Claimed: Franchise Cornerstone; S58 Most Valuable Player ? [1/2]

[Beketov 9,021]

1 minute ago, boubabi said:

The point is not restricting SKye on the ballot, it's understanding if he has a place. The ballot is there because we think those (3 players) have a chance to win it (1st place). I don't see in what world Skye could win the most valuable player with the current standard established. That'y my point 

Fair enough, that didn’t come off. Your wording made it sound more like discussing anyone but the top 2 was a waste of time because only 1 would win anyway. You’re saying that, at best, Skye would be 4th (if even that) and the others above him are far and away better options so no point bringing him into the fold.

 

Carry On.

[boubabi 4,725]

Just now, jRuutu said:

That is a shame. Should maybe give the goalies a lot more love in these votes?

Like said earlier, now it's a matter to see how can we compare goalie stats and forwards stats (defensemen as well). That's another thing. What is sure though, a .933 and 2.88GAA in a 15-46-11 team doesn't cut it.

[jRuutu 2,464]

1 minute ago, Beketov said:

 

The argument really comes down to the wins more than anything though. If Sky had single handedly brought them into the playoffs then yeah, he deserves to be on the ballot as he was vital to his team’s success. However that .930 S% didn’t help his team win; they still vastly lost the majority of their games. Sure he was Quebec’s most valuable player but does that make him more valuable than someone like Moon who won games for his team? Not really.

Why is the wins in a good team more valuable than league leading save percentage while having to face the most shots by far, but doing that on a struggling team?

[hedgehog337 3,483]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

Why is the wins in a good team more valuable than league leading save percentage while having to face the most shots by far, but doing that on a struggling team?

 

Because it's the most valuable player award, not the most outstanding. Skye did a good job, but it brought too little value for his team.

[Beketov 9,021]

Just now, jRuutu said:

Why is the wins in a good team more valuable than league leading save percentage while having to face the most shots by far, but doing that on a struggling team?

Because ultimately his save percentage changed nothing.

 

I’m not saying Skye didn’t have a great save percentage. I’m saying that if he had a shit one it wouldn’t have made a difference; it was a loss either way. Ultimately that makes him not as valuable of a player to the team because his presence more or less changed nothing result wise. Meanwhile when you look at Moon, sure his S% was lower but if you take him out Helsinki doesn’t win those games; period. Therefore he is more valuable to that team.

 

I’ll put it a different way and work from the opposite side. Riga was dominant this season so King had a lot of wins. Does that mean he deserves MVP? Not necessarily because the team likely could have gotten those wins with basically anyone in net. It’s a balancing act with MVP performances by goalies.

[boubabi 4,725]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

Why is the wins in a good team more valuable than league leading save percentage while having to face the most shots by far, but doing that on a struggling team?

Because understanding the sim engine is key to stats interpretation. Past GK winners had superior wins, superior save pct and lower GAA. I'm not saying those were exactly 100% correct choices, but I don't see how skye had a ''stellar season'' and ''carried'' his team. Maybe he got them 15 wins, okay, but again, that's arguable considering there was some weaker teams.

 

I don't think this whole Skye talk is necessary as we can all agree it wasn't a MVP worthy season. However JRuutu, you can still try to prove me (and all others) how skye's season was more MVP worthy than cornerstone's and moon's season 

[Beketov 9,021]

Just now, hedgehog337 said:

 

Because it's the most valuable player award, not the most outstanding. Skye did a good job, but it brought too little value for his team.

 

Most Outstanding is an award as well and 100% I think Skye should be up for it because he had great numbers playing on a very weak team. Ultimately though he wasn’t stealing enough games for them to be considered that “valuable”.

[jRuutu 2,464]

5 minutes ago, boubabi said:

Like said earlier, now it's a matter to see how can we compare goalie stats and forwards stats (defensemen as well). That's another thing. What is sure though, a .933 and 2.88GAA in a 15-46-11 team doesn't cut it.

Maybe not, but at the same time putting 120+ points, 50+ goals etc is not as impressive as many think in a league like this. Should switch the attention more heavily towards defenders and goalies.

[boubabi 4,725]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

Maybe not, but at the same time putting 120+ points, 50+ goals etc is not as impressive as many think in a league like this. Should switch the attention more heavily towards defenders and goalies.

I really don't know how you don't find those thing impressive. At this point, you are bringing personal judgement with nothing to prove your point to the table. I don't thinks that's healthy to the discussion/argument 

Edited January 31, 2018 by boubabi

[hedgehog337 3,483]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

Maybe not, but at the same time putting 120+ points, 50+ goals etc is not as impressive as many think in a league like this. Should switch the attention more heavily towards defenders and goalies.

 

I agree, this is not 147 points

 

And I agree about some snub on defencemans. And don't agree about goalies - after all, can you remind me who won the MVP last season?

[boubabi 4,725]

The real discussion should be if you agree or not with how I interpret someone's  contribution to his team, because ultimately, that's how I think the award should be evaluated on. I think a healthy mix of personal stats/team success is interesting and the numbers that I brought are showing that.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by boubabi

[jRuutu 2,464]

2 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

Because it's the most valuable player award, not the most outstanding. Skye did a good job, but it brought too little value for his team.

Fine, maybe he indeed put up better season for the oustanding award.

 

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Because ultimately his save percentage changed nothing.

 

I’m not saying Skye didn’t have a great save percentage. I’m saying that if he had a shit one it wouldn’t have made a difference; it was a loss either way. Ultimately that makes him not as valuable of a player to the team because his presence more or less changed nothing result wise. Meanwhile when you look at Moon, sure his S% was lower but if you take him out Helsinki doesn’t win those games; period. Therefore he is more valuable to that team.

 

I’ll put it a different way and work from the opposite side. Riga was dominant this season so King had a lot of wins. Does that mean he deserves MVP? Not necessarily because the team likely could have gotten those wins with basically anyone in net. It’s a balancing act with MVP performances by goalies.

Could make that same argument about those 120 point forwards, is it that impressive in a good team? If you take the 120 point player out - is the team going to have a solid year still? More than likely.

 

 

[boubabi 4,725]

Just now, jRuutu said:

Could make that same argument about those 120 point forwards, is it that impressive in a good team? If you take the 120 point player out - is the team going to have a solid year still? More than likely.

If you've read my article completely, you would see cornerstone's contribution to the team and you would say : ''Yes, a 120 pts player can make a bad team go good''

[hedgehog337 3,483]

2 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Fine, maybe he indeed put up better season for the oustanding award.

 

Could make that same argument about those 120 point forwards, is it that impressive in a good team? If you take the 120 point player out - is the team going to have a solid year still? More than likely.

 

 

 

In Riga case - a third place, closer to Helsinki and NY than to Seattle and Toronto. So yes, a 120 + point player was an important piece to our team.

[jRuutu 2,464]

6 minutes ago, boubabi said:

Because understanding the sim engine is key to stats interpretation. Past GK winners had superior wins, superior save pct and lower GAA. I'm not saying those were exactly 100% correct choices, but I don't see how skye had a ''stellar season'' and ''carried'' his team. Maybe he got them 15 wins, okay, but again, that's arguable considering there was some weaker teams.

 

I don't think this whole Skye talk is necessary as we can all agree it wasn't a MVP worthy season. However JRuutu, you can still try to prove me (and all others) how skye's season was more MVP worthy than cornerstone's and moon's season 

Key element in that stat interpretation is also taking the brutal fact about most teams having barely enough players for 2 lines into consideration. Should especially focus on that when thinking about how impressive scoring 120 points really is

[Beketov 9,021]

2 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Could make that same argument about those 120 point forwards, is it that impressive in a good team? If you take the 120 point player out - is the team going to have a solid year still? More than likely.

And that argument gets made on occasion; all depends on the season really. An ideal MVP candidate really is a player who does amazing, helps their team win, and has barely any help. However that is rarely the case most seasons. Cornerstone has a case because of how little help was on Helsinki. Personally I would think Boeser would as well but some points were made in here against that. I’m not here to discuss every option really. I’m just saying that MVP, like most awards, doesn’t have a check list of criteria in order to win it. The discussion changes per year depending how things went during the season.

[boubabi 4,725]

Just now, jRuutu said:

Key element in that stat interpretation is also taking the brutal fact about most teams having barely enough players for 2 lines into consideration. Should especially focus on that when thinking about how impressive scoring 120 points really is

Again, don't bring your vendetta against the 2 lines concept here. It's useless and irrelevant. A 120 pts season is relative to other players and other seasons. That's how we know if it's good or bad. Again, I've calculated the pts contribution for the players, and I would also say that a 66% points contribution is very very very good. 

[Beketov 9,021]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

Key element in that stat interpretation is also taking the brutal fact about most teams having barely enough players for 2 lines into consideration. Should especially focus on that when thinking about how impressive scoring 120 points really is

Don’t try in turn this into another one of your arguments about having more depth players that few people want to really be. The fact is, the league has run for 58 seasons as a primarily 2 line league. So the awards have always been voted on with that logic in mind. The league hasn’t changed so suddenly deciding that we want to vote on awards based on depth that doesn’t exist makes no sense.

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

In a 'bot' league when still only 8 players in the top 50 in scoring break 100 points that is pretty impressive because thats only 16% of the top 50. These players are the best of the best and should be in a MVP contention while a goalie with just 15 wins should not. really we are making an argument for a 15 win goalie? you have to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

[hedgehog337 3,483]

3 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Key element in that stat interpretation is also taking the brutal fact about most teams having barely enough players for 2 lines into consideration. Should especially focus on that when thinking about how impressive scoring 120 points really is

 

5/8 teams had more or less two offensive lines, not that bad.

[boubabi 4,725]

Just now, TheLastOlympian07 said:

you have to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

Looking forward for JRuutu's perma ban.

 

OKAY, i'M JOKING ALRIGHT COOL IT 

[jRuutu 2,464]

7 minutes ago, boubabi said:

I really don't know how you don't find those thing impressive. At this point, you are bringing personal judgement with nothing to prove your point to the table. I don't thinks that's healthy to the discussion/argument 

You and many are judging goalies on wins, no matter what the situation in the team is, goalie like Skye can stand on his head, but will always lose because goalie in a better team managed to have more wins, purely because he had more support in front of him. 

 

When forwards go lights out and score 120, 130 etc points - wins and what the competition in general is does not even get taken into consideration, no matter who they play with in their team or what kind of teams they face, 130 points is 130 points and automatically better than someone like Skye with insane amount of shots against, but still the best save percentage in the league.

[boubabi 4,725]

Anyway, I think 2 pages was enough to deconstruct his argument politely. 

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

3 minutes ago, Beketov said:

And that argument gets made on occasion; all depends on the season really. An ideal MVP candidate really is a player who does amazing, helps their team win, and has barely any help. However that is rarely the case most seasons. Cornerstone has a case because of how little help was on Helsinki. Personally I would think Boeser would as well but some points were made in here against that. I’m not here to discuss every option really. I’m just saying that MVP, like most awards, doesn’t have a check list of criteria in order to win it. The discussion changes per year depending how things went during the season.

i just find it funny that we make this argument here but it all just fell on deaf ears last year when Chase Keller literally had players under 100 tpe while Jones had Fujimoto yet Jones still won RotY

[Beketov 9,021]

3 minutes ago, boubabi said:

I've calculated the pts contribution for the players, and I would also say that a 66% points contribution is very very very good.

Ultimately I’ll likely end up starting some discussion for others when the ballots go up (just for the sake of covering bases) but yeah; that is kinda hard to overlook. A player being involved in a third of their team’s total points doesn’t happen every season.