There’s No Argument This Time

Roughly two years ago, I offered a worded argument for Sidney Crosby as the 2005-2006 Rookie of the Year. If you remember, his biggest challenger at that time was eventual winner Alex Ovechkin, Washington's two-years older, negative-adjectiveless 2004 draft pick. I specify because, as I wrote then, there were plenty of insane rookies that season that gave pause for consideration. "The league has one of the best groups of rookies in years," I suggested, including "Dion Phaneuf in Calgary, Henrik Lundqvist in New York, [and] Mike Richards and Jeff Carter in Philly." Here's the proof.

I still stand by that position and its purely theoretical basis. But this year there is no argument to make. Alex Ovechkin is the league MVP. Period. Crosby, Pittsburgh's captain, was cruising before busting his ankle in January and missing 20+ games. But when he went down, Ovechkin went up (not easily). He stretched the distance between him and second-leading goal-scorer Ilya Kovalchuk — who matched his career-best last week with 52 goals — to an unmatchable number. He's thus far provided somewhere in the area of 27 percent of the Capitals' offense, and is tops in hits. He works even strength, dominates the power play, kills shorthanded, and has scored more game-winning goals than anyone in the NHL. I could give you exact numbers, but that much copying and pasting will put you down. His easily reviewed statistics make the decision.

Check them out. And Malkin's, too.

A quieter conversation had across the NHL a few weeks back involved the value of Evgeni Malkin. When the Pittsburgh captain limped off the pond, the Penguins bench collectively shit its pants. (They've got those new weightless techno jerseys; it's no big deal.) Malkin began to own games, violently abusing the second half of the season. He was only held pointless in twenty games all season. But Malkin has only skated half an MVP season.

Well, sort of. Much like OV, Malkin has played well all year. (It's worth mentioning that OV has played this way since Bruce Boudreau was still coaching in Hershey.) But attention is obligated to find Crosby; it didn't find Geno until the new year. Still, the two Russians differ in that Malkin hasn't carried his team for three years, and until now, he hasn't had to. The Pens were a good team before the season, didn't falter in Sid's absence, and made a huge move to acquire Marian Hossa for the playoff stretch. OV has not avoided such pressure, he's just laughed at it. The Caps have built their team around OV — 13 years for $124 mil does that. The only reason Malkin won't win this year is because Crosby got drafted before he did.

Let me leave you with this thought. A question gaining popularity in hockey circles is whether a player should be awarded the Hart Trophy if his or her[1] team doesn't make the postseason. It's not a new one, but has lay dormant since Mario won it without making the first round back in the 1980s.

This hypothetical will languish now that Washington made the playoffs and OV is a lock for MVP. Regardless, what do you think: should a player fall from contention for the MVP award if his team misses the playoffs? If a player's value is measured by the team's success, the award description should explicitly say so. Consider this quickly: don't teams make the playoffs while individuals win awards? Gnaw on that.

I've got my answer. What's yours?

***

[1]: Manon Rheaume, anyone?