Quote:
Originally Posted by slybomb
Things that should not be considered:
Johnny's size
Ekblad's age
Stone's previous season
I absolutely lose faith in the system when I see these things put into the equation. It should be the best rookie performance of the season, period.
Ekblad was a pillar on defense for Florida but they ultimately came up short.
Stone was a support player, albeit a damn good one, that stepped up for the playoff push.
Johnny was a dynamic catalyst on one of the best top lines in the game and helped a predicted bottom feeder to the playoffs.
These are some excellent performances by these fine rookies, but it has to come down to Ekblad and Johnny considering their importance to their respective teams. Personally I would give Johnny the edge just because he put the team on his back in a few games and single handedly won it for us.
|
Those things are obviously not considered as to whether the player is eligible for the award or not. But why can't they be considered when deciding how impressive a rookie's season is? Why is Ekblad's position a factor everyone seems to accept but some have a problem with factoring in his age? Or factoring Stone's many games of NHL experience (spanning 3 seasons) before this season?
Yes, it's the best performance over the season. But "best" is subjective and many factors are taken into account.
I would vote Johnny, but I suspect Ekblad will win. And Stone wasn't exactly "invisible" over the first half. He had a pretty good first half as a matter of fact. And he made a huge push at the time when voters vote.