McDavid snubbed as finalist for Hart

[TB12]

Let's all be honest here. The Hart trophy should be called the "dumb unathletic jock sniffers have their say award." When was the last time you heard Mark Spector, Bob McKenzie, or Frank Sarevalli analyze an actual hockey play? I rest my case.

Hey, be nice to Seravalli, he's like 64 years old.

Quick google check...HE'S TWENTY-NINE?!?!?!

 

[KCC]

Stats wise it proves he’s undoubtedly the Hart winner. So they might as well change the rules and state a player must make the playoffs then because it’s a joke

 

[TB12]

These are the same muppets that voted Ovechkin an all-star on the right AND left wing.
Many of them admit to not watching the western games because it's "too late". They are a joke. Rest assured that if McDavid was a Leaf they would be voting for him for the Hart and bending over backwards to make their point.

Sucks that the terrible season the team had is hurting Connor's chances at awards that he is clearly deserving of.

 

[SK13]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

The Hart trophy makes no sense, and there's no good reason it should hold the position of honor that it does. League MVP is vague and if it were honestly upheld to mean "the most valuable player to their team", it should probably just go to the Vezina winner every year - since the best goalie is definitely having the biggest impact on their team. Instead it's this weird arbitrary award that breaks down to "best season from a forward on a playoff team".

The Lindsay occupies similar space. "Most Outstanding Player". No muss about arbitrary unspoken rules - just best player in the world.

 

[Joey Moss]

Who cares. We have the best player in the league who will lead us to multiple cups

 

[The Panther]

I really don't get what people here are complaining about. A few media guys did not alter the Hart trophy standards. I fully agree that McDavid is not a top-3 Hart trophy candidate.

Let's get one thing straight: non-playoff team guys, since the early 1950s, DO NOT WIN THE HART. The one and only exception to this is Mario Lemieux in 1988, when he had 168 points and his team had a winning record but narrowly missed the playoffs in the tough Patrick division. (And also voters had Gretzky voter-fatigue.)

Neither of these once-in-sixty-years conditions apply to McDavid this season. Great as he was, it wasn't a 168-point season in any era, and his team didn't have a winning record.

I agree with these generally-agreed upon conditions. McDavid's value to his team this year is less than last season, unfortunately, and is less than at least a few other players whose value contributed disproportionately to their teams' successful season.

I personally would vote like this:
1st -- Kucherov
2nd -- McKinnon
3rd -- Hall
4th -- Giroux
5th -- McDavid

 

[sepHF]

It's not a snub. If you don't make the playoffs you don't get the Hart, period.

That's really the end of the discussion and anyone complaining doesn't understand how the Hart is voted.

If you want to complain about the way the Hart is voted, fine, but when we look at the history of the league and how this trophy has been handed out we can clearly see that McDavid does not deserve a nomination. It is nothing against McDavid or his stats, it is against the team.


Lots of people calling the writers "idiots"... you'd have to call all the writers in the history of the NHL who have ever got to vote for this award idiots as well then.

So either every person whos ever voted is an idiot, or maybe you just dont understand how it works?

 

[The Panther]

It's not a snub. If you don't make the playoffs you don't get the Hart, period.

Well, it's not quite as simple as "period", because it has happened, I think, four times before (but as I said, above, only once since the 1950s).

For example, if McDavid had scored 135 points this season and the Oilers had missed the playoffs by just a point or two, he would certainly have won the Hart.

 

[sepHF]

Well, it's not quite as simple as "period", because it has happened, I think, four times before (but as I said, above, only once since the 1950s).

For example, if McDavid had scored 135 points this season and the Oilers had missed the playoffs by just a point or two, he would certainly have won the Hart.

Once since the original expansion era. And we'll call that an outlier. It's been thirty years, it's pretty clear that making the playoffs is extremely important. Gretzky should've won it that year anyways.

I suppose it's possible with some disgusting point lead over 2nd place, but that didn't happen this year

 

[Drivesaitl]

will you (and the rest losing their heads) apologize for your opinion of the hockey writers if McDavid doesn't win the Lindsay? if they players say he wasn't the best this year, then that's that.

Hall was more valuable this past season to his team than McDavid was.

I'm sure Mcdvivd was top 5 on 95% of the votes, but I can't blame them for putting hall and McKinnon above McDavid on their ballots.
let's save the ranting until we see the ballots. for all you know mcdavid was 1 point away from top 3 and being a finalist.

I'll be ok with the results if mcdavid was top 5.
bunch of babies around here.

The reality is McD had a subpar by his standards first half of the season. The reality is a generational player wasn't able to get his club into the playoffs. The reality is its harder to argue "most valuable" when that team didn't have success on the year. Now this is not a knock on McD, no, but I could kind of see how the consideration is given to leaders that did lead their clubs to on ice success. In the cases of Hall, Kopitar, Mckinnon, Giroux they did drag their teams to the playoffs and quite clearly without the respective contributions those clubs would not have seen the post season.

With small quibble that I see no reason why playoffs are not counted in consideration. First round exits are not a whole lot more success. But then again what a player brings in the 82 game regular season each night is more of a body of work than 4-7GP in a playoff round. So in fairness I could see how the award is regular season derived.

Finally, others have mentioned this, McD did not have a margin of lead in the pts standings and was not on top for the vast majority of the season. That he added a bunch of points at the end of the season with nothing at all on the line is of specious value tbh.

 

[Seachd]

The way it’s done is silly. The award is not meant to be based on making the playoffs, but obviously that’s what matters to today’s writers.

On 960 yesterday they had Friedman, who I like, on. He explained how his top 3 were MacKinnon, Hall and Giroux, and that playoffs had a lot to do with it. He also said that because McDavid had a slow start, those guys were better through all 82 games.

Pinder said it’s kind of ridiculous that both Hall and MacKinnon were basically one weekend away from missing the playoffs, and that’s basically what the vote comes down to (I wish he’d asked who Friedman would have voted for if that happened).

I also think Friedman’s “full-season” theory is pretty bunk, because by the end of the season, McDavid was so far ahead of everyone else, it’s very fair to say he was the best player through all 82 games. Oh, and the whole “leading his team to the playoffs” thing is horse****.

I don’t get it, but the current media are definitely set in their ways. I think since Twitter became a thing, they also influence each other a lot more, so once an idea gets out there, it just gets repeated over and over, and it’s easier to become set in stone.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I really don't get what people here are complaining about. A few media guys did not alter the Hart trophy standards. I fully agree that McDavid is not a top-3 Hart trophy candidate.

Let's get one thing straight: non-playoff team guys, since the early 1950s, DO NOT WIN THE HART. The one and only exception to this is Mario Lemieux in 1988, when he had 168 points and his team had a winning record but narrowly missed the playoffs in the tough Patrick division. (And also voters had Gretzky voter-fatigue.)

Neither of these once-in-sixty-years conditions apply to McDavid this season. Great as he was, it wasn't a 168-point season in any era, and his team didn't have a winning record.

I agree with these generally-agreed upon conditions. McDavid's value to his team this year is less than last season, unfortunately, and is less than at least a few other players whose value contributed disproportionately to their teams' successful season.

I personally would vote like this:
1st -- Kucherov
2nd -- McKinnon
3rd -- Hall
4th -- Giroux
5th -- McDavid

Kucherov isn't even the best player on his team. Hedman is. Of the whole group Kuch results and production are more team related with the Lightning having a high powered offense asides from him that spreads out D. Also Kuch was on fire early in the season where people were talking about a goal a game run but then his goal scoring really started to slow down. I think his last half of season was far less impressive.

1/3 of Kucherov goal total occurred scoring 13 times in 13 games. After that he ended up with a non spectacular 39 goals when people were talking 50-60. The guy scored only 14 goals in last 42GP. No way should he get consideration.

 

[Drivesaitl]

The way it’s done is silly. The award is not meant to be based on making the playoffs, but obviously that’s what matters to today’s writers.

On 960 yesterday they had Friedman, who I like, on. He explained how his top 3 were MacKinnon, Hall and Giroux, and that playoffs had a lot to do with it. He also said that because McDavid had a slow start, those guys were better through all 82 games.

Pinder said it’s kind of ridiculous that both Hall and MacKinnon were basically one weekend away from missing the playoffs, and that’s basically what the vote comes down to (I wish he’d asked who Friedman would have voted for if that happened).

I also think Friedman’s “full-season” theory is pretty bunk, because by the end of the season, McDavid was so far ahead of everyone else, it’s very fair to say he was the best player through all 82 games. Oh, and the whole “leading his team to the playoffs” thing is horse****.

I don’t get it, but the current media are definitely set in their ways. I think since Twitter became a thing, they also influence each other a lot more, so once an idea gets out there, it just gets repeated over and over, and it’s easier to become set in stone.

McD was far off the leading pace most of the year. He made up the stagger in entirely meaningless games long after the team had been eliminated from the playoffs. So that McD's peak production occurred this season in a time that had zero significance. The term Valuable denotes "a thing of great worth" What worth is there loading up on points in meaningless games?

Value wasn't served as much through the important parts of the season this year. The meaningful segments. McD's value did not bring team success. I understand that McD was sick for a significant part of time but that's just the way it is. If other players had better overall seasons that meant more to their teams success than so be it.

In anycase I find statements like "the award was meant to be for" odd as the conception of valuable can mean different things. Its not a tangible exactly defined variable. There can be different interpretations.

But the NHL states; "The Hart Memorial Trophy, originally known as the Hart Trophy, is awarded annually to the "player judged most valuable to his team" in the National Hockey League (NHL)."

Note most valuable to TEAM. If the player did not bring the team success than leading the scoring by a few pts is less relevant.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Hall MacKinnon Kopitar all fast 1st round exits get the noms . Writers strike again even though Hall maybe more worthy McDavid snubbed is a joke . I encourage all to boycott Spector for good , never read his articles on sportsnet demand Stauffer from having him as a guest , he was the biggest anti McDavid writer out their pushing his agenda as hard and often as he could . Spector is a O'neil Cox type hack . And hates Oilers and anything to do with them.

No player from a non playoff team should get a nod for the hart

 

[Seachd]

In anycase I find statements like "the award was meant to be for" odd as the conception of valuable can mean different things. Its not a tangible exactly defined variable. There can be different interpretations.

But the NHL states; "The Hart Memorial Trophy, originally known as the Hart Trophy, is awarded annually to the "player judged most valuable to his team" in the National Hockey League (NHL)."

Note most valuable to TEAM. If the player did not bring the team success than leading the scoring by a few pts is less relevant.

Where does it mention team success in the award description you just stated?

That’s what I’m saying. That’s the interpretation that has taken hold, even though “leading team to playoffs” isn’t mentioned.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Stats wise it proves he’s undoubtedly the Hart winner. So they might as well change the rules and state a player must make the playoffs then because it’s a joke

The oilers did not play a meaningful game after Dec 15th and how many backups did we face because of it?

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

The funny thing ia all 3 hart finalists were their teams mvp last year and probably will be next year.

Mcdavid was bettrr than all 3 lsst year this year and in the future tho

Making the hart some sort of gm of the year art ross frankenstein is stoopid. The hart is basically art ross, norris or vezina winner.....gm award and jack adams is for team success.

edit; oh and that other award

 

[redgrant]

It's a stupid set of logic that yippe Taylor hall mad ethe playoffs! I mean he was gone in a week but he made it.

Fml if McDavid had respectable pp numbers he could have 130 point? Still not the league MVP? More of a testament to the shit team chairelli has built than him as a player.

 

[cpsman]

The NHL should just take the Hart away from the PHWA and give them their own award. I'd like them to sell the "PHWA best player" award without the name "Hart" behind it. Let the Hart be voted on by NHL executives or all the GMs in the league.

 

[Aerchon]

McKinnion gets my vote although he fell off the pace at the end I think he helped his team the most.

Hall would be OK too.

McDavid should win this imo or at least have been nominated especially with his 5v5 numbers. Playoff excuse is terrible and makes no sense.

 

[oobga]

My last point on this Switch Hall to Oilers remove McDavid , do the Oilers make playoffs this year ? Add Mackinnon to the Oilers remove McDavid , dothe Oilers make playoffs this year , repeat this with Kopitar . Now remove all those 3 players from their playoff team Add McDavid do those teams still make playoffs ? no matter how you play it Oilers still miss Kings Devils and AVS all still make it , just shows how dumb this magical playoff cut is . Please NHL take the voting away from writers,

That is the way it should be approached, and there are plenty of stats and data to pretty accurately judge this relative value. No player on earth could have lead the Oilers to the playoffs if they were swapped with McDavid. If you want to actually judge a players value to his team beyond just looking at the NHL standings and sorting players by stats, the info is out there. It's just that no one cares to do it.

I guess there has been a small evolution of the award over the last couple decades. Seems that the disqualification can how happen if your team is too good, which is more fair if the goal is judging relative value. So it looks like the sweet spot is forming to be a great player on a team that has no chance at winning anything in the playoffs, but does make them by a hair.

 

[VainGretzky]

No player from a non playoff team should get a nod for the hart

LOL expected from JTS Lemieux should return his 1988 win . Show me in the definition where it says this lol . Playoffs are a team acheivment not a individual , serious how long have you followed hockey .

 

[VainGretzky]

On 960 yesterday they had Friedman, who I like, on. He explained how his top 3 were MacKinnon, Hall and Giroux, and that playoffs had a lot to do with it. He also said that because McDavid had a slo

I also think Friedman’s “full-season” theory is pretty

Freidman hate for the Oilers showed as well on Oilers now when Stauffer joked about the Oilers will be very interested in the 2nd Intermission of the Vegas Sharks game , Freidman got really upset then Stauffer had to say he was joking , Friedman with such contempt went real funny BOB the Hate for the Oilers by outside media is so real.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

The troll has been taken out back behind the barn.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Where does it mention team success in the award description you just stated?

That’s what I’m saying. That’s the interpretation that has taken hold, even though “leading team to playoffs” isn’t mentioned.

I was just disagreeing with you that this particular interpretation was silly.

Its an interpretation that the NHL has about what a Most Valuable Player is and that the press votes on.

I may agree or disagree and I'm on the fence on it but all in all some of the players elevated and had career years and were providing peak value to their team. McD is of course a better player than all of them, there is no doubt or debate over that, just that on this year, its not a great year for him. If anything he comes back with more to show. There will be plenty of years when he will be the best in every way. He'll get a lot of MVP years, like Gretz, Mario, etc. But not everytime.

The best thing is we all know this won't be McD's best season. Not close to it.