. Into the early 70s, the coverage is fantastic. But it slowly declines. Local coverage is gone from some cities and is copy-pasted from somewhere else. By the mid 90s its weak and by the 2005 lockout is really bad. Even the difference between 1995 and 2000 is stark.

 

[The Pale King]

Wow. No Highest, No Lowest, No Unique. Most boring Round 1 List. There was just somebody a bit higher (Charlie Gardiner, Chuck Rayner, Semyon Varlamov) on guys I were high on, or a bit lower (Vladislav Tretiak, Connor Hellebuyck, Tuukka Rask) on guys I was low on.

I'm right there with you. I was wondering if there was a mistake and I was left off the list (the blank spot next to Quick's highest position?) but I cracked the list in a big, BIG way, being the highest on our 126th ranked goalie, Gary Smith (who I had at 73). Groundbreaking stuff!

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Gary Smith (who I had at 73)

Worth it even if only for this:

 

[Professor What]

Wow. No Highest, No Lowest, No Unique. Most boring Round 1 List. There was just somebody a bit higher (Charlie Gardiner, Chuck Rayner, Semyon Varlamov) on guys I were high on, or a bit lower (Vladislav Tretiak, Connor Hellebuyck, Tuukka Rask) on guys I was low on.

I had only one highest. I'm not much more exciting. Lol

 

[MXD]

I'm right there with you. I was wondering if there was a mistake and I was left off the list (the blank spot next to Quick's highest position?) but I cracked the list in a big, BIG way, being the highest on our 126th ranked goalie, Gary Smith (who I had at 73). Groundbreaking stuff!

... I think the list wasn't the only "cracked" thing here, hahahha!

 

[seventieslord]

Wow. No Highest, No Lowest, No Unique. Most boring Round 1 List. There was just somebody a bit higher (Charlie Gardiner, Chuck Rayner, Semyon Varlamov) on guys I were high on, or a bit lower (Vladislav Tretiak, Connor Hellebuyck, Tuukka Rask) on guys I was low on.

I was probably most boring. I guess Seth Martin at 45 was a lil' spicy.

 

[MadArcand]

Aww, just one more round and I'd get to see Khabibulin, Irbe, Giguere and Burke, four goalies that I hoped to see come up. On the bright side though, Vernon failing to make the list makes me happy.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I had largely dismissed him coming into the project. We talk of a "big 6" and I thought he was the weakest. But man, the actual game reports are immensely flattering. The entire 50s Red Wings dynasty he is just a stud. And then the team gets weak and he comes back in the 60s and he's second only to Howe in terms of praise. Those post-Lindsay/Kelly Wings were weak in general and particularly weak on depth. The defensive acumen was low and Sawchuk got minimal support. Game after game he's praised as the only thing preventing a blowout. And I always dismissed 1967 as him being just an old backup. But it's a Conn Smythe calibre run and the greatest goaltending duo performance in NHL history.

I agree with this. I thought Sawchuk was vulnerable coming into the project. Instead, I came away pushing him all the way up to 4, which I believe is the highest I've ever had him.

 

[Sanf]

I agree with this. I thought Sawchuk was vulnerable coming into the project. Instead, I came away pushing him all the way up to 4, which I believe is the highest I've ever had him.

Haven´t been around for few years really in here. Not really even have chance to look at the goalie project which is my cup of tea. Just haven´t had the time. Did quick look on few of the original lists and yours were one of that I did check. You had Denis Herron very high. Care to explain why? I know that you are not one to just throw names without reasoning so curious to know why you are so high on him.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Haven´t been around for few years really in here. Not really even have chance to look at the goalie project which is my cup of tea. Just haven´t had the time. Did quick look on few of the original lists and yours were one of that I did check. You had Denis Herron very high. Care to explain why? I know that you are not one to just throw names without reasoning so curious to know why you are so high on him.

Thanks for reading into the project. If you hadn't read a lot of the discussion yet, my list was based primarily on talent. The thought process is that we know that goalie stats are heavily influenced by team effects. Stats heavily influence voting records. Therefore, a goalie's "resume" (as we use the term) becomes a bit of an exercise in team ranking, as opposed to what it should be: a goalie ranking.

So, to mitigate the team aspects, I went back and watched about 100 years of film and put goalies into a number of tiers based on their skill. Not dissimilar to what I would do in preparation for an NHL Draft.

Anyhow, Herron graded very highly for me (relatively speaking) from a skill perspective. He had a lot of tools at his disposal. He could make standup and butterfly saves, and chose his save selections pretty intelligently. He had the athleticism to make "plus" saves consistently without losing his net. Sharp on his edges. He improved his puck play as his career went on. He improved his poise as his career went on. There's a lot to like in his game. Sometimes the hero goalies on bad teams (Worters, Vachon, etc.) get press because they're throwing themselves at whatever they can because the team in front of them is so bad. And that generates positive press sometimes, but it doesn't necessarily mean it was a great goaltender. In Herron's case, he had "hero on a bad team" aspects, but went about his business in a very scalable way for my tastes. There was a fundamental foundation that lends itself to being useful in any situation. He had consistency issues, where he'd just get bombed for like 9 in a game or whatever every once in a while...but that's the segue into: "look what he was dealing with..."

He had the 70's Penguins AND the "we want Lemieux" Penguins of the early 80's. He had the Kansas City Scouts and their mindless defense-lessness in front of him.

He went to what was left of the Habs dynasty team and immediately started leading the league in goalie stats, won a Vezina, won the Jennings, was 2nd in goalie Hart voting with just 31 decisions, etc.

Then he got dealt back to Pittsburgh and his GAA literally doubles from one year to the next. So, not only does he highlight the team effects on goalie stats really well, but more than anything, he was actually a talent. If he had played for, say, the Bruins or Black Hawks of the 70's, he'd be more fondly remembered (or remembered at all...as I see now that I was the only list that had him) AND those teams probably would have been better off because they would have had a better talent in net, which might have given them some better outcomes in the postseason. Talent expands your platform for luck, if nothing else.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Only because it was double-dipped on, I'll jump in and move it to a better thread for discussion...

And what's the point?

That every list should be accepted, no matter how strange?

I don't know if people don't want to talk about it or are timid about the conversation, but I don't have a problem talking about anything, so...

I was a little bit surprised and fairly disappointed about how ruthless defense of a previous list/canon/HoH consensus or whatever you want to term it was. And we see it right here in the quoted. Who defines a list as "strange"?

I mentioned this in the project, but how much of us feeling the way we do about a player is because that's where we decided to rank him the first time around (not literally first, but conceptually)?

All that would lead us to is this constant loop of status quo, occasionally inserting an overripe present-day player or stumbling across a Nighbor type and putting him top shelf - but how many of them are left? There are some excellent researchers here, my guess is: exactly zero.

That's really the antithesis of research, right? "Well, ya know, 12 years ago this is how this vote went, so...it would be 'strange' to see this player in a different spot..."

So "strange" that there's a call to stifle that opinion and have it stricken from the record potentially, according to the quoted. Which seems to be a minority opinion, fair enough, but that's some pretty tough gatekeeping based on.............well, partially, completely unknown writers of unknown knowledge of the game with unknown motive. And I don't say that to belittle or undermine any of the work that was done on this or any other project. Not by a long shot. But every opinion printed in the newspaper is pure gold, no questions asked? And, again, so much so that it is beyond questioning apparently? Maybe.

I posit the opposite of DB here. Rather than rejecting a list for looking "strange", you should reject ballots that follow too closely to one's own initial list or a previous project especially if they have no posts supporting their position.

(Which is to say, I also agree with the general consensus...screening is for E&O and severe bias (a list made up exclusively on Manitobans, for instance))

I ginned up a little program in Python actually regarding this theory. Which may be for naught, as I'm not a math-magician like I know some folks are here...but using Kendall's Tau, I was likely able to find some directionally accurate trends.

-1 is complete disagreement, 0 is no correlation, 1 is complete agreement

There was a poster who probably posted 0ish times in the whole second round who came in with a 0.87 (extremely high correlation) to the 2012 list for their initial list (which is a step short of copying and pasting it). Their "total Tau" across all of their 12 ballots came to 6.54, for comparison the range for the other 18 voters was -0.8 to +4.3. Meaning it's such an extreme outlier to the group...to more or less try to enforce status quo, while offering really nothing in defense of it.

That is the kind of thing that should be alarming to us if we're really proud of this work, in my opinion. That doesn't make us better, that doesn't challenge us, and depending on what that person is upholding, it may be downright detrimental.

And I don't say that for that person, I don't say that for any person, I don't say that to be self-serving in the least (I was part of the 2012 project)...but the point of a project like this - and we make the best lists around - is to really dig in and adjudicate this stuff. Not because it's life and death, but because we want to create the best possible list around.

Folks can love my approach or hate it (or a mix of it, depending on their previous thoughts on the player haha), I don't fault them for either...but I'm thrilled about what I learned about the position, about the history of it, and its evolution. I can't remember the last time I gained so much knowledge about the game. So, I love that more than anything.

I also think that my initial list would have looked plain and ordinary if, say, I had been an original HoH poster and drove previous lists and ATDs and whatever else in this direction all this time. And, in fact, the Dennis Bonvie list would have looked "strange"...which I would have welcomed openly for discussion, of course.

I'm sure a few people reading this are thinking that my Tau is probably "outrageous" in the other direction, and to continue to be transparent about my process through the results, here ya go...

My initial list vs the 2012 list
0.53 (yes, that is the lowest and therefore weakest correlation), but...next in line:
0.53, 0.55, 0.56

So, certainly not an outlier.

My initial list vs. my ballots (avg)
0.47 while the average for the 19 voters was 0.5. Meaning, my adherence to my initial list was middle of the pack compared to the group.

So, I'm not exactly Mr. Christian to your Captain Bligh haha

But anyway, I don't think you win any awards for being against the 2012 list or against the all time players or against the ATD order or whatever...that's not the point. But to be unwilling to accept meaningful challenge of it, to be unwilling to have that discussion and challenge your own notions of a player or era or whatever...then what's the point?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Well now I'm curious what my score was and who the mystery poster was. And I'm curious who changed the most.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Only because it was double-dipped on, I'll jump in and move it to a better thread for discussion...
I don't know if people don't want to talk about it or are timid about the conversation, but I don't have a problem talking about anything, so...I was a little bit surprised and fairly disappointed about how ruthless defense of a previous list/canon/HoH consensus or whatever you want to term it was. And we see it right here in the quoted. Who defines a list as "strange"?

I mentioned this in the project, but how much of us feeling the way we do about a player is because that's where we decided to rank him the first time around (not literally first, but conceptually)?

All that would lead us to is this constant loop of status quo, occasionally inserting an overripe present-day player or stumbling across a Nighbor type and putting him top shelf - but how many of them are left? There are some excellent researchers here, my guess is: exactly zero.

That's really the antithesis of research, right? "Well, ya know, 12 years ago this is how this vote went, so...it would be 'strange' to see this player in a different spot..."

So "strange" that there's a call to stifle that opinion and have it stricken from the record potentially, according to the quoted. Which seems to be a minority opinion, fair enough, but that's some pretty tough gatekeeping based on.............well, partially, completely unknown writers of unknown knowledge of the game with unknown motive. And I don't say that to belittle or undermine any of the work that was done on this or any other project. Not by a long shot. But every opinion printed in the newspaper is pure gold, no questions asked? And, again, so much so that it is beyond questioning apparently? Maybe.

I posit the opposite of DB here. Rather than rejecting a list for looking "strange", you should reject ballots that follow too closely to one's own initial list or a previous project especially if they have no posts supporting their position.

(Which is to say, I also agree with the general consensus...screening is for E&O and severe bias (a list made up exclusively on Manitobans, for instance))

I ginned up a little program in Python actually regarding this theory. Which may be for naught, as I'm not a math-magician like I know some folks are here...but using Kendall's Tau, I was likely able to find some directionally accurate trends.

-1 is complete disagreement, 0 is no correlation, 1 is complete agreement

There was a poster who probably posted 0ish times in the whole second round who came in with a 0.87 (extremely high correlation) to the 2012 list for their initial list (which is a step short of copying and pasting it). Their "total Tau" across all of their 12 ballots came to 6.54, for comparison the range for the other 18 voters was -0.8 to +4.3. Meaning it's such an extreme outlier to the group...to more or less try to enforce status quo, while offering really nothing in defense of it.

That is the kind of thing that should be alarming to us if we're really proud of this work, in my opinion. That doesn't make us better, that doesn't challenge us, and depending on what that person is upholding, it may be downright detrimental.

And I don't say that for that person, I don't say that for any person, I don't say that to be self-serving in the least (I was part of the 2012 project)...but the point of a project like this - and we make the best lists around - is to really dig in and adjudicate this stuff. Not because it's life and death, but because we want to create the best possible list around.

Folks can love my approach or hate it (or a mix of it, depending on their previous thoughts on the player haha), I don't fault them for either...but I'm thrilled about what I learned about the position, about the history of it, and its evolution. I can't remember the last time I gained so much knowledge about the game. So, I love that more than anything.

I also think that my initial list would have looked plain and ordinary if, say, I had been an original HoH poster and drove previous lists and ATDs and whatever else in this direction all this time. And, in fact, the Dennis Bonvie list would have looked "strange"...which I would have welcomed openly for discussion, of course.

I'm sure a few people reading this are thinking that my Tau is probably "outrageous" in the other direction, and to continue to be transparent about my process through the results, here ya go...

My initial list vs the 2012 list
0.53 (yes, that is the lowest and therefore weakest correlation), but...next in line:
0.53, 0.55, 0.56

So, certainly not an outlier.

My initial list vs. my ballots (avg)
0.47 while the average for the 19 voters was 0.5. Meaning, my adherence to my initial list was middle of the pack compared to the group.

So, I'm not exactly Mr. Christian to your Captain Bligh haha

But anyway, I don't think you win any awards for being against the 2012 list or against the all time players or against the ATD order or whatever...that's not the point. But to be unwilling to accept meaningful challenge of it, to be unwilling to have that discussion and challenge your own notions of a player or era or whatever...then what's the point?

Strange (def) - different from what is usual, ordinary, or expected; or, unusual or surprising in a way that is unsettling or hard to understand.

Your list had 24 of the highest rankings for players, 15 of the lowest. Seems to fit the definition.

Now remember, my initial post stated "if I didn't know Farkas was Farkas". Meaning I knew your list was backed up with tons of goalie information and insight. If it was a newcomer's list, it would certainly seem strange.

Kind of like Scotty Bowman's top 100 list of players (which is often mocked here despite it coming from someone who should know a hell of a lot about the subject).

 

[Michael Farkas]

I hear you and appreciate the Farkas caveat haha. But even if that list came from someone that had never posted before the preliminary discussion, they should be given the opportunity to make the list.......ahem, easier to understand (as opposed to the trailing definition of "strange" there).

Scotty Bowman's list may be mocked, but we don't know the circumstances of that list. Did he just sit there after 8 bourbons and round off some players he likes? Did he spend several months going back through his notes and film?

Of all things, to dismiss the winningest coach of all time's list with no context because it doesn't fit in line with what we're pedaling kind of underscores what I'm saying. Re-purposing 1-AS and 2-AS teams isn't any noble cause either...I'll take Bowman's 8-bourbon list over that. Which I don't mean to be taken literally in either case, but conceptually, if Bowman is super high or super low on a player compared to our general consensus - well, those are the players that I'm pulling up film on first and foremost because more likely than not, there's something there and we ought to find about more about it...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well now I'm curious what my score was and who the mystery poster was. And I'm curious who changed the most.

I don't want to weaponize this data for or against any poster...at all. At all at all. I want to use it to help influence our way of thinking and how to make projects even better in the future.

I will message you your personal results and their relation to the group at large, you're free to share your own results if you so choose. But, again, my goal isn't to point fingers or start a war of any kind...but in the context of "rejecting strange lists", how about we take a look at what we're really doing before we start shutting folks out, ya know...?

 

[rmartin65]

I was a little bit surprised and fairly disappointed about how ruthless defense of a previous list/canon/HoH consensus or whatever you want to term it was.

I'm sure this is accurate to a degree (especially in the first 10-12 names), but I think "ruthless" is a bit harsh. The 2025 list deviates quite a bit from the previous list (again, once we get past the first part), in my opinion. The last list had 40 names, right? So I'd propose that a change of 5 represents a significant change.

The list saw some significant movement. We have the guys who added to their legacy since the previous list:

Andrei Vasilevskiy: +26 spots (using 41 as a placeholder from the last list)
Carey Price: +20 spots (using 41 as a placeholder from the last list)
Connor Hellebuyck: +19 spots (using 41 as a placeholder from the last list)
Roberto Luongo: +17 spots (up from 36 on the last list)
Miika Kiprusoff: +7 spots (using 41 as a placeholder from the last list)
Jonathan Quick: +5 spots (using 41 as a placeholder from the last list)

And there is no way all of them were really 41 the last time, right? So even this is under-representing the willingness of the group (or some of the group) to introduce change to the list.

More interestingly, let's look at the big losers:

Tiny Thompson: -5 (down to 26 from 21)
Clint Benedict: -6 (down to 18 from 12)
Grant Fuhr: -6 (down to 31 from 25)
Rogie Vachon: -6 (down to 39 from 33)
Alec Connell: -6 (down to 45 from 39)
Mike Liut: -6 (down to 46 from 40)
Turk Broda: -7 (down to 20 from 13)
Roy Worters: -7 (down to 25 from 18)
George Hainsworth: -8 (down to 30 from 22)
Tom Barrasso: -9 (down to 38 from 29)
Tony Esposito: -12 (down to 28 from 16)
Gump Worsley: -15 (down to 41 from 26)
Chuck Rayner: -15 (downtown 43 from 28)
Ed Giacomin: -20 (down to 52 from 32)
Tim Thomas: -21 (down to 58 from 37)

That represents change to me. Maybe it wasn't as much as you wanted, but to call it a "ruthless defense" seems a little extreme.

All that would lead us to is this constant loop of status quo, occasionally inserting an overripe present-day player

Which we did- the new top 40 saw 5 new names (present-day players)- 12.5% is new

or stumbling across a Nighbor type and putting him top shelf - but how many of them are left? There are some excellent researchers here, my guess is: exactly zero.

You have to have a willing audience for that.

Which seems to be a minority opinion, fair enough, but that's some pretty tough gatekeeping based on.............well, partially, completely unknown writers of unknown knowledge of the game with unknown motive. And I don't say that to belittle or undermine any of the work that was done on this or any other project. Not by a long shot. But every opinion printed in the newspaper is pure gold, no questions asked? And, again, so much so that it is beyond questioning apparently? Maybe.

No one is saying to trust the quotes without question. No one actually believes that a goalie stopped 1000 shots in a game that he let in 10 goals (right?). But taking that clear hyperbole and saying "man, he was shelled, and so while the result looks bad, maybe that's not on the goalie" is exactly the kind of stuff we should be doing.

Saying that "man, the same X names keep getting praise game after game, year after year, and later great goalies are compared to them" and deducing that those guys were probably historically great seems like the right call to me.

Otherwise, what is the move? Just ignore the first 30 years of organized hockey because we don't have film? Then that's not really an all-time list, is it?

I like to think that we are doing the best we can with the information we have at the time. Maybe we are horrifically wrong... so what? Some guys from the past are going to come back and yell at us because we got the wrong guys on our list? No, we'll course-correct the next time around.

I posit the opposite of DB here. Rather than rejecting a list for looking "strange", you should reject ballots that follow too closely to one's own initial list or a previous project especially if they have no posts supporting their position.

I don't have a problem with that. I think that should be looked at in the next project; that's a good thought.

(Which is to say, I also agree with the general consensus...screening is for E&O and severe bias (a list made up exclusively on Manitobans, for instance))

Or ignoring time periods (@Johnny Engine's example of ignoring the 1946-1964 birth years, for instance).

I ginned up a little program in Python actually regarding this theory. Which may be for naught, as I'm not a math-magician like I know some folks are here...but using Kendall's Tau, I was likely able to find some directionally accurate trends.

-1 is complete disagreement, 0 is no correlation, 1 is complete agreement

There was a poster who probably posted 0ish times in the whole second round who came in with a 0.87 (extremely high correlation) to the 2012 list for their initial list (which is a step short of copying and pasting it). Their "total Tau" across all of their 12 ballots came to 6.54, for comparison the range for the other 18 voters was -0.8 to +4.3. Meaning it's such an extreme outlier to the group...to more or less try to enforce status quo, while offering really nothing in defense of it.

That is the kind of thing that should be alarming to us if we're really proud of this work, in my opinion. That doesn't make us better, that doesn't challenge us, and depending on what that person is upholding, it may be downright detrimental.

This is really cool. I'd be interested in seeing my score as well, when you have time.

I'm sure a few people reading this are thinking that my Tau is probably "outrageous" in the other direction, and to continue to be transparent about my process through the results, here ya go...

My initial list vs the 2012 list
0.53 (yes, that is the lowest and therefore weakest correlation), but...next in line:
0.53, 0.55, 0.56

So, certainly not an outlier.

My initial list vs. my ballots (avg)
0.47 while the average for the 19 voters was 0.5. Meaning, my adherence to my initial list was middle of the pack compared to the group.

I'm glad you ran the Round 2 votes against the preliminary lists as well- that was going to be my next question.

Again, if you have time, I'd like to see my number for this as well.

EDIT: I removed some parts that were probably more argumentative than they needed to be.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I hear you and appreciate the Farkas caveat haha. But even if that list came from someone that had never posted before the preliminary discussion, they should be given the opportunity to make the list.......ahem, easier to understand (as opposed to the trailing definition of "strange" there).

Scotty Bowman's list may be mocked, but we don't know the circumstances of that list. Did he just sit there after 8 bourbons and round off some players he likes? Did he spend several months going back through his notes and film?

Of all things, to dismiss the winningest coach of all time's list with no context because it doesn't fit in line with what we're pedaling kind of underscores what I'm saying. Re-purposing 1-AS and 2-AS teams isn't any noble cause either...I'll take Bowman's 8-bourbon list over that. Which I don't mean to be taken literally in either case, but conceptually, if Bowman is super high or super low on a player compared to our general consensus - well, those are the players that I'm pulling up film on first and foremost because more likely than not, there's something there and we ought to find about more about it...

In regard to the possible 8 bourbon Bowman list, how do we know that there were not 8 bourbon lists in some earlier projects? I can recall a few that were quite different, and the posters contributed little to nothing in terms of understanding their thinking on the rankings, though still voting. I would say they may have adversely affected the project.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In regard to the possible 8 bourbon Bowman list, how do we know that there were not 8 bourbon lists in some earlier projects? I can recall a few that were quite different, and the posters contributed little to nothing in terms of understanding their thinking on the rankings, though still voting. I would say they may have adversely affected the project.

I agree 100%. It's a tough spot that the ballot is the least valuable contribution but carries the most weight towards the result. So if you're unwilling or unable to discuss, then maybe instead of trying to stifle "strange" lists (which is not happening, just to say the words), we should be looking at undefended/undiscussed ballots.

Not because I'd have any interest in denying that person's opinion, but rather, I want to hear that perspective. What am I missing? What are we missing?

The one that stuck with me because of recency bias is the Mike Vernon 1st place vote in the final round. It means virtually nothing because the project completed. But why? Where did that come from? If we had another round would folks have looked at the previous vote and gone, "well, he was X place last time...he's due..."

As someone (the only one?) that doesn't find there to be a huge gap between Fuhr/Vernon/Barrasso, I would have been very interested in that line of thinking. But instead, it was just a finger on the scale for no obvious reason...one might say that's a "strange" ballot...

(Also, rmartin65, I'm not ignoring you. Just need more time to digest your message)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The list saw some significant movement. We have the guys who added to their legacy since the previous list:
Andrei Vasilevskiy: +26 spots (using 41 as a placeholder from the last list)
Carey Price: +20 spots (using 41 as a placeholder from the last list)
Connor Hellebuyck: +19 spots (using 41 as a placeholder from the last list)
Roberto Luongo: +17 spots (up from 36 on the last list)
Miika Kiprusoff: +7 spots (using 41 as a placeholder from the last list)
Jonathan Quick: +5 spots (using 41 as a placeholder from the last list)
And there is no way all of them were really 41 the last time, right? So even this is under-representing the willingness of the group (or some of the group) to introduce change to the list.
More interestingly, let's look at the big losers:
Tiny Thompson: -5 (down to 26 from 21)
Clint Benedict: -6 (down to 18 from 12)
Grant Fuhr: -6 (down to 31 from 25)
Rogie Vachon: -6 (down to 39 from 33)
Alec Connell: -6 (down to 45 from 39)
Mike Liut: -6 (down to 46 from 40)
Turk Broda: -7 (down to 20 from 13)
Roy Worters: -7 (down to 25 from 18)
George Hainsworth: -8 (down to 30 from 22)
Tom Barrasso: -9 (down to 38 from 29)
Tony Esposito: -12 (down to 28 from 16)
Gump Worsley: -15 (down to 41 from 26)
Chuck Rayner: -15 (downtown 43 from 28)
Ed Giacomin: -20 (down to 52 from 32)
Tim Thomas: -21 (down to 58 from 37)

That represents change to me. Maybe it wasn't as much as you wanted, but to call it a "ruthless defense" seems a little extreme.

The vast majority of those changes can be attributed to you know who.

 

[rmartin65]

The vast majority of those changes can be attributed to you know who.

I assume you are referring to @Michael Farkas ?

I think "attributed" is kind of strong/loaded (unless I am misreading your point). Farkas did exactly what I think participants in this project should do- he stated his opinions and provided information/his reasoning.

I may not have agreed with it all the time- I know I didn't appreciate his style of arguing and some of his verbiage. But I did appreciate his willingness to discuss the thought processes he went through. As a result of his arguments, I certainly changed some of my opinions, both while I was making my preliminary list and during Round 2, and it looks like others did as well.

Farkas may have been the catalyst for a lot of the change, I won't argue that. But I think that you have to attribute the actual changes to the group, because everyone voted and those votes are what placed all the goalies on the list.

We should want and encourage people to defend their stances. We should want and encourage people to not be afraid to look outside of what had been done previously or to challenge preconceived notions and rankings.

Otherwise, these projects would be pretty boring.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I assume you are referring to @Michael Farkas ?

I think "attributed" is kind of strong/loaded (unless I am misreading your point). Farkas did exactly what I think participants in this project should do- he stated his opinions and provided information/his reasoning.

I may not have agreed with it all the time- I know I didn't appreciate his style of arguing and some of his verbiage. But I did appreciate his willingness to discuss the thought processes he went through. As a result of his arguments, I certainly changed some of my opinions, both while I was making my preliminary list and during Round 2, and it looks like others did as well.

Farkas may have been the catalyst for a lot of the change, I won't argue that. But I think that you have to attribute the actual changes to the group, because everyone voted and those votes are what placed all the goalies on the list.

We should want and encourage people to defend their stances. We should want and encourage people to not be afraid to look outside of what had been done previously or to challenge preconceived notions and rankings.

Otherwise, these projects would be pretty boring.

Not saying my buddy Farkas did anything wrong.

But I still think much of the change can be attributed to him. You say yourself he changed some of your opinions. I'm sure he changed many opinions. The final list would be much different without his participation. But everyone would know a lot less about goalies also.