0
gruven, on Friday, May 12th, 2006, 9:04 AM, said:
I think age is completely irrelevant as a factor in deciding ROY. Plain and simple, a rookie is a player who is competing in the best league in the world for the first time. Whether it's at 18 or 20 is irrelevant. Now, you COULD argue that Ovechkin had an advantage playing in the Russian League last year, but it's still NOT the same as playing in the NHL. A step faster, a size bigger, and EVERYONE can play (except, of course, Tie Domi). Players score 300 career goals in the AHL and cant play in the NHL. Why? Different level of play. So how do you factor age into that equation? NOTE: Im not saying one player is better than the other. Im just pointing out that I believe the age argument is just silly. Oh, and Ovechkin is better. P.S. If Im a GM and building a team? I take Phaneuf over the other two.
Vertigo, on Friday, May 12th, 2006, 2:04 AM, said:
Ok now you are just being a jerk. I don't understand why you have to start saying my logic is dumb when I'm just stating the obvious. You've been defending Crosby for the whole thread and arguing with those who support Ovechkin. But I guess logically, that doesn't seem to infer that you believe Crosby should win the award. I was asked a question as to why I believe Crosby should win and I answered. I wouldn't call this arguing and I don't see how you infer that I'm defending Crosby.Yes they are two different types of players. But they are competing for the same award. They have to choose a winner, so they must by some method select which one of the two is better. Whether it be stats, age, experience, etc. I guess that's up to them. I assume you are being defensive because of your snappy reply. As for living in the past, if you suggest Recchi, Leclair, Lemieux and Palffy were not considered talented players at the beginning of the year, then I guess you believe the following are no longer considered talent in this league:You seem to disregard the difference between potential and production.First a refresher on the Penguins whose talent is questioned:Mario - turned 40 at the beginning of the yearPalffy - just turned 34 - unfortunately injuries ruined his career Not really, but...Leclair - currently 36, solid veteran his whole career LOL!Recchi - just turned 38, still pretty effective Every 6th game perhaps.Other players from a similar era: This whole section of your post is both pointless and hilarious!Mike ModanoJoe SakicSergei FedorovJaromir JagrMartin BrodeurNicklas LidstromTeemu SelanneSteve YzermanRod BrindamourDaniel Alfredsson (younger, but same age as Palffy) ?!?! LOLPeter BondraMartin GelinasBill GuerinGlen MurrayBrendan ShanahanMathieu SchneiderMartin StrakaKeith Tkachuketc.Now I realize most of these players are younger than Lemieux/Recchi but Lemieux is really the only person, along with Yzerman that I consider in a previous generation. 90-91 era and the next couple years is when most of these guys came about. All very well known through their careers with respectable numbers (some spectacular and still producing). Zubrus, Halpern and Willsie were the only players on Washington with 40 points or more. Gonchar had 58, Palffy had 42 pts in 42 games (he was there for half the season to help Crosby), Lemieux was at 1 PPG for the 20 or so games. And Crosby's production increased when they left! Malone and Armstrong also hit 40. And what do you mean Crosby didn't play with them? Who did he play with? I remember him and Palffy lighting it up early on, as well as Mario and him. And I know Recchi and Leclair were with him on the PP a lot too. So I realize the supporting cast wasn't a gigantic factor in Crosby's success but it definitely helped. You have to realize that. And Ovechkin was on the ice by himself? Are you one of those fans who bases talent on name recognition?As for that article, well yes, that is a bit unfair that Ovechkin has spent the last 5 years playing in the Russian super leagues. Well if Crosby was so good, why didn't he go play there? That may be a dumb question because I don't know that he would even be allowed to, and I think the NHL has some age restrictions too. But if Ovechkin was recognized as one of the premier forwards in the world after playing in the Russian Elite League for a couple years as a teenager (arguably the next best talented league to the NHL), then that says a lot about him.
I was tired and it was a really long post and I didn't feel like editing it. As for Alfredsson, I meant he was younger than most of those listed, but around the same age group as Palffy. Basically all those players listed are in the range of 33-40. If you think Recchi is only effective every 5 or 6 games, well that is your opinion. I still think Ovechkin is dope and deserves the award. Crosby had an awesome season, I'm not disputing that. But Ovechkin's was better IMO. As well, if you say Crosby's production went up when they left, well I don't know about that. I know in the last 10 games or so he got like 25 points (approximately, he went on a tear). I'd hardly call that his production increasing because they are gone.
You listed players that spent time with the Penguins as support that Crosby had more talent surrounding him. I was pointing out that there is a difference between someone's potential talent and their actual production. I was not saying it had anything to do with picking a rookie of the year.
