rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/09/85)
<-- but ma, it ATE uncle fred -> A couple of weeks ago Sports Illustrated ran a story on Warren Young of the Pittsburgh Penguins, a 29 year old rookie in the NHL. There has been some talk about the Calder trophie (Rookie of the Year) that has mentioned Young, and Carrie Wilson (28 years old) of Calgary. But as I recall there was a big flap a few years ago when Peter Stastny won the Calder. Some owners (Ballard, maybe?) and general managers, and fans thought that it was unfair for some 24 or 25 year old European to come to North America and beat out all the teenaged Canadians (and Americans now, I guess) for the Rookie honors. There was some talk about putting an upper limit on the age of the Calder winner. I thought that that had been passed but I assume from the Young and Wilson talk that it never was. Does anyone *know*? -- Rick Gillespie rick@ucla-cs ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick "She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."
cjsgro@watrose.UUCP (cjsgro) (02/11/85)
I haven't heard if there's an age limit but I STRONGLY suspect that the fact that I haven't (and that various sports people around here are saying that Young is a strong candidate for the Calder) is a good indication. -- Carlo Sgro ...{ihnp4||allegra}!watmath!watrose!cjsgro "I told you not to do that!"
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (02/12/85)
At the time when Peter Stastny won the Calder Trophy, the eligibility rule read something like this: "To be eligible for the Calder Trophy, a player must not have played more than 25 games in any one previous season or more than six games in each of any two previous seasons in the NHL or any other major professional league." The controversy surrounding Stastny's winning of the award was the "any other major professional league" part. If you recall, the year before Stastny won the award was Wayne Gretzky's first year in the NHL, but he didn't win the Calder Trophy. Gretzky played one year in the World Hockey Association, which was considered a major professional league for the purposes of Calder Trophy eligibility, so Gretzky and others like Michel Goulet, Craig Hartsburg, Rick Vaive and Rob Ramage never had a chance to win the Calder Trophy, even though they were all still of junior age when they joined the NHL. (I wish I could remember who did win the Calder that year.) There was a lot of furor about it, and the situation was amplified by Stastny's winning of the award, because Stastny had played several years in the Czechoslovak first division and had also played for their national team. Even though it was major league experience, it was not considered "professional," so Stastny was eligible. This seems unfair and hypocritical because NHL people have been saying for years that the Czech and Russian players are just as professional as the NHL'ers, and many of the NHL governors refused to acknowledge that the WHA was a major league until after it folded. Incidentally, the International Olympic Committee ruled last year that the WHA was not professional enough to disqualify its former players from olympic play, thereby putting it roughly on par with the Czech first division and putting both of them below the NHL. Anyway, the bottom line is that I don't remember the rule being changed since then, but if there has been a change, it most likely would have been the removal or redefinition of the word "professional." The leagues that Warren Young and Carey Wilson played in are not considered "major," so they are still eligible. They won't win it though. It's going to go to Chris Chelios. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (02/14/85)
In article <1381@dciem.UUCP> jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) writes: >Anyway, the bottom line is that I don't remember the rule being changed since >then, but if there has been a change, it most likely would have been the >removal or redefinition of the word "professional." The leagues that Warren >Young and Carey Wilson played in are not considered "major," so they are >still eligible. They won't win it though. It's going to go to Chris Chelios. Here's my vote for Chelios, too. Although here, too, I think we're bordering on the limits of eligibility. Chelios played (I think) about eight regular-season games last year, as well as the full playoffs, a total of almost 25 games. He's damn good, but is he a rookie? \tom watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (02/14/85)
> Chelios played (I think) > about eight regular-season games last year, as well as the full > playoffs, a total of almost 25 games. He's damn good, but is he a > rookie? Chelios IS eligible for the Calder Trophy. I neglected to mention in my original posting that the 25 games in one season (or 6 in each of two seasons) required to make a player ineligible for the Calder must be regular season games. Playoff games don't count. I'm not sure whether his combined regular-season and playoff total was more than 25 games, but Ken Dryden was able to win the Conn Smythe Trophy for the 1971 playoffs, and then take the Calder the following year because he played fewer than 25 games in the 70-71 regular season. He's the only player ever to win the Calder after having already won another NHL trophy. This may seem unreasonable, since the playoff experience Dryden and Chelios got is probably worth at least a full regular season, but it makes sense if you consider that the Calder Trophy is supposed to be awarded based solely on the player's performance in the regular season. However, I don't think the voting is done until after the playoffs, so I find it hard to believe that if a player has a good playoff, it won't influence the voting (same goes for the other trophies that require voting, especially the Selke because there aren't any real stats to go on for best defensive forward). With each team playing most other teams only three times during the regular season, the writers who do the voting don't have much to go on unless they see the players in the playoffs. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (02/15/85)
In article <1389@dciem.UUCP> jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) writes: >> Chelios played (I think) >> about eight regular-season games last year, as well as the full >> playoffs, a total of almost 25 games. He's damn good, but is he a >> rookie? > Chelios IS eligible for the Calder Trophy. I neglected to mention in my > original posting that the 25 games in one season (or 6 in each of two seasons) > required to make a player ineligible for the Calder must be regular season > games. Playoff games don't count. I'm not sure whether his combined > regular-season and playoff total was more than 25 games, but Ken Dryden was > able to win the Conn Smythe Trophy for the 1971 playoffs, and then take the > Calder the following year because he played fewer than 25 games in the 70-71 > regular season. He's the only player ever to win the Calder after having > already won another NHL trophy. Actually, I did realize that Chelios is eligible for the trophy (I endorsed him for it) in my posting. What I was questioning is whether he *should* be classified as a rookie. 25 games, plus maybe another 25 for the playoffs, and you're still a rookie (not Chelios, but a hypothetical player...)? I really think that's a bit excessive. Maybe at least the playoff games should be counted, too. What do you people out there think? \tom watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (02/15/85)
It seems to me that the most likely winner of the Calder trophy is Lemieux. He is second in goals among rookies (first is Young), first in assists among rookies, and first in shooting percentage anong rookies. Also, nobody doubts what he has already meant to his team. They were 0-6-1 when he was injured, and are nearly .500 with him in the lineup. When Young was asked why he was doing so well, after having been ignored for so many years, he replied that it was because he was fortunate to have been placed on the same line with Lemieux. The coach had placed Young together with Lemieux early on, but had then removed him from the line. Lemieux asked that Young be returned to his line, and the result has been great for both. To draw a parallel, nobody denies that Jarri Kuri is a fine player, but his goal totals are so high because he is on the same line with the greatest assister in history. Paul Benjamin "I love the game of hockey - I just wish the NHL would play it!"
jhr2@houem.UUCP (J.ROSENBLUTH) (02/16/85)
> The controversy surrounding Stastny's winning of the award was the "any > other major professional league" part. If you recall, the year before > Stastny won the award was Wayne Gretzky's first year in the NHL, but he > didn't win the Calder Trophy. Gretzky played one year in the World Hockey > Association, which was considered a major professional league for the > purposes of Calder Trophy eligibility, so Gretzky and others like Michel > Goulet, Craig Hartsburg, Rick Vaive and Rob Ramage never had a chance to > win the Calder Trophy, even though they were all still of junior age when > they joined the NHL. (I wish I could remember who did win the Calder that > year.) There was a lot of furor about it, and the situation was To the best of my recollection, Ray Borque won the Calder that year (1979-80). Mike Foligno finished second in the voting. Josh Rosenbluth (...!houxm!houem!jhr2)
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (02/18/85)
> Actually, I did realize that Chelios is eligible for the trophy (I > endorsed him for it) in my posting. What I was questioning is whether > he *should* be classified as a rookie. 25 games, plus maybe another > 25 for the playoffs, and you're still a rookie (not Chelios, but a > hypothetical player...)? I really think that's a bit excessive. > Maybe at least the playoff games should be counted, too. What do you > people out there think? > > watmath!watdcsu!haapanen I think that regardless of where he played before, each and every NHL player player should be eligible for the Calder Trophy once during his career, (I think the NHL agrees with me, but they just made an exception for the WHA players because they wanted to get back at them for signing with the other league), so the issue here seems to be: Where do we draw the line and say that a player is no longer a rookie, in such a way as to be fair to him by giving him a reasonable chance to win the award, and to be fair to the other rookies by not putting them up against someone with signif- icantly more experience? The NHL has drawn the line at 25 regular season games. As Tom said, it's silly not to count playoff games, because they are certainly valid NHL experience. (In the six-team days when the rule was made, it was impossible to play more than 14 playoff games in a season, so they didn't really have to worry about this problem.) However, since I think that each player should be eligible once, to make a player who gets into only 8 regular season games and then plays 20 playoff games ineligible the following year makes his rookie season only 8 games long, since playoff performances aren't supposed to count in the Calder voting, effectively giving him no chance of ever winning the award. If playoff performances counted in the Calder voting, it would give a big unfair advantage to the rookies from teams that won at least two playoff series, because the voters would see them a lot more than the other players. 25 or 30 games is not much experience even if some of it is in the playoffs. Consistency over an entire season is a totally different story, so my proposal to the NHL board of governors is: Change the maximum number of games Calder candidates are allowed in a previous season from "25 regular season games" to "40 regular season or playoff games", but continue to award the trophy based only on regular season performances. This would make Chelios eligible this year, as I think he should be, but would make Tom's hypothetical player with 25 regular season plus 25 playoff games ineligible the following year. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/19/85)
> In article <1381@dciem.UUCP> jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) writes: > > >still eligible. They won't win it though. It's going to go to Chris Chelios. > > Here's my vote for Chelios, too. Although here, too, I think we're > bordering on the limits of eligibility. Chelios played (I think) > about eight regular-season games last year, as well as the full > playoffs, a total of almost 25 games. He's damn good, but is he a > rookie? > I'm a Montreal fan, but I also like the great rise of Warren Young. I'd have to go with him. It's a shame that he didn't make it to the All-Star game. Even with Mario winning the MVP, he's going to be in more All-Star games than Mr.Young.
rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/21/85)
In article <960@watdcsu.UUCP> haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) writes: > >Here's my vote for Chelios, too. Although here, too, I think we're >bordering on the limits of eligibility. Chelios played (I think) >about eight regular-season games last year, as well as the full >playoffs, a total of almost 25 games. He's damn good, but is he a >rookie? > A player is considered a rookie if he has played less than 20 REGULAR season games the previous year. There are also rules for so-many-total-games in a number of previous seasons. Playoff experience doesn't count. Thus Ken Dryden was able to be the Rookie of the Year the year *after* he was voted the Most Valuable Player in the playoffs (grrrrr, Chicago should have won the Cup). Anyway, it is tough to say exactly what constitutes a rookie these days. With international play becoming so much more important, players are coming into the NHL with lots of experience. For example, Par Lafontaine and Pat Flatley were, arguably, the best players on their countrys' Olympic teams (*lots* of exposure and ice time). They then joined the Islanders late in the season (with about 15 games to go) and were major contributors in the playoffs. But both are considered rookies this year. As for who will win this year - Chelios hasn't a chance. Being MVP of the All-Star game will lock it up for Mario Lemieux. So much for my pre-season prediction of Pat Lafontaine (we Islander fans are die-hards). -- Rick Gillespie rick@ucla-cs ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick "She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/21/85)
> > > >Here's my vote for Chelios, too. Although here, too, I think we're > >bordering on the limits of eligibility. Chelios played (I think) > >about eight regular-season games last year, as well as the full > >playoffs, a total of almost 25 games. He's damn good, but is he a > >rookie? > > > > As for who will win this year - Chelios hasn't a chance. Being MVP of the > All-Star game will lock it up for Mario Lemieux. So much for my pre-season > prediction of Pat Lafontaine (we Islander fans are die-hards). Rick, you are damn right! I can't agree with you more. How can a defensive defenseman like Chelios (5 goals, 44 points) get the Rookie of the year award with the presence of Lemieux (24 goals, 63 points). It is well known that the writers in NHL always vote for scorers (except Rod Langway for the Norris). If you are not in the class of Tom Barrasso, Ray Bourque, or Denis Potvin as a defensive player, you won't get the Calder. Besides, Lemieux gets all the publicity this year. -- Eddy Lor ...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!lor lor@ucla-locus.arpa
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (02/27/85)
All this talk about the NHL rookie of the year has given me an idea: THE FIRST ANNUAL NET.SPORT.HOCKEY NHL TROPHY AND ALL-STAR POLL All you have to do is send me (by electronic mail, please don't post) your answers to the following questions: 1. If you were on the committee that determines the NHL trophy winners, for whom would you vote for each of the following trophies: a. HART (for the player most valuable to his team) b. LADY BYNG (for the player who best combines sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct with a high standard of playing ability) c. JAMES NORRIS (for the top defenseman) d. VEZINA (for the top goaltender) e. CALDER (for the rookie of the year) f. SELKE (for the top defensive forward) 2. If you were on the committee that determines the NHL all-stars, for whom would you vote for first and second all-star at each position (i.e., who are the top four defensemen and the top two players at each other position.) If you don't want to or can't vote for all of the above, just send me whatever you can come up with. I'll tabulate the results and post them the week of March 18. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (03/02/85)
In article <4014@ucla-cs.ARPA> lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Kar-Wing Lor) writes: >> As for who will win this year - Chelios hasn't a chance. Being MVP of the >> All-Star game will lock it up for Mario Lemieux. So much for my pre-season >> prediction of Pat Lafontaine (we Islander fans are die-hards). >Rick, you are damn right! I can't agree with you more. How can >a defensive defenseman like Chelios (5 goals, 44 points) >get the Rookie of the year award with the presence of Lemieux >(24 goals, 63 points). >It is well known that the writers in NHL always vote for scorers >(except Rod Langway for the Norris). If you are not in the class >of Tom Barrasso, Ray Bourque, or Denis Potvin as a defensive player, >you won't get the Calder. Besides, Lemieux gets all the publicity this year. Hey, guys! 44 points for a defenceman? 63 for a much-hyped forward? I don't think that alone is going to give Lemieux the trophy. No way. And I do think that Chelios is right up there with Barrasso, Bourque and Potvin --- he was voted to the first team for the All-Star game, wasn't he (or was it second team? I don't think so, but... ) Lemieux' publicity hasn't been all that positive after the season started; he hasn't quite performed up to everybody's expectations. I still stand by Chelios as my choice. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (03/16/85)
> As of Thursday the Penguins had scored 221 goals. 70 points gives me > a little over than 30% involvement. You have to subtract out the games he missed due to injury, since he had no chance to contribute to the goals his team scored. Again, his team went 0-5-1 when he missed a stretch earlier this year. He draws a lot of attention away from his teammates.