HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

What If: Awards By Decade

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-07-2010, 09:37 AM
  #1
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
What If: Awards By Decade

I suspect my wordy OP is the reason there are no responses yet so, bolded parts are tl;dr version for you.

There are a lot of references to elite, award-worthy seasons where the player didn't get the award because another player was even more elite that year, and one feels like they "deserved" the award even though the other person deserved it even more. There are also, I believe, seasons where the award winner wasn't particularly good and won it almost by default (and this is a necessary consequence of the first, really).

My question is: if awards weren't handed out on a year-to-year basis, but instead, at the end of each decade, ten were given out for the ten best player-seasons, who would be the recipients? Who would gain an award and who would have theirs taken away? This gives the possibility of some seasons having multiple winners of the awards, and some seasons having none, but the award will still be equally valuable because it still averages out to one per year.

I hope it's clear what I mean. I don't mean ten awards to ten different players based on their overall performance that decade. It's still year by year, but some years can have multiple winners and some can have none, so long as it adds up to ten at the end of the decade. So, say, Luongo-2007 and Brodeur-2007 would both win a Vezina if those were both among the top ten goalie performances of the decade, and maybe Brodeur-2008 doesn't win a Vezina, but Brodeur can still get two if Brodeur-2003 was also a top ten goalie performance of the decade. It's the top ten player-seasons, not the top ten players. It could also remain exactly the same if you think the top ten performances under the criteria of the awards all just happened to land spread out on ten different seasons.

This of course isn't a shot at the players who I might think would have an award taken away with this system. When I say "by default" I mean, on the standard of the award, it was a lower than normal performance. To win an NHL award even in a relatively weak year is an amazing achievement and I mean no disrespect to those players.

I'm not going to go out and make a list for any particular decade/award quite yet, but some players who I think might pick up an award include: Jagr Hart 2006, Luongo Vezina 2007, and Malkin Hart 2009. Some players I think might lose an award: St. Louis Hart 2004, Brodeur Vezina 2008, Sedin Hart 2010.

What do you think? For you history buffs: how does this apply to decades other than the last one?


Last edited by Derick*: 11-07-2010 at 10:28 AM.
Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2010, 11:53 AM
  #2
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Why would Brodeur lose the Vezina in 2008? It was the 2nd or 3rd best regular season of his career - he won 44 games with a .920 save percentage (in NJ no less!) playing behind a crap defense. If he would "lose: any Vezina, it would be the 2004 one IMO, which he only won because Kiprusoff played less than half the season.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2010, 11:58 AM
  #3
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Why would Brodeur lose the Vezina in 2008? It was the 2nd or 3rd best regular season of his career - he won 44 games with a .920 save percentage (in NJ no less!) playing behind a crap defense. If he would "lose: any Vezina, it would be the 2004 one IMO, which he only won because Kiprusoff played less than half the season.
I don't know. I may be wrong. It was only intended as an example.

I based that on the fact that Nabokov (my team) was not very good and only got consideration because he put up a gaudy win total, which he accomplished by starting 77 games for the second ranked team. And seeing as he nearly won and got first team allstar, I assumed Brodeur couldn't have been great either.

So yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. I do remember Brodeur's save percentage numbers were higher than Nabokov's.

It's kind of ironic because Nabokov got all that consideration for the same bad reasons I use against Brodeur. He almost out-Brodeuered Brodeur. At least I have a chance to show my objectivity, though.

Anyway, give some positive examples! Post your list! I want to know what you hockey history nerd guys think, seriously.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2010, 12:00 PM
  #4
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
I'm tempted to say Theodore loses his Hart but that wasn't a weak year so much as he was only good for one year. As much as we'd like to take it away from him we might not be able to, objectively.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2010, 12:04 PM
  #5
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Without disagreeing with any of the Vezina choices actually made, here's one possible list for goalies over the last 10 seasons:

Kolzig 2000
Roy 2002
Theodore 2002
Brodeur 2003
Kiprusoff 2006
Brodeur 2007
Luongo 2007
Brodeur 2008
Thomas 2009
Miller 2010

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2010, 12:08 PM
  #6
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
I don't know. I may be wrong. It was only intended as an example.

I based that on the fact that Nabokov (my team) was not very good and only got consideration because he put up a gaudy win total, which he accomplished by starting 77 games for the second ranked team. And seeing as he nearly won and got first team allstar, I assumed Brodeur couldn't have been great either.

So yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. I do remember Brodeur's save percentage numbers were higher than Nabokov's.

It's kind of ironic because Nabokov got all that consideration for the same bad reasons I use against Brodeur. He almost out-Brodeuered Brodeur. At least I have a chance to show my objectivity, though.

Anyway, give some positive examples! Post your list! I want to know what you hockey history nerd guys think, seriously.
Brodeur had a .920 vs. a .910 Save percentage advantage over Nabokov. It was a huge difference. I think Nabokov had tiny advantages in wins and GAA, but not enough to overcome the huge difference in save %. IMO, he got so many votes due to voter fatigue with always voting Brodeur, along with the myth of the "great Devils defense" that went on for years too long.

Anyway, as for my list, for the Vezina in the 2000s, you definitely need to add Patrick Roy in 2002 (to Jose Theodore) and Roberto Luongo in 2007 (to Martin Brodeur). Take away Tim Thomas in 2009 (he barely played half the games and his backup wasn't much worse. Brodeur and Luongo were both injured for significant periods). That leaves one more to take away. Does 1999-00 count for this decade or last one? If it counts as this decade, I think Kolzig's Vezina is one of the 2 weakest (weaker than any of Brodeur's). If it doesn't count, then take away Brodeur's 2003-04.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2010, 12:26 PM
  #7
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,210
vCash: 500
Take away Niedermayer's Norris in '03-'04 and give it to him for '05-'06 instead

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2010, 04:15 AM
  #8
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 50
Looking at the Ross since mid-80s, based on adjusted points:

Weak Wins
--------------
1990 Gretzky- weak mainly because it's such a strong era, but fortunate Lemieux missed 21 games

1992 Lemieux- weak mainly because it's such a strong era, but more impressive as Mario won it while missing 16 games

1994 Gretzky- borderline, especially with atrocious +/-

1995 Jagr- borderline, especially if go back to late 80's

1998 Jagr- borderline

2000 Jagr- weak, due to 19 games missed

2002 Iginla- very weak

2004 St. Louis- very weak

2009 Malkin- too early to tell, but borderline weak at this point

2010 Sedin- too early to tell

Strong Losses
-------------------
1988 Gretzky- borderline, but tough era makes it stronger

1989 Gretzky, Yzerman and Nicholls- Gretzky's year was very strong, while Yzerman's was strong in a tough era. Nicholls is right on the borderline, and while it's a tough era, he has three strikes against him (played with Gretzky, by far his best season, and finished fourth).

1993 Lafontaine- borderline

1995 Lindros- borderline, but strongest year in shortened season does not help strength

1996 Jagr- exceptionally strong

1999 Selanne- strong, especially as he missed 7 games. Kariya had perhaps a borderline year.

2001 Sakic- exceptionally strong

2003 Naslund- borderline

2006 Jagr- very strong

..............

2007 Thornton- perhaps borderline

2008 Malkin- probably borderline

2009 Ovechkin- possibly borderline

2010 Crosby & Ovechkin- borderline

=================

I would erase Iginla, St. Louis, and Jagr's 2000 award. Along with the 2005 lockout year, that leaves four up for grabs. I would give those to Jagr in '96, Gretzky and Yzerman in '89, and Sakic in 2001.

After that, it's even trickier, but would probably erase Lemieux in '92, Jagr in '98 and Gretzky in '94. Those three would go to Gretzky in '88, Jagr in 2006, and Selanne in '99.

If points/game was factored in somehow, then Lemieux in '92 and Jagr in 2000 would keep their awards, and could instead erase the last two Ross winners (Malkin in 2009 and Sedin in 2010).

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.