Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Has the Hart always involved the mental gymnastics of trying to figure out of all the individual team MVPs who is the most MVP-y? Or do the writers tend to pick the best player in the league? See the Lindsay Award.

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Has the Hart always involved the mental gymnastics of trying to figure out of all the individual team MVPs who is the most MVP-y? Or do the writers tend to pick the best player in the league? See the Lindsay Award.

Yes.  This was the big discussion about Hasek back in the day: NO ONE wanted to give him the Hart "because goalies already have the Vezina."  I think they finally went with the 1st definition you give.

Edited by E4 ... Ke2
Posted
1 hour ago, E4 ... Ke2 said:

Yes.  This was the big discussion about Hasek back in the day: NO ONE wanted to give him the Hart "because goalies already have the Vezina."  I think they finally went with the 1st definition you give.

I want to see a pissed off goalie make a run at the art ross and rocket richard trophies just to stick it to the people who think that way. The latter would take some true dedication. 

Posted
3 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Has the Hart always involved the mental gymnastics of trying to figure out of all the individual team MVPs who is the most MVP-y? Or do the writers tend to pick the best player in the league? See the Lindsay Award.

I just wish leagues would change the definition to 'player of the year' or something like that.

If there were 2 awards...one for 'player of the year/best player' and the other for 'player who may not be the best, but who is the most valuable to his individual team', I know I would care for the 'player of the year' award much, much more than the other.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Has the Hart always involved the mental gymnastics of trying to figure out of all the individual team MVPs who is the most MVP-y? Or do the writers tend to pick the best player in the league? See the Lindsay Award.

I feel like they generally just give it to the most outstanding player and should therefore change the current definition of the award

4 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Panarin should get it IMO. 

Too many games where he wasn't even the best player on his own team, see, Zibanejad. By the strict definition, there's no player more valuable to his individual team than Eichel was to the Sabres, we'd suffer he most with the removal of one player. 

Since it can't go to Jack with no playoffs, I'd give it to MacKinnon, I believe he's the only player with a greater separation in points between him and the next guy, than Jack. Guys like Draisaitl, and to a lesser degree, Panarin, who moreless play with a player as good or even arguably better...that's not what the strict definition of the award is about. 

But again, to PA's point, that's not really how they award it. Draisaitl is gonna win it, and there's no logical argument that says he's more valuable to the Oilers than Jack is to the Sabres. Not when Drai is lining up with the best player in the world most on his team most nights. 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Thorny said:

To many games where he wasn't even the best player on his own team, see, Zibanejad. By the strict definition, there's no player more valuable to his individual team than Eichel was to the Sabres, we'd suffer he most with the removal of one player. 

Since it can't go to Jack with no playoffs, I'd give it to MacKinnon, I believe he's the only player with a greater separation in points between him and the next guy, than Jack. 

I'm making up this case as I go along, mostly just throwing stuff down as I find it, so don't take it super seriously: 

The number of NHL players currently better than Panarin can be counted on one hand, and Zibanejad doesn't make that cut, while still being excellent

Panarin has more ES assists this year than Zibanejad has ES points,  and also has 25 ES goals. Yes, Panarin has been available for 12 more games, but his ES production per game is 40% greater than Mika's, who is a great ES player but definitely leans on the power play more, which is all well and good but I value ES play a lot higher than PP play. Panarin's total production per game is 5% higher than Mika's with worse teammates as described below:

Panarin does this being centered by Ryan Strome, who has been dreadful for years since he was about the legal US drinking age, and playing on the opposite wing to Jesper Fast. Both of Zibanejad's linemates (Buchnevich and Kreider) are significantly better hockey players than those that Panarin has made a home with

Panarin is +36 on a team that is -24 without him on the ice, versus Zibanejad whose team is +3 without him on the ice (he's +9)

Mika does have 4 games in which he has 4 or more points, but he's less consistent in his production, playing 17 games of his 57 (30%) without any points, while Panarin has gone without points in 15 of his 69 games (22%) 

29-24-4 with Zibanejad (89 point pace, 8-4-1 without him, a small sample size but a 107 point pace without him, and 13 games is a pretty big chunk of the season to date, almost a fifth of the material we're judging on)
37-27-5 with Panarin (94 point pace, only has missed one game)

In the lens of a trophy given to a team's most valuable player, looking at these numbers, the main case Zibanejad has going for him is playing a more important position. But his shift-in-shift-out impact seems to be worse in all respects than that of Panarin's. If you like heat charts, and maybe you don't, they tell the same story:
zib.thumb.PNG.e53d8696c7f34a1cf19bb5cd3c361299.PNG

pan.thumb.PNG.cc299e4d3eb7c462264c1af1482213e2.PNG
The top is Zibanejad, the bottom is Panarin. "Threat" is a less-detailed expected goal model, and tells us that Panarin's offensive "threat" impact is 23% greater than that of a league average player, while the Rangers as a whole are 3% less offensively capable than league average without him on the ice. Zibanejad increases the Rangers' "threat" offensively to 7% above league average when on the ice, compared to 5% better when he's not on it. (Regression is still applied to threat to account for usage/opponent differences, they just don't account for shot type if I remember correctly. These findings do help support the gap between each player's ES production and GF/GA differentials)

Defensively, meanwhile, NYR still allow 9% more threat than league average with Panarin, but without him allow 21% more threat than league average, while the Rangers' defensive zone is more porous with Zib than without it (and again, the regression is performed meaning in theory it isn't just because Mika has more zone starts there, or plays tougher competition (both play tough competition, and of course Mika has a bigger role in stopping that competition, which he doesn't appear to do super well as an offensive center))

of course, it's totally fine if you don't like "threat" and heat maps, I'm just perusing and enjoying myself at this point

If you like other advanced stats, like Goals Above Replacement, or GAR, an attempt to model all impacts of a player, Panarin is first in the league in GAR. (This is the top 24 skaters)
GAR.thumb.PNG.2133ccec0391848e00d99aa4d78f4b64.PNG
Per unit ice time, since Zibanejad missed time, Panarin is 4th in the NHL in GAR for skaters who have played 1000 minutes, Zibanejad is 89th

WAR, a similar metric that I believe can be derived from GAR, has Panarin 3rd in the NHL per ice time, and Zibanejad 89th

These models also do regression with the aim of isolating impact from usage

zib.thumb.png.9ce127596ed5453fe42ed0acfe16aa09.png

This is those RAPM charts people either love or detest

And I got the email I was waiting for so I have to stop here lol

not much of this work actually influenced my opinion, the smartest hockey guy I know in real life is a Rags fan and views Panarin as the obvious Hart choice this year and I am entirely leaning on his view of the situation. He was surprised that I even mentioned Zibanejad in the context of the trophy 

and MacKinnon is definitely a compelling choice, but for me his team is now too strong for me to pick him outright over other skaters. He scores a lot more than them (because of Rantanen's long term injury IMO) but there are some superb and defensemen on the ice with him every shift

Jack's right in the convo too and would win if we were 10 points better than we are 
 

Posted (edited)

That's all fantastic stuff @Randall Flagg and you make a compelling argument. I wasn't trying to argue that Zibanejad was as good as Panarin necessarily and shouldn't have given that window for argument - my point is more so the fact that the gap between Panarin and Zibanejad isn't the size of gap between Eichel and Reinhart. 

Because that's the terms under which I view the Hart. Do you think the gap between the 2 IS as large or larger? Because if that's what you are laying out statistically, I'd concede the point. For my money, I don't see a larger gap league wide between a team's best player and second best as large as the one in Buffalo. 

Panarin is 4th and Zibanejad 89th - Jack is 15th, what's Reinhart?

Edited by Thorny
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

That's all fantastic stuff @Randall Flagg and you make a compelling argument. I wasn't trying to argue that Zibanejad was as good as Panarin necessarily and shouldn't have given that window for argument - my point is more so the fact that the gap between Panarin and Zibanejad isn't the size of gap between Eichel and Reinhart. 

Because that's the terms under which I view the Hart. Do you think the gap between the 2 IS as large or larger? Because if that's what you are laying out statistically, I'd concede the point. For my money, I don't see a larger gap league wide between a team's best player and second best as large as the one in Buffalo. 

I think Reinhart is pretty good, but I can't bring myself to dive back in and get comparisons from the stats I just cited (and don't care that much about haha). 

I do think that, even though it's not a technical part of the definition, I want my Hart winner to be on a good team. It might be the case that the Rangers miss the playoffs had they played 82 games, but they were right there, and are victims of a ridiculous division in the current standings (6th place on a 93 point pace while we're 6th place too, and would be even if we were a 75 point team)

I think the Rags without Panarin would be a similar drop in overall points as the Sabres without Jack, but the Rags are relevant and playing in important games (and winning them with Panarin contributing heavily). So even if you could prove Jack influence's the Sabres record a little more, the fact that we failed the "meaningful games in March" goal set 10 days prior just makes it hard to give Jack the vote over Artemi. Which is of course schtewpid - if we had independently acquired a good 2C and were a good team and Jack was identical, then I think the case is closer, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna stop feeling that way 

Edited by Randall Flagg
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I think Reinhart is pretty good, but I can't bring myself to dive back in and get comparisons from the stats I just cited (and don't care that much about haha). 

I do think that, even though it's not a technical part of the definition, I want my Hart winner to be on a good team. It might be the case that the Rangers miss the playoffs had they played 82 games, but they were right there, and are victims of a ridiculous division in the current standings (6th place on a 93 point pace while we're 6th place too, and would be even if we were a 75 point team)

I think the Rags without Panarin would be a similar drop in overall points as the Sabres without Jack, but the Rags are relevant and playing in important games (and winning them with Panarin contributing heavily). So even if you could prove Jack influence's the Sabres record a little more, the fact that we failed the "meaningful games in March" goal set 10 days prior just makes it hard to give Jack the vote over Artemi. Which is of course schtewpid - if we had independently acquired a good 2C and were a good team and Jack was identical, then I think the case is closer, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna stop feeling that way 

I just feel there would be a larger gap between Jack and Sam. If Sam is outside the top 100, there is. The second bolded, I just, really? Maybe I'm not as familiar with the Rags but we are HOPELESS without Jack. They'd really fall that far off the cliff without Panarin?

- - - 

The funny thing is, there's no chance it's going to Panarin, deserved or not. It's going to Draisaitl. 

Edited by Thorny
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I think Reinhart is pretty good, but I can't bring myself to dive back in and get comparisons from the stats I just cited (and don't care that much about haha). 

I do think that, even though it's not a technical part of the definition, I want my Hart winner to be on a good team. It might be the case that the Rangers miss the playoffs had they played 82 games, but they were right there, and are victims of a ridiculous division in the current standings (6th place on a 93 point pace while we're 6th place too, and would be even if we were a 75 point team)

I think the Rags without Panarin would be a similar drop in overall points as the Sabres without Jack, but the Rags are relevant and playing in important games (and winning them with Panarin contributing heavily). So even if you could prove Jack influence's the Sabres record a little more, the fact that we failed the "meaningful games in March" goal set 10 days prior just makes it hard to give Jack the vote over Artemi. Which is of course schtewpid - if we had independently acquired a good 2C and were a good team and Jack was identical, then I think the case is closer, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna stop feeling that way 

10 points higher and he'd win, you said before. I tend to agree. And we'd do that by adding a really good player, and ipso facto making Jack less valuable to us. It's funny, they really need to change the award definition.  

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I just feel there would be a larger gap between Jack and Sam. If Sam is outside the top 100, there is. The second bolded, I just, really? Maybe I'm not as familiar with the Rags but we are HOPELESS without Jack. They'd really fall that far off the cliff without Panarin?

- - - 

The funny thing is, there's no chance it's going to Panarin, deserved or not. It's going to Draisaitl. 

Not necessarily, just when I see a, say, 10 point improvement from Artemi being there (he is probably that dominant) I view it as more Hart-worthy because those wins/goals/whatever he contributes to are Big Games (TM) whereas Jack's, say, 10 point improvement is coming in between and during dreck hockey that doesn't matter and makes everybody watching angery 

Like I say it's not fair or necessarily intelligent, but team success will always matter to me with the award, so I'd go

Panarin
MacKinnon probably
Jack 

and there are probably players I'm forgetting that deserve strong consideration too. Hockey was a while ago now

And yeah, and Draisaitl is awesome but he and his teammate don't enter the convo for me because of each other 

Edited by Randall Flagg
Posted
3 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Not necessarily, just when I see a, say, 10 point improvement from Artemi being there (he is probably that dominant) I view it as more Hart-worthy because those wins/goals/whatever he contributes to are Big Games (TM) whereas Jack's, say, 10 point improvement is coming in between and during dreck hockey that doesn't matter and makes everybody watching angery 

Like I say it's not fair or necessarily intelligent, but team success will always matter to me with the award, so I'd go

Panarin
MacKinnon probably
Jack 

and there are probably players I'm forgetting that deserve strong consideration too. Hockey was a while ago now

And yeah, and Draisaitl is awesome but he and his teammate don't enter the convo for me because of each other 

If the Sabres are awarded a playoff spot, there is a legitimate chance Jack gets a Hart nomination, right? Pretty cool. He's not gonna win it of course, but a nomination would be darn cool. 

Posted
30 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If the Sabres are awarded a playoff spot, there is a legitimate chance Jack gets a Hart nomination, right? Pretty cool. He's not gonna win it of course, but a nomination would be darn cool. 

If they were to beat Toronto, it would be cooler.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

What recent Hart winner most resembles Jack's situation?

None, because players in Jack's situation don't win the Hart and he isn't going to win the Hart. 

If by some weird reason the Sabres are awarded a playoff spot, I wouldn't completely rule out him scratching a nomination. But I doubt it, considering the circumstances under which we'd be making it. 

If it was up to me, I'm strongly considering giving him a nomination regardless, but that's just me. 

Edited by Thorny
Posted

Should Jack be in consideration according to the criteria, YES.  Will he be, NO.  If the Sabres did not have Jack, they would be in last place in the league.  Now, with some league resumption scenarios, the Sabres may be in the Playoffs.  Therefore, Jack is the sole reason for the team's success and should in consideration for the Hart.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Dylan Larkin?

With Dylan Larkin, the Wings are last in the league.  Without Dylan Larkin, the  Wings would  still be last in the league.  With Jack, the Sabres MAY get to the playoffs with this wacky resumption plan.  Without Jack, the Sabres  would be fighting the Wings for last place.  Like I said, Jack won't get the Hart, but if the Sabres somehow make the playoffs, It's Jack that made it even possible.  That's Hart-worthy.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
9 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Dylan Larkin?

5 points more than the next closest guy on his team..Jack is 28 ahead, while sitting top 10 in league scoring. 

  • Like (+1) 1
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...