NHL Awards Poll: Hart

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by codynw

There's a difference between the two. Hart Trophy should be for players that carry their team. Giroux and Bishop are the best examples of that this season.

I can read Wikipedia articles too, thanks.

If you want to get down to it, I would say the present course of voting for the Hart is consistent with the intent, as the other arguments are nonsensical on their face.

How do you judge "most valuable to his team"? If you make that a relativistic comparison against a player's teammates, then any player on a stacked team is necessarily eliminated as there is always another star player. That would pretty much demote the award to the most valuable of the league's mediocre franchises.

There is also a legitimate argument to be made that the best player = most valuable to the league = most valuable to his team.

The Hart trophy suffers from a description that simply does not match the reality of the award. In this year, I would agree with others that Crosby wins, hands down, under any definition. He was that good overall, and that much better than anyone else on his own team. Consequently, he was most valuable in either case.

[Read Only]

Originally Posted by codynw

Why? How was he the most valuable to his team? Nobody is denying that he had the best season but that's not what this trophy should be based on. Take away Crosby, and the Penguins still have one of the other best centers in the world to fall back on. The Flyers have nothing after Giroux. When he wasn't scoring in the first chunk of the season the Flyers looked like an AHL team out there.

So basically as long as Malkin is a Penguin Crosby can't win this award? That is a stupid way to look at it. Is Toews out because without him the Hawks are still a play-off team with Kane, Sharp, Keith, Seabrook?

So this award now becomes the top player who has crappy teammates?

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I can read Wikipedia articles too, thanks.

If you want to get down to it, I would say the present course of voting for the Hart is consistent with the intent, as the other arguments are nonsensical on their face.

How do you judge "most valuable to his team"? If you make that a relativistic comparison against a player's teammates, then any player on a stacked team is necessarily eliminated as there is always another star player. That would pretty much demote the award to the most valuable of the league's mediocre franchises.

There is also a legitimate argument to be made that the best player = most valuable to the league = most valuable to his team.

The Hart trophy suffers from a description that simply does not match the reality of the award. In this year, I would agree with others that Crosby wins, hands down, under any definition. He was that good overall, and that much better than anyone else on his own team. Consequently, he was most valuable in either case.

I think the trophy should be awarded to a player who is the main reason his team is competitive.

For example, do the 2013 Islanders make the playoffs without Tavares? Hell no. Good reason to hand out the Hart Trophy. Do the 2014 Penguins make the playoffs without Crosby? Probably. They've done it before (and Malkin won the Hart trophy when it happened, for good reason).

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by codynw

Why? How was he the most valuable to his team? Nobody is denying that he had the best season but that's not what this trophy should be based on. Take away Crosby, and the Penguins still have one of the other best centers in the world to fall back on. The Flyers have nothing after Giroux. When he wasn't scoring in the first chunk of the season the Flyers looked like an AHL team out there.

Malkin missed 1/4 of the season while Letang and Dupuis missed over 1/2 the season! The Pens were hurt by injury this year, which made Crosby even more valuable than normal. In addition to Giroux, the Flyers had 5 other 20 goal scorers - there's lot of talent on the Flyers. Crosby wins this one in a landslide.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I can read Wikipedia articles too, thanks.

If you want to get down to it, I would say the present course of voting for the Hart is consistent with the intent, as the other arguments are nonsensical on their face.

How do you judge "most valuable to his team"? If you make that a relativistic comparison against a player's teammates, then any player on a stacked team is necessarily eliminated as there is always another star player. That would pretty much demote the award to the most valuable of the league's mediocre franchises.

There is also a legitimate argument to be made that the best player = most valuable to the league = most valuable to his team.

The Hart trophy suffers from a description that simply does not match the reality of the award. In this year, I would agree with others that Crosby wins, hands down, under any definition. He was that good overall, and that much better than anyone else on his own team. Consequently, he was most valuable in either case.

Completely agree, especially given your reasoning. The question is, then, would this make the Hart and the Lindsay redundant? Or is there a distinctive quality between the two given that the latter is essentially an award from one's peers?

Personally I would be far more honored be awarded the Lindsay (thus answering my own question?).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by codynw

I think the trophy should be awarded to a player who is the main reason his team is competitive.

For example, do the 2013 Islanders make the playoffs without Tavares? Hell no. Good reason to hand out the Hart Trophy. Do the 2014 Penguins make the playoffs without Crosby? Probably. They've done it before (and Malkin won the Hart trophy when it happened, for good reason).

Perhaps, but that reduces the award to "best player on a mediocre squad". Though Iginla probably would have won it three or four times under that definition. One should not penalize a player because he had good teammates.