Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaine
And yet that is exactly what the award is. You can not agree with it all you like and you are more than entitled to your opinion, but the award is what it is. It's based on how big a contribution said player(s) make to their teams. Crosby missed more than a few games of the season and the Pens were still a top team. Yes Tavares played the entire season so it's tough to say for certain how they would have done without him, but it is VERY unlikely they are even close to a playoff team without him considering how the carried the offense.
As someone else said if Crosby had played the entire season the argument could be made for him winning it since he really would have run away not only on his team, but the entire league. This wasn't the case however and in my opinion he had a much smaller impact to bringing his team to the post season than the other two nominees. I don't think missing a quarter of the season works in his favor for this particular award regardless of how good a player he is.
Also I think people need to get away from the mentality that the best player should win all possible awards just because they are the best. Sometimes we forget that certain awards have meaning aside from putting up the most numbers.
|
Every single year, people come out with the argument that it is the most valuable TO THEIR TEAM and then parade out a player that helped their team scrape into the playoffs.
And every year, said player doesn't win it, but the best player in the league does.
The fact that your team is good without you, doesn't reduce your value as a player.
As others have pointed out, if it really did go to the player 'most valuable to his team' it would go to a goalie almost every year.
I hear what you are saying, believe me. And I used to make the same argument. But the fact of the matter is that each year, that player (the JT who carried his team into the playoffs)
doesn't win. Each year, the best player wins.
And Crosby was the best player, whether he played all the games or not.