| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/21/2008 : 17:06:14
In your opinion, should a player whose NHL team does not make the playoffs be considered a candidate for the Hart Trophy? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest2680 |
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 17:40:09
The Hart trophy should be given to the player that has single handedly benefited his team the most, alot of the time this is not the best player in the leauge. In Ovechkin's case if Washington doesn't make the playoffs then the team did not have a sucessful year and the value of Ovechkin becomes a mute point. Put Kevin Weeks in net for Jersey and goes playoffs, While if Alexander Semin is put at the starting left wing for the capitals then they will still have an unsuccessful year |
| Timay |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 17:47:17
Funny thing is though, theres an unwritten rule for the Conn Smythe as well. The player has to make it to the finals. Otherwise maybe Forsberg would have been a shoo-in back in 2001-02 playoffs when he lead the playoffs with 27 points while losing a 7 game series to the Red Wings in the Semi-finals. I think Lidstrom deserved it, I just wondered if they should've given Peter a thought. Just a thought. |
| Guest4066 |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 17:28:24
The Hart should go to the best player in the league for the season. There is also a trophy for best player in the playoffs, it's called the Conn Smythe Trophy, so no I don't think it should matter if the player's team is in the playoffs. |
| ThorntonisTHEMAN |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 10:03:02
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4456
Seeing as New Jersey and Vancouver are both playoff teams and Washington is barely in the playoff race, with New Jersey contending for the Eastern Conference title, how can Ovechkin possibly be more valuable to his team than Brodeur or Luongo???
Take out Ovechkin and the Capitals miss the playoffs, really not much different then their current spot.
Take out Luongo and the Canucks miss the playoffs, much different than their current spot.
Take out Brodeur and the Devils drop in the standings, maybe not out of the playoffs but probably not contending for the Eastern Conference title.
Are you kidding me? Washington is barely in the playoff race? Have you checked the standings lately? They are two points out of a spot! TWO POINTS! and Vancouver is 3 points ahead of 9th place team. Both Vancouver and Washington are both fighting for a playoff spot! "How can Ovechkin possibly be more valuable to his team than Brodeur of Luongo?" Well, if the Caps didn't have Ovie, THEY WOULD BE THE WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE! because they have Ovie, they actually have a decent shot at making the playoffs. I would say that this is proof enough that he could be valuable to his team!
As for you Guest8437, "you can't be that valuable to your team if you can't get them to the playoffs". Ovechkin has had a point in 48% of his teams goals! 48 %!!!!!!!!!!! I would say that that is a wee little bit valuable, wouldn't you?
"I'm not dumb enough to be a goalie."
Brett Hull. |
| Guest8437 |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 09:20:23
No.
You can't be that valuble to your team if you can't get them to the playoffs. Especially in the East in this years case.
Theodore robbed Iginla of this trophy a few years ago with the same set of circumstances. |
| Guest4456 |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 10:20:20
Most valuable player to New Jersey...Martin Brodeur
Most valuable player to Vancouver...Roberto Luongo
Most valuable player to Washington...Alex Ovechkin
Seeing as New Jersey and Vancouver are both playoff teams and Washington is barely in the playoff race, with New Jersey contending for the Eastern Conference title, how can Ovechkin possibly be more valuable to his team than Brodeur or Luongo???
Take out Ovechkin and the Capitals miss the playoffs, really not much different then their current spot.
Take out Luongo and the Canucks miss the playoffs, much different than their current spot.
Take out Brodeur and the Devils drop in the standings, maybe not out of the playoffs but probably not contending for the Eastern Conference title. |
| irvine |
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 10:10:17
What is your logic, Alex?
All you did is repeat what others have said already. heh.
Irvine |
| Alex |
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 09:26:44
I have said it once, I will say it again: how valuable to a team is a player who can not get them into the post-season? Ovechkin I would make a case for, if they fall a little short. But Lecavalier? The guy is good, no, the guy is amazing, no question. But take him out of Tampa and they don't lose any ground -- there is no ground to lose!
OK, maybe if you traded him for Spezza, for argument's sake, Ottawa would be better and Tampa worse. However, that does not change the fact that with Lecavlier out, Tampa does not miss as much as when, say, Luongo is out for the Cancuks.
The ability to single-handedly, or almost single-handedly, make your team into a team much better than they would be without you, in my mind, is the attribute needed for the Hart Trophy. Better = playoffs.
Since the turn of the millenium, which is as far back as I felt like researching, all the Hart winners have been on teams that made the playoffs. Like it or not, the voting comittee seems to agree with my logic.
EDIT -- take a look at this link, they discuss the issue on ESPN.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3314261&n8pe6c=3&categoryId=2459791 |
| Guest9323 |
Posted - 03/22/2008 : 15:25:50
The Hart Tophy, in my opinion, should go to the player on a team which, with the absence of this particular player, would not have had success or the chance for ultimate success (i.e. The Stanley Cup). The concept of success is typically measured by making the playoffs, and I don't have a problem with that. Success is not merely winning games when you shouldn't have, I'd like to think that it means something a little more significant than that. Though Ovechkin "leaves it all on the ice", his value to his team should not be only in terms of individual statistics. Ovechkin is having success, good for him. But the idea of the Hart trophy, and indeed the spirit of it, is that the team has benefitted by this guy's contribution. It is only Ovechkin who is enjoying success not the team. Perhaps he is failing at incorporating his teammates enough, or perhaps he's not inspiring them to the point of better team success. His value to his team could increase if he could do these things, for example, and not just rack up points as any amazing individual hockey player can do.
Does he win the Hart because he's so much better than every one else on his team? Or because he's the only one trying? Or because he doesn't pass to them? Individual statistics are not good enough for this award. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/22/2008 : 10:37:16
The Award goes to the "Player Most Valuable to their team." Not the "Player Most Valuable to their team, if they are in the playoffs." Although I am not saying that a player like Ovechkin should get the award, but he shouldn't be discredited just because his team is not Detroit!
The whole thing about it is twofold for me:
1) If you took that player from that team for the year, how does it change the team?? For example. Vancouver without Luongo for the season is not a playoff team. Yet, because he is on the team they are a playoff team. That is an MVP candidate. Same thing with Ovechkin, without him, the Caps are fighting Tampa for the worst spot in the league. With him, they are in the playoff hunt.
2) Is there another player in the league that you could switch with that player and seriously say that the team would have been BETTER. I can think of about 4 or 5 players in the league that if you switched with Ovechkin, the Caps would be about as good, but not clearly better. All of those players are Hart Candidates.
Think about this, Lecavalier has done everything but turned ice into gold. He has played his heart out this year and his team is still horrible. Does that mean that he is not a Hart Candidate. Take him off TB and how much worse off are they???
The definition of the award has nothing to do with the team being in the playoffs or not. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/22/2008 : 08:59:08
To me the problem with the argument that the two things should be connected would be highlighted if this year, on the very last night of the season, Washington edges some team out (Boston perhaps ) and gets into the playoffs. Lets say, hypothetically, that in that last game of the year, Ovie has a so-so game and the star, by leaps and bounds is Huet, stopping 60 plus shots. If that were to happen, a guy who argues for a connection between playoffs and Hart consideration has to admit that because Huet stood on his head in Game 82, suddenly Ovie gets to go from not even being considered for the Hart to being a candidate.
It's an extreme example, yes, but I think it points out a flaw in connecting getting into the playoffs with candidacy for the Hart.
|
| Guest0587 |
Posted - 03/22/2008 : 07:40:01
Isn't the Hart trophy for the most valuable player to his team? I don't recall it saying for the most valuable player to his team that makes the playoffs.
My two coppers.
|
| mytor4 |
Posted - 03/21/2008 : 19:55:25
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
In your opinion, should a player whose NHL team does not make the playoffs be considered a candidate for the Hart Trophy?
yes and ov will win the hart hands down playoffs or not.
wayne did it before now ov will do it.
57 career losses,46 shutouts and 5 vezina trophys.6 Stanley Cup rings in 8 yrs |
| irvine |
Posted - 03/21/2008 : 19:23:53
After reading the topic prior to this poll, I can see both sides.
But, in my opinion i'd have to say I don't believe your team has to make the playoffs, in order for a player of that team (IE, Ovechkin) to be win the Hart.
My reasoning being -
An MVP to me, is a player that trys his hardest day in and day out to be the best player he can be, and in the league. Trying not only for himself, but for his team. He plays his heart out, and strives with hunger for his teams success. He puts up points, and is the clear star of his team. Without him, his team is a mere thought of what could be. Not what can be.
Although Washington will not make the playoffs (i don't think,) Ovechkin has exemplified what is an MVP, all season long.
He's the leader goals & overall points, he trys each and every night, and without him, the Capitals are no where near being close to a playoff spot.
They would be dead last, like a few seasons ago/last season.
Summed up, my answer is yes. A player should still be considered (and can win,) the Hart without carrying his team in to the playoffs. If that player has carried his team to atleast close to them. Let's face it, until trade deadline - Washington had Ovechkin, Backstrom & Semin. Backstrom is only a rookie, although talented, Ovie needs more help than that. (Any player does.) Semin, drafted several years ago and then played in Russia (I believe,) came back and has performed decent. But same as Backstrom, he's not a league superstar just yet, and are just getting to be core players.
So the truth in my mind is, Ovechkin has carried this team single-handedly. and deserves a shot.
Irvine |
| Leafsfan_94 |
Posted - 03/21/2008 : 17:49:41
good topic leigh!,
i think yes they should, because what if someone leads the league in goals, is like 4th in the league for assists etc. and had a great year, but he was maybe the only good player on the team, and missed the playoffs. it wouldnt be fair to give it to 2nd best player whos team maybe won the stanley cup. or did good in the playoffs.
Leafsfan_94
|
|
|
