The 'best player' vs 'most valuable to team' problem.

[kevy999]

Is Kucherov having a better season than McDavid? And I don't think saying Kucherov is better than McDavid is a silly position to take. McDavid was crowned too soon.

yea it is a stupid position to take lol no general manager in the league would choose Kucherov on his team over Mcdavid lol

 

[StoneHands]

The reason the Hart isn't give to the player who is the clear best player on his team is because if you put a better player on that team he would no longer be the best player. Sounds stupid but it's really that simple. Hall is a great hockey player but if you put McDavid, Kucherov, Crosby, or Malkin on that team would he still be an MVP candidate? Probably not. Take Hall and put him on Pittsburgh, Tampa, or Edmonton (funny enough) and he's no longer the best player on his team. You can't just give an MVP award to a player just because the rest of the team sucks, especially if that team doesn't make the playoffs.

 

[george14]

The reason the Hart isn't give to the player who is the clear best player on his team is because if you put a better player on that team he would no longer be the best player. Sounds stupid but it's really that simple. Hall is a great hockey player but if you put McDavid, Kucherov, Crosby, or Malkin on that team would he still be an MVP candidate? Probably not. Take Hall and put him on Pittsburgh, Tampa, or Edmonton (funny enough) and he's no longer the best player on his team. You can't just give an MVP award to a player just because the rest of the team sucks, especially if that team doesn't make the playoffs.

I don't think it's that simple. Especially considering this is a hypothetical.

If said player is the sole reason for the team making the playoffs, then yes, I think he deserves the Hart. Case in point, when you have a guy like Hall leading his team by 30+ points and in a playoff spot, he is going to get strong consideration. The one problem with your example is teams with 2+ great players rack up a ton of PP points because they can have a dominant PP. That isn't Hall's fault.

I see your point though. I don't totally disagree.

 

[djboos22]

MVP should go to the player that if you take him off their team, their team would essentially crumble.

For this Kucherov should not get the Hart, same with Malkin. This will be an unpopular vote, but it’s unfortunate that the Flames aren’t in a better position because Gaudreau should win the Hart IMO, but if the Avs make the playoffs I say NM. But what do I know about watching talent, I’m a Hurricanes fan.

 

[Trap Jesus]

By the definition of the award it should go to a Hall/Mackinnon type (clearly the best player on a fringe playoff team), but it just doesn't get awarded like that. If I had a vote, I'd just go for the best player to make sure my vote wasn't wasted.

 

[NoMessi]

Lets make the point with Kucherov as an example, and not Malkin which I usually do.

If 17-18 Kucherov was swapped for any skater on another team, that team would get better this year. Only exception arguably being Malkin or Mcdavid (HM Kopitar).

And no, Mackinnon did bring ZERO value, Zilch! in the games he didnt play. Just as Kucherov and Malkin didnt bring value in the games they missed.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

Is Kucherov having a better season than McDavid? And I don't think saying Kucherov is better than McDavid is a silly position to take. McDavid was crowned too soon.

That's a weird way to spell "I'm a Lightning fan and I have no plans of looking at things objectively."

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

If it goes to anybody but Hall or MacKinnon, then its a joke as the OP says. The Devils and Avs would be lottery teams if it werent for these two. Where the Penguins and Lightning would still be battling easily in a playoff spot.

 

[Turin]

It is an absurd definition of an award. There is no way to quantify most valuable to a team besides goaltending period. Conor McDavid means everything to the Oilers yet even with him they are bad. It simply is a trophy of perverse incentives if you take it by its definition. The worse your team, the better chance you have if you’re a great player. The greater your team, the worse chance you have.

I want to give MacKinnon the award because he’s probably been the best player, not because Colorado is a worse team than his competitors’ teams.

 

[Evergreen]

The official wording is that the trophy goes to "the player judged most valuable to his team." So that is the standard that should be used.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If a guy like Bergeron gets 85, he should beat someone around 100.

No 15 points is 15 points.

 

[b in vancouver]

If it goes to anybody but Hall or MacKinnon, then its a joke as the OP says. The Devils and Avs would be lottery teams if it werent for these two. Where the Penguins and Lightning would still be battling easily in a playoff spot.

I always find this a strange position to take.
By this logic you'd essentially be narrowing the field to the best player on 5 or 6 fringe playoff teams.

Imagine what that would look like in the record books.
By this logic Wayne Gretzky wouldn't have won one while Dale Hawerchuk, Peter Statsny and Ray Bourque, etc. would've.
I'll give Mario one but wouldn't have won the other two. Pierre Turgeon would've though.
Lafleur wouldn't have won but Perrault would have.
None of Orr and Esposito had each other so they're out. someone on one of the expansion teams would've won it a few years in a row.
Hull and Mikita had each other so they're out.
Sakic and Forsberg had each other, and great teams, so they're out. But Modano probably would've won.
Lindros had his Legion of Doom line mates so he's gone.
Jagr, Fedorov, St. Louis, Crosby, H. Sedin, etc. don't get it as they all were on excellent teams.

Go year to year through the history of the award since expansion, take out players on the best teams, and give it to the best player on a bubble team that would be even worse without him and see what a joke that'd make of The Hart Trophy. Why would you even bother having the award?

 

[The Macho King]

That's a weird way to spell "I'm a Lightning fan and I have no plans of looking at things objectively."

Offensive production over the last two seasons are pretty close. McDavid's last two seasons PPG - 1.22 last season and 1.23 this season. Kucherov's 1.15 and 1.34. It's not like either of these guys are Selke-worthy.

 

[Gabe the Babe]

I look at it this way.

As of today. Mackinnon, Kucherov, McDavid, and Malkin are the best players this year. Offensively at least.

We can argue all day but any of those guys can deserve the title of ‘best player in the NHL’

But of those 4. Two are not necessarily the most valuable player (in my opinion). And even if you feel they are. It’s close. For me Hedman is the best/most valuable Bolt. Stamkos obviously deserves recognition still as well. Crosby is probably not better but still more valuable. He’s taken on the tougher matchups this year but Malkin is on fire.

Mackinnon and McDavid are CLEAR workhorses on their team.

One of those guys is in the playoffs as of today. The other isn’t.

To me. In a close race for ‘best’. There is a very obvious winner for ‘most valuable’.

 

[Lions67]

I would give it to McKinnon.
Hands down!!
Without this guy, the Avs are fighting the Hawks for last in the Central.
With him, they are fighting for a real shot at 3rd!
To me .... THAT!! Says it all!!

 

[GirardSpinorama]

The Hart should be opinion based. Otherwise, whats the point of the Art Ross, the Ted Lindsay? And if it always goes to the guy with the most points, how would a goalie ever win it?