HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

The value of a Hart Trophy...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-10-2012, 06:46 PM
  #1
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,181
vCash: 500
The value of a Hart Trophy...

I am not really knocking the award in recent years. Yet in reading about Maurice Richards legacy I have heard he only won one award...

Which now that I really look into it, why is Maurice regarded as such an elite legend when he only won the Hart once. Then i heard that it was because he was a French Canadian that he the men who selected the winner was biased. Understandable thought, one that I believed for a while until i looked into each year... His entire career, very limited amount of times has he been in the top scoring.

Even when he scored 50 goals, someone did better lol. But then there was even times when I dont even think he deserved to be on the first all star team and he was still selected even when he wasnt in the top 15 scoring.


Then going on further, I looked at a few guys who won the Hart Trophy that I did not at all understand how... Gordie Howe and Maurice were #1 and #2 in scoring.. Yet Ted Lindsay won it that year and he was #6 or 7.

How in 1952 53, Gordie put up 83 pts in 70 games... maurice was behind him and yet the Al rollins won the award as a goalie!
Al rollin was one of the worse goalies that year lol and his team was bottom of the standings


Its a long time ago so many of us forgot it and the media attention back then was no where near to todays standard so i want to bring it back to discussion to understand this and maybe choose the real winners.


Also, with though I respect Maurices accomplishments, his longetivity, his character, his goal scoring and leadership... is he really a top 5, top 10 all time player?

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 06:52 PM
  #2
Cyborg LeClair
14 28 10 16
 
Cyborg LeClair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 727
vCash: 400
I would ask this in the History of Hockey section

Cyborg LeClair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 06:56 PM
  #3
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,441
vCash: 500
Who led the league in goals last season, Stamkos I believe? Malkin won the Hart though because Malkin was simply a more valuable player to his team (which made the playoffs unlike Stamkos', something that I think needs to be a requirement in most cases).

Now in my opinion the Hart should have gone to Jon Quick who was even more integral to getting his team into the playoffs (they honestly would've missed based on how they played up to the trade deadline if not for Jon Quick). It's not the best player always, just the one judged to be very good and also the most important to his team.

Btw would be nice if we could give this a hockey related name like the Gretzky trophy (he won it 9 times).

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 07:08 PM
  #4
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Who led the league in goals last season, Stamkos I believe? Malkin won the Hart though because Malkin was simply a more valuable player to his team (which made the playoffs unlike Stamkos', something that I think needs to be a requirement in most cases).

Now in my opinion the Hart should have gone to Jon Quick who was even more integral to getting his team into the playoffs (they honestly would've missed based on how they played up to the trade deadline if not for Jon Quick). It's not the best player always, just the one judged to be very good and also the most important to his team.

Btw would be nice if we could give this a hockey related name like the Gretzky trophy (he won it 9 times).
My point was that the NHL Hart Trophy is a sham lol. How did some of these guys win this award when they were not even close to be a valuable player for their team... How did Ted Lindsay win a Hart Trophy when he was #7 in points, when Gordie DESTROYED that year and Maurice was right behind him. Him and Gordie both played on the same team but there saying Lindsay was more valuable. I could understand if someone stated that his mere presence that year was too valuable to the team even though stats dont show it, with proof though.

But then how can you explain Rollin winning the award being #6 ranked goalie that year out 6 goalies lol while Gordie put up 93 points and led the Red Wings into first place

I understand that GOALS do not proclaim your the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER but points kind of do. Malkin won the award this year because beyond injuries to Jordan Staal and Sidney Crosby he led the Penguins to a stellar record. Without Malkin, one can proclaim that the Pens would have missed the playoffs.

Quick also had a great season but what bout lundqvist? Without Quick, no playoffs for the Kings but maybe same faith for the Rangers who basically owe their success all to to the King

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 07:09 PM
  #5
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,181
vCash: 500
But this is rather differ. This is 6 teams in the league. A goalie who had a 3.22 GAA, the worst of 7 other goalies *yes 7*... wins an award when Gordie dominated the league lol

How many other times has stuff like this happened

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 07:11 PM
  #6
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,181
vCash: 500
Rollins had 12 wins, 47 losses lol
3.22 avg, the league goalie avg was like 2.3 lol

MVP?

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 08:32 PM
  #7
rypper
Registered User
 
rypper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,541
vCash: 500
One thing i've always thought and held more weight to is the ted lindsay/lester b. pearson award because it's voted by the winner's peers.

rypper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 09:34 PM
  #8
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,671
vCash: 500
In Richard's day, the voting for the Hart was clearly not for the leagues best player.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 09:37 PM
  #9
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,207
vCash: 500
Ted Lindsay never won a Hart Trophy. He did win an Art Ross, however.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 09:44 PM
  #10
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,058
vCash: 500
Ted Lindsay never won the Hart trophy, you may be confusing him with Ted Kennedy...His Hart win is generally considered a career achievement award, and was not merited based on that one season of play.

I have heard Al Rollins' Hart explained by two things...One is that the Hawks were so bad that season that he was the only thing even keeping them competitive in games. The other is that he had an absolutely phenomenal playoff the season before and that he was given some credit for that by the voters.

There are some years where the Hart winner doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but most of those have been accounted for by now (another would be 1989...definitely should've been Mario). It has also clearly been biased against goalies and also against defensemen since the Norris trophy has been around. Another factor to be considered is that for a time award voting took place both at the half year point and end of year, with both votes counting.

To help, the first thing to do is look at a player's Hart voting record, not just whether they won or not...generally the best players that year will at least finish in the top 5 (although definitely not always because of the biases mentioned above). The next thing to do is to just use a player's Hart voting record as one piece of the puzzle when trying to determine how good they were. There are plenty of other things to look at, from stats to AS teams to contemporary opinions in the media.


EDIT: Building on Nalyd's comment, the Hart has gone through periods where it has sometimes been awarded as "most valuable" and others been awarded as "best player"

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 10:33 PM
  #11
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesensation19 View Post
Rollins had 12 wins, 47 losses lol
3.22 avg, the league goalie avg was like 2.3 lol

MVP?
Most Valuable Player is not the same as Best Player. If you can't understand that simple difference, I can't help you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
In Richard's day, the voting for the Hart was clearly not for the leagues best player.
It's not supposed to be for the best player. It's supposed to be for the most valuable player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
There are some years where the Hart winner doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but most of those have been accounted for by now (another would be 1989...definitely should've been Mario).
You mean Yzerman.

Quote:
It has also clearly been biased against goalies and also against defensemen since the Norris trophy has been around. Another factor to be considered is that for a time award voting took place both at the half year point and end of year, with both votes counting.

To help, the first thing to do is look at a player's Hart voting record, not just whether they won or not...generally the best players that year will at least finish in the top 5 (although definitely not always because of the biases mentioned above). The next thing to do is to just use a player's Hart voting record as one piece of the puzzle when trying to determine how good they were. There are plenty of other things to look at, from stats to AS teams to contemporary opinions in the media.


EDIT: Building on Nalyd's comment, the Hart has gone through periods where it has sometimes been awarded as "most valuable" and others been awarded as "best player"
The Hart has been used in recent times; basically post-Orr, but especially since the Jennings was added, as the "Best Forward" trophy. It takes a particularly noteworthy season from a G or D to win or even contend for the Hart nowadays; otherwise Lidstrom and Bourque would each have at least one.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 11:13 PM
  #12
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesensation19 View Post
the media attention back then was no where near to todays standard
This is the part I took the most exception with (because I know how many others will come to bat for the Rocket). Today's standard is very low, in fact, the line between media and fan has blurred considerably. Back in the O6 era, each member of the media got to see each team a dozen or so times and seemed to have a better handle on how the game was played. Further back, the need to describe the game in detail - along with individual performances - was very necessary as games were not on television...besides the media and the fans there in person, no one else had seen the events that transpired - very exclusive company. The very first television broadcast in Canada didn't occur until 1952 I believe, so that's a considerable amount of Stanley Cup era hockey not included - nearly half. Seems to be a ripple effect - higher quality of voting results than today certainly. Not just based on the first four categories of the scoresheet...

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 11:23 PM
  #13
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
You mean Yzerman.
Mario factored in on the highest % of a team's goals ever that season and led the league in scoring (led Yzerman by a margin of 22%). Whether it's best player or most valuable, it should've been Mario.

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:12 AM
  #14
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
If you want to find the best player in a given year the Hart is a good place to start, but it should just be a starting point. Even in recent times we've seen Jose Theodore, Henrik Sedin and Corey Perry take home the Hart.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:14 AM
  #15
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Mario factored in on the highest % of a team's goals ever that season and led the league in scoring (led Yzerman by a margin of 22%). Whether it's best player or most valuable, it should've been Mario.
The argument for Gretz was that the Kings went from fourth-worst the year before to fourth-best in '89 after acquiring 99.

I don't agree with it, but that was the logic. I think the media probably got too wrapped up in the Gretzky comes LA storyline.

Weird year, though. Four guys break the 150 point barrier. Gretzky gets the Hart, Yzerman gets the Pearson, and the guy with 199 points goes home empty-handed?

DisgruntledGoat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 05:14 PM
  #16
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,628
vCash: 500
To answer the OP's question about Richard and the Hart it is true he only won it once in 1947. There were always talks about whether or not he was cheated against because he was French Canadian but in retrospect let's take a look at times he could have won it.

1945 - Had 50 in 50 but only 73 points. Elmer Lach, his centerman and the guy who led the NHL in points with 80, won the Hart. Not a big deal there.

1950 - Led the NHL in goals by a significant margin, was 4th in points and the Habs were 2nd in the NHL. However, there is no way the Rangers should have made the postseason, and they can thank Chuck Rayner for that so I have no issue with Rayner getting the nod.

1955 - Missed the last 3 games of the season because of suspension. Looked like he would have grabbed the Art Ross and might have helped Montreal get into first place which would have put him as the favourite for the Hart, you'd think. Without the suspension he probably wins it but he hurt his team.

Other than that I can't find a season where Richard should have won it and even those ones are hardly conclusive. Richard finished 2nd in the NHL in points 5 times. So that's more or less 2 Art Rosses when push comes to shove. Jagr is another player who only won the Hart once and had a ton of runner up finishes in voting. It happens, what can you do?

I have no problem with most of the Hart choices. I can't understand Rollins for the life of me though. More of a pity Hart win I guess. You try and place yourself back in 1954 and re-create the mindset of the voters but it still doesn't make sense.

In general, I've always found that the Hart is a combination of the most valuable player and the best player. In many cases it is both. But I think when push comes to shove the voters seems to take both sides into account.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:27 AM
  #17
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
This is the part I took the most exception with (because I know how many others will come to bat for the Rocket). Today's standard is very low, in fact, the line between media and fan has blurred considerably. Back in the O6 era, each member of the media got to see each team a dozen or so times and seemed to have a better handle on how the game was played. Further back, the need to describe the game in detail - along with individual performances - was very necessary as games were not on television...besides the media and the fans there in person, no one else had seen the events that transpired - very exclusive company. The very first television broadcast in Canada didn't occur until 1952 I believe, so that's a considerable amount of Stanley Cup era hockey not included - nearly half. Seems to be a ripple effect - higher quality of voting results than today certainly. Not just based on the first four categories of the scoresheet...
Media voting back then and now both have their pitfalls.

Some seem to overlook the drinking that went on in the press box as well as the teams influence over the papers and writers in some cases.

The actual interpretation of the Hart trophy has also caused variations on what criteria was used.

While todays media might be more "professional" there are also many more teams and not enough time to do thorough research in the voting awards.

Stats are commonly used as is reputation. For some voters this is mostly what they do.

Some voters do phone around to get other opinions form coaches and respected media members but we don't know all of the criteria and habits of those that vote on these awards either.

Back to the OP Richard is held in such high regard not only for what he did on the ice but also his reputation (in large part to his GWG and goal scoring heroics in the playoffs).

He is usually put in the 5-7 range of all time greats but there is a case for him to be out of the top 10 as well IMO.

It would be surprising to see him slip out of the top 3 RW of all time in the RW top players project (after Howe and possibly Jagr) but it will be very interesting.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 02:36 AM
  #18
Corto
Faceless Man
 
Corto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Braavos
Country: Croatia
Posts: 12,321
vCash: 500
I think the Ted Lindsay award should be better recognized, but.... Isn't.

Perfect example?
2005-06, Jagr won the Lester after leading a crappy Rangers team to the playoffs, setting team records and being dominant.
People predicted NYR that year to finish dead last, remember.

Hart was won by Joe Thornton on a stacked SJ team, after he edged out Jagr by a couple of points in the last few games.

Not to take anything from Joe, he was fantastic, and it wasn't "undeserved", just that Jagr (IMO clearly) was the best player in the league that year, and certainly the Most Vaulable.

...

Bottom line...
It's a shame Hart gets more recognition than Ted Lindsay.

Because, surprisingly, more often than not, the winners are different.

Corto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:43 AM
  #19
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corto View Post
I think the Ted Lindsay award should be better recognized, but.... Isn't.

Perfect example?
2005-06, Jagr won the Lester after leading a crappy Rangers team to the playoffs, setting team records and being dominant.
People predicted NYR that year to finish dead last, remember.

Hart was won by Joe Thornton on a stacked SJ team, after he edged out Jagr by a couple of points in the last few games.

Not to take anything from Joe, he was fantastic, and it wasn't "undeserved", just that Jagr (IMO clearly) was the best player in the league that year, and certainly the Most Vaulable.

...

Bottom line...
It's a shame Hart gets more recognition than Ted Lindsay.

Because, surprisingly, more often than not, the winners are different.
That's a perfect example of why the Ted Lindsay isn't as relevant as the Hart because it is voted on prior to the completion of all 82 games.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 07:17 AM
  #20
DKQ
Generic User Title
 
DKQ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Press Box
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
That's a perfect example of why the Ted Lindsay isn't as relevant as the Hart because it is voted on prior to the completion of all 82 games.
Which is probably why Daniel Sedin won it in 2011.

DKQ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:37 AM
  #21
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DropkickQuinn View Post
Which is probably why Daniel Sedin won it in 2011.
see also: ovechkin in '10, jagr in '06, naslund in '03. you could arguably put iginla in '02 in that category too.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:39 AM
  #22
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,078
vCash: 500
Actually, in modern times, I think making playoffs should be an absolute requisite in order to even get a vote, due to parity and all. Some teams are better than others, but the gap was sometimes really big back then.

That's actually my understanding of some odd voting results, like Al Rollins and Tom Anderson. Kennedy winning it was something of a travesty, however.

Thus, Iginla had NO BUSINESS winning that award in 2002, at least not when the Habs first center would have been Calgary's 2B center, AND, the Flames didn't make it to the playoffs. Even if Iginla was NHL's best forward that season.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:22 AM
  #23
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
you could arguably put iginla in '02 in that category too.
With Theodore not being nominated for the Lester B. Pearson (Sean Burke was) - and winning the Hart Trophy primarily because of his play from March 28th to April 9th - I'd say that Iginla in 2002 is more than arguable; it's the textbook example as to why one must wait until after the season to vote for these awards.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:46 AM
  #24
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Mario factored in on the highest % of a team's goals ever that season and led the league in scoring (led Yzerman by a margin of 22%). Whether it's best player or most valuable, it should've been Mario.
Disregarding the effect they had on their teammates' totals, Lemieux played with the #5 (Brown, 115 pts) and #13 (Quinn, 94 pts) scorers on his line and the #6 scorer (Coffey, 113 pts) behind him. Yzerman had the #14 scorer (Gallant, 93 pts) and the #55 scorer (MacLean, 71 pts), with his top defenseman (Chiasson, 47 pts) finishing 127th.

While Mario clearly produced more offense, other teams had to actually worry about Pens players besides Mario. Yzerman also served as the Wings' checking center that season due to depth issues, which is a pretty big plus to a 155-point season when your team has no other skilled offensive players.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:14 PM
  #25
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Disregarding the effect they had on their teammates' totals, Lemieux played with the #5 (Brown, 115 pts) and #13 (Quinn, 94 pts) scorers on his line and the #6 scorer (Coffey, 113 pts) behind him. Yzerman had the #14 scorer (Gallant, 93 pts) and the #55 scorer (MacLean, 71 pts), with his top defenseman (Chiasson, 47 pts) finishing 127th.

While Mario clearly produced more offense, other teams had to actually worry about Pens players besides Mario. Yzerman also served as the Wings' checking center that season due to depth issues, which is a pretty big plus to a 155-point season when your team has no other skilled offensive players.
The effect of Coffey is something to look at, but that's it. The only reason guys like Brown or Quinn finished with as many points as they did was because of Lemieux himself. They leached a ton of "easy points" just from playing with him. The difference between the two is still huge...I don't see Coffey being responsible for an extra 44 points.


Here is the point I was making...

The Penguins scored 347 goals that season. With 199pts, Lemieux had a direct hand in 57.3% of those goals. That is the highest such percentage in history.

The Red Wings scored 313 goals that season. With 155pts, Yzerman had a hand in 49.5% of his team's goals.


Last edited by Hawkey Town 18: 11-12-2012 at 12:19 PM.
Hawkey Town 18 is online now   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 09:13 AM.

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.