Kukla's Korner

The Puck Stops Here

A Final Look At The 2010 MVP Race

The Hart Trophy was awarded to Henrik Sedin last week.  I had been picking Alexander Ovechkin and feel that an incorrect choice was made.  Sidney Crosby was the third nominee and he was also a strong candidate in the race.

The three MVP nominees all finished with 109 to 112 points (Sedin had 112 and the other two 109).  Looking at raw offensive totals there is little difference between them.  The difference between them likely has to be found either by showing their offensive numbers are not as close as they seem or by looking at things not reflected in those numbers (primarily defence).

The biggest difference between the three players is their goal totals.  Sedin scored 29, while Crosby tied for the league lead with 51 and Ovechkin was one back with 50.  Sedin had a far lower goal total and this difference is important enough that i would not have picked him as MVP.

Although, one can look at things another way and argue that Sedin played in the West Conference and his points were harder to come by because the West Conference is better than the East.  Alexander Ovechkin played in the weakest division in hockey (the Southeast), but this was not a primary source of his points.  Ovechkin scored 29 points against his division (while Sedin had 34 and Crosby led the league with 44 points against his division).  Against the West Conference, Ovechkin scored 12 goals and 8 assists in 17 games, Crosby had nine goals and eight assists in 17 games and Sedin, while playing the East Conference, scored six goals and 18 assists in 18 games.  This is a small sample size to draw conclusions from, but we can conclude that playing in the West Conference likely cost Sedin points.  We also can conclude that even with Sedin’s somewhat enhanced point total, he would still be well behind Crosby and Ovechkin in goals.

Another factor to look at is that Ovechkin played fewer games than Crosby or Sedin.  Ovechkin played 72 games, while Sedin played all 82 and Crosby played in 81 games.  Thus Ovechkin’s per game totals were higher than either of the other two.  Ovechkin missed four of these games due to suspension, so some of this missed time (but not all) is his fault.

In terms of ice time, Sedin played about two minutes per game less than either Ovechkin or Crosby (who were within ten seconds per game of one another).  Comparing ice time, a large part of this ice time was power play time.  Vancouver played two complete forward units on the power play, while both Pittsburgh and Washington tended to give their MVP candidate the bulk of the power play time with changing linemates.  This left Sedin third in power play points among these three (Ovechkin 36, Crosby 34, Sedin 27).  Likely that says that Sedin could have had more points had he played as much on the power play as the other two.

In terms of defence, none of the three were superstars.  In the Selke voting, Crosby and Ovechkin got a few mentions but finished well back and nobody voted for Sedin.  One of Ovechkin’s votes was a much criticized first place vote (how can he be the best defensive forward?).  Realistically, there is little difference between any of them in their defensive value.  Many people give Sidney Crosby credit for his value in faceoffs.  He was 11th in faceoffs in the league with a 56.1% success rate.  I don’t put a lot of value in this since all faceoff percentages are near 50% and there is certainly precedent for having a poor defensive season and a high faceoff percentage (see Rod Brind’Amour).

When we look at puck possession type metrics like adjusted +/- and Corsi Numbers, Ovechkin and Sedin are well ahead of Crosby this season, with Ovechkin in the lead.  That is a point against Sidney Crosby.

All told, Alexander Ovechkin has the best points per game, though his game total is partly reduced by suspension it is more significantly reduced by injury.  Henrik Sedin has the highest point total.  Sedin is the player who is most likely to have his point total kept lower because of circumstances outside of his control.  However, Sedin is also the lowest goal scorer of the bunch by a significant margin.  Defensively, there is little edge between the bunch, although puck possession type numbers clearly place Crosby below the other two and give Ovechkin a slight edge.  I think that Alexander Ovechkin is clearly the player who has the highest per game value to his team of the three.  A controversy exists only because he missed some games.  Nevertheless, his higher goal total than Sedin and his higher Corsi/adjusted +/- than Crosby show better puck possession and should have made him the Hart Trophy winner.

Filed in: | The Puck Stops Here | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

I think you should sometimes use your instincts and what you gather from watching hockey moreso, and less always using only stats to back up your arguements.

Posted by NathanBC on 06/28/10 at 03:18 PM ET

Avatar

you’re completely ignoring the hart definition - “the player adjudged most valuable to his team”

Posted by Moose Moss on 06/28/10 at 03:20 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Nathan

My instinct says Ovechkin,  I have just backed it up statistically.

Moose

The most valuable player to his team is the player with the greatest overall value.  What is more valuable?  A $10 million diamond in a box of million dollar diamonds or a $5 mill diamond in a box of gravel and glass shards.  The $10 mill diamond is obviously more valuable.  Only hockey fans would turn around and argue that the $5 mill diamond is more valuable to his box, because he is the only stone worth anything in the box - even though he is less valuable than the $10 mill one.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/28/10 at 03:25 PM ET

Avatar

Ok, fair enough.

Posted by NathanBC on 06/28/10 at 03:26 PM ET

Avatar

Ok thanks for all of that.  All of us penguin fans are realizing now that we should just be lucky that Crosby is mentioned in the same breath as Ovechkin and Sedin.

Maybe in the final year Crosby plays someone can throw him a bone and put his name on something… anything really.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 06/28/10 at 03:34 PM ET

Avatar

Yeah, but the thing is, Ovie had a lot more to work with than Hank in terms of player support. Plus, when Ovie was out the Caps kept winning - handily. When Daniel was injured Henrik was the motor that kept the Canucks going. The Caps would have won their division, and had at least a good shot at winning the conference, without Ovie. But Vancouver - their second line centre for most of the year was Wellwood. So yeah, although I disagree with the relative value you put on these diamonds, a $5 million diamond in this case IS more valuable to his team.
You probably read Jason Botchford’s case, but if not he makes the case better than I: http://communities.canada.com/THEPROVINCE/blogs/whitetowel/archive/2010/04/11/a-hart-for-henrik-here-s-one-vote.aspx

Posted by Moose Moss on 06/28/10 at 03:59 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Comparing ice time, a large part of this ice time was power play time.  Vancouver played two complete forward units on the power play, while both Pittsburgh and Washington tended to give their MVP candidate the bulk of the power play time with changing linemates.  This left Sedin third in power play points among these three (Ovechkin 36, Crosby 34, Sedin 27).  Likely that says that Sedin could have had more points had he played as much on the power play as the other two.

The alternate to that is that Sedin made up a much larger portion of his points on even-strength, where it’s harder to come by points.  In fact, I think his even-strength point total is the highest for a season since Mario Lemieux in 1996.

At any rate, I see your point.  Ovechkin, at his season-long pace would have easily won the scoring title if he had played in all 82 games (or even 78 games while still missing the four he missed during suspensions).

I think two factors (each of understandably small sample size) led to this voting. 
1: Henrik played well with Daniel out of the lineup, answering many sportswriters’ questions about whether he could do that.
2: Ovechkin’s team had a very good record with him out of the lineup.

Like I said, the sample sizes are small, but we’re talking about a trophy voted on by the people who had one person among them give Ovechkin a first place Selke vote.

Personally, I think Sedin did more to make sure that his team was as successful than Ovechkin did.  The Capitals may not have won the President’s Trophy without Ovie, but I think the Canucks would have struggled to make the playoffs, especially considering how well Sedin played during a pivotal portion of the season when Vancouver went on the Olympic road trip.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/28/10 at 04:07 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Here is my responce to people who insist in looking at the handful of games individual playersm iss to decide awards.  It is a strong argument that Ryan Parent should really be the MVP… if we ignore the sample size issues that go along with that sort of thing.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/28/10 at 04:10 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I absolutely agree that the argument about how the Caps played without Ovechkin in the lineup should be dismissed.

With that, I also think that the argument of how many points Ovechkin would have had if he had not missed ten games should be dismissed.  They’re both sample-size issues.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/28/10 at 04:27 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

It isn’t a sample size issue to say that Ovechkin would have scored some points in ten games.  It is clear that - even if we cannot project an exact number - any reasonable estimate gives him the Art Ross and Richard trophies.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/28/10 at 04:30 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Actual hockey games and events aren’t reasonable.  Ovechkin missed ten games this season as a direct result of his style of play (through both injuries and suspensions), the same style of play that gives him a higher point-per-game pace than Sedin has.  It’s a risk factor that has to be considered when comparing the two.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/28/10 at 04:34 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

I am not arguing that Ovechkin is the MVP because he would have done something in the games he missed.  I am arguing that he did more in the games that he played than either of the other two.

He has far more goals than Sedin and far better puck possession numbers than Crosby.

We are off on the wrong track (to some degree) arguing about what Ovechkin would have done in the games he missed.  Nevertheless, I would not be so quick to blame his style of play on his missing those games - he has never missed more than three games in a season before this past season and his style of play has not significantly changed.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/28/10 at 04:49 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Nevertheless, I would not be so quick to blame his style of play on his missing those games - he has never missed more than three games in a season before this past season and his style of play has not significantly changed.

Fine, I’ll get back on point, but doesn’t it make sense that Ovechkin’s style of play would make him more injury prone as he ages?

I realize that you’re arguing for the merits of what Ovechkin did in the 72 games that he played, but the concept of the trophy brings in the team aspect.  His performance over an 82-game season has to be considered.  Ovie played only 72 games.  It is what it is.  You argue that he is the most valuable on a per-game basis, which is not a way I look at the overall criteria.  Is 12% of the season significant enough sample size?  When does per-game break down?  If he had scored 70 points in 41 games and then spent half the season injured, would he still be your #1 Hart trophy candidate? 

If you’re limiting the consideration like that, then how is it different than giving Ryan Parent the award for having the biggest difference in the way his team played without him?

I have no good argument to deny your claim that Ovechkin’s 21 more goals than Sedin’s is a good part of the argument that supports your side.  I will say however that Sedin had more points and you don’t get a point unless a goal is scored by somebody.  I know it’s too slippery a slope for me to grip when I say something along those lines, which implies that I think that assists are worth as much as goals in some made-up rating system that I have, because it’s also not the truth.  I can however further diminish it by also stating that the difference on the roles on their team is another portion of their difference in goal scoring.  Ultimately, when you take it all into consideration and look at the impact on the team, I can’t say that the 21-goal difference in goals scored by Ovechkin while Sedin had 3 more points would have brought more value to Vancouver or less value to Washington.

I believe our fundamental difference is in thinking what most valuable player actually means.  For you, I think you’re taking it from a standpoint of which player is the single best player (and therefore most valuable) in the league while I look at it as a function of which player is the most crucial to the success of his team.  Under your criteria, Ovechkin is the best choice.  Under mine, I still believe that it’s Sedin.  Fortunately, there are good arguments to support either mode of thinking.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/28/10 at 05:25 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Essentially what I am arguing is that if we could come up with a sabermetricly meaningful definition of “win shares”, Ovechkin would have more than any other player in the NHL.  His number of games played doesn’t factor into things.  In 72 games, I argue that he got more than Sedin did in 82 games.

The argument comes down to exactly how we try to figure out what is a win share.  In the absence of a clear meaningful theory, that is open to interpretation.

Basic elements of my theory are that a goal is worth more than an assist - the NHL point total judges them as equal but in general they are not.  Thus Ovechkin is ahead of Sedin in terms of “goals created” ( Here is one way to estimate goals created).  Also puck possession is important.  Ovechkin is ahead of Sedin here, but not on as meaningful a level (but there is a meaningful difference to show crosby is clearly third by this metric).  Defence is another important prong in the analysis of win shares and I see no meaningful way to argue the defensive differences (which are small) make up for the differences in the other areas.  If you see problems in the pieces that i would put together to attempt to fill out my “win shares’ theory, feel free to point them out.  I think the results would show Ovechkin won more games for his team than Sedin or crosby did for their teams.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/28/10 at 05:35 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I’m afraid that there are not enough statistics taken in hockey to come up with a sabremetrically meaningful definition of “win shares”.

For instance, a guy like Tomas Holmstrom of Detroit will never and should never be ranked near the top of the overall NHL category for Win Shares.  But, based solely on analysis of statistics which are available, I believe he would be ranked well below a lot of current players who do not contribute nearly as much to their team as Holmstrom does to his.  This is because for every one goal that Holmstrom creates for his team by deflecting the puck past a screened goalie, he could possibly also be creating one for his team by screening the goalie and making the save impossible on a play where he gets no statistical credit (on the flip-side, he could also be taking away goals from some valuable players by getting a stick on pucks that were already destined for the net and devaluing that player’s shot or by deflecting the puck off-target and costing the shooter at least an assist).

Like I said, a guy like Holmstrom will never belong at the top, but when you’re talking about meaningful statistical analysis to give a concrete numerical value to what a player brings to his team, that metric has to be applicable to all players, from the superstars to the scrubs.

I guess it applies to my last sentiment that I look at it from a team standpoint.  The style of the team and their needs dictate how important a player is to that team and I’m nto sure there’s a good way to quantify with numbers available a way to judge that which is fair.

I’ll reiterate the point that if we’re going by which single guy is the best hockey player or the one person I’d most likely take to build a team around, I have to admit that Henrik Sedin is not in my top five, even if you made me make a top five comprised entirely of forwards.  I just think that what Sedin did for the Canucks was more valuable than what Ovechkin did for the Capitals in this one hockey season.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/28/10 at 06:09 PM ET

Avatar

You say “the most valuable player to his team is the player with the greatest overall value”.  I think you could make several cases in the past where that hasn’t been true: Jagr during his time with the Caps, perhaps, would be one instance. Conversely there are many occasions where a ‘lesser’ star was far more important to the success of his team than a big name was on his own respective team: Rod Langway for the Caps in the 80’s, for instance, was arguably more integral to his team’s success some seasons than Gretzky was to the already stacked Oilers line-up.

Posted by Moose Moss on 06/28/10 at 06:49 PM ET

Avatar

The most valuable player to his team is the player with the greatest overall value.  What is more valuable?  A $10 million diamond in a box of million dollar diamonds or a $5 mill diamond in a box of gravel and glass shards.  The $10 mill diamond is obviously more valuable.  Only hockey fans would turn around and argue that the $5 mill diamond is more valuable to his box, because he is the only stone worth anything in the box - even though he is less valuable than the $10 mill one.

Ok, two things:

1)  Your description is the exact OPPOSITE of “most valuable to his team”.  That’s WHY they worded it that way.  If you’ve got one team with five 100 point players on a team and one has 105 points and you’ve got another team with one 100 point player and that team might well have not made the playoffs without him, that makes him more valuable than the guy with 105 points on the stacked team.  THAT is how the Hart is awarded.
2) 112 points is “a $5mil diamond” in a box of rocks while 109 points is “a ten mill diamond” among million dollar diamonds?  Was Ovechkin really TWICE as good as Sedin?

Posted by Garth on 06/28/10 at 10:32 PM ET

Avatar

Without the 5 million dollar diamond you’re left with worthless rocks….. without the 10 million dollar diamond you’re left with a few million dollars of diamonds still….hmmmm which is more important to their box.

This award is meant to go to the player who is most valuable to his team, not to the player that you think played the best that season.

Posted by Josey Wales on 06/29/10 at 03:54 AM ET

GoPens's avatar

Looking at offensive and defensive numbers without adjusting for the quality of teammates or competition is meaningless. Sedin was the most sheltered forward in hockey this year, and his QCOMP and Delta stats show that he was playing against much weaker competition than both Crosby and Ovechkin. Crosby was also doing everything with vastly inferior line mates. A quick look at GVT and QTEAM illustrate how big the gulf was.

I don’t put a lot of value in this since all faceoff percentages are near 50% and there is certainly precedent for having a poor defensive season and a high faceoff percentage

This makes no sense. The best faceoff men take about 1500 draws in a season. The difference between 55% and 45% is about 150 faceoff wins. How is that not really valuable to a team, especially considering that a lost d zone draw leads to about .25 shots against?

Posted by GoPens on 06/29/10 at 12:14 PM ET

PuckStopsHere's avatar

Josey

One more time.  The $5 million diamond is worth $5 million.  The $10 million diamond is worth $10 million.  $10 million > $ 5 million.  The contents of the remainder of the box do not matter.

Otherwise you get the situation where MVP starts to mean worst teammates and that is a pretty nonsensical award.  I could be NHL MVP if onl;y there was a team that consisted of me and a bunch of senior citizens.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/29/10 at 12:33 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Sedin was the most sheltered forward in hockey this year

That’s not even close to correct.  You’re right that he had a lower QComp rating than both Crosby and Ovechkin, but his rating falls roughly above the mean among players with at least 40 games.  David Koci of Colorado was the most sheltered forward in hockey this year by QComp stats among forwards with at least 40 games played

QComp stats are incredibly relative and, according to Behind the Net, don’t correct for the concept of good teams playing against other good teams.  Sedin’s Canucks were in the conference with 6 of the top 9 defensive teams in the league. 

I have trouble accepting GVT because the catch-all stat makes a lot of assumptions and glosses over a lot of numbers in trying to create the single most important “rating stat” among players.  Goalies make up seven of the top ten and all of the bottom ten while there are only two defensemen in the top 25.  I think GVT assigns goalies too much credit or blame for their team’s performance by unfairly taking away from a defenseman’s relative credit or blame.  I also think that the creator in trying to assign a value and using his own bias in what a goal is worth in terms of assist (statisically about 1.7, while the author uses 1.5), unfairly limits the GVT score of a guy who scored a larger majority of his points via assist.  I think trying to compare the record of goals to assists is just about meaningless anyway because the statistical noise associated with the contextual value of any given assist is large.  How many times can you think where a guy getting a secondary assist did more to creat the goal than the guy who potted it home?  How many times have you seen a playmaker do all the work getting the puck into the zone and playing havoc on the defense only to get shut out on the scoresheet on the eventual goal because an extra unnecessary pass turns his work into the uncounted third assist? 

Finally, GVT assumes that all players play against the average competition.  I think it’s about time to really take conference strength differences into mind.  There’s a great deal of denial going on , but it’s being made abundantly clear that the quality of an average Western Conference team is much higher than the quality of an average Eastern Conference team.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/29/10 at 01:10 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I could be NHL MVP if only there was a team that consisted of me and a bunch of senior citizens.

[Insert “Red Wings are old” joke here]

You could be NHL MVP if you took that bunch of senior citizens to the playoffs.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/29/10 at 01:13 PM ET

GoPens's avatar

David Koci of Colorado was the most sheltered forward in hockey this year by QComp stats among forwards with at least 40 games played

Koci is barely a hockey player. He has no offensive production and sees a minuscule amount of ice time. Among regular players, Sedin was ridiculously sheltered this year, and his QCOMP, Corsi QoC, and zone starts indicate as much. When you consider that he was on his team’s first line but didn’t draw the best pairings, that indicates VAN’s coach went to great lengths to shelter him.

Further proof is looking at his point totals from year-to-year. Sedin saw some of the easiest competition of his career this year, and scored 112 points. His point totals from year’s past: 82, 76, 81, and 75. Something doesn’t seem right…

QComp stats are incredibly relative and, according to Behind the Net, don’t correct for the concept of good teams playing against other good teams.

This is a lame excuse. QoC, Corsi QoC, Rel Corsi, Delta stats, and common freaking sense all tell the same story: Sedin saw much easier competition this year than either Crosby or Ovi, and was below average in terms of regular NHL forwards.

unfairly limits the GVT score of a guy who scored a larger majority of his points via assist.

First off, I never said GVT was the only stat to look at, or even one that should be given major consideration. I mentioned it in passing, since it backs up what every other measure says. It’s not perfect, but it does a hell of a job putting a number to a player’s value. As to your quote above, assists are easier to come by in the NHL than goals; that’s why there are almost twice as many of them. Secondary assists get handed out like candy these days, and while there might be one anecdotal instance where a playmaker worked harder than a goal scorer, that by no means represents the general trend in the league.

I think it’s about time to really take conference strength differences into mind.

I don’t think this is a good idea because the salary cap will force the conferences to either even out or switch positions pretty frequently. The West’s dominance over the East isn’t sustainable in the long run.

Posted by GoPens on 06/29/10 at 02:59 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I don’t think this is a good idea because the salary cap will force the conferences to either even out or switch positions pretty frequently. The West’s dominance over the East isn’t sustainable in the long run.

I have a different opinion on that, based on the idea that the majority of hockey buzz continues to revolve (and in the long run should continue to revolve) around the east, which artificially inflates player values.  Eastern teams will likely continue to fill their rosters with overpaid and overhyped talent.  A few smart GMs here and there will help to keep the balance from staying as ridiculous as it seemed this year, but I have no reason to believe Western teams are going to be weakened by cap space, since the going consensus seems to be that equal talent goes for less money in the West, giving them more room for the underpaid “glue” guys who make a lot of difference.  I believe Eastern-based media outlets have a big effect on not only GMs’ valuations of players, but also on players’ valuations of themselves.

This is a lame excuse. QoC, Corsi QoC, Rel Corsi, Delta stats, and common freaking sense all tell the same story: Sedin saw much easier competition this year than either Crosby or Ovi, and was below average in terms of regular NHL forwards.

See my argument about the differences in teams from each conference.  The guys at Behind the Net outright admit to being too lazy to run the complicated math to correct QoC to make it a better measure when looking at the skills of the teams that are playing.  Sedin regularly plays against teams that are better than the teams that Crosby and Ovechkin plays against.  He may not play against those teams’ best lines, but he plays against more comparable levels of competition than these numbers (and “common freaking sense”) indicate.

Further proof is looking at his point totals from year-to-year. Sedin saw some of the easiest competition of his career this year, and scored 112 points. His point totals from year’s past: 82, 76, 81, and 75. Something doesn’t seem right…

If you want to argue about which player between Sedin, Ovechkin, and Crosby is the most valuable hockey player overall, I’d be happy to look at past seasons and promptly agree that Sedin doesn’t belong in that discussion.  The fact is, the MVP award is given for one singular hockey season.  I agree with everybody who doubts Sedin can keep this level of play up next season, but that’s not the point.  The point is that, over the course of this season, Sedin had an MVP year.  If he doesn’t have one next year, that doesn’t mean that he was any less valuable to the Canucks in the 2009-10 season.

First off, I never said GVT was the only stat to look at, or even one that should be given major consideration. I mentioned it in passing, since it backs up what every other measure says. It’s not perfect, but it does a hell of a job putting a number to a player’s value. As to your quote above, assists are easier to come by in the NHL than goals; that’s why there are almost twice as many of them. Secondary assists get handed out like candy these days, and while there might be one anecdotal instance where a playmaker worked harder than a goal scorer, that by no means represents the general trend in the league.

But you DID mention GVT, even if it was in passing.  You used it for part of your argument and I think it’s a garbage calculation filled with inconsistencies which give a poor relative measure.

There is far more than one anecdotal instance where a playmaker worked harder than a goalscorer.  I saw it happen half a dozen times this season with one particular playmaker.  I’m not saying it represents a general trend, I’m saying that six times over the course of a 90-point season is a very loud boom when it comes to figuring statistical noise into a calculation.  It’s not the norm, but it’s normal enough so that it weakens analyses which completely ignore it.

Assists may be “easier” to come by than goals, but assigning a proprietary numerical figure to try to figure out exactly how much easier doesn’t make that number, or the rating calculations done based on that number, correct.  I do not agree that 1 goal is statisically worth 1.5 assists, so I do not put faith in a rating stat which uses that factor.

The problem with assists is that, contextually, one can mean a very large variety of things based on what the player actually did to create a goal.  Even worse is that I think an assist means different things based on different positions and situations.  For instance, a secondary assist from a center who won an offensive zone faceoff that lead directly to the goal is worth more to me than a defenseman in his own zone who passes behind the net to his defensive partner, who finds a streaking winger for a breakaway pass.  Where in any rating statistic (or in any hockey statistic measured) is there a correction for those two vastly different types of assists?  Since nobody knows how often any of those happen, how can anybody arbitrarily assign a good number to how much in relation to goals an assist is worth?  I say you can’t, so any statistical rating which lumps all of those types of assist together to try to compare anything other than assists is a garbage stat for me.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/29/10 at 03:35 PM ET

Avatar

I was about to applaud your expertise in breaking down the numbers and developing a well thought-out, sound, objective argument (and ensuing analogies) for Ovechkin as the Hart winner… then I read the comments section and now have to take a nap.

Thanks for the hard work and couldn’t agree more! Ovie for 3 Harts in 4 years in 2010-2011!

Posted by Scoops on 06/30/10 at 12:58 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About The Puck Stops Here

imageThe Puck Stops Here was founded during the 2004/05 lockout as a place to rant about hockey. The original site contains over 1000 posts, some of which were also published on FoxSports.com.

Who am I? A diehard hockey fan.

Why am I blogging? I want to.

Why are you reading it? ???

Email: y2kfhl@hotmail.com