HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

xwildfan wrote:Not quibbling about any of the All State selections; but isn't it a bit unusual that Ms.Goalie is on the Honorable Mention list for LPH?

There's presidence for this, I believe. McCready was All State HM and Goalie of the year. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Offsides that does sound correct from my recollection.

Wow look at all those forwards and goalies... that says quite a bit about the sports writers depth.

Hey that's great Trojan. Nice view!

Here is a link to the Actual Ballot for the Associated Press Girls All-State Team. http://www.kxnet.com/Sports/Hockey/210377.asp

Well over half of the players have NO Data, while others appear to have a PR Man behind them with season stats, career stats, college choice and personal bio. It doesn't seem like a fair ballot to me.

Instructions are included to vote as follows: Please vote for the following: PLAYER OF THE YEAR (1) GOALIE (2) DEFENSE (4) FORWARD (6) List your players in descending order at each position. For example, your top forward would get a 6, the next-best forward a 5 and so on. The top defensive player would get a 4 and the top goalie a 2.

The player of the year choice should be one of the players you choose for the team. PLEASE BE SURE TO DESIGNATE THIS SELECTION.

Write-in candidates are welcome. If you name a write-in candidate, please be sure to INCLUDE the player's full name, school, position and year in school.

Please return ballots by e-mail at xxxxxx.xxx Votes must be cast by Saturday, Feb. 23.
================================
Do you think the Ballot looks FAIR?

minnesotajrstars wrote:Here is a link to the Actual Ballot for the Associated Press Girls All-State Team. http://www.kxnet.com/Sports/Hockey/210377.asp

Well over half of the players have NO Data, while others appear to have a PR Man behind them with season stats, career stats, college choice and personal bio. It doesn't seem like a fair ballot to me.

Instructions are included to vote as follows: Please vote for the following: PLAYER OF THE YEAR (1) GOALIE (2) DEFENSE (4) FORWARD (6) List your players in descending order at each position. For example, your top forward would get a 6, the next-best forward a 5 and so on. The top defensive player would get a 4 and the top goalie a 2.

The player of the year choice should be one of the players you choose for the team. PLEASE BE SURE TO DESIGNATE THIS SELECTION.

Write-in candidates are welcome. If you name a write-in candidate, please be sure to INCLUDE the player's full name, school, position and year in school.

Please return ballots by e-mail at xxxxxx.xxx Votes must be cast by Saturday, Feb. 23.
================================
Do you think the Ballot looks FAIR?

Very interesting. Thanks for posting this, it answers a lot of questions many people have.

Have to believe the listings are picked up from the data and comments provided by the coaches who nominate their own players. It's clear if the coach doesn't provide stats and some background data, they are in effect hampering their player's chances for this recognition. It's should be no mystery that many of these writers and media types would have little knowledge of girls hockey, or that it would be limited to their immediate media base.

The end of the season is a busy time for coaches, especially those who go deep into sections or the tournament. However, a responsible coach should make an effort to promote his better players if he feels they deserve some accolades. This post gives a pretty clear indication of those who didn't make that effort.

Every girl listed All State by the press is worthy of their nomination. It is also worth stating that their are many players out there that are not mentioned and are just as good "if not better" then many of those officially listed. The press has a history of only looking at stats and not spending any time watching the players. A decent player on a bad team will get nominated and a good player on a good team will get over looked. The decent player on the bad team will have great looking stats because she is their star player while the good players on good teams blend in more and their stats do not always stand out as prominently. This is why you see many girls nominated from teams that had poor records and lost in sections very early. The rest are standouts on great teams. They only go by stats and the 3rd thru 5th seeded teams and players get left out. If you really know the game of hockey, the steady, lower stats players are the back bone of your team. They are "9 times out of 10" the players that excel in college hockey and become the stand out players of the future. To all those left out, do not get discouraged. Your day will come with hard work and a friend in the press.

Jethrotull wrote:Every girl listed All State by the press is worthy of their nomination. It is also worth stating that their are many players out there that are not mentioned and are just as good "if not better" then many of those officially listed. The press has a history of only looking at stats and not spending any time watching the players. A decent player on a bad team will get nominated and a good player on a good team will get over looked. The decent player on the bad team will have great looking stats because she is their star player while the good players on good teams blend in more and their stats do not always stand out as prominently. This is why you see many girls nominated from teams that had poor records and lost in sections very early. The rest are standouts on great teams. They only go by stats and the 3rd thru 5th seeded teams and players get left out. If you really know the game of hockey, the steady, lower stats players are the back bone of your team. They are "9 times out of 10" the players that excel in college hockey and become the stand out players of the future. To all those left out, do not get discouraged. Your day will come with hard work and a friend in the press.

Very well stated!

That explains a lot! I would agree for the most part with what Mr Tull said. I won't debate the value judgements because it doesn't matter anyway. It clearly biases the ballot though when you provide names and stories the way they do. Name recognition and folklore can prevail over substance. But, hey they are sports writers so substance is probably a bad bar to set anyway.

I whole heartedly agree that hard work is still the better way to reach the goals for the girls anyway. My daughter never makes the lists but always makes the teams when the tryouts are done. She is fine with playing and letting the "names" do whatever...

chickendance wrote:That explains a lot! I would agree for the most part with what Mr Tull said. I won't debate the value judgements because it doesn't matter anyway. It clearly biases the ballot though when you provide names and stories the way they do. Name recognition and folklore can prevail over substance. But, hey they are sports writers so substance is probably a bad bar to set anyway.

I whole heartedly agree that hard work is still the better way to reach the goals for the girls anyway. My daughter never makes the lists but always makes the teams when the tryouts are done. She is fine with playing and letting the "names" do whatever...

Very well stated again! CD, couldn't agree more with the last part, and a lot of times you see the "names" that get on the lists, that aren't exactly what you would want a kid to emulate either. Hard work and effort will pay off in many ways!

hockeyrube7 wrote:

chickendance wrote:That explains a lot! I would agree for the most part with what Mr Tull said. I won't debate the value judgements because it doesn't matter anyway. It clearly biases the ballot though when you provide names and stories the way they do. Name recognition and folklore can prevail over substance. But, hey they are sports writers so substance is probably a bad bar to set anyway.

I whole heartedly agree that hard work is still the better way to reach the goals for the girls anyway. My daughter never makes the lists but always makes the teams when the tryouts are done. She is fine with playing and letting the "names" do whatever...

Very well stated again! CD, couldn't agree more with the last part, and a lot of times you see the "names" that get on the lists, that aren't exactly what you would want a kid to emulate either. Hard work and effort will pay off in many ways!

I agree with both of you. Hard work can overcome all however I think girls that don't make these lists do have to overcome a little bias when they are trying out against girls that make the list. My daughter never makes the lists either and generally prevails but she is constantly fighting an uphill battle because its human nature for people to want the girls with the press clippings.

OntheEdge wrote:

hockeyrube7 wrote:

chickendance wrote:That explains a lot! I would agree for the most part with what Mr Tull said. I won't debate the value judgements because it doesn't matter anyway. It clearly biases the ballot though when you provide names and stories the way they do. Name recognition and folklore can prevail over substance. But, hey they are sports writers so substance is probably a bad bar to set anyway.

I whole heartedly agree that hard work is still the better way to reach the goals for the girls anyway. My daughter never makes the lists but always makes the teams when the tryouts are done. She is fine with playing and letting the "names" do whatever...

Very well stated again! CD, couldn't agree more with the last part, and a lot of times you see the "names" that get on the lists, that aren't exactly what you would want a kid to emulate either. Hard work and effort will pay off in many ways!

I agree with both of you. Hard work can overcome all however I think girls that don't make these lists do have to overcome a little bias when they are trying out against girls that make the list. My daughter never makes the lists either and generally prevails but she is constantly fighting an uphill battle because its human nature for people to want the girls with the press clippings.

Sad as it is, this is very true!