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

[rekker]

35 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

Their is actually another award for that in the NHL...........the Ted Lindsay Award.

Isn't that voted among peers?

[coastal.view]

7 hours ago, Adarsh Sant said:

 

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....

and i disagree

backstrom is more valuable to the caps then ovi

 

goalies can dominate as well

which effects the game's outcome equally as much as a player who carries the play

but i sense you simply wish to play word games

 

[Mathew Barzal]

8 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Marchand has a killer PPG too. Hate him or not, he is right up there. 

His name should definitely be in the conversation, but as mentioned Mackinnon does not have near the support system as Marchand.

[Dats hockey]

NattyMack or Hall 

they both deserve it wayyyyyy more the Kucherov 

[Bertuzzi44ever]

Props to you for giving Eichel love.

 

If Eichel was a LEAF he'd be talked about even MORE Then Matthews who he has out-produced (Points Per Game) for 2 straight seasons on a lower scoring team. (much lowerr)

 

 

I agree though, the HART isn't looked at as how its described.

[Bertuzzi44ever]

11 hours ago, shazzam said:

At least provide some stats to support your argument.

 

I looked up 2 players. Kucherov has 36% and Brock 30% of their teams offense. 

 

The lighting are at the top of the league. You can argue that without him, they could possibly be fighting for a playoff spot. Without Brock, well we're just another bottom feeder, which we already are. The lighting without Stamkos last year, didn't even make the playoffs. These things are hard to judge but looking at the history of how the award is handed out, Kucherov would have more votes compared to Brock for the Hart and Ted Lindsey. Brock is likely to miss 20 games this season, so he's not providing much value for a quarter of the season. 

You want stats?

 

Eichel has 125 points in his last 135 games. When he went out due to injury the next best point producer on his team was ROR who had 37, and Eichel had 53, he was #1 in transition zone rushes going into his injury (just ahead of McDavid) and all this coming off a sprained Ankle in his 2nd year. and then doing this on a team who has nothing to play for (motivation problems.)

 

He is a one man show over there. Barely gets talked about.

 

Oh and 41 of his 53 pts were even strength points. What's crazy is over 40 of them were PRIMARY too. Under ten (I believe 8 or 9) were secondary assists.

 

There's a reason he got the payday.

 

In his 2nd year he had 57 pts in 61 games in just his 2nd season coming off that sprained ankle he suffered the day before the start of the regular season in practice.

 

This year in his third season he has 53 pts in just 55 games played, on the lowest scoring team in the league.

 

Not many people realize it but, he's the only reason Evander Kane had 20 goals this year, Kane only had 3 in his next 20 and (6 pts in 20 games) after Kane left his line. While EIchel's production went up 30 percent.

 

 

 

Just like Boeser helped Henrik's production this year.

 

[shazzam]

54 minutes ago, Bertuzzi44ever said:

You want stats?

 

Eichel has 125 points in his last 135 games. When he went out due to injury the next best point producer on his team was ROR who had 37, and Eichel had 53, he was #1 in transition zone rushes going into his injury (just ahead of McDavid) and all this coming off a sprained Ankle in his 2nd year. and then doing this on a team who has nothing to play for (motivation problems.)

 

He is a one man show over there. Barely gets talked about.

 

Oh and 41 of his 53 pts were even strength points. What's crazy is over 40 of them were PRIMARY too. Under ten (I believe 8 or 9) were secondary assists.

 

There's a reason he got the payday.

 

In his 2nd year he had 57 pts in 61 games in just his 2nd season coming off that sprained ankle he suffered the day before the start of the regular season in practice.

 

This year in his third season he has 53 pts in just 55 games played, on the lowest scoring team in the league.

 

Not many people realize it but, he's the only reason Evander Kane had 20 goals this year, Kane only had 3 in his next 20 and (6 pts in 20 games) after Kane left his line. While EIchel's production went up 30 percent.

 

 

 

Just like Boeser helped Henrik's production this year.

 

Good for you for providing stats. Since we're talking about the hart, I'm just looking at this season's stats. I'm not going to argue whether he's the most valuable on his team since I don't watch their games, he probably is. But missing games would most likely work against the player for the hart. Not much value coming from an injured player. If he can stay healthy and lead his team to the playoffs, then I'm sure he would get consideration.

[JeremyCuddles]

Depends on how you look at it. We were the 4th worst team in the NHL prior to Boeser going down, we are what? The second worst team with him gone. Colorado goes from playoff team to lottery team with the loss of MacKinnon. A healthy Boeser doesn't boost our team all that much. Instead of losing 3-0 we maybe lose 3-1 or 3-2 with him. We are still losers with or without Boeser is what I am getting at. But teams like Colorado would fall apart if they lost MacKinnon, therefore he is the most valuable to his team not because he is their best player but also because he fundamentally changes the dynamic of the team by being gone. Going from playoff to lottery team just by removing him. Boeser doesn't have that kind of effect on our team.

 

That's why I view Bo as our most important player, Boeser can score but that's really all he brings. It's hard to gauge what exactly sent us spiraling down the standings, cause when Bo went down we also lost Tanev, and Sutter, and Edler and a plethora of other people. But I do feel like losing Bo was a major loss to our team at the time.

[Bertuzzi44ever]

1 hour ago, shazzam said:

Good for you for providing stats. Since we're talking about the hart, I'm just looking at this season's stats. I'm not going to argue whether he's the most valuable on his team since I don't watch their games, he probably is. But missing games would most likely work against the player for the hart. Not much value coming from an injured player. If he can stay healthy and lead his team to the playoffs, then I'm sure he would get consideration.

I totally agree that the winner of the Hart should make the playoffs, but the Sabres missing the playoffs doesen't lay on Eichel's shoulders. He's literally the only thing they had going, the team wouldnt even score if he was on the bench. There's no doubt how important he is, and if he was a Jet or a Lightning, I have no doubt (from watching him) he'd ALREADY be competing for the art-ross trophy.

 

Mackinnon is amazing this year, but when Mackinnon's team was where the Sabres are (well they were a bit worse) last year Mackinnon's production went down. Hell, Eihel missed 2 months last year and still out-scored him and that's coming back from one of the worst injuries a sprained ankle, in just his 2nd year on a team near last.

 

That didn't happen with Eichel, if he plays he produces. Was all I'm saying, Boeser is a better sniper and is arguably more dangerous in scoring areas or on the power-play but when it comes to play-making, raw offense and just flat out dominance on the ice Jack Eichel is so elite. I've never in my life seen a player like him (a forward) in all my years following the Sabres. (I've only been a Canuck fan since about 2000) when I moved out here.

[Ronaldoescobar]

I think it should be McKinnon although I think Hall and Marchand have a case as well. Eichel is up there as well but Boeser is not even in the conversation remotely (as he should not be). Maybe in a few years yes, but we saw how he got gassed as the season went on (big adjustment in the amount of games between NCAA and NHL) and how he played without Horvat (which was not terrible but definitely not the same as with Horvat). 

 

Definitely no slight against Boeser as he could be there one day soon for sure. 

[D-Money]

I feel your team has to make the playoffs to be in consideration for the Hart. Even if just for the fact that you didn't make the playoffs...so the season was pretty much a write-off.

 

McDavid is still the best player in the league. But this year, what overall value did he add, since it didn't matter anyways? All his contributions were good for was gaining a worse draft position (and the Canucks thank you for that, Connor!).

 

[oldnews]

23 hours ago, shazzam said:

At least provide some stats to support your argument.

 

I looked up 2 players. Kucherov has 36% and Brock 30% of their teams offense. 

 

The lighting are at the top of the league. You can argue that without him, they could possibly be fighting for a playoff spot..... The lighting without Stamkos last year, didn't even make the playoffs.

/endthread

 

some common sense and facts - expose a garbage effort by the OP.

the logic that a player's impact on their team is less because they have good team-mates/play for a contender is weak logic and misplaced 'relativity'.

[MattJVD]

I have it between McKinnon and Hall. Both are producing at incredible rates and leading teams, which were garbage last year, to the playoffs.

[Adarsh Sant]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

/endthread

 

some common sense and facts - expose a garbage effort by the OP.

the logic that a player's impact on their team is less because they have good team-mates/play for a contender is weak logic and misplaced 'relativity'.

 

On 3/14/2018 at 11:36 AM, shazzam said:

At least provide some stats to support your argument.

 

I looked up 2 players. Kucherov has 36% and Brock 30% of their teams offense. 

 

The lighting are at the top of the league. You can argue that without him, they could possibly be fighting for a playoff spot. Without Brock, well we're just another bottom feeder, which we already are. The lighting without Stamkos last year, didn't even make the playoffs. These things are hard to judge but looking at the history of how the award is handed out, Kucherov would have more votes compared to Brock for the Hart and Ted Lindsey. Brock is likely to miss 20 games this season, so he's not providing much value for a quarter of the season. 

This cannot be true, as Boeser has missed 9 games this season. Once you factor those in, his % goes up. I factored in just 2 games (the first 2) and it becomes 31%. Can you source your numbers?

 

Your numbers for Kucherov are correct.

[oldnews]

15 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

 

This cannot be true, as Boeser has missed 9 games this season. Once you factor those in, his % goes up. I factored in just 2 games (the first 2) and it becomes 31%. Can you source your numbers?

Actually, he asked you to source your numbers.  You made the claim - and the thread.

 

And regardless, the idea that players on the worst teams should win Hart trophies because they might factor into more of their team's overall scoring is a highlight reel type conception of valuable - and a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by 'valuable to their team.'

 

Simply because Tampa (or whatever team you want to refer to), has more scoring coming from their second, third, fourth lines, and/or their blueline - does not indicate that their best player is less valuable than one on a weaker team.  It's poor logic - false 'relativity' - it's a literal misinterpretation.    "To their team" goes without saying - you mistakenly think that somehow translates/reduces into a proportion of overall scoring.   What if Buffalo scored only 100 goals this year, but Eichel has 16 goals and 30 assists?   Would  that make him a Hart candidate because he factored into 46% of their scoring.  It's nonsense.

[Adarsh Sant]

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Actually, he asked you to source your numbers.  You made the claim - and the thread.

 

And regardless, the idea that players on the worst teams should win Hart trophies because they might factor into more of their team's overall scoring is a highlight reel type conception of valuable - and a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by 'valuable to their team.'

 

Simply because Tampa (or whatever team you want to refer to), has more scoring coming from their second, third, fourth lines, and/or their blueline - does not indicate that their best player is less valuable than one on a weaker team.  It's poor logic - false 'relativity' - it's a literal misinterpretation.    "To their team" goes without saying - you mistakenly think that somehow translates/reduces into a proportion of overall scoring.   What if Buffalo scored only 100 goals this year, but Eichel has 16 goals and 30 assists?   Would  that make him a Hart candidate because he factored into 46% of their scoring.  It's nonsense.

Like I said in the OP, this is just my opinion.  I do understand your argument, but I disagree.

 

I would argue that someone with 46 pts out of 100 goals should be up for the Hart.....

[oldnews]

5 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

Like I said in the OP, this is just my opinion.  I do understand your argument, but I disagree.

 

I would argue that someone with 46 pts out of 100 goals should be up for the Hart.....

Then you're committed to a poor, simplistic and reductive model of "value".

To make this even clearer - if that player's name was Sam Gagner - if he lead Buffalo with 16 goals and 46 pts in a season they scored 100 goals, would you still make this argument / would you understand why your criteria is a fail?

[Adarsh Sant]

25 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Then you're committed to a poor, simplistic and reductive model of "value".

To make this even clearer - if that player's name was Sam Gagner - if he lead Buffalo with 16 goals and 46 pts in a season they scored 100 goals, would you still make this argument / would you understand why your criteria is a fail?

If Sam Gagner managed 46 points on a 100 goal team, and lead the team, then hell yeah he should be a candidate

[oldnews]

49 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

If Sam Gagner managed 46 points on a 100 goal team, and lead the team, then hell yeah he should be a candidate

Cool.

I think the best actor in a horrible movie should also win the Oscar - just because - it's only locally relative.

[Bertuzzi44ever]

2 hours ago, Adarsh Sant said:

If Sam Gagner managed 46 points on a 100 goal team, and lead the team, then hell yeah he should be a candidate

When buffalo was at 102 goals for Jack Eichel literally had 43 points.