Who are your mid-season award finalists?

[awaz]

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.

I'm not really arguing if it is or isnt the primary argument. IMO it should be the primary argument. That's what 'valuable' means to me. Which is why I don't think Crosby should win it. And it's also why I think Peyton manning should've won it every season he was a colt. Without him they were garbage.

IMO the Jack Adams should be decided along similar lines. Sure the hawks streak was impressive, but it pales in comparison to the turnaround in Montreal or Anaheim. Or the fact that Ottawa lost every valuable piece on their team and still managed to stay in playoff contention.

 

[Dacks]

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

Damn, I set you right up

 

[Dacks]

I'm not really arguing if it is or isnt the primary argument. IMO it should be the primary argument. That's what 'valuable' means to me. Which is why I don't think Crosby should win it. And it's also why I think Peyton manning should've won it every season he was a colt. Without him they were garbage.

IMO the Jack Adams should be decided along similar lines. Sure the hawks streak was impressive, but it pales in comparison to the turnaround in Montreal or Anaheim. Or the fact that Ottawa lost every valuable piece on their team and still managed to stay in playoff contention.

I've just never seen an MVP award, in any league, professional or even at the amateur level, stick strictly to that definition. I don't get why everyone is so hung up on the wording when for all intents and purposes, it has always meant something else.

I agree with you on the Jack Adams, but I think it does tend to skew more towards coaches who face adversity or turn their team around. I think it's going to Therrien or MacLean this year.

 

[filosofy29]

My opinions as of today:

Vezina:
Anderson
Niemi
Bobrovsky

Norris:
Suban
Letang
Beauchemin

Selke:
Haven't watched enough hockey this season and stats like takeaways and turnovers are so subjective and biased by home stats keepers.

Hart:
Tavares
Crosby
Ovechkin

Adams:
Therrien
MacLean
Boudreau

Calder:
Huberdeau
Gallagher
Muzzin

 

[forty_three]

My opinions as of today:

Vezina:
Anderson
Niemi
Bobrovsky

Norris:
Suban
Letang
Beauchemin

Selke:
Haven't watched enough hockey this season and stats like takeaways and turnovers are so subjective and biased by home stats keepers.

Hart:
Tavares
Crosby
Ovechkin

Adams:
Therrien
MacLean
Boudreau

Calder:
Huberdeau
Gallagher
Muzzin

Nice choice. Subban has been great.

Bob had a slow start, and really flubbed some early games. If the Jackets don't finish this off, I don't think he gets in there.

Crawford has been pretty amazing.

 

[filosofy29]

Nice choice. Subban has been great.

Bob had a slow start, and really flubbed some early games. If the Jackets don't finish this off, I don't think he gets in there.

Crawford has been pretty amazing.

Hey, they're just opinions, not facts or anything.

 

[forty_three]

Hey, they're just opinions, not facts or anything.

NOT ALLOWED!

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Crosby should absolutely get the Lindsay this year but, based on his team's success without him and his extended absence, he, imo, should not get the Hart.

 

[awaz]

I've just never seen an MVP award, in any league, professional or even at the amateur level, stick strictly to that definition. I don't get why everyone is so hung up on the wording when for all intents and purposes, it has always meant something else.

I agree with you on the Jack Adams, but I think it does tend to skew more towards coaches who face adversity or turn their team around. I think it's going to Therrien or MacLean this year.

i just disagree w/ the way it's always been done, always have.

 

[juliansteed]

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.

Pretty sure I get what you are saying. I don't think the criteria that is actually used is all that clear. I think what the others are saying is partially true as well. I do believe it's relevant to consider where the team would be without them when deciding but I think you're right that historically it has not been the only factor. Otherwise you would think the Vezina winner would win the Hart more often than not but it rarely happens. Nowhere in the definition does it say that they only consider goalies in extreme cases (sorry Iggy) but that tends to be the case.

I don't think it was brought up in this thread but 1 argument I see from time to time that I really don't like is how well the team performs when a certain player performs well vs how well they do when he doesn't perform well. Maybe if the sample of games where he doesn't perform well is very small then I can see some logic behind it. But if he plays shitty for 25% of the season and as a result his team does poorly during that time period, I'm not sure why that should be considered as a positive in any type of meaningful award. Sure he could still win if the other 75% of the time he plays outstanding but that 25% should count against him not for him. And again, if it is relevant criteria you would think a goalie would win it every time.

 

[juliansteed]

i just disagree w/ the way it's always been done, always have.

That's fair. In my opinion the most prestigious award should goto the all around best player (or at least the guy who is deemed as such). Whether that be a Gretzky like player on a stacked team or the one bright spot on a crappy team who is absolutely dominant, or somewhere in between. I think there is room for a less prestigious award to goto a player who is not necessarily the best but makes the biggest difference on his team.

Edit - As for Gretzky winning the Hart all those years on teams that were otherwise pretty stacked already, well it's been argued many times that he made players around him better. Hard to really measure that kind of thing though. Who knows how good those players may have been had they not all played together.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

That's fair. In my opinion the most prestigious award should goto the all around best player (or at least the guy who is deemed as such). Whether that be a Gretzky like player on a stacked team or the one bright spot on a crappy team who is absolutely dominant, or somewhere in between. I think there is room for a less prestigious award to goto a player who is not necessarily the best but makes the biggest difference on his team.

Edit - As for Gretzky winning the Hart all those years on teams that were otherwise pretty stacked already, well it's been argued many times that he made players around him better. Hard to really measure that kind of thing though. Who knows how good those players may have been had they not all played together.

I just feel like you're describing the Lindsay award (formerly the Pearson). Sometimes the best player is not the most valuable.

It's so hard though because the voters are different.

Yzerman winning the Pearson in 89 while Gretzky wins the Hart epitomizes this argument. You could argue either for the other and vice versa.

 

[juliansteed]

I just feel like you're describing the Lindsay award (formerly the Pearson). Sometimes the best player is not the most valuable.

It's so hard though because the voters are different.

Yzerman winning the Pearson in 89 while Gretzky wins the Hart epitomizes this argument. You could argue either for the other and vice versa.

Wasn't really describing any award. Just offering my opinion on how I think it should be as opposed to how things are/seem to be, as Awaz was doing.

 

[Darkstone42]

The most valuable player, to me, is the player who contributes the most positive overall impact to his team independent of the quality of the team for which he plays.

Everyone treats value as a relative measurement to a player's team, but I think for a league-wide award, the measurement should be relative to the total field of players. To me, it is ridiculous to punish a player for playing for a good (or bad) team. If he's the best at his sport, and he produces at the highest level, then he is adding the most value to his team, regardless of the amount of value being contributed by other players on the same team.

Metrics in hockey have not sufficiently advanced to quantitatively assess player value, but a combination of statistics and the "eyeball test" can provide a sufficient approximation in their absence. But in a sport like baseball, to me the MVP goes to the player who earns the highest WAR stat, since WAR essentially quantitatively measures value. At least that's how I would vote. In a sufficient sample size, the numbers don't lie.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

My opinions as of today:

Vezina:
Anderson
Niemi
Bobrovsky

Anderson hasn't, and won't, play enough games to draw consideration. Right now Bobrovsky should be the leading canidate for the Veznia with Niemi a close 2nd and Rask 3rd. Everyone else should be a distant 4th but it wouldn't surprise me if the East Coast bias brings Lundquist's name into the mix.

 

[Dacks]

That's fair. In my opinion the most prestigious award should goto the all around best player (or at least the guy who is deemed as such). Whether that be a Gretzky like player on a stacked team or the one bright spot on a crappy team who is absolutely dominant, or somewhere in between. I think there is room for a less prestigious award to goto a player who is not necessarily the best but makes the biggest difference on his team.

That's how I feel too. The most prestigious award should be a "player of the year" type of award, and most leagues outside of NA name it along those lines. As it stands now, we essentially have two of those. It would be nice if there was a difference, but I think if they did that the Pearson would definitely be considered the more prestigious of the two, over time.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

That's how I feel too. The most prestigious award should be a "player of the year" type of award, and most leagues outside of NA name it along those lines. As it stands now, we essentially have two of those. It would be nice if there was a difference, but I think if they did that the Pearson would definitely be considered the more prestigious of the two, over time.

I give more weight to the Peason, for what it's worth, and Crosby should, and will, win that hands down.

 

[juliansteed]

That's how I feel too. The most prestigious award should be a "player of the year" type of award, and most leagues outside of NA name it along those lines. As it stands now, we essentially have two of those. It would be nice if there was a difference, but I think if they did that the Pearson would definitely be considered the more prestigious of the two, over time.

Yeah right now the Hart is the more prestigious of the 2 as it's the one that gets more media attention, but many players will tell you that they would rather win the Pearson because it's voted on by their peers. Whether or not they really mean it, only they know. The Hart will likely remain as the most prestigious award as long as it is the last one presented each year.

 

[awaz]

agree with the line of thinking that the pearson/lindsey is more of the 'player of the year' trophy and should be the more prestigious of the two. and that, crosby should win, i agree.

player of the year trophies also make a lot more sense than mvp trophies IMO.

 

[forty_three]

I give more weight to the Peason, for what it's worth, and Crosby should, and will, win that hands down.

With as much complaining as we all do about hockey writers and their horrendous bias and outright missed facts, the Pearson being given by the players to one of their own would carry more weight for me too if I were a player.

My peers saying I'm the best is far better than some writers. And yes, Crosby is clearly the best player in the league.

I like the way DS stated it (as usual).

The most valuable player, to me, is the player who contributes the most positive overall impact to his team independent of the quality of the team for which he plays.

Maybe instead of blanket statements like "Where would the team be without him?" or "Why not just the best guy on the best team?" the delta between what that player contributes and what the next guy or the rest of the team contributes should be the determining factor. Maybe the Oil teams would have been fine if Gretz got hurt long term. But we don't have to make that assumption and he did contribute by leaps and bounds above what anyone else ('cept maybe Kurri) did.

By that guidance, to me, Tavares and Ovechkin are in the lead slightly above Kane and Crosby.