how much does age influence calder voting

[neelynugs]

in a great season for rookies, i find it rather difficult to pick 3 finalists for the calder without feeling as if someone has been left out. the top guys- raycroft, pitkanen, ryder, hunter, bergeron, etc. are all performing well enough to win the award. but the one thing that keeps coming into play is the age of these guys. ryder, raycroft and hunter are 23 years old. pitkanen is 20. patrice bergeron is 18, and the youngest player in all of hockey. my personal opinion is that what bergeron is doing this season is most deserving of the calder. the guy was in midget hockey 2 years ago, and is now playing a HUGE role on the bruins. the kid played over 22 minutes last night, scored 2 goals, and was first star (yet again). and while raycroft has been stellar...pitkanen has been rock solid...hunter has played consistently well...and ryder has put up the points...bergeron is the one who should win, based on his age and accomplishments with 5 less years of hockey experience (2 less than pitkanen). is this an unfair judgment, or do some of you agree?

Click to read more...

 

[V for Voodoo]

is this an unfair judgment, or do some of you agree?

It's called HF syndrome. The primary sympton is hallucinations which lead people to believe anything younger is better (even if the discrepancy in age is minute).

 

[Deleted member 3032]

I agree that what Bergeron is doing is more impressive than most of the other top rookies this year because of his age, but I think Pitkanen is still more impressive for his age because he is a defenseman. It's a lot harder to step into the lineup and have consistant solid games as a defenseman then as a forward.

Aside from all that, I think age for the most part doesn't have anything to do with the voting. If there is about a tie (in the minds of the voters) and one guy is 24 and one guy is 18 it may be the tie breaker for the 18 year old guy. That's all I think age will be for the most part, a tie breaker, or at most a very slight edge.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

It's called HF syndrome. The primary sympton is hallucinations which lead people to believe anything younger is better (even if the discrepancy in age is minute).

You mean, players who are 19 years and 3 months old aren't worth twice as much as players who are 19 years and 6 months old

So what kind of crazy thing are you going to say next? That we shouldn't write off automatically 22 years old? That these guys aren't bust?

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

is this an unfair judgment, or do some of you agree?

I don't see it as unfair but it may not be completely relevant. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree on all the good things you have to say about Bergeron. I have become a big fan of him with this great start.

I guess it first boils down to what is the Calder. Now, my impression is that they give it to the rookie who is most impressive performance-wise. And they've got their criteria set in stones as far as elligibility. Once they've set it at a certain age, I think it would be unfair for them to start nitpicking on who is close or far from the age limit.

While the Calder is a great accomplishment and certainly suggests a player will have a nice career, it's not a scouting report and it is not meant to predict who will have the better career, who overcame the most odds, etc.

It seems to me sometimes we could have 20-30 more trophies in this league because a lot of great things are being accomplished. Bergeron coming in the league at 18 years old, after being selected in the 2nd round kicks ass. It simply falls outside of what the Calder is supposed to look at, which is performance on the ice by all rookies deemed elligible.

And the kid is still in the running based on on-ice performances which is remarkable. If you ask me, I think he'll have a better career than many of the others in the running but that is also beyond what the Calder means IMO.

The only way I'd take any off-topic factors into consideration for an award is when two guys are in a *solid* tie. For instance, if Bryan Berard was super dominant and tied for Norris with Rob Blake *based on on-ice performances*, I'd sure give it to him based on the fact he has to overcome vision problems and a long period of inactivity. I find that admirable and it's something we can all draw inspiration from.

However, he isn't a dominant D. And that's what the Norris is for by default, which is why we talk about guys like Blake, Pronger, etc.

So unless a tie happens based on on-ice factors, I don't think Bergeron's remarkable story should be taken into account. Just my 2 cents.

 

[neelynugs]

thanks- well-thought out post IMO. i can't argue with it, but the thing is, the voters don't even know what the award is for themselves. it's like voting for A-rod as MVP in baseball every year- is that the true meaning of an MVP? he's the best player statistically, but if your team sucks every year, what's valuable about that. i think it's like that in hockey also, but maybe not to that extent. when the b's played on ABC this saturday, bill clement said that bergeron should win the award not just b/c he's been the most consistent rookie, but even moreso b/c he's only 18 years old and blowing people away with his out-of-nowhere performance.

 

[Crosbyfan]

I don't see it as unfair but it may not be completely relevant. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree on all the good things you have to say about Bergeron. I have become a big fan of him with this great start.

I guess it first boils down to what is the Calder. Now, my impression is that they give it to the rookie who is most impressive performance-wise. And they've got their criteria set in stones as far as elligibility. Once they've set it at a certain age, I think it would be unfair for them to start nitpicking on who is close or far from the age limit.

While the Calder is a great accomplishment and certainly suggests a player will have a nice career, it's not a scouting report and it is not meant to predict who will have the better career, who overcame the most odds, etc.

It seems to me sometimes we could have 20-30 more trophies in this league because a lot of great things are being accomplished. Bergeron coming in the league at 18 years old, after being selected in the 2nd round kicks ass. It simply falls outside of what the Calder is supposed to look at, which is performance on the ice by all rookies deemed elligible.

And the kid is still in the running based on on-ice performances which is remarkable. If you ask me, I think he'll have a better career than many of the others in the running but that is also beyond what the Calder means IMO.

The only way I'd take any off-topic factors into consideration for an award is when two guys are in a *solid* tie. For instance, if Bryan Berard was super dominant and tied for Norris with Rob Blake *based on on-ice performances*, I'd sure give it to him based on the fact he has to overcome vision problems and a long period of inactivity. I find that admirable and it's something we can all draw inspiration from.

However, he isn't a dominant D. And that's what the Norris is for by default, which is why we talk about guys like Blake, Pronger, etc.

So unless a tie happens based on on-ice factors, I don't think Bergeron's remarkable story should be taken into account. Just my 2 cents.

Exactly! The best guy eligible.
Should point out that originally the Calder was intended for younger players and has always been one of the more controversial trophies as far as who should win. The present 23 year old rule came after some 65 year old Russian named Oldmanov won it (I can't remember who or how old but he had tons of international experience).

 

[Tiki]

Exactly! The best guy eligible.
Should point out that originally the Calder was intended for younger players and has always been one of the more controversial trophies as far as who should win. The present 23 year old rule came after some 65 year old Russian named Oldmanov won it (I can't remember who or how old but he had tons of international experience).

Sergei Makarov in 89-90. He was 31 at the time.