Regarding the Calder Trophy for borderline HoF cases?

[kmad]

A question to everyone:

How much reverence do we give the Calder trophy for players who might be borderline Hall of Famers?

Might it be enough to push a Nieuwendyk or a Bure over the edge while otherwise they might not make it, or is the trophy more or less irrelevant when judging a player's career?

Click to read more...

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

A question to everyone:

How much reverence do we give the Calder trophy for players who might be borderline Hall of Famers?

Might it be enough to push a Nieuwendyk or a Bure over the edge while otherwise they might not make it, or is the trophy more or less irrelevant when judging a player's career?

None at all

 

[kmad]

None at all

Ironically lacking poignance.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I think it is of minor relevance and could be a tipping point. But, it's a relatively minor factor.

 

[sunb]

Although not significant, I see value in the Calder Trophy in the story of an outstanding player's career. Winning the Calder symbolizes that the player's career started off on a high note and carried momentum from beginning to end. From day one, this player was among the best of class and this theme of continued excellence should be awarded.

Some players tail off towards the twilight of their careers, and this is seen as a negative. Some players who develop slowly at the beginning of their careers and who don't make an impact until their 20s. Shouldn't this also be a negative and shouldn't we value more the players who contribute meaningfully from day one?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The criteria is so specific that I don't give it any weight when evaluating a player. In most cases, a player's rookie season is not a season that is of HOF caliber anyway and carries little weight, trophy or not.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't put a lot of stock into it.

Gilbert Perreault is in the HHOF without his '71 Calder
Rick Martin wouldnt be in even if he won the '72 Calder

Samsonov won't be in the Hall but he has his '98 Calder
Thornton wasn't even close in '98 but he'll likely be in the Hall

Berard beat Iginla in '97
Jackman beat Zetterberg and Nash in '03
Barrasso beat Yzerman in '84
Grant Fuhr lost in '82
Gretzky didnt win in '80

Yeah...........bottom line is that you can take even a borderline guy like Alfredsson and the voters won't look twice at his '96 Calder

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i'm trying to think of borderline HHOF cases where the calder might come into play.

makarov... probably doesn't make any difference. but his calder was tainted by his age, plus it was a very weak rookie class.

on the other hand, would modano winning that calder tip the scales for his case? i see him a textbook borderline guy. thin on individual accomplishments, decent team accomplishments, good but not outstanding career totals, long but not incredibly long career (i'm assuming), steep decline in his last years. the modano we tend to remember is a guy who was somewhat slow to develop, was one of the league's most complete players in his prime, very consistent in his prime but a shadow of his former self after his prime. now, because he's american, he'll probably eventually make the HHOF anyway, but imagine for a second that he was born in saskatewan. with his accomplishments and his career arc, i think a calder might actually make a difference. even though he has a reputation for taking a while to develop, he was a good offensive producer in his early years, and i think we tend to forget that. having a calder on his resume would help remind voters.

i think for bure too, it might make a difference. first, his rookie class was way better than modano's, and it helps that his byline says he beat lidstrom for the calder (though it doesn't help all that much). second, the calder serves to remind people of the impact he had when he came into the league, both as a contributor to an astonishing one-season improvement by the canucks, and as a ridiculously exciting player that captured the imagination of fans everywhere. not all calders do this-- gomez's calder or raycroft's calder are throwaway accomplishments. but in this case-- like selanne's calder also-- it marks a significant contribution to the game. if it happened that lidstrom ended up winning that calder and not bure, we might not be so quick to remember how great he was in that first year. unlike selanne, he doesn't have all those scoring records to remind us, just the trophy. for example, kovalchuk (to a lesser degree than bure) set the league on fire when he came in, but he got injured and heatley ended up with more points so he didn't win the calder. how many of us think of kovalchuk as a guy who stepped right into the league and was a game-breaker?

 

[seventieslord]

Absolutely nothing.

being the best among rookies in your rookie year is not a legitimate criteria for all-time greatness.

I don't even list winning the calder as a legitimate "achievement" in my lengthy ATD bios.

 

[Big Phil]

On the Modano topic, I think he's in regardless of being American or Canadian. If we're debating Sundin, we're certainly doing likewise with Modano. He's got a Cup and another finals appearance to his credit. He scored a ton both of those years in the playoffs, that alone will push him over the top

 

[Brodie]

If Modano doesn't make the HOF something is wrong.