Who will win the Calder this season?

[Djp]

If the award was given to the most valuable rookie, Binnington would be the unquestioned runaway winner. No doubt about it, he saved St. Louis's season while Pettersson's (and Dahlin's) offseason begins now.

But the Calder goes to the rookie who had the best year.

From start to finish, I think Pettersson's been in front.

Based on your premise...it’s inherently biased to forwards and more point production than what Dmen do.

It’s vet vet rare for an 18 yr old Dman to put up what he did vs a forward in his draft+1yr.

 

[ccman68]

Cirelli should at least be top 5. Leading all NHL forwards in shorthanded ice time is pretty good for a 21-year-old. 39 points with bottom six minutes and barely any pp time isn’t bad either. By far the most well-rounded rookie this year.

 

[Blacephalon]

Cirelli should at least be top 5. Leading all NHL forwards in shorthanded ice time is pretty good for a 21-year-old. 39 points with bottom six minutes and barely any pp time isn’t bad either. By far the most well-rounded rookie this year.

Please take off your homer glasses.

 

[Chimpradamus]

No, but going 24-5-1, 1.89, .927 with 5 shutouts in 30 games is.

Sure, it's impressive. More so the GAA and SV% than the wins, since wins are a team effort.

This is a red herring

No, it was a rhetorical question.

The Blues started playing better defense when Allen was still here; he still couldn't take advantage of it. Binnington came in, took advantage of that improved defensive play, and added his own solid play in net. Both of those can be accurate, just as it can be accurate to say that Binnington's strong play in net gave his teammates reason to trust him and play more solid defense knowing he'd have their back, instead of worrying about any mistake ending up in the back of the net and playing tighter and being more susceptible to deflating mistakes.

If I hadn't broken my ankle at 17 at a late-season cross-country meet, I'd have run in at least the 2000 and 2004 Olympics and possibly medaled [depending on what event we're talking about]. It's a made-up assertion that's neither provable nor disprovable; let's stick to the facts that exist.

If you say so. I won't argue with you further on that, you have watched the Blues infinitely more than I have, so I'll take your word for it and assume so.

30 games started out of 43 are starter's numbers. It's not his fault the organization raced out to sign a mediocre backup goalie on July 1, guaranteeing that he wouldn't have a shot at the backup spot in training camp, nor is it his fault that the team only called him up and finally started him at midseason. I mean, if he had played 40 games, would that be better? Did he instead need to play 45? 50? 60? More?

I get that you're not impressed with what he did, but it appears you're just writing it all off as "he's a product of the system, anyone could have done that." Again, that's neither provable or disprovable. Let's stick to the facts, which are his stats and that the Blues' surge in the standings coincides with him getting the reins in net, and work from there.

"It's not his fault" says the guy that writes a long anecdote about "if I hadn't broken my ankle..." So what that it isn't his fault? Is it other players' fault they have to play their rookie season on far worse teams than St Louis? Should the voters give Binnington handicap points, because it was the fault of the management for not playing him more games? If 30 games is enough to win an award in an 82 game season, what isn't enough to win the Calder as a goalie? 25? 15? 10? 5? 2? 1? The reason I'm not praising the new St Louis Jesus yet is, 30 games when it comes to evaluating - especially - goaltenders is nothing. He can be the real deal, but he can just as well be a flash in the pan, from experience. He's had a great start, let's leave it at that.

I've already said I would give Binnington a 5th place, even a 4th and you claim I'm not impressed? Just because I won't give him the Calder, when there are at least three guys far more deserving of the award, because they've had more impressive seasons? Petterson has had an amazing season, Dahlin has had an amazing season, so has Heiskanen, while Binnington has had an amazing half-season. That's the difference.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

No, it was a rhetorical question.

Then it was a terrible rhetorical question, designed to distract everyone from the topic at hand.

"It's not his fault" says the guy that writes a long anecdote about "if I hadn't broken my ankle..."

It's called an analogy. You went through the trouble of making up a hypothetical, presumed it was accurate, and soared off to conclusions based off of it knowing that no one could prove you wrong and with little to nothing in the way of fact to support that leap. I simply illustrated that your comment had as little grounding in fact as any hypothetical I or anyone else could make up that similarly didn't have facts that reasonably support the "obvious" conclusion. I'm sorry if that got lost on you.

So what that it isn't his fault? Is it other players' fault they have to play their rookie season on far worse teams than St Louis? Should the voters give Binnington handicap points, because it was the fault of the management for not playing him more games?

You're being absurd now. Players who are on terrible teams have the chance to stick out in the minds of voters to get award consideration, and often do. If you're good, you're going to still be good on a lousy team; you won't have all the gaudy stats that go with being on a great team, but people who know the game will understand the difference.

I don't prescribe how voters should vote. If they want to give him handicap points for only playing half a season, that's their decision to make. I'm just telling you, there are voters out there who are going to weigh his performance equally with other guys who played a full season. Not saying it's right or it's wrong, I'm just saying "it's going to happen." I'm at least recognizing that likelihood; you're dismissing it out of hand.

If 30 games is enough to win an award in an 82 game season, what isn't enough to win the Calder as a goalie? 25? 15? 10? 5? 2? 1?

In 2015, Hammond's 23 starts were apparently enough to get consideration for other major awards; it's pretty reasonable to think he would have gotten votes for the Calder had he been eligible. The criteria for Calder consideration says "can't play more than 25 games in a prior year" so I would say "at least 25 games" because that takes one out of consideration for a future year [presuming the player is still age-eligible and hasn't hit the stupid "didn't play more than 6 games in each of any two prior years" rule].

Beyond that? Define "art" in an objective fashion.

The reason I'm not praising the new St Louis Jesus yet is, 30 games when it comes to evaluating - especially - goaltenders is nothing.

1. "St Louis Jesus." I didn't realize we were down to grossly distorting the opinions of other fan bases to try and make our point, but hey ... if you think you need it, go for it.
2. You know what else is nothing? Evaluating forwards and defensemen after even much of a full rookie season.

He can be the real deal, but he can just as well be a flash in the pan, from experience. He's had a great start, let's leave it at that.

Interesting, because I've been trying to do that and you're the one saying "well, he may not continue this at all, it's only X games" and then start working to tear him down from there.

I've already said I would give Binnington a 5th place, even a 4th and you claim I'm not impressed?

This is at least a change from

So why does that make it a Calder case? Being able to outplay Allen is hardly something sensational.

and

Hence why I'd say the reform in structure is the biggest reason the Blues reached the playoffs

and

But I'm saying he shouldn't even be a nominee for the Calder, simply because he hasn't played enough.

So, we're making progress.

Just because I won't give him the Calder, when there are at least three guys far more deserving of the award, because they've had more impressive seasons? Petterson has had an amazing season, Dahlin has had an amazing season, so has Heiskanen, while Binnington has had an amazing half-season. That's the difference.

No one deserves anything. Dahlin doesn't deserve this award for having "an amazing season." Neither do Heiskanen, Petterson, or anyone else. And I'm not saying Binnington should win it. But I'm telling you, if you can't look at what Binnington did this season and say "damn, that was pretty impressive" and understand that for a rookie, it's even more impressive and that it's caught the eyes of prospective voters around the league, ... well, I don't know what else to say.

And maybe you need to fully clarify that while you think he should get votes, you don't think he should be a finalist for the award. Because when I see nominee in relation to an award, I think "got votes for consideration" or "was nominated for consideration for the award." Example: there's 31 nominees for the Masterton; only 3 will be finalists.

Or, you know, come up with more derisive names for Binnington to try and make your point. Whatever works for you.

 

[Samzilla]

That argument is pure tomfoolery, so what makes Pettersson a Calder winner because he out played the crappy Cunucks roster? He was gifted playing time. (This is for you Dalas fans) So, I guess Heiskanen deserves the Calader more because he fought for his spot on a good team. No freebies for him. 32 games issue for a goalie is silly. 25 games played is the minimum for a goalie to win the Vezina and William Jennings. Therefore a goalie with more than 25 games should at the very least be considered for the Calder Trophy.

And yet Elliott put up the greatest regular season sv% ever when he was with the Blues and didn't win the vezina because he only played around 40 games. He met the 25 game but still wasn't enough.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

 

[Chimpradamus]

Then it was a terrible rhetorical question, designed to distract everyone from the topic at hand.
Ok, but it was still intended as a rhetorical question that at least I considered to be fairly obvious, in conjencture with the context it was asked in. I've already acknowledged the poster I answered to was correct, St Louis was better with Binnington and his part was bigger, than the increased structure of play of St Louis. I don't even know why you bring this up again. You're the one going off-topic with bringing this up, again, so don't throw bricks in a glass house by calling my statements off-topic. At the time, it was an actual argument, you know, I just wanted to see the response. Yet here we are, multiple posts later. Just drop it.
[QUIOTE]It's called an analogy. You went through the trouble of making up a hypothetical, presumed it was accurate, and soared off to conclusions based off of it knowing that no one could prove you wrong and with little to nothing in the way of fact to support that leap. I simply illustrated that your comment had as little grounding in fact as any hypothetical I or anyone else could make up that similarly didn't have facts that reasonably support the "obvious" conclusion. I'm sorry if that got lost on you.

Whatever, let's drop it. It wasn't worth it for either of us, we just look like terriers.

You're being absurd now. Players who are on terrible teams have the chance to stick out in the minds of voters to get award consideration, and often do. If you're good, you're going to still be good on a lousy team; you won't have all the gaudy stats that go with being on a great team, but people who know the game will understand the difference.

Ok. Playing for a garbage team as a rookie is apparently an advantage. I disagree. You think Binnington would've enjoyed playing for Buffalo, Vancouver or even Dallas (competing with Bishop)? You think his Calder votes would've been the same? Give me a break. He can be lucky he had his rookie season on a mid team, competing with Allen, that was a garbage #1, a team capable of playing solid hockey and he could support it (not so lucky).

I don't prescribe how voters should vote. If they want to give him handicap points for only playing half a season, that's their decision to make. I'm just telling you, there are voters out there who are going to weigh his performance equally with other guys who played a full season. Not saying it's right or it's wrong, I'm just saying "it's going to happen." I'm at least recognizing that likelihood; you're dismissing it out of hand.

Yeah, biased voters, for whatever reason. Some will probably give him handicap votes. I don't say it's right. He still won't end up top 3, but 4-5th, as I've said, because most value the whole season.

In 2015, Hammond's 23 starts were apparently enough to get consideration for other major awards; it's pretty reasonable to think he would have gotten votes for the Calder had he been eligible. The criteria for Calder consideration says "can't play more than 25 games in a prior year" so I would say "at least 25 games" because that takes one out of consideration for a future year [presuming the player is still age-eligible and hasn't hit the stupid "didn't play more than 6 games in each of any two prior years" rule].

Beyond that? Define "art" in an objective fashion.

Eligible is a long way apart from actually getting nominated as a top 3 player. But thank you for the technical answer, I didn't know that. Marginally being able to "be voted on" is a long way from winning the

As for the rest, I can't care to answer to it, you dissected it too much. I'm sure it wasn't that relevant, it's a hockey forum after all.

 

[Devilsfan118]

Kinda hilarious how Pettersson didn't even manage to get 30 goals after his tremendous start. I seem to recall more than a few Nucks fans claiming he'd easily eclipse 40. Even with his insane S% he 'only' managed 28.

That said, I think he's got a ton of deserved hype surrounding him so I'd be very surprised if it's anyone but him.

 

[Flash20]

View attachment 210839

So what’s harder defense or offense

And let’s not forget it usually takes about 3 to 4 years for defenseman

 

[Chimpradamus]

Kinda hilarious how Pettersson didn't even manage to get 30 goals after his tremendous start. I seem to recall more than a few Nucks fans claiming he'd easily eclipse 40. Even with his insane S% he 'only' managed 28.

That said, I think he's got a ton of deserved hype surrounding him so I'd be very surprised if it's anyone but him.

Yeah, I was one of them. I see the trade of one of his best friends (management morons), his knee injury and the increased focal attention from all opponents as his cold streak. All teams knew if you shut down Pettersson, you would win the game.

That still doesn't stop him from having a 40-50+ goal shot though. He's capable, not just playing with garbage, that needs support. But, he's good enough to be a 35-40 goal threat even on Vancouver with some more experience and muscle.