How is Matt Read not a Finalist for the Calder

[orange_crush]

Ach, I should have Googled it before posting, but it was a wonderful piece of snark :-)

So, then, why 25 if they're not going to nominate anyone over 22?

Another ridiculous NHL situation. "Ridiculous" as in "worthy of ridicule".

why the hell do they care how old someone is? if you can play you can play... next they'll make a rule Canadians are ineligible also..

[aziz]

So, then, why 25 if they're not going to nominate anyone over 22?

i think an over 22 player would have to blow people away to have a chance. 40 goals puts them in the mix, but not 24. seriously, we're talking about a guy 3 years older than JVR. yes, his first year in the league, but....the mental and physical maturity of a 25 yearold versus a 19 yearold should put them in different conversations, imo. the calder is an "impression" award, not an objective one, and the impression made by a 24 goal 25 yearold is very different than by a 19 yearold.

i never figured he'd be really concidered for the calder. i am, however, disappointed in the narrowmindedness of voters with regards to point totals being the primary qualification. i'm not sure the league has seen a 18-19 year old play as effective and mature a game as couturier in a long time, but he isn't even being discussed. by the journalist voters or flyers fans, for that matter.

[sarsippius]

why the hell do they care how old someone is? if you can play you can play... next they'll make a rule Canadians are ineligible also..

I'm guessing if the rule was put into place in 1990, it was in response to the flood of ex-Soviet Bloc hockey players coming in. Alot of hardened veterans 25+, kinda skews the field of true rookie of the year candidates

[radoran]

i think an over 22 player would have to blow people away to have a chance. 40 goals puts them in the mix, but not 24. seriously, we're talking about a guy 3 years older than JVR. yes, his first year in the league, but....the mental and physical maturity of a 25 yearold versus a 19 yearold should put them in different conversations, imo. the calder is an "impression" award, not an objective one, and the impression made by a 24 goal 25 yearold is very different than by a 19 yearold.

i never figured he'd be really concidered for the calder. i am, however, disappointed in the narrowmindedness of voters with regards to point totals being the primary qualification. i'm not sure the league has seen a 18-19 year old play as effective and mature a game as couturier in a long time, but he isn't even being discussed. by the journalist voters or flyers fans, for that matter.

Wait, which CHL league is Bemidji in? What? It's a college? What sort of college? NCAA? Gosh, we know that NCAA schools obviously retard the progress of #2 picks in the draft, but they're the perfect breeding ground for guys who couldn't even hack it until their mid-20s and enter the league as FAs so we should obviously hold that against them... Or something...

If we weren't talking about a player who legit just got out of college, then - fine. A 31yo coming over from Russia after the wall came down is an obvious difference than a guy who just got out of college. To change the rule because of what would be a once-in-a-millennia happening is just dumb.

Read had five fewer points, more goals and more GWG than any of the nominees.

RNH and Landeskog were both put in immediate scoring roles. Henrique was centering Ilya Kovalchuk and Zach Parise, for crying out loud. Read was primarily a tertiary scorer on the Flyers - it's not like we saw a lot of Jagr-Giroux-Read out there.

Just make the Calder a points race - and the Norris, too, for that matter.

[aziz]

@radoran

my point is the guys who were nominated are children. read is not a child. the calder is for children entering the league, being effective at an unusually young age. read meets the letter of the qualifications for the award, but not the spirit. given that the award is handed out to the person who most impressed the writers, the writers were most impressed by 19 yearold kids scoring 50 points, not men in their mid-20's scoring 47.

[radoran]

@radoran

my point is the guys who were nominated are children. read is not a child. the calder is for children entering the league, being effective at an unusually young age. read meets the letter of the qualifications for the award, but not the spirit. given that the award is handed out to the person who most impressed the writers, the writers were most impressed by 19 yearold kids scoring 50 points, not men in their mid-20's scoring 47.

I understand the reasoning behind it. My point is then they should make THAT the criteria. If you have a guy who FITS the criteria and you, in your mind, CHANGE that criteria, then you are doing a disservice to the award.

I expect a guy playing between Parise and Kovalchuk to put up points. I expect the second overall pick getting top PP and top line minutes on the Avalanche to be a big point scorer. I expect the #1 overall pick playing top line minutes on a horrible squad to be a big point getter. Of the three, Henrique as the third rounder is the most impressive - to me (and I wouldn't have even mentioned him before he was nominated).

I don't expect a free agent who didn't make the league until his mid-20s, coming out of the obvious backwater that is the NCAA, playing on the third line to put up 20+ goals and outscore (goals) guys playing top line minutes AND have more GWGs than they did.

Your results may vary. I just find the nominations to be lazy.

[926]

@radoran - "and more GWG than any of the nominees", and Read's revenge will be potting another to clinch the series tonight!

[aziz]

I understand the reasoning behind it. My point is then they should make THAT the criteria. If you have a guy who FITS the criteria and you, in your mind, CHANGE that criteria, then you are doing a disservice to the award.

sure, i don't disagree. then again, if a guy like read steps in and scores 90 as a technical (but older than traditional) rookie....

it's a subjective award. the age of the player is a subjective factor. i guess i'm ok with that.

[radoran]

sure, i don't disagree. then again, if a guy like read steps in and scores 90 as a technical (but older than traditional) rookie....

it's a subjective award. the age of the player is a subjective factor. i guess i'm ok with that.

But, as was pointed out to me after my initial snark - it's NOT a subjective factor. It's an ACTUAL factor with predetermined parameters.

Don't make it 25 and effectively tell a guy who came in at 24 that he's not eligible because of his age. He IS eligible because of his age.

Make it 22. 21. 20. 19. 12.

Say you have to be drafted. Played Junior. Whatever you want.

But then don't disqualify someone because they played in the QMJHL and not the OHL because the Q is a higher scoring league and, well, you figure subjectively that should disqualify someone because they scored more points. (not "you" @aziz but the writer(s)).

The rules are the rules. An undrafted FA who wasn't even guaranteed a roster spot had more goals, more GWGs and five fewer points while playing third line time than the #1 and #2 overall picks and all three guys who played their first years on the top lines of their teams - two of which are in the playoffs.

Subjectively, it might be fine. Objectively, it's ridiculous.

[aziz]

But, as was pointed out to me after my initial snark - it's NOT a subjective factor. It's an ACTUAL factor with predetermined parameters.

true. and, as was mentioned, that was put in place to stop the award from going to players were in effect, but not technically, professional, entering the league after years of NHL-equlivelent play. soviet players were not technically professional, so were initially eligible, and people figured that wasn't fair, the leading scorer of moscow dynamo, aged 32, coming over and being seen as a rookie.

i get what you are saying. i guess i'm just not as bothered by it all. i'm ok with someone 25 being eligible, but i am also ok with the idea that he would have to perform at a level comenserate to his age. an undrafted guy who had been in college forever stepping into the NHL at 25 and scoring better than a point per game is every bit as impressive as an 18 year old netting 50. but that 25 year old scoring 47 just isn't. again, if only because of the physical and mental maturity advantage he has over the other candidates.

[radoran]

true. and, as was mentioned, that was put in place to stop the award from going to players were in effect, but not technically, professional, entering the league after years of NHL-equlivelent play. soviet players were not technically professional, so were initially eligible, and people figured that wasn't fair, the leading scorer of moscow dynamo, aged 32, coming over and being seen as a rookie.

Right, but that was a moment in time which is hardly likely to ever be repeated and they changed the rules and STILL are saying "bleh"

The "best players" are invariably interested in the NHL. Even Radulov came here before going back to Russia. How many to players are there going to be in the Sweidsh Elite, KHL, Finnish, Czech leagues, etc. that aren't going to be considered "professional" at 30 again?

None.

And I really don't think you mean to say that a undrafted FA in his mid 20s on the third line would need to score as if he was one of the top 10 scorers in the league ("scoring better than a point per game") to be compared to a 20yo 1/2 draft pick playing top line minutes. (There were all of seven players who played 70 or more games last season who scored better than a point per game).

At least I hope you don't.

[aziz]

And I really don't think you mean to say that a undrafted FA in his mid 20s on the third line would need to score as if he was one of the top 10 scorers in the league ("scoring better than a point per game") to be compared to a 20yo 1/2 draft pick playing top line minutes. (There were all of seven players who played 70 or more games last season who scored better than a point per game).

At least I hope you don't.

no, i don't. frankly, that undrafted mid-20's player would have to be so damn good he forced his coach to give him 1st line minutes. which would, in turn, give him a shot at gaudy point totals.

look, the calder, when you melt the concept all the way down, is supposed to go to the most impressive rookie in the minds of the sports writers. the fact that matt read is 25 made his performance less impressive. a 19 yearold accomplishing the same thing as a 25 yearold is more "impressive". the 25 year old has to go a significant step beyond to keep pace. he qualifies, he has the opportunity to impress to the same degree, but he'd have to step it up to do so.

it sounds like we aren't going to see eye to eye on this. and that's fine. i'm ok with the award being intended for kids, with the outside possibility a more mature player could make a claim, but only if he really rocks the league. i get why you think it should be a purely accomplishment-based thing with no sliding scale due to outside circumstances like age or backround.

[radoran]

look, the calder, when you melt the concept all the way down, is supposed to go to the most impressive rookie in the minds of the sports writers. the fact that matt read is 25 made his performance less impressive. a 19 yearold accomplishing the same thing as a 25 yearold is more "impressive". the 25 year old has to go a significant step beyond to keep pace. he qualifies, he has the opportunity to impress to the same degree, but he'd have to step it up to do so.

it sounds like we aren't going to see eye to eye on this. and that's fine. i'm ok with the award being intended for kids, with the outside possibility a more mature player could make a claim, but only if he really rocks the league. i get why you think it should be a purely accomplishment-based thing with no sliding scale due to outside circumstances like age or backround.

I think we see closer to eye than you might think.

I think the bolded part above displays the obvious flaw in the process, which is my main complaint.

IMO, if you asked 3/4 of the "sports writers" who vote on this award, none of them would know anything about Read beyond "he's 25" so they don't need to think about it after that.

And, if you want to ask around the league, I bet you'll find a lot of people who are "most impressed" with Couturier and the vast majority of "sports writers" who wouldn't know why.

[aziz]

IMO, if you asked 3/4 of the "sports writers" who vote on this award, none of them would know anything about Read beyond "he's 25" so they don't need to think about it after that.

And, if you want to ask around the league, I bet you'll find a lot of people who are "most impressed" with Couturier and the vast majority of "sports writers" who wouldn't know why.

and there's where we'll find our middle ground. these kinds of awards should be voted on by coaches or team captains or something like that, because hockey writers almost to a one are know-nothing morons writing for gossip and deadlines.

[radoran]

and there's where we'll find our middle ground. these kinds of awards should be voted on by coaches or team captains or something like that, because hockey writers almost to a one are know-nothing morons writing for gossip and deadlines.

An award to the Best Rookie as voted by his peers would be a Very Interesting and, IMO, much more valuable award.

I honestly couldn't care less if Read was nominated or not, until they/we start talking about "why." Say "those three guys had more points" and be done with it.

But they want to continue to pretense that it isn't all about who had the most points.

I'm not a big fan of pretense.

[aziz]

agreed, damn the pretense.

[Vanflyer]

@orange_crush

"Another issue I have with awards is what about Courtier? Anyone that knows hockey and watched him play will agree this kid is a stud. But because he doesn't have 25 goals all the idiots won't even mention his name. Hockey is more than about stats.."

Actually, I would probably put Courturier more in a Selke category, but your point is valid. For example, Karlson is most certainly a shoe-in for the Norris, while I would argue that both Chara and Weber are more worthy because of overall Defensive play (ie all three zones).

[flyercanuck]

@radoran

While I'm with you it is impressive what Read has done as an undrafted player (and Henrique as a 3rd rounder) I still think you should take age into the equation. I mean Read is older than our best player. He's older than SEVEN of our forwards. Good on him for becoming a nice piece to this team, but he's nearing prime age for most NHLers while the rest of the "Calder" field aren't old enough to drink (in the US)

The age thing was brought in after Makarov won the award as a 31 year old. But there have been a couple of 25 year old goalies win the award since.

[radoran]

@radoran

While I'm with you it is impressive what Read has done as an undrafted player (and Henrique as a 3rd rounder) I still think you should take age into the equation. I mean Read is older than our best player. He's older than SEVEN of our forwards. Good on him for becoming a nice piece to this team, but he's nearing prime age for most NHLers while the rest of the "Calder" field aren't old enough to drink (in the US)

The age thing was brought in after Makarov won the award as a 31 year old. But there have been a couple of 25 year old goalies win the award since.

I understand why the age limit was brought in, but as I've said I think that they changed the rule to avoid a situation which simply will not happen again. And the rules on playing in other major leagues invalidate a Makarov situation regardless of age.

Belfour the year after Makarov and Nabakov 10 years later were both 25 when they won it. Goalies can typically take a little more time to get up since there's not a lot of spots for them. Raycroft was 23 and Brodeur and Mason were both 21.

I understand your and aziz' rationales for how age can and should play a factor, but rather than have it be like so much else in this league a subjective mishmash of gobbeldygook why not just have a best first year goalie and best 21 and under skater trophies? Or 22 and under, since no skater older than 22 has won it (Selanne, Alfredsson, Drury were all 22) since the rule change on age and only two skaters since 1967 have been 23 or more (Peter Statsny was 24 in 1981 and Danny Grant was 23 in 1969) - plus Makarov.

What's the point of having the level be 26 if you have to be twice or more as impactful as a younger player if you're over 22?

And, again, why not have it be a points race like the Ross? They use the words "most proficient" and then almost invariably nominate the top three point getters.

Calder Trophy Fun Fact - while the Leaes have won it a record nine times as a franchise, they haven't won a Calder in a league with more than six teams in it.

[flyercanuck]

I don't disagree with anything you've said rad. I hate the way the Selke and Norris usually go to the best defensive forward and defenceman with the most points.

Living this close to Tarana, I know a lot of these fun facts about the Leafs ineptitude.

[orange_crush]

@orange_crush

"Another issue I have with awards is what about Courtier? Anyone that knows hockey and watched him play will agree this kid is a stud. But because he doesn't have 25 goals all the idiots won't even mention his name. Hockey is more than about stats.."

Actually, I would probably put Courturier more in a Selke category, but your point is valid. For example, Karlson is most certainly a shoe-in for the Norris, while I would argue that both Chara and Weber are more worthy because of overall Defensive play (ie all three zones).

I don't understand the Norris. they give the award to the dman who scores the most points..kind of ironic..Chara is far superior to Karlson as a dman..

[doom88]

The Norris is top defensive player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position. Unfortunately, that's not exclusively the top defenseman in the league. Points are a good way to partially gauge all around ability. Not saying I entirely agree with the implementation mind you, but I can see why they do it that way.

[The Quigster]

Its a Canadian thing. No college graduates allowed!

[flyercanuck]

Landeskog is Canadian? Malkin Canadian? Ovechkin? Nabokov? Gomez? Drury? Samsonov? Berard? Alfredsson? Forsberg? All Calder winners.