View Single Post
01-15-2013, 06:44 PM
Global Moderator
tarheelhockey's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,880
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
The problem with Rollins is that I'm not quite sure he had a good enough career to be +-70 spots over Gerry McNeil...
I don't think McNeil would drop that far, based on the names we've already encountered and the fact that the Osgood/Cechmanek/Theodore level is surely not very far away.

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
I think the point about mid-season splits is interesting, but I'm inclined to agree with C1958 that almost every response in that thread is a case of backward-working logic. There's, what, one post that talks about what Rollins DID do to deserve the Hart? The idea that he was snubbed for the All Star Team is not only left unexplored, but actually used against him under the assumption that the writers are smart enough to get All Star votes right but are just a bunch of saps when voting for the Hart.

Again, I'm not crazy about Rollins much more than Thomas or Connell, BUT... I think we've seen a pattern emerging in this project where the exact same points that are used to elevate one goalie are used to degrade another. In the case of Rollins vs Thomas we can look at team effects, backup comparisons and awards and there's just no way you can make an argument for Thomas. Yet now backup effects are being handwaved, awards minimized and team effects used to boost the goalie on a better team, none of which have been the standard for the previous 32 goalies. I find that kind of concerning.

I mean, how does Worters' record on a terrible team not mirror Rollins'? How does Brimsek get longevity credit for going to war but Rollins gets a longevity penalty for having his career tanked by his manager? Why should one count as a positive and the other as a negative? I don't get this line of thinking at all.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote