HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Goaltenders final round)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-17-2013, 07:13 PM
  #76
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Now why don't you post the numbers that their backups post
Prior to 2009-10, the cumulative GAR for the Rangers' major backup goaltender each season was 15.1 in 79 games. For the Bruins: 12.8 in 99 games. This sample includes one of Thomas' Vezina seasons (he falls at 196.1 in 233 games in this sample to Lundqvist's 190.8 in 295 games).

Tuukka Rask is a very good goaltender though, so asking to treat him like any other backup and expecting Thomas to continue to keep coming out as far ahead of Rask as his backup as Lundqvist does above Steve Valiquette and Martin Biron would be quite cheap, wouldn't you agree?

So what good are Lundqvist's extra 90 GP in the regular season and 5 extra GP in the playoffs in the same time frame if he's not providing better goaltending in them per game or in the cumulative sense? And that's supposing we're treating the value of a playoff game to a regular season game at a 1:1 ratio - which really, we shouldn't.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 07:28 PM
  #77
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,234
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
in fact, i did interpret it that way before discussions. i still wish Rollins did better than 2nd Team AS in the minors, though.
I understand the WHL is a far cry for the NHL, but different league, different rules, it's hard to gauge how good Rollins was during those two years, just like it's hard to understand, even in the 21st century, why a lot of NHL'ers have difficulty dominating the European leagues during lockouts. He did bring a 6th place out of 8 teams, 18 points behind conference leader, to the league final, with him being the main reason for his team success. In 1958-59, his team finish T-5th out of 9 teams. In 1960, Rangers decided to give a chance to Al Rollins, where they could of turned to any goaltenders in various leagues. He must have done something right.

What I can say is this:
In 1958, he got beated to the FAST by Dennis Riggin, who's team finished 2nd in the conference, 3 points behind the leader and 15 over Rollins' team.
In 1959, he got beated to the FAST by the goaltender who's team finished first in the league

(You can see Rollins, even in the WHL, was playing with sub-par teams!)

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix; Calgary Stampede Land Rollins, Fills Big Gap (09/27/1957)
The Calgary Stampeders hockey camp too on a look of confidence and gaiety Thursday.
The Stamps landed the ''big one'' Thursday morning when Al Rollins picked up his equipment at the Cowboy dressing quarters. It was a move that had been anticipated for weeks but did not become reality till late Wednesday night when the veteran netminder arrived in the city.
Rollins will be counted on to fill a big gap in the Stampeders brigade for the western hockey league season. He is the man coach Frank Currie is counting on heavily to lead the club out of the doldrums.
Past records indicate Rollins may do just that. The six-foot, two-inch netminder who will celebrate his 31st birthday next Oct. 9, is a veteran of seven National Hockey League seasons. The last five have been spent with Chicago Black Hawks after starting out his major league career with the Toronto Maple Leafs.

The Calgary Herald; Run-Around For Rollins As Kyle gets Edward (09/10/1958)
ROLLINS had a tremendous season with the Cowboys last year and was named the most valuable player on the Stamps, was named to the second all-star team and was the first recipient of the Scott-Mamini trophy as Calgary's Athlete ofthe Year.


Saskatoon Star-Phoenix; Stampeders Counting On Impressive Youths (10/08/1958)
Rollins was a mainstay last year when the Stamps made the league finals

The Leader-Post; Al Rollins will join Warriors (01/14/1959)
In Calgary, William Dickle, Rollin's Lawyer, said the goalie will discontinue a law suit filed against the Black Hawks and the Stampeders.
Rollins filed a $25,000 in damages on the grounds the two clubs were preventing him from making a living as a hockey player. He said they refused to offer him a contract and prevented him from negociating with other clubs.


Edmonton Journal; Too Much Rollins, say Tony Leswick (03/30/1959)
Peppery Tony Leswick, Edmonton Flyer's coach, summed up his club's downfall in three words, ''Too Much Rollins''.
Managers, coaches and players of both teams gave full credit Saturday night to Winnipeg Warriors' nimble netminder Al Rollins for his team's three-game sweep of the Western Hockey League's best-of-five prairie division semi-final.
Only eight nights before, Warriors were in the division cellar, two points behind Saskatoon Quakers with two games to play. They beat Saskatoon twice to gain the playoffs and followed up with the sweep over Edmonton.
In those five games Rollins, who was purchased late in the season from Calgary Stampeders, played spectacularly, allowing only six goals. In the playoff series he blocked 103 shots compared with 87 stopped by Edmonton's Ed Johnston.
Flyer manager Bud Poile said: ''Every game it's been the same. We've outplayed them, but couldn't beat Rollins.''

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
And in case anyone checked out of the previous thread a little early -- the reason Rollins was sent down was that the Hawks had landed Glen Hall, and Rollins had some sort of friction with coach/GM Tommy Ivan.

(This is me speculating, but I wouldn't be surprised if the friction arose from Ivan constantly spending resources to acquire goalies like Hall and Lumley to compete with Rollins, considering the problems they had at other positions)

It's not like there was more than maybe one other guy in the world who could have kept that job, and it's not like Rollins really deserved his fate in the minors. And all that is AFTER being stuck behind Turk Broda till he was 25.
Yes, I forgot to mention that Rollins got taken aside by Glenn Hall. I think most would agree that is no knock against Rollins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Maybe Rollins is the only one it happened to. I mean, the evidence presented that Rollins was unfairly prevented from playing with another team isn't conclusive, but there's definitely a decent amount of smoke there.

And it's definitely true that your O6 team owned your rights for life until they traded them, right?
Well I don't know if it was inconclusive, but Rollins definitely believed it, as he sued the Hawks for damage to his career in 1959, for a sum of 25k.

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 07:57 PM
  #78
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
(You can see Rollins, even in the WHL, was playing with sub-par teams!)
.
the flipside is, at the WHL level, maybe he should have been more of a difference maker.

what happened to their GAA when he arrived and when he left?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 08:13 PM
  #79
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
NHL vs Minor Leagues

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
the flipside is, at the WHL level, maybe he should have been more of a difference maker.

what happened to their GAA when he arrived and when he left?
Glenn Hall's WHL record was weaker than his NHL record:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hallgl01.html

Likewise Jacques Plante in the QSHL and the AHL:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...plantja01.html

Likewise Gerry Cheevers:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...cheevge01.html

Playing with NHL quality defensemen and checking forwards makes a big difference.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 08:17 PM
  #80
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Glenn Hall's WHL record was weaker than his NHL record:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hallgl01.html

Likewise Jacques Plante in the QSHL and the AHL:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...plantja01.html

Likewise Gerry Cheevers:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...cheevge01.html

Playing with NHL quality defensemen and checking forwards makes a big difference.
Hall, Plante, and Cheevers' (mostly) resumes aren't at all dependent on whether they were difference makers in a lesser league though.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 08:56 PM
  #81
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
Comparables

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Hall, Plante, and Cheevers' (mostly) resumes aren't at all dependent on whether they were difference makers in a lesser league though.
Comparable issue is how much of a difference maker was Al Rollins in the WHL?

In 1953 Glenn Hall lead the 4th place Edmonton Flyers to the WHL Championship, then in 1955 the Edmonton Flyers dominated the WHL with Glenn Hall finishing first and winning the WHL championship. Given that Hall replaced Rollins in Chicago at the start of the 1957-58 it puts WHL the definition of a "difference maker" by past or future NHL goalies in focus.

Gerry Cheevers led Rochester and Oklahoma City to respective league championships in 1965 and 1967.

Cheevers and Rollins are being debated this round.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 01:00 AM
  #82
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Greece
Posts: 4,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
The case was made to me before, by MadArcand, that Hextall was better. In the end I didnít buy it and still donít, but it did convince me Hextall was a little better than I thought 2 years ago, and Vernon a lot worse. (Hextallís best 6 years: 72.5, 51.0, 39.0, 38.0, 32.1, 27.0. Three of his best 4 years came with the 1980s Flyers who made every goalie Ė Peeters, Lindbergh, Froese Ė look better than they were, so Iím very doubtful of him)

In the playoffs, Hextallís 39 GAR, in 93 games. Vernon is just 38 in 138 games, Richter 43.3 in just 76 games.

Take out best seasons, and Hextallís at 19.2 in 70 games, Vernon is 22.5 in 116, Richter is 25.2 in 76.

Makes it look like both were potentially better on a per-game level, but heís just got an insane sample size of games and that in itself deserves recognition.

OK, now scrutinize. I want to know if this stands up to it.
Hextall has career RS GARG of 326, Vernon of just 255, and in over 170 more games. Then there's the fact that Vernon was just losing his super-strong teams series left and right in the early 90s.

Of course, I doubt there's any way Vernon gets voted in anyway. But then, when a joke like Lundqvist has strong, stubborn support that remains constant in face of all evidence...

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 02:51 AM
  #83
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Hextall has career RS GARG of 326, Vernon of just 255, and in over 170 more games. Then there's the fact that Vernon was just losing his super-strong teams series left and right in the early 90s.
I don't really care because neither Hextall or Vernon has a prayer of making my top 8, but you can't compare their stats like this. Hextall spent his prime on a Flyer's team known for boosting their goalie stats, while Vernon spent much of his prime on the run-and-gun Flames.

(And neither could hold Lundqvist's jock )


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-18-2013 at 03:04 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 04:00 AM
  #84
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Greece
Posts: 4,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
(And neither could hold Lundqvist's jock )
Are you insinuating Lundqvist actually has balls?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 10:24 AM
  #85
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Comparable issue is how much of a difference maker was Al Rollins in the WHL?

In 1953 Glenn Hall lead the 4th place Edmonton Flyers to the WHL Championship, then in 1955 the Edmonton Flyers dominated the WHL with Glenn Hall finishing first and winning the WHL championship. Given that Hall replaced Rollins in Chicago at the start of the 1957-58 it puts WHL the definition of a "difference maker" by past or future NHL goalies in focus.

Gerry Cheevers led Rochester and Oklahoma City to respective league championships in 1965 and 1967.

Cheevers and Rollins are being debated this round.
Cheevers, Plante and Hall had such long and fruitful NHL careers that we don't need to go looking at what they did in the minors. At best, it's the seasoning on the meat of their careers. In Rollins' case, unfortunately, his NHL career is so short that his minor league career is part of the meat. It is an important part that has to be looked at in order to understand where he ranks - unlike the other three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't really care because neither Hextall or Vernon has a prayer of making my top 8, but you can't compare their stats like this. Hextall spent his prime on a Flyer's team known for boosting their goalie stats, while Vernon spent much of his prime on the run-and-gun Flames.

(And neither could hold Lundqvist's jock )
Yep, this is what I was going to say.

Like I said, it's closer than I ever thought prior to 2011, but I'm not sold on Hextall being on top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Are you insinuating Lundqvist actually has balls?

Well, he does alright with the ladies.

which reminds me, I miss your old avatars.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 11:09 AM
  #86
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
Tofu

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Cheevers, Plante and Hall had such long and fruitful NHL careers that we don't need to go looking at what they did in the minors. At best, it's the seasoning on the meat of their careers. In Rollins' case, unfortunately, his NHL career is so short that his minor league career is part of the meat. It is an important part that has to be looked at in order to understand where he ranks - unlike the other three.
Comparing portions that are all meat to meat with tofu. Rollin's meat needs minor league tofu to compare with Cheevers all meat resume.

Conversely I think that a solid case can be made that Rollins was a better goalie and his NHL career was more accomplished than Gerry Cheevers in the same way but not extent,that Bower's NHL career surpasses Cheevers'

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 11:36 AM
  #87
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
the flipside is, at the WHL level, maybe he should have been more of a difference maker.

what happened to their GAA when he arrived and when he left?
I'm not going to pretend to know the first thing about the Calgary Stampeders or Winnipeg Warriors, so this is a purely hockedb-based analysis.

Rollins was with the Stampeders for only the 1957-58 season.

Category1956-571957-581958-59
Goals-for220222263
Goals-against230223196
Record29-37-430-35-542-21-1
Standing6th6th1st
PlayoffsFirst Rd.FinalsFinals

The year Rollins was brought in, the Stamps defense lost player/coach Lee Fogolin, who had been playing his only minor-league season. Rollins replaced Hank Bassen in goal.

The following season, Rollins left and was replaced by a young Roy Edwards. The defense was almost entirely replaced (one dman survived the purge) and a couple of high-scoring career WHL'ers were brought in to boost the offense.


Rollins played in Winnipeg for two years, the 1959 and 1960 seasons. By 1960 he was 33 which was a normal retirement age for a goalie of that time. He never played a full schedule in Winnipeg (see below)

Category1957-581958-591959-601960-61
Goals-for262256224191
Goals-against211229262259
Record39-26-531-31-225-42-321-45-4
Standing2nd5th6th8th
PlayoffsFirst Rd.Second RdOutOut

To be clear about the lack of 1960 playoffs, the WHL changed to a 4-team bracket that season. The Warriors folded after 1961. I would guess that the steady decline in GF is an indicator that they weren't acquiring talented players, which implies a lack of money was the cause for the team's struggles.

Prior to Rollins' arrival, the starter was Ray Mikulan, a career minor-league. The cornerstone of the defense was Kent Douglas, and the offense was led by a geriatric Bill Mosienko (!) and Earl Ingarfield.

Rollins played only 31 of 64 games in his first year, besting Mikluan's GAA, 3.19 to 3.85 and posting a record of 17-14-0. Mikulan was 14-17-2. Rollins got all 7 playoff starts. Ingarfield had graduated to the NHL, Douglas retired, and the defensive corps was blown up and replaced.

The second season, Rollins played 55 games to Mikulan's 11. Rollins went to New York for his brief comeback at the end of the season, so I presume Mikluan's games came at the end of the schedule? Individual goalie data is not available, unfortunately. Mosienko had finally been put out to pasture by this time, and the four-man defensive group included a 19-year-old Ted Green, 20-year-old Gary Bergman and 21-year-old Don Johns.

After Rollins left Winnipeg, he was ironically replaced by an aging Harry Lumley and a very young Ernie Wakely. Goaltending data is not available, but their overall GAA wasn't really impacted by the change. Their goals-for plummeted, so one could infer that the goalies may have been harder-pressed to keep the GAA down. Ted Green was still there, and a post-NHL Nick Mickoski led the offense, but the rest of the roster was pretty horrible.


Analysis and hasty conclusions

Rollins was not a "difference maker" in the sense of producing a clear and unmistakable change in fortune for these teams. We know his play in Calgary was praised in the media, which leads me to believe that the loss of Fogolin and the reconstruction of their defense left Rollins to the mercy of opposing offenses; and apparently he had a good enough playoffs to get his team into the Finals. Calgary was a team composed of veteran minor-leaguers, so one would imagine that they were built primarily to win at the WHL level rather than for promotion and development.

All indications suggest that Winnipeg was just a poor place to get stuck playing. Their rosters were strangely composed, with a mixture of past-prime NHLers and guys who were barely old enough to buy a drink. Rollins' GAA numbers are far enough ahead of former-starter Mikulan's to suggest that Rollins belonged at a higher level. The fact that the Rangers eventually gave him a tryout seems to confirm that theory, but I'm not sure it would be possible to really get a sense of his performance without digging through newspapers.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 11:39 AM
  #88
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Comparing portions that are all meat to meat with tofu. Rollin's meat needs minor league tofu to compare with Cheevers all meat resume.

Conversely I think that a solid case can be made that Rollins was a better goalie and his NHL career was more accomplished than Gerry Cheevers in the same way but not extent,that Bower's NHL career surpasses Cheevers'
Well, in his short time in the NHL, he did manage to earn individual recognition the likes of which Cheevers never approached. I like your analogy. Firm tofu, or silken?

Yet, Cheevers is in the hall and Rollins isn't.

Sometimes you talk like the HHOF committee is infallible. Would you say this is a pretty egregious example of poor selection criteria? Or does Cheevers' longevity and reputation as a "winner" and/or "money goalie" truly give him the edge over Rollins and over the HHOF hump?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 11:42 AM
  #89
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I'm not going to pretend to know the first thing about the Calgary Stampeders or Winnipeg Warriors, so this is a purely hockedb-based analysis.

Rollins was with the Stampeders for only the 1957-58 season.

Category1956-571957-581958-59
Goals-for220222263
Goals-against230223196
Record29-37-430-35-542-21-1
Standing6th6th1st
PlayoffsFirst Rd.FinalsFinals

The year Rollins was brought in, the Stamps defense lost player/coach Lee Fogolin, who had been playing his only minor-league season. Rollins replaced Hank Bassen in goal.

The following season, Rollins left and was replaced by a young Roy Edwards. The defense was almost entirely replaced (one dman survived the purge) and a couple of high-scoring career WHL'ers were brought in to boost the offense.


Rollins played in Winnipeg for two years, the 1959 and 1960 seasons. By 1960 he was 33 which was a normal retirement age for a goalie of that time. He never played a full schedule in Winnipeg (see below)

Category1957-581958-591959-601960-61
Goals-for262256224191
Goals-against211229262259
Record39-26-531-31-225-42-321-45-4
Standing2nd5th6th8th
PlayoffsFirst Rd.Second RdOutOut

To be clear about the lack of 1960 playoffs, the WHL changed to a 4-team bracket that season. The Warriors folded after 1961. I would guess that the steady decline in GF is an indicator that they weren't acquiring talented players, which implies a lack of money was the cause for the team's struggles.

Prior to Rollins' arrival, the starter was Ray Mikulan, a career minor-league. The cornerstone of the defense was Kent Douglas, and the offense was led by a geriatric Bill Mosienko (!) and Earl Ingarfield.

Rollins played only 31 of 64 games in his first year, besting Mikluan's GAA, 3.19 to 3.85 and posting a record of 17-14-0. Mikulan was 14-17-2. Rollins got all 7 playoff starts. Ingarfield had graduated to the NHL, Douglas retired, and the defensive corps was blown up and replaced.

The second season, Rollins played 55 games to Mikulan's 11. Rollins went to New York for his brief comeback at the end of the season, so I presume Mikluan's games came at the end of the schedule? Individual goalie data is not available, unfortunately. Mosienko had finally been put out to pasture by this time, and the four-man defensive group included a 19-year-old Ted Green, 20-year-old Gary Bergman and 21-year-old Don Johns.

After Rollins left Winnipeg, he was ironically replaced by an aging Harry Lumley and a very young Ernie Wakely. Goaltending data is not available, but their overall GAA wasn't really impacted by the change. Their goals-for plummeted, so one could infer that the goalies may have been harder-pressed to keep the GAA down. Ted Green was still there, and a post-NHL Nick Mickoski led the offense, but the rest of the roster was pretty horrible.


Analysis and hasty conclusions

Rollins was not a "difference maker" in the sense of producing a clear and unmistakable change in fortune for these teams. We know his play in Calgary was praised in the media, which leads me to believe that the loss of Fogolin and the reconstruction of their defense left Rollins to the mercy of opposing offenses; and apparently he had a good enough playoffs to get his team into the Finals. Calgary was a team composed of veteran minor-leaguers, so one would imagine that they were built primarily to win at the WHL level rather than for promotion and development.

All indications suggest that Winnipeg was just a poor place to get stuck playing. Their rosters were strangely composed, with a mixture of past-prime NHLers and guys who were barely old enough to buy a drink. Rollins' GAA numbers are far enough ahead of former-starter Mikulan's to suggest that Rollins belonged at a higher level. The fact that the Rangers eventually gave him a tryout seems to confirm that theory, but I'm not sure it would be possible to really get a sense of his performance without digging through newspapers.
Looking at those stats, I have to agree. He doesn't "appear" to have been a major positive or negative influence on the team's GAA or record, but there were also other confounding factors that make it harder to isolate his actual impact.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 12:02 PM
  #90
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
Rollins vs Cheevers

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Well, in his short time in the NHL, he did manage to earn individual recognition the likes of which Cheevers never approached. I like your analogy. Firm tofu, or silken?

Yet, Cheevers is in the hall and Rollins isn't.

Sometimes you talk like the HHOF committee is infallible.
Would you say this is a pretty egregious example of poor selection criteria? Or does Cheevers' longevity and reputation as a "winner" and/or "money goalie" truly give him the edge over Rollins and over the HHOF hump?
Actually Gerry Cheevers(418) played fewer NHL regular season NHL games than Al Rollins(430).

The playoff games each played is a team function.

The HHOF issue does not matter. HHOF worthiness is not an indication that one was better than the other. Cheevers has a more complete resume - NHL, WHA, some international - 1974 mainly, 2SCs as the lead goalie vs 1 for Rollins as a minorty starter in a tandem. Cheevers definitely benefits from better eye candy like Worsley.

Al Rollins was a better goalie - the individual awards and honours are well known. Workhorse, whereas Cheevers had to be managed at the NHL level. Rollins was regularly in the top 4 of NHL goalies whereas Cheevers never was.. Personally never saw Cheevers as top six and rarely top ten.

Tofu is tofu like pennies, shiny or brown.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 12:17 PM
  #91
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Actually Gerry Cheevers(418) played fewer NHL regular season NHL games than Al Rollins(430).
Well, that's true, but while starring in the WHA it was generally accepted he was capable of being a very good NHL goaltender.

Quote:
The playoff games each played is a team function.

The HHOF issue does not matter. HHOF worthiness is not an indication that one was better than the other. Cheevers has a more complete resume - NHL, WHA, some international - 1974 mainly, 2SCs as the lead goalie vs 1 for Rollins as a minorty starter in a tandem. Cheevers definitely benefits from better eye candy like Worsley.

Al Rollins was a better goalie - the individual awards and honours are well known. Workhorse, whereas Cheevers had to be managed at the NHL level. Rollins was regularly in the top 4 of NHL goalies whereas Cheevers never was.. Personally never saw Cheevers as top six and rarely top ten.
This just makes it even more confusing, to be honest. I don't think I'd have ever thought Cheevers was a top-6 goalie either, if I was watching in the 70s. Draw a comparison.... was he the OSGOOD of the 70s??

At the same time, it's hard to disregard that some high up people in the hockey world saw his whole career and called him a HHOFer.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 12:58 PM
  #92
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,234
vCash: 873
tarheelhockey, it's the best review I've seen of Rollins career in the WHL. I agree with most of your conclusion. I do believe that he has a difference maker in 1957-58, especially in the playoffs. The statistics and the newspaper reports would let me to believe so. However, it is true that it is very hard to get a good grasp of the league.

And not only did the Rangers gave him a tryout, but he nailed it. I understand it was only a 10 games stint, but how often you see a goaltender, supposedly not good enough for the NHL, coming back after two years and posting the best save% of the league, on a team that was 16 points behind a playoff spot with 10 games left?

It's very hard to give a clear conclusion on this issue, but Rollins has a lot of things going on for him.

---

And 70's, you know just as much as anyone how sometimes the HHOF make some head scratching decision. The year after Cheevers induction, they put Leo Boivin in, and then two years later Buddy O'Connor.

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 02:05 PM
  #93
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
tarheelhockey, it's the best review I've seen of Rollins career in the WHL. I agree with most of your conclusion. I do believe that he has a difference maker in 1957-58, especially in the playoffs.
...I'm not seeing it. they allowed 7 fewer goals and won one more game. And they were much, much better after he left.

Quote:
And 70's, you know just as much as anyone how sometimes the HHOF make some head scratching decision. The year after Cheevers induction, they put Leo Boivin in, and then two years later Buddy O'Connor.
those are veterans committee inductions, which were by definition pretty questionable. Cheevers was not that type of induction.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 03:23 PM
  #94
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
...I'm not seeing it. they allowed 7 fewer goals and won one more game. And they were much, much better after he left.
Probably the best we could say is that the average WHL team allowed 240 goals that year, and the Calgary defense was average at best, so he likely kept their goal differential at more-or-less even instead of being far into the negative. This notion is supported somewhat by a look at the standings and GF/GA columns:

TeamPointsGFGADiff
Vancouver Canucks93238174+64
New Westminster Royals81254224+30
Seattle Americans70244231+12
Victoria Cougars38226313-87

TeamPointsGFGADiff
Winnipeg Warriors83262211+51
Edmonton Flyers80264225+39
Calgary Stampeders65222223-1
Saskatoon/St. Paul50214323-109

The order of things seems mostly logical here -- the more goals each team allowed, the worse they fared overall. And the correlation is pretty typical for minor league hockey, with the bottom teams being comically bad.

The one oddball number is Calgary's 223 goals against. That's only 2 goals (over 70 games) worse than Edmonton, which finished 15 points ahead, and only 1 goal worse than New Westminster, which finished 16 points up. Calgary actually had a worse offense than the horrendous Victoria Cougars*, but allowed 90 fewer goals and therefore finished far ahead in the standings.

To make the case even stronger, none of Calgary's defensemen played more than 62 games. Either they were getting called up regularly or the team faced injury problems; either way, they ended up playing 7 regular defensemen in the two-pairing era. Of the 7, only Fred Hucul (cameos with the early-50s Hawks and the expansion-season Blues) and Doug Barkley (a regular Wing in the 1960s) had substantial NHL careers. Winnipeg was fielding Kent Douglas, Edmonton had Bud McPherson and Edmonton had an admittedly ancient Pat Egan, so it's not like Calgary had any kind of phenomenal defensive group.

The smoke suggests Rollins made a substantial difference between a trainwreck season and a Finals run. It's tough to see that on the season-by-season totals, in part because of other confounding factors that you mentioned earlier, but it really seems like Calgary would have been fighting for last place if they didn't basically have an NHL goalie.

* By the way, Emile Francis was the goalie in Victoria!

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 03:30 PM
  #95
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
The Meat

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Well, that's true, but while starring in the WHA it was generally accepted he was capable of being a very good NHL goaltender.



This just makes it even more confusing, to be honest. I don't think I'd have ever thought Cheevers was a top-6 goalie either, if I was watching in the 70s. Draw a comparison.... was he the OSGOOD of the 70s??

At the same time, it's hard to disregard that some high up people in the hockey world saw his whole career and called him a HHOFer.
Let's approach this by eliminating the tofu.

Al Rollins during his NHL career showed in the O6 era he could be part of a successful tandem as well as an elite #1 goalie capable of playing a full season.Played a full 70 game season three times.

Gerry Cheevers in the NHL/WHA played a career high of 59 WHA games, once, never topping 52 games otherwise, usually in the 40-49 game range. So without touching the talent question it is fairly obvious that at best he was the lead goalie in a tandem.

Chris Osgood. Without touching the talent question, fact remains that Osgood played 60 plus games during four NHL seasons. He won 401 NHL games or almost as many as Cheevers played. Osgood also a few SCs to his credit - 3 which puts him in between Cheevers and Worsley.

Two comments.

Rollins gets shorted because he could not hang-on as a tandem goalie for 11 seasons like Worsley did. Effectively this is how Worsley gets credit for 4 SCs even though in those eleven seasons he barely averaged over 25 games per season.

Cheevers gets the benefit of a "money goalie" perception without any Conn Smythe support and a blind eye to the fact he was dominated by the Canadiens when it mattered. Will grant that Cheevers was the best technical goalie of the goalies discussed in this post.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 05:00 PM
  #96
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Let's approach this by eliminating the tofu.

Al Rollins during his NHL career showed in the O6 era he could be part of a successful tandem as well as an elite #1 goalie capable of playing a full season.Played a full 70 game season three times.

Gerry Cheevers in the NHL/WHA played a career high of 59 WHA games, once, never topping 52 games otherwise, usually in the 40-49 game range. So without touching the talent question it is fairly obvious that at best he was the lead goalie in a tandem.

Chris Osgood. Without touching the talent question, fact remains that Osgood played 60 plus games during four NHL seasons. He won 401 NHL games or almost as many as Cheevers played. Osgood also a few SCs to his credit - 3 which puts him in between Cheevers and Worsley.

Two comments.

Rollins gets shorted because he could not hang-on as a tandem goalie for 11 seasons like Worsley did. Effectively this is how Worsley gets credit for 4 SCs even though in those eleven seasons he barely averaged over 25 games per season.

Cheevers gets the benefit of a "money goalie" perception without any Conn Smythe support and a blind eye to the fact he was dominated by the Canadiens when it mattered. Will grant that Cheevers was the best technical goalie of the goalies discussed in this post.
Interesting take.

One comment, though. the expansion era featured almost predominantly tandems, while Osgood's era has featured very set "starter and backup" roles. Since 1994, there have been 225 instances of a goalie playing 60+ games, or 13 per season. That he did it four times in this period is not particularly impressive. On the other hand, from 1967 through 1980, there were 101 instances of a goalie even playing 50 games, or approximately 202 if "normalized" to a 30-team league.

Stated differently, post-expansion, Cheevers had seasons at 6th, 7th, and 10th in NHL minutes (not counting his 7th in 1967, for obvious reasons), as well as 1st, 3rd, and 4th in the WHA, however you wish to translate that. Osgood was 6th, 8th, and 9th in his biggest minute seasons. All things considered, it's difficult to see how either would have a substantial advantage in terms of being a "workhorse" goalie within the context of their era.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall you saying much about Tony Esposito's incredible string of very high minute seasons.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 05:09 PM
  #97
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
...whereas Cheevers had to be managed at the NHL level.
Notoriously. He didnt like to practice for one thing, for another, his "roaming" often had negative consequences. Technically he was a "flopper", as his former Coach Rudy Migay in Rochester had him practising endlessly without a stick, and as Stand-Up hadnt really hit the crease at that point, Cheesy stuck with it through thick & thin until retiring. His best asset really was that he was aggressive, clearing the bodies from the top of his crease or God forbid you strayed into it with his stick....

interesting sidebar, the "stitches" on his mask were first applied in a practice when he got hit by a powder puff, pulled the Drama Queen act, went into the dressing room, cracked open a cold one & lit a cigarette up where Sinden found him a few minutes later. Ordered back on the ice, he had the trainer add the stitches, showed them to Harry as proof positive that he couldve been seriously wounded & needed to "rest", but no go. Thereafter, it became a tradition, his little joke. He also played Left Wing for about a half a dozen games while signed as a Goalie with St.Mikes in Toronto as a Junior. Talented, though unorthodox, and truly one of the great characters of the game, but sure enough, could be "high maintenance" from a Coaching perspective as he was quite the little Leprechaun.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 05:29 PM
  #98
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
When vs Why

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Interesting take.

One comment, though. the expansion era featured almost predominantly tandems, while Osgood's era has featured very set "starter and backup" roles. Since 1994, there have been 225 instances of a goalie playing 60+ games, or 13 per season. That he did it four times in this period is not particularly impressive. On the other hand, from 1967 through 1980, there were 101 instances of a goalie even playing 50 games, or approximately 202 if "normalized" to a 30-team league.

Stated differently, post-expansion, Cheevers had seasons at 6th, 7th, and 10th in NHL minutes (not counting his 7th in 1967, for obvious reasons), as well as 1st, 3rd, and 4th in the WHA, however you wish to translate that. Osgood was 6th, 8th, and 9th in his biggest minute seasons. All things considered, it's difficult to see how either would have a substantial advantage in terms of being a "workhorse" goalie within the context of their era.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall you saying much about Tony Esposito's incredible string of very high minute seasons.
No one is disputing the "when" part, rather the focus is on the "why".

As Killion points out Cheevers did not have the technical foundation nor did he have the mindset to play a workhorse role.

Osgood while technically weaker, worked at his craft and had the mindset of a workhorse(lite).

As for Tony Esposito his ability to eat a lot of minutes was his only asset. But at the end of the season there was no team reward. With Cheevers or Osgood there were some rewards.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 06:08 PM
  #99
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As for Tony Esposito his ability to eat a lot of minutes was his only asset.
Well thats kinda harsh. I mean, the guy won the Calder (albeit at 26), the Vezina 3X's, multiple 1st or 2nd Team All Star, an iconic goaltender in terms of the development of the Butterfly, beyond excellent work ethic.... Do you remember seeing him play in Montreal?

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2013, 08:08 PM
  #100
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
Dec. 21 & 22, 1968

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well thats kinda harsh. I mean, the guy won the Calder (albeit at 26), the Vezina 3X's, multiple 1st or 2nd Team All Star, an iconic goaltender in terms of the development of the Butterfly, beyond excellent work ethic.... Do you remember seeing him play in Montreal?
Saw him play in Montreal including a weekend series against Boston:

Saturday Night 0 - 0 Tie at the Forum:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19680178

Sunday night 7 - 5 loss to the Bruins at Boston Garden

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19680183

Very telling since the opposing goalie in both games was Gerry Cheevers.

The scoreless tie was the best scoreless game I ever saw. The goaltending was incredible. The next night in the 7 - 5 Bruins win the goaltending was at best minor league.

This pretty well sums up the two goalies and the good twin / bad twin aspect of their career. Saw it regularly for Cheevers and Esposito especially in the playoffs.

The attributes of both have been mentioned but the prime objective is still winning the SC when the opportunity presents itself. Cheevers at least managed to win two SCs.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.