Even with Nathan McKinnon obviously being the run away choice for the Calder Trophy no matter who was on the ballot with him did not stop outrage in the NHL today as the finalist were announced. Yep, overreaction and boisterous ridicule in some instances were running amok on Twitter. McKinnon’s season does not mean others were not great or will not have great careers; he was simply the best of those in their first NHL season.
That’s all the award means. However, in our world, looking for a deep underlying meaning is basically a social media past time.
The Calder is for the league’s most outstanding rookie player. Hard to argue that from October to April there was a player more outstanding than McKinnon and when you look back at the list of winners it’s a pretty star studded list of future greats who started great and continued. Check it out here:in this list.
The interesting aspect about today is many are looking at the failure of a particular players to get a nod to the top as an indictment against future success. So does the Calder get it wrong?
Here’s a list with the winner and runner-up for comparison.
Hard to say there are any bad picks there, just that some rookie years are not as strong as others- like draft years. Take a look at some recent Calder Award winners and then consider some of their draft mates and where they stand. Last year’s winner, Jonathan Huberdeau, was drafted right behind 2012 winner Gabriel Landeskog. The 2011 winner Jeff Skinner was taken well behind Taylor Hall in 2010, who was first overall. If a GM could take his pick today would they take Skinner over Hall or Seguin or would some one like to take Tarasenko over Burmistrov?
The point here is that the Calder is not a predictor of who will succeed and who won’t. It’s an award for recognition of performance in a single season versus a particular group of peers- rookies.
To give perspective look at Andrew Raycroft who as drafted 135th over all in 1998 he won the Calder in 2004. Eric Staal was a rookie that season too, as were Nathan Horton, Zherdev, and Patrice Bergeron. The runner-up was Michael Ryder in 2004 and would his season versus Raycroft’s that year make him seem like a better player in the future?
The change which seems to be happening now when awards finalists are announced is many are looking at the nominations as ‘predictive’. That somehow these awards, at least the Calder, are a way of saying what’s in the future for certain players. Maybe that’s because the hockey community is amidst a frenzy of ‘predictive analytics’ fever with so many joining the gold rush.
The future is an uncertain thing too. Back in 1992 would anyone take Lidstrom over Bure? He was the runner up that year to the future Russian superstar but look how differently their careers turned out. That may be through absolutely nothing to do with either of them, simply the luck of what choices they make.
So if your favourite rookie did not get a nomination or make the cut to be a finalist it’s nothing to get upset about. It means very little to the future of his career and you should not be upset. Some one had a better first season in the NHL but that’s all. It’s an award for past performance not a prediction for future success. There’s probably something worth remembering when McKinnon wins in June: there’s more gold in them hills you just have to get it out of the ground. Some teams and players need a bit more time to mine.