1994-95 Hart Trophy Revisit

[Sentinel]

Mario's Pearson award in 1986 too. I just can't grasp how a guy wins this award when he had 22 points less than the actual leader had assists that season. Were the players just sick of Gretzky at that time and had their own voter fatigue?

Carlyle in 1981 I agree, and Liut too. I was more of a fan of MacKinnon in 2018 over Hall. But I have to ask, Thornton in 2006? Why him? He ticked off a lot of boxes. Led the NHL in points, led the NHL in assists and only 4 players in NHL history had more than him in a season that year. Was the reason Cheechoo won the Rocket. He is a solid pick for the Hart. Jagr is close granted, but I think there is a better case for Thornton.



That's a tough list to crack though. Who do you take off? Maybe take off Chelios and put Fetisov in at #10. I wouldn't take Coffey off of the top 10. With Fetisov we have the 1980s to judge him on and it is just taking an educated guess how he competes with Bourque and Coffey for the Norrises. He would do just fine in an 80 game season I think. But what bothers me a bit is that we do have Fetisov from 1989-'98 in the NHL. Now I know there was a shift in cultures from the Soviet Union to North America, the language is different and he's 31 and had played a lot of exhausting hockey under Tikhonov by then. So we aren't seeing him at his best. But even so, he isn't even close to either one of Bourque or Coffey from 1989-'98. I think he's pretty close to them in the 1980s, just by guessing and seeing how he played and seeing his stats in Canada Cups and World Championships/Olympics and such. We also saw how he played on the ice, and he was certainly Doug Harvey-ish if I would describe it any way. Bourque-like too.

But I don't think you can rank him higher since he is miles behind them in the 1990s. Every season from Coffey from 1989-'96 was an elite year. Perhaps 1992 is his "worst" year. But he's still among the elite defenseman until 1996. Fetisov wasn't an elite defender in the 1990s. Bourque was still winning Norrises up until 1994 and still had good years after that, pretty much right up until 2001. I can't put Fetisov ahead of Coffey when you saw them head to head in the 1990s and even on the same team and saw that Coffey was better. We can factor in that Fetisov was tired and such but it wasn't as if Coffey and Bourque didn't play a lot of hockey either. 80 game seasons, Canada Cups, long playoff runs, etc.

I would definitely rank Fetisov over Potvin, Chelios, and Robinson. He also won two Soviet MVP awards (over Makarov and Krutov). His peak was higher than Potvin's, Coffey's, and Robinson's and on par with Bourque's. We saw him against Potvin in the 80s and outplayed him. He was the undisputed best defenseman of the early 80s and routinely compared with Orr.

As for the second half of his career, yes, for the reasons you mentioned, he was just too exhausted from Tihonov's sweatshop. He was still good enough to be a part of the Russian Five that terrorized the League and then came back after The Accident to win one last cup for his fallen friend. The stuff of legends.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Fetisov over Coffey is very easy for me. I have Potvin, Fetisov, and Kelly all bunched in the 6-7-8 spots. Then Robinson Chelios bunched at 9-10.

I also have Clancy and Cleghorn ahead of Coffey.

 

[MadLuke]

I think there is some depends on the team type of affair once you go below Orr in Ds ranking that can make it hard.

On some teams, Coffey could be ahead a lot of Ds, say you build a team Canada you could want his special skill set and giant game breaking ability over more stable player. Coffey for what the Oilers were trying to do could have been ahead of a lot of players that Bowman preferred for what he wanted to do.

A bit like if I am 2 season ago Sharks, give me Karlsson over pretty much anyone, at least we will have some fun and who care what ultimately happen, if I am a cup contender it changes things (the list of Ds the Islanders would consider over Potvin could be a single one seriously and no one judge them if they keep him).

If you want to anchor an franchise (and value making the playoff every year), Bourque-Lidstrom can get ahead of a lot of people because of what they mean in that regard, some would feel they challenge Orr even.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That kind of answers the questions too, in some respects. Your prompts are: "wanna have fun?" Or "do you wanna win?" Haha

I know that's an oversimplification of it all, but there's probably some truth in there too. The key is: can the gamebreaker fit inside a winning combination? Orr could. Could, say, Housley? Or is Housley a bad team scorer only? Hypothetically, of course...

 

[Crosby2010]

I would definitely rank Fetisov over Potvin, Chelios, and Robinson. He also won two Soviet MVP awards (over Makarov and Krutov). His peak was higher than Potvin's, Coffey's, and Robinson's and on par with Bourque's. We saw him against Potvin in the 80s and outplayed him. He was the undisputed best defenseman of the early 80s and routinely compared with Orr.

As for the second half of his career, yes, for the reasons you mentioned, he was just too exhausted from Tihonov's sweatshop. He was still good enough to be a part of the Russian Five that terrorized the League and then came back after The Accident to win one last cup for his fallen friend. The stuff of legends.

That's just too big of a gap for me to put him ahead of those guys though. He was roughly their same age and while in the same league was not an elite defenseman while they still were in the 1990s. I don't disagree he is similar to them - at least from what we could see - in the 1980s. But even that it is like the Tretiak factor and we can just estimate because we don't have the evidence right in front of it. He lacked longevity compared to the rest of the guys on this list, and fair or not I can't put him higher just because Tikhonov was a tyrant. Bourque and Coffey played tons of seasons too. So we'll disagree, although others seem to like Fetisov ahead of Coffey. I don't think I can put him more than #10 if I would take Chelios out of there.

 

[Sentinel]

That's just too big of a gap for me to put him ahead of those guys though. He was roughly their same age and while in the same league was not an elite defenseman while they still were in the 1990s. I don't disagree he is similar to them - at least from what we could see - in the 1980s. But even that it is like the Tretiak factor and we can just estimate because we don't have the evidence right in front of it. He lacked longevity compared to the rest of the guys on this list, and fair or not I can't put him higher just because Tikhonov was a tyrant. Bourque and Coffey played tons of seasons too. So we'll disagree, although others seem to like Fetisov ahead of Coffey. I don't think I can put him more than #10 if I would take Chelios out of there.

You do you.
Fetisov has the highest peak of any defenseman since Orr, who is also not known for his longevity. The only one who comes close is Bourque.

 

[MadLuke]

not sure how fair it is to take those soviet longevity against them, seem to have been of a grueling regime + going to the west experience.

Not many were that great in that regard, Larionov with his style aged incredibly well but seem a bit of an exception.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Pearson award
…
But I have to ask, Thornton in 2006? Why him? He ticked off a lot of boxes. Led the NHL in points, led the NHL in assists and only 4 players in NHL history had more than him in a season that year. Was the reason Cheechoo won the Rocket. He is a solid pick for the Hart. Jagr is close granted, but I think there is a better case for Thornton.

i alluded to this upthread, but in 2003, 2006, and 2010, there had been an incumbent who basically had been leading the league in scoring all year.

i think of some of the other great october to april seasons we’ve seen, where it fekt like one guy led the league end to end. the hart trophy was never in doubt for 2012 malkin, 2016 kane, 2019 kuch.

so i have to think that when the pearson/lindsay votes were being cast, which we know is before the end of the regular season, 2003 naslund, 2006 jagr, and 2010 ovechkin would have seemed like no brainers.

both forsberg and thornton took the art toss lead on the literal last day of the season, and henrik sedin was a weird case where he did slightly pass ovechkin with two weeks to go but it was assumed that ovechkin, who had played ten fewer games, would catch up, which he did in the end until henrik had his monster game on the second last day of the season to regain the lead.

 

[The Panther]

I don't think there is any point in trying to compare 70s-80s' era Soviet players to their NHL contemporaries. The games they played against each other are few and far between, and tended to be (esp. NHL) quickly assembled all star teams, while from the Soviet perspective they were likely not even motivated in some tournaments. In many of the European tourneys that the Soviets dominated, the competition was pretty weak.

It's two very different situations. Take Fetisov compared to Potvin. It's hard to say who was better. But I would say Fetisov was better for European hockey and Potvin was better for the NHL of his era.

 

[Michael Farkas]

...but you can still watch the games and figure it out in a directionally accurate way.

 

[Crosby2010]

i alluded to this upthread, but in 2003, 2006, and 2010, there had been an incumbent who basically had been leading the league in scoring all year.

i think of some of the other great october to april seasons we’ve seen, where it fekt like one guy led the league end to end. the hart trophy was never in doubt for 2012 malkin, 2016 kane, 2019 kuch.

so i have to think that when the pearson/lindsay votes were being cast, which we know is before the end of the regular season, 2003 naslund, 2006 jagr, and 2010 ovechkin would have seemed like no brainers.

both forsberg and thornton took the art toss lead on the literal last day of the season, and henrik sedin was a weird case where he did slightly pass ovechkin with two weeks to go but it was assumed that ovechkin, who had played ten fewer games, would catch up, which he did in the end until henrik had his monster game on the second last day of the season to regain the lead.

With Thornton and Jagr things were relatively close all season with Jagr having the edge and looking like he would at least win the Art Ross. Then Thornton went on a tear in April and played his best hockey all season. 19 points in 10 games, vs. Jagr's 9 points in 8 games. That put him over the top for the Art Ross. But even if Jagr wins the Art Ross by a couple of points I am still thinking Thornton's season could have still gotten him the Hart. When you look at San Jose, they were a team below .500 when he showed up in late November. Cheechoo had 7 goals. He ends the year with 56. To have a player like Cheechoo win the Richard was something else. It wasn't as if there weren't other great snipers in the NHL that year. This is all on Thornton's lap, and I think that would have helped him regardless if he wins the Art Ross.

You do you.
Fetisov has the highest peak of any defenseman since Orr, who is also not known for his longevity. The only one who comes close is Bourque.

It is hard to see how Fetisov could have peaked higher than someone like Potvin, who I always thought peaked the highest of any d-man since Orr. It is very difficult to know this for sure as well since he wasn't in the NHL. It is like Tretiak, we know Tretiak is somewhere among the best goalies of all time, but it is too hard to say where since he didn't have the luxury of having what Dryden had and played in the NHL year after year against the best and competing for the Cup and the Vezina and such.

 

[Staniowski]

Fetisov was great. Wonderful skater, smart, talented, very strong offensivelyand defensivly, physically strong. At his best, he was better than Bourque and Potvin ever were.

 

[Staniowski]

Mario's Pearson award in 1986 too. I just can't grasp how a guy wins this award when he had 22 points less than the actual leader had assists that season. Were the players just sick of Gretzky at that time and had their own voter fatigue?

A couple points on the Lemieux Pearson in '86:

1) I think it's hard for people to understand it now, but Lemieux took a big jump forward that season, and he was really the talk of the hockey world (even though Gretzky continued to break records). A lot of Gretzky vs Lemieux comparisons that season. Nobody who watched hockey in '86 was surprised by anything Lemieux did later in his career.

2) Gretzky and Lemieux were closer (probably a lot closer) in 1986 than their numbers appear.

 

[The Panther]

At his best, [Fetisov] was better than Bourque and Potvin ever were.

I don't see it. Potvin was the lynchpin of a dynasty and was the co-best player at the 1976 Canada Cup. For five years in a row, his Norris finishes were 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, and then after that he won four Cups in a row, while basically scoring 20+ points per playoff and going +57. There are maybe one or two (or three?) NHL Dmen who've ever had a higher peak than that. I cannot logically conclude that Fetisov could have been that good vs. the best competition in the world for that many years.

2) Gretzky and Lemieux were closer (probably a lot closer) in 1986 than their numbers appear.

Not really. Gretzky had more goals than Lemieux, almost twice as many assists, and was +71 to Lemieux's -8.

The reason Mario won the Pearson that year (and Yzerman in 1989) is not because anyone thought they were better than the top scorer, but because the Pearson back then was a small-time award only issued or announced by the NHLPA. The players would get on a roll to support someone and go with him.

 

[buffalowing88]

With Thornton and Jagr things were relatively close all season with Jagr having the edge and looking like he would at least win the Art Ross. Then Thornton went on a tear in April and played his best hockey all season. 19 points in 10 games, vs. Jagr's 9 points in 8 games. That put him over the top for the Art Ross. But even if Jagr wins the Art Ross by a couple of points I am still thinking Thornton's season could have still gotten him the Hart. When you look at San Jose, they were a team below .500 when he showed up in late November. Cheechoo had 7 goals. He ends the year with 56. To have a player like Cheechoo win the Richard was something else. It wasn't as if there weren't other great snipers in the NHL that year. This is all on Thornton's lap, and I think that would have helped him regardless if he wins the Art Ross.

I remember quite a few hockey publications and popular blogs (Eklund, ahem) at the time pushing the narrative that Thornton should win to offset East-Coast bias in Hart Trophy voting. It didn't make a ton of sense to me since Colorado had a couple winners in the years prior, but it was definitely a factor in Thornton's narrative.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not really. Gretzky had more goals than Lemieux, almost twice as many assists, and was +71 to Lemieux's -8.

To be fair, you can't really answer "they're closer than their numbers make it seem"...with...the numbers...

It's like saying, "I think movie critics really overrate 'Inception'" and you disagree and come back at me with a bunch of critics who loved it haha

 

[The Panther]

To be fair, you can't really answer "they're closer than their numbers make it seem"...with...the numbers...

It's like saying, "I think movie critics really overrate 'Inception'" and you disagree and come back at me with a bunch of critics who loved it haha

Sure, but to be equally fair, if you're arguing that they were closer than the extremely disparate numbers suggest, the onus is on you to explain the closeness.
_____________________

There did seem to be a narrative with Joe Thornton in 2005-06. To be honest, I think a lot of hockey writers were somewhat shocked at how well Jagr and the Rangers were doing, and some still resented Jagr for his hairstyle / lifestyle / Washington-last-two-seasons and desperately wanted another player to anoint.

Thornton obviously had a "Hart-worthy season" (to borrow a great phrase from the mains) overall, but I'll never understand how you can play 58 games for a team, score 92 points for them, and be more valuable than a guy who played 82 games and scored 123 points for his team (most in franchise history).