| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest2371 |
Posted - 03/21/2008 : 04:14:36
Should Alexander Ovechkin be awarded the Hart Trophy if the Washington Capitals don't qualify for the playoffs? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Timay |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 23:37:22
quote:
Originally posted by Gostarsgo12
Ya but when Fleury was out who came in and Stepped up in goal. Ty Conklin at one point he was 10-1. Most people thought this guy was washed up but he stepped up for the pens and he's a huge reason there where there are. As for Gonchar offensively talented but have you seen him in his own end?
Go Stars
Sure Conklin went 10-1 way back in dec-jan.. at the exact same time crosby went on a 9 game streak where he racked up 16 points. Not to mention Malkin finishing his own streak of 11 points in 6 games at the end of Conklin's streak. Then what happened to Conklin? The streak ended, because that's what happens to players -- they go on streaks. He will not pick it up any more. Fleury is back and #1 again. I don't think we'll see much of Conklin in the playoffs.. unless the Pens suffer the same fate as the Oilers.
What happened after his streak? Did he stay consistent? Since his 9 game winning streak he has posted a gaa of 3.54. Wow, horrendous!
He has been 7-5-3 in Feb+Mar including one win in his last 5 starts while letting in 20 goals. Malkin had his best pace during that time wtih 46 points in 29 games. I'm sorry, Conklin might've been the MVP during his 9 game win streak, but outside of that....
Phaneuf pher Norris |
| Gostarsgo12 |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 12:49:50
[/quote]
Goalie___ gp w l otl gaa sv% so
Ty Conklin 33 18 8 5 2.51 .923 2
M-A Fleury 33 18 9 2 2.38 .920 4
Nothing great about him here.. seems to be about the same as Fleury. If you got trouble figuring out who the Penguins MVP is this year, take another look at their stats. I think Gonchar or Sid would be more of a MVP candidate (for Pittsburgh anyways) than Conklin.
[/quote]
Ya but when Fleury was out who came in and Stepped up in goal. Ty Conklin at one point he was 10-1. Most people thought this guy was washed up but he stepped up for the pens and he's a huge reason there where there are. As for Gonchar offensively talented but have you seen him in his own end?
Go Stars |
| leigh |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 23:20:21
quote:
Originally posted by mytor4
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by mytor4
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Candidates in my mind (in no particular order - 3 of these guys are on the bubble):
- Malkin,
- Luongo,
- Brodeur,
- Iginla,
- Ovechkin
Make the playoffs and your chances improve greatly. Don't make the playoffs and you would likely not get my vote (I guess it's a good thing I'm not voting eh Andy!)
It seems like many people here are voting on points alone. You can't just vote on points - otherwise we'd just redefine the meaning of the trophy to "the guy who gets the most points". There are many intangibles to consider.
[POSTED BY MYTOR4 - If it's true that Lemieux won the Hart on a non-playoff team than no matter what the reason this knocks out this argument listed below. - END QUOTE]
And Mytor4, just because someone in the past whose team didn't make the playoffs has won it, doesn't mean that Ovechkin is the winner. Yes there are a few cases of it in the past, but this is not a rule. A possibility, but not a rule. This is a vote which is completely subjective, not a court of law where precedents make laws.
I didn't say that .O.V. should win it just because Mario won it on a non-playoff team. You left out part of the quote that i was talking about. I was answering back to a quote where it said that if he doesn't make the playoffs than he doesn't deserve the Hart Trophy. I just pointed out that if Mario could win it than it knocks out that reasoning. Don't you agree.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs
Not really, no. I'm not saying it's impossible for him to win, it is (the whole process is based on a majority rules, subjective concept, so therefore it is affected by the whims and moods of the people holding the voting power) I'm simply saying that I don't agree with it. It has to be a pretty special year for that individual who does not make the playoffs, in order for me to vote for them (if I were a part of the voting, that is)
Well it has been a special yr for O.V..When was the last time 60+ goals were scored in a season .He also tied and may break the record for most goals by a L.W. During the regular season.Also should win the scoring race.Has carried a team to the point where within there last 2 games of the season could still make the playoffs,Without him there botton dwellers. Yes i would say he is having a very remarkable season.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs
And if they don't make the playoffs, they're still bottom dwellers. If they do, I'm impressed. |
| Devils Fanatic |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 19:52:14
Here's how I would put the voting.
1.. Marty Brodeur
I like to look at the fact that the Devils have one of the worst offensive units in years. They barely have over 200 goals in total. One of the lowest amount for any teams making the playoffs. He is performing at his best despite having a sloppier defense unit and being nearly 36 years old. Without him, they would reduced to another LA or Tampa Bay. Marty is the team right now.
2. Alexander Ovechkin
The main reason I could see him getting it would be the amount of point he has contributed in his teams total. If you were to go on goals alone, that's what the Rocket Richard trophy is for. He is pretty fun to watch, but I just don't think he deserves it above Marty. Just like the Devils, he is the team right now.
3. Evgeni Malkin
Ever since Crosby went down with his injury, he proved that he could carry the team on his back. Unfortunately the Pens had a strong amount of play from Conlin and Fleury going down the stretch. This could hurt his chances quite a bit.
Other good choices
Jarome Iginla
Evgeni Nabokov
Joe Thornton
Devils fan for life |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 18:42:17
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by mytor4
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Candidates in my mind (in no particular order - 3 of these guys are on the bubble):
- Malkin,
- Luongo,
- Brodeur,
- Iginla,
- Ovechkin
Make the playoffs and your chances improve greatly. Don't make the playoffs and you would likely not get my vote (I guess it's a good thing I'm not voting eh Andy!)
It seems like many people here are voting on points alone. You can't just vote on points - otherwise we'd just redefine the meaning of the trophy to "the guy who gets the most points". There are many intangibles to consider.
[POSTED BY MYTOR4 - If it's true that Lemieux won the Hart on a non-playoff team than no matter what the reason this knocks out this argument listed below. - END QUOTE]
And Mytor4, just because someone in the past whose team didn't make the playoffs has won it, doesn't mean that Ovechkin is the winner. Yes there are a few cases of it in the past, but this is not a rule. A possibility, but not a rule. This is a vote which is completely subjective, not a court of law where precedents make laws.
I didn't say that .O.V. should win it just because Mario won it on a non-playoff team. You left out part of the quote that i was talking about. I was answering back to a quote where it said that if he doesn't make the playoffs than he doesn't deserve the Hart Trophy. I just pointed out that if Mario could win it than it knocks out that reasoning. Don't you agree.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs
Not really, no. I'm not saying it's impossible for him to win, it is (the whole process is based on a majority rules, subjective concept, so therefore it is affected by the whims and moods of the people holding the voting power) I'm simply saying that I don't agree with it. It has to be a pretty special year for that individual who does not make the playoffs, in order for me to vote for them (if I were a part of the voting, that is)
Well it has been a special yr for O.V..When was the last time 60+ goals were scored in a season .He also tied and may break the record for most goals by a L.W. During the regular season.Also should win the scoring race.Has carried a team to the point where within there last 2 games of the season could still make the playoffs,Without him there botton dwellers. Yes i would say he is having a very remarkable season.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| leigh |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 18:19:02
quote:
Originally posted by mytor4
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Candidates in my mind (in no particular order - 3 of these guys are on the bubble):
- Malkin,
- Luongo,
- Brodeur,
- Iginla,
- Ovechkin
Make the playoffs and your chances improve greatly. Don't make the playoffs and you would likely not get my vote (I guess it's a good thing I'm not voting eh Andy!)
It seems like many people here are voting on points alone. You can't just vote on points - otherwise we'd just redefine the meaning of the trophy to "the guy who gets the most points". There are many intangibles to consider.
[POSTED BY MYTOR4 - If it's true that Lemieux won the Hart on a non-playoff team than no matter what the reason this knocks out this argument listed below. - END QUOTE]
And Mytor4, just because someone in the past whose team didn't make the playoffs has won it, doesn't mean that Ovechkin is the winner. Yes there are a few cases of it in the past, but this is not a rule. A possibility, but not a rule. This is a vote which is completely subjective, not a court of law where precedents make laws.
I didn't say that .O.V. should win it just because Mario won it on a non-playoff team. You left out part of the quote that i was talking about. I was answering back to a quote where it said that if he doesn't make the playoffs than he doesn't deserve the Hart Trophy. I just pointed out that if Mario could win it than it knocks out that reasoning. Don't you agree.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs
Not really, no. I'm not saying it's impossible for him to win, it is (the whole process is based on a majority rules, subjective concept, so therefore it is affected by the whims and moods of the people holding the voting power) I'm simply saying that I don't agree with it. It has to be a pretty special year for that individual who does not make the playoffs, in order for me to vote for them (if I were a part of the voting, that is) |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 15:04:44
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Candidates in my mind (in no particular order - 3 of these guys are on the bubble):
- Malkin,
- Luongo,
- Brodeur,
- Iginla,
- Ovechkin
Make the playoffs and your chances improve greatly. Don't make the playoffs and you would likely not get my vote (I guess it's a good thing I'm not voting eh Andy!)
It seems like many people here are voting on points alone. You can't just vote on points - otherwise we'd just redefine the meaning of the trophy to "the guy who gets the most points". There are many intangibles to consider.
[POSTED BY MYTOR4 - If it's true that Lemieux won the Hart on a non-playoff team than no matter what the reason this knocks out this argument listed below. - END QUOTE]
And Mytor4, just because someone in the past whose team didn't make the playoffs has won it, doesn't mean that Ovechkin is the winner. Yes there are a few cases of it in the past, but this is not a rule. A possibility, but not a rule. This is a vote which is completely subjective, not a court of law where precedents make laws.
I didn't say that .O.V. should win it just because Mario won it on a non-playoff team. You left out part of the quote that i was talking about. I was answering back to a quote where it said that if he doesn't make the playoffs than he doesn't deserve the Hart Trophy. I just pointed out that if Mario could win it than it knocks out that reasoning. Don't you agree.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| leigh |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 11:34:35
Candidates in my mind (in no particular order - 3 of these guys are on the bubble):
- Malkin,
- Luongo,
- Brodeur,
- Iginla,
- Ovechkin
Make the playoffs and your chances improve greatly. Don't make the playoffs and you would likely not get my vote (I guess it's a good thing I'm not voting eh Andy!)
It seems like many people here are voting on points alone. You can't just vote on points - otherwise we'd just redefine the meaning of the trophy to "the guy who gets the most points". There are many intangibles to consider.
[POSTED BY MYTOR4 - If it's true that Lemieux won the Hart on a non-playoff team than no matter what the reason this knocks out this argument listed below. - END QUOTE]
And Mytor4, just because someone in the past whose team didn't make the playoffs has won it, doesn't mean that Ovechkin is the winner. Yes there are a few cases of it in the past, but this is not a rule. A possibility, but not a rule. This is a vote which is completely subjective, not a court of law where precedents make laws. |
| Timay |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 08:39:23
quote:
Originally posted by davbid
It diminishes his contribution in terms of blurring the reason why the team is doing well. Is it because of Malkin or Conklin? Both to be sure. But who's the MVP for that team? Malkin might stand out a little more than Conklin but not as much as Ovie, Iginla, Brodeur or Luongo to their teams!
Why is so much credit being given to Conklin? Is it because he did better than people expected? I mean is he really that great? Let's compare him to M-A Fleury shall we:
Goalie___ gp w l otl gaa sv% so
Ty Conklin 33 18 8 5 2.51 .923 2
M-A Fleury 33 18 9 2 2.38 .920 4
Nothing great about him here.. seems to be about the same as Fleury. If you got trouble figuring out who the Penguins MVP is this year, take another look at their stats. I think Gonchar or Sid would be more of a MVP candidate (for Pittsburgh anyways) than Conklin.
As for Luongo, ya hes the best on the Canucks, but right now he has 12 wins less than last year. I think that will hurt his chances for being a Hart nominee. As for Marty on the Devils, he is head and shoulders above his team for MVP, but there is a better goalie out there this year. Thornton? The guy leads his team in goals! That's impressive considering he has more assists than any other Shark has points, but here we have to look at the goalie. Nabby is a clear choice for Vezina and also a huge factor for their team's success. Again, I stick with my 3 nominees: Ovie, Iggy, Jenny (Malkin). However, the NHL is likely to throw a goalie into the mix. Nabby or Marty perhaps.
Phaneuf pher Norris |
| Timay |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 08:02:11
Say it does come down to the caps making/missing the playoffs. Let's also say they finish 9th with one less win or point behind Carolina for tops in their division. Wouldn't that on its own merit the teams success? I mean, ya you missed the playoffs, but unlike most situations, instead of being a point shy of that elusive 8th spot, you're a point shy of 3rd place! It's such a weird damn setup they got going. Just a win or point separates Ovie & co. from 3rd and 9th... would finishing 9th in this case be worth more for Hart-voting reasons? Considering the fact that your team was, say, tied for points with the 3rd best in the entire Eastern conference. The only problem with saying that is we know Carolina or Washington, whichever comes out on top, is not the 3rd best in the east, but rather if you look at points, something like 7th or maybe 8th in the east. What if Washington grabs 3rd.. does that lock Ovie for the Hart trophy? If it is based largely on how your team does.. then shouldn't the argument be there to say, wait a minute - Ovie's team just sneaked into the playoffs on the last day. If Carolina didn't lose in that shootout, the Caps would be golfing right now. Too many variables I guess. The Caps could finish in 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th as of today. It's gonna be a wild week for some teams. Oh well, makes for a great finish!
Phaneuf pher Norris |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 07:48:52
[quote]Originally posted by slozo
Well said, Andyhack.
As a side note - I personally don't like goalies being included in NHL MVP awards . . . I think the position is too valuable and different to lump them together. Same in baseball with the pitchers.
That being said, I would put my money on Luongo, Iginla and Ovechkin being the three candidates. For me, it's a two horse race between Luongo and Ovechkin - which certainly doesn't take anything away from Iginla, I think he's awesome. But most awesome . . . it's gotta be Ovechkin, I think.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
[/quote
Tho only two horse race will be for runner up to O.V. This yr no one is close in my opinion. actually i would make it a 3 horse race for runner up between Malkin,Brodeur and Thornton.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 06:48:05
Well said, Andyhack.
As a side note - I personally don't like goalies being included in NHL MVP awards . . . I think the position is too valuable and different to lump them together. Same in baseball with the pitchers.
That being said, I would put my money on Luongo, Iginla and Ovechkin being the three candidates. For me, it's a two horse race between Luongo and Ovechkin - which certainly doesn't take anything away from Iginla, I think he's awesome. But most awesome . . . it's gotta be Ovechkin, I think.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 06:06:13
quote:
Originally posted by Timay
It looks like Ovechkin will win the Hart no matter what, not that it matters much, because Washington is poised to get 3rd in the east. If they do, it's almost definitely a lock for Ovie.
Yes, it looks like that could happen, but let's not forget Ovie's current place according to the reasoning of those who emphasize the playoffs Timay.
As of right now, being April 2, 2008, with two games to go, according to the "logic" of those guys on the clip Alex posted for example, Ovie is basically a not very worthy, well, "schmuck" on an unsuccessful team. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT HIM FOR THE HART!
But, of course, if Boston, Carolina, Philadelphia, Ottawa and NYR don't get enough points from their remaining games (regardless of what the Caps do by the way), well, then Ovie becomes the shoe-in favorite for the Hart.
So let's not get premature there Timay. As of today Ovie is a still just a bum on an "unsuccessful" Caps team. He is a Hart pretender. A guy whose value to his team shouldn't even be measured. Wait til Sunday when, as you are guessing, his Caps may very well clinch a playoff spot. Then he is, CLEARLY, the most valuable player to his team in the league this year!
* in case you misunderstood, EXTREME SARCASM intended for the above - whole classrooms of three year old kids across the nation still don't get this guys!  |
| Timay |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 22:21:48
According to those stats, it looks like there is a Hart winner from a non-playoff team 4 times in 84 years, or about once every 21 years. Well, it's been 20 years since the last one, I guess that means were about due for another. It looks like Ovechkin will win the Hart no matter what, not that it matters much, because Washington is poised to get 3rd in the east. If they do, it's almost definitely a lock for Ovie.
Phaneuf pher Norris |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 03/30/2008 : 08:22:46
here's a little imformation on past hart winners and there team position that yr. 4 winners on non-playoff teams.
(Sortable)
Year Player Team Playoffs
1924 Frank Nighbor Ottawa Senators Yes
1925 Billy Burch Hamilton Tigers Yes
1926 Nels Stewart Montreal Maroons Yes
1927 Herb Gardiner Montreal Canadiens Yes
1928 Howie Morenz Montreal Canadiens Yes
1929 Roy Worters New York Americans Yes
1930 Nels Stewart Montreal Maroons Yes
1931 Howie Morenz Montreal Canadiens Yes
1932 Howie Morenz Montreal Canadiens Yes
1933 Eddie Shore Boston Bruins Yes
1934 Aurel Joliat Montreal Canadiens Yes
1935 Eddie Shore Boston Bruins Yes
1936 Eddie Shore Boston Bruins Yes
1937 Babe Siebert Montreal Canadiens Yes
1938 Eddie Shore Boston Bruins Yes
1939 Toe Blake Montreal Canadiens Yes
1940 Ebbie Goodfellow Detroit Red Wings Yes
1941 Bill Cowley Boston Bruins Yes
1942 Tom Anderson Brooklyn Americans No
1943 Bill Cowley Boston Bruins Yes
1944 Babe Pratt Toronto Maple Leafs Yes
1945 Elmer Lach Montreal Canadiens Yes
1946 Max Bentley Chicago Blackhawks Yes
1947 Maurice Richard Montreal Canadiens Yes
1948 Buddy O'Connor New York Rangers Yes
1949 Sid Abel Detroit Red Wings Yes
1950 Charlie Rayner New York Rangers Yes
1951 Milt Schmidt Boston Bruins Yes
1952 Gordie Howe Detroit Red Wings Yes
1953 Gordie Howe Detroit Red Wings Yes
1954 Al Rollins Chicago Blackhawks No
1955 Ted Kennedy Toronto Maple Leafs Yes
1956 Jean Beliveau Montreal Canadiens Yes
1957 Gordie Howe Detroit Red Wings Yes
1958 Gordie Howe Detroit Red Wings Yes
1959 Andy Bathgate New York Rangers No
1960 Gordie Howe Detroit Red Wings Yes
1961 Bernie Geoffrion Montreal Canadiens Yes
1962 Jacques Plante Montreal Canadiens Yes
1963 Gordie Howe Detroit Red Wings Yes
1964 Jean Beliveau Montreal Canadiens Yes
1965 Bobby Hull Chicago Blackhawks Yes
1966 Bobby Hull Chicago Blackhawks Yes
1967 Stan Mikita Chicago Blackhawks Yes
1968 Stan Mikita Chicago Blackhawks Yes
1969 Phil Esposito Boston Bruins Yes
1970 Bobby Orr Boston Bruins Yes
1971 Bobby Orr Boston Bruins Yes
1972 Bobby Orr Boston Bruins Yes
1973 Bobby Clarke Philadelphia Flyers Yes
1974 Phil Esposito Boston Bruins Yes
1975 Bobby Clarke Philadelphia Flyers Yes
1976 Bobby Clarke Philadelphia Flyers Yes
1977 Guy Lafleur Montreal Canadiens Yes
1978 Guy Lafleur Montreal Canadiens Yes
1979 Bryan Trottier New York Islanders Yes
1980 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers Yes
1981 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers Yes
1982 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers Yes
1983 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers Yes
1984 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers Yes
1985 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers Yes
1986 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers Yes
1987 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers Yes
1988 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh Penguins No
1989 Wayne Gretzky Los Angeles Kings Yes
1990 Mark Messier Edmonton Oilers Yes
1991 Brett Hull St. Louis Blues Yes
1992 Mark Messier New York Rangers Yes
1993 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh Penguins Yes
1994 Sergei Fedorov Detroit Red Wings Yes
1995 Eric Lindros Philadelphia Flyers Yes
1996 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh Penguins Yes
1997 Dominik Hasek Buffalo Sabres Yes
1998 Dominik Hasek Buffalo Sabres Yes
1999 Jaromir Jagr Pittsburgh Penguins Yes
2000 Chris Pronger St. Louis Blues Yes
2001 Joe Sakic Colorado Avalanche Yes
2002 Jose Theodore Montreal Canadiens Yes
2003 Peter Forsberg Colorado Avalanche Yes
2004 Martin St. Louis Tampa Bay Lightning Yes
2006 Joe Thornton San Jose Sharks Yes
2007 Sidney Crosby Pittsburgh Penguins Yes
__________________
2nd I.D DManPreds11 |
| davbid |
Posted - 03/29/2008 : 11:32:45
It diminishes his contribution in terms of blurring the reason why the team is doing well. Is it because of Malkin or Conklin? Both to be sure. But who's the MVP for that team? Malkin might stand out a little more than Conklin but not as much as Ovie, Iginla, Brodeur or Luongo to their teams! |
| Timay |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 22:17:18
quote:
Originally posted by davbid
Please excuse my oversight, I also think Malkin should be given consideration. Apparently his points per game since Crosby went down is something like 1.85 which, of course, is ridiculous. That's stepping up when your leader goes down. The only thing though is that Ty Conklin also dramatically stepped it up, so that kind of diminishes Malkin's contribution in terms of being the sole reason to helping the team win.
Sorry.. how does Conklin's performance diminish Malkin's? Was he the one responsible for Evgeni's 1.85 ppg avg. in the absence of Sid? I agree he probably had a hand in helping Pittsburgh to the top, but I'm sure if Washington makes the playoffs it will also be because of Huet, without whom I believe the Caps to be sitting on the outside looking in. (which they might be anyway)
Helping your team win the President's trophy or division or even making the playoffs doesn't matter that much to me or the voters (i believe) when it comes to the Hart winner. It is a small factor, but obviously history has said it is not a requirement. I truly, truly believe the 3 finalists will be Ovie, Malkin, and Iginla. Although Marty and Lou have been great in net, their teams have been sliding lately and I just don't see them getting a nomination. Maybe because I figure Nabby will win the vezina and it's kinda hard to justify a Hart if you're a goalie without locking up the Vez. Who will win out of Alex, Evgeni, and Jarome? (if it is those three) Any one would be great, as they all have their arguements. It's gonna be tough.. I'm glad I don't have to pick.
Phaneuf pher Norris |
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 15:52:11
I really don't think the NHL is even giving the hart to the most valuable player anymore. They're giving it out to either the best goalie or a player with the most points or close to it. As I see it, the most valuable player player to a team in the league is close between Ovechkin, Lundqvist and Vokoun. Ovechkin clearly is the best forward in the league this year, I was definitely wrong about my topic on him. Lundqvist has 8 shutouts, a very low GAA and wins with his best player players having terrible years. Vokoun is his entire team. They have maybe two forwards that would be considered top six on a team and one defenceman.
Althought two of those three players were listed, even though their teams are not in the playoffs, I completely agree with Leigh, they shouldn't be considered for the hart. The hart should truely be awarded to a player that greatly alters his teams performance and is most valued to his team. It shouldn't go to the goalie with the lowest GAA or the highest point scorer. They shouldn't even bother with the trophy if it doesn't fit this criteria.
Ellis or Mason?
Go Preds Go! |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 13:18:38
Mario Lemieux was MVP in 87-88, Penguins missed the playoffs that year by 1 point.
In recent years, Iginla's Flames were 15 points out in 01/02 (way out!), while he led in goals and points. He came in second in the MVP voting, closest race ever.
Going by history then, all indications are that Ovechkin should win the MVP fairly easily, I think.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 12:41:00
quote:
Originally posted by davbid
Sorry, I have to finish what's been started. The contenders, aside from the Ovechkin debate, include: Luongo, Iginla, Brodeur (look at his players' point totals! They're pitiful. Without Brodeur, they're out of the playoffs.), and Malkin. THAT"S IT!!
Oh, and for the record, it has recently been pointed out to me that Lemieux won the Hart in 88 and they missed the playoffs. I haven't done any digging to find out what the circumstances were, like what were the other players in the league doing, for example? But Gretzky had about 20 fewer points in about 15 fewer games (they were about even points-per-games-wise) and suffice it to say that he probably would have won it if he had stayed healthy (he sould have ended up with similar points and his team made the playoffs). In any case. I think the extraneous circumstances were the fact that no one was coming close to Lemieux and Gretzky points-wise and Lemieux managed a few more points than gretz.
Ovechkin is not in this category (at least not yet!)
If it's true that Lemieux won the Hart on a non-playoff team than no matter what the reason this knocks out this argument listed below.
NOTE THE [ ]
[How much inherent value does a team have if they don't make the playoffs, and since he is a member of that team then his value is diminished by that. You might be the [ most prolific scorer ] in the league but if your team fails then you couldn't have brought that much value to it.]
So with Lemieux winning the Hart on a non-playoff team the concepts of the success of a team and the failure of a team is thrown out the window. No excuses big enough can change the fact that a non-playoff team player won the trophy so with that out of the way there is no reason why A.O can't be a favourate in the running for the Hart.
This is based on the fact that Lemieux won it on a non-playoff team is true.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| davbid |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 11:54:36
Sorry, I have to finish what's been started. The contenders, aside from the Ovechkin debate, include: Luongo, Iginla, Brodeur (look at his players' point totals! They're pitiful. Without Brodeur, they're out of the playoffs.), and Malkin. THAT"S IT!!
Oh, and for the record, it has recently been pointed out to me that Lemieux won the Hart in 88 and they missed the playoffs. I haven't done any digging to find out what the circumstances were, like what were the other players in the league doing, for example? But Gretzky had about 20 fewer points in about 15 fewer games (they were about even points-per-games-wise) and suffice it to say that he probably would have won it if he had stayed healthy (he sould have ended up with similar points and his team made the playoffs). In any case. I think the extraneous circumstances were the fact that no one was coming close to Lemieux and Gretzky points-wise and Lemieux managed a few more points than gretz.
Ovechkin is not in this category (at least not yet!) |
| davbid |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 21:07:13
Please excuse my oversight, I also think Malkin should be given consideration. Apparently his points per game since Crosby went down is something like 1.85 which, of course, is ridiculous. That's stepping up when your leader goes down. The only thing though is that Ty Conklin also dramatically stepped it up, so that kind of diminishes Malkin's contribution in terms of being the sole reason to helping the team win. |
| Timay |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 20:52:31
I've had fun reading everyone's arguments over this matter. I figure I'll put my 2 cents in, but try to keep it short at the same time. Ovechkin has had great success and whether his team makes it or not means that he has definitely helped put his team into a spot near the middle of the entire eastern pack. Whether he makes it or not, he does not get my vote, because I believe Evgeni Malkin deserves it more as he not only led his team to the top of the eastern pack, he did it when all the nay-sayers and Crosby-sick, media-engrossed fans said he couldn't. Everyone seemed to write off the Penguins after Sid's injury thinking they might've even missed the playoffs. However, when your team does better without the league's current Hart trophy winner in the lineup (even scoring more goals/game), and all this success can primarily be contributed to one player, he must be pretty damn valuable. I don't care if he doesn't have as many goals or points as Ovechkin, but it looks like he'll still have almost 50 goals and 100 points (this could be contributed to the fact that he has about half the shots of Ovie).
Alex Ovechkin is your Art Ross winner. He is your Maurice Richard winner. He may be your Lester B. Pearson winner. He is bar none, the most exciting player to watch in the league, but Evgeni Malkin is, by definition, the most valuable player in the National Hockey League.
Phaneuf pher Norris |
| davbid |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 18:50:25
No.
But I do think he would be up there though, with Luongo and perhaps Iginla. Iginla's leadership can't be underestimated. And I believe Ovechkin does not play a team game as much as a real MVP-to-your-team would, despite the fact that the Caps game-plan might revolve around him.
However, as discussed earlier, it isn't black or white. It depends on a lot of other things as well, including the other contenders and the numbers on each of them which I haven't studied as of yet.
Of course there are levels of success but bottom line for me, you know where I cut off the mildly successful from the mildly unsuccessful. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 17:25:30
Alex and Davebid - we are into semantics with this "unsuccessful" thing. If you want to use that word, fine, but my point is that there are categories of "unsuccessful" and the difference between them are important here because a team can be anywhere from "WILDLY unsuccessful" to just "MILDLY unsuccessful" (rhyme intended ) and part of my argument here lies in the nuance between those different levels of "unsuccessful".
Davebid, you're coming around Glad to hear the jump isn't from "non-contender" to "favorite" for you. But, just for fun, please give me a one word answer to this question in your next post:
Yes or no. It's the last night of the season and you have been watching Washington in a shootout, and its right after, say Semin, has scored a goal to vault Washington into the playoffs (as a result of 4 competing teams losing that night too!). Do you take out your Hart voting card, cross out the word "non-favorite" beside Ovechkin, and insert the word "FAVORITE"?
Yes or No? One word answer please.
|
| Alex |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 16:23:04
I would just like to clear this little misconception that if you came one point out of the playoffs you could still be considered succesful.
I do not care if you had as many goals for, as many goals against, and had one less win, because you lost in shootout when your star player lost it because he hit the post after beating the goalie -- broadly speaking, you are not succesful!
If you are a team like Edmonton or Washington who is clearly rebuilding at the moment, and have managed to actually make 9th in conference, kudos! By personal standards, you were great! However, think about this one point alone:
Sixteen teams make the National Hockey League playoffs -- 53.33 percent!
In the National Football League, 37.5 percent of teams play for the SuperBowl; 26.667 in the MLB. Only the NBA operates its post season in the same way the NHL does.
Since when does being worse than half the league make you great? Sure, the MLB has its faults. In my mind, not because of the amount of teams that make it, rather, because that about three quarters of the league plays 162 games for nothing. Its not the amount, it is the season.
The amount seems right, just not the amount of games. If they took out the automatic division seeding, this is what it would like:
Montreal
Pittsburgh
New Jersey
Ottawa
-VS-
Detroit
San Jose
Minnesota
Anaheim
I am already a little off topic, so why not?  I think that to make up for the lost first series, the teams should all play each other a round robin to determine who plays who in the next round (ie. seeds are re-established.) This would be a heck of a fun way to start the post season! Realistic? No. Flwaless? No. But it sure helps reward the top teams in the 82 game marathon a lot better!
In this light, is Ovechkin's team succesful? Whether they make the post-season or not, I would say by NHL standards, no! But by the team's standards, heck ya! We are comparing two different things here without realizing it. All the time here we were debating the ''how succesful can a team be if they do not make the postseason'' issue. I have news for you, Vancouver ain't that good either. Yet I hear Luongo being tossed into these conversations like as if some of the members on the site had stock in him!
As regards to MVP, it remains to be seen if playoffs should count. The team is not succesful if they do not make the post season by NHL standards, and by NHL standards through my opinion filter, Washington is not even if they do.
But by their own standards, this year, they are through the roof. And it all points back to one direction: Ovechkin. So, in conclusion, success should not be defined as playoffs, and based on that, Hart should not be based on playoffs. And based on that, Ovechkin is very much a worthy candidate!
EDIT -- check out this link, they talk about it on ESPN.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3314215&n8pe6c=1&categoryId=2459791
Take two minutes to join the PickUpHockey Cyber Cup!
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3820#51395
|
| davbid |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 16:21:23
Don't worry, I didn't take it as an attack.
But again, it is not that I am not considering him but should he miss the playoffs, I WILL hold this against him, just as making the playoffs will be held against him.
If he doesn't make the playoffs I don't necessarily consider him a non-contender but rather a non-favorite. If Ovechkin makes the playoffs, then, for me, he likely would vault into favorite or at least right up there, and the argument for NOT giving it to him becomes a lot harder.
I think the (officially unspoken) criterium of making the playoffs does not just represent a good evaluation of a player's worth to his team but a GREAT one, because, as I said before and which represents our disagreement, I firmly believe that making the playoffs is a GREAT gauge of the success of a team (and thus it's greatest contributor), one that can put any player under or over the top in consideration as favorite for this award, and I think missing the playoffs, by even one point, represents a lack of success (just ask Leaf-fans about the last 2 years).
My reasons for passing him by would likely not only include the
"what happens when you replace the player in question with an average player" test, but also a thorough analysis of his contribution vs the other candidates' contributions. But making the playoffs will always be a major criterium in my humble decision for who gets this award.
That's a fine point about the past winners, I have often disagreed with the choices. Also, you're right about the lack of comprehension with respect to this award. I still love it though and really dig the debates. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 15:02:57
davebid - I wasn't quoting you, but was just using the "win or you are worth nothing" wording as a label for your way of thinking about this matter. And I said "sort of" to try to make it a general label too. I think calling a team that does not make the playoffs, even by a single point, "unsuccessful", and therefore excluding a player on such a team from Hart contention kind of shows this sort of way of thinking. Anyway, I certainly didn't mean the label as an attack on you.
But the thing that I am not sure you are getting from me is that I don't have a problem with you arguing that Ovechkin is not the MVP this year. I just think your reason for not even considering him is faulty. If you are going to pass him by, pass him by for the right reason (see earlier post which mentioned the "what happens when you replace the player in question with an average player" test).
And what you never really answered for me, which is really the crux of the flaw in logic I think on your side, is how do you feel if they indeed do make the playoffs. Does he become your favorite then? Leigh said something like that, and that is what really doesn't jive with me - the from "total non-candidate" to "favorite" thing.
One other point I want to add - you talk a bit about how the Hart has been voted on over the years, as if the guys who have voted have done a good job . Personally, I wouldn't want to have to turn to the Hart voting over the years for support for my argument as I think the Hart has been the most poorly understood and screwed up award of them all. I've mentioned this before but look how few defencemen (let alone goalies) are on the list of winners. Some will argue that they have their own trophies, but I think if you give out the award to them sometimes, then they should be eligible and looked at the same way as forwards, under the true definition of the award every year. If the voters would have been thinking the same way over the years, you would now be seeing at least a few more defencemen and goalies on the Hart winner list.
Edit - another point came to me - this is actually in response to Alex who was asking Beans how one could consider Vinny given Tampa Bay's low point total. He asked something like, "How can they get any worse?". Well, my answer is "Very easily!". You guys of the modern generation have not really seen some of the REAL sad sack teams in history - check out the Seals point totals for example. A team can get a hell of a lot worse than Tampa Bay this year (like about HALF their point total). So if the answer to the "what happens if you replace the guy with an average player" test in Vinny's case results in us thinking that they might have only reached HALF of their current point total, I would say Vinny was extremely valuable to them, and depending on how others fare with that test, is maybe a very worthy candidate this year (I'm not making an argument for Vinny here so much as pointing out how he could at least be viewed as a candidate). |
| davbid |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 13:15:34
Many fans think that half the teams making the playoffs is too many. Look at baseball for example, only four teams make the post season (I think THAT'S ridiculous). I, myself, like it the way it is, but you have to admit that's a lot of teams. Now, considering all the extra points nowadays for overtime/shootout losses, that just means the Capitals would be that much worse without these points.
I think it's pretty logical that half the league would be considered successful and the other half unsuccessful especially with this convenient way of deciding (the better (or successful) half are in the playoffs, the worse (or unsuccessful) half are not). And you're misquoting me. I didn't say "win or you are worth nothing", but merely win more than the bottom half of the league or your worth is not as high. And I don't think that's particularly hard to do!!!
I don't see the rules as black or white, I've never been this kind of person. But all you have to do to realize what it takes to win the Hart is understand that making the playoffs adds SO MUCH value to the other candidates that making the playoffs is effectively necessary to win this award, because there would really never be any REALLY extenuating circumstances, IN ADDITION TO there being NO OTHER candidate worthy.
I think the real reason that no player has or is ever likely to win this trophy with their team not in the playoffs is because there is always going to be (and there has always been) someone similarly as worthy but whose team is in the playoffs, and this will increase their worth. Because making the playoffs is perhaps not the criteria but it IS a HUGE criteria for worth of a candidate.
If we were to hypothetically value making the playoffs in terms of points, Iginla, for example, would get an extra fifty points, while being the scoring leder might only get Ovechkin an extra twenty-five. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 06:18:01
Likely my only post today. I'll stick with the topic I'm currently debating as opposed to shifting to the Great Debate (Good luck to Pain Train over there! ).
davbid - there is a huge difference between competing for the playoffs to the last game of the season (like Washington) or being out of it well before then (like Tampa Bay). AND, for those of us who were around when there was less parity, there is even a huge difference between the 2007/2008 Tampa Bay team and some sad teams with REALLY poor records over the years (thinking of California Golden Seal type teams or early Caps or Devils teams).
I guess, amongst other things, I fundamentally disagree with the point that not making the playoffs equals no success, particularly in this day and age where almost half the teams in the league don't make the playoffs (as opposed to back in the day when only a very small portion of the teams - less than 1/3 - didn't make the playoffs). Anyway, there is an important nuance I believe that enters this discussion which you seem to be ignoring in honor of a sort of, "Win or you are worth NOTHING" mentality, and that is, how badly did the team miss the playoffs by.
But even for teams that miss by miles, I think focusing on missing the playoffs misses the point of the Hart. I put focusing in bold, because I am not saying missing the playoffs shouldn't be considered. But it's a matter of the weight you put on that factor.
Let's say hypothetcally that you have a Bobby Clarke type player heartwise who also is quite gifted offensively on a California Golden Seals like team for example. The team has a VERY poor record, making this year's version of Tampa bay look quite respectable. The player, however, is OUTSTANDING, not only point-wise, but overall game-wise, and relatively speaking on his team the contribution is RIDICULOUS (i.e. he is in on a HUGE percentage of all the goals that the team scores, his Plus-Minus, considering the team's awful defence, is very respectable, and his heart is so evident every shift that it is AWE INSPIRING). To me, there is no question that such a guy should, at the very least, be a candidate, and, unless there is a really good alternative, should be a Hart winner, DESPITE HIS TEAM'S AWFUL RECORD.
I think Leigh made a comment to the effect that he wouldn't look at the playoffs cutoff rule black and white. I think as soon as one concedes that point (which I think one has to actually, because the above example is far from impossible), it opens the door to the point that making the playoffs is something to be considered , yes, but you can't just focus on it. It is one of a number of factors.
I'll throw this quote at you from a "not so famous, closing in on over the Hill, former star of, well, not too much" guy for you to think about in the context of this discussion,
"Black and white rules are overrated. Discretion is underrated"
AndyHack, March 26, 2008 9:31 a.m. now (Toronto time)
Back to work!
Edit - lots of typos originally, but I think I got them all - Ok, enough fun! |
| davbid |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 16:49:52
Sorry, in my posts I was in fact arguing for the validity of this thinking and my acceptance of it. I think it started with my opinion but changed into why I think this way and then someone mentioned past winners and why the voters do vote this way and why they should. But to be clear, I do agree with this. I don't care how Ovechkin does individualy, it is the success of the team that he leads that will determine his worth as compared to other worthy candidates. The logic behind it is simple, make the playoffs and your team is a success, don't make the playoffs and your team is not a success. How valuable is a player whose team is worthless? And how valuable is a player whose team has a chance for the ultimate success (i.e. is worth more)? You are a legitimate Hart trophy candidate if you can get your team to the playoffs! Otherwise, you're just a great player on a lousy team.
As I said before, he WILL be considered and he WILL get votes, but ultimately he WILL fall short because making the playoffs is A BIG DEAL when evaluating the worth of a team and their biggest contributor!
As I said before, mytor4, and as you said: this IS a team sport. So if that is the case, and Ovechkin is doing it all, then how does he contribute to his teammates success if he is the only one enjoying success? Winning games for them is not enough unless he wins a certain amount for them (enough to get to the playoffs)! What kind of a team sport is Ovechkin scoring six goals in a 6-5 win or a 7-6 loss?
And in my opinion, without Iginla, Brodeur, or Luongo, those teams would likely be in a similar position to Washington.
Why is the Ross and the Pearson not good enough for Ovechkin? There ARE other worthy candidates for this award.
And why do people not see that making the playoffs is a serious advantage to determining a Hart candidates worth? |
| PhillyFan12 |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 03:16:46
Ovechkin deserves the Hart this year. |
| mytor4 |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 02:31:49
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Last quick post before sleep - thanks for the explanation davbid. But your explanation touched more on what you think the voters will do rather than what you think should be done so let me ask you this. Yes or no. If the Caps get in the playoffs by way of shootout on the last night, does Ovechkin change FOR YOU (forgetting what you think the voters will do) from total "non-candidate" to one of the persons YOU would consider a strong and deserving candidate for this award? Again, if the answer is yes, I just don't get it (and don't get it even if you take away my extreme example of the shootout, which I am just putting in there to highlight the logic problem with the "playoffs or no consideration for the Hart" way of thinking).
Sleep time!
also to touch on what your saying. we all know this won't happen but it's the final game of the season and the caps need to win to make the playoffs. they win 7-six with ov getting 6 goals.. would that vault ov into the favorate position to win the hart. what happens if they lose 7-6 with ov scoring 6 in a losing effort. same amount of goals in the last game but now not even considered for the hart . people must remember that this is a team sport and 1 player can only do so much no matter how great he plays . i look at it this way .take your brodeur's and iginla's off there teams and they still make the playoffs.ov is the only reason that the caps have a shot at making the playoffs.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 22:12:32
Last quick post before sleep - thanks for the explanation davbid. But your explanation touched more on what you think the voters will do rather than what you think should be done so let me ask you this. Yes or no. If the Caps get in the playoffs by way of shootout on the last night, does Ovechkin change FOR YOU (forgetting what you think the voters will do) from total "non-candidate" to one of the persons YOU would consider a strong and deserving candidate for this award? Again, if the answer is yes, I just don't get it (and don't get it even if you take away my extreme example of the shootout, which I am just putting in there to highlight the logic problem with the "playoffs or no consideration for the Hart" way of thinking).
Sleep time! |
| davbid |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 21:17:49
Hello to you and thanks for the welcome.
Here goes the explanation, a summation of what I've already written, but hopefully a little more clear.
First of all, the voters will look at the entire season and not the last game or the "playoff push" (though they will likely give this some consideration if they do get in), so regardless of if they get in on the last day or they've been comfortably positioned for months, the debate doesn't ACTUALLY begin till the last regular season game is played.
At the end of the season, teams that are in the playoffs will be considered to have acheived a certain amount of success, those that did not make it will be considered unsuccessful. Ovechkin, while leading his team for a third straight year in points, will be considered just as valuable to his team as the other years when they failed to make it, that is, of GREAT value, BUT not as valuable as someone who led their team to the playoffs. While he most certainly will get plenty of votes, the reason that he won't win(if the Caps don't make the playoffs) is because, just as every other year I believe, voters consider that making the playoffs is a great determining criteria on valuing a team and therefore their greatest contributing player. In other words: what, or rather, who was the reason for their success? Is there one player that stands out more than any other on any other team that can be considered responsible for the success of the team. And this is why their position at the end of the regular season is crucial to voting.
Vote-getting might be swayed by things like: what is the difference in points from last year? Well, not much and certainly not as much as Philly. But is there one player on Philly that is deserving? Richards maybe? Carter? Don't think so. Not as deserving as some of the other teams' candidates. And the biggest difference between the Caps this year and last is Backstrom!
More numbers to crunch: Consider that Iginla has more game-winning-goals per goals scored with 107 fewer shots.
Consider, also, that with Ovechkin shooting over 400 shots on net this year, he has the lowest shooting percentage among the four best goal-scorers in the league - by far. What if he had passed a few more times? Maybe a few more goals and his team is in a better position! Perhaps he SHOULD try to use his team a little more. Just because he's trying to do it all, doesn't mean he's the most valuable to his team just because he's putting up numbers. Some might think he's a selfish player and in fact some have called him that.
It is the Ross and not the Hart trophy that is given to the greatest point-getter. And that is really all that he is.
Hope I've answered to your satisfaction. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 19:34:13
davebid - first of all, hi and welcome...
Here's the thing I still don't get from the guys in your camp. If I understand you and Leigh correctly, if the Caps make it into the playoffs in this last little stretch, suddenly Ovechkin becomes not only a contender for the Hart, but quite possibly the favorite. Is that what you are saying?
My problem is not with anyone who argues that someone (Iggy, Luongo or others) is more worthy of the Hart than Ovechkin. I agree actually! But if you are telling me that the value of Ovechkin suddenly goes from "non-contender" to "favorite" based on the result of what now has come down to a handful of remaining hockey games (and potentially what could come down to THE last game), as I have said in previous posts, that way of thinking just isn't computing for me. I mean, would you catapult him from "non-contender" to "favorite" if Washington gets in on the last night on a shootout goal? If the answer is yes, I have to put this to you like Denzel Washington did to the Court in the movie "Philadelphia",
"Explain it to me like I am a three year old"
|
| davbid |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 18:53:07
Good work on the stats, Slozo. Thanks.
You make a valid case for Ovechkin, the best so far, but I have to maintain that the current value of his team is ultimately too low (unless they make the playoffs) for it to matter enough, where the other team's values are currently high enough for their respective MVP candidates to be worth more.
Where he'll get the Ross and, deservedly, the Pearson, the value of the team at the end of the regular season is what counts the most in evaluating the worth of their most contributing player. This is also why voting takes place AT THE END of the season (though I like this premature debate).
And considering that Iginla and Malkin are close to Ovechkin in the wonderful terms you have outlined, and their teams being well-positioned to be considered successful, they are more deserving, even though they, perhaps, have done slightly less with more, so to speak. |
| tbar |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 09:59:46
To me the absolute most valubale player to his team this year is Malkin. He has done wonders for the Pens especially when Crosby went down and everybody wrote them off. Not only has he brought them to the top in their Div. at the moment but he has also put up over 100 points. He is the reason Pitsburgh is playing for top spot in the East. |
| ThorntonisTHEMAN |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 09:38:45
wow! my hat is off to you Slozo! wow!
"I'm not dumb enough to be a goalie."
Brett Hull. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 08:36:19
Sorry to double post, but I went through some game-by-game stats, and tried to determine the number of games some of the top candidates won "all by themself".
Number of games where their team won by one or two goals, and player:
- got at least three points, or 2 goals in a low scoring one-goal game WIN (3 goals or less)
- got at least three points in a one goal game WIN
- got the lone goal in a 1-0 game
- got at least a goal and an assist in a 2-1 or 2-0 game, or the winning goal in a 2-0 game that has an empty net goal
Ovechkin - 10
Iginla - 8
Malkin - 8
Overtime losses for their teams, games where they scored at least three points, 2 goals, or the lone goal, OR, where they scored the tying goal late:
Ovechkin - 2
Iginla - 3
Malkin - 2
Dominating performances, where the player got 4 or more points in a one goal game (or a win by two goals with an empty netter, not scored by the player):
Ovechkin - 3
Iginla - 1
Malkin - 1
Now, for the goalies!
Games where the team wins:
- by 1 goal, with 30 or more SOG and score not more than 3-2
- by score of 1-0 or 2-1 or 2-0, with 25 or more SOG
Luongo - 8
Brodeur - 10
Games lost in overtime or shootout, where goalie faced 30 or more SO, or any 1-0 game lost in o/t or shootout:
Luongo - 6
Brodeur - 3
Dominating games, 40 SOG or more, with a win/OTL, or a 1-0 or 2-0 shutout win with at least 30 SOG:
Luongo - 3
Brodeur - 2
So, points gained for the team that they couldn't have possibly gotten without their star player:
forwards
Ovechkin - 22
Iginla - 19
Malkin - 18
goalies
Brodeur - 23
Luongo - 22
Now who's your MVP?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
