Round 2, Vote 9 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[tarheelhockey]

The most significant way that it doesn't is that he was considered the league's best goalie by the league's GMs over an extended period.

Well no, Rollins' career wasn't as good as Worters, just like anyone else in this round.

To phrase my question more clearly: why are we penalizing Rollins for being the only good player on a terrible team when we didn't penalize Worters for it? We spoke highly of Worters' ability to "keep his team in the game" (as compared to a Hainsworth or Durnan) and that is probably the defining aspect of Rollins' career. It's not unreasonable to think Rollins would have been very highly successful if he had the same kinds of seasons on a better team and the same career in a better organization -- probably resembling a Lumley type of career, right? And was that not exactly where Worters made up ground on Hainsworth?

Cechmanek and McNeil were on 0 lists and Theodore was only on 2. Osgood was on quite a few lists, though.

Thank god, thank god, and ****. Respectively.

On the other hand, it's crystal clear that Rollins wouldn't have come anywhere near the Hart if modern standards were in place - his team was last in the league by a wide margin, and his GAA was worst in the league by a wide margin, after having respectable numbers in both the season before when he was 2nd in Hart voting.

You've spent the entire project discounting 1AS votes from that era because they correlate with GAA -- and now you think Hart votes should be discounted if they DON'T correlate with GAA?? That's the kind of inconsistency that worries me here. Basically you've now said that Rollins didn't deserve his Hart AND Lumley didn't deserve his 1AS that season for opposite reasons.

Isn't it conceivable that the writers simply didn't think that Rollins' GAA and wins reflected his actual performance? Shouldn't we begin with the assumption that 80+40 writers knew what they were talking about, rather than beginning with the idea that they were all a bunch of sentimental saps and looking for evidence to support that interpretation?

We also have additional evidence in the form of newspaper reports at the time that criticized the increasing sentimentality of the Hart and that were shocked because "everyone thought Kelly was going to win." Even one of the advocates for Rollins said other players were "more valuable in the strict sense" but Rollins should win the "Hart" because of his "heart."

We can find articles like that for any award from any season. 80 of 142 voters thought Rollins deserved either 1st place in the Hart race that year, so the least we could say is that the critics were a minority.

Even so, you're still left with 3 great seasons for Rollins (1951, 1953, 1954) and not much filler, right?

Definitely -- but that could be said of Thomas as well. But Rollins has more filler, in a sense, because he was actually in the NHL racking up seasons and GP longer than Thomas and by all indications he deserved to continue to be in the league when he was given the axe.

It's possible Rollins' career was tanked by a manager, but I'm not entirely convinced.

Granted, he was competing with Lumley and a hot young Glen Hall for the spot in Chicago. It's entirely plausible that he would have had to go to another organization, such as Boston in particular, in order to find work. But there was no question whatsoever that he was NHL-worthy. I mean c'mon, he was better than Don Simmons or Marcel Paille.

Rollins ended up suing the Blackhawks for preventing him from pursuing his livelihood, if that's any indication of how much of a "hockey decision" there was in freezing him out of a contract and refusing to trade his rights.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You've spent the entire project discounting 1AS votes from that era because they correlate with GAA -- and now you think Hart votes should be discounted if they DON'T correlate with GAA?? That's the kind of inconsistency that worries me here. Basically you've now said that Rollins didn't deserve his Hart AND Lumley didn't deserve his 1AS that season for opposite reasons.

I think it's perfectly valid to question who was the best goalie in 1953-54. Also, when did I say Lumley didn't deserve his 1AS? I said at one point that I found it questionable that Lumley never came close to being a 1AS except in the 2 seasons that he led the league in GAA and wondered whether he was actually better than Sawchuk, given the fact that Sawchuk was in the middle of his 5 year peak at the time. Before anyone voted on Lumley, I noticed that he also got a lot of Hart votes in those two years. Now I see that Lumley placed highly (higher than Rollins, in fact) in a player's poll as to the best player

This is an indisputable fact: From 1935-1956, the 1st Team All Star was the goalie with the best GAA, with the exception of 1951 when the GAA leader (who happened to be Rollins) only played 40 of 70 games. I don't think anyone thinks the GAA leader is always the best goalie in the modern league; why would it be true back then? The 2AS wasn't nearly so attached to GAA.

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.

Isn't it conceivable that the writers simply didn't think that Rollins' GAA and wins reflected his actual performance? Shouldn't we begin with the assumption that 80+40 writers knew what they were talking about, rather than beginning with the idea that they were all a bunch of sentimental saps and looking for evidence to support that interpretation?

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).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Perhaps the real double standard is giving Sawchuk credit for an "untouchable 5 year peak," while simultaneously given Lumley and Rollins credit for perhaps being better than Sawchuk in 1953-54. Basically giving 3 goalies consideration as "best goalie in 1953-54." Hey, Henrik Lundqvist was voted a top 3 goalie 4 times by NHL GMs...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Indisputable Facts

I think it's perfectly valid to question who was the best goalie in 1953-54. Also, when did I say Lumley didn't deserve his 1AS? I said at one point that I found it questionable that Lumley never came close to being a 1AS except in the 2 seasons that he led the league in GAA and wondered whether he was actually better than Sawchuk, given the fact that Sawchuk was in the middle of his 5 year peak at the time. Before anyone voted on Lumley, I noticed that he also got a lot of Hart votes in those two years. Now I see that Lumley placed highly (higher than Rollins, in fact) in a player's poll as to the best player

This is an indisputable fact: From 1935-1956, the 1st Team All Star was the goalie with the best GAA, with the exception of 1953 when the GAA leader (who happened to be Rollins) only played 40 of 70 games. I don't think anyone thinks the GAA leader is always the best goalie in the modern league; why would it be true back then? The 2AS wasn't nearly so attached to GAA.

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.



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).

Indisputable facts are that Rollins only played in 40 games in 1951 not 1953.

As for the relationship between the GAA leader and the 1st AST between 1935 and 1956 the following facts cannot be disputed.

Total of 22 seasons are under review. During 13 of the 22 season the difference in actual goals between the GAA average leader and the second place finisher, team or combo, ranged between 14 and 65. Yet a compelling case has never been presented let alone made that a 2nd to last place finisher was actually a better goalie than the GA leader. Given the minimum gap of at least 14 goals it would be rather hard to do.

The remaining years where the gap was < 10 goals the AST voters got it right, 1951 neither Rollins nor Broda received AST honours due to a lack of games, 1954,55 Lumley's performance on a weaker team was recognized, and the other years saw the proper recognition of talent and performance, be it Lorne Chabot having an outstanding season or Wilf Cude being recognized as a good but not elite goalie.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think it's perfectly valid to question who was the best goalie in 1953-54. Also, when did I say Lumley didn't deserve his 1AS? I said at one point that I found it questionable that Lumley never came close to being a 1AS except in the 2 seasons that he led the league in GAA and wondered whether he was actually better than Sawchuk, given the fact that Sawchuk was in the middle of his 5 year peak at the time. Before anyone voted on Lumley, I noticed that he also got a lot of Hart votes in those two years. Now I see that Lumley placed highly (higher than Rollins, in fact) in a player's poll as to the best player

This is an indisputable fact: From 1935-1956, the 1st Team All Star was the goalie with the best GAA, with the exception of 1953 when the GAA leader (who happened to be Rollins) only played 40 of 70 games. I don't think anyone thinks the GAA leader is always the best goalie in the modern league; why would it be true back then? The 2AS wasn't nearly so attached to GAA.

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.

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).

GMs vote for winning goaltenders, obviously.

But we already have 4 goalies with career losing records (Gardiner, Worters, Rayner and Worsley) and another (Lumley) one game over .500 on our list. How modern GMs vote for goalies isn't really relevent to the Rollins situation.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Indisputable facts are that Rollins only played in 40 games in 1951 not 1953.

Yes, typed the wrong year. I'll edit it now.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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?

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.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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?




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.

Or are being used selectively to enhance arguments for our "favorites".

 

[tarheelhockey]

Or are being used selectively to enhance arguments for our "favorites".

I don't want to insinuate that people are doing that on purpose, but that is pretty much the effect it has when we pick and choose which years we're going to take vote totals at face value.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

- 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.

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?

Well it took Rollins, plus Gus Mortson (a recent All Star) plus Cal Gardner (a solid depth player) plus Ray Hannigan (career AHLer) for Chicago to acquire Lumley, for what that's worth. Obviously Lumley was more proven by that point though.

Also, even if Rollins was close to Lumley when both were in their primes (which is probably a reasonable assumption), Rollins' career was much shorter.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Or are being used selectively to enhance arguments for our "favorites".

I can assure you that I was not alive during the Original 6 period, so I don't have any "favorites." I just see clear separation between Lumley/Rayner/Worsley and Rollins.

I don't want to insinuate that people are doing that on purpose, but that is pretty much the effect it has when we pick and choose which years we're going to take vote totals at face value.

I'm with BraveCanadian on this one - I don't think any one source should ever be considered infallible, no matter what the year.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I can assure you that I was not alive during the Original 6 period, so I don't have any "favorites." I just see clear separation between Lumley/Rayner/Worsley and Rollins.



I'm with BraveCanadian on this one - I don't think any one source should ever be considered infallible, no matter what the year.

By favorites I mean players that people rated highly (and I didn't mean you specifically). Several voters seemed to take pride in the fact that the final list was looking like their original list, as if that makes them experts. It shows in many arguments.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Also, even if Rollins was close to Lumley when both were in their primes (which is probably a reasonable assumption), Rollins' career was much shorter.

Even that point deserves some qualification. Lumley was out of the NHL at 32 and done with professional hockey at 34. Rollins made a brief NHL comeback (having finally squirmed out of the Blackhawks organization) at age 33 and was still kicking in the WHL at age 35. He won the Allan Cup at age 39 -- not an NHL-relevant accomplishment, but it was 5 years after the identical-aged Lumley hung up his skates altogether. If anything, Rollins was likely a capable goaltender, both at the NHL level and below, till a later date than Lumley.

The difference in their NHL longevity is due entirely to how they entered the league -- Lumley was signed into a Red Wings organization that needed a warm body to replace WWII-era placeholder Connie Dion. His competition in Detroit came from guys like Red Almas and Tom McGratton. Meanwhile, Rollins went to the Toronto organization where he was groomed in the minors while Turk Broda rounded out his career. The difference between getting a free pass to start for an NHL team, and having to wait behind a Hall of Famer, was about 5 years' worth of longevity.

Again, swap their circumstances and it's very hard to imagine Lumley having a longevity advantage on Rollins.

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.

And I'm coming around to that same point of view. If there's a difference between these guys that isn't team-related, I'm not seeing it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Even that point deserves some qualification. Lumley was out of the NHL at 32 and done with professional hockey at 34. Rollins made a brief NHL comeback (having finally squirmed out of the Blackhawks organization) at age 33 and was still kicking in the WHL at age 35. He won the Allan Cup at age 39 -- not an NHL-relevant accomplishment, but it was 5 years after the identical-aged Lumley hung up his skates altogether. If anything, Rollins was likely a capable goaltender, both at the NHL level and below, till a later date than Lumley.

The difference in their NHL longevity is due entirely to how they entered the league -- Lumley was signed into a Red Wings organization that needed a warm body to replace WWII-era placeholder Connie Dion. His competition in Detroit came from guys like Red Almas and Tom McGratton. Meanwhile, Rollins went to the Toronto organization where he was groomed in the minors while Turk Broda rounded out his career. The difference between getting a free pass to start for an NHL team, and having to wait behind a Hall of Famer, was about 5 years' worth of longevity.

Again, swap their circumstances and it's very hard to imagine Lumley having a longevity advantage on Rollins.



And I'm coming around to that same point of view. If there's a difference between these guys that isn't team-related, I'm not seeing it.

If true, this is as much a case against Lumley as it is for Rollins.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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 agree with that too. I'd feel better if we had the time and resources to really scrutinize every vote -- part of the reason for my misgivings lately is that we've breezed over some years and taken a microscope to others. We just don't have enough microscopes to go around! And that makes for an inconsistency in how we are (not) criticizing certain goalies for their awards records.

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.

This is a reasonable way to think about the results as a whole, but did the individual writers really "flock" in this manner? If anything, the 1954 result looks more like vote-splitting than collective thinking.

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.

I agree that Rayner should be ahead of Rollins. By how much, I'm not sure. The margin seems small to me.

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.

I think that's basically where we've arrived. The underrating of modern goalies seems to have screwed up the rankings as we go down the line. In order to get the next couple of rounds right, we're going to have to make a big course correction where we throw out some of the arguments we've made in the very recent past. That's a tough thing to swallow, and no matter how we handle it we're going to screw somebody over.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If true, this is as much a case against Lumley as it is for Rollins.

I agree. See the final paragraph of my previous post -- we seem to have overrated Lumley (and probably some others) in a way that could end up screwing Rollins.

Poor guy just can't catch a break

 

[quoipourquoi]

I concur that Lundqvist was terrible in 05-06, but at this point, that's a whopping 5,4% of his career...

Re-reading the thread and just caught this. This line of thinking drives me mad. Lundqvist's 2006 playoff only amounts to 5.4% of his playoff career because he was terrible. They don't let you keep playing for more than four games when you're terrible. Heck, the Rangers only let him play in three games of the sweep.

We can't be looking at playoff runs like that though. It's one of his six bites at the apple.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Re-reading the thread and just caught this. This line of thinking drives me mad. Lundqvist's 2006 playoff only amounts to 5.4% of his playoff career because he was terrible. They don't let you keep playing for more than four games when you're terrible. Heck, the Rangers only let him play in three games of the sweep.

We can't be looking at playoff runs like that though. It's one of his six bites at the apple.

Giacomin had 5 playoff runs (out of 9 tries) similar to Lundqvist's 2006, and that didn't stop him from getting on the list.

 

[MXD]

Re-reading the thread and just caught this. This line of thinking drives me mad. Lundqvist's 2006 playoff only amounts to 5.4% of his playoff career because he was terrible. They don't let you keep playing for more than four games when you're terrible. Heck, the Rangers only let him play in three games of the sweep.

We can't be looking at playoff runs like that though. It's one of his six bites at the apple.

This line of thinking drives me mad, because it's one out of seven seasons, and his first one I might add....

Every goalie available at this point has flaws, and if Lundqvist biggest relevant flaw was basically sucking during his first playoffs, when he was never really used to play that many games, well, he should be first in every ranking. (Full discloser : Lundqvist didn't make my Top-6, but made my final ranking).

One bad year doesn't make him a bad playoff performer.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Giacomin had 5 playoff runs (out of 9 tries) similar to Lundqvist's 2006, and that didn't stop him from getting on the list.

I swear, we let in one New York goalie, and now they expect us to let them all in.

This line of thinking drives me mad, because it's one out of seven seasons, and his first one I might add....

Every goalie available at this point has flaws, and if Lundqvist biggest relevant flaw was basically sucking during his first playoffs, when he was never really used to play that many games, well, he should be first in every ranking. (Full discloser : Lundqvist didn't make my Top-6, but made my final ranking).

One bad year doesn't make him a bad playoff performer.

It's the other five that confirm that he's not a particularly good one. And it's not his biggest relevant flaw. That would be the same flaw for Rollins and Thomas: they haven't played as much hockey as some of the others. The second would be two relatively low peak seasons compared to his contemporaries. Third would be my own personal jealousy of his ability to play Guns N Roses on guitar...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I swear, we let in one New York goalie, and now they expect us to let them all in.




It's the other five that confirm that he's not a particularly good one. And it's not his biggest relevant flaw. That would be the same flaw for Rollins and Thomas: they haven't played as much hockey as some of the others. The second would be two relatively low peak seasons compared to his contemporaries. Third would be my own personal jealousy of his ability to play Guns N Roses on guitar...

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that as late as March 1 of last year, Lundqvist was on pace to break Tim Thomas' save percentage record, despite playing in the toughest division in hockey - the Devils were the 4th best team in the Eastern Conference, but were 4th in the Atlantic division. Flyers and Penguins were the two best offensives in the league.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that as late as March 1 of last year, Lundqvist was on pace to break Tim Thomas' save percentage record, despite playing in the toughest division in hockey - the Devils were the 4th best team in the Eastern Conference, but were 4th in the Atlantic division. Flyers and Penguins were the two best offensives in the league.

Yeah, but if we're going to end seasons before March and April, 1994's John Vanbiesbrouck would like to talk to you about becoming the first Hart-winning goaltender since Jacques Plante.