If the season ended today, does Hughes win the Calder?

[McBackup]

7 hours ago, GritGrinder said:

Ah cool...so your vote is for Makar. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not surprised someone who misuses an ellipsis has reading comprehension issues.

[dpn1]

Well, I think Quinn wins the Calder this year.  The amazing thing here is if Quinn wins we will have had 2 of the last 3 Calder winners and a runner up 2 years ago in Brock.  Has any other teams in the last 50 years done anything like what Jim and his team have done in the last few years ago?

[189lb enforcers?]

On 3/16/2020 at 11:18 AM, ruilin96 said:

I agree with a lot of stuffs you said except for the highlighted. Hughes is basically a full year younger than Makar and he is already very close to him in terms of production and play. I would say Hughes is a lot better than you give credit for.

I didn’t take anything away from Hughes. Let’s get that straighten out. 
 

Glad you’re choosing the Canuck to build your hypothetical core around, apparently because he’s a year younger. Like I’ve said, we are splitting hairs over the two players and determining the better player is subjective when it’s that close, although objectively, Makar does have superior underlying numbers. 
 

I think there’s a great chance that we’ll eventually see media polls meant to have GMs etc. select one player for their team/core. My money is on Makar by as much as 20%.
 

My guess is good as yours and only meant in the spirit of fun and the bit of projecting we all engage in when we try to estimate these young players’ ceilings. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by 189lb enforcers?

[wai_lai416]

I want to say Hughes just coz his ability to stay healthy while producing at an amazing level for a tiny 20 year old.. but more likely than not it will go to makar because of the small drop off in points from hughes the last couple of game before the hiatus 

[MikeyD]

Should Hughes win it? Absolutely. Will he? No. Too many biased opinions based from people who don't watch enough hockey. Makar was the frontrunner for too long and most people don't watch enough of the two to find out who the more impressive player is. Early in the season Makar had a few highlight reel goals which really boosted his projection to win. He was making the difficult plays Hughes was making but also putting up more points/game. 

He'll probably have 70% of the votes, rarely do they ever look at teams when they decide these awards, sadly. 

[189lb enforcers?]

Who plays a better defensive game and why?

[McBackup]

22 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Who plays a better defensive game and why?

Hughes. Stronger possession metrics with (albeit slightly) more defensive zone starts and playing on a less sound team. Playing with Tanev helps, but probably not as much as Makar is offensively buoyed by playing with MacKinnon, Landeskog, etc. Both of them are used primarily more as offensive generators, but for two undersized D, Hughes' edgework gives him leverage and separation over bigger defenders. Cale Makar is no slouch for skating either, but watching Hughes work angles on players he can't outmuscle is just impressive. 

 

Honestly Calder can go either way. Makar has better numbers but has played fewer games for a better team. He's also more physical. Hughes isn't as touted but is far more important to the Canucks than Makar is to the Avalanche. In a couple years Makar will be part of a really impressive corps of offensive D with Girard and Byram while unless one of Woo, Juolevi or Rafferty absolutely blow past their projected ceiling,  Quinn will be our only bonafide #1 star D. Plus, he's younger. Even throwing Canucks bias aside I would take Quinn, but its not like Makar winning is some sort of travesty. He's a crazy good player. He just doesn't play for 'us'.

Edited March 19, 2020 by Bitter Melon

[shiznak]

On 3/18/2020 at 9:40 AM, Bitter Melon said:

Hughes. Stronger possession metrics with (albeit slightly) more defensive zone starts and playing on a less sound team. Playing with Tanev helps, but probably not as much as Makar is offensively buoyed by playing with MacKinnon, Landeskog, etc. Both of them are used primarily more as offensive generators, but for two undersized D, Hughes' edgework gives him leverage and separation over bigger defenders. Cale Makar is no slouch for skating either, but watching Hughes work angles on players he can't outmuscle is just impressive. 

 

Honestly Calder can go either way. Makar has better numbers but has played fewer games for a better team. He's also more physical. Hughes isn't as touted but is far more important to the Canucks than Makar is to the Avalanche. In a couple years Makar will be part of a really impressive corps of offensive D with Girard and Byram while unless one of Woo, Juolevi or Rafferty absolutely blow past their projected ceiling,  Quinn will be our only bonafide #1 star D. Plus, he's younger. Even throwing Canucks bias aside I would take Quinn, but its not like Makar winning is some sort of travesty. He's a crazy good player. He just doesn't play for 'us'.

I wouldn’t say Hughes has a better defensive game than Makar. While, both players have flaws in their defensive game, it’s just too close to tell between the two (much like their offensive game) or there’s no conclusive stat on whose better. Although, while you’re correct that Hughes has a slight advantage on the possession metrics. One can argue in Makar’s case that, Makar has the better DPS (points that are contributed due to that player’s defense.) than Hughes, who is ranked last amongst our defensemen group.
 

Now before you go, “wow Makar only has a measly .6 advantage over Hughes, in that department. Not much of a difference.”. You have to take into consideration that Makar is third on his team. If Hughes played on the Avalanche, he would still be ranked last amongst the defensive group. While, Makar will be tied for third, if he played for us. 

[IBatch]

On 3/18/2020 at 11:48 AM, MikeyD said:

Should Hughes win it? Absolutely. Will he? No. Too many biased opinions based from people who don't watch enough hockey. Makar was the frontrunner for too long and most people don't watch enough of the two to find out who the more impressive player is. Early in the season Makar had a few highlight reel goals which really boosted his projection to win. He was making the difficult plays Hughes was making but also putting up more points/game. 

He'll probably have 70% of the votes, rarely do they ever look at teams when they decide these awards, sadly. 

Rarely they ever look at teams when they decide these awards sadly is a little naive don't you think?  The only trophy that I think isn't voted properly on is the Vezina.  GM's shouldn't be the only ones doing this - too small voting pool.  Otherwise I think saying that the writers watch a lot more hockey and talk to a lot more hockey people in the know then your giving them credit for.  Of course they will have their favourites - but the voting system itself forces them outside of their own area and to pick a group of guys in a ranking and that creates a good constant for who's number two - three etc - Hughes and Makar will dominate the first and second place votes - the winner will be the winner - and probably it will be Makar because he led the race longer.   The Hart trophy often goes to a player on a bad or mediocre team that carried the mail for them....so I think these guys will figure out quickly that McKinnon or COL has more to work with then VAN if thats what your hinting at.   And it will make a difference - as with the Norris in the past sometimes goes to a guy that also has little to work with and isnt the points leader every time.    Langway back to back for example when Coffey and Borque were piling up the points.

[Battlemonger]

So close, but I think Makar takes it. I think playing in the NHL playoffs last year really did him a lot of good.

 

That being said - these two are the best 2 young defencemen to enter the league at pretty much the same time in a very, very long time.

[mikeyman109]

I think had the season continued Hughes had a better chance of winning the Calder. The Eastern media was starting to notice his play more and it was regularly discussed on the broadcasts more towards the end of the season. Makar most likely will win it although i think they had handed him the Calder right out of the gate without seeing anyone play a full season. Both players help their team and lucky for us we have one of them. Given that we have three finalists in the past three years for the Calder it should give us hope for the future. The core is there, we need to manage the cap and supplement them with the right players. If we can keep Tofu, the top 6 to me looks like this.

Boeser  Miller Petey

Pearson  Horvat  Toffoli.

I would take that top 6 for a full season. we just need to shed some of the dead weight. Who fits in the bottom 6 .....that's not my call.

I would take that below

Leivo  Gaudette  Virtanen

MacEwan Beagle  Motte

 

 

[Kevin Biestra]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Rarely they ever look at teams when they decide these awards sadly is a little naive don't you think?  The only trophy that I think isn't voted properly on is the Vezina.  GM's shouldn't be the only ones doing this - too small voting pool.  Otherwise I think saying that the writers watch a lot more hockey and talk to a lot more hockey people in the know then your giving them credit for.  Of course they will have their favourites - but the voting system itself forces them outside of their own area and to pick a group of guys in a ranking and that creates a good constant for who's number two - three etc - Hughes and Makar will dominate the first and second place votes - the winner will be the winner - and probably it will be Makar because he led the race longer.   The Hart trophy often goes to a player on a bad or mediocre team that carried the mail for them....so I think these guys will figure out quickly that McKinnon or COL has more to work with then VAN if thats what your hinting at.   And it will make a difference - as with the Norris in the past sometimes goes to a guy that also has little to work with and isnt the points leader every time.    Langway back to back for example when Coffey and Borque were piling up the points.

 

I think the Hart Trophy voting is fundamentally flawed, with the unwritten criterion that the team must make the playoffs for a player to be eligible.  There is no logical basis for this requirement.  And then on top of that, voters don't actually agree unanimously on that requirement either, nor is any guidance given in the charter for the award.

 

In the 1980s, 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs so almost everyone was eligible.  Now 16 of 31 make it and half the league is ineligible.  So...players on the Hartford Whalers (squeaking into the playoffs) were more valuable to their team in the 1980s than they would have been today?

Edited March 29, 2020 by Kevin Biestra

[awalk]

"Hughes' gonna win the calder."

 

"Yeah Im asking, who's gonna win the calder?"

 

"Like I said, Hughes' gonna win the calder."

 

"Yes, exactly, who's gonna win the calder??"

 

"HUGHES"

 

"I DON'T KNOW THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU"

 

[McBackup]

9 hours ago, shiznak said:

I wouldn’t say Hughes has a better defensive game than Makar. While, both players have flaws in their defensive game, it’s just too close to tell between the two (much like their offensive game) or there’s no conclusive stat on whose better. Although, while you’re correct that Hughes has a slight advantage on the possession metrics. One can argue in Makar’s case that, Makar has the better DPS (points that are contributed due to that player’s defense.) than Hughes, who is ranked last amongst our defensemen group.
 

Now before you go, “wow Makar only has a measly .6 advantage over Hughes, in that department. Not much of a difference.”. You have to take into consideration that Makar is third on his team. If Hughes played on the Avalanche, he would still be ranked last amongst the defensive group. While, Makar will be tied for third, if he played for us. 

I never count stats "if the person played on the other team" because thats a hypothetical with too many different variables, the numbers would change completely because the situation would be different. That said, Hughes has better possession metrics with a marginal .6 advantage in DPS on a worse team, while passing the "eye test". Granted, I am admitting my bias as I've obviously watched more Canucks games than Avalanche games this year, but Hughes does look more defensively impressive from an outside observer. Again it goes back to him having to utilize his skating, leverage, angles, etc so well to make up for being as small as he is.

 

Again, I don't think its some great travesty if Cale Makar wins the Calder. He's easily deserving, and I'm aware some degree of homerism is making me lean towards Hughes, however strictly from a defensive perspective, I think its fair to say Quinn has been the better player in that regard this season.

[Kevin Biestra]

1 hour ago, awalk said:

"Hughes' gonna win the calder."

 

"Yeah Im asking, who's gonna win the calder?"

 

"Like I said, Hughes' gonna win the calder."

 

"Yes, exactly, who's gonna win the calder??"

 

"HUGHES"

 

"I DON'T KNOW THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU"

 

 

So who's in goal?

[IBatch]

19 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

I think the Hart Trophy voting is fundamentally flawed, with the unwritten criterion that the team must make the playoffs for a player to be eligible.  There is no logical basis for this requirement.  And then on top of that, voters don't actually agree unanimously on that requirement either, nor is any guidance given in the charter for the award.

 

In the 1980s, 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs so almost everyone was eligible.  Now 16 of 31 make it and half the league is ineligible.  So...players on the Hartford Whalers (squeaking into the playoffs) were more valuable to their team in the 1980s than they would have been today?

Thats a great point.   You do hear them say it out loud a few times a year that "if blank team make the playoffs so and so just has to be in it for the Hart trophy".  Recently Eichel is a good example.  That said overall they have done a good job on picking a good candidate/winner.   One time they didn't was Perry over D Sedin.  Perry was having a strong but unspectactular season until the last 14 games, was barely top ten in goals - then exploded for 20 and won the Richard and took home the Hart.   A lot of what have you done for me lately - have to wonder if he started the season that way and ended with the same amount of points if hed win - I doubt it.   All Harts are not considered equal - and this is a prime example of one.   Norris trophies have also been handed out to the wrong player too - Lidstroms last one for example, was a -2 that season and didn't come close to leading in points either ( what the heck were those voting thinking - just wanted him to tie Harvey?)  Those are the two that stick out most to me as epic fails - honourable mention to Kolzig beating out Cujo for the Vezina.  

 

Also like that they have both the Hart and the Pearson/Lindsay award.   You'd think that they'd both go to the same person - its not often the case though.  Naslund lost out on a Hart and and Art Ross (one or was it two points?), beating Forsberg and coming home with the Pearson did mean that he was considered the best player in the planet by his peers.  Add to this first and second team all-star berths also separate the stars from the super-stars.   Naslund managed this three times in a row (first all star berths too - don't think thats a club record that will be broken anytime soon).