- Oct 23, 2014
- 29,721
- 42,023
The 'best player' vs 'most valuable to team' problem.
- Thread starter Filthy Dangles
- Start date
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,052
- 29,887
The best player in the league is most valuable. Confusion only sets in when someone has an agenda.
Taylor Hall is the exact definition of MVP. I don't see how anyone could argue against a guy who has a 27 point lead (while missing 5 games) on the next highest scorer on his team. He has a 35 point lead on the 3rd leading scorer. The Devils are in a playoff spot and would likely be one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL without him.
However, he is far down the scoring and doesn't have a big name. The award will go to Kucherov most likely unless McDavid goes on a tear and wills Edmonton to the playoffs. There are some other good candidates like Wheeler, Mackinnon, etc. but Hall is very clearly the "most valuable player to his team".
Kucherov should get the Lindsay, which is not really punishing him. Also, this is all as of right now, things could easily change.
However, he is far down the scoring and doesn't have a big name. The award will go to Kucherov most likely unless McDavid goes on a tear and wills Edmonton to the playoffs. There are some other good candidates like Wheeler, Mackinnon, etc. but Hall is very clearly the "most valuable player to his team".
Kucherov should get the Lindsay, which is not really punishing him. Also, this is all as of right now, things could easily change.
Hart trophy is a joke... Taylor Hall is mentioned it for being "best on his team", while not being top10 player in league... Sorry, that should never be considered MVP trophy... Gave him the trophy for being "best for his team", and make real MVP trophy- for best player...
Lindsay is flawed too, because its the players vote... Some people say players are most competent people to vote, but it doesn't have to be excatly true... See soccer awards "voted by players", and its even bigger joke than writers (although in 2013 players corrected the travesty wich was giving MVP to Ovechkin, and voted for actually best player in the league...). Plus players tend to be terribly biased.
The most competent people voting would be coaches/GMs, because its their job to evaluate the talent, but again- there's high risk they could be biased...
Lindsay is flawed too, because its the players vote... Some people say players are most competent people to vote, but it doesn't have to be excatly true... See soccer awards "voted by players", and its even bigger joke than writers (although in 2013 players corrected the travesty wich was giving MVP to Ovechkin, and voted for actually best player in the league...). Plus players tend to be terribly biased.
The most competent people voting would be coaches/GMs, because its their job to evaluate the talent, but again- there's high risk they could be biased...
our best player is matthews but our most valuable player is andersen
KingsFan7824
Registered User
The best player that year, or the best player period? Could be two different guys.
Trophies are awarded for the year, so its naturally "best player that year"... Does it matter, anyway??? Hall and McKinnon never were best players any particular year, nor best players period...
- I don't understand how you can say Taylor Hall is not a top 10 player this season. The guy is 14th in points (6th in PPG) on a team that has very little help offensively. NJ only has one other player who is in the top 100 in points (Hischier who is 97th). If Hall had even a top 50 point producer he would probably be closer to the top. He is also +12 on a team that has a negative goal differential.
- In 2013, I think there is a reason there was a very close vote. Crosby had the same amount of points as Ovi, and played 12 fewer games. Unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't understand how it was so clear Ovi was the best player.
The Lindsay and/or Hart voters usually get it right. Has there really been a recent vote that went the way of a Taylor Hall type performance? The only real consideration is usuallt centred around whether a team made the playoffs or not e.g. Benn in 2015 was 12th in Hart voting.
All of this "valuable" player talk is somewhat useless at the end of the day especially when, IMO, the best player brings the most value to their team.
All of this "valuable" player talk is somewhat useless at the end of the day especially when, IMO, the best player brings the most value to their team.
The good ole stacked team argument. Gotta love it.
Did you happen to catch how terrible Tampa looked against Toronto without Kucherov? It was borderline unwatchable. PP was horrific.
Did you happen to catch how terrible Tampa looked against Toronto without Kucherov? It was borderline unwatchable. PP was horrific.
14th in points for purely offensive player is not top10 in my book... At least I wouldn't rank him here...
Maybe I didn't express myself correctly (english is not my first language, sorry...). Crosby was clear cut best player in 2013, and Hart went to Ovi for being "best player on his team")... Lindsay went for right player.
blinds
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2012
- 3,111
- 526
Well, you answered it yourself. Hall is a scoring winger who is 14th in points. He'd need to score more if he were to be a top 10 player since scoring is his only role. Sucks he doesn't have support, but you're not going to get points for something you might have done in a different situation.
Kopitar is scoring more, has just as much separation from the rest of his team and provides a lot more to his team away from the puck, yet he isn't getting nearly as much attention for the Hart. Devils fans just want to pump Hall's tires, I get it, he's having a great season, but it's not Hart worthy.
Ahh gotcha, no worries. I thought you were saying Ovi was clearly the best player.
As for Hall, I think he is a unique case. Maybe someone has some stats of what the biggest gap was between 1st and 2nd on the team in points? I'm assuming there are some wide gaps like Thornton in 2007 (34 points). I'm simply saying he fits the exact definition of being MVP. I see your point though.
I cited he is 6th in PPG because he missed some time. I would certainly rank Hall above some of the guys ahead of him in points, this season. I simply think he has been the most valuable player to his team this season. He is producing at a better rate than 8 of the guys ahead of him, while having less talent on his team. Obviously Crosby > Hall, but in terms of MVP that couldn't be further from the truth IMO.
It doesn’t seem fair to hold it against players that play on good teams. It’s not Kucherov’s fault that there’s other good players on his team. He’s been leading the league in scoring for like 40 games now; I don’t know what else he would have to do to be considered most valuable.
ThatGuy22
Registered User
- Oct 11, 2011
- 10,693
- 4,372
If the Lindsey didn't exist, i'd agree. But why have two of the same trophy(even if voted on by different groups)
Shakey Rustie
Smile
Healthy DiPietro
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2014
- 906
- 594
If you go by the stupid team criteria, McDavid last season would still have won the Hart even if a Caps player added 500 points on top of what the rest of the team already had.
Obviously the Hart is meant for the best player in the league, and not arbitrarily for some guy who happens to be the best player on a team in a very specific situation. The only way a player's team is taken into account is in how much it has helped/hindered his performace.
Obviously the Hart is meant for the best player in the league, and not arbitrarily for some guy who happens to be the best player on a team in a very specific situation. The only way a player's team is taken into account is in how much it has helped/hindered his performace.
exactly.
just because a team has other good players doesn't mean anyone particular player is less valuable to his team, or any other team. it just means his team has many more valuable players.
the Hart is an NHL trophy and goes to the player who has performed the best in that particular year. end of story.
Last edited:
You are correct about Kopitar but you might be underestimating Hall a bit. Watch a Devils game. He’s not the Hall you remember from years past. They eye test suggests he’s playing at essentially an MVP type level. He’s not Kopitar but for this season he’s pretty close in terms of what he brings to his team game in and out.
IceNeophyte
Registered User
- Nov 14, 2017
- 10,052
- 7,345
I also think losing Namestnikov is going to hurt Kuch's performance more than a lot of fans seem to believe.
Psych0dad
Registered User
True. When they attach anything subjective to "best". From dictionary point of view they should be the same thing.
They haven't been playing on the same line most of the time for quite a bit now so...
Psych0dad
Registered User
The objective of the game is to win.
The way to win is to score more than opponent.
This gives us a value system to analyze hockey.
A goal is primary because only goals win games.
Assists and everything else is secondary and complimentary to goal scoring.
In the current point system, the flaw is that assists and goals have same value which is logically false. They don't.
There are 1.7 assists to every one goal. This further complicates things because assists are way more common.
You could count some sort of a more realistic total value by multiplying goals by 1.7 and taking assists as 1.
Or you could do away with the assist points if you're really radical. I'd track them but not count them. Those stats are distracting people from the objective. It should suffice that we track +/- and goals. Because all participants matter.
Right now hart trophy is opinion based, it doesn't have a statistical criteria.
The way to win is to score more than opponent.
This gives us a value system to analyze hockey.
A goal is primary because only goals win games.
Assists and everything else is secondary and complimentary to goal scoring.
In the current point system, the flaw is that assists and goals have same value which is logically false. They don't.
There are 1.7 assists to every one goal. This further complicates things because assists are way more common.
You could count some sort of a more realistic total value by multiplying goals by 1.7 and taking assists as 1.
Or you could do away with the assist points if you're really radical. I'd track them but not count them. Those stats are distracting people from the objective. It should suffice that we track +/- and goals. Because all participants matter.
Right now hart trophy is opinion based, it doesn't have a statistical criteria.
Last edited:
StevenF1919
Registered User
Tampa would be just fine without Kucherov. Where would the Devils be without Hall?
I think best player should generally be the largest factor, with value to team being a bit more or a tie break if players are close. I also tend to think that it's hard to vote a guy who misses the playoffs.
I think the biggest distinction with value tends to be to health though. People have brought up the lockout shortened season, and if it was an award for just best player, Crosby would have ran away with it. The fact that he missed 1/4 of the season is what made it a close vote.
I think the biggest distinction with value tends to be to health though. People have brought up the lockout shortened season, and if it was an award for just best player, Crosby would have ran away with it. The fact that he missed 1/4 of the season is what made it a close vote.
