Is the Pearson a more prestigious trophy than the Hart?

Though the Hart Trophy has the added clout of an extended history behind it, it seems to me that the Pearson is really the greater award.

Not only is it by definition the trophy awarded to "the best player in the league" rather than "the most valuable to his team" (which could work in favour of players on lesser squads) but it's also judged by a player's peers rather than the media, which should conceivably mean more.

Just curious as to what you all think.

 

You're probably correct about the value to the players, but notice that during the awards ceremony, the Pearson was given first in the show and the Hart was given last, so the perception probably stands that the Hart is the greater award.

 

Define "prestige".

Under a standard definition, since everyone talks about the Hart, and no one talks about the Pearson, the answer is obvious.

 

Agreed. The perception is that the Hart is more prestigious. To me though, an award that come from your peers holds more meaning.

 

To me the Hart is more prestigous. It has a long history & For most of its history was given to the MVP whos was not always the most skilled player. THis was cheapened somewhat in the 80's when Gretzy got 8 in a row but in recent years it has reverted back to its intended purpose.

 

Historically the Hart favours the Art Ross winner or those close to it. It's meaning seems to be lost.

The Hart and Art Ross have been given out the same year 58 times(1947-48 to 2005-06 not including 2004-05 strike year)

In that time, the Art Ross winner was also the Hart Winner 29 times. If you consider Gretzky in 79-80, who won the Hart and tied Dionne for the Art Ross(Dionne got the award for more goals) that means 30 of 58 or 51% of the time the Hart Trophy goes to the leagues leading scorer.

Another 20 times the Hart Winner was in the top 6 in scoring. So 50 of 58 times (86%) the Hart goes to a player fighting for the Art Ross.

 

I think it is logical the the Art Ross winner would win quite a few Harts But Gretzy's 8 in a row really skews it, If a forward is going to win Being in the top 5 seems appropriate. Forwards like Clarke, Nighbour,Morenz, joliat, richard.O'Connor, abel,Schmidt,Howe, beliveau, kennedy, Bathgate, all won in years that they did not win the Art Ross.

 

There's no question that the Hart has been the more prestigious award amongst fans, but I'm not sure it's that way amongst the players.

I suppose I should change the thread to "which should be the more prestigious award".

I agree with willus, that an award coming from one's peers holds more meaning.

I don't know if Gretzky skewed it. I'd have a pretty hard time finding a more valuable player than Gretz for most of the seasons he won it. Another factor to consider is that he generally outscored his competitors by such a large margin that it would be extraordinarily difficult not to pick him.

Generally speaking, for those you mentioned, either the scoring races were very close, or kind of close but with the gap overcome by great defense on the winner's part (a la Beliveau and Clarke). When Gretz was winning his Harts, most often no one was anywhere near him in scoring, and those that were next in line didn't have the sort of defensive game that could overcome such a yawning offensive chasm.

 

Don't know how the players see it, but the Hart definitely gets more press and is more important to fans.

If I played in the NHL though, I'd definitely care more about the Paerson award.

 

Jagr has won the Hart only once but the Pearson three times. To me the award is pretty much even. I mean on one hand you have guys that play with you that vote you in which is an honour. But then you have a ton of writers and fans of the game voting you for the Hart.

 

I've always found that the Pearson has tended to be skewed to forwards. My guess is that this is due to there being more forwards voting for the award than d-men or goalies, and players tend to vote more for their own. Only one d-man has won it, Orr, and he only won it once. Two goalies have won the award.

 

Does every player vote for the Pearson award ? or is just a random collection of votes from a minority of the players ?

 

Bleh, misread the question. The Hart is technially viewed as the "important" one of the two, but that's probably because it's a media voted trophy, pumped by the media as the trophy. If I was a player, the Pearson would mean more to me. Being held in high regard by your peers is more important than being held in high regard by some sports writers.

 

It's basically the same with the Hart as well.

If Bobby Orr was anywhere near as good as people say he was, he would have more than 2 Harts. If there was no such thing as the Norris Trophy, I'd wager he'd have about 6 of them.

 

Is it? No.

Should it be? Yes.