The 1989 Hart Trophy

[Plural]

Actually the biggest snub for that award was the 2011-2012 Hart where the actual MVP wasn't even nominated. So they gave him the playoff MVP instead even though he wasn't the most valuable player in the playoffs.

I don't know. Malkin, Stamkos and Lundy all had a case over Quick. I would have probably liked to see Quick ahead of Giroux tough. Malkin was the far and away winner, deservedly so. Stamkos scored 60 goals although his team didn't get to the playoffs. But Stamkos was clearly the most valuable player on Lightning organization. Lundqvist had a great year. He won the Vezina with almost twice as many voting points as Quick had.

I wouldn't call it a snub.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

So you are saying...that the players who actually play the sport are stupid.

I'm saying that the players back then didn't seem to put much thought or effort into who they voted for. And some of their picks show it.

This notion that just because they're NHL hockey players, every one of them should somehow be more knowledgeable about the sport than every else is kind of silly. It's almost on par with people thinking that the opinions of sports writers is more insightful/knowledgeable than all fans.

 

[TheHockeyRant]

The thing is MVP stands for most valuable player and there is no singular way to approaching this award. Please note that.

You can either think of it as (best player in the NHL hands down)
OR most important player to his team relative to the NHL.

For example Crosby is still for the most part the best forward in the NHL, but his surrounding cast...well was better than a lot of teams.

Ben Bishops surrounding cast, not as good, Claude Giroux's not as good. Corey Perry's was as good, maybe better. And then you run into the problem of comparing goalies/ defense/ forwards. Some people think goalies should ONLY win the Vezina.

Again there is no singular way to approach an "MVP" league wide award. In the end the MVP award is stupid because you are comparing teams value to each other without an actual benchmark. It's the same as saying "I think that waterfall is more elegant because of the way the water hits the rocks."

 

[Rorschach]

I don't know. Malkin, Stamkos and Lundy all had a case over Quick. I would have probably liked to see Quick ahead of Giroux tough. Malkin was the far and away winner, deservedly so. Stamkos scored 60 goals although his team didn't get to the playoffs. But Stamkos was clearly the most valuable player on Lightning organization. Lundqvist had a great year. He won the Vezina with almost twice as many voting points as Quick had.

I wouldn't call it a snub.

It's definitely a snub when the MVP is not nominated even. It doesn't matter what the other players did if they weren't the MVP. If Quick was the third most valuable, then not getting in the top three wouldn't be a snub. But when you're the clear cut number 1? Then it is a big time, East Coast bias snub. None of the players you listed has a case over Quick although a couple have good cases generally speaking.

The Kings barely made the playoffs and he stole so many low-scoring games in the regular season. If he doesn't do that then there's no Carter trade, no 8th seed, no most-dominant run ever in the Cap Era. It could be argued that he was as big a regular season MVP as any Hart trophy winner the last 40 years.

Let me put it another way. There was/is serious talk in the organization about a Quick statue based on his play that year.

 

[JFG]

It's definitely a snub when the MVP is not nominated even. It doesn't matter what the other players did if they weren't the MVP. If Quick was the third most valuable, then not getting in the top three wouldn't be a snub. But when you're the clear cut number 1? Then it is a big time, East Coast bias snub. None of the players you listed has a case over Quick although a couple have good cases generally speaking.

The Kings barely made the playoffs and he stole so many low-scoring games in the regular season. If he doesn't do that then there's no Carter trade, no 8th seed, no most-dominant run ever in the Cap Era. It could be argued that he was as big a regular season MVP as any Hart trophy winner the last 40 years.

Let me put it another way. There was/is serious talk in the organization about a Quick statue based on his play that year.

He didn't deserve a nomination imo. Just barely outside the top 3.

 

[Plural]

It's definitely a snub when the MVP is not nominated even. It doesn't matter what the other players did if they weren't the MVP. If Quick was the third most valuable, then not getting in the top three wouldn't be a snub. But when you're the clear cut number 1? Then it is a big time, East Coast bias snub. None of the players you listed has a case over Quick although a couple have good cases generally speaking.

The Kings barely made the playoffs and he stole so many low-scoring games in the regular season. If he doesn't do that then there's no Carter trade, no 8th seed, no most-dominant run ever in the Cap Era. It could be argued that he was as big a regular season MVP as any Hart trophy winner the last 40 years.

Let me put it another way. There was/is serious talk in the organization about a Quick statue based on his play that year.

I get that you are a fan. But that is just going over-board. Way over the top.

You do understand how the "nomination" works? It's not some kind of choice of putting up three guys up in some kind of pedestal. Those are just simply the three guys who received the most points in the voting process.

Malkin 1st (Un-deniable. He was definitely the deserving winner)
Stamkos 2nd (Come to think of it, I actually would probably drop him bit lower on my voting list. Maybe third after Lundy)
Lundqvist 3rd (Can't argue here. Lundy was the best goalie that regular season and he deserved the Vezina. I would probably vote him as high as 2nd)
Giroux 4th (he was 3rd in scoring and clearly the offensive catalyst in the Philly team. But I would probably but him lower. Maybe as 5th after Quick)
Quick 5th (admittedly, this seems bit low. Quick was the main reason the Kings were playing in the playoffs in the first place. I could see him being 4th at lowest and 3rd at highest. He would not edge out Malkin or Lundy in my list tough.)

 

[K Fleur]

I actually posted a thread about the 1989 hart trophy a month or 2 ago. Lots of great insight from knowledgable posters.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1709485&highlight=

 

[blogofmike]

Gretzky helped the Kings win. 4th worst to 4th best even after losing a 55-goal scorer. He made every part of that organization look better (except Ftorek....)

If it makes you feel better, Gretzky won a scoring race by more points and lost the Hart too, and Gretzky's lead wasn't inflated by an excessive number of PP opportunities like Mario's was in 1989.

 

[The Panther]

Here's a new one to spice it up -- if Mario should've won the Hart in '89 (I generally agree with that, though I can see a case for Wayne and Stevie), why didn't Wayne win the Hart in '88?

In 1987-88, Gretzky played 64 games and had 149 points. He got injured in game 38, at which point he had 30 goals and was easily leading the scoring race. Edmonton was (as I recall) tied for 1st overall. With Gretzky injured, the Oil played only .500 hockey. He came back and scored points at a huge rate and they finished fairly strongly, 3rd overall.

Mario had a lower PPG and his team missed the playoffs.

If you're going to argue that based on PPG Mario should've won in '89, you may as well argue that Wayne should've won in '88. (He was double-snubbed -- by votes to both Mario and Fuhr, which is absurd.)

 

[Epsilon]

I actually posted a thread about the 1989 hart trophy a month or 2 ago. Lots of great insight from knowledgable posters.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1709485&highlight=

Yeah I was about to say, didn't we just do this thread?

 

[Plural]

Yeah I was about to say, didn't we just do this thread?

The OP made this thread in the general section and it got moved here. Is all discussion that goes back few years meant to concentrate to the HOH section? I mean, there is a lot of posters who don't visit this area at all.

 

[Theokritos]

I actually posted a thread about the 1989 hart trophy a month or 2 ago. Lots of great insight from knowledgable posters.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1709485&highlight=

Yeah I was about to say, didn't we just do this thread?

Thanks! Threads merged.

 

[JackSlater]

Yes Lemieux was the better player (and should have won the trophy in my opinion) but no it's not even close to the biggest snub in award history, hockey history or Hart trophy history. This situation has been seen in other years and in other sports (star gets traded, new team improves!) and they seem to get a disproportionate amount of credit in those years.

 

[tjcurrie]

I think it was the cool vote at the time. Wayne in L.A.? Kings on the map? Sure!

But that point about putting the Kings back on the map, he did do that. So that does count for something. Mario was the best player but all of that Lotus Land glitter couldn't be ignored by the voters.

 

[Wrath]

Mario getting snubbed for the Pearson is the bigger issue then, since that award is strictly for the best player in the league.

Hart Trophy is for the most valuable player in the league, which usually defaults to the best player and/or art ross winner, but sometimes the voters decide to change it up a bit.

I do know that the Pearson/Lindsay is voted by the NHLPA about 3/4 way through the season, so maybe Yzerman was recently on a hot streak or something and Lemieux was slumping. But regardless I think there's no argument for anybody being the best player in the league except for Lemieux that year.

 

[412 Others]

Mario getting snubbed for the Pearson is the bigger issue then, since that award is strictly for the best player in the league.

Hart Trophy is for the most valuable player in the league, which usually defaults to the best player and/or art ross winner, but sometimes the voters decide to change it up a bit.

I do know that the Pearson/Lindsay is voted by the NHLPA about 3/4 way through the season, so maybe Yzerman was recently on a hot streak or something and Lemieux was slumping. But regardless I think there's no argument for anybody being the best player in the league except for Lemieux that year.

true, and that's why the hart should never be used as ammo in a "better player" debate. I never understood why people put so much stock into an award where the criteria is a moving target.

 

[Plural]

true, and that's why the hart should never be used as ammo in a "better player" debate. I never understood why people put so much stock into an award where the criteria is a moving target.

Never? I've seen you praising the Pearson/Lindsay ward in many occasions. How is it any better?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Never? I've seen you praising the Pearson/Lindsay ward in many occasions. How is it any better?

Well the main reason would be that it is voted on by the players themselves.

 

[Plural]

Well the main reason would be that it is voted on by the players themselves.

But it has gone "wrong" more often than the Hart trophy.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

Mario was more talented.

Gretzky was a better hockey player.

Gretzky HIMSELF admitted Mario was more talented in an interview and in his autobiography. So did Orr!

In Gretzky's book he agreed with Orr that Mario is so talented he could win scoring titles with a BROKEN stick! Orr said something Iike (paraphrasing) "as far as PURE talent goes Lemieux is the best there has ever been."

Gretzky agreed!

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don't know. Malkin, Stamkos and Lundy all had a case over Quick. I would have probably liked to see Quick ahead of Giroux tough. Malkin was the far and away winner, deservedly so. Stamkos scored 60 goals although his team didn't get to the playoffs. But Stamkos was clearly the most valuable player on Lightning organization. Lundqvist had a great year. He won the Vezina with almost twice as many voting points as Quick had.

I wouldn't call it a snub.

I wouldn't call it a snub either, and Jonathan Quick was my pick for the Hart that year. I feel like Games 81 and 82 sank his chances for the Hart and Vezina. Could have locked-up the #3 Seed (instead they fell to #8), and his save percentage fell from .931 (ahead of Lundqvist) to .929 (just behind Lundqvist). Totally understandable why his name wasn't the most popular choice coming out of that weekend when the ballots were filled out.

 

[412 Others]

Never? I've seen you praising the Pearson/Lindsay ward in many occasions. How is it any better?

i'm not sure where you're getting that. in fact, i don't think you could find one instance in which I praise the Lindsey. I've never been a fan of any subjective awards. the hart voters are more qualified, but the criteria changes. as for the lindsey - the illusion of players being more qualified is bs as they don't watch and analyze all games. and agendas always come into play with both.

 

[Plural]

i'm not sure where you're getting that. in fact, i don't think you could find one instance in which I praise the Lindsey. I've never been a fan of any subjective awards. the hart voters are more qualified, but the criteria changes. as for the lindsey - the illusion of players being more qualified is bs as they don't watch and analyze all games. and agendas always come into play with both.

I must have mistaken you to someone else. I remembered that I once had an argument with you about Hart trophy and you suggested the Lindsay was better award. And for me it seemed like you were just ad about Crosby NOT winning the Hart in the lockout-shortened season. But I must have mixed you up with someone. Sorry about that.

I agree also on the idea that Hart trophy counting is not the best way to determine careers. But when looking at the whole picture Hart voting record is one of the measurements that are important. Especially on the older guys in O6 era. For example, Beliveau played on a very strong team. By looking at pure numbers it's not always clear cut who was the best player of that team. But looking at the Hart voting, it seems that voters at that time thought Beliveau was the main catalyst on that team.

Making a simplistic statement Ovechkin > Jagr due to Harts is not really smart. But Hart trophy voting is probably the best indicator of great career. (Not counting Art Ross trophy since it's almost exclusively forward award.)

 

[BraveCanadian]

But it has gone "wrong" more often than the Hart trophy.

According to what infallible authority?

 

[Plural]

According to what infallible authority?

Well, it has more questionable winners. Orr won it only once. Mike Liut won it over Gretzky. Steve Yzerman won it over Lemieux.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Lindsay_Award#Winners

From the timeframe these two awards have been side by side, I think Hart has found it's way to the proper winner more often. I am fairly certain that I am not alone on this one.