I'll never understand the logic that leads to saying a player on a non-playoff team can't be MVP...but then doesn't object to him being in the consideration for the Lindsay. Surely if "winning" is a skill so important that lacking it prevents you from being MVP, it's also a skill important enough that you can't be "outstanding" without it?
McDavid snubbed as finalist for Hart
- Thread starter VainGretzky
- Start date
McDavid probably shouldn't have been in the equation,for that
particular Award in the first place.
- Sep 27, 2017
- 3,618
- 2,895
ujju2
Registered User
I don't dislike Crosby. Never said that. But I think the difference between him and his peers is often overblown as a result of his team success. Put Ovi on Pittsburgh, they probably have 3 cups still with Ovi-Malkin. McDavid? Same thing. McDavid-Malkin 1-2 punch, if they were of similar age, would also likely have 3 cups. Crosby doesn't beat Ovi and the Caps btw, the Penguins do. If you look at head-to-head playoff stats, Crosby and Ovi have extremely similar numbers recently. But Crosby, while his linemates may be slightly subpar currently, plays for a much deeper team than Ovi does. Pittsburgh without Crosby is still a playoff team as far as I'm concerned. Washington without Ovi? Nope.
In any case, I think this is the year the Caps finally get past the Pens, so we'll have to just wait and see
Drivesaitl
Finding Hyman
I don't dislike Crosby. Never said that. But I think the difference between him and his peers is often overblown as a result of his team success. Put Ovi on Pittsburgh, they probably have 3 cups still with Ovi-Malkin. McDavid? Same thing. McDavid-Malkin 1-2 punch, if they were of similar age, would also likely have 3 cups. Crosby doesn't beat Ovi and the Caps btw, the Penguins do. If you look at head-to-head playoff stats, Crosby and Ovi have extremely similar numbers recently. But Crosby, while his linemates may be slightly subpar currently, plays for a much deeper team than Ovi does. Pittsburgh without Crosby is still a playoff team as far as I'm concerned. Washington without Ovi? Nope.
In any case, I think this is the year the Caps finally get past the Pens, so we'll have to just wait and see
The notion that historically Crosby plays on a better team is so easy to refute and especially given the respective players have played their entire careers the identical years.
Through 13 seasons this is the Pens regular season record in the Crosby era;
Primary team Pittsburgh: 583-342-57-50 in these games.
Goals for Pittsburgh: 3243
Goals against Pittsburgh: 2897
This is the Caps record same time frame for OV era;
Primary team Washington: 564-343-60-65 in these games.
Goals for Washington: 3150
Goals against Washington: 2915
Theres virtually no difference. The Pens have 19 more wings through 1032 GP. That's a very slight difference. But the Caps have 18 more OT 3 pt results so in Pts the teams are virtually identical across 13 seasons. All in the Pens on average have one rounded off point more than the Caps per season. One point!
Except in the playoffs theres a huge difference in the clubs. Suddenly it looks like this;
Pens;
Primary team Pittsburgh: 96-68 in these games.
Goals for Pittsburgh: 505
Goals against Pittsburgh: 428
Caps;
Primary team Washington: 51-53 in these games.
Goals for Washington: 266
Goals against Washington: 258
So note two things in this;
1) Pens play a lot more playoff games, have had much more playoff success advancing into rounds and 3 cups.
2) The Pens record in the playoffs is night and day different than the Caps who are a dominant team in regular season, perennially, but are sub .500 in the playoffs.
But one of the reasons for that is the Caps losing to the Pens in the playoffs everytime during the Crosby-OV era. heh
btw todays game might be immaterial. Pens already got the split they were looking for. This Pens team isn't going to roll like Columbus did. I figure the Caps win this game 6-1 and the Pens roll up their sleeves the rest of the series.
Fourier
Registered User
The problem is expecting hockey writers to be logical. The vast majority lack that skill in spades. But in the end I suspect that if you asked McDavid if he would rather be seen as the best in the League by his peers or by guys like Spector he would chose the former.
Drivesaitl
Finding Hyman
If the MVP player does not lead the team to some sort of success what part of valuable is there? To me it logically follows that Value is related to success in this regard. If the value is not related to team success than what other variable is it linked to? What other valuable rational is there?
nexttothemoon
and again...
"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."
Three worthy candidates for the Hart Trophy – and a fatal flaw with the NHL's MVP award | The Hockey News
It's ridiculous that McDavid wasn't even nominated this year when he had a better season (on a worse team) than he did the season before when he won the Hart.
Myopia, spite, idiocy... take your pick... that's the only reasons his name isn't even in the running for the Hart this year.
Would you trade McDavid one for one for Hall? One for one for Kopitar? One for one for MacKinnon?
No? Why not? Then why are those two players considered more valuable than McDavid?
If we hypothetically traded McDavid for any of those guys, the Oilers are a worse club and the other team is a better club. Without question. So then how can McDavid be considered less valuable with respect to the "most valuable player" trophy?
It makes zero sense.
KingKhron
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 3,341
- 1,744
I never understand this narrative. What they did for their respective teams wasn’t as impactful as what McDavid did but the rest of their team played better, so that elevates them. They might as well change the criteria to player who helped the team teach the playoffs the best.
Drivesaitl
Finding Hyman
Nobody for a moment is disputing McD is the better player. But the trophy is awarded each season on the basis of that season and being most valuable THAT SEASON to ones club. Should McD just win it every season? There were 3 months of the season where McD wasn't at his playing peak.
Sure he should be nominated. I doubt he would have won this season anyway. I'm not saying I agree with the decision. But I wouldn't go as far to say that the decision is silly or ridiculous as people claim. A few pts separated Connor from top players like Hall, Giroux, Kopitar, Mackinnon. In the case of all the latter players they dragged pretty lacklustre clubs to the SC playoffs. All being teams that missed the year before. All I'm saying is that on the body of work and demonstrated value to the team this season its arguable some other players were as valuable to their team. Or even that it was a closer call this season than one would have expected.
When Gretz was winning MVP every year he had 50pts separating him from competition. Not a few. He left it completely out of the realm of speculation. He won 7 in a row because there was no other even plausible option than to vote for him. Connor didn't separate from the pack and indeed was trailing it for 80% of the season bagging inordinate meaningless pts at year end. There is no obvious value had to the team in the latter pts accumulation. If anything it made our draft pick chances worse.
Last edited:
Drivesaitl
Finding Hyman
So McD here this season made such a difference and yet the Oilers finished poorly and in the bottom ten clubs in the league. Having had a far worse season than the season just before. Its hard to sell that as being of more value than the contributions of players that lifted their club into playoff spots after all those clubs having missed the year before. I do think the year to year change in a clubs fortunes, and a wherein superlative individual seasons contributed to that is noted by writers. All the other candidates had career best seasons. They had the best possible seasons imaginable for those players. Connor may win 5 more Harts but was he really much better than the others?
Last edited:
KingKhron
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 3,341
- 1,744
I think he was. I get it, it’s the expected standard that’s been created for the Hart but McDavid clearly played on a worse team with coaches that make me wonder if I should start working my way up the ranks. When you score 20(?) more ES points than the next best person in the league, that says something huge to me. Every player in his range had an extra 20 PP points on him. I seee that as the GM and the coaches failing him, not him failing the team. I guess it’s a weird case of semantics. “Valuable” sounds like it should be the best but it’s obviously not in this situation. Marchand’s PPG was amazing but his linemates are amazing. We have a laughable PP and one of the most offensively challenged defence I’ve ever witnessed. Might as well have Ulanov and Cory Cross back out there. All those players were fantastic and it is splitting hairs this year but if we had a capable power play defenceman and a coach who wasn’t simple minded to run it, I think McDavid hits 120+. I just view the language of the award to mean one thing but it almost never has. I’m not surprised at all.
Drivesaitl
Finding Hyman
Reasonably expressed but the same pundits and press and bookies had the Oilers as one of the SC favorites this season. Just saying. So that the notion that the Oilers club has a worse team for McD to play with than all the clubs we were substantially better than last season is not a firm open and shut case. Its easier for the press to think that the Oilers had a disappointing season. Which they did. But Connor was part of that, as was everybody else.
I don't differ from you in that the coaches that failed the team. The GM failed the team. There was a lot of fail this year on this team all spread around. Its asking a lot for the press to have that totally out of mind when making the call for MVP.
Finally, its odd in a sense that people on one hand are saying that McD and the Oilers don't get any credit, press bias etc, and yet the press had us among favorites going into the year. Its not bias. Could be just the press figuring a disappointing team was not a measure of great value.
You're missing the point. It's not about best player, it's about Most Valuable Player THIS season. This season, McDavid led his team to bottom 10 in the league while the others led their team to regular season success.
It's not like he blew away the competition either and furthermore, he got hot when the team was well out of the race.
If he had won the Art Ross by 10+ goals, 20+ points and/or his team was even remotely in the playoff race then it would be a different story but that's not the case here.
Right. But put McDavid's season on the devil's instead of Hall's season... are they better or worse?
Put Hall's season on the Oilers instead of McDavid's season, are we better or worse?
Answer those questions again with Kopitar and MacKinnon.
I don't know about you... but personally that's three (3) "the other team gets better", and three (3) "the Oilers get worse."
Flat out, McDavid had the most valuable season in the league.
Last edited:
Those are all hypotheticals. The reality is that those players led their teams to the playoffs and McDavid led one of the worst teams in the league. Not his fault but those are the facts.
If McDavid was far and away the best player all season and the Oilers were even a halfway decent team then he can have an argument.
Drivesaitl
Finding Hyman
Not directed at me this time but I'll respond.
I think its important to look at the season McD had rather than just the totals as well. For a large portion of the season, 4 mths of it and 49GP, Connor had 54pts. Great totals but pedestrian by his standards and a total that is not better than topten this season in a high scoring year for the NHL. Its I think critical to note that Connor matched that 54pts in the remaining 33GP so that he was white hot in closing out the season but again these were meaningless games, entirely.
With the season on the line, and in the crucial make or break segment of it Connor was quite clearly not the best in pts or otherwise. He was merely in the topten mix. Too much is being made of the total pts, which is hugely inflated by the last 33 GP which were of no relevance other than copping a scoring title. Connor got that, credit to him, but on the brunt of the season he probably shouldn't be MVP as he didn't move mountains at the time where its most needed. The other Hart Contenders dragged their club to the show and did a ton to get those clubs there.
Because its a human tendency to remember recency I think Connors last 33GP is probably over represented in the fans thoughts. The first 49games he was not on fire like that in general. But the press follow this stuff as their jobs so might be more inclined to look at the whole body of work rather than be swayed by recent results.
You know Hall Mac and kopitar all have similar splits right?
In Halls first 36 games he scored only 36 points (1 ppg). In his remaining 40 games he scored 57 points (1.43 ppg).
In Kopi's first 39 games he scored 40 pts. In his 43 remaining games he scored 52 points.
In Macs first 38 games he scored 43 points, in his final 36 games he scored 51 points.
Drivesaitl
Finding Hyman
That's not the same degree of differentiation.
That McD MATCHED the pt totals he established in the first 49games, in his last 33 games is of a whole different magnitude. I can't help but think I'm not the only one thinking that the latter 54pts were at a far less meaningful segment of the season that didn't have any particular value to the club. If you think I'm wrong what value to the Edmonton Oilers was obtained through Connor primarily lighting it up in the last 33GP segment when the teams fortunes were already decided?
In anycase your numbers are a bit off from what I'm getting. In first 4 months of the season for instance Kopitar had 53pts in 50GP. He had 39pts in the last 32 GP. Not as much a differentiation as you suggest. Not near the amount found in Connors splits.
I'm just using monthly splits btw. I'm not fine tooth combing random sample sizes that try to make an equivalency.
Fact of the matter was Connor was much hotter in last 3 meaningless months than he was in the first 4 meaningful months of the season. In the Oilers case with the season being buried in those first 4 months. This wasn't the case with the other clubs.
Last edited:
nexttothemoon
and again...
Goalies are the only real competition this year for McDavid in terms of their relative value to their teams:
2017-18 NHL Leaders | Hockey-Reference.com
Among the top 10 point share players in the NHL this season these are the players with the highest % of their team's point shares...
Based on highest % of point shares in relation to their respective teams:
1 McDavid 16.88%
2 Bobrovsky 13.98%
3 Gibson 13.39%
4 Andersen 12.82%
5 Hellebuyck 12.64%
That stat is about as objective as it gets in determining a players relative value to their teams.
McDavid is #1 in the NHL among all forwards and dmen in raw point shares with 13.1 and he has the highest point share pct in the NHL (16.88%) which includes all forwards, dmen and goalies.
2017-18 NHL Leaders | Hockey-Reference.com
Among the top 10 point share players in the NHL this season these are the players with the highest % of their team's point shares...
Based on highest % of point shares in relation to their respective teams:
1 McDavid 16.88%
2 Bobrovsky 13.98%
3 Gibson 13.39%
4 Andersen 12.82%
5 Hellebuyck 12.64%
That stat is about as objective as it gets in determining a players relative value to their teams.
McDavid is #1 in the NHL among all forwards and dmen in raw point shares with 13.1 and he has the highest point share pct in the NHL (16.88%) which includes all forwards, dmen and goalies.
Last edited:
Drivesaitl
Finding Hyman
Its quite clear that any metric that so obviously overvaluates one position to another is not entirely an objective barometer. Realizing that goalies are inherently important, yes, but the points share measure seems to result in higher scores for goalies in general. D seem pretty undervalued in the stat.
That said I have no idea how point shares are derived or of what non biased objective reliance it is. Because Goalies are highly skewed up in the numbers. 7/10 of the NHL top point shares. 4/5 of the top 5. Considering theres far less goalies than players that's crazy skewed.
