Hart Trophy Talk: MacKinnon, Malkin, Kucherov the Early Favorites, Scoring at Highest Rates By Far.

[joe dirte]

It's already been highlighted that McDavid's PPG is a lot better in games where he has less than 19 minutes in TOI. And as you point out, a player with more TOI is less fresh so it is not really optimal to give more time.

That being said, IMO, production is production, regardless of TOI and team depth.

mcdavid is ONE player. one year is also a small sample size. and if be willing to bet those are games McD is getting less ice because oilers had built up a lead.

simply looking at that and saying less ice is more points is silly.

 

[Richardbro]

I am a big Mcdavid fan, just check my post history, but he should get absolutely no consideration for the hart trohpy considering Edmonton's placement in the standings.

If that were the case then Karlsson should have 1-2 more Norris trophy's that he didn't receive due to Ottawa missing the playoffs a few of these years. Consistency matters.

 

[Laineux]

If coaches thought that their best players could maintain being the best for more minutes, they would play them more minutes to maintain competitive edge longer. It's pretty simple logic. Not saying that p/60 is useless stat, but maintaining similar p/60 over more minutes is always more valuable and impressive.

 

[zeke]

Playoffs or not the Hart should go to McDavid. Edmonton would get beaten by a team of drunks conscripted from bars without him.

the problem is they do that with him, too.

 

[zeke]

yup. this is the MVP.

 

[daver]

mcdavid is ONE player. one year is also a small sample size. and if be willing to bet those are games McD is getting less ice because oilers had built up a lead.

simply looking at that and saying less ice is more points is silly.

As is more saying more icetime = more points especially when we are talking about the very elite offensive players in the league. It is complete speculation and zero basis in which to say a player closer to another despite a clear gap in offensive production.

It is also complete speculation to say that the very best offensive players would do better on a better team. That also is complete speculation.

 

[joe dirte]

As is more saying more icetime = more points especially when we are talking about the very elite offensive players in the league. It is complete speculation and zero basis in which to say a player closer to another despite a clear gap in offensive production.

It is also complete speculation to say that the very best offensive players would do better on a better team. That also is complete speculation.

no it's not. more ice, on average will lead t9 more points. it's common sense.

i agree tgat better players may not produce more on a better team. better teams have more options so the same player might not get all the prime opportunuties.

 

[daver]

no it's not. more ice, on average will lead t9 more points. it's common sense.

i agree tgat better players may not produce more on a better team. better teams have more options so the same player might not get all the prime opportunuties.

McDavid's example shows that he got more icetime when the Oilers were behind. If the Oilers were better, he doesn't get as much icetime and his Pts/60 would be better. This is very common for players who have generational talent like McDavid.

You want to make your case for a 3rd liner with half decent offensive skills, go right ahead. It simply does not apply when the player you are referring to is clearly on a tier reserved for the very best offensive talents all-time who are relied on heavily to provide offense for their teams to the detriment of optimum icetime.

That, my friend, is common sense.