Does Ovechkin win the Hart in 2008 if the Capitals miss the playoffs?

[Big Phil]

Honestly, it nearly happened. Going into the final game of the season Carolina and Washington were tied at 92 points but Carolina had one more win. All that needed to happen was either a Carolina win or a Washington loss. Not both, just one was needed. Neither happened. Carolina lost and Washington with the season on the line and a day after the Carolina game won. So it was really close, Carolina was in control of their own destiny and blew it. Both teams played the lowly Panthers, both were at home too.

One weird side note here is that in the Carolina game vs. Florida there were 9 penalties in that game.............ALL went to Florida. Strange.

Yet Ovechkin won the Hart in a landslide still. Beating Malkin quite easily, who finished 2nd and had a whopping year too where he carried the Pens to 1st place in their division despite a major Crosby injury. Ovechkin had a near unanimous win only missing 6 out of 134 first place votes. Insane.

Here is the question. If the Caps miss the playoffs is he still winning? Especially if the Caps lose the last game in which all they needed to do was win. Does he still win?

Click to read more...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yes, but the gap narrows considerably.

 

[Sticks and Pucks]

I think Ovechkin still wins. If he had missed the playoffs, there would have been many voters who would have voted for someone else first. Judging by the voting, Malkin and Iginla got the majority of the second place votes. So those voters would most likely have split between Malkin and Iginla in first place. Because Malkin and Iginla are splitting votes, I think neither would have been able to overtake Ovechkin.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Yes, but the gap narrows considerably.

Agreed.

 

[Zuluss]

A more interesting question would be whether Ovechkin would have been nominated for Hart in his rookie season (3rd in both goals and points) if he had been on a playoff team. He was 6th that year, a whisker behind Alfredsson and Staal, but much behind Kirpusoff.

 

[The Panther]

Do we actually know exactly when the Hart trophy voting occurs? I mean, does it all occur right after the season ends (by next morning, say), or does it occur between the end of the season and before the start of the playoffs a few days later, or does it actually occur prior to the very end of the season?

I've often wondered this because there are so many close Hart "races" where one guy wins because of his performance/team's performance in the last few games.

 

[Sticks and Pucks]

A more interesting question would be whether Ovechkin would have been nominated for Hart in his rookie season (3rd in both goals and points) if he had been on a playoff team. He was 6th that year, a whisker behind Alfredsson and Staal, but much behind Kirpusoff.

I could see him taking some first and second place votes from Jagr but I think the guys who voted Kiprusoff first and second would have stayed with him. If they were going to take Kiprusoff over forwards (Thornton and Jagr) to begin with, I don't think Ovechkin being on a playoff team would have swayed those voters. So I don't think it would have been enough for Ovechkin to overtake Kiprusoff.

 

[tony d]

Probably as he still wins the Ross but it would have become a bit tighter in the voting.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Yes, but the gap narrows considerably.

I agree, but that's not something that would reflect well on the voters because Ovechkin's individual value as a player that season is precisely the same regardless of if Carolina beat Florida.

If that were the case and voters changed their minds based on this, I think it would demonstrate that player assessments are too arbitrary.

 

[GuineaPig]

Do we actually know exactly when the Hart trophy voting occurs? I mean, does it all occur right after the season ends (by next morning, say), or does it occur between the end of the season and before the start of the playoffs a few days later, or does it actually occur prior to the very end of the season?

I've often wondered this because there are so many close Hart "races" where one guy wins because of his performance/team's performance in the last few games.

I'm 99% sure that ballots are sent out prior to the end of the season, but not re-submitted until after the season ends (but before the first playoff date). I can't find a source for it though. I remember reading an article by a voter about the process

 

[Michael Farkas]

I agree, but that's not something that would reflect well on the voters because Ovechkin's individual value as a player that season is precisely the same regardless of if Carolina beat Florida.

If that were the case and voters changed their minds based on this, I think it would demonstrate that player assessments are too arbitrary.

I mean, this is what the media is known for...look at the NFL and Super Bowls...do you know the weight of winning a Super Bowl compared to, ya know, not winning it? It's insane.

Mike Vanderjagt misses a field goal for Peyton Manning, Manning is a loser. Vinatieri makes his for Brady, Brady is a God. We attribute a lot of team activities to one player as a means of pumping tires on a narrative. And I'm a story teller, I like the story and in some regards, there is some truth to it. But until you meet it with reality: is Tom Brady worse/less whimsical/punishable because David Tyree made an insane catch? Is he better because they didn't give the ball to Marshawn Lynch?

Connor McDavid is going to finish where in MVP voting this year? Not top 3 certainly because his team is basically a tub of human ****...is he the most valuable player to his team? Yeah, I can't imagine a good argument against that for anyone that watches the Oilers, but he's not gonna win anything as a result of it. It's going to go to whomever of Taylor Hall or Nathan MacKinnon can drag their respective teams into the playoffs.

This is the line that's been established: You gotta make the show to place. The Hart isn't a goalie's award. You must be this tall (with points) to ride the Selke ride. Et cetera.

That's why contemporary thought from people that actually know the game is valuable. It would be valuable, too, if we could have some transparency into the ballots. I'd take Bob McKenzie's, Ray Ferraro's, Gord Miller's, etc. and see what kind of results we get from the subset of guys that actually know the game...I can do without the guy that has Jagr on his Selke ballot or the people who voted Ovechkin as a first-team all-star at two positions...but here we are...

I did hear through the grapewine (no idea what the result will be) that they're gonna discuss transparency on ballots...not sure if it would take effect this year even if they come to a conclusion.

Ballots are due back before the start of the SC Playoffs, I know that much.

 

[Big Phil]

I personally think he wins either way. He was a big story that year and Washington improved beyond expectations. If that means he goes the route of Mario in 1988 and Bathgate in 1959 who both won the Hart but missed out on the playoffs in the final game, then so be it. He belongs in that group either way of non-playoff Hart winners.

Granted, this is a rare case. Bathgate and Mario are the only two players in the last 60 years to win the Hart and miss the playoffs. Prior to that it is important to note the every controversial 1954 winner was Al Rollins on one of the worst teams in NHL history. But in the last 60 years, just Bathgate and Mario. So yeah, getting into the playoffs does hold a lot of water. I think in order to be "valuable" in the eyes of the voters you have to inspire your team to at least those heights. Otherwise, how "valuable" are you if you aren't in the playoffs? It needs a special season for that, but Ovechkin in 2008 I think still would have been it.

Just try to think even in the last 20 years, can you think of a non-playoff player that deserved to win the Hart?

Just in comparison, in the 64 year history of the Norris trophy there has never been a non-playoff defensemen to win it.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Just try to think even in the last 20 years, can you think of a non-playoff player that deserved to win the Hart?

Iginla finished second to Theodore in 01/02 despite winning the Art Ross and the Rocket. Led his own team with 21 pts. The difference was Montreal got into the playoffs.

edit: looked at Montreal now, highest scorer was Yannic Perrault with 56 pts...hard to argue that Theodore didn't deserve it. Bad luck for Iginla there.

 

[GuineaPig]

Just try to think even in the last 20 years, can you think of a non-playoff player that deserved to win the Hart?

I would say that Luongo deserved it in 2004

 

[IslesFan2017]

I think Ovechkin still wins. If he had missed the playoffs, there would have been many voters who would have voted for someone else first. Judging by the voting, Malkin and Iginla got the majority of the second place votes. So those voters would most likely have split between Malkin and Iginla in first place. Because Malkin and Iginla are splitting votes, I think neither would have been able to overtake Ovechkin.

I agree with this entirely. Ovechkin was still the best player and no one would have overtaken him that year.

 

[Big Phil]

I agree with this entirely. Ovechkin was still the best player and no one would have overtaken him that year.

The 65 goals thing was huge as well. I don't think he loses either way and I think time looks kindly on that even if it does happen. Stamkos finished 2nd in Hart voting in 2012 with 60 goals. No way Malkin was losing the Hart that year, and he was nearly unanimous in winning it, but Tampa wasn't even close to a playoff spot and Stamkos still finished 2nd. So it goes to show you what a 60 goal season can do. Ovechkin was just that much better.

I would say that Luongo deserved it in 2004

Even over Martin St. Louis?

 

[trentmccleary]

No, he doesn't win it. The Hart Trophy is not an MVP trophy, it's for the best player to one's team. The writers have never awarded the Hart to a non-playoff player and it doesn't seem like they ever will.

 

[Midnight Judges]

No, he doesn't win it. The Hart Trophy is not an MVP trophy, it's for the best player to one's team. The writers have never awarded the Hart to a non-playoff player and it doesn't seem like they ever will.

That is false. Mario Lemieux won the Hart in '87-88 when his team missed the playoffs, and missing the playoffs was far worse back then when 16 out of 21 teams made it in. Peak Lemieux couldn't even get his team out of last place in his division.

 

[GuineaPig]

Also Iginla lost by tiebreaker to Theodore, while missing the playoffs

Even over Martin St. Louis?

Absolutely. St. Louis had a great year, but it wasn't the typical caliber of Hart-winning season. Meanwhile Luongo led the league in save % by a large amount while facing a record number of shots. That Panthers team would've been historically bad without him.

 

[Big Phil]

No, he doesn't win it. The Hart Trophy is not an MVP trophy, it's for the best player to one's team. The writers have never awarded the Hart to a non-playoff player and it doesn't seem like they ever will.

Not true. As I said in the original post, Lemieux in 1988, Bathgate in 1959. Prior to that, Al Rollins in 1954, Tom Anderson in 1942. Maybe I am missing someone before that?

Absolutely. St. Louis had a great year, but it wasn't the typical caliber of Hart-winning season. Meanwhile Luongo led the league in save % by a large amount while facing a record number of shots. That Panthers team would've been historically bad without him.

Technically he was 3rd in Save % in 2004. I will agree, he was in the mix for the Hart, but St. Louis won it rather easily, and Luongo was 6th overall. The Panthers unfortunately were still a lousy team, even with him. That is what hurts him. But there is no doubt he was recognized. He was still a 2nd team all-star that year.

That is false. Mario Lemieux won the Hart in '87-88 when his team missed the playoffs, and missing the playoffs was far worse back then when 16 out of 21 teams made it in. Peak Lemieux couldn't even get his team out of last place in his division.

Yet they were over .500 that year too. It was a format people complained about then too. Some divisions were stronger than others but there were above average teams that missed the playoffs at times because of this. Especially in the Patrick Division.

 

[c9777666]

The Penguins in '88 were trapped by the divisional playoff format of that era. (That said, they still would have missed the playoffs by 1 point even in a 1-8 playoff format)

They had a better record than Hartford (81 points to 77 points), but an unbalanced schedule back then meant they got to play 3 games vs. teams from the Campbell Conference. They went 3-0-0 against Toronto/Minnesota and of course Quebec was starting their decline in '88.

The Patrick Division was a meat grinder. The Adams- Quebec went into such a brutal spiral that Hartford would practically clinch a playoff spot by March even thought the Penguins had a better record than the Whalers for the next few years.

 

[bobholly39]

Hart = Best Player.

When there's a unanimous choice of who the best player is - he'll win the hart independently of playoffs. in 2008, this was clearly Ovechkin. So yes even without playoffs he wins.

If the Best Player is not unanimous - playoffs matter more.

2 years ago. Kane was pretty unanimously the best player. If Chicago had missed the playoffs - he'd still run away with Hart.
This year? As of 1 week ago I feel as though the "best player" was a 3 horse race between Kucherov, Malkin and Mackinnon (i say 1 week ago because it may have changed a bit since). So if the season had ended 1 week ago and Colorado had been out of the playoffs - Mackinnon wouldn't have won the hart.

Also - people need to stop looking back too much at the awards in the 80s, with Lemieux and Gretzky and such. A lot of significant and inexcusable mistakes were made in the 80s for some important awards. I don't think voters would follow the same patterns today - common sense would prevail. ie - Lemieux in 89 wins the hart, Gretzky in 86 wins the pearson. Gretzky also with a cpl more Smythes.