Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Patty Kaz

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Patty Kaz

    Originally posted by ARM View Post
    In theory it isn't a lifetime achievement award, but it plays out that way in practice. The reason is that the coaches who vote have had more chance to observe upperclassmen and they are more likely to have made a favorable impression. I've heard the discussion for this and other awards, and when it comes to coaches, being a senior does have value.
    Most of these awards have some kind of thing about sportsmanship on and off the ice. They usually document some of the things that the winner has done on campus and in the community. As a freshman, you haven't really had the chance to build that resume. In a group of very talented players, that could be the deciding factor.
    Clarkson Golden Knights Men
    10 Time ECAC Regular Season Champs
    5 Time ECAC Tournament Champs
    21 NCAA Tournament Appearances

    Undefeated - 1956

    Clarkson Golden Knights Women
    ECAC Regular Season Champs - 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018
    ECAC Tournament Champs - 2017, 2018
    7 NCAA Tournament Appearances

    Frozen Four - 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018
    National Champions - 2014, 2017, 2018

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Patty Kaz

      Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
      No, neither has a sophomore. In fact I think Raty and Agosta are the only players to even make the final 3 as a freshman?

      Not really, in fact wasn't that the argument against Agosta winning that "she had a good year but this isn't a lifetime achievement award"? I could be making that up, but that's how I remember it.

      EDIT: Same with Brandt.
      Watts is cooked then.
      Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
      "Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
      Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Timothy A View Post
        Watts is cooked then.
        I'll bet you otherwise
        Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
        Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
        Twitter: @Salzano14


        Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Patty Kaz

          Originally posted by FireKnight View Post
          Most of these awards have some kind of thing about sportsmanship on and off the ice.
          I remain deeply skeptical that these criteria are anything more than boilerplate that is largely ignored during the voting. Sure, it gets quoted in the press release, but, in an odd coincidence, it always seems to be the player with the best stats that is also the best humanitarian and sportsman. It's eerie.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post
            I remain deeply skeptical that these criteria are anything more than boilerplate that is largely ignored during the voting. Sure, it gets quoted in the press release, but, in an odd coincidence, it always seems to be the player with the best stats that is also the best humanitarian and sportsman. It's eerie.
            I think it comes down to the fact that the award is described on their website as:

            "The Patty Kazmaier Memorial Award is presented annually to the top player in NCAA Division I women’s ice hockey."

            Everything else is secondary (or even tertiary) and is described as "other criteria".

            Everyone always overrates the extent to which this is some kind of sportsmanship award. It says it clearly right there in the very first line: this is a best player award. There are other factors considered, but they are secondary to the fact that they identify the award as one that goes to the sport's top player.
            Last edited by TonyTheTiger20; 02-26-2018, 09:29 PM.
            Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
            Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
            Twitter: @Salzano14


            Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Patty Kaz

              Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
              I think it comes down to the fact that the award is described on their website as:

              "The Patty Kazmaier Memorial Award is presented annually to the top player in NCAA Division I women’s ice hockey."

              Everything else is secondary (or even tertiary) and is described as "other criteria".
              I don't think that, textually, that's as clear cut as you do, though it clearly is in practice. The phrase "top player" is open to a very wide range of plausible interpretations. Rather than being secondary criteria, what follows could be read as the definition of the previous sentence. Granted, they muddle everything with the use of the word "other," but that just makes the whole nonsensical. It's hard to imagine the meaning "top player" not including "outstanding individual and team skills." The whole thing dissolves into incoherence, allowing the voters to use whatever criteria they want to. Given voters' strong tendency to hand the "Outstanding Defensive Player of the . . ." to whichever defenseman has scored the most points, there's no indication that they really think about the written criteria at all.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Patty Kaz

                Cutting to the chase a little bit, has there ever been a freshman contender as strong as Watts?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post
                  I don't think that, textually, that's as clear cut as you do, though it clearly is in practice. The phrase "top player" is open to a very wide range of plausible interpretations. Rather than being secondary criteria, what follows could be read as the definition of the previous sentence. Granted, they muddle everything with the use of the word "other," but that just makes the whole nonsensical. It's hard to imagine the meaning "top player" not including "outstanding individual and team skills." The whole thing dissolves into incoherence, allowing the voters to use whatever criteria they want to. Given voters' strong tendency to hand the "Outstanding Defensive Player of the . . ." to whichever defenseman has scored the most points, there's no indication that they really think about the written criteria at all.
                  Well I certainly don't disagree with this
                  Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                  Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                  Twitter: @Salzano14


                  Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by thirdtime's . . . View Post
                    Cutting to the chase a little bit, has there ever been a freshman contender as strong as Watts?
                    Good question... Chu who set the freshman scoring record did so in an era of ridiculous scoring and was outdone by her teammate who won the Kaz anyway, and Chu didn't make the final 3.

                    Agosta made the final 3 playing in a weak league.

                    Räty was the other freshman to make the final 3 but she was a goalie so tough to compare.

                    I guess my answer to that is that the answer appears to be no. In fact, Watts' PPG numbers would be 7th all time among Kaz winners (keeping in mind scoring back in the day was absurd with a dozen goals scored every other game) and is comparable to Coyne's.
                    Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                    Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                    Twitter: @Salzano14


                    Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by EastFan1 View Post
                      has someone won the PK without ever scoring a single regular season goal against a top 10 pairwise finisher?

                      My gut says it’s going to Gabel. Not a bad pick. Women’s hockey badly needs an ice breaker tourney at the start of the year. Watts played against the number four team to start the season, then never played a team ranked higher than 8. I’m a Watts fan but I don’t think they will award the Patty Kaz to a freshman who played that schedule, as alluded to in the comment above. With 3 BC players in the top ten I wonder if that will split the vote and prevent anyone of them from winning.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
                        Good question... Chu who set the freshman scoring record did so in an era of ridiculous scoring and was outdone by her teammate who won the Kaz anyway, and Chu didn't make the final 3.

                        Agosta made the final 3 playing in a weak league.

                        Räty was the other freshman to make the final 3 but she was a goalie so tough to compare.

                        I guess my answer to that is that the answer appears to be no. In fact, Watts' PPG numbers would be 7th all time among Kaz winners (keeping in mind scoring back in the day was absurd with a dozen goals scored every other game) and is comparable to Coyne's.
                        Agosta played in a league with 4 teams total. So she played 20 games against ECAC and Hockey East teams. Plus CHA team Robert Morris had future Olympian Brianne McLaughlin in net. Plus, as a freshman Agosta had character players and a couple of sweet players out of Quebec on her team. She was not playing with the Under 18 Alumni team that Watts does. You make a good case for Watts, but it’s not a slam dunk. She’s done everything she possibly could, but hey so did Agosta.
                        Last edited by Lindsay; 02-26-2018, 10:21 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Patty Kaz

                          Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
                          Well I certainly don't disagree with this
                          You were supposed to disagree, because I had a response all lined up.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post
                            You were supposed to disagree, because I had a response all lined up.
                            Hahahahaha, this is coming from a person who spent all season grousing about the ambiguity in the NCAA tournament selection language, of course I don't disagree!
                            Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                            Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                            Twitter: @Salzano14


                            Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Patty Kaz

                              Originally posted by thirdtime's . . . View Post
                              Cutting to the chase a little bit, has there ever been a freshman contender as strong as Watts?
                              Agosta was stronger than Watts, but Mercyhurst was viewed as more of an outcast in those days. However, Agosta didn't debut in an Olympic year, so she would have had to overcome better competition for the award. I'd say it's somewhere around 50/50 that Watts wins. But it will be a lot funnier if Bach does.
                              "... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
                              And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Patty Kaz

                                I'm lazy, so can someone give us a list of the jr's & sr's only so we can debate whose is going to win?
                                Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
                                "Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
                                Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X