Should NHL awards and All-Star selections factor in the Playoffs?

[Jetsfan79]

This probably won’t be a popular opinion, but to me, it makes logical sense. It will likely never happen because the sports world as a whole doesn’t operate this way—but I think it should.

In my opinion, all player awards and All-Star ( edit: all star game) selections should be based on the entire season, not just the regular season. Why? Ask yourself this: what is the purpose of awards?

The answer is to recognize and reward people for exemplary performance. So why are most awards based only on the regular season? The common argument is that the regular season makes up the bulk of the schedule, which is true—but to me, that’s like giving out academic awards while ignoring the final exams. It just doesn’t make sense.

In a way, every NHL regular-season award should be viewed similarly to the Presidents' Trophy. And we all know how much less weight that holds compared to the Stanley Cup.

Now, we could still have separate awards for the playoffs and the regular season, but I think the best approach would be a weighted system that factors in both the long, grueling regular season and the playoffs together.

The same logic applies to All-Star game selections. Instead of picking All-Stars at the halfway point, why not wait until the end of the playoffs and hold the All-Star Game either before the next season or midway through the following season? Right now, if someone tells me a player was at the 1987 All-Star Game, all that really means is they had a great first half of that season. From a historical perspective, does that really make sense?

I get that logistics, tradition, equal participation requirements and familiarity would likely prevent this from ever happening, but to me, it just makes too much sense.

Click to read more...

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

No, but they could always make playoff versions of all of the bigger awards, and not just the MVP.

 

[Incognito]

No. The best players on the best teams would end up winning a disproportionate amount of the time (even more than they already do), since the odds of receiving an award would be stacked in favour of players on elite teams that go deeper into the playoffs. And deserving players on weaker teams would routinely get robbed through no fault of their own.

 

[Regal]

I wouldn’t be opposed to an end of year MVP after the other awards I guess, but I don’t think we should based current awards on the playoffs. Still, it’s a bit like the arguments for adding another trophy for defensemen in that you’re going to end up with a lot of overlapping winners

 

[Toby91ca]

The answer is to recognize and reward people for exemplary performance. So why are most awards based only on the regular season? The common argument is that the regular season makes up the bulk of the schedule, which is true—but to me, that’s like giving out academic awards while ignoring the final exams. It just doesn’t make sense.

That absolutely isn't the reason and the analogy to academic awards while ignoring final exams doesn't make sense....do half the students skip final exams?

The reason "individual awards" are based on regular season is because is the only way each individual player is given an equal opportunity to compete. How can you assess a player on the weakest team vs. a player on the best team in the league?

Even if you tried to rationalize why it makes sense, it would still default to guys going deep in the playoffs because of recency and more constant eyeballs on the guy.

 

[Voight]

No, but they could always make playoff versions of all of the bigger awards, and not just the MVP.

I'd be against it. I thought it was really dumb when the NBA introduced MVPs for the conference finals. MLB did it because playoffs were only two rounds at the time (conference finals and championship)

 

[LPHabsFan]

The whole point is that these awards are based on the expectation that it's an even playing field (82 games). For the same reason that people get discounted for getting injured and not playing a full year, a player shouldn't get extra credit because his team happened to play an extra X number of games.

There's also a larger element of recency bias if you include the playoffs, which is why the voting on those things happens after the season is done and not closer to the awards date.

This is also why they created the Conne Smythe, but I also wouldn't be opposed to them having "lesser" playoff awards like the playoff equivalent of a Vezina/Norris. Maybe also a Ted Lindsay Award equivalent?

 

[Golden_Jet]

No, would never happen

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I'd be against it. I thought it was really dumb when the NBA introduced MVPs for the conference finals. MLB did it because playoffs were only two rounds at the time (conference finals and championship)

I don't think that Best Defenseman and Best Goalie for the playoffs would hurt anything.

 

[Jetsfan79]

That absolutely isn't the reason and the analogy to academic awards while ignoring final exams doesn't make sense....do half the students skip final exams?

The reason "individual awards" are based on regular season is because is the only way each individual player is given an equal opportunity to compete. How can you assess a player on the weakest team vs. a player on the best team in the league?

Even if you tried to rationalize why it makes sense, it would still default to guys going deep in the playoffs because of recency and more constant eyeballs on the guy.

The academic analogy still holds because the idea is about measuring a full body of work, not just part of it. In school, final exams are included in a student’s overall grade because they test performance under pressure, just like the playoffs do in hockey.

As for fairness, I get the concern about players on weaker teams having fewer or no playoff games, but that doesn’t mean the current system is the best one. Right now, we already acknowledge that certain players benefit (or suffer) based on team situations—whether it’s linemates, coaching, or system fit. Yet, we still evaluate them.

A weighted system could account for this, ensuring playoff performance is factored in without completely overshadowing regular-season contributions. Why should a player who dominates in the most crucial moments of the season be ignored just because their regular-season stats were slightly lower? It’s about recognizing the best performances when they matter most. Recency bias can be counteracted if the selection criteria is enforced with balance. And even if it doesn't fully, leaning or tipping the scales towards an effective playoff performer ' to me that would nt be the end of the world IMO.

Also, Isn't allstar selections already recency bias based on performance on the 1st half only?

 

[Neil Racki]

No

 

[Rec T]

A weighted system could account for this...

If you have to make something really complicated to prove your point ... well, you've proved it but not in the way you were intending to...

 

[Golden_Jet]

The academic analogy still holds because the idea is about measuring a full body of work, not just part of it. In school, final exams are included in a student’s overall grade because they test performance under pressure, just like the playoffs do in hockey.

As for fairness, I get the concern about players on weaker teams having fewer or no playoff games, but that doesn’t mean the current system is the best one. Right now, we already acknowledge that certain players benefit (or suffer) based on team situations—whether it’s linemates, coaching, or system fit. Yet, we still evaluate them.

A weighted system could account for this, ensuring playoff performance is factored in without completely overshadowing regular-season contributions. Why should a player who dominates in the most crucial moments of the season be ignored just because their regular-season stats were slightly lower? It’s about recognizing the best performances when they matter most. Recency bias can be counteracted if the selection criteria is enforced with balance. And even if it doesn't fully, leaning or tipping the scales towards an effective playoff performer ' to me that would nt be the end of the world IMO.

Also, Isn't allstar selections already recency bias based on performance on the 1st half only?

The acedemic analogy does not hold water, otherwise 1/2 the students wouldn’t be writing final exams.

Half the students would be finishing school 2 months before the other half of the students.

The all star selection was referencing first team and second team all stars, from the end of the season.
Not for the rinky dink game, where every team needs to be represented.

No other league waits until playoffs are over, I don’t see the NHL setting a new precedent, that doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Jetsfan79]

If you have to make something really complicated to prove your point ... well, you've proved it but not in the way you were intending to...

Guy has 40 regular season goals and 70 poinds but disappears in the playoffs. ...Another guy has 30 goals 60 points in reg season and also played well and at that pace in the playoffs. IF both are up for an offensive minded award , I'd probably go with the 2nd player. Now if the regular season guy had 60 goals , 100 points but misses the playoffs, I d likly go with him because of the disparity . His massive reg season performance would supercede. I don't think it's too complicated to weigh in on the entire body of work with (some) extra credence on the games that matter most.

 

[benfranklin]

Yes/no, Hart and Norris should be for playoff players only, but I dont want McDavids 150+ point season to not giv him the MVP because they got knocked out prematurely.

Spo some awards you only get if your team makes the playoffs.

 

[TMLeafer]

No, but wouldn't mind a couple of additional playoff performance awards. Although, that's what makes the Conn Smythe so valuable, that it's the only playoff player award.

 

[Jetsfan79]

The acedemic analogy does not hold water, otherwise 1/2 the students wouldn’t be writing final exams.

Half the students would be finishing school 2 months before the other half of the students.

The all star selection was referencing first team and second team all stars, from the end of the season.
Not for the rinky dink game, where every team needs to be represented.

No other league waits until playoffs are over, I don’t see the NHL setting a new precedent, that doesn’t make any sense.

The academic analogy is about evaluating a full body of work, not making an exact 1:1 comparison to how students take exams. The key point is that the playoffs are a crucial part of the season, just like final exams are a crucial part of a student’s performance evaluation. Ignoring them when handing out individual awards is like grading students only on their coursework and ignoring how they handle high-pressure testing situations.

As for fairness, yes, not every player gets the same number of playoff games—but that’s also true for regular-season stats. Some players miss games due to injury, and others benefit from stronger teams or easier schedules. Yet, we still assess them fairly within context. A weighted system could do the same for playoffs without unfairly punishing players on weaker teams.

Regarding All-Star selections, ,why not include playoff performances to ensure the best players of the entire season are recognized? If a player dominates the postseason but wasn't outstanding in the first half, shouldn't that matter?

Finally, just because no other league does something doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. The NHL has broken precedent before—whether it was introducing the shootout, expanding video review, or changing playoff formats. If something makes sense, tradition alone shouldn’t prevent innovation. But yeah as I said off the top, people would resist this change. Thats probably because peaple are used to it.

Fundamentally , nothing wrong if one chose a player to win an award ( under my hypothetical scenerio) who was a playoff difference maker if the other player was very similar but tanked in the playoffs. I don't think we would hear uproar from people saying the playoff tanking player was robbed because he had somewhat better reg stats.

 

[Golden_Jet]

School analogy is just a poor one,

Regarding All-Star selections, ,why not include playoff performances to ensure the best players of the entire season are recognized? If a player dominates the postseason but wasn't outstanding in the first half, shouldn't that matter?

Did you read what I said about all stars, it’s not about the game in February as you assumed. That is not what they are voting on.

 

[Devilmademedoit]

This probably won’t be a popular opinion, but to me, it makes logical sense. It will likely never happen because the sports world as a whole doesn’t operate this way—but I think it should.

In my opinion, all player awards and All-Star selections should be based on the entire season, not just the regular season. Why? Ask yourself this: what is the purpose of awards?

The answer is to recognize and reward people for exemplary performance. So why are most awards based only on the regular season? The common argument is that the regular season makes up the bulk of the schedule, which is true—but to me, that’s like giving out academic awards while ignoring the final exams. It just doesn’t make sense.

In a way, every NHL regular-season award should be viewed similarly to the Presidents' Trophy. And we all know how much less weight that holds compared to the Stanley Cup.

Now, we could still have separate awards for the playoffs and the regular season, but I think the best approach would be a weighted system that factors in both the long, grueling regular season and the playoffs together.

The same logic applies to All-Star selections. Instead of picking All-Stars at the halfway point, why not wait until the end of the playoffs and hold the All-Star Game either before the next season or midway through the following season? Right now, if someone tells me a player was a 1987 All-Star, all that really means is they had a great first half of that season. From a historical perspective, does that really make sense?

I get that logistics, tradition, and familiarity would likely prevent this from ever happening, but to me, it just makes too much sense.

NO.

 

[Jetsfan79]

Did you read what I said about all stars, it’s not about the game in February as you assumed. That is not what they are voting on.

Agreed to disagree on the school analogy. Far point on the allstar selections. But if your going to showcase the best "all stars" in a game, I till say the playoff success should be factored for players represented for the game itself. if a player that had a great regular season but a Stanley Cup winning goal or performance pushed him or elevated him to being an allstar, wouldn't hockey fans be excited on seeing that player live in an allstar game?

 

[Toby91ca]

Also, Isn't allstar selections already recency bias based on performance on the 1st half only?

1 - who cares about all star games....does anyone look at all star selections and use that as a check mark that one player is better than another

2 - recency bias, but bias applies to every player in the league as you are looking at same time period.

3 - if you are referencing 1st team all stars and 2nd team all stars....that's end of season.

4 - recency bias I was referencing, if you vote right after the cup is awarded, the guys that played in the finals you would have been watching constantly, way more than during regular season for the past 2 months....of course you'll consider what happened during the season, but it would be hard to get past what's in your head.

 

[Habs Halifax]

NO. Not fair to someone like Werenski if the Jackets miss the playoffs.

What I would like to happen is way more bonus money for winning awards. Like a lot! Players take base salaries (more than what we see today) and how they even out the 50/50 revenue split is to award the Art Ross Trophy winner $5M+ (for example).

Way too many players who become complacent once they get their big deal with guaranteed money

 

[rogking65]

The academic analogy is about evaluating a full body of work, not making an exact 1:1 comparison to how students take exams. The key point is that the playoffs are a crucial part of the season, just like final exams are a crucial part of a student’s performance evaluation. Ignoring them when handing out individual awards is like grading students only on their coursework and ignoring how they handle high-pressure testing situations.

As for fairness, yes, not every player gets the same number of playoff games—but that’s also true for regular-season stats. Some players miss games due to injury, and others benefit from stronger teams or easier schedules. Yet, we still assess them fairly within context. A weighted system could do the same for playoffs without unfairly punishing players on weaker teams.

Regarding All-Star selections, ,why not include playoff performances to ensure the best players of the entire season are recognized? If a player dominates the postseason but wasn't outstanding in the first half, shouldn't that matter?

Finally, just because no other league does something doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. The NHL has broken precedent before—whether it was introducing the shootout, expanding video review, or changing playoff formats. If something makes sense, tradition alone shouldn’t prevent innovation. But yeah as I said off the top, people would resist this change. Thats probably because peaple are used to it.

Fundamentally , nothing wrong if one chose a player to win an award ( under my hypothetical scenerio) who was a playoff difference maker if the other player was very similar but tanked in the playoffs. I don't think we would hear uproar from people saying the playoff tanking player was robbed because he had somewhat better reg stats.

the all star selections and the all star game are 2 different things ,in case you do not know

 

[Golden_Jet]

NO. Not fair to someone like Werenski if the Jackets miss the playoffs.

What I would like to happen is way more bonus money for winning awards. Like a lot! Players take base salaries (more than what we see today) and how they even out the 50/50 revenue split is to award the Art Ross Trophy winner $5M+ (for example).

Way too many players who become complacent once they get their big deal with guaranteed money

So you would need to lower the cap number, to give players a big bonus for winning a trophy.

 

[Habs Halifax]

So you would need to lower the cap number, to give players a big bonus for winning a trophy.

More than one way to do it but yeah, something like that. Imagine the level of competition with big award bonuses?

Players won't vote for it because they are greedy and good luck getting the majority of them to agree. They prefer their "guaranteed money". I agree they are the product but something has to be done with players who become complacent on 8 year deals. Don't train as hard, etc. Look at Pettersson this year

I agree with the 50/50 slit between owners and players but I prefer an adjustment to how that portion is handed out to the players. I really don't like players who go after max deals and then never live up to it. That really hurts the team