bustaheims
Active member
Nik Bethune said:
You don't have to agree with me. It's just not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be.
2019-2020 NHL Thread
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
You don't have to agree with me. It's just not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be.
Peter D. said:
I strongly believe the nhl should do away with reviews for offsides. Officials rarely miss an offside that?s more than an inch or so. Reviewing these things has the effect of taking away an exciting play that is often largely disconnected from the violation. There are many other infractions that go uncalled that cant be reviewed. But mostly, i just hate taking away an exciting play because of an insignificant technical violation way after the fact.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik Bethune said:
princedpw said:
FTFY
Guilt Trip
Active member
That would def make it a lot more interestingCarltonTheBear said:
Hobbes
New member
I'd like reviews to only be available to the officials at full speed (no slow mo!) and restrict it to only one more look at the play although if there are multiple camera angles they can see each angle once. If that's not enough to over-rule their original call then so be it. It would keep the review times waaaaaaay down (ought to take no more than 30-45 seconds) and will eliminate the really egregious calls that led to video review in the first place.
Hobbes
New member
Frank E said:
The trophy is for the "player judged most valuable to his team" during the regular season of that year; not "the best player" or "the player you'd most want on your roster come playoff time."
Take the hypothetical case where on game 1 of the regular season McDavid shatters his femur and is out for 6 months, returning in late March, just in time to play a warm-up game or two before the playoffs start. Meanwhile, some other player on that roster -- how about we randomly select Draisaitl as that player -- has a phenomenal 75 games, almost single-highhandedly propelling the team into the post-season. Is McDAvid the best player on the team? Yes. Is he the one you'd most want on your roster in the playoffs? Yup. Was he the most valuable player to his team during the regular season? Nope.
I think it's perfectly valid to have an opinion that Player X has been more important to his team than Player Y over a given period of time even if he's generally considered to be the inferior player. Malkin won it in 2011-12 and there's not a person on the planet who thinks he's a better overall player than Sid but Crosby only managed 22 games that year thanks to the concussion.
So far Draisaitl has played 66 games with a stat line of 43-64-107 (-6) vs McDavid's 60 games with 32-62-94 (-4). Draisaitl is putting up more Pts per game, is taking fewer penalties, is playing about 40 sec more per night, has a better face-off %, better shooting %, and is better in 5-on-5. McDavid's the better player, but it's definitely not cut-and-dried in my eyes as to how they have compared this year in their value to the team.
Kin
New member
Hobbes said:
But that's the difference between one guy playing in 75 games to another guy playing in 22 vs. one guy playing in 80 or so games vs. another guy playing in 75 or so.
To me it's a pretty simple concept. A player's value is X, where X is all of the things that make him valuable to his team both tangible and intangible. To use completely made-up values, let's say for Player A it's .75 per game and Player B it's .50. Now, if Player A plays in 10 games and Player B plays in 10 games, obviously player A contributes more to his team. However if player A only plays 5 games and player B plays 10 then player A is no longer the most valuable to his team.
The reason I asked about which player you'd want in the playoffs or who the better player is then if you generally accept that McDavid is the better player than the difference in games played between almost certainly can't make up for that gap. Or, to put it another way, if you generally accept that McDavid's "value" is higher than Draisaitl's on a per game basis than advocating for Draisaitl as the MVP is saying that the most valuable player in the league is a guy who in 90% of the games he played this year wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team.
dappleganger
Active member
Leon Draisaitl: 16 points in 13 playoff games.
Connor McDavid: 9 points in 13 playoff games.
Leon is better in the playoffs.
Connor McDavid: 9 points in 13 playoff games.
Leon is better in the playoffs.
https://twitter.com/PierreVLeBrun/status/1235228400438177794
An $88mil ceiling seems incredibly unlikely as that would require the PA to use their full 5% inflator and they've been reluctant to do so lately. For the 18-19 cap they only pushed it up 1.2% and I'm not sure if they used it at all for this seasons cap.
An $88mil ceiling seems incredibly unlikely as that would require the PA to use their full 5% inflator and they've been reluctant to do so lately. For the 18-19 cap they only pushed it up 1.2% and I'm not sure if they used it at all for this seasons cap.
Hobbes
New member
My illustration was more to emphasize the slippery slope nature of simply awarding the trophy to the best player in the league regardless of how he's performed this season or how many games he's played, otherwise just go ahead and put McDavid's name on the thing for the next decade or so right now...maybe you can get a bulk discount from the guy who does the engraving.Nik Bethune said:
I think basically the intent of the trophy is something like:
PTV = PV/G * GP
where:
PV/G = Player's value per game by whatever criteria you think are relevant and are somehow measurable for each player in the league no matter what position they play and will probably fluctuate almost on a per-game basis (no player plays at 100% of their capability every single shift). And somehow there has to be some element of it that reflects "to his team" since that's the wording on the trophy.
That PV/G difference between McDavid and Draisaitl has been pretty slim this year, and even a half dozen or dozen more games played might be enough to swing the sum total in the minds of some voters and whether I agree with them or not, I don't think they're out of their minds to make that assertion.
In much the same way, if you were to identify the Leaf player who was most important to the team last year I think you'd say Freddie, even though I am willing to bet that you think Matthews is the better player and the one to build the team around. With Freddie's struggles this year, maybe Matthews would be the Leafs' nominee for 2019-2020?
Then just to make it even more complicated, that "to his team" thing means that somehow we're suppose to compare those contributions not just at a player vs player level, but on a PlayerDeltaForHisTeam comparison. How do you put a number on how much the Leafs depend on Matthews compared to how much the Oilers depend on McDavid? Maybe Eichel ought to win it because with him, the Sabres are an utter dumpster fire vs both the Leafs and Oilers would manage semi okay without their top stars.
If nothing else, perhaps the best conclusion to draw is that it's a stupid trophy with ridiculous criteria.
Kin
New member
Hobbes said:
Well, putting aside the fact that slippery slope arguments tend to be bad ones, I think there's a big difference between "Best Player" and "Player who was the best this year". In advocating for McDavid this year I'm not saying that Draisaitl might have better results but McDavid is somehow intrinsically "the best player" so the award should go to him, I'm saying McDavid has been the more valuable player this year.
Hobbes said:
I largely agree here except I think things like what position they play does affect value and that certain things feed into value that aren't measurable. So, for instance, McDavid being a centre and Draisaitl being on the wing affects their value and the presence of McDavid certainly affects what Draisaitl is able to do on the ice, whether as his linemate or in terms of the quality of competition he faces when they're split up. Neither thing can really be measured though.
Hobbes said:
Personally, if you'd asked me to vote for a MVP for the Leafs last season, I'd probably have echoed the Hart voters and gone with Tavares while acknowledging that Matthews is the player with the brighter future. I don't think that's overly controversial as Matthews' numbers projected out to 82 games last year were more or less what Tavares actually did.
Andersen I'd only describe as the Leafs most important player in the sense that, to some degree, any team's #1 goalie has the most impact of any player on whether or not they win on a given night. To translate that into being the most "valuable" I think you have to be significantly better than Freddie was last year.
Hobbes said:
Personally, I've never agreed with that interpretation of the award's text. To me saying that because they included "to his team" you have to introduce a concept of relative value would be like saying Heath Ledger shouldn't have won his Oscar because The Joker wasn't very supportive of Batman at all. Players provide value to their team. There's no such thing, really, as surplus value until a team goes 82-0.
I agree Draisaitl is having a terrific season and is a very good secondary option but as someone who's watched a fair number of Oilers games this year the idea that there's any sort of doubt about who's driving that bus is, to me, hard to accept. McDavid's the guy they depend on to generate offense with lousy linemates. Their PP, ranked number one in the league, looks like its main strategy is "Get the puck to McDavid and see what he can make happen". He's the guy that is facing the top checking lines/defensive pairings.
Heroic Shrimp
New member
https://twitter.com/ryanfancey/status/1235304825685934082
Guilt Trip
Active member
Yes and all the games that Hutch started too with a side of 3rd period collapses, oh the the EBUG doesn't count either.Deebo said:
OldTimeHockey
Active member
Heroic Shrimp said:
While I think it's idiotic, I believe Jack Todd is trying to put the blame on Julien and Bergevin. I don't necessarily disagree with that.
Heroic Shrimp
New member
Nik Bethune said:
Except that Todd is granting the Canadiens many imaginary points (boosting their points % from .522 to .610!) and THEN using this non-fact to prove that they have talent. He's literally drawing a real-life conclusion based on a fantasy scenario.
It's debatable whether or not the Leafs "ought" to have a better record than they do, but to have that opinion is a much more grounded stance. At least, it's one leap of assumption and not two.
(Side note: His tweet is fully stupid on its own merits, but even stupider for the fact that Montreal has 3 out of 6 points against NJ this year, so giving them 4 more points isn't just imaginary, it's also literally impossible).