Marchand is currently top 5 for the Hart. Change my Mind.

[Empoleon8771]

Not only is that not true, but it’s also a really dumb statement. The Hart Trophy is the trophy for most valuable player. This conversation is about his value to the team and as a player not about his value to the voters and those who are biased against him. Everyone who just sits there and moans about him being “dirty” in this conversation are so thickheaded and insufferable. Take It somewhere else

You're not proving me wrong, you're just saying that what I'm saying is dumb. Your thread is titled "Marchand is currently top 5 for the Hart. Change my Mind.". If he's not going to be voted to be in the top-5, that's wrong. It doesn't matter if you think he's worthy of being in the top-5, because you're not voting on the Hart. If he's not going to be voted for the Hart, he's not worthy of the Hart. It's really simple. His reputation eliminates any chance he has of winning the Hart, because the Hart is still a reputation based award.

I could also go on the angle that he's flat out not worthy for the Hart, because that's a very easy argument to make from multiple angles, but this sums it up much easier. If he's not going to get votes for the Hart, he's not in the top-5 for the Hart. It doesn't matter for what reason. I find it extremely unlikely he's going to get any serious consideration for the Hart, due to:

A. The team strength he has around him.
B. The amount of games he has missed, a lot of which were because of his own stupid play with getting suspended.
C. His reputation as an absolutely abhorrent player.
D. The other players currently in contention for the Hart.

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

You're not proving me wrong, you're just saying that what I'm saying is dumb. Your thread is titled "Marchand is currently top 5 for the Hart. Change my Mind.". If he's not going to be voted to be in the top-5, that's wrong. It doesn't matter if you think he's worthy of being in the top-5, because you're not voting on the Hart. If he's not going to be voted for the Hart, he's not worthy of the Hart. It's really simple. His reputation eliminates any chance he has of winning the Hart, because the Hart is still a reputation based award.

I could also go on the angle that he's flat out not worthy for the Hart, because that's a very easy argument to make from multiple angles, but this sums it up much easier. If he's not going to get votes for the Hart, he's not in the top-5 for the Hart. It doesn't matter for what reason.

You’re rediculous. Go troll someone else It’s really impossible to be this dumb.

For the record though, the ‘change my mind’ part of the title should imply that it’s my own opinion. My personal top 5 picks for who should win the Hart trophy has nothing to do with the various biases of the voters based off a players’ reputation. You’re arguing something that has nothing to do with this thread. And then saying that I’m not responding to your argument, when you’re not making an argument, and I’m refuting everything that you are saying, is honestly confusing me.

 

[Empoleon8771]

You’re rediculous. Go troll someone else It’s really impossible to be this dumb.

So that's your rebuttal? You're sure doing a great job of convincing other people of your opinion

For the record though, the ‘change my mind’ part of the title should imply that it’s my own opinion. My personal top 5 picks for who should win the Hart trophy has nothing to do with the various biases of the voters based off a players’ reputation. You’re arguing something that has nothing to do with this thread. And then saying that I’m not responding to your argument, when you’re not making an argument, and I’m refuting everything that you are saying, is honestly confusing me.

You can have incorrect opinions, you know. If Marchand won't win the Hart, it doesn't matter if you think he's worthy of the Hart or not. He's not, because he didn't win. I really have no idea why you're dismissing the actual people who vote on this award. What determines if Marchand is Hart worthy is whether he wins the Hart. Seems fairly straightforward, no? It doesn't matter if you think he is, the voters don't agree with you and they're the ones who decide if he's Hart worthy.

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

So that's your rebuttal? You're sure doing a great job of convincing other people of your opinion



You can have incorrect opinions, you know. If Marchand won't win the Hart, it doesn't matter if you think he's worthy of the Hart or not. He's not, because he didn't win. I really have no idea why you're dismissing the actual people who vote on this award. What determines if Marchand is Hart worthy is whether he wins the Hart. Seems fairly straightforward, no? It doesn't matter if you think he is, the voters don't agree with you and they're the ones who decide if he's Hart worthy.

Basically what you’re saying here is that you’re not allowed to discuss theoreticals which I’ve got to say is the hottest take I’ve ever heard.

That’s like saying you can’t discuss if there’s ever been life on mars because there isn’t now so It doesn’t matter

 

[Empoleon8771]

Basically what you’re saying here is that you’re not allowed to discuss theoreticals which I’ve got to say is the hottest take I’ve ever heard.

Yeah, I never said that. You don't seem to actually be capable of refuting me here.

Let's use Kessel as another example. He's a guy that might have an outside case at the Hart, mainly because he kept the Penguins afloat earlier in the year when they were really struggling. He'll probably finish close to 95 points, which is a really good season and may end up top-5 in scoring. Do you think he'll actually get any votes for the Hart, despite him actually having a case (not a strong one, to be fair) at getting some votes?

You can put Kessel and Marchand in a similar category, guys who are having great seasons that won't even sniff the Hart for reasons outside of their performance.

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

Yeah, I never said that. You don't seem to actually be capable of refuting me here.

Let's use Kessel as another example. He's a guy that might have an outside case at the Hart, mainly because he kept the Penguins afloat earlier in the year when they were really struggling. He'll probably finish close to 95 points, which is a really good season and may end up top-5 in scoring. Do you think he'll actually get any votes for the Hart, despite him actually having a case (not a strong one, to be fair) at getting some votes?

You can put Kessel and Marchand in a similar category, guys who are having great seasons that won't even sniff the Hart for reasons outside of their performance.

You are literally just saying what I’m saying. I’m just going to have to stop responding to you because nothing you say makes any sense.

My opinion is that if I were a voter, he’d be in my top 5. Whether or not somebody else would is not relevant here.

 

[Hogan86]

I’m not saying he should win It, but he should certainly be in the discussion, right? These last two years have been his “breakout” years and the Bruins have re emerged as a result.

Marchand should be in the top 5 for Hart voting. Change my mind.

Reputation is not an acceptable argument

I don't think Marchand is top 5. Hall, Kopitar, Mackinnon, Giroux, Malkin, Gaudreau, Kucherov.... all are probably ahead of Marchand. Marchand is doing great things and playing so well, but so many players are this year.

 

[Empoleon8771]

You are literally just saying what I’m saying. I’m just going to have to stop responding to you because nothing you say makes any sense.

My opinion is that if I were a voter, he’d be in my top 5. Whether or not somebody else would is not relevant here.

And I was saying you don't even need to make a merit based discussion on Marchand, because he'll never get voted into the top-5 for the Hart. I don't know why this is the hill you're going to die on, Marchand neither has a strong case for the Hart nor will get votes for the Hart. His reputation isn't what will prevent him from getting votes, it's because he doesn't deserve it. Him being a piece of crap just prevents him from getting votes even if he deserved them.

There's just not an argument here, either from the angle of "should he win?" or "will he win?". Both are resounding nos. Should he win? No, he doesn't deserve it for a bunch of reasons. Will he win it? No, he doesn't deserve it and he's also a piece of ****, meaning that no one would ever vote for him.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

It's amazing that Marchand has improved so much in the past two years, in his "advanced" years in the NHL. Doesn't usually happen like that. Think missing time will hurt his Hart chances. But you could argue, that the Bruins are among the top 4 teams in the NHL and Marchand is the best Bruin.

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

And I was saying you don't even need to make a merit based discussion on Marchand, because he'll never get voted into the top-5 for the Hart. I don't know why this is the hill you're going to die on, Marchand neither has a strong case for the Hart nor will get votes for the Hart. His reputation isn't what will prevent him from getting votes, it's because he doesn't deserve it. Him being a piece of crap just prevents him from getting votes even if he deserved them.

There's just not an argument here, either from the angle of "should he win?" or "will he win?". Both are resounding nos. Should he win? No, he doesn't deserve it for a bunch of reasons. Will he win it? No, he doesn't deserve it and he's also a piece of ****, meaning that no one would ever vote for him.

Well then make an argument for why he shouldn’t instead of just dismissing the conversation like a child.

Never said he should win by the way

 

[ThorNton Apologist]

Exactly.... Heart winner imo should be the best two way player in the league

There is already an award matching that exact discription. It’s not the Hart trophy

You should know. It usually goes to another Bruins player

 

[Empoleon8771]

Well then make an argument for why he shouldn’t instead of just dismissing the conversation like a child.

Never said he should win by the way

1. He's on an extremely strong team around him, which people here seem to think has a big impact on the Hart (I don't). The Bruins have a pretty solid record without Marchand in the lineup, too.
2. He's not going to win either the Art Ross or Richard, and it's basically required to win the Art Ross or Richard to win the Hart for forwards. He will most likely lose the Art Ross by over 20 points and the Richard by over 10 goals, and he's not making up for that with great leadership or other worldly defensive play.
3. There are many players with much stronger cases than Marchand. Kucherov may win the Art Ross, MacKinnon and Hall have been on fire and have carried the team that was bad last year, Malkin is challenging for both the Art Ross and Hart, McDavid has a shot at the Art Ross, Ovechkin has a good chance at the Rocket...the list goes on.
4. Marchand has missed a lot of games this year, and the suspension is a massive negative to his chances. Injuries are one thing, but he actively hurt his team by playing stupid and getting suspended.

I can keep going, but I think you get the idea. Me saying "he's not going to win, so your opinion is wrong" isn't childish. What's childish is how you reacted to people saying your incorrect opinion is incorrect.

 

[Deen]

I agree.

 

[A1LeafNation]

Marchand doesn't have a top 5 heart [mod]

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

1. He's on an extremely strong team around him, which people here seem to think has a big impact on the Hart (I don't). The Bruins have a pretty solid record without Marchand in the lineup, too.
2. He's not going to win either the Art Ross or Richard, and it's basically required to win the Art Ross or Richard to win the Hart for forwards. He will most likely lose the Art Ross by over 20 points and the Richard by over 10 goals, and he's not making up for that with great leadership or other worldly defensive play.
3. There are many players with much stronger cases than Marchand. Kucherov may win the Art Ross, MacKinnon and Hall have been on fire and have carried the team that was bad last year, Malkin is challenging for both the Art Ross and Hart, McDavid has a shot at the Art Ross, Ovechkin has a good chance at the Rocket...the list goes on.
4. Marchand has missed a lot of games this year, and the suspension is a massive negative to his chances. Injuries are one thing, but he actively hurt his team by playing stupid and getting suspended.

I can keep going, but I think you get the idea. Me saying "he's not going to win, so your opinion is wrong" isn't childish. What's childish is how you reacted to people saying your incorrect opinion is incorrect.

I think what you don’t understand is that him not being on the top 5 doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve to be there. I’d argue that he’s the best two way winger in the league and his 4th ranked ppg means that were he not suspended he would be close in the Art Ross race and iirc in his last 100 games played he has the highest point total of any player in the NHL. I don’t think getting suspended for a few games should hurt you in the MVP race.

I’ve been seeing people saying that Bergeron was a better vote than Marchand and that leads me to believe people are talking out of their ass. These last two seasons Marchand’s been better than Bergeron, point blank period.

By the way, you deduct points from Marchand based off the team around him but not Malkin or Kucherov?

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think what you don’t understand is that him not being on the top 5 doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve to be there.

No, I understand it completely. He doesn't deserve to be there and he won't be there either. The 2nd is true because of the 1st.

I’d argue that he’s the best two way winger in the league

That doesn't win you the Hart. Look at every other Hart winner, being a good 2-way winger doesn't get you into the conversation.

and his 4th ranked ppg means that were he not suspended he would be close in the Art Ross race

If my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. You don't win the Hart for having the best PPG.

and iirc in his last 100 games played he has the highest point total of any player in the NHL.

The award is for the 2017-2018 season, not the last 100 games. You're cherrypicking stats and grasping at straws to actually defend your argument.

I don’t think getting suspended for a few games should hurt you in the MVP race

This is the most asinine thing you've posted here so far. You don't see why a guy who gets suspended for throwing dirty hits should impact the race for the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER? What value does Marchand offer by being suspended? It only hurts his team.

There's just not an argument for Marchand winning the Hart. Compare him to other players? No, guys like Malkin, Kucherov and MacKinnon deserve it more. Look at his own accomplishments? No, he has missed a ton of games (some of which were due to the suspension, which is a huge negative) and won't even challenge for any other major award. Look at his team strength? No, the Bruins are still good without Marchand. There's just not a case here. Being a good defensive winger doesn't get you the Hart. Scoring the most points over a cherrypicked sample size doesn't get you the Hart.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don't understand 2 things, how you think Marchand actually has a case for the Hart and why you made a thread titled "change my mind" when you're obviously not going to change your mind. Machand is in the Hart conversation about as much as Phil Kessel is for me. Sure, he's having a great season, but he's doing nothing that's Hart worthy and there are quite a few players who are doing Hart worthy things.

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

No, I understand it completely. He doesn't deserve to be there and he won't be there either. The 2nd is true because of the 1st.



That doesn't win you the Hart. Look at every other Hart winner, being a good 2-way winger doesn't get you into the conversation.





If my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. You don't win the Hart for having the best PPG.



The award is for the 2017-2018 season, not the last 100 games. You're cherrypicking stats and grasping at straws to actually defend your argument.



This is the most asinine thing you've posted here so far. You don't see why a guy who gets suspended for throwing dirty hits should impact the race for the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER? What value does Marchand offer by being suspended? It only hurts his team.

[mod] Let’s go through this, shall we?

Me saying he’s the best 2way winger in the league was a response to your claim that he hasn’t been otherworldly defensively. I’d argue that actually, yes he has. 51 takeaways in only 53 games, an astounding plus/minus, and an even better performance without Bergeron in the lineup. He’s unreal on the PK, 20 shot blocks, and the Corsi doesn’t lie.

Maybe the last 100 games comment wasn’t exactly relevant to this year’s Hart, but I’m trying to set a background of just what this player can do in a full season. Because your opinion is that suspension hurts a player’s value, I’m proving his worth as a player. Basically the only argument that makes sense is the suspension argument and I choose to look past It because It doesn’t make him any less valuable overall to his team.

And maybe you don’t win the Hart for ppg, but in my opinion there’s no better overall stat for on ice offensive value. The more points you help create on ice, the more valuable you are on offense. You simply cannot refute that. And if you want to get deeper into statistics, go look at his special teams percentages, his corsi, or he’ll even his 7 game winning goals. He is a clutch player who is impossible to get off the puck and does It in every phase of the game. There are certain things you can’t measure with stats, and I think Marchand leads the league in getting in other teams’ heads.

I think saying that you need to be in the Art Ross or Rocket race to be an MVP candidate is true, although in my opinion It shouldn’t be. Points are one of the last things I look for in an MVP candidate; you can have a huge impact on the course of the game without getting on the tally.

I bet you thought his collision with Duclair was on purpose too, eh?

 

[Empoleon8771]

[mod] Let’s go through this, shall we?

[mod] I gave a really clear justification for Marchand not being worthy, and based on what everyone else in this thread is saying, they all agree with that. You're really the only one here who's fighting this.

Me saying he’s the best 2way winger in the league was a response to your claim that he hasn’t been otherworldly defensively. I’d argue that actually, yes he has. 51 takeaways in only 53 games, an astounding plus/minus, and an even better performance without Bergeron in the lineup. He’s unreal on the PK, 20 shot blocks, and the Corsi doesn’t lie.

Name the last time a guy won the Hart because he had a lot of takeaways and good corsi stats.

Maybe the last 100 games comment wasn’t exactly relevant to this year’s Hart, but I’m trying to set a background of just what this player can do in a full season. Because your opinion is that suspension hurts a player’s value, I’m proving his worth as a player. Basically the only argument that makes sense is the suspension argument and I choose to look past It because It doesn’t make him any less valuable overall to his team.

So you're basically choosing to ignore something that hurts his team because you don't want to look at it? Okay. Him being suspended hurts his team, which by default makes him less valuable to his team. Being suspended is a huge negative for "most valuable player", because being suspended actively hurts the team.

And maybe you don’t win the Hart for ppg, but in my opinion there’s no better overall stat for on ice offensive value. The more points you help create on ice, the more valuable you are on offense. You simply cannot refute that. And if you want to get deeper into statistics, go look at his special teams percentages, his corsi, or he’ll even his 7 game winning goals. He is a clutch player who is impossible to get off the puck and does It in every phase of the game. There are certain things you can’t measure with stats, and I think Marchand leads the league in getting in other teams’ heads.

Yes, and that's why guys who win the Art Ross and Richard consistently are in the discussion for the Hart. Not guys who only have the best PPG and don't win the Art Ross or Richard. Marchand having the highest PPG doesn't mean he helps create more points. It means he creates more points on a per game basis, but the Hart isn't given for "the most valuable player on a per game basis".

I bet you thought his collision with Duclair was on purpose too, eh?

Lovely, when you don't have an actual argument, just make up strawmen arguments.

You're really not good at this. There isn't an argument for Marchand here, it's just the way it is. You can think he deserves it all you want, but based on how the award is actually given, he doesn't. And that's why people (not just me, a vast majority of people in here) are saying he doesn't deserve it.

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

No, I think you're more so inept at understanding basic concepts. I gave a really clear justification for Marchand not being worthy, and based on what everyone else in this thread is saying, they all agree with that. You're really the only one here who's fighting this.



Name the last time a guy won the Hart because he had a lot of takeaways and good corsi stats.



So you're basically choosing to ignore something that hurts his team because you don't want to look at it? Okay. Him being suspended hurts his team, which by default makes him less valuable to his team. Being suspended is a huge negative for "most valuable player", because being suspended actively hurts the team.



Yes, and that's why guys who win the Art Ross and Richard consistently are in the discussion for the Hart. Not guys who only have the best PPG and don't win the Art Ross or Richard. Marchand having the highest PPG doesn't mean he helps create more points. It means he creates more points on a per game basis, but the Hart isn't given for "the most valuable player on a per game basis".



Lovely, when you don't have an actual argument, just make up strawmen arguments.

You're really not good at this. There isn't an argument for Marchand here, it's just the way it is. You can think he deserves it all you want, but based on how the award is actually given, he doesn't. And that's why people (not just me, a vast majority of people in here) are saying he doesn't deserve it.

Ah, good selective arguing. Note that despite all the arguments I’m making (which you’re not even totally addressing) you try to hit me with the “strawman” arguments line, even though you’re not using that term right and It makes you look like someone who just finished their first week of Public Speaking 101. A strawman argument is when you misrepresent someone else’s argument to respond to It easier. Which is what I would say is truer of you than me.

For example:
“Name one time someone won the Hart off Corsi or takeaways”

This misrepresents my argument because you misrepresent It like I’m saying It should win him the Hart. What I was doing was setting up my claim that he is the best two way winger in the league, which you have not yet responded to or denied. A fully rounded game should be one of the most important things to look for in the most valuable player award, and having insane defensive stats means that in this regard he is better than Kucherov, McKinnon, Hall, etc. Not to say that he is a better overall candidate than the latter two, just that his defensive game is better.

And when you say that the most valuable player award isn’t given on a per game basis, that’s not entirely true. That’s like saying in a season where hypothetically Gretzky missed 15 games and finished 10 points behind Jari Kerri, you’d rather have jari kurri on your team that season. I think we all know that isn’t the case. Because when G was on the ice, he affected the game far more than Kurri. Simply put, he was more valuable, despite playing less games.

So being the best defensive winger on the ice in the league, and having the 4th most points per game in the league, isn’t enough to convince you he’s worth a conversation because?

 

[FerrisRox]

thats why. theres not that much of a difference between the 3

How on earth do you not see a difference? Marchand is producing 1.30 points per game, good for fourth in the league. Pastarnak is at .96, not even in the same neighbourhood and Bergeron is at .98. How do you think that is "not that much of a difference?" It's a huge difference.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Top-5 Hart voters in each season since 2008:

2017: McDavid (won the Art Ross), Crosby (won the Richard), Bobrovsky (won the Vezina), Burns (won the Norris), Karlsson (2nd in the Norris)
2016: Kane (won the Art Ross), Crosby (finished the year really hot and was 3rd in points), Benn (2nd in points), Holtby (won the Vezina), Thornton (tied for 4th in points)
2015: Price (won the Vezina), Ovechkin (won the Richard), Tavares (2nd in points), Dubnyk (3rd in Vezina voting) and Crosby (3rd in points, 1st in PPG)
2014: Crosby (won the Art Ross), Getzlaf (2nd in points), Giroux (3rd in points), Varlamov (2nd in Vezina voting) and Bergeron (won the Selke)
2013: Ovechkin (won the Richard), Crosby (finished tied for 2nd in points in 12 less games), Tavares (carried a bad team to the playoffs), Toews (won the Selke), Bobrovsky (won the Vezina)
2012: Malkin (won the Art Ross), Stamkos (won the Richard), Lundqvist (won the Vezina), Giroux (3rd in points), Quick (2nd in Vezina voting)
2011: Perry (won the Richard), Sedin (won the Art Ross), St. Louis (2nd in points), Rinne (2nd in Vezina voting), Thomas (won the Vezina)
2010: Sedin (won the Art Ross), Ovechkin (2nd in both goals and points while missing a bunch of games), Crosby (won the Richard), Miller (won the Vezina), Bryzgalov (2nd in Vezina voting)
2009: Ovechkin (won the Richard), Malkin (won the Art Ross), Datsyuk (won the Selke and was 4th in points), Mason (won the Calder, 2nd in Vezina voting), Parise (5th in points)
2008: Ovechkin (won the Richard and Art Ross), Malkin (2nd in points), Iginla (3rd in goals on a bad team), Lidstrom (won the Norris), Brodeur (won the Vezina)

There seems to be a couple of pretty common things that get you into the top-5 for Hart voting:

1. Win another major award (Art Ross, Richard, Vezina or Norris) gives you an excellent shot at getting into the top-5. Winning the Richard or Art Ross almost guarantees you a top-3 finish, as long as your team makes the playoffs.
2. Finishing high in points or goals gives you an excellent shot at getting into the top-5.
3. Finishing 2nd or 3rd in subjective awards (Vezina or Norris mainly) gives you a good shot at getting into the top-5
4. Winning the Selke gives you a chance at getting into the top-5.
5. Carrying a bad team to the playoffs doesn't give you as good of a chance at the Hart as people here would like to think.

So which one of these does Marchand hit? I'm honestly not seeing any criteria here that would make him worthy, based on how the award has been given. He's going to lose the Art Ross by 20+ points and the Richard by 10+ goals. He's not going to win the Selke because he's not even the best candidate for the Selke on his own team. He's not going to finish high in points, he'll likely fall around 15th. He's not carrying a bad team to the playoffs, because the Bruins are still good without him. All of that ignores that this year is an unusually competitive Hart race, it's not that common that there isn't a runaway winner, let alone 4 or 5 legitimate options.

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

Top-5 Hart voters in each season since 2008:

2017: McDavid (won the Art Ross), Crosby (won the Richard), Bobrovsky (won the Vezina), Burns (won the Norris), Karlsson (2nd in the Norris)
2016: Kane (won the Art Ross), Crosby (finished the year really hot and was 3rd in points), Benn (2nd in points), Holtby (won the Vezina), Thornton (tied for 4th in points)
2015: Price (won the Vezina), Ovechkin (won the Richard), Tavares (2nd in points), Dubnyk (3rd in Vezina voting) and Crosby (3rd in points, 1st in PPG)
2014: Crosby (won the Art Ross), Getzlaf (2nd in points), Giroux (3rd in points), Varlamov (2nd in Vezina voting) and Bergeron (won the Selke)
2013: Ovechkin (won the Richard), Crosby (finished tied for 2nd in points in 12 less games), Tavares (carried a bad team to the playoffs), Toews (won the Selke), Bobrovsky (won the Vezina)
2012: Malkin (won the Art Ross), Stamkos (won the Richard), Lundqvist (won the Vezina), Giroux (3rd in points), Quick (2nd in Vezina voting)
2011: Perry (won the Richard), Sedin (won the Art Ross), St. Louis (2nd in points), Rinne (2nd in Vezina voting), Thomas (won the Vezina)
2010: Sedin (won the Art Ross), Ovechkin (2nd in both goals and points while missing a bunch of games), Crosby (won the Richard), Miller (won the Vezina), Bryzgalov (2nd in Vezina voting)
2009: Ovechkin (won the Richard), Malkin (won the Art Ross), Datsyuk (won the Selke and was 4th in points), Mason (won the Calder, 2nd in Vezina voting), Parise (5th in points)
2008: Ovechkin (won the Richard and Art Ross), Malkin (2nd in points), Iginla (3rd in goals on a bad team), Lidstrom (won the Norris), Brodeur (won the Vezina)

There seems to be a couple of pretty common things that get you into the top-5 for Hart voting:

1. Win another major award (Art Ross, Richard, Vezina or Norris) gives you an excellent shot at getting into the top-5. Winning the Richard or Art Ross almost guarantees you a top-3 finish, as long as your team makes the playoffs.
2. Finishing high in points or goals gives you an excellent shot at getting into the top-5.
3. Finishing 2nd or 3rd in subjective awards (Vezina or Norris mainly) gives you a good shot at getting into the top-5
4. Winning the Selke gives you a chance at getting into the top-5.
5. Carrying a bad team to the playoffs doesn't give you as good of a chance at the Hart as people here would like to think.

So which one of these does Marchand hit? I'm honestly not seeing any criteria here that would make him worthy, based on how the award has been given. He's going to lose the Art Ross by 20+ points and the Richard by 10+ goals. He's not going to win the Selke because he's not even the best candidate for the Selke on his own team. He's not going to finish high in points, he'll likely fall around 15th. He's not carrying a bad team to the playoffs, because the Bruins are still good without him.

Trend criteria is an invalid argument because, again, comparing him to the winners of previous trophies is a false equivalency. What you're saying is that finishing in a certain place for those trophy's is what won them their place in the Hart voting rather than it being an outstanding statistic that made their resumes stronger.

My case for Marchand is that we haven't seen a case like this in a while, because I don't think anyone's had this strong of an all around year despite missing the games that he has. Missing those games has led to his falling behind in the scoring races, true, but what i'm saying is that he's the exception, not the rule. His resume may lack a carrying attribute, something that sticks out to the eye the way that Hall's streak has, but I just think that there's nobody out there with less weaknesses than Marchand, and I think that goes a long way in determining a players value.

When I think of value to a team, I would, for example, take a Kopitar over an Ovechkin 9/10. This is because a responsible player on both sides of the rink with elite level talent adds more value by not only not being a liability in the defensive zone, but being able to cover for players who do commit errors. Ovechkin and Kucherov types are flashy and come at you with the big stats, sure, but those teams dont make it very far because when it matters most your game needs to be great in all aspects. Kopitars win championships. Ovechkins dont.

Maybe it's the homer in me but I truly believe this kind of philosophy is why Boston sports have been so successful. Most of our teams have never played the flashy style (though you could make an argument about the Manny Ramirez era Sox// even todays Red Sox and the Kyrie Celts). Individual offensive stats might make you stand out, sure, but being excellent in all phases of the game without league leading point totals puts your team in a better position to win the game 99 times out of 100, especially in today's league.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Trend criteria is an invalid argument because, again, comparing him to the winners of previous trophies is a false equivalency.

Are you joking me right now? Are you actually serious? Good lord.

I'm done here, if you're still arguing against this at this point, you're just going to refuse to change your mind. You're dismissing actual facts for your opinions, because you don't want to admit you're wrong. You're dismissing how the Hart is actually awarded, which determines if Marchand is worthy of the Hart, because it doesn't fit your narrative. You can have whatever opinion you want, but the facts are facts. If you want to decide if Marchand is worthy for the Hart, look at how the Hart is awarded. Those are the criteria established for the Hart. You're grasping at any other straw you can reach at, while ignoring that every support point you've given for Marchand winning the Hart doesn't win any player the Hart. He doesn't have a case, and you're sure as hell not giving an argument to convince anyone in here. This post basically sums up what you've done in this thread:

OP: change my mind

Everyone else: *good reasons*

OP: *head in sand* NO. Not good enough.

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

Are you joking me right now? Are you actually serious? Good lord.

I'm done here, if you're still arguing against this at this point, you're just going to refuse to change your mind. You're dismissing actual facts for your opinions, because you don't want to admit you're wrong. You're dismissing how the Hart is actually awarded, which determines if Marchand is worthy of the Hart, because it doesn't fit your narrative. You can have whatever opinion you want, but the facts are facts. If you want to decide if Marchand is worthy for the Hart, look at how the Hart is awarded. Those are the criteria established for the Hart. You're grasping at any other straw you can reach at, while ignoring that every support point you've given for Marchand winning the Hart doesn't win any player the Hart.

I knew this was what was gonna do you in. Doesnt address the argument just takes the top bit and tries to save a little face. I argue that he's the exception to that rule and that's why the equivalency is false, and yet instead of addressing that you scamper away. Classic.

The post you quoted was correct because I wasnt really answering anything before this conversation. But once you realized you didnt have an argument against defensive stats being underrated and that you really couldnt refute any arguments on a standalone basis you had to try and dig that back up like I didnt just give you some pretty decent reasons