NHL.com Trophy Tracker - Hart Trophy

[JeffreyLFC]

Josi take the podium!

 

[authentic]

I wasn't aware of McDavid's low OISH% but I'd say it's an interesting statistic that warrants discussion. The only people I see openly discrediting advanced metrics in this thread are Oilers fans.

He has 10 empty net points and spends a minute more per game on the powerplay than Matthews though. Probably evens out.

 

[Cup or Bust]

Yes, he does have worse luck. That is exactly what I am saying. He is not the proximate cause of most of the goals against, yet if you only look at plus/minus, you would think he is.

You're using plus/minus to assign credit/blame on a player's defensive play. Except plus/minus does not accurately reflect what a player does defensively (or offensively). The logic of being bad defensively is thus: poor defensive ability, leads to greater chances against, which leads to greater goals against, which leads to worse plus/minus.

You're right, each point in that chain is affected by other factors. So why are you looking at the endpoint in the chain, which is affected by highest degree of factors external to the individual player? Yes, Matthews has a lot of goals against, which leads to a worse plus/minus. The cause of that, if he were bad defensively, would be because he concedes more scoring chances against. Yet that is the opposite of what is happening with Matthews on the ice. His team concedes fewer scoring chances. So if he's conceding fewer chances, why are more goals going in against him? I would say because the goaltending has been sub-par. So yes, I would conclude he has been on the unlucky end of disastrous goaltending, which the Leafs have received for the better part of 5 months.

I am not saying he is bad defensively. I think he is better than McDavid defensively. I was debating his so called elite defensive play that gives him an obvious separation between himself and other players in overall performance. The Oilers have had lousy defensive play and goaltending for years. McDavid has been able to have a pretty good plus minus in spite of that. Even if you want to sum it up to luck based on certain advanced stats metrics, when certain results trend in the same direction over multiple seasons, higher goal differentials and yet lower plus minus ratings then other players I think it makes it difficult to use defensive play as some kind of separation. There are always exceptions to the rule but I would expect an elite defensive player to have a higher plus minus on a team with a higher goal differential, especially if we are talking over multiple seasons. It can't be all bad luck. Ryan O'Reilly is considered an elite defensive forward and he is +26, best on his team. Barkov +31. Now if they played on teams that only had goal differentials of +10, I wouldn't expect that. That is not to say I judge everything based on plus minus, I am just explaining the context I am using it here. You are very welcome to disagree though and that is fine.

 

[bossram]

If we're going by xGA rather than GA to justify Matthews' defensive woes, are we not going to take into account McDavid's historically low OISH% or the discrepancy between his xGF and actual GF?

The inconsistency we're seeing here to bring down McDavid is hilarious. He's the leading point scorer in the NHL and is playing a great two-way game, dragging a mediocre team to the playoffs. That's the definition of a Hart winner.

Absolutely should. McDavid has been otherworldly offensively and probably should have more points, crazy as it is to say.

But it's the same people here disparaging any "advanced" stats when they go against their narrative, but openly accepting ones that support them.

I would put Matthews at 1 (because I think goal-scoring is more "valuable" and his defensive play has been superior). But McDavid has a very good argument too, and they should be 1-2 regardless.

I've been in this thread making long posts refuting the "lolz Matttthews bad defensively, so many goals against" argument which has been repeated ad nauseum by biased posters, despite being an extreme misrepresentation of his play.

 

[bossram]

I am not saying he is bad defensively. I think he is better than McDavid defensively. I was debating his so called elite defensive play that gives him an obvious separation between himself and other players in overall performance. The Oilers have had lousy defensive play and goaltending for years. McDavid has been able to have a pretty good plus minus in spite of that. Even if you want to sum it up to luck based on certain advanced stats metrics, when certain results trend in the same direction over multiple seasons, higher goal differentials and yet lower plus minus ratings then other players I think it makes it difficult to use defensive play as some kind of separation. There are always exceptions to the rule but I would expect an elite defensive player to have a higher plus minus on a team with a higher goal differential, especially if we are talking over multiple seasons. It can't be all bad luck. Ryan O'Reilly is considered an elite defensive forward and he is +26, best on his team. Barkov +31. Now if they played on teams that only had goal differentials of +10, I wouldn't expect that. That is not to say I judge everything based on plus minus, I am just explaining the context I am using it here. You are very welcome to disagree though and that is fine.

1. Honestly, for me, plus/minus is just a completely useless stat. I would not cite it in any argument for any player whatsoever. It doesn't even do what it purports to do (measure even-strength goal differential) because it mixes pieces of special teams and empty-net situations into it. It's just not representative. At least look at raw 5v5 goal differential then.

2. This isn't an "over the years" argument. Over the body of their careers, I think everybody but the most homer of Leafs fans would conclude that McDavid is better. But this is a Hart Trophy discussion. It's one season. And Matthews has taken his play to new levels this season. Defensively and in terms of pure goal-scoring. Which is why he's the current Hart favourite.

 

[Joe n]

Goaltending would be a factor but it wouldn’t make you bottom 5 worst lmfao they wouldn’t even be in a playoff spot if it was that bad

The Leafs have the 2nd worst save percentage in the league since Jan1.

 

[Cup or Bust]

1. Honestly, for me, plus/minus is just a completely useless stat. I would not cite it in any argument for any player whatsoever. It doesn't even do what it purports to do (measure even-strength goal differential) because it mixes pieces of special teams and empty-net situations into it. It's just not representative. At least look at raw 5v5 goal differential then.

2. This isn't an "over the years" argument. Over the body of their careers, I think everybody but the most homer of Leafs fans would conclude that McDavid is better. But this is a Hart Trophy discussion. It's one season. And Matthews has taken his play to new levels this season. Defensively and in terms of pure goal-scoring. Which is why he's the current Hart favourite.

Well you can think what you want and we can disagree. I think we are at a stalemate at this point anyway. I think Matthews is likely to win it but he is certainly not the most valuable player to his team in the league, there is no doubt about that.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I'm not so sure. Not taking anything away from him because he's had a great year...

But what if Sutter wasn't there?

They literally have a negative goal differential without him at 5v5.

 

[Dust]

1. Honestly, for me, plus/minus is just a completely useless stat. I would not cite it in any argument for any player whatsoever. It doesn't even do what it purports to do (measure even-strength goal differential) because it mixes pieces of special teams and empty-net situations into it. It's just not representative. At least look at raw 5v5 goal differential then.

2. This isn't an "over the years" argument. Over the body of their careers, I think everybody but the most homer of Leafs fans would conclude that McDavid is better. But this is a Hart Trophy discussion. It's one season. And Matthews has taken his play to new levels this season. Defensively and in terms of pure goal-scoring. Which is why he's the current Hart favourite.

I think you're partially correct here. Used without any sort of context, it's useless. Comparing Makar with Chyrchun based on their +/- would be dumb. Used within the context of one's team, I think there is some value in it.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

He has 10 empty net points and spends a minute more per game on the powerplay than Matthews though. Probably evens out.

People don’t give a shit about empty net points.

 

[authentic]

People don’t give a shit about empty net points.

Then why so upset about it?

 

[bossram]

Well you can think what you want and we can disagree. I think we are at a stalemate at this point anyway. I think Matthews is likely to win it but he is certainly not the most valuable player to his team in the league, there is no doubt about that.

I mean, it's obviously not "certainly". That's why there is a discussion.

I've used pretty clear logic and evidence on my part.

 

[bossram]

I think you're partially correct here. Used without any sort of context, it's useless. Comparing Makar with Chyrchun based on their +/- would be dumb. Used within the context of one's team, I think there is some value in it.

There is probably some minutiae of value. But why look at plus/minus when there are other metrics that just do a better job of measuring the outcome that plus/minus apparently tries to measure?

Want to know a player's goal differential at even strength? Just look at even-strength goal differential. Want to see if they give up short-handed goals or empty-net goals? Just look at those. Want a total value stat? Look at WAR. I wouldn't put much stock into any purely goal-based stat, but they're all at least better than plus/minus at measuring what you actually want to measure.

Plus/minus is just an incoherent mash-up of different strength states, but only counting some goals and not others. It doesn't make sense and shouldn't be referenced at all.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

The two previous seasons:

5v5:

McDavid:
Shots against/60: 32.18
xGA/60: 2.64
GA/60: 3.19

Matthews:
Shots against/60: 27.38
xGA/60: 2.19
GA/60: 2.16

This season:

McDavid:
Shots against/60: 30
xGA/60: 2.43
GA/60: 2.33

Matthews:
Shots against/60: 26.5
xGA/60: 2.03
GA/60: 3.23

Just judging McDavid on his previous seasons would give you a false sense of what he was as well. Goaltending really messes up trying to evaluate players with goals against which is why almost no one serious does it.

I think shots against is probably the best metric to use generally as it takes out the spooky nature of xGA and is tracks close enough to xGA to satisfy those that take the more modern approach.

IMO, scoring chances against and high danger chances against are probably better simply because there's a higher chance of being scored against giving up a lot of those versus giving up a lot of random point shots or shots from far out. Though both can be heavily influenced by the style of defense a team plays and make a player look worse than he is defensively.

Take a team like the Islanders under Trotz. They don't mind giving up 30+ shots per game from the perimeter. Their defensive approach is to collapse in front and make sure they take away rebound opportunities and in-close second chances. So someone doing a solid job defensively for them might have a mediocre SA/60, while having pretty strong SCA/60 and HDCA/60 metrics due to how the team plays.

But then there's the opposite situation where a team like Carolina plays defense with a more aggressive approach. They limit shots against because their players will attack the opposition to limit their time and space. But the downside to being aggressive is it leads to more odd man rushes or more wide open chances in the slot, thus a player playing well defensively for Carolina could have a low SA/60 and even SCA/60, but a high HDCA/60.

 

[Cup or Bust]

I mean, it's obviously not "certainly". That's why there is a discussion.

I've used pretty clear logic and evidence on my part.

delete

 

[Zybalto]

IMO, scoring chances against and high danger chances against are probably better simply because there's a higher chance of being scored against giving up a lot of those versus giving up a lot of random point shots or shots from far out. Though both can be heavily influenced by the style of defense a team plays and make a player look worse than he is defensively.

Take a team like the Islanders under Trotz. They don't mind giving up 30+ shots per game from the perimeter. Their defensive approach is to collapse in front and make sure they take away rebound opportunities and in-close second chances. So someone doing a solid job defensively for them might have a mediocre SA/60, while having pretty strong SCA/60 and HDCA/60 metrics due to how the team plays.

But then there's the opposite situation where a team like Carolina plays defense with a more aggressive approach. They limit shots against because their players will attack the opposition to limit their time and space. But the downside to being aggressive is it leads to more odd man rushes or more wide open chances in the slot, thus a player playing well defensively for Carolina could have a low SA/60 and even SCA/60, but a high HDCA/60.

I'm down with a combination of shots, scoring chances, high danger chances and xGA and then averaging those out to try and get an accurate representation to compensate for the different (but still very effective) styles but I was just sort of reaching for something as concrete as a shot to try and bridge the gap for those untrusting in the more subjective stats.

 

[JadedLeaf]

Because it's significantly harder to do. It's a set frame of games, the other is a rolling slider of games. Both are impressive, but doing it in the first 50 is much more difficult.

It's more difficult because of luck, not skill. It's literally the same skill wise.

 

[kevsh]

There's an award for defense, and one for goalies. Personally, I only would back one of them winning the Hart if their season was just ridiculous. As in "one for the ages" good. Otherwise take the Norris or Vezina and be happy with it.

So yeah, I would be pretty shocked if one of McD, Draisaitl, Auston, Johnny, Hub didn't win it.

But it's Auston's to lose at this point.
As much as the rest of Canada will hate it, unless something dramatic happens over the past 10 games, AM34 is going to get the Rocket & Hart. And then in the post-season, if the Leafs flop again, you'll get your revenge watching Leafs fans' dreams get shattered yet again.

 

[Maplebeasts]

In Matthews' last 25 games he has an .810 save percentage 5 on 5. Over that stretch his Gf% at 5 on 5 STILL breaks 60%.

edit: I see someone put up the tweet like 2 pages ago. My b. Super cool anyways.

 

[authentic]

In Matthews' last 25 games he has an .810 save percentage 5 on 5. Over that stretch his Gf% at 5 on 5 STILL breaks 60%.

edit: I see someone put up the tweet like 2 pages ago. My b. Super cool anyways.

That's astonishing.

 

[Darren McCord]

As in "one for the ages" good. Otherwise take the Norris or Vezina and be happy with it.

Josi is about to have the best season by a defensemen in the last 30 years.

It’s one for the ages.

And there’s an award for being good at offense. It’s called the art Ross. Take it and be happy with it.

 

[authentic]

It's more difficult because of luck, not skill. It's literally the same skill wise.

There's no modern 50 in 50 to compare to anyway so I don't get why anyone would have an issue with whether it's from the beginning of the season or not. The fact that all the other 50 in 50s official or not came in higher scoring seasons or were from WW2 is all you really need to know.

 

[McShogun99]

Expectations are so high for Mcdavid that he’ll finish this season with 125-130 points and be 10ish points ahead of the next non Oiler and not even be considered a top 3 candidate for the Hart this year.

Matthews will finish with 60-65 goals and be the favorite.

Huberdeau is having one of the best LW seasons in NHL history.

Josi is having one of the best offensive D points since the early 90’s.

Shesterkin is having a prime Hasek like season.

This season is crazy and fun to watch everything unfold.

 

[BlueBaron]

Expectations are so high for Mcdavid that he’ll finish this season with 125-130 points and be 10ish points ahead of the next non Oiler and not even be considered a top 3 candidate for the Hart this year.

Matthews will finish with 60-65 goals and be the favorite.

Huberdeau is having one of the best LW seasons in NHL history.

Josi is having one of the best offensive D points since the early 90’s.

Shesterkin is having a prime Hasek like season.

This season is crazy and fun to watch everything unfold.

I think it's easy to say it's historic and special. Even if next year we have 3 100 point D men and 3 60 goal scorers this will be the year the mayhem really began.

 

[Macheteops]

Expectations are so high for Mcdavid that he’ll finish this season with 125-130 points and be 10ish points ahead of the next non Oiler and not even be considered a top 3 candidate for the Hart this year.

Matthews will finish with 60-65 goals and be the favorite.

Huberdeau is having one of the best LW seasons in NHL history.

Josi is having one of the best offensive D points since the early 90’s.

Shesterkin is having a prime Hasek like season.

This season is crazy and fun to watch everything unfold.

As someone mentioned McDavid also has to compete against himself. He isn’t going to meet his expectations that a lot predicted

I don’t understand how Huberdeau is a favourite over a few forwards that are having better years on a much worse team

Should be Matthews right now