I’m not saying he’s necessarily one of this worst, but his plus minus was better solely because of his offense. The only forwards on the team to give up more GA/60 at 5v5 or at ES were Point and Stamkos. Among forwards he was on the ice for the most 5v5 and the most ES goals against in the entire league.
Did Mackinnon win the Hart because of pro Canadian Bias
- Thread starter Mirka the Turka
- Start date
I’m not saying he’s necessarily one of this worst, but his plus minus was better solely because of his offense. The only forwards on the team to give up more GA/60 at 5v5 or at ES were Point and Stamkos. Among forwards he was on the ice for the most 5v5 and the most ES goals against in the entire league.
I wouldn’t say that’s true. The Hart is often given to simply the best player, and there’s certainly an argument for MacKinnon there.
Spearmint Rhino
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2013
- 9,044
- 8,907
I'll never understand why some people get so flustered about situations like these. Kucherov and MacKinnon were neck and neck, it could have gone either way. This isn't a case of someone being robbed of a trophy or something, the differences were way too slim for that.
Did it help MacKinnon that he didn't have a Hart yet, while Kucherov already won one? Sure.
Might some voters be more inclined to favour someone from their area over someone who is not? Sure.
But that requires things to be close enough for that to matter. The amount of voters who will make a reach in their decision when there is a clear disparity between the candidates is not remotely large enough to tip the scales in such a vote. The only times when these issues matter enough, is when it's too close a call to make a definitive decision. And at that point, either choice is perfectly fine.
Seeing how lopsided the first place votes were in MacKinnons favour, one can hardly blame the outcome on any Canadian bias.
Did it help MacKinnon that he didn't have a Hart yet, while Kucherov already won one? Sure.
Might some voters be more inclined to favour someone from their area over someone who is not? Sure.
But that requires things to be close enough for that to matter. The amount of voters who will make a reach in their decision when there is a clear disparity between the candidates is not remotely large enough to tip the scales in such a vote. The only times when these issues matter enough, is when it's too close a call to make a definitive decision. And at that point, either choice is perfectly fine.
Seeing how lopsided the first place votes were in MacKinnons favour, one can hardly blame the outcome on any Canadian bias.
Cypher
Registered User
Clearly the NHL gave Mack the Hart, Hughes the Norris, etc. just so that we would forget the 20+ years of East coast bias, at least for 1 year.
I think Kucherov should have won the hart in 2018 and also in 2024. I don't really mind MacK winning per se, he was a worthy winner too. Hall in 2018 is a different story.
One thing I like about Kucherov's season a lot (and actually, about his 2018 year as well) is that he led the scoring race for the majority of the year.
To me it's less about Kucherov simply beating MacKinnon to the Ross by 4 points - it's more about how he was in the lead most of the year too. If Kucherov had been #2 in scoring race all year, and then had a super strong last 2-3 games to take the lead, I think it would be slightly less impactful. But instead, all year long he was scoring more than anyone else to consistently and continuously help his team win games.
My hart ballot would have been:
1. Kucherov
2. MacKinnon
3. McDavid
4. Matthews
5. Hughes
One thing I like about Kucherov's season a lot (and actually, about his 2018 year as well) is that he led the scoring race for the majority of the year.
To me it's less about Kucherov simply beating MacKinnon to the Ross by 4 points - it's more about how he was in the lead most of the year too. If Kucherov had been #2 in scoring race all year, and then had a super strong last 2-3 games to take the lead, I think it would be slightly less impactful. But instead, all year long he was scoring more than anyone else to consistently and continuously help his team win games.
My hart ballot would have been:
1. Kucherov
2. MacKinnon
3. McDavid
4. Matthews
5. Hughes
Of course bias exists, but it's not based on nationality. Our sport is massively conservative. There's little tolerance for individuality or players who don't conform to the norm.
MacKinnon is a good ol' boy who conducts himself the "right" way. Kucherov not so much.
You're on Mars if you think this doesnt play a factor in voting.
MacKinnon is a good ol' boy who conducts himself the "right" way. Kucherov not so much.
You're on Mars if you think this doesnt play a factor in voting.
Last edited:
NHL media is very anti-Russia/KHL. But the same can't be said about the media towards individual Russian players. So no, there is no pro-Canadian bias.
Kucherov put up 100 assists as a winger. He also outscored Mackinnon.
there is only one word to describe this.
Bias.
He should have won the Hart easily.
there is only one word to describe this.
Bias.
He should have won the Hart easily.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 23,978
- 11,896
Poll options show bias, so didn’t vote,
Why no yes, I’m Canadian / Avs fan, or yes but I promise I’m not biased.
RANDOMH3RO
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2007
- 1,645
- 684
I think it was more to do with mackinnon constantly getting nominated but never actually winning anything. If this was voted on as 2 anonymous players I don’t mackinnon would have won.
DitchMarner
It's time.
It's certainly possible voters favored him because he hadn't won before and Kucherov has.
It may simply be that voters felt/decided that he was more valuable to his team than Kucherov. The Hart Trophy isn't a secondary Art Ross. It doesn't automatically go to the player who scored the most points if it goes to a forward.
A gap of three to five points isn't that significant. I was fine with the fact that Hall won it when MacKinnon outscored him by four points and I'm okay with the fact that MacKinnon won it after being outscored by Kucherov by four points. You can expect some discretion to be used by voters.
It may simply be that voters felt/decided that he was more valuable to his team than Kucherov. The Hart Trophy isn't a secondary Art Ross. It doesn't automatically go to the player who scored the most points if it goes to a forward.
A gap of three to five points isn't that significant. I was fine with the fact that Hall won it when MacKinnon outscored him by four points and I'm okay with the fact that MacKinnon won it after being outscored by Kucherov by four points. You can expect some discretion to be used by voters.
- Jul 25, 2006
- 32,345
- 23,085
Maybe voters decided that scoring even strength points is more valuable to a team than scoring bunch of empty net points
KirkAlbuquerque
#WeNeverGetAGoodCoach
Not exactly Pro-Canadian bias as much as Pro-MacKinnon bias. He hadn’t won it yet and his season was just as good as Kucherov’s so of course they would lean towards him.
Totally deserved either way
Totally deserved either way
22FUTON9
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 3,297
- 2,448
Most valuable is so subjective, it usually goes to the best player.
The fact of the matter is, even if you think Kuch had the better offensive year, he really didn’t tilt the ice in his favor during the minutes he was playing at all, because he was giving up just as much, both from an actual goals and expected goals perspective. Not saying it’s a 100 percent accurate, as it’s probably impossible to get an actual net value on a player, but it’s definitely somewhat of an indicator. I’m just going to post a couple I was able to find from twitter and the athletic.
Even offensively Mackinnon just had a higher impact in general.
I certainly see the argument for kuch, but th narrative that Mack only won because he was ‘due’ is just stupid. Almost every metric says he had the best and well balanced year, especially with Mcdavid missing games.
The fact of the matter is, even if you think Kuch had the better offensive year, he really didn’t tilt the ice in his favor during the minutes he was playing at all, because he was giving up just as much, both from an actual goals and expected goals perspective. Not saying it’s a 100 percent accurate, as it’s probably impossible to get an actual net value on a player, but it’s definitely somewhat of an indicator. I’m just going to post a couple I was able to find from twitter and the athletic.
Even offensively Mackinnon just had a higher impact in general.
I certainly see the argument for kuch, but th narrative that Mack only won because he was ‘due’ is just stupid. Almost every metric says he had the best and well balanced year, especially with Mcdavid missing games.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 23,978
- 11,896
Ya it is odd, maybe they need to redefine the wording, Instead of most valuable to his team.
Kuch had 54 more points than closest teammate, maybe close to highest ever.
Mack had 36 more points than closest teammate.
No but he was due, if they had exactly reversed seasons(in terms of on ice-impact and stats) I am farily certain MacKinnon would have won all the same. Of course impossible to prove.
For what it's worth I would probably have voted for him and he deserved it but above still holds true in my mind.
For what it's worth I would probably have voted for him and he deserved it but above still holds true in my mind.
How much you outscore your nearest teammate isn’t a very thorough measure of more valuable though. Pasta and Panarin both outscored their closest teammates by 43 points this year. I wouldn’t say they were more valuable to their teams than MacKinnon
There are few reasons why Mackinnon should have won over Kucherov.
Kuch outscored Mak, had a much bigger gap to the 2nd team scorer, and most importantly had less help.
This year's Hart is exactly why I take trophies that get voted on with a grain of salt. More often than not, it is a popularity contest.
Kuch outscored Mak, had a much bigger gap to the 2nd team scorer, and most importantly had less help.
This year's Hart is exactly why I take trophies that get voted on with a grain of salt. More often than not, it is a popularity contest.
TheStatican
Registered User
- Mar 14, 2012
- 1,684
- 1,434
Exactly. It's silly to keep throwing out a stat that litterally only compares two players out of 23+ on a team. As if the other 21+ players somehow don't matter and don't do any scoring at all
I'm beginning to think the obsession with that stat is largrly because it's incredibly simple... it involves kindergarten-level subtraction. Throw out something more complicated like WAR or expected goals and these people will look at you as if your talking about rocket science.
eviohh26
Registered User
There are most def people that have a Canada Bias.
There are also people who have a Anti Russian Bias
How many of them? Who knows. Enough to effect the outcome? We will never know.
There is also the factor of "He is due"
It could have gone to either player but I personally had a slight edge to Kuch.
There are also people who have a Anti Russian Bias
How many of them? Who knows. Enough to effect the outcome? We will never know.
There is also the factor of "He is due"
It could have gone to either player but I personally had a slight edge to Kuch.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Canucks 2024-2025 Line Combinations and Roster Discussion- Latest: ihaveyuidonttouchme
-
