As nominations were being prepared, Habs fans were thinking that the Canadiens could realistically take a shot at 3 of the trophies – the Calder, the Jack Adams and the Hart. The optimists were hoping for nominees in even more categories with Markov a borderline Norris candidate based on his regular season play.
Nominations for the trophies (or published top threes in voting), left us with one man standing: Guy Carbonneau for the Jack Adams trophy.
Last night was the final cull for the Habs, as Carbonneau lost out to Bruce Boudreau of the Washington Capitals.
The voters got it wrong with this verdict.
Boudreau's accomplishments pale in comparison to Carbonneau and Babcock (the other nominee) and even to a few others who were not nominated in the end.
While Boudreau's supporters vaunt his impressive 37-17-7 record in the last 61 games of the season, they just as eagerly ignore that Carbonneau's Canadiens went 35-19-7 over the same span. Babcock's Wings did better at 39-16-6.
Boudreau turned a team around. Carbonneau and Babcock kept their teams consistent enough to win.
Boudreau took a non-playoff team to the last available place. Carbonneau took a non-playoff team to first. Babcock managed to get the perennial leaders interested in another runaway regular season win.
So why was Boudreau chosen?
The answer eludes me.
Lots of teams improve from one season to the next – going from non-playoff team to qualifier. If that was the criteria for coach of the year, surely John Stevens would outclass Boudreau. Carbonneau's Canadiens went from 11th to first, comfortably cruising into post-season play with time to spare. He must trump Boudreau here too!
Perhaps the answer was Boudreau's ability to turn a flailing Capitals franchise around. If so, he won a Jack Adams trophy on the back of poor work from both Glen Hanlon who should and could have done better preparation with the Capitals and from Peter Laviolette who coached his talented team out of the playoffs again.
I have Carbonneau as the coach of the year, regardless of what the mopes on the voting panel say. Carbonneau not only turned his team around, won the East and somehow managed to get Kovalev into the mood to be a serious mentor, but he also did it in a seriously difficult division, with no help over the season from his GM.
It shouldn't be forgotten that Carbonneau and his team also revamped the number one which had lost its main weapon of the previous campaign – actually improving it. Over the season they also turned the Canadiens young crew into extremely effective penalty-killers and defenders and even the number one offensive team in the league.
After putting all this down on paper, it's pretty clear Carbo deserved more than the invitation to dress up and do his best good loser impression for the cameras.
Showing posts with label Hart trophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hart trophy. Show all posts
Friday, June 13, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Hart Trophy Follow-up: Offense vs. Defense
It seems like fans have spoken - some on this site, some elsewhere. If the Habs were to have a legitimate shot at the Hart trophy, our best chance would fall to Kovalev.
Despite mine and Tobalev's arguments for Andrei Markov, it seems that history, at least, would be on their side not ours.
If you put aside Bobby Orr who was outscoring all the forwards anyway, it seems giving this trophy to a defenseman went out of style before the end of World War II, about 65 years ago. Other than "Number 4", Chris Pronger is the only defenseman to win the trophy over that period. Interestingly, if you look back to 1999-2000, the scoring was down and the top scorers were either on teams having a mediocre seasons (Jagr, Selanne, Kariya) or probably a little further than the league would want to go (Pavel Bure, Mark Recchi).
I think one thing is relatively clear: Hart trophy voters in general love scorers.
This is probably because it fits better with the image the league wants to put out: a high-flying, fast-paced game with exciting goalscoring galore. This is all well and good, but most hockey fans at least recognise, if not endorse, the idea that a good defenseman is not only valuable, but invaluable for a team to move forward and succeed.
In fact, no one other than Dominik Hasek (who was a human highlight reel and league advertisement on his own) has been able to beat a forward who has more than 100 points. With Ovechkin very close already and blowing the league away with goalscoring, he looks to be a trophy frontrunner. Malkin is there too, with close to 100 points himself, but on a team that threatens to play past April.
Considering defensemen log the most minutes, often direct the PP and the PK, start the majority of plays and (the best ones) score relatively well, it is puzzling to see them get so little recognition.
Take only the example of Niklas Lidstrom. He now has first right of refusal to the Norris trophy, it seems. Detroit, a perennial regular season giant would always seem to be a place to look to find a Hart trophy winner. Alas, Lidstrom has no Hart trophies. Perhaps this is the year to finally honour the man many would put forward as the MVP of the past decade. In retrospect, it looks like the league missed its golden opportunity when a flight of fancy gave the trophy to a goaltender who dragged his team into the playoffs while Lidstrom led his team to top of the table, 15 points clear of any other team, 28 points clear of Theodore's bunch, and ultimately to a Stanley Cup.
In keeping with my thinking on Markov, I think Lidstrom must win the trophy. He leads all D in scoring (again) and leads the league in +/- with an incredible +39 (not rare for him either). What's more, his team is once again the class of the league, as in 2002.
Would you Kovalev supporters get behind a Lidstrom for Hart push, or are you Ovechkin or Malkin folk, through and through?
Around the league this story repeats itself over and over. Look at a successful team and most of the time you will find a successful forward and a successful D or G. For me, I look at the sucess and many defenseman led teams:
Anaheim: Niedermayr more so than Getzlaf
Dallas: Zubov more so than Ribeiro
Detroit: Lidstrom more so than Datsyuk
Montreal: Markov more so than Kovalev
And a number of goalie led ones:
New Jersey: Brodeur more so than Parise
San Jose: Nabokov more so than Thornton
Boston: Thomas more so than Savard
New York: Lundqvist more so than Jagr
There are of course many "team" teams and those led by superstar forwards like Pittsburgh and Ottawa, but I don't look much further than Detroit, Dallas, Anaheim and think we would be in the right company...
Up the defensemen! Go Habs Go.
Despite mine and Tobalev's arguments for Andrei Markov, it seems that history, at least, would be on their side not ours.
If you put aside Bobby Orr who was outscoring all the forwards anyway, it seems giving this trophy to a defenseman went out of style before the end of World War II, about 65 years ago. Other than "Number 4", Chris Pronger is the only defenseman to win the trophy over that period. Interestingly, if you look back to 1999-2000, the scoring was down and the top scorers were either on teams having a mediocre seasons (Jagr, Selanne, Kariya) or probably a little further than the league would want to go (Pavel Bure, Mark Recchi).
I think one thing is relatively clear: Hart trophy voters in general love scorers.
This is probably because it fits better with the image the league wants to put out: a high-flying, fast-paced game with exciting goalscoring galore. This is all well and good, but most hockey fans at least recognise, if not endorse, the idea that a good defenseman is not only valuable, but invaluable for a team to move forward and succeed.
In fact, no one other than Dominik Hasek (who was a human highlight reel and league advertisement on his own) has been able to beat a forward who has more than 100 points. With Ovechkin very close already and blowing the league away with goalscoring, he looks to be a trophy frontrunner. Malkin is there too, with close to 100 points himself, but on a team that threatens to play past April.
Considering defensemen log the most minutes, often direct the PP and the PK, start the majority of plays and (the best ones) score relatively well, it is puzzling to see them get so little recognition.
Take only the example of Niklas Lidstrom. He now has first right of refusal to the Norris trophy, it seems. Detroit, a perennial regular season giant would always seem to be a place to look to find a Hart trophy winner. Alas, Lidstrom has no Hart trophies. Perhaps this is the year to finally honour the man many would put forward as the MVP of the past decade. In retrospect, it looks like the league missed its golden opportunity when a flight of fancy gave the trophy to a goaltender who dragged his team into the playoffs while Lidstrom led his team to top of the table, 15 points clear of any other team, 28 points clear of Theodore's bunch, and ultimately to a Stanley Cup.
In keeping with my thinking on Markov, I think Lidstrom must win the trophy. He leads all D in scoring (again) and leads the league in +/- with an incredible +39 (not rare for him either). What's more, his team is once again the class of the league, as in 2002.
Would you Kovalev supporters get behind a Lidstrom for Hart push, or are you Ovechkin or Malkin folk, through and through?
Around the league this story repeats itself over and over. Look at a successful team and most of the time you will find a successful forward and a successful D or G. For me, I look at the sucess and many defenseman led teams:
Anaheim: Niedermayr more so than Getzlaf
Dallas: Zubov more so than Ribeiro
Detroit: Lidstrom more so than Datsyuk
Montreal: Markov more so than Kovalev
And a number of goalie led ones:
New Jersey: Brodeur more so than Parise
San Jose: Nabokov more so than Thornton
Boston: Thomas more so than Savard
New York: Lundqvist more so than Jagr
There are of course many "team" teams and those led by superstar forwards like Pittsburgh and Ottawa, but I don't look much further than Detroit, Dallas, Anaheim and think we would be in the right company...
Up the defensemen! Go Habs Go.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Force of Nature Kovalev for Hart Consideration – Gretzky
Last week, the peerless Wayne Gretzky took the opportunity of a "once-in-a-lifetime" match up against the Canadiens to heap praise on the team and some of its key players. The player whose virtues he seemed to be extolling the most was one-time teammate Alexei Kovalev (now called Alex).
What Gretzky actually said via translation into French in La Presse and the back into English on Eyes on the Prize:
As for completeness, Gretzky is only saying what Habs fans have been saying all season, and what some astute hockey observers have been saying for longer than that.
But the Hart trophy?
Now, i think Robert L. was clear in his post, and I will reiterate, Gretzky only said he would get votes, not that he would win. However, all this talk about Kovalev for MVP got me thinking about how good his chances really were:
1) How does Kovalev stack up against the league in this regard?
I think in general he stacks up quite well. But there are many elements to consider in the decision for the Hart trophy. The way I like to think of it is how would that team be if the player in question is removed from the lineup.
In that regard, we can only speculate. We know from the past that when we lose Markov we are worse, when Brisebois is gone we are better and if we lose Koivu in the playoffs, we are done for. Some would argue that we missed Kovalev for most of last season. But I don't agree with that.
Looking around the league though, there are certain players who seem to carry their teams even more than Alex Kovalev does. One could name Alexander Ovechkin and Martin Brodeur as the obvious candidates. Other candidates based on this year's play might include Iginla, Lidstrom, Niedermayr (based on the turnaround he caused, though he should be counted out for sitting so long), Nabokov, Sundin, Thomas and even Malkin (this year). You could even make arguments for Lecavalier and Kovalchuk, but their teams couldn't be too much worse than they are right now.
Hart trophy voters also take the positioning of the team into account when they vote, hence Wayne Gretzky's reasoning for Kovalev. If the Devils, Penguins or Sens squeak past the Habs, their Hart candidates would earn just as many votes.
If the Habs do top the division say, would that make a Canadiens player a serious contender for the Hart trophy? Would Kovalev even be the number one choice from the Habs?
Habs MVP
All this MVP talk led me naturally to thoughts about our own team's most valuable element. I should mention, that, once again, Eyes on the Prize spurred my thoughts on matters with an article on the Habs most indispensable element.
Robert's article was well thought out and as comprehensive as ever, but disappointingly (for me at least) was written as an extended question with no conclusion on the part of the author. On prompting, Robert even then seemed reluctant to commit, but opted for Bob Gainey as his choice.
A good choice to be sure. It would be hard to argue against Gainey at this point, as he assembled this team and many of the players are his draft picks and wards.
How about players then? Who is the MVP from amongst the ones who are actually responsible for fighting for and holding onto the points that are making everyone so positive about Gainey and his team right now?
Well, to be honest I only see two realistic candidates for most valuable player for 2007-2008: Mr. Kovalev and his countryman Andrei Markov.
The readers of the same blog believe that Kovalev is the one, garnering 76 votes. Next among players comes Johnny-come-lately Carey Price, the choice of 46 fans (possibly with short attention span). Markov comes next, but only in combination with Mike Komisarek (45 votes).
You can see where I'm going here, I think the populous is a bit off here. The race is close, but Andrei Markov is my choice for Habs MVP by a nose. Here's my thinking:
1) Kovalev has made Plekanec into a first-rate point producer, but Andrei Markov has made Mike Komisarek into an award nominee and top tier defenseman (this year he's been passing on the final lessons which have been in session for a couple of years).
2) While Kovalev is the shooter and the foil of the league's number one PP, Markov's steady play at the back and sharp vision and passing is the lynch pin that holds the unit together.
3) Kovalev has been on fire lately, but Markov was on fire for just as long early in the season, even when the Habs goalscoring was being called into question. Prior to Xmas, he was heralded in the same way Kovalev is now – top vote getter among East Dmen,
4) Markov plays the most minutes on the team and does more dirty work than Alex in general. he still found time to rack up a gaudy 54 points already.
5) The Habs goalies have looked great most times this year, seemingly no matter who it is. What's consistent about them? How about the defenders in front of them. Sure we let up a lot of shots, but many times Markov has been one of the tandem making sure those shots come from the oppositions lesser lights.
6) If you look at wins following losses or losing streaks, Andrei Markov is by far the most prominently featured Habs name. I would call these games crunch games, must-wins or "statement games" as Mike Boone put it for last night. They are important.
While Kovalev has been consistently great in the offensive end win or lose, Markov has been good and also able to find extra in the crunch games. In 21 of these types of wins, Markov has been player of the game 3 times and among the top performers of the night 16 times.
Kovalev is no slouch with 3 player of the game honours himself, but took a back seat in slightly more of those games too, making the top performers an only slightly less impressive 11 times.
At the end of the day, both players have played enormous parts in helping this team take the steps it has this year, both as players and mentors. The point of choosing here is an academic issue. So since you won't be held to account for any of this:
Who is your MVP so far?
Are any of you the Carey Price crew? Would Huet get some residual votes as well?
As always, look to 96 points and the playoffs where that would lead. Go Habs Go.
What Gretzky actually said via translation into French in La Presse and the back into English on Eyes on the Prize:
"Kovalev is one of the most complete players I've ever seen. He's having an exceptional season and should be considered for the Hart because of the success he's had."
As for completeness, Gretzky is only saying what Habs fans have been saying all season, and what some astute hockey observers have been saying for longer than that.
But the Hart trophy?
Now, i think Robert L. was clear in his post, and I will reiterate, Gretzky only said he would get votes, not that he would win. However, all this talk about Kovalev for MVP got me thinking about how good his chances really were:
1) How does Kovalev stack up against the league in this regard?
I think in general he stacks up quite well. But there are many elements to consider in the decision for the Hart trophy. The way I like to think of it is how would that team be if the player in question is removed from the lineup.
In that regard, we can only speculate. We know from the past that when we lose Markov we are worse, when Brisebois is gone we are better and if we lose Koivu in the playoffs, we are done for. Some would argue that we missed Kovalev for most of last season. But I don't agree with that.
Looking around the league though, there are certain players who seem to carry their teams even more than Alex Kovalev does. One could name Alexander Ovechkin and Martin Brodeur as the obvious candidates. Other candidates based on this year's play might include Iginla, Lidstrom, Niedermayr (based on the turnaround he caused, though he should be counted out for sitting so long), Nabokov, Sundin, Thomas and even Malkin (this year). You could even make arguments for Lecavalier and Kovalchuk, but their teams couldn't be too much worse than they are right now.
Hart trophy voters also take the positioning of the team into account when they vote, hence Wayne Gretzky's reasoning for Kovalev. If the Devils, Penguins or Sens squeak past the Habs, their Hart candidates would earn just as many votes.
If the Habs do top the division say, would that make a Canadiens player a serious contender for the Hart trophy? Would Kovalev even be the number one choice from the Habs?
Habs MVP
All this MVP talk led me naturally to thoughts about our own team's most valuable element. I should mention, that, once again, Eyes on the Prize spurred my thoughts on matters with an article on the Habs most indispensable element.
Robert's article was well thought out and as comprehensive as ever, but disappointingly (for me at least) was written as an extended question with no conclusion on the part of the author. On prompting, Robert even then seemed reluctant to commit, but opted for Bob Gainey as his choice.
A good choice to be sure. It would be hard to argue against Gainey at this point, as he assembled this team and many of the players are his draft picks and wards.
How about players then? Who is the MVP from amongst the ones who are actually responsible for fighting for and holding onto the points that are making everyone so positive about Gainey and his team right now?
Well, to be honest I only see two realistic candidates for most valuable player for 2007-2008: Mr. Kovalev and his countryman Andrei Markov.
The readers of the same blog believe that Kovalev is the one, garnering 76 votes. Next among players comes Johnny-come-lately Carey Price, the choice of 46 fans (possibly with short attention span). Markov comes next, but only in combination with Mike Komisarek (45 votes).
You can see where I'm going here, I think the populous is a bit off here. The race is close, but Andrei Markov is my choice for Habs MVP by a nose. Here's my thinking:
1) Kovalev has made Plekanec into a first-rate point producer, but Andrei Markov has made Mike Komisarek into an award nominee and top tier defenseman (this year he's been passing on the final lessons which have been in session for a couple of years).
2) While Kovalev is the shooter and the foil of the league's number one PP, Markov's steady play at the back and sharp vision and passing is the lynch pin that holds the unit together.
3) Kovalev has been on fire lately, but Markov was on fire for just as long early in the season, even when the Habs goalscoring was being called into question. Prior to Xmas, he was heralded in the same way Kovalev is now – top vote getter among East Dmen,
4) Markov plays the most minutes on the team and does more dirty work than Alex in general. he still found time to rack up a gaudy 54 points already.
5) The Habs goalies have looked great most times this year, seemingly no matter who it is. What's consistent about them? How about the defenders in front of them. Sure we let up a lot of shots, but many times Markov has been one of the tandem making sure those shots come from the oppositions lesser lights.
6) If you look at wins following losses or losing streaks, Andrei Markov is by far the most prominently featured Habs name. I would call these games crunch games, must-wins or "statement games" as Mike Boone put it for last night. They are important.
While Kovalev has been consistently great in the offensive end win or lose, Markov has been good and also able to find extra in the crunch games. In 21 of these types of wins, Markov has been player of the game 3 times and among the top performers of the night 16 times.
Kovalev is no slouch with 3 player of the game honours himself, but took a back seat in slightly more of those games too, making the top performers an only slightly less impressive 11 times.
At the end of the day, both players have played enormous parts in helping this team take the steps it has this year, both as players and mentors. The point of choosing here is an academic issue. So since you won't be held to account for any of this:
Who is your MVP so far?
Are any of you the Carey Price crew? Would Huet get some residual votes as well?
As always, look to 96 points and the playoffs where that would lead. Go Habs Go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)