View Single Post
Old
01-16-2013, 10:35 AM
  #382
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Also, when did I say Lumley didn't deserve his 1AS?
Maybe you didn't; it could have been a perception that I got from the intersection of "1AS in that era isn't a meaningful indicator of performance" and "Lumley wasn't anything special except for the 2 years he won the 1AS" (not direct quotes, but things you have argued in previous threads). To me, those arguments when combined would induce a conclusion that Lumley's awards overstated his performance.

If I'm putting words in your mouth I apologize; but at least in my view it's a pretty logical outcome of the arguments that have been put forward. I'll wait for your response before going into it any further, because it's entirely possible that I'm unclear on exactly what you've been arguing.


FWIW, here's my general view of 1950s goaltending:

- Sawchuk, Plante and Hall were the elite upper tier. Born in 1929, 1929 and 1931 respectively. Young bucks who were well positioned to develop along with the subtle changes of their era. I think we did a good job in this project of bringing Sawchuk back to earth a bit, but it's clear that all three of these guys had some of the highest peaks and greatest longevity of all time.

- Worsley, Lumley and Rollins were the middle tier. Worsley was more of a contemporary of the "big 3" but was simply a lesser talent. Lumley and Rollins were the same age, slightly older, and were both more or less set in their development by the time the decade began. Frankly I don't think a whole lot separates them other than circumstance. Both had brief peaks of all-time value, neither managed to sustain it and both faded from view after age 30. The biggest difference I can see is that Lumley got the hell out of Chicago as fast as he could, while Rollins stuck around and suffered the consequences.

- Bottom tier would be the half-decade guys who were either on their way into the league or on their way out -- Rayner, Bower, Henry -- plus McNeil.

So when thinking about our list, I see the "big 3" occupying consecutive positions at 3-5, which is fine... Worsley, Lumley and Rayner in consecutive positions at 26-28... and somehow Rollins is in danger of falling all the way out of the top-40? Was he really THAT much worse than Lumley and Rayner, or is it a matter of not having the team-based hardware to make a stronger case for himself?

I mean, maybe I'm forgetting something, but is Lumley not separated from Rollins primarily by derivatives of the fact that he played on better teams?


Quote:
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.
To me, the fact that modern goalies are evaluated on Ws and GAA in this manner is simply an indictment of modern Hart voting, comparable to how we've been diminishing older 1AS voting. Yet we've been looking at modern AS and Hart voting in every thread, and voting counts have been one of the cornerstone arguments made about every single goalie for which we have the data available. Why are we spending so much time looking at charts of voting records if the data isn't trustworthy?

It just seems like voting arguments have become awfully "fluid", if you know what I mean. It's coming to a point where we are going to have to do extensive research into the meaning of every vote, because we can't trust them at face value. And that brings up the question of whether the voting is actually helping us understand these players better, or simply creating illusions for us to sort through. Sort of like +/-, except that the data points are subjective.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote