• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

deltawing

Howard too old to be Rookie of the Year?

Rate this topic

43 posts in this topic

Link

Jimmy Howard, rookie of the year? Why not?

Well, ESPN.com's Pierre LeBrun will tell you why not, even though he admits the Red Wings goalie has great stats, good enough even to be nominated for the Vezina Trophy.

LeBrun says Howard won't get his vote for the Calder, as top rookie, because of another number.

"Confused? Don't be," LeBrun writes. "Howard is 26 years old, 4 years older than Sidney Crosby, who is in his fifth NHL season. Howard is 5 years older than Patrick Kane, the Calder Trophy winner from two seasons ago.

"I understand Howard is eligible for the award (he just slipped under the age cutoff), and he will be among my five choices in my official NHL awards ballot when I fill it out this week, but he won't be my first choice."

That would be 20-year-old Buffalo defenseman Tyler Myers, LeBrun said.

Is that fair? Of course not, and not just because Howard was drafted by a patient team with a tough lineup to crack.

Howard is eligible for the award. What gives LeBrun or any other voter the right to make up their own rules?

LeBrun did show the Wings some love in this week's power rankings, moving them up five spots to No. 2 (behind Washington) and writing: "Have I lost my mind, you ask? Best record since the Olympic break at 13-3-2.

"Watch out, folks ... the old Hockeytown show is back in style."

That's more like it.

I personally think he's an idiot, he falls within the NHL's boundaries for Rookie consideration, therefore he should be treated as such regardless of how close he is to the limit.

Edited by deltawing
SiLkK19 and Hockeymom1960 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

? dont really care, they set up age regulations for a reason, and he didnt "sneak" in, he is plain and simply a rookie!

Jimmy for Calder :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ken Daniels said that Nabokov was about the same age when he won rookie of the year. Yeah, maybe with younger guys coming in now, the age limit should be looked at, but Howard currently qualifies as a rookie, goalies mature later, and he is having a heck of a season.

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically speaking, he's not too old obviously, he's within the limit. However, I do believe his age will hurt him in the eyes of the voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

folks, calm down here.

LeBrun does not have to make his choice based on "LGW opinion".

Lebrun only said that Howard is not his 1st favourite but it has nothing to do with age as journalist tries to suggest.

Learn to read.

Edited by hokike
Matt likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

folks, calm down here.

LeBrun does not have to make his choice based on "LGW opinion".

Lebrun only said that Howard is not his 1st favourite but it has nothing to do with age as journalist tries to suggest.

Learn to read.

Thank God you showed up and typed that cause I was loading my rifle.

It's a discussion board. Let the people speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Comparing two of the best young forwards to come into the game in the last 5 years is a little bit of a stretch there Pierre!

How about other winners, like say, oh I don't know, Nabby.

You know just because they play the same position, are nearly identical in age at time of rookie season, and are much much more comparable than say, oh I don't know two of the top forwards drafted in the last 5 years.

People should realize that making comparisons to Crosby and another Rookie's first years is ridiculous, regardless of the general opinion of the kid on here, he, Malkin, and AO are some of the most talented players to come out of the draft in a long time.

Once you compare some one to Sid, imo, you have failed, especially when it is a Goalie!

Stupid article in general, I have a distinct problem with the voting process in all sports.

For example, Howard by all standards is a rookie, the NHL sets those standards and the voters vote, BASED ON THOSE STANDARDS, not their own. Whether or not Lebrun thinks J-Ho is too old is not his decision and has no barring on the award.

Another example is Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken in baseball, tell me why those guys should not have been 100% voted for into the HOF (Baseball) on the first ballot. The writers association will tell you that it is because Babe Ruth was never Unanimously inducted and if any one deserved it he did. So "Purists" won't vote for certain guys because of that Bias.

Reporters have become over important in their own minds because they have a vote, they see it as their chance to take a stance against some form of injustice.

Instead what they are really being asked for is their informed opinion, back in the day the only way to have an informed opinion was to be at all of the teams games, or read it in the newspaper, the only people at every game were the reporters, MLB needed their vote to determine the awards. Now I would be happier if the League gave it out with no voting.

At least I know the league Biases, and understand their motives are for selling the game, not selling their article or themselves.

Today I can be an informed fan and never read a single article online or in the paper, because I can easily watch every game on any given night (I love you Internet and always will!).

Theophany likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank God you showed up and typed that cause I was loading my rifle.

It's a discussion board. Let the people speak.

I simply warned that Le Brun did not say what journalist so desperately tries to claim. But first posters curse LeBrun ....for what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply warned that Le Brun did not say what journalist so desperately tries to claim. But first posters curse LeBrun ....for what?

So the following is not a direct quote from the ESPN article????:

"Confused? Don't be," LeBrun writes. "Howard is 26 years old, 4 years older than Sidney Crosby, who is in his fifth NHL season. Howard is 5 years older than Patrick Kane, the Calder Trophy winner from two seasons ago.

"I understand Howard is eligible for the award (he just slipped under the age cutoff), and he will be among my five choices in my official NHL awards ballot when I fill it out this week, but he won't be my first choice."

I agree he only says he won't be his first choice, the only other thing he says is that his age is the reason. He mentions him in the running for Vezina, well why in the hell would Vezina candidate not win over another player who is not a candidate for any award?

NO Myers talk in the Norris, Hart, Pearson, Selke...etc (I know due to position he is not available for half of the awards I listed, just stating the only trophy he is in line for is the Calder) yet Howard is being talked about as a potential Vezina candidate, which Lebrun has no problem with, but he will not get his vote for Calder, and why?

You read a little and tell me if his article on ESPN.com says any other reason than J-Ho's age.

He doesn't mention the Wings skill, doesn't mention playing behind the world's greatest D, nothing but his age.

So you tell me what I am supposed to infer from the article, that Howard is second because Myers has better rebound control?

How he is ok with him in the Vezina talk as the best goalie in the league but them is unhappy about him qualifying for Calder, because he is 4 years older than Sid when he won, and that the "20 year old Myers", if everything Lebrun writes in the article references age, how do you get that age is not his main point?

Edited by Opie
Theophany likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the following is not a direct quote from the ESPN article????:

I agree he only says he won't be his first choice, the only other thing he says is that his age is the reason. He mentions him in the running for Vezina, well why in the hell would Vezina candidate not win over another player who is not a candidate for any award?

NO Myers talk in the Norris, Hart, Pearson, Selke...etc (I know due to position he is not available for half of the awards I listed, just stating the only trophy he is in line for is the Calder) yet Howard is being talked about as a potential Vezina candidate, which Lebrun has no problem with, but he will not get his vote for Calder, and why?

You read a little and tell me if his article on ESPN.com says any other reason than J-Ho's age.

He doesn't mention the Wings skill, doesn't mention playing behind the world's greatest D, nothing but his age.

So you tell me what I am supposed to infer from the article, that Howard is second because Myers has better rebound control?

How he is ok with him in the Vezina talk as the best goalie in the league but them is unhappy about him qualifying for Calder, because he is 4 years older than Sid when he won, and that the "20 year old Myers", if everything Lebrun writes in the article references age, how do you get that age is not his main point?

Great post. For the record, Crosby never won the Calder. He lost it to an older(by two years) Ovechkin.

Edited by zettie85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what?

there is no league wide Howard promoting maschine??? Bettman sucks!

AHHH good point, I change my opinion now!

borat_not.jpg

Zettie while Crosby did not when the Calder you are correct, the comparison to him for any rookie other than AO, Malkin, Kane is still ridiculous in my mind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply warned that Le Brun did not say what journalist so desperately tries to claim. But first posters curse LeBrun ....for what?

the comment I made about him had nothing to do with this article, I did because he is in fact a ***** who wants hitting out of the game

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm impressed he managed to work Crosby in there for an award he never even won. :thumbup:

If it's close, and it is - Howard's age will be used against him by the writers. Which really sucks.

Howard very well could be a finalist for the Vezina, while Myers will definitely not be there for the Norris.

Theophany likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AHHH good point, I change my opinion now!

borat_not.jpg

Zettie while Crosby did not when the Calder you are correct, the comparison to him for any rookie other than AO, Malkin, Kane is still ridiculous in my mind!

I totally agree. With Pierres reasoning though, although 6 years difference instead of just 2, Crosby should have won the Calder because he was younger and they had pretty much the same season. Ovechkin had a year of pro hockey in Russia under his belt before coming to the NHL, Crosby played junior.

Ovechkin was better and so he did win it. My whole point is that age shouldn't matter. Out of all positions, goalie is definitely the hardest even for a 26 year old rookie.

If he wants to compare Jimmy to Crosby he should be comparing Duchene to Crosby as well. Their rookie numbers aren't even close. Howards numbers are better then Masons from last year and are similar to Nabokovs when he won.

Theophany and 55fan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. With Pierres reasoning though, although 6 years difference instead of just 2, Crosby should have won the Calder because he was younger and they had pretty much the same season. Ovechkin had a year of pro hockey in Russia under his belt before coming to the NHL, Crosby played junior.

Ovechkin was better and so he did win it. My whole point is that age shouldn't matter. Out of all positions, goalie is definitely the hardest even for a 26 year old rookie.

If he wants to compare Jimmy to Crosby he should be comparing Duchene to Crosby as well. Their rookie numbers aren't even close. Howards numbers are better then Masons from last year and are similar to Nabokovs when he won.

:clap:

Nothing more to say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm impressed he managed to work Crosby in there for an award he never even won. :thumbup:

If it's close, and it is - Howard's age will be used against him by the writers. Which really sucks.

Howard very well could be a finalist for the Vezina, while Myers will definitely not be there for the Norris.

First, I agree with you that age will be used by the voters against Howard. But I disagree that it is "unfair".

MLB has seen a 28-year-old Rookie of the Year who was an established professional in Japan for many years and arguably in the "prime" of his career by the time he came over. http://www.seattlepi.com/baseball/46316_mari12.shtml

That said, I do not think Howard will win the Calder. He should be "considered", but I don't know if he will even be thought of as Top 3. As impressive as he has been, he's 5th in save percentage and 5th in GAA, and the guy that leads both categories is a 23-year old rookie, Tukka Rask. And that's not even comparing him to non-goaltenders, such as Myers, Tavares, and Duchene. I do not believe that Howard has any realistic shot at Top 3 or even Top 5 in the Vezina, either. Rask has the numbers for it, but his workload (only 37 games started) is probably too low. Also, that would be 2 years in a row to Boston goaltenders. To put that into perspective, Carey Price has basically "lost" his starting job to Jaroslav Halak on MTL, this season, yet Price still has more starts (39) than Rask. (Howard has started 58 games). I think the Vezina will be Ryan Miller's award, and there are other guys like Bryzgalov and even Craig Anderson (whose numbers aren't all that great) who would be considered before Howard.

As for the "fairness" point, it's not unfair to factor in age and previous experience into the Calder. The whole point of a "rookie" award is that we are supposed to marvel at how advanced this player is so early in their career. Jimmy Howard has had NHL experience since the '05-'06 season. At several points, it looked like there was an opening for him to steal the backup or even starting position, but it wasn't until this season (and Osgood completely falling off the map) that he was able to secure a job. Howard's early career is impressive, but it's more akin to a post-hype prospect, like baseball's Adam Lind, or hockey's Guillaume Latendresse (Wild) than a true rookie performer.

Edited by StormJH1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. With Pierres reasoning though, although 6 years difference instead of just 2, Crosby should have won the Calder because he was younger and they had pretty much the same season. Ovechkin had a year of pro hockey in Russia under his belt before coming to the NHL, Crosby played junior.

Ovechkin was better and so he did win it. My whole point is that age shouldn't matter. Out of all positions, goalie is definitely the hardest even for a 26 year old rookie.

If he wants to compare Jimmy to Crosby he should be comparing Duchene to Crosby as well. Their rookie numbers aren't even close. Howards numbers are better then Masons from last year and are similar to Nabokovs when he won.

(1) There's no way anybody should be comparing numbers from past seasons to current seasons for purposes of handing out awards. If that were the case, I guess both Crosby and Ovechkin "suck" because they haven't eclipsed that 200-point mark yet, ala 80's Gretzky.

(2) Two years IS much less of a difference than six years, and there is a younger goalie (Rask) who is 23 years old and has better numbers than Howard anyway. The Ovechkin/Crosby comparison is stupid because they only ended up in the same rookie class because of the lockout. Moreover, Crosby very likely would've won the award as a Canadian media darling, but Ovechkin ended up with 4 more points and 13 more goals over the same number of games, which made Ovechkin a pretty clear favorite on the merits. Both were first-year NHL players--whereas Jimmy Howard is in his 4th NHL season. Yes, I am aware that Tuukka Rask played in two other seasons, but see the earlier comments about age and numbers, and he also played a grand total of 5 games in those first two years. (Howard played 9, but has been "in the league" longer).

Edited by StormJH1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I agree with you that age will be used by the voters against Howard. But I disagree that it is "unfair".

MLB has seen a 28-year-old Rookie of the Year who was an established professional in Japan for many years and arguably in the "prime" of his career by the time he came over. http://www.seattlepi.com/baseball/46316_mari12.shtml

That said, I do not think Howard will win the Calder. He should be "considered", but I don't know if he will even be thought of as Top 3. As impressive as he has been, he's 5th in save percentage and 5th in GAA, and the guy that leads both categories is a 23-year old rookie, Tukka Rask. And that's not even comparing him to non-goaltenders, such as Myers, Tavares, and Duchene. I do not believe that Howard has any realistic shot at Top 3 or even Top 5 in the Vezina, either. Rask has the numbers for it, but his workload (only 37 games started) is probably too low. Also, that would be 2 years in a row to Boston goaltenders. To put that into perspective, Carey Price has basically "lost" his starting job to Jaroslav Halak on MTL, this season, yet Price still has more starts (39) than Rask. (Howard has started 58 games). I think the Vezina will be Ryan Miller's award, and there are other guys like Bryzgalov and even Craig Anderson (whose numbers aren't all that great) who would be considered before Howard.

As for the "fairness" point, it's not unfair to factor in age and previous experience into the Calder. The whole point of a "rookie" award is that we are supposed to marvel at how advanced this player is so early in their career. Jimmy Howard has had NHL experience since the '05-'06 season. At several points, it looked like there was an opening for him to steal the backup or even starting position, but it wasn't until this season (and Osgood completely falling off the map) that he was able to secure a job. Howard's early career is impressive, but it's more akin to a post-hype prospect, like baseball's Adam Lind, or hockey's Guillaume Latendresse (Wild) than a true rookie performer.

Rask, Neimi and Halak do not have enough games to be up for the Vezina - which puts Jimmy firmly at #3 in both SV% and GAA.

I understand and accept his age will be used against him - but then they should go ahead and change the definition of a "rookie" if that is the case.

Age really should have nothing to do with the voting, when talking about which rookie is having the best season.

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) There's no way anybody should be comparing numbers from past seasons to current seasons for purposes of handing out awards. If that were the case, I guess both Crosby and Ovechkin "suck" because they haven't eclipsed that 200-point mark yet, ala 80's Gretzky.

(2) Two years IS much less of a difference than six years, and there is a younger goalie (Rask) who is 23 years old and has better numbers than Howard anyway. The Ovechkin/Crosby comparison is stupid because they only ended up in the same rookie class because of the lockout. Moreover, Crosby very likely would've won the award as a Canadian media darling, but Ovechkin ended up with 4 more points and 13 more goals over the same number of games, which made Ovechkin a pretty clear favorite on the merits. Both were first-year NHL players--whereas Jimmy Howard is in his 4th NHL season. Yes, I am aware that Tuukka Rask played in two other seasons, but see the earlier comments about age and numbers, and he also played a grand total of 5 games in those first two years. (Howard played 9, but has been "in the league" longer).

It is pretty much my point. It doesn't matter when you play. If you are an outstanding rookie you should be acknowledged for it. Your age shouldn't matter.

If Rask was the outright starter and maintained those numbers then he should have won it. There is a 17 game difference in games played between him and Howard. A lot can happen in 17 games.

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Raycroft 24?

Ya he was. I would gladly hand the Calder to someone else for Howard not to follow the same path as Raycroft though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely Howard will join an esteemed list of Red Wings who were runner-up for the Calder:

2003: Zetterberg (behind Jackman)

1992: Lidstrom (behind Bure)

1991: Fedorov (behind Belfour)

1984: Yzerman (behind Barrasso

1966: Bert Marshall (behind Selby)

1963: Doug Barkley (behind Douglas)

1960: Murray Oliver (behind Hay)

1954: Earl Reibel (behind Henry)

1947: Jim Conacher (behind Meeker)

1941: Johnny Mowers (behind Quilty)

1936: Bucko McDonald (behind Karakas)

A few other notable Red Wings, who were not Wings at the time they were runner-ups:

2000: Brad Stuart (behind Gomez)

1999: Hossa was runner-up to Drury

1988: Ray Sheppard (behind Nieuwendyk)

1985: Chelios (behind Lemieux)

1982: Larry Murphy (behind Statsny)

Roger Crozier was the last Red Wing to win it in 1965!

Glenn Hall won in 1956.

Terry Sawchuk won in 1951.

Jim McFadden won in 1948.

And Carl Voss won it the first year it was awarded, in 1933.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now