As we head into the stretch run of the 2021-22 season, PHR is excited to announce a new feature aimed at encouraging discourse between reader and writer. On Friday mornings (and perhaps even more often than that), we’ll post a topic of discussion that we think will draw out varied and interesting perspectives from both our commenters and the other staff writers.
For too long there has only been a couple of outlets for our readers to interact with the PHR staff. Live chats and mailbags offer a chance at some discussion, but also run the risk of being too crowded or even outdated by the time the answer arrives. With this new feature, we’re hoping to get weekly chatter going on a topic that normally would have to be brought into the spotlight by a reader before even being discussed.
Last week, the topic centered on the early deadline returns and how teams were adjusting to their new players. This time, we might as well talk a bit about what the rest of the hockey world seems to be discussing.
What does Most Valuable Player really mean? The Hart Trophy has been up for debate long before this year, but Connor McDavid, Auston Matthews, Jonathan Huberdeau, Roman Josi, and Igor Shesterkin seem to be making things even more heated this season. Everyone has an idea of what it means to be the MVP–let’s see if we can’t come to a consensus. This will be a free-flowing discussion that doesn’t have a lot of guidelines, so make sure you chime in and check regularly to continue the conversation.
The best part about doing this today–the top three headlines on NHL.com are:
Matthews gets No. 55, sets Toronto record.
Shesterkin, Rangers shut out Penguins
Josi sets Predators record in win
I’ll be honest, I have a hard time going straight by the analytics to choose an MVP. My logical brain can accept that the person with the most goals-above-replacement (or whatever metric you decide on) is the one who should win, but it does make you feel like you’re not even a part of it. Maybe we shouldn’t be, maybe that is the answer. There shouldn’t be voting at all, just an accepted metric that earns the Hart.
But that’s no fun, let’s argue!
For years I was a strict adherent to the most valuable to their teams language, but too often that works out to “the best player whose teammates stink who had success this year” which is a silly criteria for the league’s marquee award.
The easiest way to interpret this award is to focus on a different value…trade value. The player who no one would trade for any other player is your true MVP.
But, since writers and voters are fickle and like new stories and this interpretation would result in McDavid winning for the next decade (and Sid having way more than 2 had it been used in the past)…the criteria will surely remain fluid and graded on a curve. Especially if they are a Leaf.
By that metric Mo Seider wins, hands down!
Hmm, that’s an interesting way to look at it. Although I’m not sure it would really give us an answer today. I don’t think the Maple Leafs would trade Matthews even for McDavid.
I would, if only on this metric. In just about every aspect they’re equal, beyond that McDavid’s a slightly better playmaker and Matthews is a slightly better goal scorer, but even there they work with the guys they’ve got.
But so far, Matthews has missed chunks of time every year since his rookie year. So far, McDavid’s just that much more durable. It’s fishing a bit, but if I want a guy to be my main man for another decade, I’m going to take the guy who’s good for a full season over a guy who’s liable to miss a dozen games a year.
Oh don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be a good trade. Just that I don’t think the Maple Leafs would move him for anything right now.
The wording is “the player adjudged most valuable to his team.” I’m not even sure that a goals-above-replacement metric would work — for forwards, maybe, but how do you measure the impact of defensemen or goalies with it?
Nor is forwhomjoshbelltolled’s notion the answer. Look: Wayne Gretzky got traded. More than once. Especially with GMs dealing with the cap in mind, NO one without a no-movement clause is invulnerable, no one. There are going to be more “I don’t care that he’s the best player in hockey, his cap hit is killing us, and he’s a UFA next year” deals.
This year, anyway, the Hart winner is obvious: got to be Shesterkin. Remove him from the picture, and the Rangers would be closer to a lottery pick than to the Cup.
So this is kinda the crux of it I think. Because by this same idea, in my bones, I think Roman Josi is “more valuable” than some of the other candidates.
He has sixty (60!) more points than the next highest defenseman on the Predators, Alexandre Carrier. He might hit 100 points, he plays more than 25 minutes a night.
And yet, at the end of it all, I would have a hard time voting for him–or for Shesterkin even–I think.
Oh, yeah, Josi’s certainly having a season along another key metric in my head: the percentage of a team’s offense a fellow generates. Granted, that runs into the “the best player whose teammates stink” issue.
Yeah, another thing I believe: the MVP has to come from a playoff team. “Most valuable,” IMHO, only counts if it GETS you somewhere. If the only material difference your play made is in your next contract negotiation, you’re not a MVP.
I think the most valuable player awards needs to go. Each team could/should and likely does have its own MVP but gauging it against everyone else is tough.
I’d argue this year it’s Shersterkin or Josi If you want to look at it league wide. Those guys have support but nowhere near a Leon, Mitch or Aleks.
Just do most points, goals, assists, Vezena and Norris like you have. those already look primarily of not entirely at production and let each team vote for its own MVP.
Here is a twist to Gavin’s question: how much does public perception matter and should it come into play with MVP consideration? Or should the numbers be all that matters? Brad Marchand is fourth in points since 2015-16 behind only McDavid, Draisaitl, and Kane, but has a “dirty player” label. Phil Kessel is one of the best scorers of the last decade, ranked ninth in points over the past ten seasons, but many consider him to be “complimentary” at best and “lazy” at worst. The numbers speak for themselves, but neither player has ever sniffed the Hart.
Marchand’s suspensions and dumb penalties over the years have hurt his team by taking him off the ice so I wouldn’t consider him an MVP
“The only trophies that matter are scoring titles and Stanley Cups because no one votes for those.” -66
Eh, a lot of trophies work on perception, or on criteria that don’t have a lot to do with the trophies’ criteria. There is no way, none at all, a checking line grinder will win the Selke: Patrice Bergeron, for pity’s sake, is the lowest scoring winner in the last two decades, which is saying something. There is no way, none at all, that a low-scoring defensive defenseman wins the Norris: only four times in seventy years has none of the top five scoring defensemen won the Norris.
I think the MVP Award in all sports should have the same qualifier: which player makes the most difference to his team’s chances of winning? The most valuable player is the player that most literally alters his team’s chances of being successful through his play, leadership, etc. I don’t think the most valuable player necessarily has to be the best scorer. There are already awards for that.