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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Why Didn't Hasek Win the Hart Trophy in 1999?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-12-2017, 01:00 PM
  #1
GMR
Registered User
 
GMR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 824
vCash: 500
Why Didn't Hasek Win the Hart Trophy in 1999?

As I recall, he had a better save percentage and GAA than the prior two seasons. Also, he took his team to the Finals that year. I know it's supposed to be a regular season award, but you'd figure the playoff run still had to weigh on some voters' minds.

Jagr had an amazing year, but his numbers were similar to Lemieux's numbers in 1997, and Mario didn't win the trophy despite being a sentimental vote with his retirement. Even Yashin finished ahead of Hasek in the voting in 1999.

Was this just a case of not wanting to give the same guy (let alone a goalie) a third consecutive Hart trophy?

GMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 01:12 PM
  #2
DanishPastry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Country: Denmark
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
Just looking at stats Hasek and Belfour look similar (Tugnutt looks better but played fewer games) while Jagr and Selanne don't.

Could explain why the votes were cast as they were.

DanishPastry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 02:28 PM
  #3
GMR
Registered User
 
GMR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanishPastry View Post
Just looking at stats Hasek and Belfour look similar (Tugnutt looks better but played fewer games) while Jagr and Selanne don't.

Could explain why the votes were cast as they were.
Except Selanne finished behind Yashin. Hasek's win totals were lower than in prior years, but as I said, his individual numbers were better in 1999.

GMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 02:37 PM
  #4
trentmccleary
Registered User
 
trentmccleary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alfie-Ville
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 500
The Hart Trophy goes to the player "most valuable to his team". Some players get votes for being the best player in the league, while others get votes for being the lone bright light on an otherwise dismal team. Yashin's votes were a condemnation of Ottawa's lineup in 1999, in contrast to their high regular season finish.

trentmccleary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 02:47 PM
  #5
jetsfan91
Registered User
 
jetsfan91's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 468
vCash: 500
Looking back at stats from that season.. It seems to be there is a closer gap between the stars and serviceable NHL players. We know this was the middle of the dead puck era. 5 goalies finished with below a 2.00 GAA, It's crazy to think with goaltenders being that stingy we still have Jagr scoring 127 points, and Selanne and Kariya with over a 100. I couldn't see in todays NHL several NHL goaltenders posting those stats and seeing the top players in the league with 107-127 points.

jetsfan91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 04:34 PM
  #6
GMR
Registered User
 
GMR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trentmccleary View Post
The Hart Trophy goes to the player "most valuable to his team". Some players get votes for being the best player in the league, while others get votes for being the lone bright light on an otherwise dismal team. Yashin's votes were a condemnation of Ottawa's lineup in 1999, in contrast to their high regular season finish.
The Sabres and Penguins finished 7th and 8th that season. There was a 12 point gap between 8th place Pittsburgh and 9th place Florida. I feel that Buffalo needed Hasek more than Pittsburgh needed Jagr. I can see the voters being mesmerized, though, by the gap between Jagr and the next two highest scorers on his team. He had 127 points, Straka had 83, and Titov had 56. Still, It's hard to imagine Buffalo doing anything without Hasek.

It's likely that neither team makes the playoffs without those two players, even with the gap between them and the Panthers.

GMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 04:40 PM
  #7
MVP of West Hollywd
Registered User
 
MVP of West Hollywd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 500
Hasek barely won Vezina that year as well, Joseph got the most 1st place votes (10) to Hasek and Dafoe's 8 but more people voted Hasek 2nd. Blame Maple Leafs hype?

MVP of West Hollywd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 05:07 PM
  #8
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVP of West Hollywd View Post
Hasek barely won Vezina that year as well, Joseph got the most 1st place votes (10) to Hasek and Dafoe's 8 but more people voted Hasek 2nd. Blame Maple Leafs hype?
Would that necessarily have influenced GMs? Joseph did much worse in the media vote.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 06:49 PM
  #9
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 4,773
vCash: 500
(a) Probably the start of a little Hasek voter-fatigue;
(b) In '97, '98, and '99 Buffalo didn't go anywhere in the regular season. By this, I mean if they'd suddenly leaped 20 points or something, Hasek would have the Hart wrapped up;
(c) By some measurements of post-expansion NHL, Jagr's 1998-99 was the greatest offensive season by anyone who isn't Wayne or Mario

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 11:00 PM
  #10
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,024
vCash: 500
First off you have to remember, the postseason has nothing to do with this award. It is voted on at the end of the regular season.

Secondly, let's take ourselves back to 1999. This is hard to believe, but there was a bit of a knock on Jagr for always having a great center play with him. Mario was there up until 1997. Then Francis hung around until 1998. This is no lie, but the idea was that Jagr couldn't hack it on his own and he would be exposed without these guys helping him. Instead he put up the best season he ever had and doing it with little help around him. Even the ones who were annoyed by him had to admit that he was the best player in the game and had separated himself from the pack. I badly wanted someone like Kariya or Lindros to show everyone that this was "their" league. It was a sensitive time for Hockey Canada. We had lost the Olympics, the best goalie in the world was European and so many of the best forwards were too. This was time for the Lindros/Kariya types to step up.

Well, it didn't happen. By midseason Jagr just pulled away from everyone and it was so obvious that he was the game's best player. Hasek had a season similar to the others, but I always thought he was his best in 1998 and that Jagr was even better in 1999. Watching the NHL that year you had to be impressed with a guy that racked up 127 points with Martin Straka and Stu Barnes. So I guess you could say Jagr got his due in 1999.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 11:31 PM
  #11
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 24,561
vCash: 500
A theory.

Steve Nash also had a better season the one after his back-to-back NBA MVP years. It was said at the time by some that there simply was a desire to see someone else win it.

Similarly with Hasek.

Spread it around maybe being the impetus.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2017, 11:41 PM
  #12
threetimer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 216
vCash: 500
Numbers do lie.

He just wasn't on top of the world the way he had been in previous years, in the reg season that is.

threetimer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2017, 10:05 AM
  #13
GMR
Registered User
 
GMR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by threetimer View Post
Numbers do lie.

He just wasn't on top of the world the way he had been in previous years, in the reg season that is.
I believe save percentage and GAA are a better stat than wins/losses when judging a goalie's season. The latter depends on his team's goal support. His numbers in 1999 were better than the prior seasons.

GMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2017, 11:19 AM
  #14
threetimer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMR View Post
I believe save percentage and GAA are a better stat than wins/losses when judging a goalie's season. The latter depends on his team's goal support. His numbers in 1999 were better than the prior seasons.
I know that some of the stats make it seem as if he had maintained his best, or got even better, but he played fewer games and simply wasn't as relevant anymore.

Despite the numbers, he went into the "out there" mode during 96/97, and he even upped himself the year after (once he left the post-Nolan trauma behind), which most people didn't even think possible.

During HIS time, Hasek literally dropped shooters' heads and buckled their knees. I saw him drop Lemieux' head. Palffy took ages to score on him and once he actually scored on Hasek, he lied down on the ice and stared in disbelief, "eureka" written all over his face.

Hasek was more than just a goalie. He was the flipping-flopping symbol of the fact goalies were better than forwards (daft times).

In 98/99, it was obvious he plateaued. Still the best goalie in the league, but the miracle was over. He just couldn't get better. You can only walk on water once.

Hasek was great prior to his godly stretch. After the 98 PO's, he was only great again (although there were reoccurring glimpses of his godliness).

threetimer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2017, 12:04 PM
  #15
Mike Farkas
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMR View Post
I believe save percentage and GAA are a better stat than wins/losses when judging a goalie's season. The latter depends on his team's goal support. His numbers in 1999 were better than the prior seasons.
The former depends on his team's defensive support. Goalie numbers, as time goes on, become more and more team-influenced. It's not like the Sabres were this expansion team with Reg Dunlop as a coach...they were a defensive team AND Hasek was really good...but some people pretend like save pct. is a goalie stat, it's a team stat, just like GAA is...

__________________
http://twitter.com/MichaelFarkasHF

YouTube Channel: The Two-Line Pass - Hockey news, knowledge, video breakdowns and more: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKAI...52Q577Q/videos

Latest installment:Ep. 4 - Brady Skjei Evaluation
Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2017, 12:07 PM
  #16
Doctor No
HFB Partner
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,390
vCash: 50


Reg Dunlop won the league championship!

__________________
The Goaltender Home Page (http://hockeygoalies.org) - Preserving Goaltender History since 1994
2016-17 NHL Goaltending Performances by Team: http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/nhl/logs/NHL2016.html
Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2017, 12:20 PM
  #17
Ishdul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,800
vCash: 500
Hasek played 8 less games than 98 and Jagr had a majorly better year, going from 102 points to 12. I do think there was some voter fatigue for Hasek and some pent up demand for Jagr, and Hasek behind Yashin is... much different, but I don't think Jagr and Hasek flipping is so weird.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
A theory.

Steve Nash also had a better season the one after his back-to-back NBA MVP years. It was said at the time by some that there simply was a desire to see someone else win it.

Similarly with Hasek.

Spread it around maybe being the impetus.
So I'll start by saying that NBA MVP is given near exclusively to teams who are top 2 seed in their conference, to the point where the last one who wasn't was Jordan in 1988. Might change this year, but that's 30 years and includes a lot of . Anyways, here's a timeline for Nash's MVP candidacy:

2004-05: Big stories of the year are the Shaq trade to Miami leading them to be the best team in the East and the Suns going Seven Seconds or Less to lead the league and become one of the more influential teams of all time. Speaking to that, the climate for the last few years has been dreadfully defensive basketball culminating in the Pistons the championship winning the year before, a lot of people lamenting the state of point guard play, Garnett, arguably still the best player in the game, misses the playoffs after the rest of his team collapses, Kobe doesn't make the playoffs without Shaq, Duncan/Spurs have their ho-hum great years but are still both boring and gave nothing that made voters want to actually pick them, Nowitzki and the Mavs not having their best year. Basically seen as the worst year for MVP candidates since God knows when, since Shaq had maybe his worst year statistically to that point, Nash as an old guy who doesn't score much, was seen as a 2nd rate star on the Mavs and barely goes out on defense with a lot of insiders saying that Amare was the more important player to the Suns... Nash wins because he's seen as the revival of old distributor point guard play from the land of the, the Suns were 10 years ahead of the rest of the league offensively and it's a weak field of candidates.
2005-06: Spurs win the title the year before in a miserable playoffs, Shaq is basically done as an elite player, Detroit continues to ruin television sets everywhere on the way to leading the league. Amare is hurt for the entire year prompting Nash to take on a different role as more of a scorer and in general answering the critics who thought Amare was their true star last year, leading the Suns to 2nd after missing one of the 10 best players in the NBA. Kobe averages video game numbers but is stuck taking every shot on a crappy team, Nowitzki is probably the best player in the league but the Mavs don't win their division (despite being a 60 win team and actually ahead of the Suns in the standings), LeBron starts his reign of dominance while his team is still lagging behind, still no one wants to vote for Duncan, Billups is the token league leading guy who gets MVP consideration. Nash wins again, and still a lot of (legitimate) complaints abound.
2006-07: Amare's back, Suns are back to where they were with him in tow, Nash is a better scorer than year one and a better distributor than year 2. However, Nowitzki gets some momentum from making the Finals the year before, and leads the Mavs to one of the better records in league history without a second star on team. You also see the beginnings of a rise in point guard play, particularly Chris Paul who's emerging as a superstar in the Steve Nash mold, so Nash's qualities aren't quite as unique. Not much of a reason to vote against Dirk here, clear best player playing on the clear best team in the league, and at that point becoming the kind of historically significant player who you'd want to reward.

I liked someone's explanation that it was like Rod Langway's Norris run, expect replace pass-first point guard with defensive defenseman. You could see Langway winning that first year but it does feel like there's some romantic element to it, the next year he goes up against 2 of the better years of Coffey and Bourque and it's a little harder to justify, and by year 3 the enthusiasm for a style of play not often rewarded is gone (largely because you spent 2 years rewarding it) and you're judging them pretty squarely on their own merits where they fall a touch short.

Ishdul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2017, 12:22 PM
  #18
Mike Farkas
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor No View Post


Reg Dunlop won the league championship!


He wasn't an X's and O's guy, he was a rah-rah guy...his success was based on call-ups that had their own built in rah-rah way about them...no coaching cred given...

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2017, 02:54 AM
  #19
La Cosa Nostra
Caporegime
 
La Cosa Nostra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,812
vCash: 720
He got robbed. Haseks svp was .11 higher then the next best goalie. .11. That is insane. Since that season he pulled that off in 98-99, the largest gap from first to second in svp among goalies with 20+ GP is .09 and that was done by Craig Anderson who himself benefitted from having a small 24 game sample size when he did it. Hasek got robbed because they were sick of giving Hasek the Hart, even though he deserved it. The Sabres rosters in 96-97,97-98 and 98-99 were absolute TRASH. Hasek was the definition of most valuable player, without Hasek those 3 Sabre teams are in contention for the #1 pick in the NHL draft and not a division winner, ECF finalist and SCF finalist in successive seasons.

The greatest goalie ever. Us hockey fans in Buffalo were absolutely blessed to watch the most dominant goalie to ever play the game. There will never be another goalie like Hasek and that's the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
The former depends on his team's defensive support. Goalie numbers, as time goes on, become more and more team-influenced. It's not like the Sabres were this expansion team with Reg Dunlop as a coach...they were a defensive team AND Hasek was really good...but some people pretend like save pct. is a goalie stat, it's a team stat, just like GAA is...
I have to disagree big time here. Roloson put up a .909 svp that season as the backup while Hasek put up a .937. It wasn't because the Sabres were "defensively" oriented it was because Hasek was that good and the Sabres HAD to play that style because of how little talent they possessed. And the same exact thing the year prior in 97-98, Hasek puts up a .932 Steve Shields a .909. Haseks svp was all because of him not the Sabres as a whole and it definitely wasn't a "team" stat. It was Hasek single handedly. Those Sabre teams SUCKED. It's just insane we went to a ECF and SCF in 97-98 and 98-99 with those horrid rosters.

And the same with Haseks first Hart. Puts up a .930, Shields as a backup puts up a .913. A gap that large just shows the system had very little to do with Haseks performance. He had a mediocre defense and a terrible offense and we still found ways to win. Don't let Pecas Selke fool you, he was a very good def. forward but Haseks play elevated that far more then Peca and his teammates did for Hasek ainec.


Last edited by La Cosa Nostra: 02-14-2017 at 03:02 AM.
La Cosa Nostra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2017, 08:51 AM
  #20
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 24,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by La Cosa Nostra View Post
He got robbed. Haseks svp was .11 higher then the next best goalie. .11. That is insane. Since that season he pulled that off in 98-99, the largest gap from first to second in svp among goalies with 20+ GP is .09 and that was done by Craig Anderson who himself benefitted from having a small 24 game sample size when he did it. Hasek got robbed because they were sick of giving Hasek the Hart, even though he deserved it. The Sabres rosters in 96-97,97-98 and 98-99 were absolute TRASH. Hasek was the definition of most valuable player, without Hasek those 3 Sabre teams are in contention for the #1 pick in the NHL draft and not a division winner, ECF finalist and SCF finalist in successive seasons.
Agreed.



He was unique, dominant and simply unbelievable many nights!~

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2017, 04:49 PM
  #21
HowsUrBreath
Registered User
 
HowsUrBreath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 378
vCash: 500
jagr should've won his hart trophies

the vezina goes to the goalie

HowsUrBreath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2017, 12:21 AM
  #22
MVP of West Hollywd
Registered User
 
MVP of West Hollywd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishdul View Post
Hasek played 8 less games than 98 and Jagr had a majorly better year, going from 102 points to 12. I do think there was some voter fatigue for Hasek and some pent up demand for Jagr, and Hasek behind Yashin is... much different, but I don't think Jagr and Hasek flipping is so weird.


So I'll start by saying that NBA MVP is given near exclusively to teams who are top 2 seed in their conference, to the point where the last one who wasn't was Jordan in 1988. Might change this year, but that's 30 years and includes a lot of . Anyways, here's a timeline for Nash's MVP candidacy:

2004-05: Big stories of the year are the Shaq trade to Miami leading them to be the best team in the East and the Suns going Seven Seconds or Less to lead the league and become one of the more influential teams of all time. Speaking to that, the climate for the last few years has been dreadfully defensive basketball culminating in the Pistons the championship winning the year before, a lot of people lamenting the state of point guard play, Garnett, arguably still the best player in the game, misses the playoffs after the rest of his team collapses, Kobe doesn't make the playoffs without Shaq, Duncan/Spurs have their ho-hum great years but are still both boring and gave nothing that made voters want to actually pick them, Nowitzki and the Mavs not having their best year. Basically seen as the worst year for MVP candidates since God knows when, since Shaq had maybe his worst year statistically to that point, Nash as an old guy who doesn't score much, was seen as a 2nd rate star on the Mavs and barely goes out on defense with a lot of insiders saying that Amare was the more important player to the Suns... Nash wins because he's seen as the revival of old distributor point guard play from the land of the, the Suns were 10 years ahead of the rest of the league offensively and it's a weak field of candidates.
2005-06: Spurs win the title the year before in a miserable playoffs, Shaq is basically done as an elite player, Detroit continues to ruin television sets everywhere on the way to leading the league. Amare is hurt for the entire year prompting Nash to take on a different role as more of a scorer and in general answering the critics who thought Amare was their true star last year, leading the Suns to 2nd after missing one of the 10 best players in the NBA. Kobe averages video game numbers but is stuck taking every shot on a crappy team, Nowitzki is probably the best player in the league but the Mavs don't win their division (despite being a 60 win team and actually ahead of the Suns in the standings), LeBron starts his reign of dominance while his team is still lagging behind, still no one wants to vote for Duncan, Billups is the token league leading guy who gets MVP consideration. Nash wins again, and still a lot of (legitimate) complaints abound.
2006-07: Amare's back, Suns are back to where they were with him in tow, Nash is a better scorer than year one and a better distributor than year 2. However, Nowitzki gets some momentum from making the Finals the year before, and leads the Mavs to one of the better records in league history without a second star on team. You also see the beginnings of a rise in point guard play, particularly Chris Paul who's emerging as a superstar in the Steve Nash mold, so Nash's qualities aren't quite as unique. Not much of a reason to vote against Dirk here, clear best player playing on the clear best team in the league, and at that point becoming the kind of historically significant player who you'd want to reward.

I liked someone's explanation that it was like Rod Langway's Norris run, expect replace pass-first point guard with defensive defenseman. You could see Langway winning that first year but it does feel like there's some romantic element to it, the next year he goes up against 2 of the better years of Coffey and Bourque and it's a little harder to justify, and by year 3 the enthusiasm for a style of play not often rewarded is gone (largely because you spent 2 years rewarding it) and you're judging them pretty squarely on their own merits where they fall a touch short.
I think both sides are correct to an extent. Dirk won the MVP more than Nash lost it, but I can't imagine them giving it to Nash 3 years in a row for someone who nobody thought was the actual best player in the league. Nash is not Hasek who was GOAT level at his position. Nash winning 2 MVPs would be like if Kane wins again this year, which I wouldn't be opposed to if he deserves it, just that even after 2 Harts people would still think Crosby, Ovechkin as this generation's forwards and McDavid and Matthews on the come-up. Now imagine if Kane was in position to win an ungodly 3 straight Harts... the media would probably be looking for any way out


Last edited by MVP of West Hollywd: 02-15-2017 at 12:39 AM.
MVP of West Hollywd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 06:38 PM
  #23
Fantomas
Registered User
 
Fantomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,822
vCash: 500
It's simple. Voters were tired of awarding him the Hart every year.

Fantomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 06:42 PM
  #24
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMR View Post
As I recall, he had a better save percentage and GAA than the prior two seasons. Also, he took his team to the Finals that year. I know it's supposed to be a regular season award, but you'd figure the playoff run still had to weigh on some voters' minds.
The Hart trophy voting is done before the playoffs begin making the notion of his performance weighing on some voters minds impossible.

FerrisRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 02:28 AM
  #25
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVP of West Hollywd View Post
I think both sides are correct to an extent. Dirk won the MVP more than Nash lost it, but I can't imagine them giving it to Nash 3 years in a row for someone who nobody thought was the actual best player in the league. Nash is not Hasek who was GOAT level at his position. Nash winning 2 MVPs would be like if Kane wins again this year, which I wouldn't be opposed to if he deserves it, just that even after 2 Harts people would still think Crosby, Ovechkin as this generation's forwards and McDavid and Matthews on the come-up. Now imagine if Kane was in position to win an ungodly 3 straight Harts... the media would probably be looking for any way out
You are pretty much on the ball with this one. Nash wasn't a guy the league necessarily wanted to win three MVPs in a row. I remember Don Cherry saying he thought it was anti-Canadian sentiment. But I don't know about that, I mean they gave it to Dirk who is a German after Nash. No disrespect to Nash but he doesn't have the clout that Kobe or Lebron had either. I just think Nash winning was a bit like John Stockton winning. Extremely effective, not flashy or able to sell tickets though.

Big Phil 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 05:20 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.