Sidney Crosby name NHL MVP for 2nd time

[DragonfromTO]

Kind of missing the point I was trying to make...

Really I wasn't missing the general point I was ignoring it, because I honestly think it's a patently ridiculous one. A player's contributions simply don't become any less valuable as his teammates improve. I was simply saying that in the specific example that you used we have little to no real evidence of how good or bad the Capitals would be without Ovechkin because he's barely missed any time.

And if we're going to consider hypotheticals, if we're trying to value players isn't the better question to ask not "how good would Team A have been without Player A and how good would Team B have been without Player B?" but rather "how good would Team A have been with Player B instead of Player A and how good would Team B have been with Player A instead of Player B?"?

 

[awaz]

Really I wasn't missing the general point I was ignoring it, because I honestly think it's a patently ridiculous one. A player's contributions simply don't become any less valuable as his teammates improve. I was simply saying that in the specific example that you used we have little to no real evidence of how good or bad the Capitals would be without Ovechkin because he's barely missed any time.

And if we're going to consider hypotheticals, if we're trying to value players isn't the better question to ask not "how good would Team A have been without Player A and how good would Team B have been without Player B?" but rather "how good would Team A have been with Player B instead of Player A and how good would Team B have been with Player A instead of Player B?"?

Relative to his teammates, it does. That's my point. But you're right, let's just give it to the best player in the league every season. Congrats to Crosby on winning the Hart every season you're healthy. How fun for everyone. He's the best in the league and there's very little argument, so why even bother handing out the trophy in season's where he's healthy? And let's retroactively give it to Gretz every season he played because he was the best all time, so he was obviously the best every season he played.

 

[Dacks]

People wrongly equate 'value' as 'value compared to the team without them'. That's not the definition of value.

But regardless, the Hart trophy is revered because of it's history, which has generally gone to the player who had the most impressive / dominant season. If it had been historically given to the 'best player on a team with no other good players' (which is what some are essentially arguing for) then there would be a lot of average names on there, instead of the legends that currently line it's list of winners. If that was the case, nobody would give a shit about the Hart.

However MVP was initially worded, it had become almost synonymous with "best" or "most outstanding" player in North American sports culture. Those who try to argue some other criteria are a) arguing linguistic semantics, and b) ignoring the history and legacy the Hart trophy.

Seriously, take the history of Hart winners and remove all of those who played on a stacked team. The award becomes a joke without those names.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Relative to his teammates, it does. That's my point. But you're right, let's just give it to the best player in the league every season. Congrats to Crosby on winning the Hart every season you're healthy. How fun for everyone. He's the best in the league and there's very little argument, so why even bother handing out the trophy in season's where he's healthy? And let's retroactively give it to Gretz every season he played because he was the best all time, so he was obviously the best every season he played.

I definitely didn't say or imply all of those things. Especially the last one about Gretzky. But have fun with those straw men.

 

[DragonfromTO]

People wrongly equate 'value' as 'value compared to the team without them'. That's not the definition of value.

But regardless, the Hart trophy is revered because of it's history, which has generally gone to the player who had the most impressive / dominant season. If it had been historically given to the 'best player on a team with no other good players' (which is what some are essentially arguing for) then there would be a lot of average names on there, instead of the legends that currently line it's list of winners. If that was the case, nobody would give a shit about the Hart.

However MVP was initially worded, it had become almost synonymous with "best" or "most outstanding" player in North American sports culture. Those who try to argue some other criteria are a) arguing linguistic semantics, and b) ignoring the history and legacy the Hart trophy.

Seriously, take the history of Hart winners and remove all of those who played on a stacked team. The award becomes a joke without those names.

Apparently voting for awards is supposed to be "fun" rather than a way to properly recognize the worthiest people. I had no idea before this thread.

 

[awaz]

The most impressive or most dominant season would be the Art Ross to me. But whatever, difference of opinions on a trophy none of us will ever win or vote for.

(I realized dmen and goalies aren't gunna win the art ross)

 

[SLY]

Crosby is a whiney bitch.

Am I doing this right?

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

The most impressive or most dominant season would be the Art Ross to me. But whatever, difference of opinions on a trophy none of us will ever win or vote for.

(I realized dmen not named Bobby Orrand goalies aren't gunna win the art ross)

FTFY

 

[evolver115]

Crosby is a whiney bitch.

Am I doing this right?

 

[elocomotive]

Crosby is a whiney bitch.

 

[sbb122]

Crosby is a whiney bitch.

Am I doing this right?

Nope, you spelled whiny wrong...



and Crysby!

 

[DragonfromTO]

The most impressive or most dominant season would be the Art Ross to me. But whatever, difference of opinions on a trophy none of us will ever win or vote for.

(I realized dmen and goalies aren't gunna win the art ross)

Even if we make the assumption that straight raw goals and assists are in fact the best way to evaluate dominance, what about a season where one player finishes the season with 60 goals and 42 assists and another player has 30 goals and 73 assists? The latter wins the Art Ross, but based on the point breakdown wasn't the former more dominant from a raw offensive statistical standpoint?

 

[elocomotive]

Even if we make the assumption that straight raw goals and assists are in fact the best way to evaluate dominance, what about a season where one player finishes the season with 60 goals and 42 assists and another player has 30 goals and 73 assists? The latter wins the Art Ross, but based on the point breakdown wasn't the former more dominant from a raw offensive statistical standpoint?

Yes, since assists are given out like hotcakes in the NHL.

 

[dash]

Yes, since assists are given out like hotcakes in the NHL.

Still no tertiary assists handed out though...