Well, the season's over. What a year! Here's the final, not-so-scientific Heroes and Zeroes results. I did not separate the playoffs from the regular season, as creating the table is a time consuming process.
|Name||Hero Count||Zero Count||Difference (Hero - Zero)|
Ok, here's my interpretation of the results. As the Heroes and Zeroes points are compiled based on mentions in the Heroes and Zeroes or Honourable Mentions section, what this table really shows is how popular individual players are with the writers. Or put another way: How forgiving are the Silver Seven authors to a particular player's performance?
For example: Take a look at Spezza's numbers. He finished the season with a team leading 84 points, and lead the Sens in playoffs scoring. Yet he finished with a mere 19 "hero" points and eight "zero" points. For a leading scorer, he sure doesn't get a lot of press, good or bad. It makes me wonder if someone was afraid to pump him up or to put him down. On the other hand, he could simply be scoring a lot of garbage points, but I don't think so.
Another example would be Konopka. He finished with a -3 difference. Based on that, it would be very easy to conclude that the Sens would be stupid to try to re-sign him. Yet, I doubt anyone feels that way and I would be very surprised if he is let go. I feel his result is almost entirely due to being simply overlooked. If game recaps are written to summarize the event and encapsulate the feeling of the night, few recaps are going to gush glowingly about face-off percentages, blocked shots, hits or other less "legal" efforts.
Few NHLers are so terribly bad on a consistent basis to gain a huge amount of Zeroes points, it is much more likely that many players' off nights are simply unmentioned. This would go unrecorded in this compilation, and I think this statistically biased the results. For example, take a look at Filatov results, nine games and only a -1 result. That would imply he had one bad game and eight OK ones. However, to anyone who watched his play it was obvious that for every game, except possibly one, he was not an NHL caliber player. And that's just my point: At the highest level of competition, games where a player is forgettable or unseen is JUST AS BAD as a game where the player is obviously a "zero".