View Single Post
09-11-2012, 02:58 PM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 46,031
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
See, it's statements like this that can be troublesome. I count a total of nine votes received, ever, for the norris and all-star teams combined. There is just no basis there on which to draw any conclusions. Only including the years where that sparse recognition was earned, a combined 532 ballots were cast and he was named on just 9 of them. I would not claim a guy with 25 mentions in this time must have been better, and it's just as likely a guy with 0 mentions in this time was better than Seabrook.
This is a good point, but I wouldn't completely dismiss a low but nontrivial number like 9 all star votes, either. That's the equivalent of 9 reporters saying "I think he was worth being recognized." certainly not close to everything, but worth noting.

Edit: agree that you can't even attenpt to outright "rank" players based on opinions by a small minority

(the 2010 rangers missed the playoffs, but just by a shootout. But I disagree that he'd have earned more icetime than Staal or Martin, off the top of my head)
Right, forgot about missing the playoffs via shootout. I remember much joy at the Rangers misfortune now that you remind me

Out of curiosity, how often did you watch the Islanders those seasons? I thought Streit was easily better overall than Staal at that point, and he certainly stood out more than Martin. Maybe it was a case of a player standing out more because his teammates were crap, but I thought Streit was a huge difference maker - the Islanders actually looked NHL-quality when he was on the ice! And there was a minority opinion around the area that Streit should be a Norris finalist in 2009 - nobody ever said that about Martin

Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-11-2012 at 03:07 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote