Posted by Justin Bourne under One Man's Opinion on Apr 16, 2014
This is my second full year as a member of the Professional Hockey Writers’ Association, which means I’m one of the folks who has the privilege of voting on the annual NHL awards. I’m once again taking the responsibility seriously, as the awards can actually affect the lives of players (particularly in a financial way), and they most certainly affect the historical record of our game.
The goal of voting is simply to award trophies to players who legitimately earned them during the given season. That means where there are obvious answers, you give them, and don’t try to get too cute about it. And, of course, having stats to back up your opinions is pretty key.
(1) NHL Trophies
HART TROPHY (“to the player adjudged to be the most valuable to his team”) — Five selections
“’Player adjudged most valuable to his team’ can mean two things. The lunatic interpretation is ‘Player whose share of the total value of his team is greatest.’ This is the one people are adopting. The sane people interpretation is ‘Player who provides the most value to his team’ with “value” being simply a raw counting number, not factoring in how much total value his team has. I mean, on the criteria these people are explicitly adopting, Zack Stortini could win the Hart, if you put him on a team with 19 mes. “Well, that team was the worst team in NHL history, but Stortini is undeniably miles ahead of all those Dellows.”
And this quick add-on from myself in that piece:
So my point is, after that long walk, let’s say the Hart was for “value provided to team,” literally. What would be the point of that? What are we trying to identify? The worst team who had the most disproportionately great player? That’s just a luck award for one of the league’s best players. It would be pointless.
That’s just my personal take on it. Just thought I’d let you in on how I choose to vote.
Anyway, on to the actual votes! Read the rest of this entry »