Team success is part of the equation but to say that a player can't be the best if their team doesn't win is making it way too big of a factor. Good players make their teams better, but they don't automatically make them good enough. That's an extremely all-or-nothing, narrative-driven view, not a logical one.
Perhaps....but is it that big of a deal? What are the examples of guys that should have won but didn't because their team didn't make the playoffs? As noted, it's not a mathematical assessment, determining who's the best is subjective, so while there may be some guys that could have been considered, I'm sure there are lots of arguments for other guys the same year. Anyway, like I said, who are the guys the got robbed and were clearly the best?
I don't think it's a huge deal and I can't recall any glaringly superior players in recent memory that were snubbed of a hart for that reason (Luongo is an example of this happening with the Vezina though). It's just a sentiment in general I think gets overblown out of proportion way too often when discussing players.
You’re right… but also their actual captain didn’t play a game last year so kind of is the Captain ya know?
I mean that’s fine. I think Tampa without Kuch is a much worse team than Colorado without Mac.
I think the bigger issue that I’ve seen is when people push for players on teams that are borderline playoff teams when there are far superior players playing on top tier teams that should be given MVP.
That's probably true, but they were also a worse team with Kuch as well. Perhaps you meant the decline of the team without Kuch were be more significant than that of Colorado losing Mack...which is a reasonable opinion, I tend to share the opposite opinion, which I also think is reasonable obviously....what's why I suggested this was a close one, pretty subjective, hard to argue much controversy with either winning.
Like who though? What are the examples? Maybe you are referencing random chatter about certain guys, etc....but in terms of who wins vs. not, I simply don't see it (i.e. guys on borderline teams winning when it should have been a guy on a superior team). I'm sure you can find some examples where you could make an argument, but guessing they are far from clear and I do think there are very few of them.
Taylor Hall is the first one that comes to mind. He was 13 points behind McD, but got voted in because the Devils made the playoffs.
That's not a good example though, even if it was, it would just be one....which is my point, doesn't really happen that much. The notion was that you can be really, really good, but not win because you play with a great team and someone on a borderline team that made the playoffs won it......you can't make that argument here, the Oilers weren't good that year. Also, there was no clear argument as to who was the best that year, was a bit of a toss up either way.
How is that not a good example? It’s exactly what I’m talking about. McDavid should have won, but Hall got votes for the situation his team was in, which is outside of both players’ control. McDavid was unquestionably the better and more valuable player that year. He was just playing on the wrong team, apparently.
Yes - that's what I meant. The impact of Tampa losing Kuch is greater than the impact of Colorado losing MacK. Tampa would decline more than Colorado.
Yes, truly objective criteria would be too restrictive in certain scenarios, kinda like this year. Kuch and mackinnon are both worthy winners and even though mackinnon didn’t lead any statistical categories, it’s still reasonable that he is considered the 2024 mvp. It is a bit unconventional that he won while not leading points or goals though. Reminds me of Sakic hart win in 2001. Strong second place point finish against a euro winger who had already won art ross trophies and hart.
Please dive through and pull out examples when you have time. With this example.....1) McDavid was far from an easy pick should situation been different, several people could have been argued as the guy, so I just don't think it's a good example anyway. 2) as noted, you could argue this is an example where a guy didn't win simply because he missed the playoffs (I'd disagree with that, but that is the angle here).....the notion I was talking about it people saying it's unfair for guys that play on powerhouse teams, they are the best but don't win because a guy playing on a borderline team got it.....this is clearly not an example of that and I don't there are very many examples of that either.
What do you mean by ‘should situation have been different’?
I meant I don't really see it has him having been any easy pick to win it and the only reason he didn't was because of the situation (i.e. he missed the playoffs). My point was....if the Oilers made the playoffs that year, it's not like he would have been an easy pick...there were still lots of arguments to be made for other guys.
If the Oilers had made the playoffs that year who would have had a better case for the Hart trophy than McDavid?
Hall was 41 points ahead of his closest teammate, that clearly sounds like most valuable to his team, while enroute to the playoffs. Edmonton didn’t qualify.
McDavid was 38 points ahead of the next highest scoring player on his team so are we saying the 3 point difference was important when he scored 15 points more than Hall overall?
That might bring different context though. If they had of made the playoffs, it would have meant McDavid was piling up the points in crucial games down the stretch and doing so got the team to the playoffs. The reality is he was a decent amount back in scoring most of the year and it was only very late in the season (in games that were meaningless as Edmonton was already eliminated) did he pile up points and take over the scoring lead).
Yes, Edm not making the playoffs was definitely a factor, that's why McDavid only finished 5th in voting....but my point is I'm completely fine with this. If McDavid had 140pts that year and #2 scorer in the league had 95pts, hard not to give it to McDavid even if his team missed the playoffs, but that's not the story here, he didn't dominate the competition.....if he did, they are probably in the playoffs. I'm fine with using playoffs as a qualifier as I still see a lack of examples where someone is otherwise robbed of the Hart because of it.
