Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by Felidae, Apr 13, 2018.
The Hart is way older and earned prestige for decades prior. It's like comparing the Yankees to the Mets or the Rangers to the Islanders.
Also, North American pro-sports have a big thing for "MVP", which is the definition of the Hart.
Also, the Pearson/Lindsay is not voted on by professional sports-writer/media-types, but rather by the NHLPA, which, in the eyes of the professional sports-writer/media-types, makes it slightly unofficial.
Because it doesn't capture the whole scope of the season - and as Martin Brodeur noted in his book - there are situations where he would have voted differently had the voting been conducted after the season had been completed. Obvious examples include Sean Burke being nominated over Jose Theodore in 2002, and Steven Stamkos being nominated over Martin St. Louis in 2011.
And by multiple sources, the definition of the award appears to have changed in the late-1980s to "most outstanding" from "contribution to the sport of hockey", so it may not necessarily be the same award now that it was 30 years ago.
I know that players in unison commanded from the likes of Bob Goodenow to Donald Fehr will say the Lindsay is something they cherish the most because it is voted on by their peers, but the truth is, the Hart is more important. Why? Because how often are players focusing on everyone else in the league? Not often, and not as much as writers that are paid to do it. Granted, the Hart is not the most perfectly voted on award either, but I think the people voting on the Hart are paying attention to more of the league in general.
Bias comes in regardless on both sides, but the Lindsay has some worse "huh?" moments than the Hart. Liut in 1981, Lemieux in 1986, Ratelle in 1972, Yzerman in 1989................it goes on. Which is sort of unfair. A player sees an opponent maybe 3,4 times a year. He's probably focusing more on himself and his team than what Drew Doughty is doing out west day in and day out. A writer is paid to know this.
I agree. I don't get all the whining about the Hart trophy these days. I would say 95% of the time I agree with the Hart trophy winner. There's the odd mistake (Theodore, maybe, comes to mind), but most of the time it's right. The Pearson has had way more strange choices.
You figure Iginla deserved it over Theodore? That was an awfully close race.
Personally, I wouldn't call it a mistake, but it is one of those rare times a Hart winner isn't a 1st Team All-Star or Lester B. Pearson nominee.
It was rare, that's for sure. 2008 Brodeur wins the Vezina but Nabokov is the 1st team all-star, so it happens. Isn't it three weeks prior to the season ending that they vote on the Lindsay? That's crazy. Lots can happen in three weeks, that's a slate of 10-12 games more or less. Theodore went on a torrid streak the final 10 games, that counts for a lot.
I guess it's an analogy with evaluation in school. What's regarded more highly: that other students vote your seminar work the best one ore that the teacher gives you A+?