Valuable vs best in MVP voting

[GIN ANTONIC]

Player XYZ takes a crap team and gets them into the playoffs. He 'carried them on his back' would be something a lot of people say about him in this case.

In an equal but alternate reality, that same player is 100% as effective, but instead plays on a stacked roster where'd they'd finish in 1st place with or without him. It's simply a larger margin of victory with him. He won't get the same level of credit, despite playing identically.

The only real difference is one will be seen as 'more valuable' because it's a more obvious variation in the standings. The problem with that is it's entirely out of the player's control either way, and is a flawed reason to give out an award.

Well, just look up a few posts where I describe this exact situation in 2004 with Marty St. Louis.

We won the Art Ross with 94 points and Tampa was the #1 seed in the East. They won their division by 28 points so even without him they would have still won the Southeast and at worst would have been the #3 seed instead of the #1. He ended up winning the Hart that year but honestly there wasn't a very compelling argument for someone else who dragged their team just barely into the playoffs.

Iginla came 2nd and he would have been that guy as the Flames were a 6th seed on the back of his 41 goals but he only scored 73 points so that was far too big of a gap to give it to him over St. Louis.

 

[Toby91ca]

Well, just look up a few posts where I describe this exact situation in 2004 with Marty St. Louis.

We won the Art Ross with 94 points and Tampa was the #1 seed in the East. They won their division by 28 points so even without him they would have still won the Southeast and at worst would have been the #3 seed instead of the #1. He ended up winning the Hart that year but honestly there wasn't a very compelling argument for someone else who dragged their team just barely into the playoffs.

Iginla came 2nd and he would have been that guy as the Flames were a 6th seed on the back of his 41 goals but he only scored 73 points so that was far too big of a gap to give it to him over St. Louis.

Agree....it's a bit of a talking point regarding a potentially weaker player winning it simply because he plays on a weaker team that was able to squeak into the playoffs vs. a guy who plays on a powerhouse team. The best player on the best team hasn't historically been at a disadvantage for this award, that person has won it more times than not. It's really the exception when you have a random guy who seems like a hero on a lesser team that gets it....very rare.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

I disagree with anyone who isn’t voting for the player who had the best season. IMO, those votes generally come from people who want to create unnecessary nuance manufacture variety in the voting process.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Didn’t work out well for Kuch

Helps when your not a prick

 

[AvroArrow]

The player most valuable to his teams success, like what Kucherov did for Tampa last season.

 

[Toby91ca]

I disagree with anyone who isn’t voting for the player who had the best season. IMO, those votes generally come from people who want to create unnecessary nuance manufacture variety in the voting process.

Totally agree....the trick is figuring out who that is, as that determination is often subjective. Some years it's pretty obvious, but a lot of the time, there are arguments for a few. You'll always have some voters with an agenda or different ways of looking at things of course.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Helps when your not a prick

Literally should have nothing to do with most valuable player award.

 

[Faceboner]

Combination of both best player based on team and individual success as well as circumstance

 

[RANDOMH3RO]

Trying to determine “value” just opens it up to a whole bunch of subjective meaningless criteria that is usually out of a players control. It would also end up with a bunch of mvp wins that in hindsight seem really bad. Like the one occasion that the hart trophy got voted on with a narrative of most valuable, Taylor hall won it and everyone has cried about that win since. Just give it to a guy that leads in points or goals and makes the playoffs. Nice and clean objective criteria.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

The player most valuable to his teams success, like what Kucherov did for Tampa last season.

He got robbed

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Totally agree....the trick is figuring out who that is, as that determination is often subjective. Some years it's pretty obvious, but a lot of the time, there are arguments for a few. You'll always have some voters with an agenda or different ways of looking at things of course.

Agreed. . . But the idea that MacKinnon deserved the award over Kucherov this year was weird to me. How many times has a player recorded 100 assists in a single season?

Trying to determine “value” just opens it up to a whole bunch of subjective meaningless criteria that is usually out of a players control. It would also end up with a bunch of mvp wins that in hindsight seem really bad. Like the one occasion that the hart trophy got voted on with a narrative of most valuable, Taylor hall won it and everyone has cried about that win since. Just give it to a guy that leads in points or goals and makes the playoffs. Nice and clean objective criteria.

I don’t think you should even have to make the playoffs. This is an individual award. There are 19 players on the ice any given night. There are certainly situations where the most valuable player in the league will be on a bad team.

 

[RANDOMH3RO]

I don’t think you should even have to make the playoffs. This is an individual award. There are 19 players on the ice any given night. There are certainly situations where the most valuable player in the league will be on a bad team.

I can understand that view point, but I don’t mind there being a pretty low bar of entry to be eligible to be voted on for the award. Things like vezina and Norris also basically require a playoff spot to be voted on as well, although there are rare exceptions like karlsson in 2023 and bobrovsky in 2013. Your excellence should at least provide some team success as well.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Agreed. . . But the idea that MacKinnon deserved the award over Kucherov this year was weird to me. How many times has a player recorded 100 assists in a single season?


I don’t think you should even have to make the playoffs. This is an individual award. There are 19 players on the ice any given night. There are certainly situations where the most valuable player in the league will be on a bad team.

I have no issue with anyone who thought that MacK was the 'best player' in the league this year. It was incredibly close between him and Kuch and throw in the fact that he's Colorado's defacto captain, C vs wing, scored more goals, better all-round game when you factor in physicality, etc. You can absolutely make an argument that he was better than Kuch... but he definitely wasn't more valuable to his team than Kuch was to the Lightening.

 

[blundluntman]

I don't see any logic in the idea that a player's value rides on his team making the playoffs. A 600k item isn't less valuable than a 400k item just because the owner of the former is in debt. If we're talking narratives/optics, I understand that sentiment, but objectively speaking, it doesn't matter.

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”.

I'd assume if anything that's one of the reasons they prefer it to be the latter. Discussions/debates always make for better engagement/publicity. Not to mention it makes it easier to justify voter fatigue so that players with no awards can get a legacy boost if they play well enough that year. As a commissioner, I'd try to leave as much room open for debates as possible.

 

[GOilers88]

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?

When any other team in the NHL becomes nothing but a product of its best player, we could overlook McDavid.

But since every player on the team is a product of McDavid, he should just automatically be awarded this every season.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

I can understand that view point, but I don’t mind there being a pretty low bar of entry to be eligible to be voted on for the award. Things like vezina and Norris also basically require a playoff spot to be voted on as well, although there are rare exceptions like karlsson in 2023 and bobrovsky in 2013. Your excellence should at least provide some team success as well.

Individual excellence always provides team success. Unfortunately, not always enough to overcome a poor overall roster due to bad management or whatever else.

Frankly, every award for individual performance in the regular season should have nothing to do with whether the team was in the top of the league standings. Otherwise, they should be named as team awards.

 

[Video Nasty]

I have no issue with anyone who thought that MacK was the 'best player' in the league this year. It was incredibly close between him and Kuch and throw in the fact that he's Colorado's captain, C vs wing, scored more goals, better all-round game when you factor in physicality, etc. You can absolutely make an argument that he was better than Kuch... but he definitely wasn't more valuable to his team than Kuch was to the Lightening.

MacKinnon isn’t Colorado’s captain.

 

[Toby91ca]

Agreed. . . But the idea that MacKinnon deserved the award over Kucherov this year was weird to me. How many times has a player recorded 100 assists in a single season?

It's subjective though and MacKinnon easily had my vote, but I can certainly see why others would have voted for Kucherov. This is a year where it wasn't clear....though MacK did dominate 1st place votes (137 vs. 50 for Kuch....no one else had more than 3).

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

It's subjective though and MacKinnon easily had my vote, but I can certainly see why others would have voted for Kucherov. This is a year where it wasn't clear....though MacK did dominate 1st place votes (137 vs. 50 for Kuch....no one else had more than 3).

Yeah the disparity in votes is the part that was really odd for me.

 

[Toby91ca]

I have no issue with anyone who thought that MacK was the 'best player' in the league this year. It was incredibly close between him and Kuch and throw in the fact that he's Colorado's captain, C vs wing, scored more goals, better all-round game when you factor in physicality, etc. You can absolutely make an argument that he was better than Kuch... but he definitely wasn't more valuable to his team than Kuch was to the Lightening.

Totally disagree with the bolded part.

 

[notbias]

If it was truly most valuable, it should likely just go to the goalie with the highest GSAx every year... give it to whatever goalie covered up the worst D and made them look respectable.

No other single player is going to be able to influence a game as much as a goalie.

 

[Toby91ca]

I don't see any logic in the idea that a player's value rides on his team making the playoffs. A 600k item isn't less valuable than a 400k item just because the owner of the former is in debt. If we're talking narratives/optics, I understand that sentiment, but objectively speaking, it doesn't matter.

The difference though is that you are looking at something worth $600K vs. something worth $400K, their value is clear/objective. Determining the best player or who is more valuable is very subjective and the success of the team is part of that subjective determination. If you are that good of a player, shouldn't your team have performed better? It's a bit unfair as it's hard, 1 player can only do so much, but 1 player can make a difference for sure. I really don't think you find situations all that often where people think the best player was on a bad team and missed out on the award because of it anyway....so logic that good players must make their team good seems to make sense.

If it was truly most valuable, it should likely just go to the goalie with the highest GSAx every year... give it to whatever goalie covered up the worst D and made them look respectable.

No other single player is going to be able to influence a game as much as a goalie.

Maybe.....but a skater can help the team score and defend....a goalie isn't going to help you score, so in some respects, doesn't matter how good the goalie plays, if you don't score, you can't win.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

The difference though is that you are looking at something worth $600K vs. something worth $400K, their value is clear/objective. Determining the best player or who is more valuable is very subjective and the success of the team is part of that subjective determination. If you are that good of a player, shouldn't your team have performed better? It's a bit unfair as it's hard, 1 player can only do so much, but 1 player can make a difference for sure. I really don't think you find situations all that often where people think the best player was on a bad team and missed out on the award because of it anyway....so logic that good players must make their team good seems to make sense.


Maybe.....but a skater can help the team score and defend....a goalie isn't going to help you score, so in some respects, doesn't matter how good the goalie plays, if you don't score, you can't win.

If a player provides a value of 3 wins in a season for a team that makes the playoffs with 40 wins, doesn’t that actually make him MORE valuable to the team that misses the playoffs with just 30 wins? He’s now accountable for 10% of the worse team’s success as opposed to 7.5% of the better team’s success.

So with this logic, we should actually be voting for the BEST players on the WORST teams.

If it was truly most valuable, it should likely just go to the goalie with the highest GSAx every year... give it to whatever goalie covered up the worst D and made them look respectable.

No other single player is going to be able to influence a game as much as a goalie.

I think you’d have to look at value over a replacement level player, right? I don’t believe a goalie would be beating the best skater of the year so often from that lens.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Trying to determine “value” just opens it up to a whole bunch of subjective meaningless criteria that is usually out of a players control. It would also end up with a bunch of mvp wins that in hindsight seem really bad. Like the one occasion that the hart trophy got voted on with a narrative of most valuable, Taylor hall won it and everyone has cried about that win since. Just give it to a guy that leads in points or goals and makes the playoffs. Nice and clean objective criteria.

I don’t think it’s necessary to have truly objective criteria. It’s ok to just say “best player” and have a subjective debate about that.

The problem with “most valuable” is that it introduces a bunch of outside context that aren’t actually qualities of the player himself (such as the quality of the team, or whether they happen to play in a competitive division). That’s where we get goofy, controversial results. It wouldn’t be particularly controversial if the 3 best players in the league were finalists and the winner was a guy not everyone agreed on.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If you are that good of a player, shouldn't your team have performed better? It's a bit unfair as it's hard, 1 player can only do so much, but 1 player can make a difference for sure.

If the best player in the league is on the worst team and that team finishes 17th instead of 32nd, he just elevated them a lot, did he not?

Playoff qualification is just an arbitrary factor to throw into the mix. Making the playoffs doesn’t even mean a team is good.