Valuable vs best in MVP voting

[AUAIOMRN]

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

I don't know, you made a post about it, that's more than 99% of people do. But if you don't really care then you don't have to worry about my comments. There are a lot of people out there who seem to get genuinely riled up though.

 

[Profet]

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

Billy Beane disagrees.

I think you need to re-watch Moneyball.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

I think your opinion is viable within the stated criteria of the Hart Trophy: "to the player adjudged to be the most valuable to his team.”

But I'm not sure that's really the intent or that it wouldn't have some wonky results.

I think by your way of thinking, it really should go to a playoff bubble team player every single year. After all, what bigger distinction between "which team is the worst off if you replaced their contending player with a replacement-level player" is there than 'made playoffs' vs 'missed playoffs'?

By that standard, I think you potentially end up with a lower caliber of player getting the MVP in many cases.

 

[Machinehead]

Billy Beane disagrees.

I think you need to re-watch Moneyball.

This award has absolutely nothing to do with contract value whatsoever.

Billy Beane would probably agree that the best player in MLB is providing the most on-field value, because of course he is.

 

[daver]

The most valuable player is the most generational 2-way player.

 

[Romang67]

The most valuable player is the most generational 2-way player.

Not a big fan of the 2007 Crosby Hart Trophy win?

 

[kingsholygrail]

The MVP should be the highest paid player.

 

[shakes the clown]

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.

I don't agree with this post. Your version of MVP would be to turn the award into "best player on a bad team" award.

My version of MVP is "best player in the league" which comes with the caveat that it's nearly impossible to be the best player in the league if you don't make the playoffs.

 

[Roomtemperature]

I don't know, you made a post about it, that's more than 99% of people do. But if you don't really care then you don't have to worry about my comments. There are a lot of people out there who seem to get genuinely riled up though.

And you care about my caring so who cares about shit they shouldn't more?

 

[tarheelhockey]

I would strongly prefer it just be a “best player” award.

Making it all about team context basically means that certain players will find it near impossible to win, regardless of their personal performance.

it's nearly impossible to be the best player in the league if you don't make the playoffs.

See, I think that’s super easy to do in hockey. We just usually don’t see the best player thrown onto a roster that can’t make it.

 

[Golden_Jet]

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.


IMO, that would be a GM award.

Hard to argue with Hall winning, he had such a large lead in points over his next teammate.
Which by definition of award, is most valuable to his team. It’s hard to argue with that. Sounds like posters just want the trophy re-worded. MOP
Most outstanding player maybe.

 

[AUAIOMRN]

And you care about my caring so who cares about shit they shouldn't more?

I'm gave helpful advice that anyone can take. It seems like your looking for an insult where there isn't one.

 

[Horvat1C]

I don't think MacKinnon was a better or more valuable player than Kucherov or McDavid this year but he won both the Hart and Ted Lindsey. I think he should've won it over Hall that year as he was the focal point of the team then and was more impressive in my opinion.

The Oilers and Lightning both would not have sniffed the Playoffs without their guys and could possibly be bottom-7. Colorado likely misses without MacKinnon but they don't sink as far.

 

[catnip]

I don't think 'best' and 'most valuable' are synonymous. There's a point where you have enough value to make further gains mostly unnecessary, i.e. of little value. In other words, value is situational.

 

[Cas]

Hard to argue with Hall winning, he had such a large lead in points over his next teammate.
Which by definition of award, is most valuable to his team. It’s hard to argue with that. Sounds like posters just want the trophy re-worded. MOP
Most outstanding player maybe.

The "most valuable player to his team" is the "most valuable player," unless there is some other player eligible for the award who is not on a team. It's a tautology - the most valuable player is, by definition, the player who produces the most value, who is, by definition, the best player - the most outstanding player - in the league in that specific season.

I'm not sure where these other definitions of the Hart as "the biggest lead over his next teammate" or "best player on a marginal team" come from. Probably from sportswriters who view sports as some kind of morality play.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Probably from sportswriters who view sports as some kind of morality play.

Sportswriters are treated as journalists, but they are in reality part of an entertainment industry. Even if they don’t personally think of sports as a morality play, it’s their job to frame events in terms of a narrative with arcs bending toward a dramatic outcome. In that respect, it’s understandable that they could end up selling these kinds of narratives.

 

[Cas]

Sportswriters are treated as journalists, but they are in reality part of an entertainment industry. Even if they don’t personally think of sports as a morality play, it’s their job to frame events in terms of a narrative with arcs bending toward a dramatic outcome. In that respect, it’s understandable that they could end up selling these kinds of narratives.

Right, they don't sell you history - they sell you fantasy, even when they're retelling actual events. Always have, always will.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

It depends on the PWHA.

Some years, it's the best player. Some years, it's the player who had their best year.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

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.

My issue with the bolded is it doesn't place importance on finishing higher in the standings, only about "making the playoffs".

For instance, I think a player is "more valuable" if he turns a 4th or 5th seed into the 1st seed than a player who turns a 9th or 10th seed into an 8th seed. Yet, the bolded places more importance on sneaking into that 8th seed instead of finishing 4 points behind that in 9th place versus being a 115 point 1st place club versus an otherwise 100 point 5th seed.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The "most valuable player to his team" is the "most valuable player," unless there is some other player eligible for the award who is not on a team. It's a tautology - the most valuable player is, by definition, the player who produces the most value, who is, by definition, the best player - the most outstanding player - in the league in that specific season.

I'm not sure where these other definitions of the Hart as "the biggest lead over his next teammate" or "best player on a marginal team" come from. Probably from sportswriters who view sports as some kind of morality play.

Those “biggest lead over his teammates., not sure who said that, likely Comes from the definition, most valuable to his team.

As in, is player 1 on team X, more valuable than player 1 on team Y is to his team.
And player 1 on team Z, is more important to his team than both X and Y are to their teams.
I know some writers have said, they literally go by that, as that’s the wording.

I’m sure the writers are using both definitions, that’s why I think a re-wording is necessary of trophy. I know some writers have said, they go
MOP - Most outstanding player in the league.

 

[KeydGV21]

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

Not at all…

If the best player in the league is on a bad team and he drags them to 75 points, what value did he really bring to the team compared to a top 5 player who led their team to the playoffs

 

[DownIsTheNewUp]

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

You're absolutely right, that's the way it's always been.... until this year when Kucherov was the clear winner so then they changed the criteria to give it to the good ole Canadian boy who "was due".

 

[wetcoast]

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

In related news is that any worse of the super bowl MVP which is like almost always the winning QB?

 

[shakes the clown]

See, I think that’s super easy to do in hockey. We just usually don’t see the best player thrown onto a roster that can’t make it.

I don't agree. I think that's a chicken/egg situation. I would say, how can you possibly be the best player in the league if you couldn't even lead your team to the playoffs?

Can you think of any instances in league history where the best player in the league didn't make the playoffs?

 

[John Mandalorian]

If they just called it the “Player of the Year” award and not “MVP”, it likely ends up in the same place but it saves a lot of wasted energy on discussing/debating the meaning of the term “valuable”.