HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

The Calder race should be a two horse race

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-19-2004, 10:51 PM
  #176
btn
Gone Hollywood
 
btn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ATL
Country: United States
Posts: 15,669
vCash: 500
Raycroft is the only horse left in this race. He will win the Calder quite easily. No offense to the other players involved, but goaltending has always been an achilies heel for the Bruins and he stepped up big time.

btn is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 12:00 AM
  #177
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by btn
Raycroft is the only horse left in this race. He will win the Calder quite easily. No offense to the other players involved, but goaltending has always been an achilies heel for the Bruins and he stepped up big time.

I think Raycroft should win, but that logic could be applied to Ryder as well. Montreal's achilles heel has been a physical, good sized, two way forward with great goal scoring ability, and he stepped up big time.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 12:22 AM
  #178
Laperriere22*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: CO
Country: Denmark
Posts: 3,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardog
That is odd indeed, because I don't believe my post compared Orpik to Hamhuis's play in any way shape or form. Yet you dissected the reason Hammy should be higher than Orpik basing it on thier play entirely.
Like i said, it is odd considering that wasn't my point or my argument.

And the logic of comparing thier seasons is flawed because Orpik hasn't impressed YOU?!?!?
I am sorry, I didnt realize that you were the be all and end all of every hockey situation and player on the face of the earth. Thats kinda arrogant dont ya think?

I also didnt need the details as to why Orpik shouldnt be considered, as I cleary stated that wasn't my intent for my post as I do not think he should be in the running.

My point was, and is, that even if you dont wish to think so, you played Hammy's attributes up as the reason it should be a "two horse race" while at the same time you mentioned the various weaknesses of other players and the flaws in thier games.
That is hardly an objective comparison IMO. Hammy, too, has weaknesses. As a rookie defenseman, he can be exploited at times. Base his strengths against the strengths of others, and at the same time, base his weaknesses against that of others and you will get a much more objective and fair comparison IMO.

As for Orpik and his positional problems, Hammy has those at times as well. Every defenseman who has played in this league less than two years is going to have them. Orpik's though, are much less than the average rookie D-man. I don't know why you would say that he has positional "problems" as if they are a recurring theme in his game. They are not.
And once again, so you dont bring it up to support an argument, I am not saying he should be considered for any trophies this year. I just dont think he should be slighted like you clearly did, simply to build a case against every other rookie defensman other than Hamhuis, which you also have clearly done.
How do you get that much rambling out of a fairly brief paragraph? Honestly. Show me where I clearly slighted Orpik. The whole point of my paragraph was to address your accusations and explain the situation in existence before you stepped in. Go back to page 1 and 2; see what the Habs poster said in bringing up Orpik. Then see what my response was. Do you believe Orpik's game has been at the level of Hamhuis? I certainly do not and the poster in question flippantly dropped Orpik's name into a debate without adding anything of substance, as if the sheer mentioning of Orpik's name disproves everything said about Hamhuis. So go back, read the background, understand the context, and then reply to that because most everything you said was unnecessary. Orpik's positioning is more of a weakness than Hamhuis' positioning and his offensive side is badly underdeveloped at this stage in comparison. Also, I'm well aware of Hamhuis' positioning issues; it's one of his weaker attributes and I said as much in another thread within the last month.

Love the vague generalizations BTW; didn't remember building a case against every other rookie defenseman besides Hamhuis or do I remember pointing out every player's weaknesses. In fact, the only weaknesses I've pointed out specifically about a player was Orpik's in one post. Where did I point out Ryder's weaknesses? How about Pitkanen's? Please find them and post them for me because all I remember saying is that defensemen have a much tougher position to learn as a rookie compared with a forward and that Pitkanen has not been used in all situations and has been more of a PP specialist. How's that slighting anybody or pointing out weaknesses? Pitkanen's season has not had as big an impact as Hamhuis' IMO; at least Ryder's is more debateable. Pitkanen just doesn't see all situations or heavy minutes, hence his success is more limited than Hamhuis', in terms of a single season performance. My guess is that you read what you wanted to read so that you could make some "grand" spectacle and attribute a lot of things other people have said to me. Whether or not it was your intention, that's basically what you've done and continue to do.


Quote:
You know, this is the other problem that I have with the argument. There are others here who watch a ton of hockey, have vast knowledge (especially about players whom they follow) and are fair and reasonable. Your opinion is more or less stated as a fact on this thread. Maybe i am reading it wrong and it doesnt translate well, but that is the sense that I am getting here.
It seems as if you are taking exception with those who disagree, and finding reasons or excuses for why they prefer a player.
It simply could be, as is the case with me, that they think another is more deserving. I am basing MY opinion only, on having watched a very large amount of hockey this season, including Hamhuis (whom I like a great deal) and Pitkanen (whom I like a bit more).

I dont feel like going into great detail as to why I feel that way, I'll just simply say that Pitk's defense isn't nearly as poor as it has been made out to be in this thread. And I really don't care for the Flyers all that much to be honest.

And about those other brilliant hockey minds that post here on these boards. People who know more than you or I...I dont recall seeing much support for this being a two horse race between Hammy and Raycroft, if ANY support for it.
Certainly there are going to be homers and people who arent as efficent in hockey as others, but with the numbers which have posted on this thread, and to have little support from good minds (even Preds fans, many of whom I respect) should tell you that maybe it is not quite as cut and dry as you may like it to be.
There isn't much of worth here. How about you go back and look at some other Calder threads and check out people's lists instead of complaining about my ego problems? It's just as I said; most posters list a list of players and provide nothing to back up their list. Why should anyone assume such a list is based on vast knowledge? That's rarely the case. Lists are just lists. Without insight, there's no value to someone's list. And without value, there's no reason to assume a poster has vast knowledge.

As for taking exception with people, it's actually called debate. People respond and you respond back, especially when comments are directed at you. I've insulted no one nor have I been short with anybody. Your assessment leaves a lot to be desired.

And once more, as I said to Habsolution, "Stating something with confidence does not mean I'm stating an opinion as fact." I state my opinions confidently, nothing more. If you take that as arrogance, there's nothing I can do for you nor am I willing to change to sugarcoat it. People who know more than I do don't support my words? And I care because? Popular opinion is nothing to get swayed by and having respect for other posters is fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean that I require anyone's support to make my statements. So please, enough of the psychological profile. I'm a psychopath, sociopath, whatever. Case closed. Now back to topic...


Last edited by Laperriere22: 03-20-2004 at 01:17 AM.
Laperriere22* is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 02:00 AM
  #179
Laperriere22*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: CO
Country: Denmark
Posts: 3,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsolution
It's bad premise because you say that :

1: Hamhuis should get more consideration because he's a defenseman.

Should Hamhuis get more consideration because he's a dman ? Is being a good dman harder than being a good forward ?

2 : Because he gets a lot of ice time as a rookie dman.

Bouwmeester got a lot of ice time too in his first season does that make him a rookie of the year ?

3 : Because he plays with another first year dman in Zidlicky.

Zidlicky is 27 years old. There's a reason why those guys aren't considered rookies. They're not exactly rookies.

Hamhuis is a minus player on a playoff team. He has not put up mind boggling numbers. That being said stats aren't everything and I'm ready to believe you when you say that he's been awesome defensively. But to say that he should get so much consideration that he would leave Ryder behind for the calder race if the voting wasn't a popularity contest and to name your thread "The calder race should be a two horse race" is a bad premise IMO.
Key words are "bad premise IMO". Simply put, I don't expect anyone to agree with me for a variety of reasons, but when you say it's a bad premise, you're are just slapping your opinion on something, which is something you did not admit to earlier. If you had said my points were debateable, I would agree and that's the point. But to come out and say it's "bad" presupposes there's something more to it on your end than just opinion. Semantics yes, but disagreeing with something doesn't mean it's a bad premise. Debateable? Yes. Unpopular? Yes. Bad? In your opinion I guess, but there's nothing to support this bad premise outside of your own opinion.

1. That is a near universal truth in hockey. Good defensemen are harder to come by than good forwards and are harder to develop. You can disagree with it, but I think you're speaking from your heart more than your head.

2. You forget that Bouwmeester wasn't getting those minutes in the middle of a playoff race. Rookie mistakes are more tolerable when there's no pressure on a team to win and pick up points to make the playoffs.

3. Being 27 years old doesn't change that Zidlicky hasn't played in the North American-sized rinks nor does it change that Zidlicky has not had to consistently play defense at the level and speed of the NHL. Being 27 doesn't change those things and many a player has come in and failed (Koivisto anyone?). Top that off with Zidlicky's defensive shortcomings and being paired with Zidlicky isn't exactly an easy thing for a rookie. As a pair, they've developed better than most in recent memory and how often can you even find an all-rookie pairing, let alone an all-rookie pairing playing well on a playoff team?


Quote:
You say this thread isn't about Ryder but by saying that Hamhuis and Raycroft should be the two guys considered for the calder if everyone were on their right mind you are including Ryder in the conversation wether you want it or not. He's right up there in the race with everyone you want to throw at him.
In the reality of Calder voting, of course Ryder is in the race. But, as far as I'm concerned, he's #3. In my book, Hamhuis and Raycroft have had slightly better seasons, nothing more.


Quote:
Being a good defensive dman is harder than being a good defensively responsible top 2 line clutch scoring forward ?

I disagree. Thank your for your sympathies but they aren't needed really...
Hamhuis isn't some prototypical stay-at-home defender; that's faulty. Again, you can disagree, but I don't think that's an honest assessment of the situation. Remove Hamhuis and Ryder from the argument if need be. Start looking at the importance of a top 4 defender vs. a top 6 forward and some of the values placed on those positions. It is harder to find a top 4 defenseman than a top 6 forward and that's just emphasized everywhere we look. Throw in the part about being rookies and it creates a wider chasm. It's much easier to fail as a rookie defenseman than it is to succeed.


Quote:
Truth is that the preds dealt a lot of dmen that were playing regularly at the beginning of the season. I give the preds management a lot of props for correctly evaluating their prospects. But the preds aren't exactly deep on defense. Hamhuis had every opportunities to crack Nashville's defense at the beginning of the season. He did everything required to seize this chance and you got to respect him for this but do you really think he'd get such ice time on a deeper team ? If he was SO good defensively wouldn't he have better plus and minus, wouldn't the preds be ranked higher than 22nd for goals allowed, wouldn't he get more than 4th dmen ice time on the PK (not counting Bombardir or he'd be 5th) ?
What's the point in hypotheticals? I've watched Liles jump ahead of Morris and Skoula based on mostly his play; this on a deeper team and he has taken ice time away from more established guys. There's no way of quantifying whether Hamhuis would get similar ice time on a deeper team. It's total speculation and essentially pointless. How would Ryder do if he had to crack the Avalanche's lineup? It's a similarly pointless question that only involves speculation.

Are you also questioning a player's defensive prowess based on +/- and his team's GA? That's more than a little flawed. +/- is not a stat that quantifies defensive play. It's often used for such purposes, but it doesn't prove a damn thing. A minus means you were on the ice when a goal was scored. A minus takes no factors into account except for whether you were on the bench or on the ice when a goal was scored. Team GA is like +/- only bigger. One man can turn around his team's GA? One man can make Vokoun play consistently well from start to finish? One man can make sure his forwards backcheck and that assignments are missed, especially when he's not on the ice? I'm not suggesting Hamhuis is mistake-free. But to suggest that one skater could change his team's GA stat would be equally as ridiculous as me saying Hamhuis never makes mistakes.


Last edited by Laperriere22: 03-20-2004 at 02:06 AM.
Laperriere22* is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 03:18 AM
  #180
stardog
Registered User
 
stardog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
How do you get that much rambling out of a fairly brief paragraph? Honestly. Show me where I clearly slighted Orpik. The whole point of my paragraph was to address your accusations and explain the situation in existence before you stepped in. Go back to page 1 and 2; see what the Habs poster said in bringing up Orpik. Then see what my response was. Do you believe Orpik's game has been at the level of Hamhuis?
I would suggest that you partake in your own advice and read what I wrote as well. I certainly never stated, nor implied that Orpik has had the type of season Hammy has. I dont know why you would bring this up, considering that you already suggested that I have made arguments that have nothing to do with anything you have said. This certainly seems to be the case here as I never said Orpik's game has remotley been at the level of Hammy's. I am not saying this rudely so please dont take it that way, but I think you making an argument out of that is slightly hypocritical. Especially considering we agreed on that point. It actually baffles me as to why you would ask this when I clearly stated the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
The fact that you would mention Orpik as a point of comparison says to me you either don't watch Nashville or you don't know the position of defense or just maybe a little bit of both.
That statment is a slight to Orpik. There is a difference between slighting someone and insulting someone. To say that someone either doesnt know hockey, or that they do not watch Nashville, when they were essentially agreeing with your point, and NOT comparing thier play or effectiveness this year, is a slight to Brooks. It is saying that there is no credance to his rookie season and implying that someone cant know much about hockey if they mention that Orpik could be compared to Hammy.
I certainly think Hammy has had a better season, but implying that someone doesnt know anything about the sport because he may, or may not have compared Orpik to Hammy, IS in fact a slight to the year Brooks has had.
I fail to see where that is even debateable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
I certainly do not and the poster in question flippantly dropped Orpik's name into a debate without adding anything of substance, as if the sheer mentioning of Orpik's name disproves everything said about Hamhuis. So go back, read the background, understand the context, and then reply to that because most everything you said was unnecessary. Orpik's positioning is more of a weakness than Hamhuis' positioning and his offensive side is badly underdeveloped at this stage in comparison. Also, I'm well aware of Hamhuis' positioning issues; it's one of his weaker attributes and I said as much in another thread within the last month.
First of all, i believe it is quite speculative to suggest that the "sheer mentioning of Orpik's name" would be enough to rebut any defensable position that you may have on Hamhuis. I didnt get that at all. Mentioning a name alone simply doesnt discrdit a player or persons accomplishments as you know, and reading it, I don't think that was the intent in any way shape or form.
I also don't think what I said was unnecesary. This is a topic on the Calder race. I wasn't the one who brought up Orpik's name, so while it may be off topic, I think it kind of goes along with the thread, and I also think what I wrote in said thread is relevant to the discussion.
I am sorry that you don't find it neccesary, but I certainly did. If you would wish for me to drop it, then I won't discuss his name in this thread any more.
I certainly didnt mean to offend you simply by debating (and yes I know what debating is, thanks for the condescinding remark) the merits of your posts.
And i will also take exception to the statement that Orpik's positioning is lesser than that of Hamhuis. Obviously, there is no way of knowing, nor judging the point becuase it is purly an opinion, and one that I have made an edjucated decision on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
Love the vague generalizations BTW; didn't remember building a case against every other rookie defenseman besides Hamhuis or do I remember pointing out every player's weaknesses.
It certainly was a vague generalization, and for that I apologize. I didnt realize i needed to be specific so in the future i will do so.
My fault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by laperriere22
In fact, the only weaknesses I've pointed out specifically about a player was Orpik's in one post. Where did I point out Ryder's weaknesses? How about Pitkanen's? Please find them and post them for me because all I remember saying is that defensemen have a much tougher position to learn as a rookie compared with a forward and that Pitkanen has not been used in all situations and has been more of a PP specialist. How's that slighting anybody or pointing out weaknesses?
Quote:
Pitkanen's year is greatly overrated. Hamhuis has done a lot more than Pitkanen has this year and everytime I read Pitkanen being the top defensive rookie in the league, I can't help but chuckle
That also is an obvious slight to Pitkannen.

Quote:
The voting will be predictable as it generally is because it's based on hype and exposure more than anything else. That's where Pitkanen's name keeps coming in.
Again a slight in implying that Pitkanens play alone isnt worthy of a chance at the Calder, but that it is his hype that is meriting him recognition. I think, of course, that his play is worthy of consideration. And as I have said, I really dont like the Flyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
Pitkanen's season has not had as big an impact as Hamhuis' IMO; at least Ryder's is more debateable. Pitkanen just doesn't see all situations or heavy minutes, hence his success is more limited than Hamhuis', in terms of a single season performance. My guess is that you read what you wanted to read so that you could make some "grand" spectacle and attribute a lot of things other people have said to me. Whether or not it was your intention, that's basically what you've done and continue to do.
There is a vast difference between slighting someone, and insulting someone. I have read your reasoning and I have no problems with the thought that went behind them.
I do have a problem with your speculations that I read what I wanted to read and made a "grand spectacle". I am taking your arguments and disagreeing with them. That is all.
Others have thrown out thier reasoning as to why Pitkanen has had a better rookie season. I happen to agree.
I read the entire thread thank you sir, and I see your points quite clearly.
I disagree with them. There certainly is no harm in that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by laperriere22
There isn't much of worth here. How about you go back and look at some other Calder threads and check out people's lists instead of complaining about my ego problems? It's just as I said; most posters list a list of players and provide nothing to back up their list. Why should anyone assume such a list is based on vast knowledge? That's rarely the case. Lists are just lists. Without insight, there's no value to someone's list. And without value, there's no reason to assume a poster has vast knowledge.
This is my point. People HAVE given thier insights and thought behind thier lists or behind thier reasonings for disagreeing with yours. You didnt acknowledge that, yet you still feel the need to bring this up. You feel the need to insult me by saying there isnt much of worth here. Above you stated my posts were "ramblings".
I wasn't making any assumptions that certain lists are based on vast knowledge. I don't know why you think that has to do with the list, or feel the need to bring it up considering it has nothing to do with my statement.
I am basing my statement on having read posts by people whom I consider good to brilliant hockey minds.
They gave thier reasons why they disagreed...acknowledge those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laperriere22
As for taking exception with people, it's actually called debate. People respond and you respond back, especially when comments are directed at you. I've insulted no one nor have I been short with anybody. Your assessment leaves a lot to be desired.
Yeah, actually you did insult some people. More than once. Me included. I certainly think that is a fair assesment and I don't feel it leaves anything to be desired what so ever.
You made good points which make one think. Your thoughts are well put together and certainly make for an arguable case.
But a few times you were insulting, including the entire above paragraph where you stated you have not done so. I take condenscinding remarks as an insult, and I know most others would as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by laperriere22
And once more, as I said to Habsolution, "Stating something with confidence does not mean I'm stating an opinion as fact." I state my opinions confidently, nothing more. If you take that as arrogance, there's nothing I can do for you nor am I willing to change to sugarcoat it.
Here is something for you to consider below. When you say that you are staing things with confidence, it is just the same as the other guy stating his opinion with confidence, yet for some reson, I get the feeling that it isn't alright with you that someone does the same.
Quote:
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me; that's what the board is for. But when you speak of things in such a cut and dried nature, I assume there's something there of substance to back it up.
Aren't stats at the very least, a substancial back up (while certainly not the only one) to the merits of Pitkanens year?

Another point is that you wanted people to back up thier arguments instead of just stating a name or making a list.
The odd thing is, that I replied to the thread with an in depth response, just like you suggested others do, and you dismiss it as rambling. I hardly think that is fair, and it seems quite contradictory to me actually.
You can't have it both ways my friend.

As for the arrogance, I stated that on a single point, and I feel that was made quite clear. In saying that the comparison between the two is flawed because Orpik hasn't impressed YOU, IS, IMO a very arrogant statement. No matter how you cut it.
Does that make you an arrogant person? Hardly, but perhaps you are and I will never know becuase I simply dont know you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laperriere22
People who know more than I do don't support my words? And I care because? Popular opinion is nothing to get swayed by and having respect for other posters is fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean that I require anyone's support to make my statements. So please, enough of the psychological profile. I'm a psychopath, sociopath, whatever. Case closed. Now back to topic...
Never did I once say that you were wrong because you were alone in your opinion. I merely suggested that the theory doesn't have alot of support behind it from those who have vast knowledge. I believe that is a valid point in itself, but certainly not one in which you would base the final outcome of a debate on.

That being said, I certainly do feel that you care about others opinions or you wouldn't have insulted me as you did to try to make your point. You probably wouldnt have even responded to this as well.

As for the psychological profiling, I clearly stated that perhaps I was reading you wrong, and that intent or attitude doesnt translate well over a message board. I don't think you are a psychopath or a sociopath (though any one of us could be as we dont know one another), and I actually kind of resent you bringing that up when I never said nor implied either. Especially when you made it a point to tell me that I was bringing things into the debate that "weren't neccesary".
Again, i find that contradictory as it seems to be ok for you, but not others.

I have no problems with your belief that Hamhuis is deserving of a finalist position in the Calder race. I think you are wrong of course as i believe there are others who deserve more credit than it seems you are willing to give them. So the case closed comment, I dont feel is accurate.
I think you make very good arguments and are quite well spoken. I have nothing against you personally what so ever. This board needs smart people who are unafraid to voice an unpopular opinion.
You made for a good thread, interesting read and insightful debate.
My only problem was a percieved notion that you were comparing Hamhuis' qualities to the negatives of others at some points. And of course, that you slighted Orpik in order to strengthen your case for Hammy.

Again, that was my perception and mine alone. If you feel that you weren't doing so, then that is your perrogative of course.

I have shown you why i felt so and I see no need to dismiss my posts, or insult me, when I feel that I have put thought and time into making them. I feel i have backed up my reasons why as well.

If i offended you in the process then I certainly apologize as that was not my intent. Sometimes, sarcasm doesnt come across well and I mean no ill will towards you.

I can handle a strong, confident opinion, because I have many of my own. I can handle the insults thrown my way as well, though they have little to do with our debate. In fact, I always admire an uncomprimising person if they feel very strongly about thier beliefs. I admire someone who voices and unpopular/confident opinion as well. It means that you obviously have the figurative spine.
I just think it could have been done by basing it solely on Hamhuis' merits and not my perception of how it was done. This doesnt mean I am telling you how to post or debate as I would not take to kindly if someone told me how to do so.

And again, my perception may have been way off. If so, again, please accept my apologies. It may have been ignorant on my part to assume your intentions or thought process, yet I have shown you why i felt that way.

stardog is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 03:43 AM
  #181
stardog
Registered User
 
stardog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,949
vCash: 500
One thing I will agree with that is being said, is that a young, quality defensman is both harder to come by and more dificult to play the position as a rookie.

That being said, I dont think we can generalize as to debating the Ryder vs Hamhuis scenario by breaking it down to a top 4 D-man vs. a top 6 forward.

There are many different levels of both, and when debating the topic, I dont think it is fair to take Ryder and Hamhuis out of the equation. Certainly it is more difficult to find a player of Ryder's caliber than it is to find your average young projected top four defenseman.
There are varying degress as to what constitues a top 4 or top 6. There are levels of each of course. Alex Morozov is a top 6 forward, and a player like him, while hard to find, is not near as hard to find, or replace than a player like Hamhuis.

Simply put, we cant just say that Ryder is a top 6 forward and base that point of contention on that alone.
He projects to possibly be a very good top six forward, and Hammy projects to be a very good top four D-man.
It isnt accurate to want to take them out of the equation and ask if it is harder to develop a top 4 d-man over a top 6 forward, because it simply depends on the exact individual in question.
A regular young top 4 Dman (projected) isn't going to be worth an elite (possibly) top 6 forward and vice verca.

stardog is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 04:17 AM
  #182
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBBruin
The Bruins goalies going into camp were, I believe, Potvin, Raycroft, Shields, Toivunin, and Tim Thomas. Potvin and Shields were both capable of being 40 game mediocre goalies if Raycroft faltered in camp. Instead, I believe Razor made Shields irrelevant. He was traded during the exhibition season.
Thomas and Toivunin were slotted as the AHL tandem. Toivunin needed to adjust to the North American game, and Thomas, having played in both Finland and N.A., was designated as his tutor/backup, and is a guy who can handle limited/emergency NHL duties. There wasn't much room in Providence for Raycroft.
Potvin and Raycroft were always the odds-on-favorite as the NHL tandem. The Bruins plan from the moment they signed Potvin was probably to have those two share duties so that Raycroft could further his development. But to say the starting role was handed to him is an overstatement. It might have been the hope, and the B's might have signed a cheap and mediocre goalie like Potvin to allow for that, but Raycroft earned the starting job.
Remember, too, that CuJo-to-Boston rumors were rampant throughout the summer and into training camp.
I really don't care who wins the Calder. Right now all I care about is Raycroft blanking TB tomorrow and proving himself as a money goalie when the playoffs roll around. I'll worry about whether or not he wins the Calder during the summer, if ever. I'm just giving the facts of the B's preseason goalie situation as I saw them.
Raycroft may have been handed an NHL spot, but the quality of his play is why he's seen the majority of the starts.
Totally forgot about the possibility Cujo could've gone to the B's. Thanks for the complete info!

s7ark is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 12:38 PM
  #183
Habsolution
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: En tounoi avec Theo? Bonn chan!
Posts: 2,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
Key words are "bad premise IMO". Simply put, I don't expect anyone to agree with me for a variety of reasons, but when you say it's a bad premise, you're are just slapping your opinion on something, which is something you did not admit to earlier. If you had said my points were debateable, I would agree and that's the point. But to come out and say it's "bad" presupposes there's something more to it on your end than just opinion. Semantics yes, but disagreeing with something doesn't mean it's a bad premise. Debateable? Yes. Unpopular? Yes. Bad? In your opinion I guess, but there's nothing to support this bad premise outside of your own opinion.
English is my 2nd language and I agree that it was probably a poor choice of words on my part. I just felt it was wrong to start a thread by saying Hamhuis should be more considered than others. Another poster whose name I can't recall started a thread by saying Malone should get more consideration for the calder and almost everyone agreed with him and he didn't get the same reaction you got. Probably because his post was more respectful of other Calder candidates abilities and seasons. I'm sure if your title was "The calder race should be 3 horses race" or "Hamhuis was the best rookie dman this season" you'd have had less people disagreeing. It would have been a shorter and less interesting thread though. :p

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
1. That is a near universal truth in hockey. Good defensemen are harder to come by than good forwards and are harder to develop. You can disagree with it, but I think you're speaking from your heart more than your head.
Depends. There's a point where finding a quality forward like Ryder becomes harder than finding a good defenseman like let's say Hale. It's relative to the quality of the dmen and to the quality of the forward. There's more to Ryder than his points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
2. You forget that Bouwmeester wasn't getting those minutes in the middle of a playoff race. Rookie mistakes are more tolerable when there's no pressure on a team to win and pick up points to make the playoffs.
True but it still doesn't mean that much when you look at the preds defense. It's just thin. For exemple Hamhuis getting so much ice time doesn't mean as much than Jackman getting so much ice time with the blues last season IMO. I just don't think it's a particularly strong argument in itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
3. Being 27 years old doesn't change that Zidlicky hasn't played in the North American-sized rinks nor does it change that Zidlicky has not had to consistently play defense at the level and speed of the NHL. Being 27 doesn't change those things and many a player has come in and failed (Koivisto anyone?). Top that off with Zidlicky's defensive shortcomings and being paired with Zidlicky isn't exactly an easy thing for a rookie. As a pair, they've developed better than most in recent memory and how often can you even find an all-rookie pairing, let alone an all-rookie pairing playing well on a playoff team?
As I've said before I feel like this is your strongest argument. The point I wanted to make was that there's a reason why 27 years old can't be considered for the calder trophy. Even if Zidlicky had never played in NA sized rinks or defense at NHL speed he still is more mature physically and has more experience than your typical 20ish rookie. No doubt what Hamhuis has done in the circumstances he's been put in is really impressive though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
In the reality of Calder voting, of course Ryder is in the race. But, as far as I'm concerned, he's #3. In my book, Hamhuis and Raycroft have had slightly better seasons, nothing more.
Ryder has done much more than just being our 2nd best scorer. Julien has used him to revive a line when it wasn't producing anymore. He's been one of our most defensively responsible forward on the top two lines and is one of our hardest workers. He's been one of the first guy to adapt and play within the system Julien has put in place. With that new system goals have been harder to come by and Ryder has been one of the reason why Julien was able to make it work to the point where the habs have now 39 wins this season. He's played like a veteran out there and been one of the habs MVPs this season after Saku, Theo and Souray. He has made a big difference.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my book, Raycroft and Ryder are competing for the trophy with Raycroft not being a lock to win it just yet. While Hamhuis is left behind competing with Liles and Pitkanen for the title of best rookie dmen with Hamhuis having a fairly good lead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22

Hamhuis isn't some prototypical stay-at-home defender; that's faulty. Again, you can disagree, but I don't think that's an honest assessment of the situation. Remove Hamhuis and Ryder from the argument if need be. Start looking at the importance of a top 4 defender vs. a top 6 forward and some of the values placed on those positions. It is harder to find a top 4 defenseman than a top 6 forward and that's just emphasized everywhere we look. Throw in the part about being rookies and it creates a wider chasm. It's much easier to fail as a rookie defenseman than it is to succeed.
I wasn't trying to say he was a stay-at-home defender. I was trying to say he played that role with the preds. After all going by what you say doesn't he have to cover up for Zidlicky awful defensive mistakes and bad pinches all the time ? Surely Hamhuis must be staying back a little.

Like I said earlier... it's all relative to the quality of the defender and quality of the forward. Just to be clear I think Hamhuis will eventually become a more important player to his team than Ryder. But right now I don't feel like you can say Hamhuis is having a bigger impact for his team than Ryder is for his.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22

What's the point in hypotheticals? I've watched Liles jump ahead of Morris and Skoula based on mostly his play; this on a deeper team and he has taken ice time away from more established guys. There's no way of quantifying whether Hamhuis would get similar ice time on a deeper team. It's total speculation and essentially pointless. How would Ryder do if he had to crack the Avalanche's lineup? It's a similarly pointless question that only involves speculation.
Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
Are you also questioning a player's defensive prowess based on +/- and his team's GA? That's more than a little flawed. +/- is not a stat that quantifies defensive play. It's often used for such purposes, but it doesn't prove a damn thing. A minus means you were on the ice when a goal was scored. A minus takes no factors into account except for whether you were on the bench or on the ice when a goal was scored. Team GA is like +/- only bigger. One man can turn around his team's GA? One man can make Vokoun play consistently well from start to finish? One man can make sure his forwards backcheck and that assignments are missed, especially when he's not on the ice? I'm not suggesting Hamhuis is mistake-free. But to suggest that one skater could change his team's GA stat would be equally as ridiculous as me saying Hamhuis never makes mistakes.
You're overblowing it. I'm talking about being able to make a difference. Ryder has been making a difference. The point I was trying to raise with those statistics is that Hamhuis is part of a team that hasn't been very good at preventing goals this season. If Hamhuis had been as good as you suggest he is wouldn't the preds be doing a bit better ? I'm not talking about a single man bringing a team that barely missed the playoffs to the top of the conference the next one. I'm not talking about him not doing any mistakes or preventing goals from the bench. Just making as much of a difference than Ryder has been making this year with the habs. From what you've said Hamhuis has done, from where the preds are ranked in the standings and from what I've seen of the habs this season it seems to me it's pretty hard to make a good case for Hamhuis having had such a good season that Ryder shouldn't be in the race with him and Raycroft. As for stats it's bound to happen that we're going to discuss about them in such a discussion. Nowhere have I said they were the only criterias nor the most important ones on which we should base who is the most proficient rookie this season.

Habsolution is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 01:17 PM
  #184
andora
Registered User
 
andora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illuminating Prince
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,024
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to andora
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBBBruin
Raycroft was basically handed an NHL spot this year, but that doesn't mean he was handed the starting role. He had already proven himself at the AHL, and did okay in a few NHL stints as well. The Bruins were pretty confident he could at least handle backup duties, and also felt that that would be better for his development than another year in the AHL. But he definitely was not handed the starting job, he split time with Potvin to start the season but ran away with the job.
^
this is what i meant, he had been in the ahl and was ready for the higher league, whether it be starter or backup. same as ryder, he had been successful in the ahl and was ready atleast to move up and get a lesser role.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark
Objection, your honor... speculation. Fact remains that they didn't sign anyone else, but Raycroft hasn't disappointed so it's all hindsight and speculation now. I mean, you can take that one further and try to argue whether Raycroft's performance has elevated the play of his team as much as the youthful energy, dedication, and work ethic displayed by Ryder. Not so cut and dry, I would argue.

.
i believe you saying raycroft had the number one job waiting for him is speculation as well.. all we have around here is speculation


Last edited by andora: 03-20-2004 at 01:21 PM.
andora is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.