Does a player need his team to make the playoffs in order to be considered an NHL MVP candidate?

It's a simple question, but one made more complicated by National Hockey League traditions and predilections: does one have to have his team in the playoffs to be regarded as a contender for the Hart Trophy as the league MVP? It comes to play now because Alexander Ovechkin, arguably having the best run of any player in the league this season, would seem to be a logical contender, especially if he continues on the pace that has him first in goals and first in points and almost a mortal lock to have a 60-goal season, the NHL's first since Mario Lemieux in 1995-96.

Still, recent comments from San Jose Sharks coach Ron Wilson running up a warning flag regarding Ovechkin's seeming inability to get his Washington Capitals in the eighth spot in the relatively mundane NHL East are legitimate in the old school NHL.

I've also seen and heard remarks from players who have also given pause, arguing that a spectacular individual season pales in comparison to making the necessary sacrifices to get to the postseason. No surprise there, old school thinking rules in the NHL. One need only try to analyze the ruling that allows Anaheim's Chris Pronger an eight-game rest period for stomping on the prone Ryan Kesler yet saddled Chris Simon with 30 games for the same infraction to understand that.

Yet one can sense a slight whiff of a breeze of change wafting over the crusty corners of one of the oldest professions not involving a governor of New York.

And since neither coaches nor players vote for the NHL's postseason awards - that honour goes to members of the Professional Hockey Writers Association - the old school thinking might be on the way out.

Now I would argue that all groups have biases, but if the coaches are anything like their bosses, the general managers, it's best that they don't have a say in these things. We all saw what happened when coaches were allowed to fill out rosters for the all-star game. It became a sort of friends and family affair that rivaled the Soprano way of business management. It was pretty much the same when the general managers were asked to name the best goaltender. More often than not it was the goalie who best went along with management calls for cost certainty rather than perhaps an outspoken type who happened to have a very good season.

Hockey writers aren't lily pure in that regard, but with no financial interest and no issues regarding having to ask a player to perform to his utmost after having left him off the all-star roster, the saving grace of the PHWA balloting is that the pool of voters is large, generally professional in both its assessments and in catching on to trends a tad quicker than many of the game's "traditionalists", and has no favours to repay.

I lay no lifelong claim to that change. In my early years I was something of a traditionalist regarding the game and the way it was both played and administered. But I've changed in this new media world and my colleagues - especially my younger colleagues - seem to be leading the way for even more change, not the least of which has to do with throwing out age-old traditions that don't make sense to them.

And because of that I get the sense that Ovechkin may well become the league MVP even if his team doesn't qualify for the postseason.

Surely he'll have to win the scoring race and likely crack the 60-goal barrier, but if he does that and stays ahead of Evgeny Malkin, he has a very good chance.

If I get a ballot this season (and there is never a guarantee) it would likely have Ovechkin's name in the No. 1 spot followed perhaps by Malkin (Pittsburgh) or maybe Ilya Kovalchuk (Atlanta) or maybe even Roberto Luongo (Vancouver) or Martin Brodeur (New Jersey Devils) or Nicklas Lidstrom (Detroit) or Jarome Iginla (Calgary). There is a lot of talent in the NHL today and I certainly would have considered defending Hart winner Sidney Crosby (had he not been injured) or Vincent Lecavalier, who has done remarkable things for Tampa, arguably the worst team in the league today.

Heck, when you factor in the league requirement that the winner be the player "adjudged to be most valuable to his team," I'd have to give serious weight to Pittsburgh goalie Ty Conklin, Iginla again, several players who are playing their guts out to keep the Colorado Avalanche in playoff contention (including goalie Jose Theodore) or the same number working so hard to keep hope alive in Edmonton.

That's the problem with that pesky "most valuable to his team" clause. The league isn't asking for a vote regarding who should be crowned most valuable player or best player or most incredibly awesome talent despite spending the season skating with slugs or working for an owner more inclined to sign up for the league maximum in revenue sharing than inking quality players to support a superstar.

Every decade or so that "team" word tends to skew the balloting somewhat.

It happened back in the 1990s when Wayne Gretzky was selected over Mario Lemieux for his final Hart Trophy. It happened when Theodore just did edge Iginla. The vote in those two cases seemed to centre on the fact that Gretzky appeared driven to get his new team, the Los Angeles Kings, to the Stanley Cup final despite all odds versus Lemieux being the scoring king. The same thing happened to Iginla when he led the league in scoring but lost to Theodore in a tiebreaker in a year when the Canadiens made a remarkable run to the playoffs.

Those votes were controversial because they seemed to deny the player having the best season in favour of the player who had done what the wording asked and had proven himself to be most valuable to his team (though how Lemieux wasn't most valuable to the Penguins that season or Iginla most valuable to the Flames forever escapes me).

And that's where the voting appears to stand as the season draws to a close. Great players who haven't been able to lift their teams to new highs are in contention, but there's also likely to be some thought given to the idea that not making the playoffs means you really weren't great, just a gunner.

Having seen Ovechkin play with the kind of every-night intensity that is every bit as strong as an Iginla or a Malkin or so many others, I'm not buying it.

If the Capitals miss the playoffs it will because they weren't good enough as a team, but Ovechkin, well, one could argue that night in and night out he played great despite not having the kind of talent around him that gave his team a postseason shot. Viewed in that light, one could argue he was more valuable to a team with serious shortcomings than any player who plays on a true contender.

Seems hard to understand how he could be penalized for that.