So we would have an East Norris winner, and a West Norris winner, an East Vezina winner and a West Vezina winner, etc.
The main argument used by Michael Russo of the Star Tribune is that since the games are only West v West and East v East, that the voting would be "farce" for most awards.
They also say that all awards should be divided this way this year, EXCEPT for the Hart Trophy and the Jack Adams. I would also assume that the Art Ross and Richard trophies would stay the same.
What do you guys think? I personally don't think I'd mind all that much as long as it's just this season. But I'm also perfectly fine with them being awarded the normal way.
Why shouldn't the Jack Adams trophy be divided. This year you could argue that Boudreau deserves it in the west (don't even say coach Q. Coach Q's team has four points on us with a stronger team) and Maclean or Therrien in the East.
Can't believe a writer would cover this topic without mentioning that the 1994-95 award finalists involved separate balloting from each conference.
I didn't know that, seems weird to leave that out while talking about doing close to the same thing.
Like I said, I'd be fine with it, but only this season. And I'd be fine with separate Jack Adams trophies, but I'd say there should only be one Hart given out. The 3 statistical trophies (Richard, Art Ross, Jennings) better be only one as well if they were to go this route.
IF hockey was more like baseball without so much inter-conference play. (Yes I know there is interleague play in baseball) I would be all for it! Say maybe only 4-5 of an 82 game season you play someone from the other conference. Like one game against an opponent in a division and round-robin the divisions every year.
But.... shortened season, new set of conferences this year.
Don't like it. This season doesn't need any more asterisks, and the players are playing the game the same way they would vs opposite-conference opponents. They're only playing what is on their schedules. Pointless.
Don't like it. This season doesn't need any more asterisks, and the players are playing the game the same way they would vs opposite-conference opponents. They're only playing what is on their schedules. Pointless.
The problem isn't with the players, the problem is with the voters. The voters will be voting on these awards after having primarily only watched a single conference worth of players on their ballot for the most part, which will influence their opinion.
The problem isn't with the players, the problem is with the voters. The voters will be voting on these awards after having primarily only watched a single conference worth of players on their ballot for the most part, which will influence their opinion.
Good point, though I think the voters are still voting on player performance overall, not really who they did it against. If that makes sense...
Good point, though I think the voters are still voting on player performance overall, not really who they did it against. If that makes sense...
Again, it's the fact that they likely are only seeing a single conference worth of players and just looking at a stat sheet for the rest.
People tend to have tunnel vision in terms of actually watching games. They tend to watch only what they feel they need to. If their team is only playing against a single conference, then that leave the other conference completely out of their mindset. Yet then they have a ballot that covers both. Of course they are going to vote for whom they've seen in their own conference vs off of a stat sheet from those they haven't seen.
I agree that who the players are playing against will have little influence, it's just the fact that they've likely only seen first hand players from one conference instead of usual in which they see players from both.
Again, it's the fact that they likely are only seeing a single conference worth of players and just looking at a stat sheet for the rest.
People tend to have tunnel vision in terms of actually watching games. They tend to watch only what they feel they need to. If their team is only playing against a single conference, then that leave the other conference completely out of their mindset. Yet then they have a ballot that covers both. Of course they are going to vote for whom they've seen in their own conference vs off of a stat sheet from those they haven't seen.
I agree that who the players are playing against will have little influence, it's just the fact that they've likely only seen first hand players from one conference instead of usual in which they see players from both.
A good post.
Few things:
- Norris is, sadly, always statistics based, so that doesn't seem to be an award that will be impacted this year
- can a voter in the West ignore what someone like Crosby is doing, even without seeing him with frequency?
- additionally, hypothetically, "East" voters whose team doesn't see Getzlaf play much in a normal season... Why is this year different? 1 time versus none?
I think it's overanalyzation to want separate conference awards
- Norris is, sadly, always statistics based, so that doesn't seem to be an award that will be impacted this year
- can a voter in the West ignore what someone like Crosby is doing, even without seeing him with frequency?
- additionally, hypothetically, "East" voters whose team doesn't see a Getzlaf play much in a normal season... Why is this year different? 1 time versus none?
I think it's overanalyzation to want separate conference awards
The Norris SHOULDN'T only be statistics based, and it's not always completely that way... but I'm afraid it will be this year.
As for Crosby, I think that's why it was suggested to keep the Hart singular overall. It's supposed to be an MVP award, and that's easier to agree on overall - since a player usually is such a clear MVP of his team to even be considered... and obviously with what Crosby is doing, he's running away with it anyway.
And no it's not 1 vs none, it's 2 vs none, or possibly more vs none. Since you are likely to watch games that affect your team, that means when your division rivals also face other conference teams, you are still usually paying attention.
It's just a suggestion for a single season... this would be the only time. I think it's a good suggestion is all.
Probably won't happen anyway, but it's a nice idea.
The Norris SHOULDN'T only be statistics based, and it's not always completely that way... but I'm afraid it will be this year.
As for Crosby, I think that's why it was suggested to keep the Hart singular overall. It's supposed to be an MVP award, and that's easier to agree on overall - since a player usually is such a clear MVP of his team to even be considered... and obviously with what Crosby is doing, he's running away with it anyway.
And no it's not 1 vs none, it's 2 vs none, or possibly more vs none. Since you are likely to watch games that affect your team, that means when your division rivals also face other conference teams, you are still usually paying attention.
I think youre being a bit "intentionally contradictory" now.
Which awards are you referring to? The Selke? A trophy that, unless you're watching video of every player every game, is more reputation based and based on word of mouth anyways?
Vezina? Good goaltending is really easy to identify, I don't think anyone is limited in terms of this schedule hindering one's ability to pick out the best goaltender.
It's just a suggestion for a single season... this would be the only time. I think it's a good suggestion is all.
Probably won't happen anyway, but it's a nice idea.
I know what you mean but I don't see any awards that are vastly impacted by this schedule, particularly because of how pathetic a manner in which certain awards are voted on/given out
i get what PD is getting at, because the media is in charge of the major awards and the media mostly only covers their home teams.
That said, i have to have some faith in the media that they're watching other hockey, and arnt only influenced by the games they see against their home teams.
Basically, while i understand why some people might think it's a good idea, i dont think it's really necessary.
i get what PD is getting at, because the media is in charge of the major awards and the media mostly only covers their home teams.
That said, i have to have some faith in the media that they're watching other hockey, and arnt only influenced by the games they see against their home teams.
Basically, while i understand why some people might think it's a good idea, i dont think it's really necessary.
It looks to me that the only award the Theory would be appropriate for is the Calder, since rookie exposure of guys outside of your conference is minimal.
But again, more often than not, the imbeciles give the trophy to a high scoring rookie who they don't see much of anyways (or one who Henrik Tallinder made look like a Norris candidate a few years back)
I think in a west only situation Brodin would actually get an invite to the Awards party as a likely finalist. In an entire league situation, he'd get completely ignored by those in the east because they'd see his stats and think "Meh, who the hell is Brodin?"
but I don't see any awards that are vastly impacted by this schedule, particularly because of how pathetic a manner in which certain awards are voted on/given out
)
