Why is Hart Trophy more respected as Ted Lindsay Award?

[alko]

Hart is voted by journalist.

Ted Lindsay Award is voted by the players itself.

The logic will say, that the trophy your workmates gave you, is more worthy. But isnt.

 

[Iapyi]

The journalists beef up the Hart more.

Traditionally with the Hart being much older it was viewed as the top award and is niched in.

 

[daver]

Do the players take the time to examine the nominees as much as the writers do?

(waits for one example of a terrible pick by a writer)

 

[Eisen]

Because the players don't watch a whole lot of games, some play each other once. Most is just hearsay. And apart from a very few clickbait idiots, most sportswriters get it right. Also, it has been around longer.

 

[ccman68]

Both are kind of worthless. Both might as well be called art ross 2.0 most of the time. The idea that the players know anything more than anyone else is just not true when you look at who they actually vote for.

 

[daver]

By most objective measures, the Lindsay has had some historically bad winners (Yzerman in 1989, Orr winning only one time).

There is only one questionable Hart winner recently (Hall in 2018) which is explained by the unwritten playoff rule for Hart nominees.

 

[Kurt Cobain]

By most objective measures, the Lindsay has had some historically bad winners (Yzerman in 1989, Orr winning only one time).

There is only one questionable Hart winner recently (Hall in 2018) which is explained by the unwritten playoff rule for Hart nominees.

Bullshit hall carried an entire team on his back it was insane. The writers got that right.

 

[daver]

Bullshit hall carried an entire team on his back it was insane. The writers got that right.

McDavid "carried" his team just as much while outproducing Hall by 16%. There is no way McDavid doesn't win the Hart that year if the Oilers make the playoffs.

 

[Warden of the North]

Media gonna talk about the media.

 

[Warden of the North]

McDavid "carried" his team just as much while outproducing Hall by 16%. There is no way McDavid doesn't win the Hart that year if the Oilers make the playoffs.

But they didnt. What is the value of making the playoffs? Is that ultimately what this discussion is about?

 

[daver]

But they didnt. What is the value of making the playoffs? Is that ultimately what this discussion is about?

No, my point is in relation to the OP thus the qualification that McDavid in 17/18 had the best season and was the best player regardless of Hart voting.

 

[Aladyyn]

McDavid "carried" his team just as much while outproducing Hall by 16%. There is no way McDavid doesn't win the Hart that year if the Oilers make the playoffs.

McDavid also didn't play defense

 

[Oilers Propagandist]

McDavid also didn't play defense

It must hurt your soul that the Oilers have 2 players better than Eichel lol.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Because the players don't watch a whole lot of games, some play each other once. Most is just hearsay. And apart from a very few clickbait idiots, most sportswriters get it right. Also, it has been around longer.

Most writers only cover their team, and there is a large number of writers who have favorites or just don't understand the game all that well (which is why they are sports writers as opposed to scouts / coaches / managers).

I personally hold the Lindsay in much higher regard. These guys play each other enough and watch a ton of film on each other. Plus there's no "making the playoffs" requirement.

The list of Hart winners is diluted IMO with the likes of Perry, Hall, and Theodore. Look at the Lindsay / Pearson winners over the last 30 years, definitely a higher class of player overall.

 

[Buck Naked]

No, my point is in relation to the OP thus the qualification that McDavid in 17/18 had the best season and was the best player regardless of Hart voting.

That's not what the Hart is about though.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Players tend to say the Lindsay means more to them. We spend more time hearing from and reading the work of media so we get caught up in the media’s award but the players winning these awards usually say it means more coming from their peers.

 

[bobholly39]

Two reasons, in order of importance:

1. Hart has been around longer, and was always viewed as the top prize and most prestigious. This doesn't simply change with the introduction of a similar trophy.

Conn Smythe is the MVP of playoffs, and super important/prestigious trophy. Do you think if all of a sudden NHL introduced a second playoff trophy in 2021 but voted by the players, it would top the prestige of the Smythe? It wouldn't, since the Smythe has all the historical prestige and value. Perception is pretty significant.

2. The Ted Lindsay/Pearson trophy has had some absolutely idiotic winners over the years. Way worst than hart (even though Hart winners aren't always 100% right, they're usually close).

I'm all for a good Lemieux ~ Gretzky debate. Hell I might even argue Lemieux > Gretzky at times if the fancy strikes. But in 1986? In 1986 Gretzky had more assists than Lemieux had points. Gretzky had 215 points to Lemieux's 141 points. Who wins the Pearson? Lemieux...

Speaking of Lemieux. You win one, you lose one i guess.....because in 1989, he had 199 points. He got robbed of the hart by Gretzky - which was dumb, it should have 100% been his. But at least Gretzky had somewhat of a decent narrative for hart. New team, helped them shoot up in standings, and obviously a great year too...but the Pearson trophy should have been Lemieux's obviously. Instead of that no, neither him nor Gretzky won it, but Yzerman did. Lemieux 199 points, Gretzky 168 points, Yzerman 155 points...yet Yzerman is voted best player. Dumb.

I think examples like this caused it to lose credibility.

 

[Buck Naked]

Players tend to say the Lindsay means more to them. We spend more time hearing from and reading the work of media so we get caught up in the media’s award but the players winning these awards usually say it means more coming from their peers.

I understand it, but at the same time it makes no sense. I mean, the players just voted MAF as the third best goalie in the league. MAF's never been third in anything.

 

[Eisen]

Most writers only cover their team, and there is a large number of writers who have favorites or just don't understand the game all that well (which is why they are sports writers as opposed to scouts / coaches / managers).

I personally hold the Lindsay in much higher regard. These guys play each other enough and watch a ton of film on each other. Plus there's no "making the playoffs" requirement.

The list of Hart winners is diluted IMO with the likes of Perry, Hall, and Theodore. Look at the Lindsay / Pearson winners over the last 30 years, definitely a higher class of player overall.

They might have favourites but they still gravitate towards one or two players each year. Most might cover a team but they are still paid to know about a sport, I imagine they watch a lot more than a player. How well can you report if you have no clue about others. I also disagree that they know less about hockey than people working with a club. This idea bases on a meritocratic principle that I am sure doesn't exist. People get a job for all kinds of reasons, qualification is just one of them, especially in a semi closed community like hockey.

 

[daver]

Most writers only cover their team, and there is a large number of writers who have favorites or just don't understand the game all that well (which is why they are sports writers as opposed to scouts / coaches / managers).

I personally hold the Lindsay in much higher regard. These guys play each other enough and watch a ton of film on each other. Plus there's no "making the playoffs" requirement.

The list of Hart winners is diluted IMO with the likes of Perry, Hall, and Theodore. Look at the Lindsay / Pearson winners over the last 30 years, definitely a higher class of player overall.

This is more of the "playoff team" only dynamic rather than the voters getting it wrong. D. Sedin over Perry isn't anything significant.

The most egregious examples of bad voting has been for the Lindsay.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I understand it, but at the same time it makes no sense. I mean, the players just voted MAF as the third best goalie in the league. MAF's never been third in anything.

Completely different. Those PA “players polls” are done in dressing rooms throughout the year. Players have been vocal about not taking it serious. The Lindsay however they really do take serious. Funny enough Stellick and Mike Johnson has this exact conversation yesterday on NHL network radio. That’s why I’m saying these things I don’t know these players personally lol.

Bit difference in “who is the best player in the league” and “who was the best player in the league this season.” Those players polls factor in a long body of work and players tend to keep respect for veteran players even when they start to take a step back.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

They might have favourites but they still gravitate towards one or two players each year. Most might cover a team but they are still paid to know about a sport, I imagine they watch a lot more than a player. How well can you report if you have no clue about others. I also disagree that they know less about hockey than people working with a club. This idea bases on a meritocratic principle that I am sure doesn't exist. People get a job for all kinds of reasons, qualification is just one of them, especially in a semi closed community like hockey.

They do less watching and more conversing with other writers / hockey media to get opinions on players. It's amazing how many times you read about the same old (false) stereotypes about a player because one "expert" writer had an opinion and everyone else took it as gospel.
Don't believe me? Watch the away broadcast of your favorite team each night for a month and tell me it's not the same recycled garbage on repeat.

They care less about nuance and substance than they do about controversial takes, manufactured outrage, and click bait headlines. They don't watch hockey for hockey, they watch hockey for story lines. And once they've collectively decided on the role a specific player should play in their storylines, that player becomes type casted and the narrative is extremely hard to shake.

Obviously I'm generalizing, there are a few knowledgeable writers out there, but they are absolutely the minority.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Both have their flaws.

The Hart is subject to Nationalistic biases from media types who have an audience to appease. The Canadian media pushes boundaries hard for their guys: "Toews is better than Malkin" and "Crosby is good at defense" plus lots of other easily debunked nonsense. Some of these guys have agendas that are clearly beyond good faith arguments.

The Lindsay/Pearson has undergone changes in definition over the years and the players are flawed too. They read and are heavily influenced by the biased Canadian hockey media. Many of the players are uneducated and probably don't have a firm grasp of statistics. Many of them are young and don't have much historical context. That said, their perspective is useful and at least they aren't dominated by one country's self interests.

Seeing as how they're both flawed, I think they are best used as a check on each other.

 

[Oddbob]

Media is the reason. As a player I would actually want the Lindsay more, because that is voted on by your peers where as the Hart is a lot of the time story driven vs just voting for the MVP of the league. Two equal performing players, one with a good story, ie played through injury or some other bad thing and one with a less exciting story, the story guy will win almost every time.

 

[Oddbob]

By most objective measures, the Lindsay has had some historically bad winners (Yzerman in 1989, Orr winning only one time).

There is only one questionable Hart winner recently (Hall in 2018) which is explained by the unwritten playoff rule for Hart nominees.

Yzerman had the highest pt total ever outside of Gretzky or Lemieux that year and had a much less stellar support staff that year than either of the other two. Him winning is not an example of a bad winner.