1994-95 Hart Trophy Revisit

[Felidae]

I'm aware Lindros won this award unanimously, so instead of outlining the voting percentages of each finalist, here's me making my case that Hasek was the best player in the league that year, and perhaps should have won the Hart trophy.

Hasek had a pretty dominant year. Led the league with a .930sv% when the next highest was a .917sv%. Had a GSAA of 36 when the next best had 15, 10th best had 8. To top it all off, he had a pretty hard workload, was 2nd in saves and shots against, and 5th in GP.


Eric Lindros and Jaromir Jagr in comparison had a decent sized gap but didn't exactly blow the competition out of the water. Zhamnov of all players was just 5 points behind them in the Art Ross race, Sakic 8 points behind. 10th highest scorer was 17 points back.

At the very least I don't think Lindros had the type of season worthy of sweeping the awards when Hasek was having one of the best sustained peaks for a goalie.

Now I think all of these points are admittedly more in favour of Hasek winning the Pearson, especially if you don't necessarily subscribe to the idea of best player = Hart winner. But I still think he has a strong case for the Hart trophy. Let's look at his supporting cast..


Sabres were strong defensively, ranking 3rd in GA, but despite that had little help from the backup goalies who all played a combined 9 games and had an atrocious .859sv% and .867sv%.

The defensive group consisted of Doug Bodger, Richard Smehlik, Charlie Huddy, Craig Muni playing around 30-40 GP.. the rest of the dmen didn't even play half the season.

Their offense was below average too, ranked 18th best. You had Mogilny with 47 points, then Audette with 37, LaFontaine with 22..

All in all, the team finished 4th in their division with 51 points. They were a good team, but imo were more than the sum of their parts in terms of the skating cast (credit to the system) but Hasek was also so clearly the teams best player, remove him from the equation and I don't think they're good enough to make the playoffs.


Now in comparison with Lindros, his team was 1st in their division, ranking 9th in GF and 8th in GA. Thwy are very possibly still a PO team without him. He did lead his team by 13 points. Renberg and Leclair had 57 and 49 points respectively.

Admittedly, the goalie situation was not that good.. Hextall with a .890sv%, Russell with a .914sv% though played 19 games.

The defensive core maybe not better, Desjardins, Yushkevich, Gallant, Therien to name a few, but they were certainly far healthier, with 7 of the defenseman suiting up for at least 30+ games.



Who was "most valuable to his team" is definitely a closer discussion, I can see the arguments going either way, but I still think Hasek comes out on top here. An overlooked point that favours Hasek is that they are much closer in GP than they'd usually be given the shortened season. Hasek only played 4 less games than Lindros

But i am curious what everyone else thinks, do you think Lindros rightfully won the Hart trophy by a big margin? Or would you have given it to someone else?

I acknowledge Jagr and Coffey had excellent seasons with solid cases as well, but this is getting too long, and I do think Hasek and Lindros have the 2 strongest cases for the Hart trophy. Maybe that will be a seperate post..

Click to read more...

 

[Staniowski]

I was saying in another thread that I watched the Nordiques a lot that season (mostly on the French channel) and I was mesmerized by Peter Forsberg, who was a 21-year-old rookie. One of the best NHL rookies I'd ever seen. By the end of the season, he was just about the best player in the NHL.

Who deserved the Hart? I don't know, maybe Lindros....

 

[Albatros]

Hašek. The Sabres aren't a playoff team without him. Unfortunately that wasn't quite enough in the playoffs against the Flyers.

 

[tabness]

Lindros obviously was the best player in the world and deserved it but since there was no interconference play they should have awarded a East and West one, for West I'd have given it to Coffey.

 

[bobholly39]

I always liked Jagr here

Impressive he helped Pens maintain such a great record with Mario missing the full year for first time ever.

I always felt he and Lindros were 1a and 1b here.

 

[JackSlater]

Lindros over Jagr was clear for me, similar offence but at that point Lindros was better defensively and just as good in terms of possession, but I do have time for the Hasek argument. I'll still go with Lindros but no issue with a Hasek win at all. Jagr did have a Hart level season in general terms but others were even better. Coffey was at Hart level too.

 

[Stephen]

OP misses the context of Eric Lindros' 1995 Hart Trophy win completely. The Philadelphia Flyers had missed the playoffs for a few years at that point, and the ascension of Lindros, return of Ron Hextall in goal and the Recchi for Leclair and Desjardins trade and formation of the Legion of Doom line brought Philly back to life.

We're not talking about a 5 point difference in the scoring race or save percentages and how he was tied with breakout Jagr or whatever. Eric Lindros was on a franchise player, franchise changing come-up story and that's one of the most compelling narratives and star making vehicles in sport. That's why he won the Hart and deservedly so.

 

[Felidae]

OP misses the context of Eric Lindros' 1995 Hart Trophy win completely. The Philadelphia Flyers had missed the playoffs for a few years at that point, and the ascension of Lindros, return of Ron Hextall in goal and the Recchi for Leclair and Desjardins trade and formation of the Legion of Doom line brought Philly back to life.

We're not talking about a 5 point difference in the scoring race or save percentages and how he was tied with breakout Jagr or whatever. Eric Lindros was on a franchise player, franchise changing come-up story and that's one of the most compelling narratives and star making vehicles in sport. That's why he won the Hart and deservedly so.

though i acknowledge the narrative plays a significant role in Hart discussions, I'm looking at this purely from who individually impacted their team the most.

If Lindros, or really any of these players, had their seasons on non playoff teams, it wouldn't make them any less valuable to their team. To me, best player is virtually the same as MVP, and I'm not entirely convinced Lindros was the best player that season.

 

[MadLuke]

Lindros was +27 in only 46 games, his teammate scored a lot (Renberg 26g and LeClair 25g in just 37 games) and both did little without Lindros before would it be for not having played in the nhl or in a very different usage in MTL.

LeClair would prove himself later on, but a lot of that line giant success would have been on Lindros.

Jagr was +23, Zhammov-Sakic maybe were not that far behind in points but in terms of success (+5, +7), Jagr-Lindros were quite ahead.

Hasek argument is also quite strong, played 2400 of the team 2900 minutes and the GAA when he is not in net on that team was awful.

There was 3 Hart season, Lindros winning is perfectly fine imo, turning the non-playoff 5 years in a row into a powerhouse is more impressive than maintaining the Pens even if it should not be.

The first full Mario-less Pens season could make it sound a bit more impressive than it was, Mario played only 22 game the year before, they went 12W-8L-2T with him, 32W-19L-11T without him

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The (so-called) advanced stats show that Lindros had a transformational impact when he was on the ice (a conclusion that, I think, shouldn't surprise anybody). A player can be an aggressive checker and not really influence his team's performance (think of all the players - usually defensemen - who take themselves out of position to throw a big hit), but that wasn't the case with Lindros.

Based on overpass's spreadsheet, the Flyers scored 65.9% of the goals (at ES) when Lindros was on the ice, compared to just 45.4% when he was off the ice. That implies the Flyers played at a 132 point pace when Lindros was on the ice, and a 74 pace when he wasn't (looking just at ES situations).

To prove the math on that - the season was 48 games long. That's a 77 point pace when Lindros was on the ice (which would have easily been the best in the league) and 43 points without him (which would be a non-playoff team in the Eastern Conference). Lindros played 52% of his team's ES minutes. The expected value is 61 points (74*.52 + 43*.48), and the Flyers actually finished with 60 points, so this shows there's some empirical basis to the calculation.

Looking at non-ES situations, the Flyers had a slightly below average PK (Lindros barely played on the penalty kill). They had a somewhat above average powerplay (where Lindros got significant ice time, and he finished 5th among forwards in PP points - one point out of a tie for 3rd).

Jagr had a very strong season too (he also signficantly impacted his team at ES, but not to the same extent). In 1995, Lindros was the best forward in the league, and it showed that all of the hype was justified. (If you take the "most valuable to his team" part literally, Hasek has a good case too).

 

[Stephen]

though i acknowledge the narrative plays a significant role in Hart discussions, I'm looking at this purely from who individually impacted their team the most.

If Lindros, or really any of these players, had their seasons on non playoff teams, it wouldn't make them any less valuable to their team. To me, best player is virtually the same as MVP, and I'm not entirely convinced Lindros was the best player that season.

I don’t think you’re appreciating the context though. The Flyers went from a rebuilding team out of the playoffs into a big high profile powerhouse with Lindros’ star power and season. He turned Leclair from obscurity into a scoring machine, anchored the Legion of Doom line and revived the Flyers as a high profile marquee franchise. The Flyers later moved into their new arena and that was dubbed the house that Eric built.

That level of franchise change is the context for the Hart season and I think your nickel and diming marginal statistical nitpick misses the mark on how important this season felt in the moment.

 

[daver]

The (so-called) advanced stats show that Lindros had a transformational impact when he was on the ice (a conclusion that, I think, shouldn't surprise anybody). A player can be an aggressive checker and not really influence his team's performance (think of all the players - usually defensemen - who take themselves out of position to throw a big hit), but that wasn't the case with Lindros.

Based on overpass's spreadsheet, the Flyers scored 65.9% of the goals (at ES) when Lindros was on the ice, compared to just 45.4% when he was off the ice. That implies the Flyers played at a 132 point pace when Lindros was on the ice, and a 74 pace when he wasn't (looking just at ES situations).

To prove the math on that - the season was 48 games long. That's a 77 point pace when Lindros was on the ice (which would have easily been the best in the league) and 43 points without him (which would be a non-playoff team in the Eastern Conference). Lindros played 52% of his team's ES minutes. The expected value is 61 points (74*.52 + 43*.48), and the Flyers actually finished with 60 points, so this shows there's some empirical basis to the calculation.

How much of this can be attributed to the Flyers loading up the first line? No other Flyer forward was above a 0.40 PPG besides Brindamour. Jagr had more offensive support so his ES on/off numbers may not look as impressive.

I like Lindros here anyways given everything else he brought besides offense but I find the ES on/off needs context.

Perhaps Lindros was as impressive in tilting the ice as much as Jagr was but that is saying a lot given Jagr was one of the greatest possession players ever.

 

[Dessloch]

OP misses the context of Eric Lindros' 1995 Hart Trophy win completely. The Philadelphia Flyers had missed the playoffs for a few years at that point, and the ascension of Lindros, return of Ron Hextall in goal and the Recchi for Leclair and Desjardins trade and formation of the Legion of Doom line brought Philly back to life.

We're not talking about a 5 point difference in the scoring race or save percentages and how he was tied with breakout Jagr or whatever. Eric Lindros was on a franchise player, franchise changing come-up story and that's one of the most compelling narratives and star making vehicles in sport. That's why he won the Hart and deservedly so.

In that case, why did not Jagr win the hart trophy in 2005-2006? He did the same for the Rangers!

 

[Felidae]

I don’t think you’re appreciating the context though. The Flyers went from a rebuilding team out of the playoffs into a big high profile powerhouse with Lindros’ star power and season. He turned Leclair from obscurity into a scoring machine, anchored the Legion of Doom line and revived the Flyers as a high profile marquee franchise. The Flyers later moved into their new arena and that was dubbed the house that Eric built.

That level of franchise change is the context for the Hart season and I think your nickel and diming marginal statistical nitpick misses the mark on how important this season felt in the moment.

I'm not trying even trying to deny Lindros and the creation of the legion of doom line was the main driving force for Philly's resurgence, and at the time it looked like Lindros made Leclair. (And perhaps still true, but I know some that don't think that)

But I don't think "marginal statistical nitpick" is necessarily fair when I'm trying to put into perspective just how far ahead Hasek was amongst his peers in comparison to other players from different positions.

The reason I am singling out Lindros other than him being the hart winner is that he also had the next best lead over his peers and teammates, and that's not even taking into account the absolutely dominating physical component of his game. For me he's the obvious best forward of the year, and probably skater too.

But Hasek was just that good imo, it's not really a knock on Lindros. For instance, there's little difference statistically speaking between this year and Hasek's 1996-97 Hart winning season. But whether it be due to narratives or tougher competition, he won one in 1996 and not 1994.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In that case, why did not Jagr win the hart trophy in 2005-2006? He did the same for the Rangers!

He kinda did. Thornton winning it on 60 games flies in the face of most Hart votes ever. I think it's fairly acceptable to give Jagr MVP credit that year.

 

[Stephen]

In that case, why did not Jagr win the hart trophy in 2005-2006? He did the same for the Rangers!

I don’t recall that Jagr was a 21 year old Next One phenom in 2005-06.

 

[Stephen]

I'm not trying even trying to deny Lindros and the creation of the legion of doom line was the main driving force for Philly's resurgence, and at the time it looked like Lindros made Leclair. (And perhaps still true, but I know some that don't think that)

But I don't think "marginal statistical nitpick" is necessarily fair when I'm trying to put into perspective just how far ahead Hasek was amongst his peers in comparison to other players from different positions.

The reason I am singling out Lindros other than him being the hart winner is that he also had the next best lead over his peers and teammates, and that's not even taking into account the absolutely dominating physical component of his game. For me he's the obvious best forward of the year, and probably skater too.

But Hasek was just that good imo, it's not really a knock on Lindros. For instance, there's little difference statistically speaking between this year and Hasek's 1996-97 Hart winning season. But whether it be due to narratives or tougher competition, he won one in 1996 and not 1994.

Well, also remember the Hart winner in 1994 was Sergei Fedorov. Who has 120 points to Gretzky’s 130 and yet had the momentum to win that year on the strength of his defensive game.

Hasek’s GAA was also better in 1994 when it was under the historically significant 2.00 mark. So maybe the 2.11 was seen as regression.

 

[Felidae]

Well, also remember the Hart winner in 1994 was Sergei Fedorov. Who has 120 points to Gretzky’s 130 and yet had the momentum to win that year on the strength of his defensive game.

Hasek’s GAA was also better in 1994 when it was under the historically significant 2.00 mark. So maybe the 2.11 was seen as regression.

My bad I ment 1994-95

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

anecdotally coffey displayed a much better than usual defensive/all-round game for bowman that year but a statistical case for him:


team

led the best team in the league (5 pt cushion for the presidents trophy) in scoring by 8 pts, had more assists than anyone other than fedorov had pts

led the best PP in the league (tied with chicago) in scoring by 12 pts, 8 more PP assists than anyone had pts

led detroit in +/-

2nd on team in PPGA, so he did kill his share of penalties on the league’s second ranked PK


dmen

led all dmen in scoring by 15, more assists than anyone had pts

led dmen in goals

led dmen in ES scoring


all players

6th in league scoring (and if bowman hadn’t rested him in the last game of the season, he very likely would have finished top five, as he was just one pt back of francis)

led the league in PP scoring

led the league in goals on ice for by 11

led the league in PP goals on ice for by 4


his icetime must have been astronomical and the results, both individually and team success, were stellar

and it probably doesn’t need to be mentioned but these numbers are (1) as a dman and (2) in a 48 game season so the lead margins look smaller than they really are

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He kinda did. Thornton winning it on 60 games flies in the face of most Hart votes ever. I think it's fairly acceptable to give Jagr MVP credit that year.

otoh, thornton winning it by catching the season-long league leader at the very end happened three times that decade. the others were forsberg over naslund in 2003 and sedin over ovechkin in 2010.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

I agree with the OP that Hasek should have been the regular season MVP. But given how much players themselves value the playoffs, I don't think us fans should ignore them. IMO, individual trophies should be based on the full sample size, including the most important games of the season. And so long as we are discussing what ifs, I'll go ahead and check how the full 1994-95 season looks.

Data: Elite Prospects - NHL Stats 1994-1995

Ignoring context, Hasek's playoff stats vs. the Flyers were, to quote the OP, "atrocious" (5-3.49-86.3). They drop his overall stats to 46-2.27-92.4-20W. Still easily the best goalie stats in the league, still a worthy Vezina winner, still a top tier MVP candidate, but no longer *the* MVP.

Lindros (58.33+52=85.+34) not only won the head-to-head playoff contest vs. Hasek (2.1+4=5.+3 vs. 2-10 GA-82.5) but led the NHL in points/game and +/-. He also clearly beat his linemates in points and points/game.

Jagr (60.42+43=85.+26) led the NHL in overall goals and points and almost certainly in overall primary points (didn't bother to check). He also finished 2nd on his team in +/-. But his case is hurt by the fact that teammate Ron Francis (56.17+61=78.+33) finished first in overall assists and third in overall points while providing superior 2-way game. If Jagr was the MVP, how close was Francis?

From the best defensive forward (Francis) we get to the best offensive defenseman and the Western Conference MVP, Paul Coffey (63.20+56=76.+22). He finished fourth in overall points and second in overall assists despite being a defenseman. He also placed third on his team in +/- (behind Brown and Kozlov but ahead of Lidström and Fedorov). However, Fedorov (59.27+47=74.+19) did outplay him in the playoffs (not that Coffey wasn't great).

By now I think I've mentioned all the top tier MVP candidates, albeit Theoren Fleury (54.36+36=72.+14) deserves an honorable mention ahead of regular season beasts Zhamnov and Sakic. The Devils, despite winning the Stanley Cup, didn't really have anyone that stands out. Niedermayer (68.8+22=30.+30) was third in the league in +/- while Brodeur (60-2.17-91.0-35W) deserved top 3 Vezina candidacy alongside Hasek and Belfour (58-2.25-91.2-31W)... and that's about it.

Given the success of their teammates, I would not give the overall league MVP award to any Pittsburgh or Detroit player. Nor would I give it to Hasek, whose overall games played and wins were no match for Belfour or Brodeur. That leaves.... Eric Lindros. In fact, ignoring Hull (55.35+23=58.+13), the Hart voting looks pretty similar to how I would rank the overall MVPs.

Eric Lindros may not have deserved the Hart Trophy, but he was the MVP of the 1994-95 season.

 

[The Panther]

I think Lindros deserved the Hart and correctly won it. In my opinion, Hasek had a better Hart argument for 1993-94. during which he was absolutely remarkable.

Coffey for the Hart in 1995? That seems unlikely to me because (to me) he was better in 1983-84 and 1984-85 than in 1995, and he wasn't even close to the Hart back then.

 

[Felidae]

I think Lindros deserved the Hart and correctly won it. In my opinion, Hasek had a better Hart argument for 1993-94. during which he was absolutely remarkable.

Coffey for the Hart in 1995? That seems unlikely to me because (to me) he was better in 1983-84 and 1984-85 than in 1995, and he wasn't even close to the Hart back then.

In fairness to Coffey, he wasn't competing with peak Gretzky and Kurri and since they were his teammates, it may have affected his hart voting placement.

Especially his record breaking 1984-85 year and even the 1983-84 season where he was 2nd in points behind Gretzky, those would have been hart finalist/winner worthy seasons most years.


1993-94 was the first time he led a team in scoring, which likely contributed to the highest hart finish of his career alongside 1984-85

 

[Dessloch]

I don’t recall that Jagr was a 21 year old Next One phenom in 2005-06.

Jagr was 33 or 34 and past his prime, which makes it even more impressive than Lindros. I was not aware awards were handed out based on "next one" status

 

[Crosby2010]

All three of Lindros, Jagr and Hasek had great years. Coffey is a distant 4th, but he is definitely 4th in the league that year. Which is where he finished.

One thing to remember, both Lindros and Jagr finished tied with 70 points. Jagr wins the Art Ross based on scoring more goals but Lindros played two less games. So right there you have a tie. And I think Lindros' physical dominance puts him well over the top. Jagr did fill in great for Lemieux's year off and Hasek had phenomenal numbers and the Sabres are nowhere near the playoffs without him. But that physicality with Lindros was beastly. It is sometimes hard to remember because we often remember Stevens clocking him and Kaspar hitting him and such. And each time it was like it took him a notch lower. But that early to mid 1990s era of him, wow. I don't know a player who would have someone take a run at him and then be the one who ends up on their butt while he is standing there like a brick wall. Who else did this in NHL history before or prior like Lindros? No one I know. So you do have to factor that in.