I don't care who you prefer but for the sake of accuracy, Backstrom played 70 games one time and 60 games one time, so if by multiple times and a bunch of teams you mean 2 you would be correct.
I prefer Rask because I have watched them both play and I like Rask better, it doesn't really matter that Rask played 45 games once, 29 and 25 the other years as a backup. There also isn't a goalie alive who would have played much more on the Bruins than Rask did when you consider they had a goaltender winning 2 Vezina trophies in Rask's 3 years.
58 games is awfully close to 60.....
Regardless I just think Rask has to show he can carry load as a legit starter before giving the nod over a guy who I consider to be one of the most consistent tenders in the league.
If that is true, then I am guessing Brian Elliot doesn't have the experience to be chosen over him and Jaroslav Halák doesn't have much more experience than Elliot.
What's wrong with that implication? I certainly wouldn't consider taking Brian Elliott over Backstrom (as OP said, for one season in a vacuum), and with Halak it's close, as well.
Anyway, I think it's a close call. To me, the only people that are way off are the ones saying it's either by a big margin. Rask certainly has the potential to become better than Backstrom is now, but it's not easy to tell if that's going to happen within a year. Backstrom has certainly solidified himself at a higher level, so far. The comparisions between the numbers Rask put up in his season for the Bruins and Backstroms' numbers on a Wild team in entirely different spheres are rather meaningless towards evaluating the two on their own.
He's the last person I'd blame for that collapse. You can't expect much from a rookie in his first playoffs, and he played very well... He gave up a couple of bad goals, but he really only cost us a game.