Hart Trophy: Who has better claim?

[Jmo89]

Kucherov imo.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

MacKinnon is the better overall player, I’d go with him.

 

[tapi]

Should be Matthews; the man played an unparalleled season in the modern era. If you play the best season in the modern era, you win the Hart for sure. Keep in mind he was also defensively way better than any other the other Hart candidates.

 

[Sinistril]

Time to see if Canadian bias is a thing.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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 led the league by 12 goals. It's a big margin, but others have had larger leads:

1. Ovechkin 2008 (65 vs 52)
2. Bure 2000 (58 vs 44)
3. Hull 1992 (70 vs 54)
4. Hull 1991 (86 vs 51 - the record)
5. Lemieux 1989 (85 vs 70)
6. Lemieux 1988 (70 vs 56)
7. Gretzky 1984 (87 vs 56)
8. Gretzky 1982 (92 vs 64)
9. Esposito 1974 (68 vs 52)
10. Esposito 1972 (66 vs 50)
11. Esposito 1971 (76 vs 51)
12. Hull 1967 (52 vs 35)
13. Hull 1962 (50 vs 33)
14. Howe 1953 (49 vs 32)
15. Howe 1952 (47 vs 31)
16. Richard 1947 (45 vs 30)
17. Richard 1945 (50 vs 32)

If I calculated this correctly, Matthews won the Rocket Richard by the 18th largest margin in NHL history (and the largest margin since Ovechkin's 2008 campaign).

 

[CTHabsfan]

Kooch will win the Hart. How come Matthews isn’t in the running?

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).

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Hart goes to the Ross winner. That's Kuch.

He won the most exciting Ross race in decades. Well earned and well deserved.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

If I had a ballot my vote would be:

1. Kucherov
2. MacKinnon
3. McDavid
4. Matthews
5. Hellebuyck

 

[Plastic Joseph]

Hart goes to the Ross winner. That's Kuch.

He won the most exciting Ross race in decades. Well earned and well deserved.

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!

 

[thegazelle]

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.

 

[Plastic Joseph]

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.

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.

David Amber basically said last night he is picking MacKinnon, Steve Simmons said he picked Mackinnon, Bruce Garrioch said he has been flip flopping but as of that time he had MacKinnon. Dennis Bernstein said it is extremely close but he was leaning MacKinnon.

I'm sure there are lots of voters who will choose Kuch, but it does seem like MacKinnon is getting a lot of close nods from the voters who are revealing their ballots now.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

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.

Tough to say if it exists for me. I'm just a fan of the game.

 

[thegazelle]

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.

 

[Dirtyf1ghter]

Crazy stat : Kucherov scored a point on 49.5% of his team's goals.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Both are deserving but my vote would be Kucherov.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Especially when its like like 4 points out of 140+

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!

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

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.

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 day

 

[VistamarCroissants]

The Hart trophy is for the MVP. And Kucherov was the most valuable to his team.

 

[Outl4w]

Especially when its like like 4 points out of 140+

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.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

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.

We definitely should not do fan voting. We just need better writers and take away voting power for idiots.

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.

4 point difference.

 

[22FUTON9]

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:

Tampa’s top 5 scorers:
144, 90, 81, 76, 75

Colorado’s top 5 scorers:
140, 104, 90, 56, 53

On ice goal differential:
Mack 97
Kuch 71

On-ice expected goals
Mack: 64.8 (without mack 41.8)
Kuch: 61.8 (without kuch 42.4%)

5 on 5 scoring:
Mack: 78
Kuch: 67

Adding to this, Mackinnon has actually been a pretty solid 2-way player this year and pretty much every model/metric supports this. He’s been dominating the puck like non-other this season
Kucherovs definitely a much better player on the PP which is also extremely important, but more points = better year is just a lazy argument, especially when the point gap is just 4 points.
There’s an argument for both players, and not just because one’s russian and one’s canadian. Heck the past 15 years the hart has been awarded to a Russian 5 times and to a Canadian 7 times. It’s really not as big of a factor as you’re making it sound like, if any.

 

[Absolut]

In a close race with 3-4 deserving candidates (yes, including AM), and with NHL writers picking the winner - the Hart is unlikely to go to a Russian. My money is on Mac.

 

[olli]

What separates Kuch is the fact that he has performed significantly better against top teams compared to MacKinnon. Otherwise its very close but that stat puts it over the edge for Kuch for me.

 

[FissionFire]

I’m in the minority who thinks McDavid should win. A lot of people forget that Edmonton was dead and buried before he got healthy. I think their playoff odds were like 10% at one point.

 

[Fantomas]

I would say MacKinnon has been a little better this year as he's the superior goal scorer. Kucherov won the Art Ross, but that's not what gets you the Hart.

An argument can be made, and has been made, that Tampa doesn't make the playoffs without Kucherov. It's valid. Some have also made similar arguments about Colorado, which I don't buy at all. They've had some guys struggle this year, but they've been a powerhouse for a while now and have prime Makar. Meanwhile Tampa is in serious decline, so Kucherov has been a real lifeline for them.

Kucherov might win if voters agree with this narrative. Otherwise it will be Mack.