Ya pollster isn’t addressing that, even though been asked.What's the point in doing a poll when you clearly have a narrative to push and create poll options that reflect that?
Don't worry, Jesus loves you.He clearly got outscored by Kucherov and Kucherov plays on the worse team, did pro Canadian bias win Mackinnon the award cause they felt bad for him?
Similar to how Joel Embiid won the award over Jokic, did voters just feel bad that Mackinnon ain’t Kucherov level?
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.
View attachment 892913
View attachment 892915
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.
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
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.
He won because he was the only player without one and it would feel wrong if he didn't have one.
its described as the most valuable to HIS team not the most valuable player in the league which is the main argument for Kuch over Mac imoBefore you answer this question, you have to define what the Hart trophy is actually for, which apparently nobody can do.
Sure but everyone knows that McDavid list because there obviously is an anti Edmonton bias.Isn’t McDavid more popular Canadian? They would have given it to him if this was a Canadian bias
If only posters here were required to do this as well.....Perhaps voters should have to add a their reasoning as they place the vote. Would be very interesting.
No shit sherlock the voters tend to be terribleThat is a terrible reason for him to win
Do you think Canada is like 40 million Don cherrys or something?
I mean, Don Cherry was voted as one of the greatest Canadians of all time. Not greatest Canadian hockey people, but Canadians in general. Like a million people voted on that so it's not some small sample size.
Cherry's show was wildly popular and successful for decades. His nativism was obvious the entire time.
Many of us said so on this very forum (where Don Cherry was, for years, the ONLY hockey commentator to have his own permanent sticky thread). It's not as if he said something dumb/racist/nativist for the first time in 2022 or whenever it was. It wasn't some shocking reversal of sentiment. It was perfectly aligned with what he had been spewing for decades.
So yeah, there are many millions of Don Cherry fans in Canada.
To put it in perspective, there are worse things in the world than sports nativism - although sports nativism can possibly be a symptom of larger nativism, and larger nativism may also be a proxy for racism. So it's just an ugly path to go down. And it's arbitrary as well.
Cherry had a large audience but that pie needs to split even further because some people simply watched him due to the fact he was entertaining and unfiltered. It doesn't mean they agree with everything he said.