View Single Post
Old
01-16-2013, 02:33 PM
  #389
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
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".
I think it helped cost Lumley some points - prior to discussion, I would have had Lumley go about where we had him, but after discussion, I think he went at least a round too early. But I'm just one vote and sometimes I wonder if a lot of voters are just voting off their initial lists.

Quote:
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.
God, the split season voting was a really stupid idea and really distorts things.

The player voting was released on March 27, 1954, during the first round of the playoffs. Makes it seem to me like it was probably done at the end of the season, or at least spread across the last month or so like the Lindsay Trophy.

Quote:
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.
I agree with you that awards voting should always be scrutinized and that the early 50s is the most questionable time in history for awards voting. I think it's pretty clear what the writers did. They gave the 1st Team to the GAA leader and 2nd Team to 2nd place in GAA . And the goalie who dragged a poor team to the playoffs was rewarded by finished 2nd in Hart voting - and possibly with the Hart Trophy itself the FOLLOWING season. I still think there's a good chance the writers felt they screwed Rollins in 1952-53 and wanted to reward him in 1953-54. Remember, there was serious cash given out for being an All-Star or winning a trophy, but not finishing 2nd for a trophy.

Quote:
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.
Longevity is a big difference between them. Though like I said earlier, I agree that Lumley went too early, but I'm not as low on him as you are.

Quote:
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.
Even if you want to throw awards voting in the trash (and I don't think you should), Rayner got a lot more praise in the press from his peers than Rollins - Worsley, Bower, and Hall in particular. Also, Rayner was a 2nd Teamer 3 times in a row for his weak team, including twice when the team missed the playoffs. To me, that showed the writers thought he was a real difference-maker if they were willing to buck trends. (Though Rollins was definitely a difference-maker in 52-53 at least).

Quote:
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.
Well yeah, I agree with you about Giacomin, but too late now.

Quote:
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.
Is your position that the Hart voting is right and All Star voting is wrong? I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I think based on EB's profile, Rollins had 3 elite seasons - 1951, 1953, and 1954, which is why I compared him to Thomas. Though my little conversation with tarheel makes me think Rollins had more "merely good" seasons than Thomas now that I look at it more closely.

Quote:
All that said, I still don't really know exactly where to put Rollins. I doubt he makes my top 4 this round.
Not saying you would do this, but just because there was a rush to get all the Original 6 goalies in the same round before, which probably means one or two of them went to early, doesn't mean Rollins should go too high.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-16-2013 at 02:44 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote