Thursday, January 11, 2007

Ask FS! 1/11

Welcome back loyal readers! It's time once again for the internet column that singlehandedly solved the energy crisis, Ask FS! Today's question comes in from Bob in London, Ontario. Bob asks
You seem to really hate Sidney Crosby. How do you feel about the Sidney for Hart Trophy campaign that is really starting to gain ground.
Well Bob, I don't hate Sidney Crosby. I just hate revisionist history that ignores facts. I have a degree in history, and it is one thing to have history written by the winers. It's another to have it rewritten and bastardized by the losers, which is what the NHL is trying to do, as seen in my last post. Is Crosby overrated? Absolutely. In his first game in which Malkin did not have a singlge shift on his line, Crosby had no points and was a -1 last night.

In regards to the Crosby for Hart campaign, it's way too early in my book to choose that. I do have one requirement that be granted before anyone ever be considered for the Hart trophy. Did the team make the playoffs?* If your team does not make the playoffs, I don't think a player should be able to be considered the most valuable. If they were all that valuable, the team would be in the post season. If The Penguins make the playoffs, I have no problem with Secondary Sid being considered for teh Hart trophy. The exact same logic applies to Ovechkin, by the way.

Thanks for the question Bob, and remember, if you have a question that you would like to see in a future edition of "Ask FS!," just drop it in the comments section, or send me an email via the link in the profile. And remember, LET'S GO CAPS!

* = Normally I would say "do something in the playoffs," but the voting is done at the completion of the regular season, before the writers association knows what happens in the playoffs.


Rage said...

I'm with you almost all the way. But the award is called "Most Valuable Player" not "Most Valuable Team" (in regard to your question asking how valuable could the team be if it missed the playoffs).

It all depends on how you define "value". I think it means (and I think you'll find this consistent with my personality) what player contributed the most to his team's points? I.e. if you were able to say that x% of a team's points came from each player on the team with the sum of the x's equaling 100% (for each team), choose the person in the entire league with the highest x.

Make sense?

FS said...

That's all fine and dandy, but if your team only gets 10 playoff points all season, but one player is responsible for those ten points, and you have the worst record in league history, does that player still deserve the MVP?

There's a reason only ONE baseball MVP has been from a losing team in history.

Rage said...

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the reason only one baseball MVP (A-Rod, right?) has been from a losing team is because players on those teams are less valuable.

I'd say the reason is because people have a bias towards winners. Sometimes the majority is right, others they're wrong.

In your example, that player probably doesn't deserve the MVP. But let's say this, that player scores 100 goals, has only 30 assists, and his team has still earned only 10 standings points. He has me and you on his blue line (and since we're in reality, we're each playing the full 60) and our goaltender has an 8.00 GAA. This guy didn't carry his team? He doesn't deserve consideration for the MVP?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's more to it than just being a good player on a winning team.