LGAHL Season 8 Datsyuk Award Vote

Before we start, I want to make sure everyone knows that no member of the committee was or will be allowed to vote for an award in which they are nominated.


The Community Vote will be included in the final vote, along with the committee votes.


Also, for Strength of schedule, the lower the number, the tougher your schedule. If your SOS was a 7.8 (Conf) and a 15.2 (League), your average game played would be against the 8th place team in the conference, and 15th in the league as a whole. Really high=really poor SOS.


The finalist for Datsyuk Award for Season 8 of LGAHL PSN as the best defensive forward are:


CJ x 58, C

Overall Production: 40GA(1.54GAA), 92TA, 62.6FO%, +89, 89.5PPKE, 2:43OEE
Vs. Playoff Teams: 13-2-2, 26GA(1.53GAA), 58TA, 65.0FO%, +51
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 8-0-1, 14GA(1.56GAA), 34TA, 58.1FO%, +38
Record: 21-2-3
Strength of Schedule: League (11.12), Conference (5.96)
Team Performance: League (1), Conference (1), Team GAA (1.82)

After achieving great offense success with the high powered s7 Iowa team, CJ set out to prove his two-way prowess. Leading all finalists with an eye popping 62.6% win rate on faceoffs, CJ knew that the other team can’t score if they don’t have the puck. With the opposing team not having the puck, CJ was able to help stifle teams to almost a goal and a half per game at 1.54. CJ was actually able to limit playoff opponents to less goals per game than non-playoff games, which is no easy feat.


JDFRYE31, C

Overall Production: 65GA(2.32GAA), 110TA, 52.8FO%, +20, 83.3PPKE, 2:30OEE
Vs. Playoff Teams: 12-4-1, 34GA(2.00GAA), 71TA, 49.9FO%, +7
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 8-3-0, 31 GA(2.82GAA), 39TA, 56.7FO%, +13
Record: 20-7-1
Strength of Schedule: League (14.29), Conference (7.32)
Team Performance: League (7), Conference (4), Team GAA (2.30)

With the Cuda finishing in the top 3 for goals against in the lead it’s not much of a surprise that their top line center was a catalyst on the defensive side. Sporting a very impressive GAA against playoff teams jdfrye was able to help stifle the opposition. He did this on the back of 110 takeaways, tops for all finalists. With his GAA against playoff teams being much better than his GAA against non-playoff teams it shows when the competition became stronger he in turn upped his defence down the middle of the ice.



PR0D1GY_81, C

Overall Production: 57GA(1.97GAA), 87TA, 57.4FO%, +43, 82.2PPKE, 2:57OEE
Vs. Playoff Teams: 11-4-1, 27GA(1.69GAA), 44TA, 57.5FO%, +20
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 11-1-1, 30GA(2.31GAA), 43TA, 57.2FO%, +23
Record: 22-5-2
Strength of Schedule: League (15.72), Conference (7.83)
Team Performance: League (5), Conference (3), Team GAA (2.34)

Spearheading the Bruins to one of only 4 teams to keep their goals against under 200, Prodigy showed that he was a force to be reckoned with down the middle of the ice. Keeping his GAA to under 2.00 with a 1.97 average compared to his team’s 2.34 GAA really showed that the goalies for Providence really liked when they were in a game with him. Stepping up against the playoff teams in the league, Prodigy was able to help his team stifle the opposition sporting a very impressive 1.69 GAA against the top half of the league.


Cmutimmah10, C

Overall Production: 66GA(2.44GAA), 96TA, 57.3FO%, +39, 80.0PPKE, 2:09OEE
Vs. Playoff Teams: 9-6-1, 46GA(2.88GAA), 58TA, 55.1FO%, +12
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 9-2-0, 20GA(1.82GAA), 38TA, 60.4FO%, +27
Record: 18-8-1
Strength of Schedule: League (17.25), Conference (8.52)
Team Performance: League (11), Conference (6), Team GAA (2.77)

As the only rookie voted in as a finalist for the top defensive forward award, cmutimmah showed that he was able to stifle the better competition in the AHL compared to the CHL. Winning 57.3% of his faceoffs, cmutimmah made sure that the opponents couldn’t score by not giving them the puck. However, one they opponents did retrieve the puck he was able to use one of his 96 takeaways to prevent scoring opportunities.



Meesta Don, C

Overall Production: 73GA(2.52GAA), 82TA, 58.0FO%, +18, 83.8PPKE, 2:07OEE
Vs. Playoff Teams: 11-6-3, 54GA(2.70GAA), 54TA, 57.9FO%, -1
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 9-0-0, 19GA(2.11GAA), 28TA, 58.3FO%, +19
Record: 20-6-3
Strength of Schedule: League (12.93), Conference (7.00)
Team Performance: League (4), Conference (2), Team GAA (2.50)

Continuing his strong play from past seasons, Meesta once again showed why he is consistently one of the top centers in the AHL. Sporting the second highest faceoff percentage among finalists at 58.0%, Meesta went along with the thought that the other team can’t score when they don’t have the puck. With his team having a 2.50 GAA, Meesta’s 2.52 GAA shows that he did not hamper his team’s defensive ability when he was in the game.


DatsyukianxDeke, C

Overall Production: 67GA(2.39GAA), 90TA, 46.3FO%, +15, 88.2PPKE, 2:21OEE
Vs. Playoff Teams: 11-3-2, 38GA(2.38GAA), 60TA, 46.0FO%, +9
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 7-4-1, 29GA(2.42GAA), 30TA, 46.7FO%, +6
Record: 18-7-3
Strength of Schedule: League (15.96), Conference (8.18)
Team Performance: League (4), Conference (2), Team GAA (2.50)

After a strong first season on the PSN, Datsyuk looked to continue his success going into his second season the this side. Although his offensive production took a dip, he continued his strong defensive play helping the Wolves to one of the lowest goals against totals in the league. Datsyuk was able to consistently take the puck aways from the other team, finishing with 90 takeaways on the season. The Wolves also didn’t suffer when the team took a penalty as Datsyuk was able to kill off 88.2% of penalty kills when he was the one that didn’t take the penalty.

 

The stats used are what were given to me, I believe it is was they use for Selke vote on both PSN and Xbox side. My best guess is that they possibly consider hits to be somewhat in the takeaways category.

 

Let's go CJ!!!