Video Nasty
Registered User
- Mar 12, 2017
- 5,654
- 9,871
Almost zero chance. A defenseman won’t win it again until they are legitimately competing for the Art Ross or ten forwards and goalies get put in the hospital.
1999-2000 Pronger, last Dman to win the HART- Can Quinn Hughes end the Dman Hart drought this year
- Thread starter UrbanImpact
- Start date
It's a thread about the Hart, not the Norris.
Everyone knows who the MVP out of Winnipeg atm, and it's not Morrissey.
Czechboy
Češi do toho!
- Apr 15, 2018
- 27,295
- 24,533
It's a thread about a dman winning the Harr. Everyone talking about 1 and 3. Just felt 2 deserved a mention.
I'd it was a thread about the Hart.. doubt any D man is getting it. We'd be talking mack or a forward like that.
- Oct 13, 2018
- 4,375
- 5,154
It is but it got derailed by Makar fanatics from post #1 when he's not even close to their MVP anyways.
Hughes fanatics have derailed this thread just as much as Makar fanatics have
Tralfamadore
Don't Panic.
- Sep 25, 2011
- 8,926
- 7,790
No one on this entire site brings up Makar more than you bud.
- Oct 13, 2018
- 4,375
- 5,154
The very first post in this thread is "U mean Makar?" when Makar isn't even his own team's MVP. Hughes has finished higher in Hart voting than Makar ever has. How is it derailing when the thread is about why Hughes could/should be in Hart contention this year when that's the point of the thread?
I talk about Hughes and Makar in relevant threads, bringing up Makar here is irrelevent because he's not his team's MVP. If any of the Avs fans wanted to argue that Hughes won't win because MacKinnon is more important to his team, that's a completely different discussion.
Czechboy
Češi do toho!
- Apr 15, 2018
- 27,295
- 24,533
I have no horse in the race.. my fav D are Bouch, Hronek and Jiricek.lol
However, both Makar and Hughes are amazing.
I seriously doubt either wins the Hart this season.
I really did want to give Morrissey love though.. his stats are amazing and his team has 1 loss and I don't think anyone had the Jet's with 1 loss after 15 games. Ir's impressive. But he won't win the Hart either but something tells me Helle loves him!
- Oct 13, 2018
- 4,375
- 5,154
For sure, both Makar and Hughes are #1 and #2 in the league, and Morrissey is probably in my top 7, however the point of the MVP is that the player has to be the driving force for their team. Morrissey and Makar are both great, but they don't do that, Hellebuyck and MacKinnon do.
Hughes does that for the Canucks, without him they are a lottery team.
Czechboy
Češi do toho!
- Apr 15, 2018
- 27,295
- 24,533
I'm no Nuck's fan but that seems a bit harsh. They got a nice thing going right now! And without Demko.
Nonetheless.. I'm finding myself defending the Nucks so it is time for me to leave this thread.lol
- Oct 13, 2018
- 4,375
- 5,154
Check Canucks stats when Hughes isn't on the ice, it's not pretty.
At 5v5 Hughes' CorsiRel to his team is +20.1%, his FenwickRel is +21%. That's more than double what guys like McDavid, Panarin, Makar, Kucherov, and MacKinnon have had in their best seasons.
BenningHurtsMySoul
Unfair Huggy Bear
I thought it was obvious but apparently not.
He is trusted with d zone starts if he has the superstar forwards on the ice with him. If not, give him o zone starts. Obviously all advanced analytics go up if you start in the o zone more. Quinn went up 10% from the previous year. Fox and Makar went down 9/14% respectively.
Not his fault but that tells me the coaching staff for the Avalanche and Rangers trust their guys to play actual defense more. So if we’re going to dissect underlying stats, then that is a point of discussion.
Makar is dominating scoring this season and not only amongst defensemen, but the entire league. So have at it with the underlying stats as to why, but don’t ignore it last year for Quinn.
MVP is voted on by many people who don't do much analysis. For many voters if they see Makar leading in scoring for defense they'll mentally disregard Hughes as an MVP candidate.
So Makar level of scoring might be relevant to the MVP vote. Even though he's currently only the 8th most important player in his own team. And lower than 250th most impactful player league wide.
Dude, you’re still not making sense. His o zone starts don’t go up without them on the ice! They go down! Like, the stats you posted are the complete opposite of what you’re saying.
Do you see the highlighted numbers? Those are the o zone start percentage numbers without both Miller and Pettersson. Notice how it’s a smaller number than the ones above it? Yea, that means he starts less in the offensive zone away from them…
And again, while Hughes’ o zone start percentage numbers did go up last year without them compared to previous years, this is in large part due to the third line being much better and thus starting more in the offensive zone, and has nothing to do with being trusted or not. And the fact that Hughes went up to the level that Makar and Fox were at the previous years by your own logic would suggest that they were not trusted with defensive zone starts away from their stars in their previous seasons. So unless that’s the argument you want to make, this is all a bunch of BS. I mean it was already BS because zone starts are pretty irrelevant to actual deployment but nothing you’ve said is backed up by the stats you’re using
Last edited:
eviohh26
Registered User
I made the spreadsheet…
Yes, I should have labeled it, but 21-22 is on top then below is 22-23 and the bottom is 23-24.
You’re reading it backwards which makes sense now. I’m simply pointing out that his o zone numbers without Miller/Pettersson drastically went up and boom he wins a Norris and has his best year ever. That same year, ironically or not, his main competition in Makar and Fox went in the other direction.
It’s on us to translate what that means, but that whole spreadsheet started when someone else said Makar is awful without Mackinnon on the ice with him, sparking me to dig deeper.
It may be increased depth throughout the Canucks lineup like Makar had in his Norris year. Fox and Makar both statistically had less opportunity than Hughes did for offensive numbers last season specifically. That is what I am pointing out and the hockey player in me goes to logic which is playing actual defense vs having the advantage of potentially starting your shift with the puck in the offensive zone. Hughes still had to produce, which he did, but that is strategic sheltered o zone starts from the canucks coaching staff and it is obviously working for them so kudos.
I don’t understand what this means. Cale is having a dominant best we’ve seen in 40 years offensive season so far. Pace will likely regress, but the Avs sniffing .500 hockey with their goaltending start and injuries is nothing but a huge success. Wood, Drouin, and Nichushkin will be back this week. This will be an NHL team again and not Mac/Makar/Rantanen/Toews/Mitts and the Eagles
nowhereman
Registered User
Is there a player in the NHL who has more uninformed narratives around him than Quinn Hughes?
"Soft match-ups"? "Sheltered"?
If you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, it's okay to just keep quiet.
"Soft match-ups"? "Sheltered"?
If you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, it's okay to just keep quiet.
Voight
#winning
He beat Jagr by a hair and that was with Jagr playing only 60 games.
The Abusement Park
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2016
- 35,086
- 26,280
No, I’m aware that the years get more recent as you go down the page. What you originally said is still wrong though. You said that his zone starts go up when Pettersson and Miller are not on the ice. This isn’t the case. They go down. When you look at every season in the sample, he has higher o zone starts with them than without them. This is separate to the fact that his o zone starts went up without them last year than in years past, because they were still lower with them not on the ice than they were with them on the ice.
So yes, Hughes did have more o zone starts without them on the ice last year than he did in years past. But he still started less in the o zone away from them than he did with them. So when you said in the previous post that the team doesn’t trust him with defensive zone starts away from them, this isn’t the case. He’s still starting more in the d zone without them than he is with them. So trying to paint it as “sheltering” doesn’t make any sense.
Now, yes, Hughes did have a higher o zone start percentage without them than Makar or Fox did without their superstars. So if you want to paint that as an advantage, then fine. But zone starts have been shown to have little effect on production and possession numbers, because A) most shifts are started on the fly and B) because hockey is so back and forth that a lost faceoff or turnover can easily counter any advantage right away.
How much do zone starts matter part II: A lot on their own, not that much in aggregate
In Part I of our review of zone starts, we looked at the how the traditional definition of zone starts varied from what most people would consider a “true” zone start, and found that when we applie…
puckplusplus.com
TheBeerNerd
Registered User
I don't even think Quinn will win the Norris. I mean, he should, but dumb people like to look at stats like points, and Makar is probably gonna end up with more of them, and potentially a lot more of them. Never mind that Quinn laps him when it comes to team impacts and overall defensive play.
In a perfect world, he'd win the Norris and at least make some noise for the Hart.
In a perfect world, he'd win the Norris and at least make some noise for the Hart.
The whole premise was what Hughes does without his own superstar forwards and against the other teams best. Maybe the Rangers and Avalanche aren’t using their guys as wise as they could.No, I’m aware that the years get more recent as you go down the page. What you originally said is still wrong though. You said that his zone starts go up when Pettersson and Miller are not on the ice. This isn’t the case. They go down. When you look at every season in the sample, he has higher o zone starts with them than without them. This is separate to the fact that his o zone starts went up without them last year than in years past, because they were still lower with them not on the ice than they were with them on the ice.
So yes, Hughes did have more o zone starts without them on the ice last year than he did in years past. But he still started less in the o zone away from them than he did with them. So when you said in the previous post that the team doesn’t trust him with defensive zone starts away from them, this isn’t the case. He’s still starting more in the d zone without them than he is with them. So trying to paint it as “sheltering” doesn’t make any sense.
Now, yes, Hughes did have a higher o zone start percentage without them than Makar or Fox did without their superstars. So if you want to paint that as an advantage, then fine. But zone starts have been shown to have little effect on production and possession numbers, because A) most shifts are started on the fly and B) because hockey is so back and forth that a lost faceoff or turnover can easily counter any advantage right away.
How much do zone starts matter part II: A lot on their own, not that much in aggregate
In Part I of our review of zone starts, we looked at the how the traditional definition of zone starts varied from what most people would consider a “true” zone start, and found that when we applie…
I’m simply pointing out the difference between he, Fox, and Makar. If you want to get butthurt about it, then ok, but it is a fact that Hughes received more o zone starts without his superstars while the other two decreased over the years. Why is that? That is for us to try to come to a consensus on. If you think they don’t matter, then ok. I think they do.
The original poster who has a Hughes/Makar obsession was pointing specifically to corsi and fenwick and I think we can all agree, and your link backs it up, that those advanced stats are skewed because of o zone starts. Hughes receives a good amount more o zone starts than his competition without the higher end forwards on the ice.
This is coaching brilliance. Use your player where he succeeds the most. I’d credit Tocchet more than get upset about it.
