If Ekblad is getting consideration for Rookie of the year, so should Klingberg

[Mr Lebowski]

my thoughts (as a neautral fan) are that Ekblad is much better defensively and playing tougher minutes than Klingberg. Klingberg has done very well but this rookie class has been stellar. I put him after Ekblad, Forsberg and Gaudreau

 

[LaGu]

Well even though the award SHOULD be awarded to the best rookie of the year, it always seems to go to the best young player of the year. Last year MacK won the award even though Palat played better than him, MacK was just significantly younger which is why he won it by a landslide. Same thing will happen this year with these 2.

A forwards job is to score and McKinnon out-scored Palat in goals and points and was a key part of a team that surged in that season. Doesn't mean Palat did not have a great season, but it was and still is very easy to see why McKinnon deservedly won it.

 

[LaGu]

my thoughts (as a neautral fan) are that Ekblad is much better defensively and playing tougher minutes than Klingberg. Klingberg has done very well but this rookie class has been stellar. I put him after Ekblad, Forsberg and Gaudreau

Well you could check the stats before claiming something that is not true. Hell, you could even just read this thread, I think it is on page 2. Klingberg plays tougher minutes, that is not speculation, it is a fact.


Doesn't mean he is ahead of Ekblad though, but use real facts to argue the case, or just say that it is your opinion by watching him.

 

[kingdok]

Jeff Skinner vs. Logan Couture showed that age definitely plays a part. Despite having similar stats, Skinner beat Couture by a decent amount when the votes were revealed.

Pts. (1st-2nd-3rd-4th-5th)
1. Jeff Skinner, CAR 1,055 (71-39-12-4-0)
2. Logan Couture, S.J. 908 (41-46-29-10-1)
3. Michael Grabner, NYI 497 (6-19-37-35-14)
4. Corey Crawford, CHI 336 (6-9-22-28-19)
5. John Carlson, WSH 188 (3-3-16-12-21)
6. P.K. Subban, MTL 155 (0-6-9-16-20)
7. Sergei Bobrovsky, PHI 51 (0-4-1-4-6)
8. Cam Fowler, ANA 27 (0-0-0-7-6)
9. Taylor Hall, EDM 22 (0-0-1-4-5)
10. Kevin Shattenkirk, STL 18 (0-0-0-3-9)
11. Tyler Ennis, BUF 16 (0-1-0-0-9)
12. Brad Marchand, BOS 12 (0-0-0-1-9)
13. Derek Stepan, NYR 6 (0-0-0-2-0)
14. Michal Neuvirth, WSH 4 (0-0-0-1-1)
15. Jordan Eberle, EDM 3 (0-0-0-0-3)
James Reimer, TOR 3 (0-0-0-0-3)
17. Michael Sauer, NYR 1 (0-0-0-0-1)

There's like no proof at all that what made voters go with Skinner at #1 is age over point production. Similar stats? 7 points is a huge difference. Especially when the third rookie in points that year was Grabner with only 4 less points then Couture. I'll even say that Couture actually getting 41 1st place votes is a prove that age is less a factor then what people are tempted to believe.

Is that the only example you have?

 

[ShootIt]

The hype train took off from the station before Klingberg stepped on the ice.

Johnny Hockey, Forsberg and Ekblad all started the season red hot and still are playing well. Sure some may of cooled off slightly, but they are still important parts to their respective teams.

If Klingberg played from day 1, he would be included in the Calder talks more often than not. By the time he started making noise, it was being droned out by the other three.

 

[Paxon]

I agree that age and experience shouldn't enter into it. It should go to best performance by a player qualified as a rookie, period. Klingberg's performance does not rival Ekblad's. Just looking at point totals is silly, though I'll grant that is generally what the award is based on.

 

[LaGu]

Campbell is getting seriously underrated in this thread. Not that it is new, he has always been very underrated imo.

An experienced veteran who has been top 20 in Norris voting 5 times and PP quarterback for years is the perfect partner for an up and coming D like Ekblad.

On the other side there is Goligoski, not a bad player imo, but pretty far from Campbell if you ask me.


Again, just to keep things in perspective imo. Personally I think that Ekblad still has a couple steps on Klingberg but it is not far at all and obviosuly Klingberg is in consideration and will get many votes.


It is still Forsbergs to lose though. I was betting on either Klingberg or Ekblad to go on a points streak to seriously challenge Forsberg but I think that if they end up south of 50 no Calder will be coming their way this year. Still very impressive seasons from both of them.

 

[Satan]

Klingberg isn't a first rounder, Canadian or under 20 years old, therefore he doesn't deserve it.

 

[LaGu]

Looked further into that, huh? Did you try Tampa Bay? Come up with 137 compared to your 138? That didn't work out how you planned.



Stars goals outside of top 3 scorers and Klingberg: 124
Panthers goals outside of top 3 scorers and Ekblad: 92



Why? It's a relevant dimension where the Stars are clearly far superior to the Panthers. It has an effect.



Can I see these numbers? Also I'd appreciate if you would share the source. I can't seem to find one.

I thought I told you once before to go take a look at the points these guys put up? Take a look, it is actually great because there are some great highlights from both of them. Generally though Klingberg has created more on his own imho. That is not from doing percentages back and forth, that is from watching the plays.

Still, as my other posts have said, Ekblad is ahead for the time being imo but if Klinberg ends up with 5+ points I think he should be considered a favorite between the two of them. Not only based on points, but that difference would be a tipping point for me. They are comparable defensively with a slight edge to Ekblad.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

There's like no proof at all that what made voters go with Skinner at #1 is age over point production. Similar stats? 7 points is a huge difference. Especially when the third rookie in points that year was Grabner with only 4 less points then Couture. I'll even say that Couture actually getting 41 1st place votes is a prove that age is less a factor then what people are tempted to believe.

Is that the only example you have?

I know.. his argument that being younger is something they look at when handing out the award is weak. I came back on here this morning to see if there was proof still but there is not, or if there was a quote from NHL stating that younger players get a better chance to win. This thread is slowly spinning out of control and some people are thinking of anything they can why their favorite player is better. Obviously we will just have to wait to see what happens when the nominations/winners are revealed.

I love Ekblad and love the way he plays and he would be my first choice for a rookie dman if I was picking a team. I think Ekblad will have a better NHL career, but I currently have Klingberg higher than him for rookie of the year because he is having a more impressive rookie season in my opinion. That doesn't mean I think he will win it, because I think that will still go to Forsberg

 

[WhatWhat]

my thoughts (as a neautral fan) are that Ekblad is much better defensively and playing tougher minutes than Klingberg. Klingberg has done very well but this rookie class has been stellar. I put him after Ekblad, Forsberg and Gaudreau

The amount of people that blindly say this is amazing. It has been posted on this board but there is a stat that calculated the quality of competiton you face and it suggests Klingberg plays against tougher match ups. Also Ekblad starts in the offensive zone way more than Klingberg.

I honestly think the two are very comparable and its tough to say.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

The hype train took off from the station before Klingberg stepped on the ice.

Johnny Hockey, Forsberg and Ekblad all started the season red hot and still are playing well. Sure some may of cooled off slightly, but they are still important parts to their respective teams.

If Klingberg played from day 1, he would be included in the Calder talks more often than not. By the time he started making noise, it was being droned out by the other three.

I think you're absolutely correct. Klingberg has improved as this season has progressed, and didn't start red hot.

 

[WaveRaven]

I regards to age as long humans are voting all kinds of things will be factors that are not part of the actual definition. I don't understand why some posters are so flummoxed by this.

If 2 players are equal some will say well player X is younger therefore what they are doing is more impressive. Want proof of that go back and read all the posts from people that say exactly that.

 

[covfefe]

Dating back to 05-06, there has been only one Calder winner who was 21 or older in Steve Mason. Judging by this trend, I'd say Klingberg is in very tough. He deserves consideration but it's really difficult to grasp how individuals could view his season as being more impressive than Ekblad's. I'm not even an Ekblad fan nor was I particularly high on him as a draft guy, but he's been incredible...

Klingberg isn't a first rounder, Canadian or under 20 years old, therefore he doesn't deserve it.

The fact that Ekblad is 3 1/2 years younger than Klingberg and is equalling his output means nothing? I just don't see how there is a way to step around their age disparity, it is that significant. And Ekblad isn't even close to being the overwhelming favourite for the award...

 

[LaGu]

I think you're absolutely correct. Klingberg has improved as this season has progressed, and didn't start red hot.

3 G 5 A 23:07 TOI/G in his first 8 GP...

If that is not red hot for a D I don't know what is.

 

[Chaos]

my thoughts (as a neautral fan) are that Ekblad is much better defensively and playing tougher minutes than Klingberg. Klingberg has done very well but this rookie class has been stellar. I put him after Ekblad, Forsberg and Gaudreau

Except the numbers say nearly the complete opposite.

 

[dechire]

I think Ekblad and Klingberg are close in a lot of ways. Klingberg is 4th in PPG on his team and Ekblad is 5th on his. Klingberg is 1st in +/- on his team and Ekblad is 4th on his. They both play very similar minutes. Klingberg benefits from better offensive teammates while Ekblad benefits from a significantly superior defensive partner. There's a lot of arguments that you can make for either or both players being in Calder contention. But every time I come in one of these threads I just find a bunch of Panthers fans trying to diminish Klingberg's accomplishments. It's not a slight to Ekblad if he's not the very best rookie defenseman offensively. Klingberg is absolutely a better offensive player imo. That's his specialty. Ekblad is more well-rounded.

It just annoys me to death seeing people who don't even watch Klingberg play say that he's not a very gifted offensive defenseman. I am happy to debate both of their defensive abilities and how much of a factor age is but I'm not going to debate offense. Especially when people are making false claims that are extremely easy to look up. For example, 39% of Klingberg's points (14 of 36) have been separate from Benn, Spezza and Seguin which is actually impressive considering that at least one of those 3 is on the ice for roughly 35-40 minutes per game (60%-67%). So you probably shouldn't make a post here claiming that he's been solely benefiting from them. Or in another thread someone said that Klingberg had "almost no points" during the 10 games Seguin was injured when he actually had 6 points (Ekblad had 3 points in 11 games during that same stretch if you wondered)

I don't mind people thinking Ekblad is better. I think he's a great player too. What I hate is seeing people making up fake facts and posting them to discredit Klingberg instead of just saying "Klingberg is fantastic offensively and very possibly better in that area than Ekblad but I still think Ekblad is a better rookie." I don't expect everyone to know exactly how many goals Klingberg has scored unassisted (1) but if you're just guessing at a stat then don't post it.

Also if it's that easy to leech off of Benn and Seguin then why is Patrick Eaves only .42 PPG ? (If you're asking who that is then you probably don't watch enough Stars games to properly judge Klingberg's performance. He is unfortunately Benn and Seguin's right wing.) There's no doubt that it's a boost but if it's all Benn and Seguin then why is Klingberg the only player on the entire team who is getting such a huge benefit from them ? Klingberg's D partner certainly isn't getting the same benefits with only 28 points in 67 games vs Klingberg's 36 points in 53.

In summary, don't make up facts. If you prefer Ekblad for legitimate and factual reasons then I have no issue with that and will happily debate those reasons with you.

 

[Micklebot]

Dating back to 05-06, there has been only one Calder winner who was 21 or older in Steve Mason. Judging by this trend, I'd say Klingberg is in very tough. He deserves consideration but it's really difficult to grasp how individuals could view his season as being more impressive than Ekblad's. I'm not even an Ekblad fan nor was I particularly high on him as a draft guy, but he's been incredible...

The only other 21+ rookie that deserved to be in the discussion in that timeframe was Palat and maybe Couture. Every other year, there was somebody younger more deserving based on their season (not their age). At best, age was a tie breaker.

There really isn't a case of someone being robbed of the award because someone else was younger.

The fact that Ekblad is 3 1/2 years younger than Klingberg and is equalling his output means nothing? I just don't see how there is a way to step around their age disparity, it is that significant. And Ekblad isn't even close to being the overwhelming favourite for the award...

I means nothing in terms of whose season was better. Just like age shouldn't impact who wins the hart, once eligibility is established, age should no longer be considered in deciding a calder winner. The award is for the rookie who had the best season, not for the rookie who has the most promising future.

 

[covfefe]

The only other 21+ rookie that deserved to be in the discussion in that timeframe was Palat and maybe Couture. Every other year, there was somebody younger more deserving based on their season (not their age). At best, age was a tie breaker.

There really isn't a case of someone being robbed of the award because someone else was younger.

Right, but Klingberg not winning the Calder would not constitute robbery in any sense.

I means nothing in terms of whose season was better. Just like age shouldn't impact who wins the hart, once eligibility is established, age should no longer be considered in deciding a calder winner. The award is for the rookie who had the best season, not for the rookie who has the most promising future.

OK, sure, although I am not sure where the Hart entered the discussion. In this scenario, Ekblad and Klingberg are having very similar seasons. The voters will have to rely on some mitigating criteria to figure out whose season is superior. I'm arguing that those mitigating factors will weigh in Ekblad's favour.

 

[Satan]

Klingberg isn't a first rounder, Canadian or under 20 years old, therefore he doesn't deserve it.

He also doesn't play tough minutes at all and he's played less games than Ekblad but they have the same amount of points. All fingers point towards good Canadian boy, Aaron Ekblad.

 

[Micklebot]

Right, but Klingberg not winning the Calder would not constitute robbery in any sense.

Agreed, but the point of this thead is simply that he is at a similar level to Ekblad, so the point stands. If Ekblad finishes ahead, fine, if Klingberg finishes ahead, fine. Similar quality seasons imo.

OK, sure, although I am not sure where the Hart entered the discussion. In this scenario, Ekblad and Klingberg are having very similar seasons. The voters will have to rely on some mitigating criteria to figure out whose season is superior. I'm arguing that those mitigating factors will weigh in Ekblad's favour.

I don't really see why voters will need mitigating factors. If they think they are close, they'll vote them 1 and 2 or 2 and 3. Odds are good there aren't many out there who feel their seasons are exactly equal in quality.

 

[Micklebot]

He also doesn't play tough minutes at all and he's played less games than Ekblad but they have the same amount of points. All fingers point towards good Canadian boy, Aaron Ekblad.

Show your work.... Because if Klingberg isn't playing tough mins, what exactly are the mins Ekblad is playing?

Name | TOI/Gm | ZSO%Rel | ZSO% | TOIT% | CorT% | TOIC% | CorC% | Corsi Rel QOC | Corsi QOC | +/- QOC
John.Klingberg | 17.4 | -4.4 | 47.1 | 16.8 | 51.2 | 17.6 | 50 | 0.737 | 0.014 | 0.016
Aaron.Ekblad | 17.2 | 12.5 | 59.3 | 16.9 | 51.7 | 17.3 | 49.9 | 0.044 | -1.874 | -0.043

 

[Satan]

Show your work.... Because if Klingberg isn't playing tough mins, what exactly are the mins Ekblad is playing?

Name | TOI/Gm | ZSO%Rel | ZSO% | TOIT% | CorT% | TOIC% | CorC% | Corsi Rel QOC | Corsi QOC | +/- QOC
John.Klingberg | 17.4 | -4.4 | 47.1 | 16.8 | 51.2 | 17.6 | 50 | 0.737 | 0.014 | 0.016
Aaron.Ekblad | 17.2 | 12.5 | 59.3 | 16.9 | 51.7 | 17.3 | 49.9 | 0.044 | -1.874 | -0.043

I was being facetious, buddy.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

Ya Klingberg plays extremely tough mins. That's just everyone's go-to excuse that have never seen him play. They all think he is pretty much a strictly PP guy that plays 3rd pairing mins and is bad defensively. He plays on the top pairing, 3rd highest toi average, leads team in +- and only 10 of his 36 points are on the PP. People really need to watch him play and look at his numbers before jumping to conclusions

 

[beowulf]

All due respect to the OP but there is more than points that matter. It's Eckblad's to lose.