View Single Post
Old
01-16-2013, 01:54 PM
  #388
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's possible Rollins' career was tanked by a manager, but I'm not entirely convinced. If he was truly NHL worthy, I'd like to see him dominate the minors and being a 2nd Team All Star twice in the minor league WCHL is nice, but meh. I'm honestly more impressed by Tim Thomas winning the Finnish equivalents of the Hart and Lindsay Trophies during the 2005 lockout.
Harry Lumley didn't dominate the minors in either the AHL or the WHL as a contemporary of Al Rollins. I recall that issue being raised in that discussion, but I don't think it cost Lumley any voting points. I fear this may be another case of overly scrutinizing one goalie while giving the other guy a pass because he has more "accomplishments".

Although I do agree that Thomas and Lundqvist should both get some credit for very strong seasons in Europe during the 2004-05 lockout.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
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).
When was the player voting done? It should be noted that the 1953-54 AST voting was done using the split-season method, and both Lumley and Rollins had much better results in the first half of the season than in the second half, while Sawchuk was the opposite.

Also, the AST voting had Rollins in third place in 1952-53, a season where I think he should have clearly been voted #1, and at the very, very worst a narrow #2 behind Sawchuk, which makes me further question the value of awards voting of any kind in the early '50s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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?
I also don't see much difference at all between Lumley and Rollins other than in team stats and team success, which is a big part of why I was campaigning against Lumley to go where he did.

Rayner should go above Rollins because his peak was higher and maintained over several consecutive seasons, but it's probably fair to argue that he shouldn't be that much higher on the list either considering that both had strong peaks but a lack of longevity at the NHL level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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.
I agree with this. I think the reliance on voting results might be doing much more to help entrench existing opinions and conventional wisdom rather than shedding additional light on which goalies may have actually been the best.

Honestly, I think awards voting is a convenient crutch for ranking goalies, because there is very little else that can be fairly compared directly when evaluating, say, Dave Kerr against Tim Thomas. But it still should be just one part of the picture, even in the presence of limited data, and if there is good evidence that somebody was overrated or underrated by the awards voting then that evidence should be discounted accordingly. There seemed to be some sentiment with a goalie like Giacomin that, well, he has a lot of All-Star voting and whether he deserved it or not he needs to go on the list now because of it, which doesn't make much sense.

And the same with the reverse, where a goalie like Rollins played on a terrible bottom feeder and then gets criticized for not getting awards voting even while there was a clear AST voting bias against bad team goalies and other goalies in similar positions didn't do any better than he did (Harry Lumley, in particular), with the result that his seasons then get treated as zeroes in a historical context even though he might have been playing no worse than several other goalies in better team situations.

All that said, I still don't really know exactly where to put Rollins. I doubt he makes my top 4 this round.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote