Jmo89
Registered User
- Mar 21, 2010
- 4,394
- 3,892
Matthews led the league by 12 goals. It's a big margin, but others have had larger leads:Just my musing on the trophy
Auston Matthews
Yes Guy: Highest goal total in the history of the Richard trophy, 50+ even strength goals, won the award by a mile, I'd be curious if this is the largest margin in the history of the award compared to the runner up (people smarter than me let me know, I'm sure it will only be pointed out if I'm wrong to suggest but ignore it if I'm right)
Matthews had a great season but isn't in the running because of Nikita Kucherov, Nathan MacKinnon, and Connor McDavid. Matthews is in the second-tier with Artemi Panarin, David Pasternak, and Quinn Hughes (hardly bad company).Kooch will win the Hart. How come Matthews isn’t in the running?
40/75 , or 53% of the time the AR winner has won the hart. So its more likely that it does happen, but its by no means a guarantee that the scoring champ wins the MVP.Hart goes to the Ross winner. That's Kuch.
He won the most exciting Ross race in decades. Well earned and well deserved.
yeah , 9 first place votes to 6 - its 50% more choosing MacK but if only 1 person flips then its 8-7 which is super close.Hardly a representative sample size but an NHL.COM panel of hockey writers and analysts had MacKinnon winning by a small margin over Kucherov with McDavid in third.
I do wonder how much North American bias is present. There shouldn't be any, given the global reach of the game, but many hockey writers definitely have their biases. But again, I don't think there's a bad choice this year, which is a good thing.
Hardly a representative sample size but an NHL.COM panel of hockey writers and analysts had MacKinnon winning by a small margin over Kucherov with McDavid in third.
I do wonder how much North American bias is present. There shouldn't be any, given the global reach of the game, but many hockey writers definitely have their biases. But again, I don't think there's a bad choice this year, which is a good thing.
40/75 , or 53% of the time the AR winner has won the hart. So its more likely that it does happen, but its by no means a guarantee that the scoring champ wins the MVP.
Should be a close vote!
Some of the voters are absolute twitter nerds/clowns too its hilarious. I saw a voter explain why he did not even have Kuch in his top 3 the other dayI was talking with my older son about this and he said why are the hockey writers making this decision. Wouldn't a player's value to his team be agreed upon by his teammates and / or peer players? The example he used was something like a high school valedictorian. He said the Ted Lindsay award is probably more meaningful and to an extent I agree. He says having the hockey writers make the choice is like having parents' vote. I'm not sure I agree with that - maybe more having the teachers vote.
It would be nice if the criteria was straight on objective data and statistics - ie. Hart Trophy is awarded to player who does X, Y, or Z. Sort of like Art Ross and Rocket Richard.
But I think gauging value is far beyond what can be shown statistically. Some intangibles cannot be quantified. Otherwise, in baseball Barry Bonds and Roger Clements would be in Cooperstown.
To a degree, I think maybe even fan polling would be more representative of player value than a set of hockey writers and industry types, but even with fan polling, it can be skewed and manipulated.
Kuch has a better ppg, better points per 60 minutes, more total points, more pp points, and performs better against top 10 competition. Kucherov played one less game and 1 minute and two seconds less per game . He still topped Mackinnon. Outside of Canadian versus Russian factor it should go to kucherov.Especially when its like like 4 points out of 140+
We definitely should not do fan voting. We just need better writers and take away voting power for idiots.I was talking with my older son about this and he said why are the hockey writers making this decision. Wouldn't a player's value to his team be agreed upon by his teammates and / or peer players? The example he used was something like a high school valedictorian. He said the Ted Lindsay award is probably more meaningful and to an extent I agree. He says having the hockey writers make the choice is like having parents' vote. I'm not sure I agree with that - maybe more having the teachers vote.
It would be nice if the criteria was straight on objective data and statistics - ie. Hart Trophy is awarded to player who does X, Y, or Z. Sort of like Art Ross and Rocket Richard.
But I think gauging value is far beyond what can be shown statistically. Some intangibles cannot be quantified. Otherwise, in baseball Barry Bonds and Roger Clements would be in Cooperstown.
To a degree, I think maybe even fan polling would be more representative of player value than a set of hockey writers and industry types, but even with fan polling, it can be skewed and manipulated.
4 point difference.Kuch has a better ppg, better points per 60 minutes, more total points, more pp points, and performs better against top 10 competition. Kucherov played one less game and 1 minute and two seconds less per game . He still topped Mackinnon. Outside of Canadian versus Russian factor it should go to kucherov.
Mack is worse ar scoring goals with his shooting percentage being lower and has 7 more goals on 100 plus more shots.
You’re making it sound like the only reason Mack might win is because of his nationality and nothing else, which is far from the truth. Regardless of what you tell yourself, its dead close. Posted this somewhere else but just a few numbers to consider:Kuch has a better ppg, better points per 60 minutes, more total points, more pp points, and performs better against top 10 competition. Kucherov played one less game and 1 minute and two seconds less per game . He still topped Mackinnon. Outside of Canadian versus Russian factor it should go to kucherov.
Mack is worse ar scoring goals with his shooting percentage being lower and has 7 more goals on 100 plus more shots.