1999 Hart Trophy

[Ace36758]

Looking back at the 1999 Hart Trophy vote, Jaromir Jagr got an overwhelming majority of the first place votes (51/56), and more than double the votes of the second place finisher, Alexei Yashin. It wasn't close. 1998-1999 was arguably Hasek's best season. Here's his stat-line:

Season	Team	Lge	GP			Min	GA		SO	GAA	W	L	T	Svs	Pct

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1998-99

Buffalo

NHL

64

3817

119

9

1.87

30

18

14

1759

0.937

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Simply incredible. Hasek dragged a mediocre at best Sabres squad to the playoffs (and game 6 of the finals, no less, though obviously that didn't count in the Hart Trophy vote).

Granted, Jagr had a huge season himself, hitting 127 points and winning the Art Ross by 20 points over Selanne. However, Yashin actually finished second in the voting, with Hasek coming in third. In fact, Hasek wasn't even THAT far ahead of Cujo for fourth place (172 to 118 in the voting).

Curious to hear some perspectives on this. Was the Hart vote that year a result of some voter fatigue, not wanting to award Hasek the trophy 3 years in a row? Should Hasek have taken home the Hart? Where would you rank Hasek's season historically for goalies? Note that Jagr also took home the Pearson that year. And it's not exactly like Hasek walked home with nothing, as he did win the Vezina again.

Click to read more...

 

[MadLuke]

It is a bit strange when Hasek was not in net the Sabres had a .910 save percentage that year, just above the league average .908, pushing is team to a .930% over replacement is a hard to beat kind of impact.

Is elite play saved the team what around 56 goals, that would be really hard for an offensive player to create that many goal over a first line replacement (hockey reference give an estimate 46 goals created to Jarg that year, leading the league over Selanne 42.5) and to Hasek 54 goal saved above average.

Look like it should have been Hasek at least he has a really good argument, could be voter difficulty to translate forward performance in wins created.

 

[The Panther]

Could have gone either way, but imagine the inhumanity if poor Jagr had never won a single Hart trophy? That'd just be wrong.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Dominik Hasek missed over a month of the 1998-99 season with an injury. Because goaltending is largely measured in averaging statistics, you wouldn't necessarily know it 20 years later.

 

[Troubadour]

Could have gone either way, but imagine the inhumanity if poor Jagr had never won a single Hart trophy? That'd just be wrong.

Had they "robbed" him in 1999, they most likely would have given him the one in 2000.

Dominik Hasek missed over a month of the 1998-99 season with an injury. Because goaltending is largely measured in averaging statistics, you wouldn't necessarily know it 20 years later.

This particular fella does. Has the GP correct and built his argument upon the striking difference between the SV% with and without Hasek, which obviously wouldn't be that much of a deal had Hasek sat out five games.

 

[JackSlater]

Pretty much every argument for Hasek (dominating the competition at his position, taking a relatively weak team to the playoffs) also works for Jagr. Also given that Hasek already had two Harts, historically it looks much better that Jagr took the 1999 Hart. Hasek had a Hart calibre season but I do think that Jagr was a deserving winner.

 

[Thenameless]

Could have gone either way, but imagine the inhumanity if poor Jagr had never won a single Hart trophy? That'd just be wrong.

That's what I was thinking as well. If you don't give it to Jagr soon, then when? What if he sustains a career-ending injury? Then what? Can't write an IOU for a Hart Trophy. A time when the NHL was ruled by two Czech players - pretty cool.

 

[Big Phil]

Jagr is a lot like Rocket Richard that way. Strangely enough, these two legendary right wingers won a Hart only once each. Yet finished 2nd a bunch of times and were in the mix all of the time.

But yeah, Jagr deserved it, I am fine with that.

 

[Ace36758]

I'm seeing a lot of posts saying "Jagr deserved it".

Yes, he had a great year, one of the best of his career. But aside from missing a few games, wasn't this Hasek's greatest season? Didn't he deserve it even more this year over the 2 prior years? And how in the world did Yashin beat him out for the runner up spot? I guess my issue is why Jagr won it so convincingly, aside from voters taking the mindset of "I guess we should give it to Jagr this year, Hasek's won it twice in a row anyway". To me, this vote should've been neck and neck between Hasek and Jagr.

 

[K Fleur]

Jagr was 1st in points, 1st in assists, 2nd in goals, outscored his closest competitor by 20, and his nearest teammate by 44. All in a 5.27gpg scoring environment.

Adjusting for era that has to be one of the strongest offensive seasons of all time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But aside from missing a few games, wasn't this Hasek's greatest season?

Statistically, sure (at least up there with 1993-94). Didn't have the poor start he did in 1997-98. But if a skater missed a whole month - especially at the end of the season - that would probably be considered a big deal. That he only had 8 of 27 first-place Vezina votes and 35 of 56 first-place All-Star votes suggests that it wasn't just a matter of rewarding Jagr specifically.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Certainly lucky for Jagr that the voting took place before the playoffs that year!

 

[GuineaPig]

The voting for the Hart always favours forwards. That's not a surprise. Voters also tend to like to reward new players. The two previous years Hasek was great, but also no forward really stood out from the rest of the pack. With Jagr in 1998-99 he was both clearly the best forward as well as a first time winner.

I don't think the voting really reflects on Hasek at all. It would've been difficult to imagine any goalie winning the Hart over Jagr that season, regardless of how well they played

 

[NYR94]

Certainly lucky for Jagr that the voting took place before the playoffs that year!

Wasn't Jagr very good in the playoffs that year as well though, despite I believe battling an injury that cost him at least a game?

 

[MadLuke]

Jagr was 1st in points, 1st in assists, 2nd in goals, outscored his closest competitor by 20, and his nearest teammate by 44. All in a 5.27gpg scoring environment.

Adjusting for era that has to be one of the strongest offensive seasons of all time.

All true but Hasek saved more goal than Jagr created goal too, no ?

Same for less game played argument, Hasek still did more in those games played than Jagr did and he was 7th in game played that year for goaltender, not like he didn't play a lot of game. Winning game beginning of a season or toward the end of a season is obviously all meaningless as a difference and even if we are obviously influenced by that, we should not.

 

[Plural]

I'm more interested in how the hell Yashin was voted second over Hasek and Selanne? Maybe Kariya ate some votes from Selanne, but still. The difference in their offensive production was massive.

 

[Troubadour]

I'm more interested in how the hell Yashin was voted second over Hasek and Selanne? Maybe Kariya ate some votes from Selanne, but still. The difference in their offensive production was massive.

He outscored the second most productive Senator by almost 40 points and was seen as the key factor for Ottawa winning the Northeast Division (considered impossible just a couple of years ago).

He may have begun his charity activities around that time as well.

 

[Plural]

He outscored the second most productive Senator by almost 40 points and was seen as the key factor of Ottawa winning the Northeast Division (considered impossible just a couple of years ago).

He may have begun his charity activities around that time as well.

Yeah, I saw that. He was still ways behind statistically. I kind of can understand the definition of MVP playing a part here, but still seems odd to me. Maybe there was a narrative around the league that season about Yashin. Just goes to show that these votes are not consistent and definitions change every year.

 

[Troubadour]

Yeah, I saw that. He was still ways behind statistically. I kind of can understand the definition of MVP playing a part here, but still seems odd to me. Maybe there was a narrative around the league that season about Yashin. Just goes to show that these votes are not consistent and definitions change every year.

I think (an obvious ass pull on my part) that journalists maybe wanted to comfort him a little after he was not written about too nicely for a couple of years. He had the reputation of a greedy troublemaker. But it's all too blurry by now.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm more interested in how the hell Yashin was voted second over Hasek and Selanne? Maybe Kariya ate some votes from Selanne, but still. The difference in their offensive production was massive.

It was definitely based on the value side of things; he finished as the 2nd Team center behind a player who finished 7th in Hart voting.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm seeing a lot of posts saying "Jagr deserved it".

Yes, he had a great year, one of the best of his career. But aside from missing a few games, wasn't this Hasek's greatest season? Didn't he deserve it even more this year over the 2 prior years? And how in the world did Yashin beat him out for the runner up spot? I guess my issue is why Jagr won it so convincingly, aside from voters taking the mindset of "I guess we should give it to Jagr this year, Hasek's won it twice in a row anyway". To me, this vote should've been neck and neck between Hasek and Jagr.

I don't know how Yashin beat him to be honest. I get the whole thing about Yashin leading an elite team right near the top of the league standings and Ottawa really skyrocketed in 1999 and exceeded expectations. So there's that. But the only one who should have had more votes than Hasek was Jagr that year.

I think people are forgetting that 1999 was the year Jagr took an even bigger step to separating himself. In the beginning of 1997-'98 who do you figure replaces Mario as the best player in the game? I think many pick Lindros, and The Hockey News pegged Kariya as #1. Either way, few had Jagr. That all changed though that year. Kariya held out, then got hurt. Lindros had somewhat of an injury riddled year and then Jagr led the NHL in points by a decent margin. Despite all of that, the idea was that going into the 1998-'99 season one of the others would still be crowned king. Yet Jagr just put even more separation between them. Especially since people thought he would suffer without Francis. Heck, he thrived if anything.

I don't remember a fuss of Hasek not winning it. In fact, my personal opinion is the best we ever saw Hasek was 1998.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

players on newly elite teams always get a voting boost. hence yashin, as well as ron tugnutt, who finished 3rd in AST voting, and magnus arvedson, who finished second for the selke.

whereas kariya and selanne had been there for a few years and their team still hadn’t gotten any better.

 

[Epsilon]

The Toronto media made a huge push that season to argue that Joseph was more valuable/having a better season than Hasek, based around him "allowing Toronto to play a wide-open offensive style".

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The Toronto media made a huge push that season to argue that Joseph was more valuable/having a better season than Hasek, based around him "allowing Toronto to play a wide-open offensive style".

pat quinn or no pat quinn, it says a lot about GMs that year that he wasn't statistically close to the 10th guy in GAA or SV% that year but still finished second in vezina voting. tell-tale sign that something is fishy with a goalie's vezina love is when there is a discrepancy between vezina and AST, which for whatever reason (i honestly don't know) was all over cujo's voting record his entire career. joseph was 4th, way behind byron dafoe and a little behind tugnutt.

otoh, the same media voters saw fit to have cujo 4th in hart voting. i think more than the toronto media push it was another case of a guy on a newly-much-improved team getting a little extra push for awards, with admittedly some extra juice from the toronto factor of course.

i was going to say, on the improved team note, the best tell-tale sign that a team is getting bandwagon awards recognition is when you see a guy get selke consideration that isn't consistent with the entire rest of his career, like in '99, arvedson finishes 2nd and never gets another first place vote in his career and you also see his teammates yashin and tugnutt get awards love, as well as his coach jacques martin winning the adams.

in '90, meagher wins the selke, the only time he's finished with even 10% of the norris vote share. same year brett hull wins the lady byng and is third in hart voting.

'91, dirk graham wins the selke, has zero first place votes in the entire rest of his career. same year belfour wins the vezina and calder, belfour and steve larmer are 3rd and 5th in hart voting, respectively.

handzus in 2000, no first place votes any other year, pronger won the hart and norris, turek finished 2nd in vezina and AST, quenneville won the adams, demitra won the byng.

that said, another reason for massive outlier selke votes in one year might be a career offensive year (troy murray, kris draper, alyn mccauley) so it's not foolproof.

 

[tony d]

Jagr deserved that award. As to Yashin his 2nd place finish is a surprise, he was 6th in league scoring that year and was the 2nd team's all star center.