View Single Post
11-14-2012, 04:38 PM
Czech Your Math
Registered User
Czech Your Math's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Well, I mean whatever, this is hardly here nor there if he beats Jagr for the Art Ross or not. They had two points that seperated them. If Thornton gets 120 points to Jagr's 123 would it have been a crime for him to win the Hart? No. These were the two best players in the game in 2006 by a noticeable margin, it was a coin flip. I don't know if the Olympics has any bearing on this, nor do I think it should.
I didn't mean they should get credit for their play in the Olympics. It's an NHL award and so should only be based on NHL play. I was pointing out that it was an "unusual" race in a number of aspects. One of those aspects was it being an Olympic year, which I think definitely took more out of Jagr than it did Thornton.

I think you hit on the very reason why I don't put too much value in one or two individual awards. Thornton wouldn't have really had a much lesser season if he had 3 less points, nor would Jagr have really had a much greater season if he had 3 more. If Thornton finished second in the Hart, I wouldn't rank him any lower.

Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
The second paragraph I think you are over analyzing things a bit here. What he was on pace for in Boston certainly isn't guaranteed anything. Either way Thornton easily puts up 100 points on Boston, but I'm more interested in what he actually did do rather than what he "woulda, coulda, shoulda" done had he stayed in Boston, which still no one can come close to knowing.
I just wanted to set the record straight. What's interesting is that you did not say one word about whether Thornton's extra two NHL games available to him was a distinct advantage. I've seen this debate before, and it's never acknowledged that was the case.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote