Thursday, December 11, 2008
Too Early to talk MVP?
I think it's about time we start discussing MVP candidates. They're pretty apparent right now I think.
1. Evgeni Malkin
2. Thomas Vanek
3. Tim Thomas
4. Alex Ovechkin
5. Sidney Crosby
Honorable Mention: Simon Gagne, Hank Lundqvist, Jeff Carter, Ryan Getzlaf, Roberto Luongo, Marc Savard, Joe Thornton, Evgeni Nabokov
The definition of MVP changes from person to person, we all know that, a lot of you would be like 'you anus, Vanek 2nd? you eat shit and are dumb. i hate you' To you I say, 'eff off and go home' but I subscribe to theory that the MVP is the player that means the most to his team. Based on that, do you disagree?
A quarter of the way through the season, Vanek has pretty much singlehandedly led to his team to where they are. Malkin gets the nod due to his constant presence on the stat sheet, highlight reels, and overall level of play. Tim Thomas has been lights out for the Bruins, and there's a case that he could be higher on this list. Ovechkin is the player that makes the Caps go, and Crosby's been tearing it up as of late (except last night, listen to Errey, just put the biscuit in the basket Sid).
The other guys, all having great seasons, no doubt, but not to the extent of the other 5. Argue with me? Who's your top 5? Do you think the MVP is best player on best team (a la baseball)? Do you think I'm a wanker who should STFU? Please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
At least you got Malkin right...
I take a little issue with your definition of MVP. Regardless of how you slice it, NHL MVP does and always should go to the Best Player in the NHL. I do think "contribution to team's overall success" is a consideration, but only insofar as it quantifies the player's overall ability. And if you do want to digress from the "best player" definition, I think the "contribution" measure can only be used when the candidate plays for one of the league's best. I mean, AO should have won the Hart his rookie season cause the Caps would have won 5 games without him.
But even if you do use that, how can you put Thomas so high when Fernandez is playing just as well with opportunities? Yes, both are phenomenal goaltenders this year, but neither can compete with the likes of Luongo (who would be well ahead if not for the groin pull).
And furthermore, if you are going to Put Vanek so high, where's Gagne? Who is similarly carrying his team (with a little help from Jeff Carter). Or Getzlaf, who is carrying his team with more points than Thomas "No Assists" Vanek Here's a more proper order:
Tier I
Malkin
Tier 2
Crosby
Ovechkin
Tier 3
Savard, Gagne, Vanek, Getzlaf, Iginla, Thomas
Tier 4
Kane, Hossa, Thornton
I broke it into tiers as well. You can rotate within one of those tiers pretty easily. That being said, Geno is lights out above the competition thus far.
I suspect by season's end the nominees will be Malkin, Crosby, and Ovechkin, with Malkin winning comfortably over the other two. Thomas will fall pretty rapidly as he returns to Earth. Savard will still be around, and Luongo will charge towards the top.
Oh I don't disagree, I just wanted to start a little shit.
As I said, it's too early to do this, but it is fun to look at.
I've been on record saying Malkin is the most talented player in the league, with Ovechkin slightly trailing.
But with the ambiguous nature of the definition of the MVP, I thought I'd throw a bunch of names out there, and see how people reacted.
I have always been a firm believer in the MVP going to the Most VALUABLE player as well, not this best player in the league bullshit. If Malkin leads the league in scoring but the Pens miss the playoff, does that make him MVP still? Not in my book...but he'd probably still win it.
It's hard to argue against Tim Thomas though, Boston had basically the same team last year and they kinda sucked. This year Thomas is playing awesome and now their winning the East.
I don't think Vanek and Gagne can be compared. Philly is wayyy more talented than the Sabres offensively. Vanek is putting up impressive GOAL numbers that for sure, but I don't think he'll be in the MVP talk come season end.
Having said all that, I just hope that the MVP goes to someone who's team without him, would be terrible.
Vance,
The definition of MVP is indeed ambiguous. But if Ovechkin Crosby and Malkin were on the same team and they went undefeated all tying with 150 points, I would argue none are the most valuable to their team since that team would have won the championship without any of the three.
What I find harder to quantify is comparing goals to assists in the point race. Vanek is way down in the points race...he doesn't get assists, but his goals are genuine goals that he creates on his own. Frankly Roy and Pominville are getting cheap assists by making Vanek do the work. Likewise, when Pascall Dupuis or Jonathan Cheechoo is tapping in pucks because of brilliant passes by Crosby and Thornton respectively. In this case the assist is greater than the goal IMO.
As far as the Malkin, Sid, AO comparrison goes, I don't know. Truthfully I don't see enough of Ovey to really analyze him. I see him as really two dimensional. He shoots and forechecks/hits. I think he is much more explosive, and perhaps can change a game quicker than the other two. On the other hand, Crosby is the total player. He is by far the most intelligent on the ice, has the greatest drive, and has vision second to done. Malkin is somewhere between the two, but not on a straight line. He's more complete than Ovechkin but more explosive than Crosby. The three truly are completely different players and it's hard to make comparisons.
Denson,
I find your argument inconsistent. Why are players more valuable when they are on good teams. That sounds counter-intuitive. Would a bad team find more "value" in a good player than a "good" team would. I mean according to your logic, I have trouble with Sid edging Luongo for the Hart. Certainly, Vancouver would have blown without Luongo. Answer the first question I posed. If Crosby/Malkin/Ovey all play for the pens and all score 150 points, and the Pens go undefeated with two of the three or all three. From your definition, I feel it necessarily follows that if the Sharks would have won 10 less games if Joe Thornton, who only had 95 points, was not there - then Thornton would be MVP. Taking to the logical extreme, since the pens would go undefeated with all three or two of the three, then any player whose team would have lost 1 more game had they not been present, would be more valuable than Sid, AO, and Malkin.
I look at this way. Value is measured in worth. It's the NHL's Most Valuable Player. Who is worth the most to any team. In other words, if the GMs could go back and have a draft pool of every player in the league, who would they want first for just this one season based on what they did. So it's kind of a "most valuable player to a team" instead of "most valuable player to their specific team."
Ha, I hope that made sense.
I agree with what you're saying, players can't be compared solely based on point totals. Hence why Lidstrom is continually in the MVP discussion with his overall body of play.
Obviously you can't extend "Most Valuable to Team" because Bouwmeester will never win a MVP in Florida.
One can't say "best player on best team" because who would win on Detroit last year?
You also have to factor in more than simply goals and assists, because Cheechoo won't ever win one either.
So I think what needs to be done is to delineate the criteria by which a MVP is selected. It has to be a combination of overall level of play, points, plus/minus, contribution to team, team success, time on ice, it can go on and on. But without that transparency in how we base our argument, well, then we're essentially just going to argue semantics.
If we go by the "fantasy draft" scenario, it would be between Malkin, Ovechkin, and Luongo for me. Malkin and Ovechkin can create for themselves, whereas a guy like Crosby makes his wingers dangerous and of course, a backstop is essential to any team's success.
It's interesting to talk about, and I'm glad someone actually contributed a little something to the conversation. And to that, thanks.
Post a Comment