Claimed:All-Star Debate: Replace Valmount with Jarvi? [Reviewed]

[scoop 3,384]

All-Star Debate: Replace Valmount with Jarvi?

Statistically speaking, Simon Valmount is a deserving All-Star this season. Through 52 games with the Bears, he has 61 points and a league-leading 306 hits. Meanwhile, Joel Jarvi is a fringe All-Star candidate; he has 60 points in 52 games while not bringing much else to the table, but he played 14 games as a defenseman. Despite Valmount's superior production and more prominent career, discussion has been going on in the Board of Governors about the possibility of giving Jarvi his place in the All-Star Game because Ahma is inactive. I, for one, am against such a proposition.

 

First, I'd like to discuss the point made about Ahma being inactive. I am of the personal opinion that his inactivity should not affect his All-Star Game candidacy. No, he isn't here at the moment, but he put in the effort to get his player to where he was, and that effort has resulted in him having stats that make him All-Star worthy in S49. This is just a personal opinion, and I can understand why others may disagree with it. Ahma isn't here, but Greg is. But at the same time, it's just one All-Star Game. How much is it really going to enhance a member's experience here? Should we really put someone who doesn't deserve to be in the All-Star Game just because he didn't receive any attention (I'll get to this later) and instead we voted in someone who is inactive? In my opinion, no. Simon Valmount is deserving of being an All-Star this season. That is a check mark that he deserves on his career, whether he is here or not. However, because it's just the All-Star Game and that really doesn't hold significant weight when it comes to discussing a player's career accomplishments, it's not a huge deal to me. However, and I don't want to use this as a platform to discuss this issue so I'll just touch on it briefly, when it comes to award voting, I personally believe that the only time a voter should take into account the members' activity levels are in really close cases.

 

Evidently the majority of the voters selecting the All-Star players agree with me that Valmount should be in. Including myself, six out of the eight who submitted votes included him in the top ten. No one felt compelled to vote for Jarvi. No one even put him on their short list of forwards to include in the public vote. He received zero mention. The voters should have known of Ahma's inactivity. If they didn't want to include him based on that, then they shouldn't have voted for him. If the commissioners want to go over the Board of Governors and replace Valmount, that's fine. And that would basically be a statement about what they expect out of All-Star voting, which is perfectly fine. If the All-Star Game is limited to active players only, let's make it so.

 

What does Lord Karnage have to do with this?

 

But Jarvi is not even a clear-cut All-Star. Since I brought up the fact that no one noticed him when voting, I should add that most of the voters submitted their ballots before a stretch of games where Jarvi performed quite well. Based on his stats now, he would almost definitely make it onto the final two vote. Whether or not the public would vote him in, I don't know. But I wouldn't vote for him. Along with the ten who are already in, I would put William Covington and Severin von Karma in ahead of him. I'd probably vote for Jarvi's teammate Tyson Kohler sooner than I would him as well. And if Valmount were being removed from the All-Star Game, I'd prefer to see Lord Karnage be the one to take his place because if we're forsaking statistics and making decisions based on intangibles, let's put the fucking all-time TPE leader in the All-Star Game for his last season. The case for Jarvi, though, is that he was left off of the public vote at all. He had no shot to make it in after he was "missed" by BoG. Furthermore, the fact that he played his first 14 games as a defenseman has been brought up in favor of including him in the All-Star Game, because if you were to look at his numbers on a per-game basis as a forward, he'd stack up better with the lower-tier All-Stars. I don't know if it would be enough to make up for the fact that he's played fewer games, though, and for an All-Star vote, I'm not going to do the research to find out. If someone else wants to make that argument, they can go get actual numbers.

 

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that Jarvi should not be an All-Star. Even if we do want to remove Valmount, which I disagree with but would not be bothered to see happen, I would say replace him with Karnage if he doesn't get in via the final vote. Because throw the guy a fucking bone after the shitty luck he's had with his career. But maybe I'm just sympathetic to him because I'm still bitter over Benjamin Glover's poor career despite being the all-time TPE leader at the time.

[Will 4,660]

I should clarify what I meant in BOG - I was only considering replacing Valmount with Jarvi if the lack of Jarvi votes was the result of an oversight (my initial thought was that people may have forgotten about his position change). It had nothing to do with Ahma being inactive other than the fact that, if it did turn out to be an oversight, he would be the easiest to swap him with. Evidently though it appears people willingly chose to not vote for him so case closed. 

[scoop 3,384]

1 minute ago, Draper said:

I should clarify what I meant in BOG - I was only considering replacing Valmount with Jarvi if the lack of Jarvi votes was the result of an oversight (my initial thought was that people may have forgotten about his position change). It had nothing to do with Ahma being inactive other than the fact that, if it did turn out to be an oversight, he would be the easiest to swap him with. Evidently though it appears people willingly chose to not vote for him so case closed. 

Ahh, well it gave me something to write about anyway.

[boubabi 4,725]

Ahma for karnage

 

Done deal

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

muller should have made it imo

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

I agree. Valmount should just stay.

 

Even if Valmount wasn't in, I'd still put Von Karma or Covington III in before him anyways, so the Jarvi argument isn't that valid to me.

[Evans 305]

Review: All-star voting should be based on stats and nothing else, so I would say I agree with the points you are trying to drive home. If an active player is getting outplayed by an inactive one, eventually you will see that shift. You do get those weird guys that have such a great build that their players are good for several seasons despite nothing changing though. 

[CowboyinAmerica 2,840]

Claimed