View Single Post
11-14-2012, 04:54 PM
Big Phil
Registered User
Big Phil's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,417
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
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.

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.
I'll say this, he was racking up assists left, right and center and San Jose was getting higher and higher in the standings. This was noticed throughout the entire NHL so no, personally I don't think a couple points here or there make a difference, but I'm not doing the voting either. An Art Ross makes your season look sexier, but was it a deal breaker? I don't really think it needed to be in this case. I know this has been beaten to death but I don't think it can ever be underrated that he made Cheechoo a Richard winner. He led the NHL in goals when you saw lots of snipers right in the mix (Ovechkin, Jagr, Kovalchuk, Heatley). That's an accomplishment that will never grow old and I personally think a lot of weight went into the Hart voting because of this.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote