In response to Fletcher1's comment:
In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
It is. That's why you need to be under 25 & not played in any other pro league in order to be eligible. As long as the player is within that range I don't think it should matter. An 18 yr old deserves no better treatment.
Maybe so. But I know I'm more impressed with a teenage kid who becomes an impact player as a rookie, than a 26 year old who played 4 years of college and 4 years of pro hockey already and then shows he can compete with his peers (eventually) in the NHL.
Just a personal perference -- not a request to change the rules/voting.
Yeah, I guess I understand this, but I don't like it. Thing is - and I am not unaware of the irony in what I'm about to say - I don't think you should devalue the performance of kids who go the college route. Same is true for kids who aren't physically ready for the NHL at 18/19 like Drouin. Kids are all over the map in terms of physique at that age, not because of training but because of genes. So if you give more credit to, say, Monahan than Hertl because Hertl needed an extra year in the Czech league before he was mature enough to come over, you're not really "leveling the field"; you're choosing a different set of variables to handicap the race.
I think age should be a factor, but sort of like ROW is a factor in the standings. Things have to be pretty close before you bring it into consideration. Say Mark Arcobello and Hertl finish 1-2 in the rookie scoring race, and you correct the +/- for team strength, and Arcobello wins the stats race on the virtue of 4 additional points. Do you say "well...but Arcobello has 4 years of Yale, 3 years of AHL experience, whereas Hertl has played the equivalent of one full NHL season in the Czech pro league, so Hertl's numbers are more impressive"? Or do you say where the 6'2", 210lb Hertl performed despite inexperience, Arcobello overcame his diminutive size and worked his way up from being an undrafted free agent.
Or, to process another example, many believe that, in an open competition, Spooner out-performed Seguin in camp and in the preseason when both were just drafted. Now Spooner is three years out from his draft and still looking to arrive at the NHL level because no one has shoe-horned him into the lineup. One could argue that Seguin received an opportunity Spooner didn't, and now we'd be holding that against Spooner if, next year, his performance is identical to, say Max Reinhart.
I think it has to boil down to something like 90% performance and 10% expectations. 18 year olds doing really well are exceeding expectations. 23 year olds - not so much. I do support the 26 year old cut-off, though.
Oh for God's sake...
Can't I just have an opinion without having to back it up with all this logic and reasoning? I don't even know where to sta...forget it, you're right...damn it.
I just like Calder winners to look like actual rookies. It's more exciting that way, because you can only imagine how good they'll be at 25.
To paraphrase; I like em' young. The younger the better. I love teenagers...
Now try to find something wrong with that.
The takeaway here, is my consistent questioning of NCAA players and Bookboy's unwavering support for those guys. We've seen it a million times...