HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Hart>Pearson? PHWA no say on Vezina/Adams? HHOF mystery committee?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-08-2011, 04:35 PM
  #1
RECsGuy*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,478
vCash: 500
Hart>Pearson? PHWA no say on Vezina/Adams? HHOF mystery committee?

Why is the Hart more revered than the Pearson? Wouldn't the collective opinion of the players be more relevant than that of roughly 180 writers? If the players have their own MVP award, why not have their version of every individual award? It's not like the players' decision can't be trusted. If you look at the list of Pearson winners, the recipients are hardly odd selections.

As for the Vezina and Adams, why is it that the Professional Hockey Writers Association chooses the winner of every other major individual award except these two, which the 30 GMs and the league's broadcasters decide on, respectively?

And then you've got the Hockey Hall Of Fame, with its very own committee composed of a hodge-podge of former/current players, executives and media members. Is the process used to decide who the commitee emebers are even known? Are there term limits?

Why is there no consistency in the way the NHL bestows its highest, voted-on honors?

RECsGuy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 04:37 PM
  #2
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 25,195
vCash: 50
The Pearson is more of a popularity contest. You think Perry, for example, would ever win the Pearson? But he was a legit Hart winner.

There are enough player awards. If you have too many, you just water down the significance of them.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 04:39 PM
  #3
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,276
vCash: 500
We should get rid of the Pearson. I'm of the unpopular opinion that playing against a player ISN'T the best way to judge how good someone is, since there are so much subtleties to the game of hockey, and you don't ****ing spend all your time watching what decisions a player makes when you're on the ice with them. And players watch a lot less on TV than writers.

The opinions of the writers >>>>> The opinions of the players

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 04:48 PM
  #4
vippe
Registered User
 
vippe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,906
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to vippe
It's very likely the writers (atleast most of them) Actually watch more games than the players do..

vippe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 04:52 PM
  #5
rye&ginger
Registered User
 
rye&ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vippe View Post
It's very likely the writers (atleast most of them) Actually watch more games than the players do..
Not sure about that, but for sure they may follow the media more.

Most sports writers cover their local story and go to bed.

rye&ginger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 06:12 PM
  #6
19Yzerman19
Registered User
 
19Yzerman19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
We should get rid of the Pearson. I'm of the unpopular opinion that playing against a player ISN'T the best way to judge how good someone is, since there are so much subtleties to the game of hockey, and you don't ****ing spend all your time watching what decisions a player makes when you're on the ice with them. And players watch a lot less on TV than writers.

The opinions of the writers >>>>> The opinions of the players
Hmm ... they did get rid of the Pearson, its the Lindsay Award now.

19Yzerman19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 06:18 PM
  #7
JustGivingEr
How far we done fell
 
JustGivingEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Hamsterdam
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,644
vCash: 1125
The thing about the Pearson is a big factor in the player's votes is how often they play against a player. I guy from the Rangers who plays Crosby 6 times a year is more likely to vote for him than someone who plays in Minnesota and plays against the Sedins 6 times a year.

JustGivingEr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 06:29 PM
  #8
Ishdul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 2,627
vCash: 500
The players aren't any better than the writers at judging awards. They're even more biased against defensemen, which is honestly amazing, and they have some historically stupid choices like Ratelle over Orr in 71/72 and Liut over Gretzky in 80/81.

Someone from here mentioned that while the MVP is often a substitute for the Art Ross, the LBP/Ted Lindsay is a substitute for the Art Ross with a month of the season left (since the ballots are in earlier), which explains why Jagr won in 05/06, Ovechkin won in 09/10, D.Sedin won last year, Stamkos was nominated last year, Naslund won in 02/03, etc.

Also the Hart has been around since 1923, so that helps with the prestige instead of an award that started in the 70's that recently got a name change.

Ishdul is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 06:32 PM
  #9
Warfunkel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 205
vCash: 500
If we're doing a trophy vs. trophy thread, President's Trophy > Stanley Cup?

As far as Hart vs. Pearson (which it should still be called) goes, they're both popularity contests, but I care more about the opinions of the players than of a bunch of writers.

Warfunkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 06:39 PM
  #10
Left Circle OneTimer
Registered User
 
Left Circle OneTimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
People are forgetting that they are completely different awards?

The Hart is given to the player most VALUABLE to his team. That means Henrik Sedin Lighting it up when Daniel went down injured, or Corey Perry leading the league in GWG and was the highest ppg scorer in the last phases of the season when Getzlaf went down.

The Ted Lindsay is given to the leagues best player. Such as Jagr getting 3 while his team struggles to make the playoffs. Would you be giving the Hart to the leading scorer if his team sucks?

Ted Lindsay - Best player of that Year

Hart Memorial - Player most valuable to his team that year

Left Circle OneTimer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 06:42 PM
  #11
deckercky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
We should get rid of the Pearson. I'm of the unpopular opinion that playing against a player ISN'T the best way to judge how good someone is, since there are so much subtleties to the game of hockey, and you don't ****ing spend all your time watching what decisions a player makes when you're on the ice with them. And players watch a lot less on TV than writers.

The opinions of the writers >>>>> The opinions of the players
I kind of think of it in the opposite way....I trust the judgment of the people who play with and against these players rather than the media, many of which have pretty much the same knowledge of hockey that an average fan does.

deckercky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2011, 06:55 PM
  #12
Skrudland2Lomakin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
We should get rid of the Pearson. I'm of the unpopular opinion that playing against a player ISN'T the best way to judge how good someone is, since there are so much subtleties to the game of hockey, and you don't ****ing spend all your time watching what decisions a player makes when you're on the ice with them. And players watch a lot less on TV than writers.

The opinions of the writers >>>>> The opinions of the players
For this exact reason I think the opposite of what you're saying. Think of all the small, unseen, subtle things great players do to set themselves apart. To us the viewer or to a writer who has never played they go unseen, to a player they make all the difference.

Skrudland2Lomakin 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 10:26 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.