NHL Awards Changes

Last year around this time I wrote a "Note" on FB about changes that I would make to the NHL awards trophies.  I repost that here, below, as I prepare to write up a blog about who I would choose to win the awards this year.

>>>>>

Changes to the NHL Trophies

In the NHL there are currently a number of major awards that are voted on each year. They are given to those voted to be the best goalie (Vezina), the best defenseman (Norris), the rookie of the year (Calder), the coach of the year (Adams), the “player deemed to be most valuable to his team” (Hart), and so on. Each year there is always discussion regarding who should win and who should be nominated in every category. However there are a couple awards that go beyond just who should be nominated to who should even be considered.

The Norris is one trophy that brings about such discussion. It is for the “best defenseman” in the league in a given year, however the nominees are often those with the best offensive statistics in a given year and the winner will generally be taken from there. The award is flawed from the standpoint that it truly takes its nominees from the best offensive defensemen and then looks at the overall picture. To truly award the “best defenseman”, it should look at overall play and then each aspect of the position.

A quick example of what I mean – if a defensive defenseman were to have a year in which he only had around 10 points and was a +15 but wasn’t on the ice for a single goal against in 18 minutes of play a night, that should be deserving of great attention. However it would likely not garner much attention and the nominees would instead be amongst those with good offensive numbers. I’ll admit that my example is farfetched but I used it to stress the opinion that the defensive side of the game is often overlooked as part of the whole and is as important or perhaps more important to a defenseman than what he contributes offensively.

If the Norris was truly for the best defenseman the voters need to look at the whole package for nominees, both on the offensive end and the defensive end. I understand the difficulties of measuring defensive worth of a player. Plus/minus numbers are often misleading and not reliable, however they can help in telling the story. How a player affects the other team’s offense is not something easily measurable and in fact can vary depending on if he faces top lines or third lines as well.

Perhaps the best solution to the Norris problem is to split the award. Continue to have the existing award for “best offensive defenseman”, but then create a “best defensive defenseman” award as well. Both sides of the game have great importance and basing the “best” in a position while having such a huge portion of the judging based on one end of the ice is simply not selecting the best in that position.

The other award that is the topic of discussion, and by far the most discussion and controversy, is the Hart for the league MVP. The award is for “the player that is deemed most valuable to his team”, however it often is biased towards forwards that are most valuable to their team. Some argue that goalies should be out of the running because of the Vezina, and defensemen hear the same because of the Norris, however forwards have awards for “best defensive forward”, and the scoring races are nearly always going to be won by forwards. The logic for stating that goalies or defensemen should not be considered based on these grounds hold no logic to me. If you can say that a goalie is the MVP of a team, and that goalie turned a team that would have finished 15th in the conference into a division winner, then wouldn’t that goalie be “most valuable to his team”?

Another argument that occurs comes from the wording of the award, “most valuable to their team”. This doesn’t state the best player in the league, though most nominees will generally be found to be that. While they certainly might fit both categories, they should fit both categories to be nominated. If the best player in the league doesn’t have a significant impact and can miss a large portion of the season with no real negative effect on his team is he really more valuable than someone who is largely responsible for their team’s success? I would argue not.

I think as long as the reward remains as it is these controversies will always remain. However again I propose introducing more awards to fix the problem. First off I would leave the MVP as it is, awarded to the player most valuable to his team. Second I would add an award for the “best forward” or best offensive forward, perhaps called the Gretzky. By doing this any argument over if a certain position should be eligible for the MVP is removed, though nothing will ever end the discussions of who actually should be nominated or win in a given year.

The addition of two awards is not much, and it certainly doesn’t water down the awards by making “everyone a winner”. Those two awards though then add in categories that reward defensemen who aren’t just focused on offense as well as clearing up the argument of who can be an MVP. This clarification would make that voting more fair to all candidates as well by taking votes from those who believe “it shouldn’t go to a certain position” and giving the vote to the person who truly was the MVP of their team above all others.

In the end you get an actual MVP in the league, an award for the best offensive and defensive forwards, an award for the best offensive and the best defensive defenseman, and an award to the top goalie. Each position is awarded and awards are given for the best on each end of the ice, and all players are candidates for the league MVP despite their position.