cprice12 wrote:Zetterberg was better in all offensive categories. You'll get no argument from me on that. It's not even worth mentioning it's so obvious.
The problem with your clever analysis, is that Jackman isn't a forward and scoring points isn't part of his game.
It isn't part of his game because he isn't any good at it. There are plenty of defensemen for whom scoring points is part of their game (Lidstrom, Pronger, Mac, and Schneider, to name a few). Wouldn't the Blues (and Jackman himself) be better served if he had some offensive skills? Of course. But he doesn't, and that makes him a lesser player.
You hit the nail right on the head. That's why Z is now, and has always been, better than Jackman. Zatta does it all; he's a complete player. Not only is he much better offensively, but you could also make a convincing argument that he's better on D than Jackman as well. Ever wonder why the Selke always goes to a two way forward rather than a strictly defensive forward? It's because it's much more difficult to transition from offense to defense (and vice versa) than it is to spend the entire game on one half of the rink. The ability to do that makes you more talented defensively than someone who can't.
Of course Zetterberg is going to look much better on paper. He's a friggin' forward...and a good one. Hell, Dallas Drake probably looked better "on paper" than Jackman that year.
If you want to see how good a defenseman is, you have to watch him play. There are virtually no stats to tell how effective they are.
Which is why I was a little suprised Jackman won. I thought he had a great season, but you assume the voters weren't going to give it to a defensman, they never do.
But, instead of just reading the box scores...maybe some of them actually watched the games, or consulted with people in the know who watched the games.
I didn't expect it, but they got it right, IMO.
It was good to see them recognize a great season on the ice that wasn't reflected in the box scores.
A lot of players looked better on paper than Jackman. He wasn't that impressive. Z didn't just look better on paper; he looked better on the ice as well.
I'm well aware that hockey has no meaningful defensive stats. However, you're making a grave error in judgement in assuming that the typical American sportswriter took valuable time off from his basketball watching schedule to take in some hockey games. All you have to do is read some columns in order to see how clueless they are.
I was also surprised Jackman won. Stay at home defensemen have the easiet job in hockey, which is why the players with the smallest skill set tend to play that position. They don't typically receive awards bc they don't ever deserve them. But hey, they did give Rod Langway a couple of Norris Trophies, so I guess they were bound to goof with the Calder at some point as well.
There's no such thing as a great season that wasn't reflected on the box scores. Even if a skater plays dominant defense all year long, if he doesn't contribute on offense it can't be considered a great season because there was so much more that he could have done to help his team. Of course a goalie can have a great season without contributing on offense, but what he does WILL be refelcted on the box scores.
It's not like Jackman had a great season defensively, anyway. He played well, but it's not like he was shutting down the league's top scorers or anything.
Nope.
I just have my opinion, just as you have yours.
I took my guy...you took yours. Jackman got the trophy. But I don't think many people really care now...except some Wings fans who still bitch about it.
If you don't think that you do, then why do you still think Jackman was a better rookie? Let's play "Who's a better source?" Would it be the NHL players themselves, or the "hockey media?" I use that term very loosely, bc they're really just basketball media who scrape together a hockey column when they have a spare minute.
Your 'opinion' is based entirely on the fact that Jackman plays for the Blues. If Z was on the Blues and Jackman had been a Wing, we both know that you would have been screaming about how much of an injustice it was, and that Jackman only won bc the media loves the Red Wings, and that Don Cherry should drink piss, die, and burn in hell... etc,etc.
Does the Calder trophy really mean that much to you? :lol
No, it doesn't, and contrary to what you think, I've never bitched about it once. I only comment on it when you guys bring it up as evidence than Jackman is (or was) better than Zetterberg, bc it's not true. The only evidence you have for even saying it is that "Jackman won the Calder," which proves absolutely nothing, because it's not like awards are never given to the wrong people. When Cam Ward was given the Conn Smythe, I don't remember a whole lot of people on here agreeing with it.
The only trophy that matters to Wings fans is the Stanley Cup. If the Blues ever win one of those, maybe you all won't care so much about the Calder.
