Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
shmenguin wrote:So really, Sid is never eligible to win hockey's highest honor (according to its definition), despite him being head and shoulders the best player in the league. As long as he plays with malkin, he'll never be more valuable to his team than a bunch of other guys are to theirs.
It's just a lame way to define an award. All for the sake of what - "MVP" being a fun term for people to say?
shmenguin wrote:So really, Sid is never eligible to win hockey's highest honor (according to its definition), despite him being head and shoulders the best player in the league. As long as he plays with malkin, he'll never be more valuable to his team than a bunch of other guys are to theirs.
It's just a lame way to define an award. All for the sake of what - "MVP" being a fun term for people to say?
Nizzy wrote:Ovechkin's going to get it. Fat boy only plays half a season, Crosby dominates for 2/3rds.
thepittman wrote:shmenguin wrote:"the player who means the most to his team" is a silly way to judge awards.
How else would you define "Most Valuable Player"?
nexguy66 wrote:thepittman wrote:shmenguin wrote:"the player who means the most to his team" is a silly way to judge awards.
How else would you define "Most Valuable Player"?
MVP should mean "Most valuable player to the league" in that, if you put him on any team, he would improve it the most.
shmenguin wrote:So really, Sid is never eligible to win hockey's highest honor (according to its definition), despite him being head and shoulders the best player in the league. As long as he plays with malkin, he'll never be more valuable to his team than a bunch of other guys are to theirs.
It's just a lame way to define an award. All for the sake of what - "MVP" being a fun term for people to say?
Pitt87 wrote:shmenguin wrote:So really, Sid is never eligible to win hockey's highest honor (according to its definition), despite him being head and shoulders the best player in the league. As long as he plays with malkin, he'll never be more valuable to his team than a bunch of other guys are to theirs.
It's just a lame way to define an award. All for the sake of what - "MVP" being a fun term for people to say?
This is an easy thing to suggest, but it doesn't bear out in reality.
Petr Forsberg, Joe Sakic, and even Sid have Hart trophies from in years that they had a former or Future MVP playing with them. There is an even longer list of players that won the Ross and Hart in the same year and have another guy that was in the top 5-10 in scoring on their team that otherwise would be been middle of the pack.
There's probably an even distribution of both types of winners; the best player on a top team, or a superior performer on a team that is carried forward because of his performance. For the first time, I'd argue that Sid is in both categories, since Chris Kunitz is still in the top 5 in both points and goals.
I’m really torn on what to do about Crosby. He easily was the best player on the planet this season. He brought his game to a level no other player could match. And as late as a few days ago, I still thought I’d give him my first-place vote despite his late-season injury. But the fact he hasn’t played a game in April is beginning to weigh more in my thoughts. The Hart also isn’t for the most outstanding player or the most outstanding season, but rather the MVP. Take that player away from the team and argue what impact it would have.
Well, for Pittsburgh, whether it’s been without Evgeni Malkin or Crosby, the Eastern Conference powerhouse has just kept winning games...
Having said that, how can you not reward Captain Serious in Chicago? The Blackhawks have been the most consistent powerhouse in the NHL this season, a wire-to-wire dominance fueled by the consistent work ethic and performance of their leader.
Users browsing this forum: flame, PensFanSince1970 and 24 guests