Giroux SNUBBED !!!!!

[OccamsRazor]

2 minutes ago, vis said:

So did Sean Monaghan (slightly higher percentage actually).  Just saying.  No slight against McKinnon, because I do think he’s deserving.  

 

Yeah but 64 points just not quite as impressive...an just plus 3 and his DID not make the playoffs. I go with Nate.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

You know, to be honest, when I first saw this thread title, first thought that came to mind was, "Oh boy...here we go...Philly homers screaming about Giroux not being mentioned along with the three chosen Hart finalists".

 

But I went ahead and examined the numbers, and well, the Philly fans that believe Grioux had just as legit a shot at this award were quite correct!

 

Here is a link from dobberhockey that compares the three nominated finalists (MacKinnon, Hall, Kopitar) with Claude Giroux in various categories:

 

https://frozenpool.dobbersports.com/frozenpool_compare.php?compare[]=1138&compare[]=2518&compare[]=3917&compare[]=699&sent=go&games=2017-2018%3AR%3A99

 

In a nutshell, Giroux is right there with those other three in goals and even exceeds them in overall points, and he measures up favorably, and better, in some other categories as well, in addition to being a near 60% face off win guy.

 

Now, all that being said, as someone already mentioned, this year, there are a number of guys who could also be legitimately considered for the Hart, and yes, there is no obvious choice.....though the MacKinnon and Hall nominations are quite strong IMO.

So someone, somewhere will feel "snubbed".

 

Also, one other thing to note...while Giroux certainly was important to his team, I believe that with guys like Jakub Voracek, Sean Couturier, and especially Travis Konecny ripping off nice streaks at various points in the season, even if Giroux was NOT in the lineup, the Flyers still would be the streaky up n down, may or may not make the playoff team they ultimately were.

 

Remove Hall or MacKinnon from THEIR respective teams, and the same can't be said, as I believe without their players, the Devils or Avs absolutely do NOT make the playoffs or even be in the running for a playoff spot.

 

And I say that not to diminish Giroux's importance and his quality season, but simply to point out that other teams who were less effective up front just needed their guys doing what they did a bit more than Philly needed Giroux' contributions.

Again, something that can be debated back n forth till the end of time given how this season has shaken out and the myriad of good seasons had by MANY players for their respective teams this year.

 

So, while I can now clearly see the point from the Flyers fans' side of it, I don't have a problem with the three named finalists.

[JR Ewing]

15 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

For those reason alone is why i have to go with Mckinnon....when 30% of your goals are game winners....well that is all i need to know.

 

It does the opposite for me. Game-winning goals are trivia, and beg more questions than they seem to answer for other people.

 

[ruxpin]

9 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

 

It does the opposite for me. Game-winning goals are trivia, and beg more questions than they seem to answer for other people.

 

 

They are to a certain extent.   But it also shows that a lot of their goals were of the "money time" variety rather than just the 7th goal in a 7-2 game (who knows?  There may have been a ton of them, too).    At the very least, it's not part of my equation if I'm voting--I'm not.

[AJgoal]

35 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

They are to a certain extent.   But it also shows that a lot of their goals were of the "money time" variety rather than just the 7th goal in a 7-2 game (who knows?  There may have been a ton of them, too).    At the very least, it's not part of my equation if I'm voting--I'm not.

 

Not necessarily. They could score the 5th goal to go up 5-0 and then have the other team come back with four goals when their own team starts to coast a bit. 

 

I prefer to look at goals that either tie the game or put the team ahead at the time that they are scored when I'm looking for players that are "money."

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

Not necessarily. They could score the 5th goal to go up 5-0 and then have the other team come back with four goals when their own team starts to coast a bit. 

 

I prefer to look at goals that either tie the game or put the team ahead at the time that they are scored when I'm looking for players that are "money."

 

Yeah, that's a terrific point.   I've never liked the way the NHL credits GWGs. I preferred the way baseball used to do it with game-winning RBIs way back when.  But they ended up getting rid of it altogether.  Maybe hockey should, too, because it really is meaningless in many instances.

[JR Ewing]

36 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

They are to a certain extent.   But it also shows that a lot of their goals were of the "money time" variety rather than just the 7th goal in a 7-2 game (who knows?  There may have been a ton of them, too).    At the very least, it's not part of my equation if I'm voting--I'm not.

 

For what it's worth, I looked up MacKinnon's game-winners. Of the 12, three were late-and-close/money time, and most were in the first period. They were ALL meaningful goals. My only issue is when people load their pants over the whole deal.

 

[AJgoal]

1 minute ago, ruxpin said:

 

Yeah, that's a terrific point.   I've never liked the way the NHL credits GWGs.

 

Yeah. MLB gets it right, IMO. The pitcher who is pitching when his team goes ahead for good gets the win. NHL should do that for goalies and "game-winning" goals. I think it's silly that a goalie who comes in in a 5-0 blowout, gets one goal (6-0), then gives up 5 (6-5) gets the win over the guy who pitched a shutout until he was replaced.

[JR Ewing]

5 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

Yeah. MLB gets it right, IMO. The pitcher who is pitching when his team goes ahead for good gets the win. NHL should do that for goalies and "game-winning" goals. I think it's silly that a goalie who comes in in a 5-0 blowout, gets one goal (6-0), then gives up 5 (6-5) gets the win over the guy who pitched a shutout until he was replaced.

 

You know how it is. You can take the league out of the bush...

 

[ruxpin]

1 minute ago, AJgoal said:

 

Yeah. MLB gets it right, IMO. The pitcher who is pitching when his team goes ahead for good gets the win. NHL should do that for goalies and "game-winning" goals. I think it's silly that a goalie who comes in in a 5-0 blowout, gets one goal (6-0), then gives up 5 (6-5) gets the win over the guy who pitched a shutout until he was replaced.

 

Yep.  I edited my post while you were responding.   Baseball used to do game-winning RBIs in a similar fashion.

 

The Orioles and Royals are tied 3-3.  Cal Ripken's plate appearance caused the Orioles to go up 4-3.    The Orioles later score 3 more to go up 7-3 but the Royals also score 3 more in the 9th to make the final 7-6.   Cal Ripken gets the game-winning RBI because his plate appearance gave the Orioles the lead they never relinquished.   So, he gets the game-winner for the 4th run despite the fact the final is 7-6.  It was based on the run that put the team ahead for the last time.   I preferred that, but they got rid of the stat altogether because of the arguments between people who liked this and the people who wanted to give it to the player that caused the 7th run (when it was 7-3).

 

I think it's actually better to get rid of the stat altogether, but I prefer it the old baseball way if I had to choose.

[AJgoal]

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Yep.  I edited my post while you were responding.   Baseball used to do game-winning RBIs in a similar fashion.

 

The Orioles and Royals are tied 3-3.  Cal Ripken's plate appearance caused the Orioles to go up 4-3.    The Orioles later score 3 more to go up 7-3 but the Royals also score 3 more in the 9th to make the final 7-6.   Cal Ripken gets the game-winning RBI because his plate appearance gave the Orioles the lead they never relinquished.   So, he gets the game-winner for the 4th run despite the fact the final is 7-6.  It was based on the run that put the team ahead for the last time.   I preferred that, but they got rid of the stat altogether because of the arguments between people who liked this and the people who wanted to give it to the player that caused the 7th run (when it was 7-3).

 

I think it's actually better to get rid of the stat altogether, but I prefer it the old baseball way if I had to choose.

 

You could eliminate "game winning goals" and add "go-ahead goals" and "Game tying goals" to the official stats (I know some places actually do track these). It would give better context. It would also allow for multiples of either type in any one game.

[AJgoal]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

 

Yep.  I edited my post while you were responding.   Baseball used to do game-winning RBIs in a similar fashion.

 

The Orioles and Royals are tied 3-3.  Cal Ripken's plate appearance caused the Orioles to go up 4-3.    The Orioles later score 3 more to go up 7-3 but the Royals also score 3 more in the 9th to make the final 7-6.   Cal Ripken gets the game-winning RBI because his plate appearance gave the Orioles the lead they never relinquished.   So, he gets the game-winner for the 4th run despite the fact the final is 7-6.  It was based on the run that put the team ahead for the last time.   I preferred that, but they got rid of the stat altogether because of the arguments between people who liked this and the people who wanted to give it to the player that caused the 7th run (when it was 7-3).

 

I think it's actually better to get rid of the stat altogether, but I prefer it the old baseball way if I had to choose.

 

Somewhat related story. Playing hockey, our goalie doesn't show up. We frantically search for one, and end up asking the ref on the other rink to check with their goalies to see if one will cover our game when theirs ends. We skate 6 on 5 for the first period and change, and are down 4-2 when a goalie shows up. He pitches a shutout until we pull him to try to tie it late in the game, and we end up losing 5-2. He takes a loss, but gets the shutout. 

[ruxpin]

22 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

Somewhat related story. Playing hockey, our goalie doesn't show up. We frantically search for one, and end up asking the ref on the other rink to check with their goalies to see if one will cover our game when theirs ends. We skate 6 on 5 for the first period and change, and are down 4-2 when a goalie shows up. He pitches a shutout until we pull him to try to tie it late in the game, and we end up losing 5-2. He takes a loss, but gets the shutout. 

Lol. That's terrific. 

[AJgoal]

8 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Lol. That's terrific. 

 

Happens in the NHL, too when a 0-0 tie goes to a shootout. Both goalies get shutouts, but get a W or L depending on the shootout result.

[ruxpin]

24 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

Happens in the NHL, too when a 0-0 tie goes to a shootout. Both goalies get shutouts, but get a W or L depending on the shootout result.

Yes. This is what I cheer for when my goalies play each other in fantasy (even better there because they don't get an "L" in fantasy.