View Single Post
03-08-2013, 09:37 PM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,981
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I think he was easily the best and most important player on what was probably the league's best regular-season team. Let's not forget that the Hart trophy is still an award for the most valuable player in the league, not the best forward, in spite of how it may often appear. I think there's a good argument that Henrik was, in fact, the league's most valuable player that year, yes.
More on this... Vancouver was tied for 5th in the NHL with 103 points, just two more than Pittsburgh and 18 fewer than Washington (who was probably the league's best regular season team). So if the case for Henrik is "ok, maybe he wasn't actually the best, but he was the best player on the best team" falls apart if his team wasn't actually the best, and was barely better than the team a clearly superior player led. Even if that was a legit case, what we really care about was who was the best, isn't it? Not just who was more valuable on account of the other personnel on the team.

As for the 9th and 10th, in which he was on 18% and 7% of voters put him on their ballots at all, isn't considering this significant just as problematic as the problems TDMM described regarding the THN list? The THN top 50 list ... was expanded to a top 100 in 1998 based off the top 50 lists that had already been submitted, which is terrible methodology and effectively guarantees that nobody in the 51-100 range was on the majority of lists

just divide all those numbers by 10, and we're talking about the significance of the 6th-10th spots in hart voting when everyone submitted a ballot with just 5 players on it.

seventieslord is offline