HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Thornton the MVP?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-21-2006, 12:43 PM
  #76
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
If Boston had Lundqvist...

or if Boston had Weekes, as opposed to Raycroft and Toivonen (neither of whom were the starter midway through the season), would Boston's record change a bit? In other words, if Boston gave up more than one less goal a game (their GAA with Joe was 3.48, compared to the Rangers' 2.38 during the same time) would their record be any better and Joe would cease to be a scapegoat? If Lundqvist and Weekes played like Raycroft and Toivonen, we may be talking about Jagr in the same vain in which people spoke of him while with Washington.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 01:53 PM
  #77
Pogo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Israel
Country: Israel
Posts: 788
vCash: 500
When do all the awards get announced anyway?

Pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 02:06 PM
  #78
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
or if Boston had Weekes, as opposed to Raycroft and Toivonen (neither of whom were the starter midway through the season), would Boston's record change a bit? In other words, if Boston gave up more than one less goal a game (their GAA with Joe was 3.48, compared to the Rangers' 2.38 during the same time) would their record be any better and Joe would cease to be a scapegoat? If Lundqvist and Weekes played like Raycroft and Toivonen, we may be talking about Jagr in the same vain in which people spoke of him while with Washington.
And if Joe Thornton played in Boston would we be talking about it?

If Cheechoo wasn't there to bury 56 passes, would he have as many assists.

If Jagr was playing with Jed Ortmeyer and not Straka would he score.

I mean where do we really want to take this?

And Joe wasn't a scapegoat for just the goaltending situation, he was a scapegoat for his lack of passion at times.

Now while the situation in Boston was unfortunate and not entirely Joe's fault, it was still a situation. Just like we can't say "Well if Rucinsky was healthy, or Prucha, or if Sykora were here the whole time". That's just not the reality and then we get into the whole realm of "What if's".

If Washington had a better supporting cast, would Ovechkin be the MVP?

The Boston situation sucks, but it's still a factor.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 02:31 PM
  #79
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Take it wherever...

it goes to make a point because to me, there are other factors in Boston that led to their poor start with JT there and many are saying he doesn't deserve it because of Boston's record with him in the lineup. The guy put up the points in Boston too (nearly at a clip he did in San Jose). To say he doesn't deserve the MVP because he didn't lead Boston to anything I don't think is entirely fair. He played on a bad team that played poorly and had holes. That shouldn't take away from the season he had and the success he had with the Sharks.

And I guess what we're saying is that if the best player in the league in a season is not on a good team, he can't be MVP. That's likely the case, but I don't necessarily agree with those parameters. The MVP's the best player - and unfortunately, the best player isn't always surrounded by the best cast and there's only so much he can do. Heck, now that you mention it, I'm a bit more impressed with what Ovechkin was able to do than both Thornton and Jagr. If he had 60-65 goals, I think it would be difficult not considering him. He had to do it all by himself. The next guy had 1/2 his points. Unbelievable.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 04:13 PM
  #80
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20
Phaneuf winning the calder, lol. Sure, the guy is absolutely great, but there is this guy called Ovechkin who was just a little better.

As for MVP...As we've said over and over again...Where would the Rangers be without Jagr (Probably 10th or lower) and where would the Sharks be without Thornton (Still in the playoffs).

Also, I'd like to see Thornton actually show up for the playoffs this time around...Something he has yet to do in his career with the B's.
I disagree there. Sharks would also be out without joe.

Fantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 05:14 PM
  #81
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
it goes to make a point because to me, there are other factors in Boston that led to their poor start with JT there and many are saying he doesn't deserve it because of Boston's record with him in the lineup. The guy put up the points in Boston too (nearly at a clip he did in San Jose). To say he doesn't deserve the MVP because he didn't lead Boston to anything I don't think is entirely fair. He played on a bad team that played poorly and had holes. That shouldn't take away from the season he had and the success he had with the Sharks.
But Fletch that is the whole point of the MVP award.

The player who is most valuable to his team and it's success.

It's not a talent award.

It's not a skills award.

It shouldn't be a point award.

It is which player was most instrumental, and a lot of times that has to do with success.

Value usually comes with success, because success is ultimately what you want your star players to bring to a team.

So what has higher value (and this is just an example): 100points on a successful team or 120 points for a team that wasn't going anywhere. Now obviously individually the 120 points, but what is the true value if no one benefits from it. Not a teammate, not a team, not an owner?

That's where it gets tricky.

Now in the case of Jagr vs. Thornton, Thornton wasn't bringing as much value to Boston. Now we can blame it on linemates, whatever, but then we have to do that for every player in the game despite their point totals.

If Thornton plays the whole year with SJ I think it becomes a much tighter situation, but he didn't and I just think that HAS to be a factor.

Boston wasn't the only team with substandard goaltending in the league either.

Quote:
And I guess what we're saying is that if the best player in the league in a season is not on a good team, he can't be MVP. That's likely the case, but I don't necessarily agree with those parameters. The MVP's the best player - and unfortunately, the best player isn't always surrounded by the best cast and there's only so much he can do.
Ah there we go, now THAT is the ultimate debate in sports. Is it the best player? Or is it the most valuable player? The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Just as you can always make the argument that there's only so much a player can do with bad linemates, the other side of the coin is that if he has good linemates how much does he benefit?

That hold's true for everyone. So the end result comes down to one simple question: Do you believe the best player is by default the one who scores the most points or the player whose team will suffer the most from his lose? Or is it somewhere in the middle? If it is, than how much of each?

I don't have answer, no one does. But it's one of sports great debates.

Now we can make an argument about Thornton's teammates in Boston, but if we did that would we not have to acknowledge who Jagr is playing with?

Would it not be only fair to look at what those teammates did in the years prior to Jagr's arrival? (as I've pointed to, the numbers weren't that good for a period of 5 or so years).

We can't look at Thornton's days in Boston and say "Well he's only as good as he's surrounded with" and then ignore the numbers Straka, Rucinsky and Nylander have posted in recent years before Jagr.

We can talk all day about Cheechoo was ONLY a 28 goal scorer or Ekman was a horrible 20 goal scorer, but the realty is its still more than rucinsky or Straka were.

Mark Messier's two Hart trophies came in years where he did NOT lead the league in scoring, so was he the best player in the game at those points?

I think Value is more than just points. It's many factors, which leads us into the next part:

Quote:
Heck, now that you mention it, I'm a bit more impressed with what Ovechkin was able to do than both Thornton and Jagr. If he had 60-65 goals, I think it would be difficult not considering him. He had to do it all by himself. The next guy had 1/2 his points. Unbelievable.
Impressive indeed but the if the team doesn't succeed, what is the true value. That's not to say it isn't amazing or a miracle, but how do we assign a value to that?

The MVP is an award that essentially means "Value to the team". So how much of that is dependent on success?

If a guy scores more points than anyone for 5 consecutive years, but the teams don't go anywhere what is the value?

The problem is that there is a general assumption that the best individual is necessarily the most valuable. But I don't think that is so. Teams are a dynamic and so value is directly related to factors that are often beyond the individuals control. I don't think it's necessarily fair, but what in life really is?

I could be the smartest guy at work, but that unfortunatly doesn't mean I'll have the highest salary.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 05:15 PM
  #82
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Damn Edge - that's too long for me to read...

get back to you tomorrow - I need to get a Guinness right now...

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 05:23 PM
  #83
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
get back to you tomorrow - I need to get a Guinness right now...
It's cool, I don't really have any conclusions within it.

I mean really I can see your points, what we're talking about is essentially the default problem with an MVP to begin with.

I really don't have any answers as to what makes an MVP, only guesses and opinions.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 05:29 PM
  #84
Sicilian
Registered User
 
Sicilian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
It's cool, I don't really have any conclusions within it.

I mean really I can see your points, what we're talking about is essentially the default problem with an MVP to begin with.

I really don't have any answers as to what makes an MVP, only guesses and opinions.
which brings us back to a compromise:

Jagr the hart, Thornton the Pearson... i know they're voted on by entirely separate bodies, but still, wouldn't that make sense should it work out that way?

Sicilian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 05:33 PM
  #85
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
OK...I read it...

I don't disagree about the definition of the MVP, but I do disagree. In other words, I think it's accepted that the definition you provided is what people use. Personally, I think it should go to the best player in the league, which means that a guy on a losing team can win the award. Why not? It's the MVP of the league. It's not a team's MVP. The Most Valuable Player. To me, that should be the best player. And if Ovechkin had 65 goals on a crappy team like Washington, perhaps he shouldn't be excluded and perhaps people should be even more amazed because he did it with zero support. Not saying that he should win it because he scored the most goals, but there should be other factors, I believe. Players should not be penalized because the other 17 around him suck. Again, to me, the MVP is the best player in the league. And unfortunately it's a tough measure. The voters, first of all, have inherent expectations and biases. Second, they cannot watch each player 50-60 times per season, and likely do not come close to watching guys outside their home team more than several times a year. So it comes down to who had the most points on a good team. That's weak to me.

and yes, if I make the teammate argument in Boston for Joe, you can do the same for Jaromir. I point out the difference in the two goaltendings being more than 1 goal per game. It's tough as a centerman to lead your team to many victories when your team gives up 3.50 goals per game, especially when compared to 2.50. There are other comparisons that favor Jagr, but to me, that's the big one when measuring the ability of one person to effect wins for his team.

Oh, and I agree on value. I'm not for giving it to a guy with the most points. Also, I do support Jagr winning it, by the way, but first, I just feel like arguing because there is another side and there are strong arguments to make, and second, I think it's going to be pretty close, primarily because of the turnaround, in this season, that is evident in San Jose upon the arrival of Thornton, and the final weeks of the season, when the games got tough, and San Jose got hot, and the reasons because. We can talk about linemates, and there are valid arguments (although Nylander scored less this season than his career high - which is odd since Jagr set him up all day like crazy). We can talk about Jagr scoring more goals. All valid and in the end why I'd choose Jagr. But I don't think the Thornton idea is too crazy and if he won it, I wouldn't jump up and down a talk about a conspiracy.

finally...on the last point...I don't think the smartest guy at work not highest salary is a good analogy to Ovechkin scoring 65 goals on a losing team. I don't think that works and quite honestly I'm disappointed in you because your analogies are always right on. We all recognize it's a team game. One guy can do only what one guy can do. If others aren't up to the task, that's the problem they face in team sports. Ovechkin cannot be faulted for his 6 defensemen sucking, if that's the case, because he has no control over that. He cannot be responsible for the other 38 minutes of ice time forwards have because he cannot play 60 minutes per game. He cannot be responsible for a goalie that gives up soft goals. So why penalize him if his team doesn't win yet he does the best that he could, which if you watched objectively [this is hypothetical], it was clear that he dominated more than any other player in the league. It got his team nowhere, because one man can only do so much. But, it was clear he was the best (not just in terms of numbers). Me, personally, I give him his due props and say screw his team record.

Now I'm getting my Guinness...talk to ya later.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 06:26 PM
  #86
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
I don't disagree about the definition of the MVP, but I do disagree. In other words, I think it's accepted that the definition you provided is what people use. Personally, I think it should go to the best player in the league, which means that a guy on a losing team can win the award. Why not? It's the MVP of the league. It's not a team's MVP. The Most Valuable Player. To me, that should be the best player. And if Ovechkin had 65 goals on a crappy team like Washington, perhaps he shouldn't be excluded and perhaps people should be even more amazed because he did it with zero support. Not saying that he should win it because he scored the most goals, but there should be other factors, I believe. Players should not be penalized because the other 17 around him suck. Again, to me, the MVP is the best player in the league. And unfortunately it's a tough measure. The voters, first of all, have inherent expectations and biases. Second, they cannot watch each player 50-60 times per season, and likely do not come close to watching guys outside their home team more than several times a year. So it comes down to who had the most points on a good team. That's weak to me.
I think the main problems I'd have with that format is still "What determines what the best is"?

Is it points based? If so it becomes a glorified version of a scoring crown.

So what happens to defenseman? Goaltenders? How do you determine the best across positions?

And now we'd have to change the definition of the award, because it's given to the player to be judged most valuable to his team. So in a sense, it is a team mvp award. A guy who wins the Hart is by default also his team's MVP.

But points and "the best" seem to be mutually exclusive in your argument and I don't believe that personally. Based on that, what seperates it from the scoring crown? Personally I think that approach would cheapen the award. And what happens in close calls? Say a player gets traded and plays in one more game thus gets one more point, what do you do then? In theory it sounds easy to say "Well we'll just give it to the best", but even the "best" onto itself is pretty arbitrary.

I think when we start diving into not making it so a player isn't hurt by his teammates, we're just making the issue even more complicated.

So essentially you are stacking the odds in favor of a guy who plays on a great team on the premise of "making it more available to players on losing teams". Based on that approach Ovechkin still wouldn't get the award and would actually be punished under a system that was supposedly eliminating his punishment for his teammates.

Quote:
and yes, if I make the teammate argument in Boston for Joe, you can do the same for Jaromir. I point out the difference in the two goaltendings being more than 1 goal per game. It's tough as a centerman to lead your team to many victories when your team gives up 3.50 goals per game, especially when compared to 2.50. There are other comparisons that favor Jagr, but to me, that's the big one when measuring the ability of one person to effect wins for his team.
To me an even bigger one is how he effects those around him and who those players were before he got there.

Pointing to the goalie is just too over simplified for me and takes one scap goat (Thornton or whoever) for another. Essentially now we're left with "well the goalie couldn't stop the puck". But what about who is playing defense? What about the coach? What about the system or the schedule? If we do that, then where does it end? What isn't an excuse then? I mean if we factor in goalie than we have to factor in things like depth, linemates, even something as obscure as the ice surface. What about scouts? I just don't see where it really ends if we go that route. Anything and everything can be a factor than. We're not simplifing anything with these approaches, they just seem to get more complicated really.

Quote:
Oh, and I agree on value. I'm not for giving it to a guy with the most points. Also, I do support Jagr winning it, by the way, but first, I just feel like arguing because there is another side and there are strong arguments to make, and second, I think it's going to be pretty close, primarily because of the turnaround, in this season, that is evident in San Jose upon the arrival of Thornton, and the final weeks of the season, when the games got tough, and San Jose got hot, and the reasons because. We can talk about linemates, and there are valid arguments (although Nylander scored less this season than his career high - which is odd since Jagr set him up all day like crazy). We can talk about Jagr scoring more goals. All valid and in the end why I'd choose Jagr. But I don't think the Thornton idea is too crazy and if he won it, I wouldn't jump up and down a talk about a conspiracy.
I just don't think it's all that close. That's not to say it's miles apart. I just think Boston has to be factored in, I think Thornton had more to work with and really I think Cheechoo is really not getting his due. I really think people as a whole don't realize just how good the kid is. Obviously he's better with Thornton, no questions there, but he's pretty dang good on his own.

I've watched this kid, and he is not just a product of Joe Thornton. He's not Rob Brown, he's still pretty good and young without Thornton. 28 goals on SJ's 03-04 team as a 23/24 year old in the old NHL is not a stat to throw away.


Last edited by Edge: 04-21-2006 at 07:30 PM.
Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2006, 10:50 PM
  #87
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Edge...

points and best are mutually exclusive - meaning the top points getter doesn't have to be the MVP. I believe that's what I said; not sure why you're confusing it.

I pointed to Boston's goalie to make a case that the MVP doesn't have to be on a winning team.

And honestly Edge, I think while I may be trying to over-simplify, you're trying to over-complicate. You'd have no problem say X player is better than Y and give a reason. You would have no problem saying X player, even though he had 30 goals, really wouldn't be the same player without Y player and thus Z player, who only had 25 goals, is really a better goal scorer because he had no support. I'm not treating this any differently. We all know, I believe, what traits the best player in the league has, and we all take into consideration his supporting cast - and if people are hung up with the MVP being on a losing team, then that supporting cast needs to be extended so as to not penalize a player for playing on a bad team.

Personally, I do factor Boston in. He had a bad stretch - Jagr slumped too - and of course in Thornton's bad stretch he still managed to average nearly a point and a half per game. That's pretty good for a bad stretch. And as I mentioned, I don't care much for the record Boston had. It's a team game. One man cannot win. One can make a difference if everything else is equal.

And I don't throw away 28 goals. It's nice. But going from 28 goals to 56 goals is a huge jump. Also, try to remember that for some reason he struggled in the beginning of the season, and remember Jan Hlavac also scored 28 goals as a 23/24/25 year old. Give Joe a bit of credit too. He was feeding Cheechoo a lot of layups this season.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 10:07 AM
  #88
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,799
vCash: 500
IMO Jagr deserves the Hart, no doubt. The Hart goes to the most valuble player, the question is NOT who had the best year. Its who was the most valueble player?

Was that really Joe Thornton? No, not even close IMO. He came to a team that was underachiving, though still a team many predicted would finnish really high this year and a team that had played really well for a long period of time. Thornton have of course played really well for them, but IMO he just haven't been as valuble as Jagr. As I said I don't even think its close.

Jagr have time after time won games for us all by himself. He have put the entire team on his shoulders. I think you have to go back several years before you find someone who have been as valuble in the NHL.

In SJ everything have gone through Tornton, but Thornton haven't created everything by himself. Thornton have been on a line that have worked really well. With really confident players and good depth.

JJ have pretty much done everything by himself for us in NY.

I also wonder why Thornton is the clear candidate against JJ in this thread?

Have he been more valuble for SJ then Niklas Lidström have been for Detroit? No IMO.

1. Jagr
2. Lidström
3. Thornton

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 11:25 AM
  #89
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I think Kipper's up there...

not Lidstrom, personally. And unfortunately the reason why it's Thornton vs. Jagr is because they amassed the most points - and so often points/goals play a huge part in determining who wins. Thought Scott Stevens at one point in his career deserved it - guess the best they could do for him is the Conn Smythe.

Everything does go through Thornton. He's the quarterback of that team - just like Jagr. Watching Thornton a lot, especially down the stretch, made me realize how important he was to San Jose. I could care less about underachieving and expectations, as I mentioned, because many expectations to start the season were way off base - mostly because of the season that was lost.

And Thornton won plenty 'by himself'. The problem is, you don't see it as much on the scoresheets as if you watched the game. Thornton attracts attention, creating opportunities for Cheechoo and Ekman to get free and in position for a good shot. That's about as good as setting up the goal. Ekman has scored 20 goals in the past, but not part of a top line, going against top defense pairings and sometime checking units. He held up to the increased competition, and having Thornton there helped a bit.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I still believe Jagr deserves the Hart trophy, unfortunately partly because of my biases (and while biases are hard to remove, it's a shame they do play a part in voting), but I think it's pretty close.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 04:48 PM
  #90
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
You would have no problem saying X player, even though he had 30 goals, really wouldn't be the same player without Y player and thus Z player, who only had 25 goals, is really a better goal scorer because he had no support. I'm not treating this any differently. We all know, I believe, what traits the best player in the league has, and we all take into consideration his supporting cast - and if people are hung up with the MVP being on a losing team, then that supporting cast needs to be extended so as to not penalize a player for playing on a bad team.
But once again MVP is an award that also factors into account a players impact on his team. It's not always about the best player. If it someone like Mark Messier never would have won the award or a lot of players for that matter. You have to take into account who he played with, what they did before him and other factors.

There's just no way around it. The award is not just about what that player did, but what other players around him did and where it took the team.

Quote:
Personally, I do factor Boston in. He had a bad stretch - Jagr slumped too - and of course in Thornton's bad stretch he still managed to average nearly a point and a half per game. That's pretty good for a bad stretch. And as I mentioned, I don't care much for the record Boston had. It's a team game. One man cannot win. One can make a difference if everything else is equal.
I disagree 100%. One man can make a hell of a difference. There are players who not only break to the table their game, but also raise the level of those around them. Jagr did that YEAR round with the Rangers, Joe Thornton simply did not.

It's really as simple as that. Part of the being the most VALUABLE player means giving something to those around you and bringing the team up. Unfortunatly that does require winning a lot of times. It's no different that your job or mine Fletch, whether we like it or not it doesn't matter if we approach two situation exactly the same way. Our value will be determined by our impact on an overall picture over a period of time. And frankly Thornton did not make enough of a difference in Boston this season.

Quote:
And I don't throw away 28 goals. It's nice. But going from 28 goals to 56 goals is a huge jump. Also, try to remember that for some reason he struggled in the beginning of the season, and remember Jan Hlavac also scored 28 goals as a 23/24/25 year old. Give Joe a bit of credit too. He was feeding Cheechoo a lot of layups this season.
Fletch I respect you a lot, but to even mention Cheechoo and Jan Hlvac in the same sentence is exactly why I am amazed out how little the members here seem to be aware of Cheechoo.

Going from 28 goals to 56 goals is a huge jump, and so is going from a kid expected to be in the AHL to 30 goals but I don't see anyone comparing Prucha to Hlvac.

I don't remember these comments when Adam Graves jumped from 23 goals for his career to 23 in his first season with the Rangers.

We're talking about a kid whose play we are looking at from the ages of 23-26. Of course he is going to get better. We're not talking about a huge jump from the age of 30-33.

Now I've said probably have a million times that Thornton obviously makes Cheechoo better, I have never denied that. But calling the kid a 30-40 goal scorer without him is non unrealistic if you've actually seen the kid progress since 1998.

If he scored 28 two years ago without Thornton in the old NHL, it's not far fetched to even say he could get 35 without Thornton.

Obviously that is not as good as 56, but did the Rangers have any 35 goal scorers outside of Jagr?

Heck, with the exception of Jagr and Prucha this season you'd have to go back to 01-02 to find any player who played the entire season with the team and scored more than 28 goals.

I give thornton credit where it is due, but Cheechoo deserves far more respect in this thread.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 05:32 PM
  #91
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Edge, here's the disconnect...

maybe it's my belief or wishes compared to reality. Yeah, a player's impact on a team should be a consideration, but there are teams where one person's impact isn't always seen because that person plays 22 minutes and there are so many other factors that go into the wins and losses, and that person, I believe (not reality) should not be excluded. In other words, if Jagr had the same season he did but was in a different town with bad defense, bad goaltending, and no forward depth, his team very well may not be in the playoffs and despite having the same exact season (making players better, putting up points, etc.) he won't be as serious a contender. And I agree about what a player does to players around him (or in the cahse of Ovechkin, what he did compared to his support). My problem is I believe that the winner doesn't necessarily have to be on a winning team - like the Calder trophy - which is, in essence, the rookie MVP.

As for the Cheechoo/Halvac comparison...I like Cheechoo, and agreem, it's a horrible comparison, but that's our opinion. Who's to say Cheechoo doesn't come back next season with a 16 goal performance? And who's to say that Hlavac doesn't come back with a guy like Thornton and get a 50 goal season (OK, you and I, but others have differing opinions, which is why I throw it out). I just think the jump from 28 to 56 is pretty big, and think Big Joe had a good deal to do with that. Further, after thinking through it more, Straka may very well be a better complement to Jagr than Cheechoo, as I doubt if Cheechoo was her instead of Straka the Rangers would have 35 more goals. Comparing Jagr to Thornton is tough because one did more setting guys up, and the other took more shots and was set up (i.e., the 5 or 6 5-on-3 goals Jagr scored this season). Straka chased down pucks and got them to Jagr to set up shop for his own shot or a make a play. Also, Jagr's more a shooter than Joe, so both complement their centermen well.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 06:03 PM
  #92
Trendsetter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malibu
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 192
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Trendsetter
well, at least today the game ended all MVP questions

How Jagr managed to drag this friggin circus show into the playoffs is beyond me. He dosn't just deserve the Hart, he deserves a purple heart

Trendsetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 06:09 PM
  #93
wildone26*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20
Phaneuf winning the calder, lol. Sure, the guy is absolutely great, but there is this guy called Ovechkin who was just a little better.

As for MVP...As we've said over and over again...Where would the Rangers be without Jagr (Probably 10th or lower) and where would the Sharks be without Thornton (Still in the playoffs).
Are you sure the Sharks would have been in the playoffs without Thornton?

I agree Jagr should win the MVP, but I am not sure the Sharks would be in the playoffs had Thorton not come over.

wildone26* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 07:42 PM
  #94
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
maybe it's my belief or wishes compared to reality. Yeah, a player's impact on a team should be a consideration, but there are teams where one person's impact isn't always seen because that person plays 22 minutes and there are so many other factors that go into the wins and losses, and that person, I believe (not reality) should not be excluded. In other words, if Jagr had the same season he did but was in a different town with bad defense, bad goaltending, and no forward depth, his team very well may not be in the playoffs and despite having the same exact season (making players better, putting up points, etc.) he won't be as serious a contender. And I agree about what a player does to players around him (or in the cahse of Ovechkin, what he did compared to his support). My problem is I believe that the winner doesn't necessarily have to be on a winning team - like the Calder trophy - which is, in essence, the rookie MVP.
And I think that is really where we differ. For me part of the MVP requires some overall success simply because by default one good player on a bad team would probably be more valuable than one good player on a better team (if that makes sense).

I CAN honestly see your points and I'm not saying that they are wrong, I just have a different view.

Quote:
As for the Cheechoo/Halvac comparison...I like Cheechoo, and agreem, it's a horrible comparison, but that's our opinion. Who's to say Cheechoo doesn't come back next season with a 16 goal performance? And who's to say that Hlavac doesn't come back with a guy like Thornton and get a 50 goal season (OK, you and I, but others have differing opinions, which is why I throw it out). I just think the jump from 28 to 56 is pretty big, and think Big Joe had a good deal to do with that.
I don't think Cheechoo would drop. I see a lot more John LeClair in him than say Mike Knuble. I don't think he is a 50 goal scorer without Thornton, you'll never hear me sayt otherwise, but I think a solid 30-40 goals is not unreasonable when one looks at how his career has developed, the changes to the game and other factors.

28 to 56 is a big jump, but unlike a lot of seasons there is also two years of developing and maturing in there.

Personally I'd be more concerned if he REALLY came out of nowhere at an older age.


Quote:
Further, after thinking through it more, Straka may very well be a better complement to Jagr than Cheechoo, as I doubt if Cheechoo was her instead of Straka the Rangers would have 35 more goals. Comparing Jagr to Thornton is tough because one did more setting guys up, and the other took more shots and was set up (i.e., the 5 or 6 5-on-3 goals Jagr scored this season). Straka chased down pucks and got them to Jagr to set up shop for his own shot or a make a play. Also, Jagr's more a shooter than Joe, so both complement their centermen well.
I dunno because the Rangers had no shortage of play makers, it was actually burying the puck that seemed to be a problem. Now Jagr is a more of a shooter than Thornton, but this year was actually one of his higher goal years. A "typical" Jagr year is more along the lines of 40-45 goals and somewhere around 70-80 assists.

And to some extent what you said is another point I've been getting at in that Cheechoo probably brought more to Thornton than Straka to Jagr. Cheechoo was a finisher that Thornton needed, whereas Jagr had at least two other guys who were more playmakers to set him up (Rucinsky, Nylander).

Now while I agree Straka did his share to help Jagr, I can say the same for Cheechoo as well. He wasn't exactly just sitting there waiting for Thornton to get him the puck. That brings me back to exactly what I've been saying all along: whether consciously or subconsciously, I don't think people are quite aware of how good of a player Cheechoo is in his own right. He's not a superstar, best winger in the game, but he's a very good player.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 08:22 PM
  #95
StartLundqvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
Jagr should win the MVP unanimously.

StartLundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.