hockey fans: who's better?

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
You are still using a very isolated case to argue your position. If a player is more valuable than another on 29 of 30 teams, then he is the more valuable player/better player.

Just because the Bengals would rather have Palmer as their QB doesn't make him the more valuable player.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are begging the question, but i will try to ignore that, although it is difficult.

my argument was that jan hlavac was more valuable to the rangers than player x who is similar. there are plenty of other examples i could name from the last 10 years. jan hlavac is probably a -VORP player on half the teams in the league in 2001, but was certainly a +VORP player on the Rangers.

my point was that value in hockey is not transitive. player x's VORP on the yankees is (nearly) the same as his value on the red sox, given the same playing time. however, player x in hockey has differing values even though he plays the exact same position and gets the exact same ice time for the devils or the rangers. it's very difficult to ascribe this kind of thing to variance (although it's possible that it could be variance-related).

the bengals would rather have palmer as their QB simply because he knows the system - in hockey 'the system' isn't anywhere near as complicated (as evinced by the flurry of trades that occur at hockey's trade deadline) - it's often a matter of chemistry.

and this goes back to the fact that player A may be better than player B but not more valuable to team X. the mvp is the player who is most valuable to team X. in baseball that is the player with the highest VORP. I am arguing such a thing does not exist in hockey.

i think your problem is with begging the question, honestly. i'm taking 'better' and 'more valuable' as possibly having different meanings

[SL__72]

I never read any of your posts, I was just trying to come up with an example for Thay3r in reponse to:
[ QUOTE ]

Seriously, give me a valid reason why the better player isn't more valuable.

[/ QUOTE ]

My example was made using baseball because I know it better and value is easier to judge.

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
One was lucky enough to play on a good team that survived the high-variance luckfest known as the Stanley Cup playoffs , end of story

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[bluef0x]

THAY3R-

You are acting like "VALUABLE" is an objective word. Here's an extreme example of where the better player wouldn't be the most valuable:

160pt scorer locked in for 1 year @ $20m/yr
130pt scorer locked in for 5 years @ $2m/yr

Which one would you rather have? Which one do you think every team would rather have? Obviously that's a hyperbole, but "MOST VALUABLE" doesn't mean "BEST PLAYER."

[THAY3R]

So the MVP should always be a rookie/minimum player correct?

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]


Basically, Lecavalier is better at accumulating points (better player), but Thornton is better at making the players around him better (most valuable player).

[/ QUOTE ]

Guys, this is basically my only point. If what was said above is true, then Thornton would be the better player, not Vinny.

[bluef0x]

[ QUOTE ]
So the MVP should always be a rookie/minimum player correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you base your value on. Maybe I'm blind, because I haven't seen a formula that the league has for calculating the best player.

[bluef0x]

I voted Thornton/Thornton (Shocking!)

I just don't see the same comments about Lecavalier as I do about Thornton. No one is close to Thornton besides Crosby when it comes down to passing skills. When you are constantly compared to the greatest in the department, it says a lot.

Also, I bet Thornton would beat Lecavalier in a penalties drawn category. He's a lock for drawing around 30 penalties/game vs. Nashville.

I love Lecavalier though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[BowToYourSensei]

here's the problem: lecavelier is NOT better at accumulating points than thornton, since when the [censored] was he?

he's better at accumulating goals and only goals.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One was lucky enough to play on a good team that survived the high-variance luckfest known as the Stanley Cup playoffs , end of story

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm - Tampa was the Presidents' Trophy winner in 2004. Sounds like they were pretty lucky for 100+ games.