Pittsburgh Penguins Thread

[Fubar The Sperm 1]

Lidstrom is pretty sick.There's honestly like 6-8 players this year who easily deserve this award.I'd say guys like Ovechkin, Lidstrom, Iginla, Alfredsson, Malkin, Crosby, Lecavalier, and Wellwood should all get serious consideration.

Lol. Solid list but theres one name there that stands out as the runaway favourite for me right now.

[digitalmonkey 929]

If Lecavalier is going to get consideration then so should Sundin.I think Nabokov will get some serious consideration too.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

If Lecavalier is going to get consideration then so should Sundin.I think Nabokov will get some serious consideration too.

The Hart Trophy isn't for outstanding player but for most valuable. No matter how good somebody is playing if their team is bad they shouldn't win the Hart.

[digitalmonkey 929]

The Hart Trophy isn't for outstanding player but for most valuable. No matter how good somebody is playing if their team is bad they shouldn't win the Hart.

It's for Most Valuable to their team. This brings up the age-old argument as to how one measures a player's value.Is Ovechkin a consideration if Washinton finishes 10th? How about 3rd?

[doox 15]

That's why I made my point about Lecavalier and mentioned "if the Caps win their division."

[Zach6668 513]

Yeah, it's just so silly how it's worded.Say a team has Wayne Gretzky, who happens to be the best player in the league at the time, but imagine he's playing with 19 guys who are among the worst in the league. Gretzky gets a point on 100% of his teams points, but since the rest of the team is so bad, they finish last in the league.Is he not the most valuable player to his team?

[doox 15]

Yes and no.Yes, he's the best player on a terrible team, but no since whether they have him or not - they're still in the league basement. When you look at it that way, his presence on the team just doesn't matter as far as on-ice success.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Yes and no.Yes, he's the best player on a terrible team, but no since whether they have him or not - they're still in the league basement. When you look at it that way, his presence on the team just doesn't matter as far as on-ice success.

Hypothetically, the team with the player finishes with 50 points. Without him they would have only ended up with 20 points.You're saying that player is not as valuable to his team because the team is still bad?

[doox 15]

Just he's the most important to his particular team, doesn't mean that his performance contributes to the team's success. I doubt anyone would consider their team getting 50 points to be a "success." It's relative, but as far as the Hart goes, it should only apply if the player's contributions make a mediocre team good, or a good team great. It shouldn't apply when a horrible team becomes slightly less horrible. Let the team's own individual awards suffice for that.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Just he's the most important to his particular team, doesn't mean that his performance contributes to the team's success. I doubt anyone would consider their team getting 50 points to be a "success." It's relative, but as far as the Hart goes, it should only apply if the player's contributions make a mediocre team good, or a good team great. It shouldn't apply when a horrible team becomes slightly less horrible. Let the team's own individual awards suffice for that.

But the award is designed to be awarded to the player judged to be the most valuable to his team NOT the player judged to be the most valuable to his team as long as the team is successful.

[doox 15]

And once again - your hypothetical example shows that the player in question was inconsequential. Whether he played or didn't, his team would still finish last. Sure, he put up some points and had a good individual season, but he really didn't matter to the team all that much. Last is still last.

[digitalmonkey 929]

And once again - your hypothetical example shows that the player in question was inconsequential. Whether he played or didn't, his team would still finish last. Sure, he put up some points and had a good individual season, but he really didn't matter to the team all that much. Last is still last.

Pittsburgh is winning without Crosby. Is he inconsequential?

[doox 15]

Whether you agree with me or not, what's more important is that the voters would never give the award to the player in your example. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I can't see an instance where a Hart Trophy was given to a player on a non-playoff team, let alone a team that could only muster 50 points.

[doox 15]

Pittsburgh is winning without Crosby. Is he inconsequential?

Not at all, as he was pretty influential while he was healthy. However, I don't think he deserves (at this point in the season) consideration for the Hart, so it's a pointless observation. If he goes on a tear to further his team's success when he comes back - maybe. If you look in the trophy thread I created, I didn't list Crosby in my top 3.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Whether you agree with me or not, what's more important is that the voters would never give the award to the player in your example. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I can't see an instance where a Hart Trophy was given to a player on a non-playoff team, let alone a team that could only muster 50 points.

The 1987-88 Hart Trophy winner was Mario Lemieux. Pittsburgh did not make the playoffs and finished last in their division.

[doox 15]

Fair enough. For the record, the Pens finished a mere point out of the playoffs, and scored 31 more points than 50. With Lemieux's 168 points, you could argue that he made a horrible team mediocre.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Fair enough. For the record, the Pens finished a mere point out of the playoffs, and scored 31 more points than 50. With Lemieux's 168 points, you could argue that he made a horrible team mediocre.

By your logic Lemieux was inconsequential as they still missed the playoffs.

[doox 15]

When did I ever say finishing last in the league was the same as 1 point out of the playoffs? He made them a serious threat to make the playoffs, since without him they wouldn't have had a chance.

[digitalmonkey 929]

And once again - your hypothetical example shows that the player in question was inconsequential. Whether he played or didn't, his team would still finish last. Sure, he put up some points and had a good individual season, but he really didn't matter to the team all that much. Last is still last.

Whether you agree with me or not, what's more important is that the voters would never give the award to the player in your example. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I can't see an instance where a Hart Trophy was given to a player on a non-playoff team, let alone a team that could only muster 50 points.

I chose 50 points as a random number. Pittsburgh missed the playoffs with Lemiuex in the lineup and they would have missed the playoffs without him too. You deemed my hypothetical player inconsequential when he increased his team's point total by 30 points because his team was bad with or without him. The same standard applies to the Penguins in this situation.

[doox 15]

If you are going by the assumption that last is just the same as narrowly missing the playoffs, then we'll just have to end this right here. (Assuming there isn't a team worse than 50 points, but that's a rarity - even the last place Kings have 49 points so far) And in the last 20 years, I believe there's been one instance of a Hart Trophy going to a non-playoff team. It's not going to happen this year, either.I understand that not only do you love to argue for the sake of arguing, but your team's performance currently has you a little cranky. You're not changing my mind as to the intentions of the Hart Trophy voters, and vice versa. Cheers.*edit* and randomly chosen or not - I was going by the point total you provided. By that number alone, there's a HUGE difference between 50 points and a playoff bubble team. Voting is subjective and special cases can be made for exceptional players on mediocre teams. It's not common by any means, however. The gap that you provided in your example is just too big. Turning a horrible team into a slightly less horrible team just won't cut it.

[digitalmonkey 929]

If you are going by the assumption that last is just the same as narrowly missing the playoffs, then we'll just have to end this right here. (Assuming there isn't a team worse than 50 points, but that's a rarity - even the last place Kings have 49 points so far) And in the last 20 years, I believe there's been one instance of a Hart Trophy going to a non-playoff team. It's not going to happen this year, either.I understand that not only do you love to argue for the sake of arguing, but your team's performance currently has you a little cranky. You're not changing my mind as to the intentions of the Hart Trophy voters, and vice versa. Cheers.

1. This has nothing to do with my team losing.2. I'm not trying to change your mind.3. I chose 50 points as a random number.4. This is a dicussion not an argument.We can change '50' to 'x' and 'hypothetical player' to 'Sundin'.

[doox 15]

1. This has nothing to do with my team losing.2. I'm not trying to change your mind.3. I chose 50 points as a random number.4. This is a dicussion not an argument.We can change '50' to 'x' and 'hypothetical player' to 'Sundin'.

For further clarification, see my edit above.Changing the situation completely changes the argument...er...discussion. Let's see how the Leafs finish, although I'd be the last to give Serge the satisfaction of saying they might make the playoffs. Either way, the debate on Sundin's worthiness would be a lot easier to justify if his numbers continue and the Leafs get a few more wins under their belts.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Either way, the debate on Sundin's worthiness would be a lot easier to justify if his numbers continue and the Leafs get a few more wins under their belts.

I never understood the viewpoint that someone's value to the team can only be measured as high if the team is a success. You seem to imply that Sundin only matters to the Leafs if they are in the top 8 of the Eastern Conference, but if they finish much lower, than obviously he wasnt valuable to them, and NO ONE was.Im not trying to convince you either, seems people are always divided on this issue. But I believe in most valuable being just that, most valuable. Not most valuable to the team who was successful.

[doox 15]

I never understood the viewpoint that someone's value to the team can only be measured as high if the team is a success. You seem to imply that Sundin only matters to the Leafs if they are in the top 8 of the Eastern Conference, but if they finish much lower, than obviously he wasnt valuable to them, and NO ONE was.Im not trying to convince you either, seems people are always divided on this issue. But I believe in most valuable being just that, most valuable. Not most valuable to the team who was successful.

To his team, I'm sure he's the most valuable - by far. However, he's not up against all the other Leafs - he's up against the goalies like Luongo and Brodeur, who are responsible for winning close games, and even stealing a game their team had no business winning. He's up against players like Ovechkin, who is among the top in the league as far as offensive dominance. Then there's Lidstrom, which speaks for itself. Every year is like this and it's incredibly hard to justify giving the award to a player on a sub-standard team, rather than a player who is capable of lifting their team into the playoffs and beyond almost single-handedly. Without Ovechkin, the Caps aren't winning their division - hell, they could very well be among the league's worst. Without Luongo, the Canucks have no shot at squeaking into the playoffs. Without Brodeur, the Devils lose their entire identity. Like it or not, team success matters.

[Zach6668 513]

Yeah, I stopped reading the argument about half way throught, but I think this is basically why the NHL should update the wording of the award.It should be "The most outstanding player in the NHL".