Mark Messier Leadership Award - Leave it to Mark Messier to get involved with a corporate-sponsored trophy where he puts his name on it, picks the winner and goes on TV to present it. It has some marginal legitimacy as an honor, but what a completely ego-driven venture on the whole.
All of the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder
I'm glad the selke is rewarded to a great offensive player that excells on defense. Every team has a 3rd line checker whos job is to play defense and backcheck because they have no offensive talent, defensive forwards are overrated. The selke should reward players like gilmour, federov and datsyuk because thier two way game prevents them from winning art rosses.
Gilmour only won the Selke because he had a career year offensively due to unusually high PP output. He was among the "others who received votes" a few times but was never a serious contender until 1992-93, and the only thing about his play that really changed was his PP scoring - likely a result of Andreychuk being added from Buffalo. He had another strong year next year - again buoyed by unusually high PP marks (Andreychuk had almost identical stats to what he did the previous year) and finished second in Selke voting to Fedorov, who won after finishing fourth the previous year and second (with the most first place votes) the year before that. Datsyuk first shows up on the Selke voting at 20th in 2007 before winning it the next season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavels Dog
The guys with the best offensive numbers that have won it over the past 20 years are Fedorov and Datsyuk, right?
By scoring rank, yes, although Gilmour's 127 points in 1993 trumps them all. Fedorov is the only one of the three to be a finalist before he was a major offensive force; Gilmour had unusually high PP numbers in 92-93 and 93-94 which coincided with his two highest Selke finishes. Datsyuk wasn't a Selke contender until he won in 2008, and most felt Zetterberg was better that year and before (he was 9th in Selke voting in 2006 and 7th in 2007).
Quote:
It's hard to say either of them are/were anything less than superb defensively. Other winners lately include Bergeron, Lehtinen, Draper
Draper absolutely did not deserve the Selke. Excellent defensive forward... but he wasn't even the best defensive forward on the Wings that season. Madden should have been the winner, with Lehtinen and Maltby as the other finalists.
Quote:
Peca, Madden, Brind'Amour
Brind'Amour was good defensively, but his two Selkes should have been someone else's. Specifically Jere Lehtinen.
I don't really remember past president's trophy winners as a fan, but if I was part of a team that finished an 82 game journey on top, it would mean something to me, so I wouldn't call that pointless.
Yep, and the Bruins were much better than the Canucks the year before that.
Stanley Cup -----> PT
While I do agree the B's were better than the Canucks, not many teams were. Bruins player a very hard counter to the Canucks, kudos to them.
Your posts are a joke though. Its k, I still love you. I can't imagine ANYONE being from Calgary and a Bruins fan liking the Canucks. That's just blasphemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dingo
No they aren't
They are often a product of an easy division.
The Rangers were a way better team than the Canucks last year
Arguable, the Rangers also got to beat up on the equally weak SE, albeit a bit less.
I do agree that the Canucks record was inflated but I would argue that Pacific + Central > Northeast + Atlantic.
I'm half and half on PT's. It is an accomplishment to be the best team in the league but it can also easily be inflated by a weak division (even Canucks fans can't argue that).
Lady Byng I suppose. It's a respectable trophy, but it is rather pointless.
They should probably name the Plus/Minus award some day.
Add the Spengler Cup to that list.
And the King Clancy, Crozier, and NHL Foundation Award to the list of useless awards.
And how the hell did Chelios never win the Masterton?
i don't understand the rationale here at all, so maybe somebody can fill me in. the PT takes 82 games to win, it takes not only skills, but also endurance, depth and consistency to win. it is about as fair a team trophy can get since everybody's schedules are roughly the same, whereas in the playoff you can play 4 rounds and you will never play 12 of the other 15 teams that make it.
i'm not saying it is the most important trophy, obviously i'll take the cup over it anyday. but to discredit is as "the most pointless" trophy? how can surviving a 82 games grind as the top team means that little?
You just ripped the fabric.... implosion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoopALoop
Don't question HF logic.
No doubt. On top of that I believe this is the second thread on the subject in like the last 2 weeks.
It's the one award which would be borderline insulting to win. If I was a player and knew I was in the running for the Lady Byng towards the end of the season, I'd just start a bunch of fights in the last game of the season just to get myself out of the running for it.
An "old lady"?
What are you, like, 13?
She was 55 when she donated the trophy.
What does that have anything to do with the trophy anyhow?
Childish point.
I'm glad you took that post as super-seriously as I intended it.
Sadly this. When you realize that the guys at Puck Daddy actually have a vote to decide who the Hart trophy winner is...
This x infinity....here in Ottawa many of our local writers who do get votes literally can't skate nor have ever played the game, strong logic here lol
It's pretty clear for me. I think it's the Presidents Trophy. It goes to the best team in the regular season. That's nice and all, but who cares?
No one is playing for the regular season. You see how the players care so little about the Campbell and Wales award at the end of the conference finals. So imagine how many ***** are not given about the Presidents Trophy.
There's no satisfaction from the Presidents Trophy. If you win it and go on to win the Cup then it's forgotten and becomes nothing more than a footnote. If you win it and lose is the playoffs it's a meaningless consolation price at best. At worst it's a reminder of how good your team played in the regular season before failing when it mattered.
Other trophies I find pointless:
Jennings trophy - goes to goalies for a team stat.
Plus/minus award - stupid stat. Do they even have that award anymore?
Gold Glove - defense award that more times than not goes to best hitter at each position.
It may have little status because of the north american obsession with playoffs, but you could argue the PT is a greater achievement than the SC. In some sports much larger than hockey it would amount to a championship.
i don't understand the rationale here at all, so maybe somebody can fill me in. the PT takes 82 games to win, it takes not only skills, but also endurance, depth and consistency to win. it is about as fair a team trophy can get since everybody's schedules are roughly the same, whereas in the playoff you can play 4 rounds and you will never play 12 of the other 15 teams that make it.
i'm not saying it is the most important trophy, obviously i'll take the cup over it anyday. but to discredit is as "the most pointless" trophy? how can surviving a 82 games grind as the top team means that little?
It is important ... when it's all you've got to hang your hat on.
Yep. Established by Messier, chosen by messier. Nice arrogance.
Runner up: Masterton.
I call this the "Who had cancer?" award. Usually given to the guy who had cancer, no matter if it's a relatively minor bout that barely makes the player miss any time (Jason Blake) or a serious touch and go battle(Saku Koivu). If no cancer then the guy who's playing after returning from the most serious injury/or is playing through a known condition.Probably Crosby or Harding this year, unless someone has an irregular mole.
