McDavid vs Panarin: Calder Trophy Debate

[BreadManPanarin]

I just finished reading an article (link at bottom of post) written by a Canadian who strongly believes that McDavid should win the Calder. Ultimately the conclusion was: "Panarin is a fine, young player. McDavid is the future of the sport. Votes ought to be cast with those two solitudes in mind."

I disagree strongly with this line of thought, and I think these two user comment summed up my feelings very well:

Comment 1: (Dickie Crickets)
"Um no, they shouldn't. They should be cast with who had the best rookie season in mind. That would be Panarin, the guy who finished with 30 goals as a rookie (very rare) and was more than 20 points up on the next closest player (Eichel). I guess it was only Kane helping Panarin right? Kane was knocking down 100 point seasons and winning the Art Ross before he had someone like Panarin to play with, correct? Panarin had more goals and more points than Kane did when Kane won the Calder in his rookie season. McDavid won't be the first player to lose out on a trophy he would have won if he didn't get injured and won't be the last. Health is part of the game. And last I checked McDavid had some offensive firepower to work with on the Oilers. Lots of number one overalls to work with. He wasn't exactly working with what say Max Domi had to work with."

Comment 2: (ElizabethWinters)
"You gonna be kidding, right? Is the logic because McDavid after getting groomed since birth in elite Canadian hockey schools is "expected" to be a future elite, he must be given the trophy in spite of not getting to the top in the rookie season? My, my, Canadian hockey ego and demonstration of superiority uber alles. Well, here is another logic. Panarin was not groomed, never played in elite youth clubs, due to small size was passed by many hockey teams in Russia, got self taught, step by step broke into KHL based on sheer talent and efficiency, is still breaking through. As he started from zilch, he lost time building himself up and now here is a rookie at 24 but with Blackhawks who really know how to use the kid. And if McDavid didn't meet the hype this season as he got injured, Breadman exceeded those expectations many times over, and does so over and over in practically every game. You should watch sometimes, he is extraordinary and gets better by the game, and is called frequently a match to Patrick Kane, and those don't grow in the field nor fall from the sky. Panarin has magic hands with which he fools seasoned Canadians 7 days a week, a blistering shot, quick skates, playmaking abilities of a chessmaster, shifty getaways from targeted hits, an infectious smile and a broad shoulder of support for his mates. Who said it's easy scoring on the Blackhawks team? You can't even play on the team for 2 games unless you are special. And playing next to the most outstanding hockey core in the world, Panarin outshines most of them? For the whole season? You are saying it's easy? Sorry, but I think you are dumb. Well, Panarin's results are the best for an NHL rookie over the past decade. So, should McDavid get a pity trophy or should the best rookie in a decade get recognized for what he has achieved?"

I am interested to hear what others on here think about this. Who should win the Calder... Panarin or McDavid? Yes, I know Ghost deserves some love too. He will be well represented in the 3rd position on many ballots, I imagine. Feel free to make the case for him too, if you like... but I am more interested in hearing thoughts about Panarin vs McDavid.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/kelly-is-connor-mcdavid-the-rookie-of-the-year-meet-the-competition/article29581772/

[Eskimo Brother]

McDavid had a great 40ish games. Panarin had an exceptional season. That's what this award comes down to, and Panarin deserves to win.
Ghost also deserves some consideration too.

[JagrBomb]

mcdavid shouldn't even be a finalist.

panarin or ghost should finish as 1-2, i'd be fine with either. personally i think ghost's season is more impressive given his age and position, but again the knock on him is GP.

i think it will end up as:

1. panarin
2. ghost
3. who cares

[Pengwin7]

It's a tough debate.

I don't believe anybody should knock Panarin from playing with Pat Kane. The kid scored 77pts. That's incredible, linemates be damned. Other NHL linemates couldn't put those kind of numbers up with Patty Kane.
I don't believe anybody should knock McDavid from his injury and playing a partial year. Game-for-game, no rookie was as impressive as Connor McDavid.

It's a bit similar to the debates we have about the HHOF inductees.
Would you prefer a 10-season guy that was absolutely ELITE for periods, perhaps without team success.
Or would you prefer the 20-season guy that was very good for his career with some team success.

This is that argument in a microcosm.
It really comes down to personal preference.

For me, I'm going to go with Panarin.
Chicago should have been a team strapped for offense with their new salary constraints.
Instead, we saw a career year from Pat Kane and a HUGE part of this is the way that Panarin complimented him.
Chicago had a great year, a playoff team, and mostly in thanks to Pat Kane & Panarin.

I think McDavid is the better player.
I think McDavid was better, per game.

My vote would be Panarin, razor-close, based on personal preference of the full season and CHI's success of that whole line.

The better player doesn't & shouldn't always get the award.
Awards should be for results... and Panarin had the results.

[horrorfan]

This may be a stretch but I'm not even sure McDavid should be eligible. I think to be eligible for an award you should play something like 75% of the season (arbitrary number I know). The award is for rookie of the year, not rookie of a half year. Same goes for other awards.

Panarin, easy choice.

[BreadManPanarin]

mcdavid shouldn't even be a finalist.

I tend to agree and personally I think Ghost is a better candidate than McDavid. But it seems like a lot of people in the media are championing McDavid over both Panarin and ghost, so I am curious to hear the rationale from McDavid supporters. If Panarin had scored 65 points in 80 games then I could maybe understand people leaning towards McDavid's 48 pts in 45 games... but 77 pts in 80 games is way more impressive to me than 48 pts in 45 games. Not even close.

- - - Updated - - -

The better player doesn't & shouldn't always get the award.
Awards should be for results... and Panarin had the results.

[StuntMan12]

Panarin
Ghost
McDavid

[2014olympicgold]

Panarin, Ghost, Gibson (Still a rookie according to the NHL stats site) are my finalists. With Panarin winning.

[CascadeFilly]

Panarin. If Gost had played a full season and produced at a steady rate throughout, he'd be a strong consideration, but the Calder belongs to Panarin this year.

[BreadManPanarin]

I am relieved to see that there is such consensus so far that Panarin is the winner. I keep seeing articles online about why McDavid should win, so I thought that might be a more common opinion on the forums as well. In my opinion it is a travesty if the Bread Man doesn't win. If he is eligible, which under the current rules he is, then I believe he should be the outright winner by nearly unanimous decision.

[Rodgort]

I think you have to give it to Panarin, sure he is older, more physically mature, Chicago still would have made the playoffs, and played with the best player this year (points wise), but he also had 77 points in 80 games and looked great out there.

Personally I would give it to Ghost though, just because of the points and ppg rate (0.70?) he put up as a rookie dman (toughest position to break in to the NHL), took over on the PP, and how much better Philly played when he was in the line up ultimately helping them to get into the playoffs.

I would only choose McDavid (even with with the injury) if he had a much better run to end the season, I think he had 18 points in 17 games (which is not bad, but not enough to catch Panarin) but if he got like 28 points in those 17 games he would likely win.

[LawMan]

I think its a lot of writers trying to create interest/drama/controversy in what is an otherwise straight forward vote. Every awards season some writer comes out of left field with "so and so should be the MVP because without him his #7 team misses the playoff and his value is high blah blah blah". Half the time I don't think they believe their own stuff but need hits and click-bait articles work sadly.

I don't like that Panarin is eligible for 2 reasons . First, he has, IMO, played hockey in a "major professional league" (the KHL) prior to arriving in Chicago. Second, he is 24, I think the Calder should be capped at age 21 max. That being said nobody asked me and Panarin is eligible, since he's eligible he had the most proficient rookie season and should easily win the Calder.

[gainerama]

Not even sure why there is a debate on this. Award should go to whoever had the best rookie season. Sidney Crosby didn't win it and neither should McDavid.

[iwinthings]

McDavid proved he was one of the best players in the league, let alone the best rookie. But you can't give the guy an award for half a season. Gretzky never won the Calder so why should McDavid. Give it to Panarin.

[Oakville Squires]

Panarin should get it with an honorable mention to Ghost and McDavid