HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   NHL All-Star team voting lost its credibility to judging a player's worth (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1490007)

jcbio11 08-26-2013 10:58 PM

NHL All-Star team voting lost its credibility to judging a player's worth
 
I say the NHL All-Star team selections should no longer hold as much value as before or even not be used anymore in the history threads. Why you ask?

Ovechkin fiasco.

It seems only fair.

Discuss.

TheDevilMadeMe 08-26-2013 11:27 PM

First off, 2012-13 was a horrible season for the voting process. They played a compressed schedule and the Conferences didn't play each other. I think they would have been better off doing what they did in 1994-95 - have writers only vote on their own Conferences, come up with 5 finalists per Conference, and then have a smaller panel of national writers vote on the finalists. Nobody has any issues with the 1994-95 results.

Second of all, the Ovechkin fiasco was as much about crappy procedures as it was about anything. Apparently, writers were informed in previous seasons that they should vote based on NHL.com positions regardless of where players actually played - See Zetterberg being named 2nd Team LW when he played C and Kovalchuk being named 1st Team LW when he played RW. They seem to have switched things around this past season to vote Ovechkin in his actual position, not his NHL.com position, but a lot of writers didn't get the memo.

I have no idea why they didn't just reject the faulty ballots and ask the writers to re-vote though.

But to an extent you are correct - the All-Star voting seems to just get worse every year.

Evincar 08-26-2013 11:28 PM

Couldnt the same be said about the Norris and Vezina that were won this past season?

Couldnt the same be said about the Conn Smythe since its been awarded to players on the losing teams?

jumptheshark 08-26-2013 11:32 PM

thought this was beaten to death when it happened>?

TheDevilMadeMe 08-26-2013 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bozwell (Post 70547809)
thought this was beaten to death when it happened>?

It was certainly beaten to death and then some in a general sense, but I don't think we ever had a discussion on what it means for a player's historical legacy.

Killion 08-26-2013 11:35 PM

Or I guess as Damien Cox suggested you go from secret ballot voting to open & transparent votes. That way when they screw up we'll all know who they are, free to spam their in-boxes, tie them to stakes in the city square & throw rotten vegetable matter at them....

jcbio11 08-26-2013 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 70547891)
It was certainly beaten to death and then some in a general sense, but I don't think we ever had a discussion on what it means for a player's historical legacy.

Exactly what I was hoping to accomplish.

Was originally thinking of posting this to the "Peter Bondra, HHOF?" thread, because in his case, this was an oft repeated argument against him (no All Star team selections). So I was thinking we can certainly scratch that one out.

Then I decided to make a more general, broader topic.

silkyjohnson50 08-26-2013 11:48 PM

With all the new technology and available info we have there's a lot more room for questioning and criticism in general. We realize that we can't take everything as certain. I'd imagine if the internet, NHL center ice/game cast, online streaming, and HFBoards were always around, many things from the past would be viewed much differently.

But yes, the Ovechkin fiasco is embarrassing.

jcbio11 08-26-2013 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litework (Post 70547697)
Couldnt the same be said about the Norris and Vezina that were won this past season?

Couldnt the same be said about the Conn Smythe since its been awarded to players on the losing teams?

No. They were at least legitimate within the existing system of voting rules set up for them.

Case in point -
I certainly don't agree with this year's Norris trophy decision, I am not however questioning its legitimacy.

NHL All-Star teams however were just nonsensical this year with two Ovechkins, thus not legitimate, forever casting a shadow of doubt on all previous selections as well.

TheDevilMadeMe 08-27-2013 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbio11 (Post 70548167)
Exactly what I was hoping to accomplish.

Was originally thinking of posting this to the "Peter Bondra, HHOF?" thread, because in his case, this was an oft repeated argument against him (no All Star team selections). So I was thinking we can certainly scratch that one out.

Then I decided to make a more general, broader topic.

Why? How does 2012-13's faulty process make All-Star votes from the 1990s invalid?

Evincar 08-27-2013 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbio11 (Post 70548317)
No. They were at least legitimate within the existing system of voting rules set up for them.

Case in point -
I certainly don't agree with this year's Norris trophy decision, I am not however questioning its legitimacy.

No??? I think plenty of people are questioning the legitimacy of the Norris. How many threads have we seen asking for a separate award for offensive and defensive defenseman?

Quote:

NHL All-Star teams however were just nonsensical this year with two Ovechkins, thus not legitimate, forever casting a shadow of doubt on all previous selections as well.
That's the worst logic ever. One mistake in a 2013 48 game season means we should question the entire history of the all-star team voting!!!

What's next the NHL playoffs are fixed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbio11 (Post 70548167)
Exactly what I was hoping to accomplish.

Was originally thinking of posting this to the "Peter Bondra, HHOF?" thread, because in his case, this was an oft repeated argument against him (no All Star team selections). So I was thinking we can certainly scratch that one out.

Then I decided to make a more general, broader topic.

Maybe Bondra just never deserved an All-Star team selection.

double5son10 08-27-2013 01:14 AM

I had read an article earlier in the month about the Kings and West Coast hockey that included a quote from Marcel Dionne saying that he had been voted 1st Team All-Star in 76-77 as a center even though he spent the season playing RW. He said he figured it was because at the time few East Coast/Canadian scribes bothered to travel with the team's they covered out to the left coast. For the life of me I can't even recall where I read that, but here's a Dink Carroll article referring to Bob Pulford having moved Dionne to RW for that season

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=1157,931056

If that's the case, and it appears it was, then the voting in 76-77 for the All-Star Teams was all sorts of screwed up. If Dionne's voted to his proper position for the season, then he's likely the 2nd Team All-Star at RW, behind Lafleur, bumping Lanny McDonald off. Perrault becomes the 1st Team All-Star at center and Bobby Clarke is the 2nd Team center.

Clearly the All-Star vote has never been infallible. Do we reconsider the legacy of some 70s era stars because journalists of the time couldn't be bothered? Should All-Star votes from that era be completely discounted too? I don't think so. Remember they're votes by journalists, not actual hockey people. They're a road marker for discussion, not the end of the journey.

Hardyvan123 08-27-2013 01:19 AM

I think people need to look at all awards and all star selections and voting with a critical eye to see if the voters "got it right" or where in the ballpark with their selections.

Some people value actual trophies, ie Bobby Carke's 3 Harts, more than other guys being in the ball park and not winning but that's a human thing to do, especially if one is fond of a certain player to begin with.

I look at the voting but also look for differences from year to year and do my own analysis as we all should and not just strictly count things like trophies, or SC's for that matter.

Psycho Papa Joe 08-27-2013 06:35 AM

One thing I'd change is to get rid of the RW/LW distinction and just have the top 4 wingers get the all star noms. Better yet, just vote for forwards and the top 6 get the noms.

BraveCanadian 08-27-2013 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 (Post 70549833)
I think people need to look at all awards and all star selections and voting with a critical eye to see if the voters "got it right" or where in the ballpark with their selections.

I've been railing against this sort of thinking for a while on here. Not that I think all star voting is the holy grail of player evaluation by any means..

You either have to accept the voting (outside of very obvious errors like this past years position fiasco) or ignore it.

It is very difficult to critically decide 50 years on that you know better than the writers voting at the time. Obviously if you are doing so you are doing it on the basis of hindsight and off hockey card stats for the most part.

Also, who gets to decide which ones are legit and which ones aren't? Based on what?

begbeee 08-27-2013 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe (Post 70551507)
One thing I'd change is to get rid of the RW/LW distinction and just have the top 4 wingers get the all star noms. Better yet, just vote for forwards and the top 6 get the noms.

Worthy of another discussion, but if you get rid of R/L distinction, weaker LW position would come short. If you get rid of all positions, wingers in general are endangerd species in whole voting process.

OP: While Ovechkin's case is an embarassment, in general, AS are one of the better indicator of player's historical legacy - at least I do believe so. Of course, not in a vacuum.

Hawkman 08-27-2013 08:08 AM

I'd love to see some Hall of Fame GM, Coach, or player (Bowman/Orr?) start a website where they and other Hall of Famers publicly vote on the Norris from 2 years ago and going forward. It would be fascinating to see who they pick and they can't do worse than the last 2 years.

Hardyvan123 08-27-2013 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 70552093)
I've been railing against this sort of thinking for a while on here. Not that I think all star voting is the holy grail of player evaluation by any means..

You either have to accept the voting (outside of very obvious errors like this past years position fiasco) or ignore it.

It is very difficult to critically decide 50 years on that you know better than the writers voting at the time. Obviously if you are doing so you are doing it on the basis of hindsight and off hockey card stats for the most part.

Also, who gets to decide which ones are legit and which ones aren't? Based on what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by double5son10 (Post 70549787)
They're a road marker for discussion, not the end of the journey.

this sums it up nicely for me.

we know that the criteria doesn't appear to be similar over time, or we can make a reasonable guess there.

Just look at bobby Calrkes Selke voting before he won close to retirement, or Phil Espositio winning it then not being in the top 10 when Clarke won despite a slightly less season and still a league leader in scoring.

We are always making decisions based on all sorts of information we can't really verify, players from the past, defensive play, so why not make decisions with a critical eye on all star voting and trophies ect.

We know what the voters did at the time already but we don't ahve to always accept that they didn't make mistakes or that their criteria doesn't appear to be the same.

Guys in the ballpark are more important than actual winners and guys that came in 2nd IMO.

begbeee 08-27-2013 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkman (Post 70552185)
I'd love to see some Hall of Fame GM, Coach, or player (Bowman/Orr?) start a website where they and other Hall of Famers publicly vote on the Norris from 2 years ago and going forward. It would be fascinating to see who they pick and they can't do worse than the last 2 years.

With option of hindsight, one would always be under influence of "not deserving". You see people, now even more often, talk about Cheechoo's Richard T. like he is not deserving it, while at the moment (and still is) it was legitimate winner with growing goalscoring pedigree, player who started to establish his star status, later destroyed by injuries. Yet with uneducated hindsight he looks like "not deserving". And that's the trophy based on numbers, not eyetest. Can you imagine the mess with Vezina?

Psycho Papa Joe 08-27-2013 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by begbeee (Post 70552155)
Worthy of another discussion, but if you get rid of R/L distinction, weaker LW position would come short. If you get rid of all positions, wingers in general are endangerd species in whole voting process.

OP: While Ovechkin's case is an embarassment, in general, AS are one of the better indicator of player's historical legacy - at least I do believe so. Of course, not in a vacuum.

Well we don't recognize the L/R distinction with dmen, so perhaps it should be ignored with wingers as well. Center is a more distinct position so perhaps I was going overboard in that regard.

tjcurrie 08-27-2013 09:39 AM

A lot of people on here do put way too much stock in it yes. "Well this guy has x amount of votes vs this guy having a few less." etc etc. I think what gets lost is the fact that it's a bunch of guys and their opinions, how they feel on that day, or who they just like better - and a lot of the time it's a flip of a coin. You count it all on a guy's resume, but it's not the deciding factor in any vs debate by any means.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.