View Single Post
08-27-2013, 08:09 AM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
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?
Originally Posted by double5son10 View Post
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.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote