I mean it’s slightly higher overall in PPG, but lower in GPG and his percentage over 2nd in goals and points were both higher last year. He’s been involved in a bit higher percentage of the team’s goals (42 vs 37.5), but not by a significant amount.
But even if we say he’s been better this year, my point is that he’s not so much better as to drastically change the expectations of the team. The poster was suggesting that because a lot of people thought that Boston wouldn’t still be a top team this year that this means Pasta should be the MVP. I said that obviously those expectations were wrong and we shouldn’t base anything off of them. His response was that they were wrong because of Pasta’s play. But in order for that to make sense Pasta would have to be playing so much better than last year that replacing him with last year’s version would drop them to a bubble team.
To me this doesn’t make sense, and it’s clear that the team beyond Pasta is a lot better than some expected. That doesn’t take anything away from Pasta or mean that he isn’t a strong MVP candidate (since similar play last year earned him a runner up). I just think the argument the poster was making is illogical.
Pasta is a clear step above the guy he was last year. There is just much less help around. He is far more puck dominant both at even strength and the PP.
He finished 2nd in the Hart last year and he is clearly better this year. Should he win the Hart? Not going to say yes. But his candidacy is being brushed aside by far too many people.