View Single Post
01-16-2013, 08:23 AM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,604
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post

You've spent the entire project discounting 1AS votes from that era because they correlate with GAA -- and now you think Hart votes should be discounted if they DON'T correlate with GAA?? That's the kind of inconsistency that worries me here. Basically you've now said that Rollins didn't deserve his Hart AND Lumley didn't deserve his 1AS that season for opposite reasons.
I think it's perfectly valid to question who was the best goalie in 1953-54. Also, when did I say Lumley didn't deserve his 1AS? I said at one point that I found it questionable that Lumley never came close to being a 1AS except in the 2 seasons that he led the league in GAA and wondered whether he was actually better than Sawchuk, given the fact that Sawchuk was in the middle of his 5 year peak at the time. Before anyone voted on Lumley, I noticed that he also got a lot of Hart votes in those two years. Now I see that Lumley placed highly (higher than Rollins, in fact) in a player's poll as to the best player

This is an indisputable fact: From 1935-1956, the 1st Team All Star was the goalie with the best GAA, with the exception of 1951 when the GAA leader (who happened to be Rollins) only played 40 of 70 games. I don't think anyone thinks the GAA leader is always the best goalie in the modern league; why would it be true back then? The 2AS wasn't nearly so attached to GAA.

Another fact that you can try to dispute, but I don't see how: There is no way a goalie on a team that finishes last by a large margin, whose GAA is worse than any other goalie in the league by a wide margin, would even come close to winning the Hart Trophy in modern times.

Isn't it conceivable that the writers simply didn't think that Rollins' GAA and wins reflected his actual performance? Shouldn't we begin with the assumption that 80+40 writers knew what they were talking about, rather than beginning with the idea that they were all a bunch of sentimental saps and looking for evidence to support that interpretation?
But the same writers had him 3rd in All Star voting, well behind Lumley and Sawchuk when voting for the best goalies in the league:
GOALTENDER: (292/324, 162-130) Harry Lumley, Tor 127 (57-70); Terry Sawchuk, Det 95 (35-60); Al Rollins, Chi (54-); Gerry McNeil, Mtl (13-); Jim Henry, Bos (3-)

The players seem to have had Rollins 2nd among goalies to Lumley that year (which certainly makes one wonder about Sawchuk's supposedly untouchable peak, doesn't it).

Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-16-2013 at 10:23 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote