Valuable vs best in MVP voting

[Roomtemperature]

I don't get it. By virtue of being the quote unquote best player you are providing the most value to whatever team you would be on. Now this doesn't mean its the best stats as that can be influenced by your surrounding cast and defensive metrics can factor in too but if someone is clearly the best but the team misses the playoffs cause for the 37 minutes they are not on the ice the team is hot garbage shouldn't be held against the player. It just feels like a reason to have stories and feelings into the race just to make it more interesting or not give it to the same player year after year.

Also if we are talking "value" into account shouldn't we take their cap hit into account with the voting? the 5th best player in the league on a rookie contract is has an edge over the best who takes up the max.

Click to read more...

 

[pi314]

In practice, it usually means “highest scoring player on a playoff team who doesn’t have a teammate too close to them”.

 

[Roomtemperature]

In practice, it usually means “highest scoring player on a playoff team who doesn’t have a teammate too close to them”.

I know but I find it weird when people try to argue the best player shouldn't get it

 

[No Fun Shogun]

My attitude is that MVP's should be judged based on which team is the worst off if you replaced their contending player with a replacement-level player. You could be the best player, but if you're on a stacked team that'd still comfortably make the playoffs then you're invariably less valuable than a player that is borderline the sole reason they're a playoff contender to begin with. And that's doubly the case if a single team supposedly has two MVP contenders. Take away one, and you still have another, right?

And I recognize that it's all subjective, but it's not like we're talking about the Rocket which is for the objective highest scorer. Everyone's opinion of most valuable player would vary on any given year.

A thousand dollar bottle of scotch is objectively worth more than a bottle of water, but if you were dying of thirst in the middle of a desert I'd bet that you'd likely be willing to pay far more than a grand for the latter, after all.

I do admit that a best cap hit award would make sense to have, though.

 

[Roomtemperature]

My attitude is that MVP's should be judged based on which team is the worst off if you replaced their contending player with a replacement-level player. You could be the best player, but if you're on a stacked team that'd still comfortably make the playoffs then you're invariably less valuable than a player that is borderline the sole reason they're a playoff contender to begin with. And that's doubly the case if a single team supposedly has two MVP contenders. Take away one, and you still have another, right?

And I recognize that it's all subjective, but it's not like we're talking about the Rocket which is for the objective highest scorer. Everyone's opinion of most valuable player would vary on any given year.

A thousand dollar bottle of scotch is objectively worth more than a bottle of water, but if you were dying of thirst in the middle of a desert I'd bet that you'd likely be willing to pay far more than a grand for the latter, after all.

I do admit that a best cap hit award would make sense to have, though.

But in what situation would the best player not be better then who they replaced and help their team more?

 

[Cas]

They're synonymous terms. The most valuable player is always the best player.

The trick is measuring it.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

But in what situation would the best player not be better then who they replaced and help their team more?

Simple. If the supposed best player is on a team that made the playoffs by a thirty point margin, it's pretty hard to imagine a scenario where him being gone would result in a situation where they miss the playoffs. Meanwhile, it's easy to imagine a scenario where an also great player on a team that barely makes the playoffs is the reason why they made it in the first place. In that situation, the latter player is more valuable to their team than the former even if the former was pretty objectively the better player.

At least that's how I take it and would personally vote. But I clearly don't have a vote, and sometimes it seems like it's decided by one metric and other times it's seemingly decided by another metric.

And again, I recognize that that makes it entirely subjective, but that's kind of the point it's not a concrete definitely objective award like the Rocket or the +/-.

 

[Romang67]

If it were most valuable, it probably becomes a goalie award.

I don't think there was a case to not give the Hart to Hellebuyck in 2020 if it were awarded to the most valuable player. Was he the best player in the league that year? No, that was probably Draisaitl, who aptly won the Ted Lindsay Award.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I know but I find it weird when people try to argue the best player shouldn't get it

Even if everyone agreed the best player should get it, who is "best" is a purely subjective opinion. Sure, McDavid usually puts up the most points, but you've already pointed out that points can be influenced by supporting cast. So how do you objectively determine whose supporting cast influenced their point totals the most? And what's the objective metric that everyone agrees accurately measures defensive play? What about off-ice stuff, like pushing your teammates to eat chickpea pasta and work out like a madman?

 

[AUAIOMRN]

Stop caring about voted-on awards, your life will be better.

 

[DitchMarner]

Consider 2008.

Ovechkin carried the Capitals into the playoffs. Some people argue Datsyuk was the better player that year because of his superior defensive and all-around play (I don't necessarily agree), but it's pretty clear that if you replaced Datsyuk with a low-end 1C, the Wings would have been better off than the Capitals would have been if you replaced Ovechkin with a low-end first line scoring winger.

If you buy the idea that Datsyuk was the better player, then isn't it possible that one player was better while the other was more valuable to his team?

 

[Roomtemperature]

Stop caring about voted-on awards, your life will be better.

Yeah why ask about hockey things on a hockey forum

 

[Roomtemperature]

Consider 2008.

Ovechkin carried the Capitals into the playoffs. Some people argue Datsyuk was the better player that year because of his superior defensive and all-around play (I don't necessarily agree), but it's pretty clear that if you replaced Datsyuk with a low-end 1C, the Wings would have been better off than the Capitals would have been if you replaced Ovechkin with a low-end first line scoring winger.

If you buy the idea that Datsyuk was the better player, then isn't it possible that one player was better while the other was more valuable to his team?

OK but if someone is best wouldn't their generic value be highest on every team in the league?

 

[DitchMarner]

OK but if someone is best wouldn't their generic value be highest on every team in the league?

In theory, you might think so.

But I think it is possible for one great player to be more valuable and better in a particular situation than another would be even if in most situations the other player would be better and more valuable.

If a team really needs goal scoring and has good defense and goaltending, then a big goal scorer who can create his own offense would probably be a better addition than an elite defenseman who provides good but not elite offense. I think it can depend on team needs and dynamics.

 

[Roomtemperature]

In theory, you might think so.

But I think it is possible for one great player to be more valuable and better in a particular situation than another would be even if in most situations the other player would be better and more valuable.

If a team really needs goal scoring and has good defense and goaltending, then a big goal scorer who can create his own offense would probably be a better additional than an elite defenseman who provides good but not elite offense. I think it can depend on team needs and dynamics.

But if the best player is on a non playoff team why should those on a playoff team filling a need benefit?

 

[AUAIOMRN]

Yeah why ask about hockey things on a hockey forum

You are asking about the meaning of "most valuable", but it doesn't matter because everyone's going to vote according to their own feelings, so the meaning of the award is muddled at best. Better to just not take it seriously.

 

[Roomtemperature]

You are asking about the meaning of "most valuable", but it doesn't matter because everyone's going to vote according to their own feelings, so the meaning of the award is muddled at best. Better to just not take it seriously.

How seriously do you think I am taking it vs. just asking cause I have time to kill on a Tuesday?

 

[DitchMarner]

But if the best player is on a non playoff team why should those on a playoff team filling a need benefit?

I agree with you there. I don't think it's particularly fair.

It can be impossible for one player - sometimes even the best player - to lead a team to the playoffs. Even the Penguins missed the playoffs in five of Lemieux's first six seasons.

I've accepted the Hart for what it is and realized that it occasionally is awarded to a player whose team barely makes the playoffs rather than to the best player in the League.

 

[Toby91ca]

I don't get it. By virtue of being the quote unquote best player you are providing the most value to whatever team you would be on. Now this doesn't mean its the best stats as that can be influenced by your surrounding cast and defensive metrics can factor in too but if someone is clearly the best but the team misses the playoffs cause for the 37 minutes they are not on the ice the team is hot garbage shouldn't be held against the player. It just feels like a reason to have stories and feelings into the race just to make it more interesting or not give it to the same player year after year.

Also if we are talking "value" into account shouldn't we take their cap hit into account with the voting? the 5th best player in the league on a rookie contract is has an edge over the best who takes up the max.

I'm fine with the way it's currently seen and voted. There is too much focus on semantics around "most valuable player" - it is basically mean to go to the best player in the league. So if the top scorer is on a losing team, easy for me to suggest he probably isn't the best player....if he was that good, that valuable, he should at least be able to drag his team to the playoffs. Top scorer on a playoff team isn't necessarily the best player either as his stats could be boosted for various reasons.....this is where you would look at a guy that is producing close to the top without a lot of support. So there is a bit of that that tries to pull in the valuable piece and not simply best player, but starting point for me is always who was the best.

In terms of looking at cap hits....we should never, ever consider that

 

[Toby91ca]

I agree with you there. I don't think it's particularly fair.

It can be impossible for one player - sometimes even the best player - to lead a team to the playoffs. Even the Penguins missed the playoffs in five of Lemieux's first six seasons.

I've accepted the Hart for what it is and realized that it occasionally is awarded to a player whose team barely makes the playoffs rather than to the best player in the League.

But Lemieux in 5 of his first 6 seasons isn't a very good example at all. Of those 5 years, what years could he say he was the best player but missed the Hart trophy because he was on a losing team?

84/85 - Finished 108pts back in the scoring race
85/86 - Finished 74pts back in the scoring race
86/87 - Finished 76pts back in the scoring race
87/88 - WON the Hart. He won the scoring race this year, but you could still make a decent argument Gretzky was still the best player (but he only played 64 games) - this was also a bit different vs. teams missing the playoffs nowadays. They missed because of the division they were in, they missed the playoffs by 1pt, they had more points than 6 of the 16 teams in the playoffs, just shy of 30pts more than the Leafs.
89/90 - He only played 59 games, basically not eligible for the award.

 

[Fataldogg]

In practice, it usually means “highest scoring player on a playoff team who doesn’t have a teammate too close to them”.

You are right. That is how it is voted on. I don't personally think it should be like that though.

 

[DitchMarner]

But Lemieux in 5 of his first 6 seasons isn't a very good example at all. Of those 5 years, what years could he say he was the best player but missed the Hart trophy because he was on a losing team?

84/85 - Finished 108pts back in the scoring race
85/86 - Finished 74pts back in the scoring race
86/87 - Finished 76pts back in the scoring race
87/88 - WON the Hart. He won the scoring race this year, but you could still make a decent argument Gretzky was still the best player (but he only played 64 games) - this was also a bit different vs. teams missing the playoffs nowadays. They missed because of the division they were in, they missed the playoffs by 1pt, they had more points than 6 of the 16 teams in the playoffs, just shy of 30pts more than the Leafs.
89/90 - He only played 59 games, basically not eligible for the award.

Fair point. How about McDavid in 2018? I'd say he was a better player than Hall that year, but I never expected him to win the Hart. I was okay with Hall's win because the voters seem to like seasons where they think a player carried a team to the playoffs (like Perry in 2011 and Ovechkin in 2013).

 

[Toby91ca]

Consider 2008.

Ovechkin carried the Capitals into the playoffs. Some people argue Datsyuk was the better player that year because of his superior defensive and all-around play (I don't necessarily agree), but it's pretty clear that if you replaced Datsyuk with a low-end 1C, the Wings would have been better off than the Capitals would have been if you replaced Ovechkin with a low-end first line scoring winger.

If you buy the idea that Datsyuk was the better player, then isn't it possible that one player was better while the other was more valuable to his team?

Nah....I'm fine with it being the "best player" for the most part....determining the best player is also subjective. Anyone who thought Datsyuk was the best player in 2007/08 has opinions widely different from mine and I'm guessing the majority. He rightly didn't even finish top 5 in Hart voting that year. Lidstrom finished ahead of him and I would have had Zetterberg as the better player that year than Datsyuk as well...Zetterberg finished 10th in voting vs. Datsyuk's 9th place finish....which is fine as Zetterberg missed 7 games and Datsyuk played all 82.

 

[Machinehead]

The best player inherently provides the most value. It's a very silly distinction.

 

[Toby91ca]

Fair point. How about McDavid in 2018? I'd say he was a better player than Hall that year, but I never expected him to win the Hart. I was okay with Hall's win because the voters seem to like seasons where they think a player carried a team to the playoffs (like Perry in 2011 and Ovechkin in 2013).

Well....that year, I don't agree with Hall winning....I get the angle, but it really didn't make sense to me. I don't think McDavid was the best player that year either. I'm fine with needing to make the playoffs to be part of the criteria, which it basically is for the most part without being official.

Hall won that year by the slimmest of margins. My vote would have gone to MacKinnon.

I do admit that a best cap hit award would make sense to have, though.

IMO, that would be a GM award.