Hart Trophy Tournament (Post 2000's) Round 2: 2007 Crosby vs 2008 Ovechkin

[Despote]

It's a negative regardless, it just becomes more of a negative the more games are missed. It can be more impressive to do something in fewer games, but it's better and more valuable to actually play the games.

Is it? You'd think that the value over replacement could be higher if a player achieves the same results in a shorter time frame.

 

[JackSlater]

Is it? You'd think that the value over replacement could be higher if a player achieves the same results in a shorter time frame.

Yes, missing games is of course a negative when comparing which player had the better season. Even more when comparing using the Hart, which by definition refers to value.

I guess you can look at it like this: If a player is actively contributing to his team outside of scoring, then you want him in the line-up and the more games he plays, the more value he brings.

Ovechkin's been accused of not bringing that much outside of scoring at times, but in his first two Hart seasons he definitely made a positive impact on a regular basis. If he wasn't scoring, he was getting in on the forecheck and banging guys and he also contributed a lot to his team in terms of transition and pushing the play toward the opponent's goal. There's a reason the Caps fared so much better with him on the ice than with him off the ice. That's a guy you want for 82 games and if he had missed any, they might have missed the playoffs.

Yeah Ovechkin brought some physicality and was a very valuable transition player, but he also opens things up for everyone else in those years because the other team is inevitably focused on him since they don't know whether he is going to go scoreless in those games. Teams really only had to worry about Ovechkin in 2008, and if he's gone they don't really need to worry about much of anything.

 

[Despote]

Yes, missing games is of course a negative when comparing which player had the better season. Even more when comparing using the Hart, which by definition refers to value.

Of course it is, but the value brought by producing the same amount of points in a smaller amount of games and then having a replacement take that spot could be higher. There's a baseline of point production rate that provides no value at all and how much a player surpasses that equals their value. Obviously the distribution could matter too, a player providing all their value in one game will only be able to influence the outcome of one game regardless if they score 100 goals, but that is a rather extreme example.

A player scoring 40 points in 40 games likely has provided his team significantly more value than a player scoring 40 points in 80 games in the same role/usage.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Took Crosby here as he captained and lead the previous season 58 point Penguins to 105 points.

Not sure what the previous season has to do with the poll.

 

[wetcoast]

Not sure what the previous season has to do with the poll.

People talk all the time about players missing the playoffs not doing well in Hart voting right?

It's only logical that being the captain and obvious leader of a team with that kind of point gain from season to season might be considered in the Hart trophy race right?

 

[Golden_Jet]

People talk all the time about players missing the playoffs not doing well in Hart voting right?

It's only logical that being the captain and obvious leader of a team with that kind of point gain from season to season might be considered in the Hart trophy race right?

No, the previous season has zero to do with the hart trophy, whether captain or not.

 

[Regal]

No, the previous season has zero to do with the hart trophy, whether captain or not.

It’s definitely affected the vote before like Gretzky in ‘89, but I agree that it shouldn’t. Pens improvement had a lot more to it than Crosby being 20-25% better than the previous year.

 

[wetcoast]

No, the previous season has zero to do with the hart trophy, whether captain or not.

You are getting hung up on only that part of what I said, Crosby had his season leading the Pens to a huge point gain in 06-07.

If the Pens had missed the playoffs would be still have won the Hart or by the margin he did?

 

[Regal]

You are getting hung up on only that part of what I said, Crosby had his season leading the Pens to a huge point gain in 06-07.

If the Pens had missed the playoffs would be still have won the Hart or by the margin he did?

But the Pens making the playoffs that year involves what happened in that year. Your reasoning involves using the previous year that included many different factors than just Crosby’s difference in play. If the Pens missed the playoffs, no, Crosby probably doesn’t win the Hart, or at least not by a significant margin, but the reasoning behind that is general seen as if the value of the player is ultimately meaningless because it didn’t get them anywhere they wouldn’t have been without him except higher among the also rans. It’s the same reasoning the Conn Smythe winner is rarely given to the losing team and never to a team that didn’t make the finals.

This is different because the idea is that his value can be assessed based on things that didn’t happen that year, and it ends up in a situation where a player is given extra credit for the team improving around him, in this case the addition of Malkin being a major factor.

MJ (shocker) has tried to make a similar case in reverse about Crosby’s 2nd place finish in 18-19 because the Pens had a crazy good record when he was injured the following year. But it’s an equally poor argument because the team was significantly better outside of Crosby in 19-20, including Vezina level goaltending for the time he was injured. There’s too many differences season for season for this to hold any weight imo

 

[wetcoast]

But the Pens making the playoffs that year involves what happened in that year.

Agreed and I just put it out there as a comparison to what Crosby did that year, in hindsight it should have been omitted since the focus seems to be on there.

Your reasoning involves using the previous year that included many different factors than just Crosby’s difference in play.

I'm not actually using the year before I just used it as a reference point and it's obviously a distraction and should have been omitted.

If the Pens missed the playoffs, no, Crosby probably doesn’t win the Hart, or at least not by a significant margin, but the reasoning behind that is general seen as if the value of the player is ultimately meaningless because it didn’t get them anywhere they wouldn’t have been without him except higher among the also rans. It’s the same reasoning the Conn Smythe winner is rarely given to the losing team and never to a team that didn’t make the finals.

This was the point I was trying to make and agree that this is how voters treat such voting, although I think some years it's a mistake but the Hart means different things to different people from year to year and that's something most people would agree with.

This is different because the idea is that his value can be assessed based on things that didn’t happen that year, and it ends up in a situation where a player is given extra credit for the team improving around him, in this case the addition of Malkin being a major factor.

Fair points but I will go back to the rod Langway Norris wins and all the talk about the changes it brought to that Washington team defensively and I think some voters will look at how much the team improved as a consideration, rightly or wrongly and the wording for the Hart trophy is ambiguous and different voters treat it differently as people here do.

MJ (shocker) has tried to make a similar case in reverse about Crosby’s 2nd place finish in 18-19 because the Pens had a crazy good record when he was injured the following year.

The following year is quite different than the previous year and current year though but I do get the idea that it should focus on the actual year.

But it’s an equally poor argument because the team was significantly better outside of Crosby in 19-20, including Vezina level goaltending for the time he was injured. There’s too many differences season for season for this to hold any weight imo

I think that this series of polls while interesting is also too difficult to judge since your last sentence is the major problem here for me.

Hart voting in season is often problematic with the differences between teams and player usage and some wins are greater in voting results that the level of performance actually warrants and a lot of people don't understand simple things like league scoring rates either.

 

[Midnight Judges]

.

MJ (shocker) has tried to make a similar case in reverse about Crosby’s 2nd place finish in 18-19 because the Pens had a crazy good record when he was injured the following year. But it’s an equally poor argument because the team was significantly better outside of Crosby in 19-20,

Your comparison between that and the Pens adding Malkin and Staal is gibberish.

Between 18-19 and 19-10 it was basically the same players, the same coach and the same scheme - mere Months apart. You think they all just flipped a switch and they all sucked when Crosby was there but they were all magically great without him a few Months later? That is unlikely.

Nevermind that Crosby was given huge amounts of credit for defensive assignments that he didn’t have. 34 of the homers in the media claimed Sidney Crosby was the best defensive forward in all of hockey that season - better than Bergeron, Couturier, Barkov, Stone, etc. That is a le bad hot take.

The Canadian media exaggerations were was obvious in real time. Crosby's offense wasn't good enough to be supporting their claims so they pumped up a myth of defense to compensate. I wasn't remotely the only person to see it at the time.

Then in a fun turn of events, the theory that Crosby "carried the team" (despite them being a recent Stanley Cup winner) got put to the test. It got blown out of the water on the basis of a .714 winning percentage in a pretty reasonable sample size.

 

[Regal]

Your comparison between that and the Pens adding Malkin and Staal is gibberish.

Between 18-19 and 19-10 it was basically the same players, the same coach and the same scheme - mere Months apart. You think they all just flipped a switch and they all sucked when Crosby was there but they were all magically great without him a few Months later? That is unlikely.

Nevermind that Crosby was given huge amounts of credit for defensive assignments that he didn’t have. 34 of the homers in the media claimed Sidney Crosby was the best defensive forward in all of hockey that season - better than Bergeron, Couturier, Barkov, Stone, etc. That is a le bad hot take.

The Canadian media exaggerations were was obvious in real time. Crosby's offense wasn't good enough to be supporting their claims so they pumped up a myth of defense to compensate. I wasn't remotely the only person to see it at the time.

Then in a fun turn of events, the theory that Crosby "carried the team" (despite them being a recent Stanley Cup winner) got put to the test. It got blown out of the water on the basis of a .714 winning percentage in a pretty reasonable sample size.

I’ve already gone over this. Players play differently in different years. Shocking I know. It’s embarrassing that you’d think a lot of the same players can’t drastically play better or worse the following year. I wonder what happened in Vancouver this year then. Or New Jersey last year.

Malkin was a way better player the following year after being a liability defensively in 18-19 (38 points in 26 games during this period and +10 after being barely over PPG and a heavy minus in 18-19), Rust was much better (31 points in 25 games during this period after scoring 35 TOTAL the year before), and Jarry had an elite save percentage over that small sample (he went 14-3-1 with a .932 SV%). Among other changes. Your argument is pure trash. It’s the one that is gibberish and it’s sad because you used to actually make real arguments that pushed back against the Crosby love fest, but now it’s just this useless junk thrown at the wall that’s pure nonsense. You’re smart enough to understand the usefulness of variance in small samples but you ignore all this because of your massive bias. The Caps went 7-2-1 without Ovechkin in 09-10. I guess he should give back the Hart from 08-09 when basically the same core had a .658 winning percentage the year before. Or maybe, just maybe, this argument is shit.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I’ve already gone over this. Players play differently in different years. Shocking I know. It’s embarrassing that you’d think a lot of the same players can’t drastically play better or worse the following year. I wonder what happened in Vancouver this year then. Or New Jersey last year. Malkin was a way better player the following year after being a liability defensively in 18-19, Rust was much better and Jarry had an elite save percentage over that small sample. Your argument is pure trash. It’s the one that is gibberish and it’s sad because you used to actually make real arguments that pushed back against the Crosby love fest, but now it’s just this useless junk thrown at the wall that’s pure nonsense. The Caps went 7-2-1 without Ovechkin in 09-10. I guess he should give back the Hart from 08-09 when basically the same core had a .658 winning percentage the year before. Or maybe, just maybe, this argument is shit.

Yes, different players have up and down years but the Crosby narrative in 18-19 was quite exaggerated. You can't "carry" a team that has 4 other players near a PPG.

 

[Regal]

Yes, different players have up and down years but the Crosby narrative in 18-19 was quite exaggerated. You can't "carry" a team that has 4 other players near a PPG.

I mean every carry narrative is exaggerated. If guys like Lemieux and McDavid can’t carry their teams to the playoffs during some of their great years then everyone needs help. Guentzel was a strong linemate and Letang had a good year and the team generally had solid goaltending. But Malkin and Kessel were terrible defensively despite their point totals that year and the team lacked depth. They had a 59% GF with Crosby on the ice at ES and a 49% GF% without. And while Crosby’s defensive game is overrated that was the one year where he actually did a strong job limiting chances at 5v5 by every advanced metric (though perhaps this was inflated by how bad Malkin and Kessel were without him).

The reality is, he and Marchand were the top 2 scorers to make the playoffs after the Hart winner, and Marchand had better linemates even if they missed some games, so Crosby ended up a weaker number 2. If you don’t want to vote for players who miss the playoffs as many voters don’t, then I don’t see his placement as anything out of the ordinary. Like anything it just has to be taken with the context that it’s not as strong as many other second place Hart finishes, or even third place finishes like this season or even Crosby himself in 09-10.

Anyway, this is all off topic from the thread, but the point is that the value of a season should be determined based on what happens in that year, just as you have here by mentioning other players scoring PPG and critiquing the defensive value. Similarly you can see that Malkin and Staal were big factors in the Pens success in 06-07 and it wasn’t just Crosby. There’s too many variables to start comparing across seasons. He was a worthy Hart winner in ‘07, but a clearly inferior player in this comparison.

 

[MartinS82]

Crosby fan, but gotta go OV here.

 

[tabness]

love the series @blundluntman but you inadvertantly created another Crosby vs Ovechkin topic here lol

 

[blundluntman]

love the series @blundluntman but you inadvertantly created another Crosby vs Ovechkin topic here lol

I'd be lying if I told you I didn't have it in the back of my mind when I did this round's matchups lol

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Easily Ovi

 

[Midnight Judges]

I mean every carry narrative is exaggerated.

That doesn't make it any less false.