Patty Kazmaier 2014

[ARM]

Phoebe Staenz at Yale is an example of this kind of player. Not dominant enough as a freshman to actually win, but playing really well.

She's definitely a player with enough game to get noticed, I think she's improved Yale's bottom line, and her stats are good. What really hurts her this year is the Olympic break. If she was around for the month of February doing good things, it would really help. For players who are away or injured for a long stretch, it can be a case of out of sight, out of mind.

[HankScorpio]

Re: Patty Kazmaier 2014

If Michelle Karvinen doesn't make the top-10 then that's a travesty. Also worth putting on the early list from UND is Josefine Jakobsen and Susanna Tapani. Anyone who has seen North Dakota this year should agree with that. All three are super dynamic players.

[ARM]

If Michelle Karvinen doesn't make the top-10 then that's a travesty.

I like Karvinen; she's a great player, but she's 20th in the country in points per game. I could see somebody voting for her, but unless your dictionary has different definitions, I'm not seeing it as a "travesty" if they don't.

[NMH]

Re: Patty Kazmaier 2014

I agree with that, and I definitely think she belongs in the top 10 at this point. The question is, is she having the best season in the country? In that respect, I'd say it's to be determined, because ARD is having a similar season, just with fewer starts. Nobody in the country has really separated themselves yet; I think we will see a bit more separation down the stretch.

I'm not buying that. Three of her seasons, the team has been No. 1 or No. 2 in the country. Her first two years, she played behind teams that were loaded. One was an NCAA champ, and she was asked to just be solid rather than go out and make huge saves to win games. Her sophomore season, the team was slightly weaker, but her play down the stretch wasn't her best, either. Last year, I thought she was very good when I saw her, although she did have a couple of shaky periods. I've only seen her play twice this year, and she was very good, but the goalie at the other end was better.

While it is nice to top Vetter's record, it is important to remember that the presence of Horras and Dufour is the reason Vetter didn't have more wins. Rigsby has three more wins and seven more starts than Vetter had. The next goalie Rigsby will catch in career wins is Pattenden, and nobody ever said that Pattenden deserved the Kaz. Records are nice, but to win the Kaz, you should have the best season in the country, and Rigsby still has work to do in that regard, as do all.

You're ignoring the entire premise of my post.

At no point do I say anything about her career numbers being any reason she should be nominated this year. And to use career wins as any
sort of indication would be like giving the Cy Young based on ERA. If we want to choose one of the career records she's likely to break this season, let's at least use save percentage.

The earlier discussion was whether or not goalies should and could be judged on how they would fair with "lesser" teams around them. The best we can do is guess at that, so I used the only bit of actual data we have that's relevant here: which is that Alex has played with a slightly lower caliber team (while admitting that this is a relative thing, since most teams would have killed to have what we considered a down year) and still put up numbers comparable to Jessie's.

I don't think Alex is having the best season in the country - not yet, anyway. But I do think she's top-10.

[ARM]

You're ignoring the entire premise of my post.

...
The earlier discussion was whether or not goalies should and could be judged on how they would fair with "lesser" teams around them. The best we can do is guess at that, so I used the only bit of actual data we have that's relevant here: which is that Alex has played with a slightly lower caliber team (while admitting that this is a relative thing, since most teams would have killed to have what we considered a down year) and still put up numbers comparable to Jessie's.

Sorry. I took this part to be the premise of your earlier post. Both played on teams that were down a bit as juniors. The 2008 team managed to reach the title game, but wasn't a top-four seed, so it overachieved a bit in the tournament, which is kind of where Vetter really established her legacy over the years. I'll agree that in 2013, the cupboard was a bit more bare after Decker. But the other three years in total the UW teams ranked as No. 1, No. 1 all season until losing the championship, and now, No. 2. Because Rigsby is competing with active players, not Vetter, I don't see that a claim can be made that she has played on lesser teams than anyone else. Beyond that, I see you and I as being roughly in agreement. Wisconsin career wins is a record that she has set, so I picked that. Records like save percentage or goals against average are harder, because they aren't really set until the season is complete. To say she is "on pace" is fair. Rigsby belongs in the top 10, with anything else, to be determined.

[HankScorpio]

Re: Patty Kazmaier 2014

I like Karvinen; she's a great player, but she's 20th in the country in points per game. I could see somebody voting for her, but unless your dictionary has different definitions, I'm not seeing it as a "travesty" if they don't.

When you take into account her skill set, what she's done for the program at UND and her off-ice intangibles; that's why she deserves to be on the list. If the Patty Kaz was awarded solely based on points, then Agosta and Knight should have won it. How'd that turn out for them?

[ARM]

When you take into account her skill set, what she's done for the program at UND and her off-ice intangibles; that's why she deserves to be on the list.

I agree with you; Karvinen does very well in the intangibles. What is tough in the intangibles is how do I sort those out for players that I don't know nearly as well? I've gotten to watch Karvinen in person a dozen times and have had the pleasure of speaking with her off the ice several times as well. I have nothing negative to say about her. But it is hard to give her full-value for her intangibles when I don't know so many of the candidates nearly as well. For example, I only spoke to Skarupa once, and she was great. I watched her compete in person once, and she was superb. So I'm not willing to go so far as to say it is a travesty if a Skarupa makes the top 10 and Karvinen does not. Just know going in that there are more than 10 players worthy of being recognized as finalists and it is impossible to name everyone that deserves the honor.

[NMH]

Re: Patty Kazmaier 2014

When you take into account her skill set, what she's done for the program at UND and her off-ice intangibles; that's why she deserves to be on the list. If the Patty Kaz was awarded solely based on points, then Agosta and Knight should have won it. How'd that turn out for them?

While I'll agree that things more than points or goals go into deciding the winner, I'm not sure how far you go into supposed "intangibles" - I'm not sure something like "skill-set" comes in to play in that any of the top talent in the league has a plus skill-set, so that should be a wash.

I'd be interested in what you define as Karvinen having "done for the program" - do mean in terms of bringing other internationals? Or am I uniformed about something else?

[NMH]

Re: Patty Kazmaier 2014

If the Patty Kaz was awarded solely based on points, then Agosta and Knight should have won it. How'd that turn out for them?

Not to go totally off-topic, but I'm pretty sure I'll contend to my dying day that Hilary Knight spent her Patty Kaz year on Team USA. That might be my fangirl showing, though.

[robertearle]

Re: Patty Kazmaier 2014

Not to go totally off-topic, but I'm pretty sure I'll contend to my dying day that Hilary Knight spent her Patty Kaz year on Team USA. That might be my fangirl showing, though.

(Preface by saying this is in NO WAY meant to be a slam AT ALL against Brianna Decker or her having won the Kazmaier. but...)

I am of the opinion that Hilary Knight spent her Kazmaier year centering the 2nd line, opening the door for Decker to center the first line and win the Kaz. The Badgers were a better team overall for it, but if Knight centers the first line, she wins the Kaz.

[ARM]

I am of the opinion that Hilary Knight spent her Kazmaier year centering the 2nd line, opening the door for Decker to center the first line and win the Kaz. The Badgers were a better team overall for it, but if Knight centers the first line, she wins the Kaz.

Could be, but had Knight spent the whole season on the first line, she's a wing, not a center. When Johnson wanted more offense over Knight's final two seasons, he'd move her up the to first line, but she was one of Decker's wings. The other wing was Duggan during Knight's junior season and Prévost the senior year. Knight also moved onto the first line while Prévost was injured. So you could make a good point that Knight was playing out of position in addition to a line too low. Wisconsin players are often asked to play on a lower line than their talent would dictate, such as Prévost usually being stuck on a third line until her senior season, when was an unsung star on the top line.

[robertearle]

Re: Patty Kazmaier 2014

Could be, but had Knight spent the whole season on the first line, she's a wing, not a center. When Johnson wanted more offense over Knight's final two seasons, he'd move her up the to first line, but she was one of Decker's wings. The other wing was Duggan during Knight's junior season and Prévost the senior year. Knight also moved onto the first line while Prévost was injured. So you could make a good point that Knight was playing out of position in addition to a line too low. Wisconsin players are often asked to play on a lower line than their talent would dictate, such as Prévost usually being stuck on a third line until her senior season, when was an unsung star on the top line.

My recollection (as a UW season ticket holder who missed one (?) game all year) is that the 2011-2012 first line was Prevost-Decker-BrookeAmermann, and that Knight was almost always center 2nd line. (Even strength, that is; on first PP, Knight would play one of the points as if a defenseman.) On the rare occasion they were trailing (eg against the Gophers, so maybe that's why you're remembering :-) Johnson would indeed move her up to first line wing. But the vast majority of the time, 2nd line center. Again, unless I'm *greatly* mistaken.

I'm saying that she could have asserted her seniority - both literal and figurative - and switched with Decker, such that Decker would have centered the 2nd line. She didn't, and as I said they were the better for it. But if she had...

[ARM]

My recollection (as a UW season ticket holder who missed one (?) game all year) is that the 2011-2012 first line was Prevost-Decker-BrookeAmermann, and that Knight was almost always center 2nd line. (Even strength, that is; on first PP, Knight would play one of the points as if a defenseman.) On the rare occasion they were trailing (eg against the Gophers, so maybe that's why you're remembering :-) Johnson would indeed move her up to first line wing. But the vast majority of the time, 2nd line center. Again, unless I'm *greatly* mistaken.

I'm saying that she could have asserted her seniority - both literal and figurative - and switched with Decker, such that Decker would have centered the 2nd line. She didn't, and as I said they were the better for it. But if she had...

I agree that she almost always started out as center on the second line as you say. But from everything I saw, she was more of a natural wing. Knight is a great finisher, perhaps the best the WCHA has seen, but Decker was a more natural center. Decker plays center on the national team; Knight plays wing. When it was time to bump someone down to the second line, that was usually Brooke Ammerman, not Decker.

[wwhyte]

Re: Patty Kazmaier 2014

I agree with you; Karvinen does very well in the intangibles. What is tough in the intangibles is how do I sort those out for players that I don't know nearly as well? I've gotten to watch Karvinen in person a dozen times and have had the pleasure of speaking with her off the ice several times as well. I have nothing negative to say about her. But it is hard to give her full-value for her intangibles when I don't know so many of the candidates nearly as well. For example, I only spoke to Skarupa once, and she was great. I watched her compete in person once, and she was superb. So I'm not willing to go so far as to say it is a travesty if a Skarupa makes the top 10 and Karvinen does not. Just know going in that there are more than 10 players worthy of being recognized as finalists and it is impossible to name everyone that deserves the honor.

I think the Skarupa/Karvinen contrast is interesting. I'm a huge fan of Skarupa, but the Eagles have underperformed this year and North Dakota have if anything slightly overperformed, certainly in being the only team to take the Gophers. Since the Kaz criteria include displaying leadership, I would think that it's hard for a player, no matter how good, on an underperforming team to come through and win it. (So it's a rocky road for Bestland too). If Yale was doing slightly better than it is, this would suggest that Phoebe Staenz would be a possible dark horse candidate. Does that make sense or am I way out of line? Are there examples of Patty Kaz winners from underperforming teams?

[ARM]

I think the Skarupa/Karvinen contrast is interesting. I'm a huge fan of Skarupa, but the Eagles have underperformed this year and North Dakota have if anything slightly overperformed, certainly in being the only team to take the Gophers. Since the Kaz criteria include displaying leadership, I would think that it's hard for a player, no matter how good, on an underperforming team to come through and win it. (So it's a rocky road for Bestland too). If Yale was doing slightly better than it is, this would suggest that Phoebe Staenz would be a possible dark horse candidate. Does that make sense or am I way out of line? Are there examples of Patty Kaz winners from underperforming teams?

I disagree that UND is performing better than BC relative to expectations, but that could just be because I thought UND would challenge Minnesota for the WCHA title, more so than Wisconsin. UND is right where the league coaches picked them to be. BC is going to win Hockey East unless they have a meltdown, also as predicted. BC passed UND in the PWR with the UND loss tonight. So if BC is underperforming relative to UND, it isn't by much.

I don't think that any of Karvinen, Staenz, or Skarupa can win the award while sitting on the sidelines (or playing at the Olympics, as the case may be.) Jamie Lee Rattray had a five-point game in Clarkson's 5-0 win at Union. It is hard to match that if you aren't playing. For those three, I think the question centers more on whether or not they can make the top 10.