Enough. There is no age criteria for the Calder Trophy that applies here. I already accommodated your BS argument enough by excluding older rookies in my earlier post as a show of arguing in good faith, and in favour of Celebrini. He still comes out behind, by a huge margin.
The age argument works against Celebrini here anyway; defensemen take longer to develop than forwards. You said it yourself. Therefore, what Hutson did is even more exceptional
Firstly, I'm not sure why you are so bent out of shape. I agree Hutson was the best rookie this year, not sure how many times I need to say. You just seem so frustrated that people can't love Hutson enough and we need to make the gap between him and everyone else as big as possible. If someone disagrees enough times you'll simply suggest "enough" - obviously an idiot if I share a different opinion.
Secondly, yes, there is an age criteria for the Calder, that's not debatable, it's fact. That said, the subjective side....if you have two guys, one age 18 and one age 21 (both meet the age criteria).....all else being equal, I'm going with the 18 year old and most voters would as well. In this case, all else isn't equal though.
You’re being completely irrational now. Yes it absolutely does, if you’re using common sense and comparing D to D and forwards to forwards. Why on earth would you just compare points between D and forwards straight across, at face value? I guess Bobby Orr’s 139 point season really isn’t all that special because tons of players have scored more than that. It was only 3 points more than a guy like Dennis Maruk after all. Not to mention, Maruk scored 60 goals that year, far more than Bobby Orr ever scored in a season. Thats your logic
I'm going to suggest something that shouldn't be controversial, but perhaps you'll take it as such. The reality is, and I'll admit, this is subjective, the best rookie seasons of all time, have generally been forwards...so, let's assume you take the top 15 rookie seasons of all time...perhaps the first 14 are forwards. If you have D rookie come along and have the best rookie season of all time, you will suggest that is better than a F that comes along and has the 10th best F rookie season of all time....without considering any other factors.....that alone is enough to seal the deal for you? Let me ask you this question: Do you consider Hutson's rookie year better than Crosby's?
With respect to looking at Bobby Orr and his best production vs. forwards, etc. I've never gone down that road. Celebrini produced more offensively this year relatively speaking than Hutson, I don't look at that and suggest Celebrini had the better year.....in fact, as you've seen, I suggest the opposite, Hutson had the better year. The single/solitary point I'm making is that they are closer than you are making it out to be.
You’re now unintentionally arguing in favour of Hutson without even realizing it
Well, as noted, I've already favoured Huston, but the age thing and D starting out slower doesn't really favour Hutson....the analogy was that his comparison to other D rookies vs. Celebrini's comparison to other F rookies isn't the best comparison. If a Dman comes in and has a very strong rookie season, they are already high up compared to other D rookies because they take longer to develop....but don't forget, he already has 2+ years of development ahead of Celebrini....so some D rookies that come in at 18 might take longer, but Hutson didn't come in at 18. Makar's rookie season was more impressive than Hutson's for example (IMO).