Who are your mid-season award finalists?

[dash]

Speaking of awards:

Oilers D Schultz named AHL defenceman of the year

/Considering he wasn't even there for half the season, that's quite the accomplishment.

 

[Comeds]

Also, if you're a Montreal based writer and you have no integrity, you'll leave Iginla's name completely off your ballot for Hart voting because you want Jose Theodore to win.

/yes, still bitter.

Oh let it go. That's not what happened.






He was left off because he was black.

 

[dash]

That is quite possibly the funniest thing I've read all day.

for Comeds

 

[forty_three]

I really wish people would drop that argument. That's one interpretation of what "most valuable" means, but there's no evidence to suggest it's the interpretation that should be used, or more importantly, has been used throughout the history of the award.

OV has definitely put himself into consideration, and might win it depending on how he finishes. But I have to think Crosby is still considered the favourite, considering his offense and two-way play. Not just stats, either. Watching the games, the Kunitz-Crosby-Dupuis line was consistently dominating even strength hockey in a way I've never seen.

I also have a hunch that voters (rightly or wrongly) are ready to give Crosby a Hart, as much for his work over the past three seasons as this one itself. As long as he's right there in points at the end, he gets the sympathy vote.

One thing I gotta say, I'm happy to see the OV/Crosby debate reignited! The league is better with both pushing the limits.

Hart Memorial Trophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinda hard to drop the argument that fits the exact wording of the (alleged) criteria.

We get it, everyone wants Crosby to win every year. But by the very definition, he shouldn't. Because when he goes down, the team goes on.

He is the best player in the world. But he's not the most valuable to his team.




Now if he played in, say, Edmonton? Every year.

 

[Dacks]

Kinda hard to drop the argument that fits the exact wording of the (alleged) criteria.

We get it, everyone wants Crosby to win every year. But by the very definition, he shouldn't. Because when he goes down, the team goes on.

He is the best player in the world. But he's not the most valuable to his team.

Now if he played in, say, Edmonton? Every year.

By YOUR definition of value.

I'm sorry, but the definition is "judged most valuable to his team" not "judged most valuable to his team based on how they would hypothetically play if he wasn't on the team". That's a faulty misconception thrown in by fans.

The 80s were a stacked team. So many HOFers. They won a cup after Gretzky left. By your criteria, he shouldn't have those Harts. Give me a break.

Regardless of how you personally want to define "judged most valuable", it is clear that the voters, throughout the Hart's history, have not followed the same criteria.

 

[awaz]

By YOUR definition of value.

I'm sorry, but the definition is "judged most valuable to his team" not "judged most valuable to his team based on how they would hypothetically play if he wasn't on the team". That's a faulty misconception thrown in by fans.

The 80s were a stacked team. So many HOFers. They won a cup after Gretzky left. By your criteria, he shouldn't have those Harts. Give me a break.

Regardless of how you personally want to define "judged most valuable", it is clear that the voters, throughout the Hart's history, have not followed the same criteria.

It's hardly a faulty misconception. It's a pretty straight forward way of interpreting the criteria.

I'm sure Sid doesn't give a shit, all it really means is his team is better than the caps or islanders or whoever. Cup > individual trophies every time.

And also, if I were voting back then, I probably wouldn't have votes for Gretzky based on that logic. Best player doesn't mean most valuable to his team.

 

[forty_three]

By YOUR definition of value.

I'm sorry, but the definition is "judged most valuable to his team" not "judged most valuable to his team based on how they would hypothetically play if he wasn't on the team". That's a faulty misconception thrown in by fans.

The 80s were a stacked team. So many HOFers. They won a cup after Gretzky left. By your criteria, he shouldn't have those Harts. Give me a break.

Regardless of how you personally want to define "judged most valuable", it is clear that the voters, throughout the Hart's history, have not followed the same criteria.

Theeeere's the inevitable Crosby/Gretzky comparison. Wondering when someone would Mad Dog up the discussion.

Gretz should have and DID win those Harts. Why? Because he played, and they won. We can't compare the two because Gretzky never missed 60% of his games at any point. So while he was playing, his team won. Ergo, he is VALUABLE. And he won it in LA. But when that stacked team won it after he left, who won it? Messier.

The Pens have played the majority of their games the last three years without the kid. Yes. They are better when he is there, to suggest otherwise is foolish. But the team is a top tier team whether he is there or not. If the award was for best player on a team, I'd be all for it.

We get it. Sid should win everything and we should pray that all writers just go ahead and sympathize with him and dry his widdle tears before they reach his enormous lizard lips. But the bottom line is he is not as valuable as an Ovechkin or a Tavares to the fortunes of their team.

And no amount of hero worshippers trying to shoehorn that guy down my throat is going to change that.

 

[IPostedWhat]

Short schedule or long, the criterion for deciding who deserves the Hart Memorial Trophy does not change: it goes to “the player judged most valuable to his team.” So should John Tavares win the Hart Trophy this season?

It would be hard to argue that any other player has been more important to his team than Tavares has been to the Islanders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/sports/hockey/john-tavares-quietly-making-case-for-hart-trophy.html?_r=0

 

[IPostedWhat]

I'll admit that I chuckled a bit when I read this part in the same article about Crosby for the Hart:

Crosby led Pittsburgh to a 15-game winning streak, tied for the second longest in N.H.L. history, and helped put the Penguins in first place in the Eastern Conference. And he did so while thoughtfully and courteously answering every question reporters asked him, still the ever-obliging face of the N.H.L.

In his absence, Pittsburgh’s winning streak came to an abrupt end.

 

[apachef4]

Whether we like it or not, and despite what the "official" definition of the award appears to be, it's for the best player. That is how it is voted on in every sport, including hockey. After all, who is more valuable than the best player in the league, regardless of how good a team he has around him?

As much as it pains me to say it, Crosby is the best player in the league and would get my vote for the Hart this year.

 

[Dacks]

It's hardly a faulty misconception. It's a pretty straight forward way of interpreting the criteria.

I'm sure Sid doesn't give a shit, all it really means is his team is better than the caps or islanders or whoever. Cup > individual trophies every time.

And also, if I were voting back then, I probably wouldn't have votes for Gretzky based on that logic. Best player doesn't mean most valuable to his team.

Well, that's my point. There what's written, and then there's what's applied. If the Hart had been applied by 43's logic, the Hart would be full of above average players playing on shitty teams. You'd have a lot less Gretzky, Orr and Howe because they played on great teams. Guy Lafleur would never have sniffed a Hart Trophy.

So if we want to have a debate about who is most valuable based on 43's definition, fine. It's still an interesting debate. But if we are talking about the Hart, it's really silly to ignore the precedent set over 80 years.

 

[dash]

Whether we like it or not, and despite what the "official" definition of the award appears to be, it's for the best player. That is how it is voted on in every sport, including hockey. After all, who is more valuable than the best player in the league, regardless of how good a team he has around him?

Wasn't that why the Pearson (now Lindsay) was created?

/And yes, some years the Hart and Lindsay go to the same player, but some years they don't

 

[Dacks]

Theeeere's the inevitable Crosby/Gretzky comparison. Wondering when someone would Mad Dog up the discussion.

Gretz should have and DID win those Harts. Why? Because he played, and they won. We can't compare the two because Gretzky never missed 60% of his games at any point. So while he was playing, his team won. Ergo, he is VALUABLE. And he won it in LA. But when that stacked team won it after he left, who won it? Messier.

The Pens have played the majority of their games the last three years without the kid. Yes. They are better when he is there, to suggest otherwise is foolish. But the team is a top tier team whether he is there or not. If the award was for best player on a team, I'd be all for it.

We get it. Sid should win everything and we should pray that all writers just go ahead and sympathize with him and dry his widdle tears before they reach his enormous lizard lips. But the bottom line is he is not as valuable as an Ovechkin or a Tavares to the fortunes of their team.

And no amount of hero worshippers trying to shoehorn that guy down my throat is going to change that.

Holy strawman, Batman.

Do you even understand why I brought up Gretzky? It has nothing to do with Sid, and everything to do with how you think the Hart should be awarded.

Let's simplify things. I think Kane is an MVP candidate, even though he is on a stacked team. By your logic, he shouldn't be. Also by your logic, Guy Lafleur and Gretzky should never have won Hart's, because their teams would still have been dominant without them.

 

[apachef4]

Wasn't that why the Pearson (now Lindsay) was created?

/And yes, some years the Hart and Lindsay go to the same player, but some years they don't

While the Lindsay is worded differently, it's also voted on by the players instead of the writers, so I kind of think it's the same thing. If they were both voted on by the same group of people, I would agree that they're separate.

 

[awaz]

Well, that's my point. There what's written, and then there's what's applied. If the Hart had been applied by 43's logic, the Hart would be full of above average players playing on shitty teams. You'd have a lot less Gretzky, Orr and Howe because they played on great teams. Guy Lafleur would never have sniffed a Hart Trophy.

So if we want to have a debate about who is most valuable based on 43's definition, fine. It's still an interesting debate. But if we are talking about the Hart, it's really silly to ignore the precedent set over 80 years.

So essentially you're saying it should go to the best player because it always has. Guess we need to go back the past few years and give it to Sid. Might as well put his name on it for the next few years too because I don't see anyone challenging him for best player. That'll be fun.

 

[forty_three]

Well, that's my point. There what's written, and then there's what's applied. If the Hart had been applied by 43's logic, the Hart would be full of above average players playing on shitty teams. You'd have a lot less Gretzky, Orr and Howe because they played on great teams. Guy Lafleur would never have sniffed a Hart Trophy.

So if we want to have a debate about who is most valuable based on 43's definition, fine. It's still an interesting debate. But if we are talking about the Hart, it's really silly to ignore the precedent set over 80 years.

Let's simplify things. I think Kane is an MVP candidate, even though he is on a stacked team. By your logic, he shouldn't be. Also by your logic, Guy Lafleur and Gretzky should never have won Hart's, because their teams would still have been dominant without them.

Well, let's fire up the way back machine, and have those guys miss half their team's games for four years straight and test that theory. You might just be right.

"above average players on shitty teams"...

 

[Dacks]

So essentially you're saying it should go to the best player because it always has. Guess we need to go back the past few years and give it to Sid. Might as well put his name on it for the next few years too because I don't see anyone challenging him for best player. That'll be fun.

No, because Sid barely played those seasons? And we'll have to see how he does over the next few seasons?

What I'm saying is, the "what would the team look like without so-and-so" might seem like the way to pick an MVP, by the literal definition of the word, but it has rarely been the primary argument in the history of the Hart or any other major sports MVP category.

It's one of the arguments, no doubt. And in certain exceptional cases (think Hasek on Buffalo or Steve Nash for the Phoenix Suns) it can go a long way to influence the decision of voters. But as the history of Hart and other MVPs shows us, players are rarely punished for playing on a stacked team.

 

[IPostedWhat]

Considering the Isles are about to make the PO's for the first time since 2007 thanks to Tavares, I would think he should be heavily considered to win the Hart.

I don't think the Isles come close to that without him this year.

Same for the Caps. They were dead in the water till OV carried them into a PO spot.


These are just my opinions however.

 

[Dacks]

Considering the Isles are about to make the PO's for the first time since 2007 thanks to Tavares, I would think he should be heavily considered to win the Hart.

I don't think the Isles come close to that without him this year.

Same for the Caps. They were dead in the water till OV carried them into a PO spot.


These are just my opinions however.

Just to be clear, I think the finalists should be Crosby, Tavares, and then one of Kane/OV/Getzlaf depending on how they finish.

 

[IPostedWhat]

That's cool, I just wanted to get Post # 100!