By definition, should Brock Boeser or Jack Eichel be Hart Trophy front runners?

[Adarsh Sant]

The Hart Memorial Trophy, originally known as the Hart Trophy, is awarded annually to the "player judged most valuable to his team"

 

By this definition, should players like Brock Boeser and Jack Eichel be frontrunners (Hall and Mackinnon as well)? The Sabers and Canucks are absolute garbage without these guys on the ice. Like if you look at the percentage of team offence that these guys factor in on, it's near the top of the league. By comparison Kucherov has Stamkos to reduce his value to his own team, Malkin has Crosby, Marchand has Pastrnak and Bergeron, Mcdavid has Draisaitl. 

 

Thoughts? This is just my opinion.

[Wilbur]

Doesn't have to be an elite team, but the Hart should go to a team that makes the playoffs at least, in my humble opinion.

[hlinkas wrister]

4 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

The Hart Memorial Trophy, originally known as the Hart Trophy, is awarded annually to the "player judged most valuable to his team"

 

By this definition, should players like Brock Boeser and Jack Eichel be frontrunners (Hall and Mackinnon as well)? The Sabers and Canucks are absolute garbage without these guys on the ice. By comparison Kucherov has Stamkos to reduce his value to his own team, Malkin has Crosby, Marchand has Pastrnak, Mcdavid has Draisaitl. 

 

Thoughts? This is just my opinion.

I would argue that the Sabres and Canucks were both still garbage when Eichel and Boeser were on the ice.

[Adarsh Sant]

3 minutes ago, hlinkas wrister said:

I would argue that the Sabres and Canucks were both still garbage when Eichel and Boeser were on the ice.

But less garbage IMO. Like a landfill vs a garbage can 

[-AJ-]

I share your beliefs and it's because of that that I strongly believe that MacKinnon is the most deserving. He's basically single-handedly dragged the Avalanche to the playoffs. I will be severely irritated if Kucherov wins it because "he's good". One of my greatest pet peeves is to see how the Hart trophy has become the "best player in the league" trophy and not the "player adjudged to be the most valuable to his team" trophy. If you look in the 70s and prior years, you see far more lesser known players being runner ups and winners of the Hart trophy, because it was awarded properly. Heck, Chuck Rayner won the Hart in 1949-50 with some of the worst goaltending numbers in the league, but everyone knew that he was by far the best player for the Rangers.

[Adarsh Sant]

3 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I share your beliefs and it's because of that that I strongly believe that MacKinnon is the most deserving. He's basically single-handedly dragged the Avalanche to the playoffs. I will be severely irritated if Kucherov wins it because "he's good". One of my greatest pet peeves is to see how the Hart trophy has become the "best player in the league" trophy and not the "player adjudged to be the most valuable to his team" trophy. If you look in the 70s and prior years, you see far more lesser known players being runner ups and winners of the Hart trophy, because it was awarded properly. Heck, Chuck Rayner won the Hart in 1949-50 with some of the worst goaltending numbers in the league, but everyone knew that he was by far the best player for the Rangers.

I could pose another question. By definiton, should Hank have won in 2009-10 (Danny got injured at 63 games played)? Danny also had the 3rd best pts/gp in the league that season, behind only Hank and Ovechkin........

[goalie13]

I hear you.  The CFL has it right as a 'Most Outstanding Player'.  Way easier to determine who that is.

[-AJ-]

1 minute ago, goalie13 said:

I hear you.  The CFL has it right as a 'Most Outstanding Player'.  Way easier to determine who that is.

I think the NHL's version of that would be the Ted Lindsay, which is criminally undervalued due to it's less storied history.

[goalie13]

1 minute ago, -AJ- said:

I think the NHL's version of that would be the Ted Lindsay, which is criminally undervalued due to it's less storied history.

Agreed.  The only difference being who does the voting, but the players probably are the most qualified to determine who the most outstanding player is.

[Qwags]

While it could be argued that Eichel and Boeser were the MVPs of their respective teams (Boeser most assuredly is), it is also rather obvious that these teams would still struggle even with both playing at their best. 

[-AJ-]

4 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

I could pose another question. By definiton, should Hank have won in 2009-10 (Danny got injured at 63 games played)? Danny also had the 3rd best pts/gp in the league that season, behind only Hank and Ovechkin........

Tough to say. The Canucks had a plethora of solid offensive players in that year and finished second in goals for, so it's not like the twins contributed offense when we had none elsewhere. That said, Ovechkin and his Capitals were also really strong.

 

I think a valid argument could be made that Hank shouldn't have won that year. Stamkos scored 51 goals on a Lightning team that couldn't score, but he also had St. Louis helping him out a lot. It's a bit of a tough call.

[nuckin_futz]

If the argument is "where would they be without Boeser/Eichel?".

 

Well, they'd be in last or near last. Where are they? They are in last or near last. So how valuable are they really?

 

Plus both of them have only ever played in regular season mean nothing games. I am certain Boeser and Eichel would perform well in high pressure playoff games but we just don't know.

 

Rick Nash looked like a guy who'd kill it in the playoffs and his playoff stats are hot garbage. So you never know.

 

Here's an example from baseball. In 1972 pitcher Steve Carlton played for the lowly Phillies. The Phillies won a pathetic 59 games that year. Carlton finished with a record of 27-10. He was responsible for 46% of his teams' wins. Despite this he finished 5th in MVP voting. He did win the NL Cy Young award for best pitcher.

 

The knock on pitchers being considered for MVP is they only play every 5th day. Kind of an apples and oranges comparison but if your team sucks no one will believe you're all that valuable.

[coastal.view]

7 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Tough to say. The Canucks had a plethora of solid offensive players in that year and finished second in goals for, so it's not like the twins contributed offense when we had none elsewhere. That said, Ovechkin and his Capitals were also really strong.

 

I think a valid argument could be made that Hank shouldn't have won that year. Stamkos scored 51 goals on a Lightning team that couldn't score, but he also had St. Louis helping him out a lot. It's a bit of a tough call.

a bit of revisionist history i think

hank should have won because he carried the team and drove the play

other teams were not giving priority to planning to stop any other canuck at that time

the reason why other canuck players had offensive success is because the focus on hank freed them up more

when you carry a team, or dictate the play, you deserve the award

because you are so valuabke

 

mackinnon does that presently and is worthy

the suggestion that brock is worthy is far fetched in my view (i know you did not suggest this though)

he does not carry the play, drive the play, carry the team

he is just a deadly finisher

who knows how to get in the right areas

to unleash his deadly shot

the canucks presently have no one who drive or carries the play

[Kevin Biestra]

I've always thought requiring the team to make the playoffs for a player to win the Hart was stupid.  It's in no way implied by the terms of the award, nor is it implied by the idea of a "league MVP."  Half the teams don't make it.  The worse the team, the more they probably depended on a great player.

[Baer.]

Having your team be in a playoff spot is almost a requirement for the Hart.

 

Simply being good on a bad team isn't enough.

 

MacKinnon, Hall, and Rinne are my finalists.

[Adarsh Sant]

35 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

a bit of revisionist history i think

hank should have won because he carried the team and drove the play

other teams were not giving priority to planning to stop any other canuck at that time

the reason why other canuck players had offensive success is because the focus on hank freed them up more

when you carry a team, or dictate the play, you deserve the award

because you are so valuabke

 

mackinnon does that presently and is worthy

the suggestion that brock is worthy is far fetched in my view (i know you did not suggest this though)

he does not carry the play, drive the play, carry the team

he is just a deadly finisher

who knows how to get in the right areas

to unleash his deadly shot

the canucks presently have no one who drive or carries the play

 

How does carry the play = most valuable player to his team? Does that mean a goalie or sniper cannot be most valuable?

 

Ovechkin doesn't carry the play, Backstrom or Kuznetsov do. But Ovechkin is without a doubt more valuable than Backstrom....

[Adarsh Sant]

47 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

If the argument is "where would they be without Boeser/Eichel?".

 

Well, they'd be in last or near last. Where are they? They are in last or near last. So how valuable are they really?

 

Plus both of them have only ever played in regular season mean nothing games. I am certain Boeser and Eichel would perform well in high pressure playoff games but we just don't know.

 

Rick Nash looked like a guy who'd kill it in the playoffs and his playoff stats are hot garbage. So you never know.

 

Here's an example from baseball. In 1972 pitcher Steve Carlton played for the lowly Phillies. The Phillies won a pathetic 59 games that year. Carlton finished with a record of 27-10. He was responsible for 46% of his teams' wins. Despite this he finished 5th in MVP voting. He did win the NL Cy Young award for best pitcher.

 

The knock on pitchers being considered for MVP is they only play every 5th day. Kind of an apples and oranges comparison but if your team sucks no one will believe you're all that valuable.

I'm arguing they'd be even more garbage than they currently are right now. Like 2016-17 Avalanche garbage.

[Kevin Biestra]

16 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

I'm arguing they'd be even more garbage than they currently are right now. Like 2016-17 Avalanche garbage.

I wouldn't have Boeser very close to the top for the Hart Trophy, but we've seen what the Canucks are without him.  They don't just lose, they get shut out.

[189lb enforcers?]

Jack should win.

He plays with garbage. 

[189lb enforcers?]

10 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

I wouldn't have Boeser very close to the top for the Hart Trophy, but we've seen what the Canucks are without him.  They don't just lose, they get shut out.

Canucks MVP, sure, maybe.