You Can Change Each Award Once

[Professor What]

Here's the premise of this thread: you're allowed to pick one season for each voted award and change the winner. Personally, I'm not going to do anything with the Selke, because it's so subjective and can be viewed in so many different ways, but others can feel free to include it if they like. I will, however, make a choice for the Hart, Norris, Vezina, and Calder, and I'm interested to see which years others will come up with.

Hart: 1988-89, Mario Lemieux
I've never been able to wrap my head around why this one went to Gretzky, other than chalking it up to excitement over his being in a market like Los Angeles. Lemieux was only a single point away from joining Gretzky in the 200-point club, and is one of only three players to ever score 80 in a season, thanks to his 85 goals that year. Given that Gretzky and Lemieux tied in assists, and I think it can be agreed that piling up goals is is a bigger deal than racking up assists, I really can't figure out how 54>85.

Norris: 2015-16, Erik Karlsson
I'll admit that Coffey in 1983-84 was an attractive option here, but for Karlsson to be the first defensemen since Orr, and the only one other than Orr to lead the league in assists since the league's infancy, as well as picking up a rare top five finish in scoring for a blueliner, despite being on a team that would have been a complete dumpster fire without him has to top it. Doughty was great that year, but Karlsson literally had a season for the ages.

Vezina: 1995-96, Dominik Hasek
Okay, so the record doesn't look very good that year. But, just as much as I have a problem with wins being too heavily credited to goalies, I have a problem with losses being blamed too heavily on them. Hasek played on an atrocious team that year. The only significant offense game from LaFontaine, and there wasn't much at all to that defensive corps. Yet, Hasek still managed to lead the league in save percentage and walked away with the goals saved above average stat. The Sabres easily could have been much worse, and without Hasek, they would have.

Calder: 1989-90, Mike Modano
Sergei Makarov was a rookie in name only. He's one of the greatest right wingers to ever play the game, but his Calder win absolutely was not in the spirit of the award. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how on earth the voters felt that it was more appropriate to give the award to a 31-year-old veteran over a 19-year-old kid who made such a splash in what was actually his rookie year. In fact, it's so obvious to me that it wasn't, that this was the easiest pick of all for me to make.

Click to read more...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

hart: 2003, al macinnis

pearson: 2003, peter forsberg

norris: 2003, al macinnis

vezina: 2007, roberto luongo

calder: 1998, mattias ohlund

smythe: 2014, drew doughty

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Gretzky for the 79-80 Calder. If Makarov could win, it should have went to 99.

 

[The Panther]

Hart: 1988-89, Mario Lemieux
I've never been able to wrap my head around why this one went to Gretzky, other than chalking it up to excitement over his being in a market like Los Angeles.

While I agree the award should have gone to Lemieux, as imperfect NHL awards go, this one isn't overly hard to understand, is it? The Kings went from 4th-worst overall to 4th-best overall in the season Gretzky joined, while the Pens had a solid but not overly impressive season. I guarantee you that if, say, Dale Hawerchuk had scored 168 points in 1984-85 (when the Jets had their biggest season), he would have won the Hart instead of 208-point Gretzky. You have to remember that there is a team-success narrative attached to basically every Hart trophy (which is why, for example, Bobby Orr didn't win the 1974-75 Hart, despite winning the scoring title and going +80).

Anyway, my choices:

Hart: 2005-06, Jaromir Jagr
(While I'm tempted to go with 1990-91 Gretzky, at least Wayne got his 'mulligan' Hart for 1988-89, so it's all fair.) This 2006 Hart trophy should have been a no-brainer:
-- Jagr played 82 games for the Rangers; Thornton played 58 games for the Sharks. (So, right there, that should disqualify Thornton, but there's more):
-- Negligible point difference between the two players (2 more points for Thornton, while Jagr was +3 better in plus/minus). So, again, scoring being even, you give it to the guy who actually played the full season for the team!
-- Jagr scored more even-strength goals than Thornton scored total goals!
-- Jagr voted the Pearson award.
-- Rangers made the playoffs for the first time in 9 years, improving 31 points in Jagr's first full season, while the Sharks fell 5 points (and from 1st to 2nd in division) with the acquisition of Thornton.

This was just a horrible bungling of this award. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it if Jagr had already won two or three Harts, but since he had been remarkably unfortunate in getting only the one to this point in his career, this one was a travesty.

Norris: 1983-84, Paul Coffey
This was probably Coffey's greatest-ever season. Voters would finally be swayed to award him the '85 and '86 Norrises (and much later the '95), but he should have taken this one, no doubt about it. Nothing against Rod Langway, and full marks for his 1983 Norris, but giving him yet another one in '84 (when he was alongside two future Hall of Famers on the blue line) was just silliness, and reeked of Eastern-voters' spite against Edmonton.

Vezina: 1987-88, Patrick Roy
Some of you think I'm hard on Roy sometimes, but look, I'm awarding him an extra Vezina and taking one away from my own team! Goalies should not win major awards because they played a lot of games. That is the only reason Grant Fuhr won the '88 Vezina. I ask you: If Fuhr won the '88 Vezina, why didn't Gary 'Suitcase' Smith win it in 1974-75 when he played 72 games and had a good, winning record for low-talent Vancouver... and his stats were all superior to Fuhr's??

Calder: 1979-80, Wayne Gretzky or if that doesn't fly, then 1989-90, Mike Modano
Completely agree with the OP. That Makarov thing was just stupid. Why are the NHL such idiots? Either Gretzky wasn't a rookie and Makarov wasn't either, or they both were, but you sure as hell can't have it both ways, unless you're idiotic. Oh! Hello, NHL.

Conn Smythe: undecided!
I think most of the Conn Smythes are more-or-less correct. Sometimes, there is someone I would have preferred, but usually I can see the case for the guy who won it. (Speaking of Grant Fuhr, he legitimately could have won the 1987 Conn Smythe!) My probable choice here would be Joe Sakic over Patrick Roy in 2001. Butch Goring in '81 seems a little suspect to me, too, but that was before my time, so I'll defer to the experts...

 

[buffalowing88]

Here's the premise of this thread: you're allowed to pick one season for each voted award and change the winner. Personally, I'm not going to do anything with the Selke, because it's so subjective and can be viewed in so many different ways, but others can feel free to include it if they like. I will, however, make a choice for the Hart, Norris, Vezina, and Calder, and I'm interested to see which years others will come up with.

Hart: 1988-89, Mario Lemieux
I've never been able to wrap my head around why this one went to Gretzky, other than chalking it up to excitement over his being in a market like Los Angeles. Lemieux was only a single point away from joining Gretzky in the 200-point club, and is one of only three players to ever score 80 in a season, thanks to his 85 goals that year. Given that Gretzky and Lemieux tied in assists, and I think it can be agreed that piling up goals is is a bigger deal than racking up assists, I really can't figure out how 54>85.

Norris: 2015-16, Erik Karlsson
I'll admit that Coffey in 1983-84 was an attractive option here, but for Karlsson to be the first defensemen since Orr, and the only one other than Orr to lead the league in assists since the league's infancy, as well as picking up a rare top five finish in scoring for a blueliner, despite being on a team that would have been a complete dumpster fire without him has to top it. Doughty was great that year, but Karlsson literally had a season for the ages.

Vezina: 1995-96, Dominik Hasek
Okay, so the record doesn't look very good that year. But, just as much as I have a problem with wins being too heavily credited to goalies, I have a problem with losses being blamed too heavily on them. Hasek played on an atrocious team that year. The only significant offense game from LaFontaine, and there wasn't much at all to that defensive corps. Yet, Hasek still managed to lead the league in save percentage and walked away with the goals saved above average stat. The Sabres easily could have been much worse, and without Hasek, they would have.

Calder: 1989-90, Mike Modano
Sergei Makarov was a rookie in name only. He's one of the greatest right wingers to ever play the game, but his Calder win absolutely was not in the spirit of the award. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how on earth the voters felt that it was more appropriate to give the award to a 31-year-old veteran over a 19-year-old kid who made such a splash in what was actually his rookie year. In fact, it's so obvious to me that it wasn't, that this was the easiest pick of all for me to make.

I mean, I love the Vezina pick, haha, as a Sabres fan I think that's pretty great insight and totally agree. With that said, I am not about to change the 2016 Norris Trophy. Karlsson has become extremely overrated on this board in the last few months and you'll find supporters, I'm sure, but Doughty deserved that. He was the most impactful player not only in the back-end, but also on the entire ice when he was playing. He is surpassed by Karlsson statistically, but sometimes with defense it is about presence and I need to find something that supports this but I promise he was worthy of that award. Let me see if I can't find a better statistical argument.

Also, entirely agree on the Calder thing and the Hart in 88-89.

 

[Professor What]

While I agree the award should have gone to Lemieux, as imperfect NHL awards go, this one isn't overly hard to understand, is it? The Kings went from 4th-worst overall to 4th-best overall in the season Gretzky joined, while the Pens had a solid but not overly impressive season. I guarantee you that if, say, Dale Hawerchuk had scored 168 points in 1984-85 (when the Jets had their biggest season), he would have won the Hart instead of 208-point Gretzky. You have to remember that there is a team-success narrative attached to basically every Hart trophy (which is why, for example, Bobby Orr didn't win the 1974-75 Hart, despite winning the scoring title and going +80).

Valid point, but we know what the Penguins were before Lemieux arrived, and what an individual impact he made on that team too. The definition of the Hart does include a team perspective, but I'm not at all convinced that Gretzky was any more necessary to the Kings than Lemieux was to the Penguins, and at that point, the overwhelming gap in output becomes key. I also have a problem with the way voters in recent years seem to apply the team aspect of the award. It seems to have more or less turned into the award for the best player on a playoff team, and that's not in the definition. I think we can agree that Gretzky was a huge chunk of the puzzle in Edmonton, but we also know that Edmonton was stacked by 1984-85. A 168-point Hawerchuk would have been far more vital to that team, enough so that I don't think the statistical gap makes up the difference. I have no problem with someone who can see a case for Gretzky, but I simply can't.

I mean, I love the Vezina pick, haha, as a Sabres fan I think that's pretty great insight and totally agree. With that said, I am not about to change the 2016 Norris Trophy. Karlsson has become extremely overrated on this board in the last few months and you'll find supporters, I'm sure, but Doughty deserved that. He was the most impactful player not only in the back-end, but also on the entire ice when he was playing. He is surpassed by Karlsson statistically, but sometimes with defense it is about presence and I need to find something that supports this but I promise he was worthy of that award. Let me see if I can't find a better statistical argument.

Karlsson's stats aren't the reason I take him for that Norris, but rather a manifestation of why I do. Think about what he had to work with and what Doughty had to work with. I think that Doughty was absolutely the best defensive defenseman in the league that season, and his offense certainly wasn't bad, but he also played on a team where he was a piece of the puzzle and didn't have to be the whole ball of wax. In fact, he played on a team that was strong enough defensively that it allows Jonathan Quick's regular season prowess to be greatly exaggerated. Karlsson did have to be the whole ball of wax in Ottawa. Take him off of the teams he played on and they become comically bad. Without him, the conference finalists the next season very well could have been competing for the best chance in the lottery. I'm a Senators fan, and while that might make some think that I'm biased toward Karlsson, it really just shows me even more how important he was to those teams. I have no problem saying that my own team would have been total garbage without him. The conference finalists the next year would have had a good lottery percentage with out him, and the 2015-16 season, he was at his best. In truth, while voters aren't going to give the Hart to a defenseman (and there are a few seasons I could have chosen a defenseman), and most years, they won't consider a player on a non-playoff team, Karlsson's season was Hart-caliber in both output and importance to his team.

Also, I didn't even think about the Conn Smythe, but I know which one I'd change, but it's tougher knowing who I'd give it to. Crosby was a no-show for two out of four series in 2016, and was a very undeserving winner in my opinion. Honestly, I think there were a few Sharks who were more deserving. With a gun to my head, I probably choose Kessel, but I reserve the right to change my mind.

And Gretzky for the Calder... I don't know what I think about it. Technically, he had already played a season in a "major league," but the WHA was far enough inferior to the NHL that I don't really think it's quite the same thing. The one caveat is that the terms were at least known going into the 1979-80 season. I won't say yea or nay on whether its in bounds or not. I think that's up to the individual. It wouldn't change my pick though, simply because the Makarov thing just missed the point so badly.

 

[MadLuke]

I mean, I love the Vezina pick, haha, as a Sabres fan I think that's pretty great insight and totally agree. With that said, I am not about to change the 2016 Norris Trophy. Karlsson has become extremely overrated on this board in the last few months and you'll find supporters, I'm sure, but Doughty deserved that. He was the most impactful player not only in the back-end, but also on the entire ice when he was playing. He is surpassed by Karlsson statistically, but sometimes with defense it is about presence and I need to find something that supports this but I promise he was worthy of that award. Let me see if I can't find a better statistical argument.

I had to look because I thought peak Karlsson was hard to overate based on that playoff run (maybe proving your point).

At even strength that year, the senators were:

with Karlsson:
GF: 94 GA:97 (2.92/60 minutes, 3.17/60 minutes vs 2.51/60 and 2,52/60 overall)
without Karlsson:
GF: 81 GA: 79

With : 0.97 without: 1.025 (virtually the same result for that team regardless of if he was on the ice)

The fact that more goal occurred with a single player on the ice that year that without is also telling of something too, peak Karlsson was making things happen like very few player did in the post lockout era, at least from what I have seen.

Maybe we can say even if Karlsson on the ice end up changing nothing (all the added offense is removed by the more goal given) if we put the canvas that he was facing the opponent best opposition with the opponent having a special game plan against him, the same would be in good part true of Doughty as well I imagine.

That year the Kings:

With Doughty:
GF: 77 GA: 52 (2.56/60 minutes, 1.73 GA/60 minutes vs 2.47/60 minutes and 1.97/60 minutes)
Without doughty:
GF: 93 GA: 84

GF/GA percentage
With : 1.48, without: 1.11, that an impressive upgrade especially if we say that Doughty team when he was not on the ice was better than Ottawa team when Karlsson was not on the ice, making it harder to have a better GF/GA on vs off the ice in that situation than on a bad team usually.

That feel night and day.

The kings were one of the best team on the PP (20%), Senators one of the very worst (15.8%) that year, so maybe with none of is fault but it is hard to give much plus to Karlsson handling of that PP for an edge over Doughty.

Doughty played 241 minute of PK, by far the most on is team and 2297 minute overall to karlsson 109 min of PK and 2376 minutes (that impressive in itself).

Doughty Norris do look better than I thought it would over those metrics.

 

[overpass]

Hart - 2012-13, Toews over Ovechkin. Picking a lockout season feels like cheating, but I didn’t like Ovechkin for Hart that season, and Toews was the best even strength player in the league. Just an incredible season driving an incredible team, even if it was only 48 games. +21 on the road!

Norris - 1980-81, Potvin over Carlyle. Probably most of the forum would agree with this one. Carlyle had a big year on the power play but Denis Potvin was just another class of player.

Vezina - 2003-04, Luongo over Brodeur.

Selke - 2006-07, Pahlsson over Brind’Amour. Pahlsson was just better defensively this season. I think Brind’Amour was getting some credit for lifting the Cup the previous June.

Smythe - 2013-14, Doughty over Williams. Williams had a really good playoff, but Doughty had a classic Conn Smythe defenceman playoff.

Calder - 1991-92, Lidstrom over Bure. I know Bure had the wow factor and a great finish to the season, but Lidstrom looks to have been clearly more valuable over the course of the year, helping drive the Wings to a 22 point improvement and division title.

 

[buffalowing88]

I had to look because I thought peak Karlsson was hard to overate based on that playoff run (maybe proving your point).

At even strength that year, at even strength the senators were:

with Karlsson:
GF: 94 GA:97 (2.92/60 minutes, 3.17/60 minutes vs 2.51/60 and 2,52/60 overall)
without Karlsson:
GF: 81 GA: 79

With : 0.97 without: 1.025 (virtually the same result for that team regardless of if he was on the ice)

The fact that more goal occurred with a single player on the ice that year that without is also telling of something too, peak Karlsson was making things happen during is peak like very few player did in the post lockout era, at least from what I have seen.

Maybe we can say even if Karlsson on the ice end up changing nothing (all the added offense is removed by the more goal given) if we put the canvas that he was facing the opponent best opposition with the opponent having a special game plan against him, the same would be in good part true of Doughty as well I imagine.

That year the Kings:

With Doughty:
GF: 77 GA: 52 (2.56/60 minutes, 1.73 GA/60 minutes vs 2.47/60 minutes and 1.97/60 minutes)
Without doughty:
GF: 93 GA: 84

GF/GA percentage
With : 1.48, without: 1.11, thatan impressive upgrade especially if we say that Doughty team when he was not on the ice was better than Ottawa team when Karlsson was not on the ice, making it harder to have a better GF/Ga on vs off the ice in that situation than on a bad team usually.

That feel night and day.

The kings were one of the best team on the PP (20%), Senators one of the very worst (15.8%) that year, so maybe with none of is fault but it is hard to give much plus to Karlsson handling of that PP for an edge over Doughty.

Doughty played 241 minute of PK, by far the most on is team and 2297 minute overall to karlsson 109 min of PK and 2376 minutes (that impressive in itself).

Doughty Norris do look better than I thought it would over those metrics.

I really appreciate you going through the stats and the history. I think you went above and beyond anything I can present here, but it was an insightful presentation and a very informative piece to consider when it comes to Karlsson in general.

 

[buffalowing88]

Valid point, but we know what the Penguins were before Lemieux arrived, and what an individual impact he made on that team too. The definition of the Hart does include a team perspective, but I'm not at all convinced that Gretzky was any more necessary to the Kings than Lemieux was to the Penguins, and at that point, the overwhelming gap in output becomes key. I also have a problem with the way voters in recent years seem to apply the team aspect of the award. It seems to have more or less turned into the award for the best player on a playoff team, and that's not in the definition. I think we can agree that Gretzky was a huge chunk of the puzzle in Edmonton, but we also know that Edmonton was stacked by 1984-85. A 168-point Hawerchuk would have been far more vital to that team, enough so that I don't think the statistical gap makes up the difference. I have no problem with someone who can see a case for Gretzky, but I simply can't.



Karlsson's stats aren't the reason I take him for that Norris, but rather a manifestation of why I do. Think about what he had to work with and what Doughty had to work with. I think that Doughty was absolutely the best defensive defenseman in the league that season, and his offense certainly wasn't bad, but he also played on a team where he was a piece of the puzzle and didn't have to be the whole ball of wax. In fact, he played on a team that was strong enough defensively that it allows Jonathan Quick's regular season prowess to be greatly exaggerated. Karlsson did have to be the whole ball of wax in Ottawa. Take him off of the teams he played on and they become comically bad. Without him, the conference finalists the next season very well could have been competing for the best chance in the lottery. I'm a Senators fan, and while that might make some think that I'm biased toward Karlsson, it really just shows me even more how important he was to those teams. I have no problem saying that my own team would have been total garbage without him. The conference finalists the next year would have had a good lottery percentage with out him, and the 2015-16 season, he was at his best. In truth, while voters aren't going to give the Hart to a defenseman (and there are a few seasons I could have chosen a defenseman), and most years, they won't consider a player on a non-playoff team, Karlsson's season was Hart-caliber in both output and importance to his team.

Also, I didn't even think about the Conn Smythe, but I know which one I'd change, but it's tougher knowing who I'd give it to. Crosby was a no-show for two out of four series in 2016, and was a very undeserving winner in my opinion. Honestly, I think there were a few Sharks who were more deserving. With a gun to my head, I probably choose Kessel, but I reserve the right to change my mind.

And Gretzky for the Calder... I don't know what I think about it. Technically, he had already played a season in a "major league," but the WHA was far enough inferior to the NHL that I don't really think it's quite the same thing. The one caveat is that the terms were at least known going into the 1979-80 season. I won't say yea or nay on whether its in bounds or not. I think that's up to the individual. It wouldn't change my pick though, simply because the Makarov thing just missed the point so badly.

I love your enthusiasm for Karlsson here. I just think the "ball of wax" theory is something we could toss around historically and suddenly take awards away from guys who still deserved it, I'm looking at you, Bobby Orr. But at the end of the day you made a really logical argument here and who am I say Doughty deserved it. I'm just glad you made a case for him. We were honestly spoiled to see both at their peaks at the same time.

 

[UncleOscar]

Valid point, but we know what the Penguins were before Lemieux arrived, and what an individual impact he made on that team too. The definition of the Hart does include a team perspective, but I'm not at all convinced that Gretzky was any more necessary to the Kings than Lemieux was to the Penguins, and at that point, the overwhelming gap in output becomes key. I also have a problem with the way voters in recent years seem to apply the team aspect of the award. It seems to have more or less turned into the award for the best player on a playoff team, and that's not in the definition. I think we can agree that Gretzky was a huge chunk of the puzzle in Edmonton, but we also know that Edmonton was stacked by 1984-85. A 168-point Hawerchuk would have been far more vital to that team, enough so that I don't think the statistical gap makes up the difference. I have no problem with someone who can see a case for Gretzky, but I simply can't.



Karlsson's stats aren't the reason I take him for that Norris, but rather a manifestation of why I do. Think about what he had to work with and what Doughty had to work with. I think that Doughty was absolutely the best defensive defenseman in the league that season, and his offense certainly wasn't bad, but he also played on a team where he was a piece of the puzzle and didn't have to be the whole ball of wax. In fact, he played on a team that was strong enough defensively that it allows Jonathan Quick's regular season prowess to be greatly exaggerated. Karlsson did have to be the whole ball of wax in Ottawa. Take him off of the teams he played on and they become comically bad. Without him, the conference finalists the next season very well could have been competing for the best chance in the lottery. I'm a Senators fan, and while that might make some think that I'm biased toward Karlsson, it really just shows me even more how important he was to those teams. I have no problem saying that my own team would have been total garbage without him. The conference finalists the next year would have had a good lottery percentage with out him, and the 2015-16 season, he was at his best. In truth, while voters aren't going to give the Hart to a defenseman (and there are a few seasons I could have chosen a defenseman), and most years, they won't consider a player on a non-playoff team, Karlsson's season was Hart-caliber in both output and importance to his team.

Also, I didn't even think about the Conn Smythe, but I know which one I'd change, but it's tougher knowing who I'd give it to. Crosby was a no-show for two out of four series in 2016, and was a very undeserving winner in my opinion. Honestly, I think there were a few Sharks who were more deserving. With a gun to my head, I probably choose Kessel, but I reserve the right to change my mind.

And Gretzky for the Calder... I don't know what I think about it. Technically, he had already played a season in a "major league," but the WHA was far enough inferior to the NHL that I don't really think it's quite the same thing. The one caveat is that the terms were at least known going into the 1979-80 season. I won't say yea or nay on whether its in bounds or not. I think that's up to the individual. It wouldn't change my pick though, simply because the Makarov thing just missed the point so badly.

I think voters put a LOT of stock into the Kings improving by 23 points with the addition of Gretzky. They scored nearly 60 goals more than the year prior. They also finished 2nd in the division for the first time in 8 seasons. The fact that he was voted a Second Team All-Star and Lemieux First Team tells you the voters saw MVP in a different light than just "best player."

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

As I approach the topic, I'll be guided by "how would legacies have changed if these season-end awards had gone in one direction rather than another?" Would anyone think differently of Gretzky or Lemieux if either of them had won one additional or fewer Hart Trophy? I think not. If Coffey had won one more Norris? If Hašek had won one more Vezina? Still no.

Just to take the examples in the thread (so far), if Coffey pulls down that 83-84 Norris, it doesn't so much add to the lustre of Coffey as much as it removes the "multiple-Norris-winner" résumé-line from Rod Langway. Maybe we could slightly trim the use-frequency of the "overrated" label Jonathan Toews carries around with him if he had been awarded the one Hart Trophy that he deserved.

The application of the Calder Trophy in the opening post seems sui generis- as I don't think ANYBODY'S legacy is significantly impacted by whether or not they pulled down a Calder.

Article-length essays could be written about any of these following topics...

1) Charlie Conacher never winning a Hart Trophy.
2) Pierre Pilote's first Norris Trophy- [if awarded to a more-qualified Defenceman that year, it removes the "three-Norrises-in-a-row!" line from Pilote... and it lets us contemplate the possibility of (perhaps) YET ANOTHER Doug Harvey Norris-- or maybe Tim Horton (who got ALL the toughest match-ups) or Carl Brewer (penalties-and-all) otherwise splitting the Anglo-Canadian vote. (Harvey had a penalty-explosion that year, too, but it was STILL nowhere near Brewer's PiM totals).]
3) Marcel Dionne missing out on the Hart- most notably in 1979-1980.
4) Three-time Cup-winner Sergei Fedorov NEVER winning a Smythe Trophy [96-97 especially].
5) The Bridesmaid-status of Shea Weber's Norris-candidate campaigns. [Langway will show up in a few 'top-100-120' lists, Weber will show up in virtually no-one's... and perhaps neither deserves that sort of consideration-- but I mean seriously, who's the more valuable asset?!?]

 

[The Panther]

Actually, Fedorov for the '97 Conn Smythe is a good one.

Not sure about Dionne for the '80 Hart, though...

 

[Moose Head]

I’ve always disliked it when a player from a losing team wins the Conn. Here goes, plus a couple of others I thought the voters got wrong. Yeah, I know I’m not doing this right.

1966 Conn Smythe - JC Tremblay
1968 Conn Smythe - Gump Worsley. Had better numbers than Hall plus faced better competition.
1976 Conn Smythe - Ken Dryden, although Leach does imo have the best ever case for a player from a losing team.
1979 Conn Smythe - Jacques Lemaire. Gainey was very good , but Lemaire was better and he never win a major award.
1981 Conn Smythe - Denis Potvin. He was probably the most important player during their 4 cup run, and it looks wrong that he never won a Conn. Goring was very good though.
1987 Conn Smythe - Glen Anderson or Gretzky
2003 Conn Smythe - Martin Brodeur. He kicked Giguerres butt in the finals.

 

[Retire91]

1991 Calder to Fedorov. Please excuse my bias.
1997 Con Smythe to Fedorov. I think we were all too happy to question it at the time but in retrospect they really got this one wrong.

 

[JackSlater]

Hart - I find that the Hart selections are usually fine. Still, my pick is Rollins' 1954 Hart goes to Kelly. Seems like Kelly was regarded as the actual best and most valuable player that season and Rollins' received it in large part due to the season before. He also very likely doesn't win it if not for the bizarre first half/second half voting system. Further, since Kelly missed out on a few Norris trophies before winning the inaugural trophy this gives him a bit of a trophy boost. Second choice would probably be Kennedy's 1955 Hart, followed by the Harts that Orr should have won. Sedin's Hart is high up on the list to be given away too.

Conn Smythe - There are so many terrible Conn Smythe choices. I'll be a bit biased and give my second favourite player ever, Fedorov, the 1997 Conn Smythe. He was the best player in those playoffs and deserved a Conn Smythe for his overall contributions as Detroit's best playoff performer in that era. Second choice would be Potvin getting the 1981 Conn Smythe as the actual most valuable player that playoffs and in recognition of his overall contributions to that dynasty. Williams' 2014 Conn Smythe, Crosby's 2016 Conn Smythe, Thomas' 2011 Conn Smythe, Niedermayer's 2007 Conn Smythe, and one of the Hextall/Messier Conn Smythes would also be in danger.

Norris - This has to come from the early 1980s. Potvin should have won the 1981 Norris, Howe should have won the 1983 Norris, and Coffey should have won the 1984 Norris. I'll go with Howe winning in 1983 Norris when he was pretty comparable to Langway defensively but significantly better offensively and even finished higher in all star voting. Very difficult for me to choose especially between 1983 and 1981.

Calder - I really couldn't care less about the Calder. Let's say Zetterberg in 2003 because Jackman was just the guy that MacInnis carried around in 2003.

Vezina - Difficult for me as I don't pay much attention to goaltenders. I'd be fine with Luongo getting one of Brodeur's Vezinas for the sake of better reflecting goaltending in the 2000s. Fuhr's Vezina is very weak but I don't know where it should have gone. Hasek should have won in 1996. In the end since I don't buy that he was ever especially good, I'll take one of Thomas' Vezinas away and give it to Luongo. Let's say 2009 Vezina to Luongo.

Selke - I like giving Pahlsson the 2007 Selke over Brind'Amour, so I'll go with that. He deserved something for his overall body of work that year. I'd also be happy to give Kopitar's 2016 Selke to Bergeron, since even if the Selke has become a two-way forward award Bergeron was always better defensively (and would have won 2018 with a few more games played) and there's no reason for Kopitar to have two Selkes while Toews and Kesler have one each. I would also give at least one of Datsyuk's Selkes to Zetterberg and Carbonneau deserved more Selkes during his peak.

 

[Professor What]

I love your enthusiasm for Karlsson here. I just think the "ball of wax" theory is something we could toss around historically and suddenly take awards away from guys who still deserved it, I'm looking at you, Bobby Orr. But at the end of the day you made a really logical argument here and who am I say Doughty deserved it. I'm just glad you made a case for him. We were honestly spoiled to see both at their peaks at the same time.

I'm getting the feeling that I might have come across as being somewhat dismissive, and I didn't mean that at all. I don't think bias creeps in on me on this one, but I'll admit that dealing with Karlsson probably makes me a bit more passionate, and I tend to be that way in general when dealing with defensemen since I feel that the position doesn't get the respect it should. Anyway, point is, I don't take issue with anyone supporting Doughty that year, but while I try to be openminded, that's one where there's no chance of anyone changing my mind, largely because my personal interest has led me to look at it so deeply.

I think voters put a LOT of stock into the Kings improving by 23 points with the addition of Gretzky. They scored nearly 60 goals more than the year prior. They also finished 2nd in the division for the first time in 8 seasons. The fact that he was voted a Second Team All-Star and Lemieux First Team tells you the voters saw MVP in a different light than just "best player."

I absolutely agree, and I don't blame them at all. Team improvement should certainly play a role in the evaluation of a player who's new to a team, but the problem with it is that it can really only be applied once. My way of looking at Hart candidates is to imagine that they're removed from the team and determining what I think the team would have looked like in that absent. It's not perfect since there's a lot of guesswork, but voting is by definition imperfect. Anyway, applying that idea, I feel that the impact of removing Gretzky and Lemieux from their teams would have been very similar, and that's when I feel "best player" should come in as a tiebreak of sorts.

As I approach the topic, I'll be guided by "how would legacies have changed if these season-end awards had gone in one direction rather than another?" Would anyone think differently of Gretzky or Lemieux if either of them had won one additional or fewer Hart Trophy? I think not. If Coffey had won one more Norris? If Hašek had won one more Vezina? Still no.

Just to take the examples in the thread (so far), if Coffey pulls down that 83-84 Norris, it doesn't so much add to the lustre of Coffey as much as it removes the "multiple-Norris-winner" résumé-line from Rod Langway. Maybe we could slightly trim the use-frequency of the "overrated" label Jonathan Toews carries around with him if he had been awarded the one Hart Trophy that he deserved.

The application of the Calder Trophy in the opening post seems sui generis- as I don't think ANYBODY'S legacy is significantly impacted by whether or not they pulled down a Calder.

Article-length essays could be written about any of these following topics...

1) Charlie Conacher never winning a Hart Trophy.
2) Pierre Pilote's first Norris Trophy- [if awarded to a more-qualified Defenceman that year, it removes the "three-Norrises-in-a-row!" line from Pilote... and it lets us contemplate the possibility of (perhaps) YET ANOTHER Doug Harvey Norris-- or maybe Tim Horton (who got ALL the toughest match-ups) or Carl Brewer (penalties-and-all) otherwise splitting the Anglo-Canadian vote. (Harvey had a penalty-explosion that year, too, but it was STILL nowhere near Brewer's PiM totals).]
3) Marcel Dionne missing out on the Hart- most notably in 1979-1980.
4) Three-time Cup-winner Sergei Fedorov NEVER winning a Smythe Trophy [96-97 especially].
5) The Bridesmaid-status of Shea Weber's Norris-candidate campaigns. [Langway will show up in a few 'top-100-120' lists, Weber will show up in virtually no-one's... and perhaps neither deserves that sort of consideration-- but I mean seriously, who's the more valuable asset?!?]

That's an interesting take. When I started this thread, I considered making a list of years that I felt pretty strongly that each should be changed, but I went with the option of choosing just one because I thought it would force more thought. The list idea looks interesting here, as it could play a role of indicating certain players who are over/underrated. I think Dionne is a particularly interesting example. He won consecutive Peasons, which shows what the players themselves thought of him, yet no one seems to care as much for that award (which is a crying shame in my opinion). Imagine that being two Harts, however, and adding the narrative of "he beat Gretzky(!)" to one of them, and I'd dare say his legacy plays out very differently.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Vezina - Difficult for me as I don't pay much attention to goaltenders. I'd be fine with Luongo getting one of Brodeur's Vezinas for the sake of better reflecting goaltending in the 2000s. Fuhr's Vezina is very weak but I don't know where it should have gone. Hasek should have won in 1996. In the end since I don't buy that he was ever especially good, I'll take one of Thomas' Vezinas away and give it to Luongo. Let's say 2009 Vezina to Luongo.

Thomas's numbers were just too good both seasons for anyone else to win.

 

[rnhaas]

This is really tough for me because I hate a lot of the awards results and have a hard time restricting it to just one per award, but I'll do my best. Also I'm going to skip the Selke for the same reasons others have stated and because I really haven't spent enough time looking at the results over the years.

Hart - Charlie Conacher in 1934; he could have easily won 2-3 instead he has 0.

Conn Smythe - JC Tremblay in 1966; he's probably in the HOF if he gets this, which he totally should have.

Norris - numerous candidates but I'll go with Mark Howe in 1986.

Vezina - CuJo in 1993; this maybe makes his Hall of Fame case a little clearer.

Don't care about the Calder and the Pearson/Lindsay I feel like is off limits to someone like me.

 

[JackSlater]

Thomas's numbers were just too good both seasons for anyone else to win.

Yep, that's why I felt compelled to fix what happened. If the Vezina defaulted to the goaltender with the highest save percentage (given a certain number of games played) then I'd keep it with Thomas.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Here's the premise of this thread: you're allowed to pick one season for each voted award and change the winner. Personally, I'm not going to do anything with the Selke, because it's so subjective and can be viewed in so many different ways, but others can feel free to include it if they like. I will, however, make a choice for the Hart, Norris, Vezina, and Calder, and I'm interested to see which years others will come up with.

Hart: 1988-89, Mario Lemieux
I've never been able to wrap my head around why this one went to Gretzky, other than chalking it up to excitement over his being in a market like Los Angeles. Lemieux was only a single point away from joining Gretzky in the 200-point club, and is one of only three players to ever score 80 in a season, thanks to his 85 goals that year. Given that Gretzky and Lemieux tied in assists, and I think it can be agreed that piling up goals is is a bigger deal than racking up assists, I really can't figure out how 54>85.

Norris: 2015-16, Erik Karlsson
I'll admit that Coffey in 1983-84 was an attractive option here, but for Karlsson to be the first defensemen since Orr, and the only one other than Orr to lead the league in assists since the league's infancy, as well as picking up a rare top five finish in scoring for a blueliner, despite being on a team that would have been a complete dumpster fire without him has to top it. Doughty was great that year, but Karlsson literally had a season for the ages.

Vezina: 1995-96, Dominik Hasek
Okay, so the record doesn't look very good that year. But, just as much as I have a problem with wins being too heavily credited to goalies, I have a problem with losses being blamed too heavily on them. Hasek played on an atrocious team that year. The only significant offense game from LaFontaine, and there wasn't much at all to that defensive corps. Yet, Hasek still managed to lead the league in save percentage and walked away with the goals saved above average stat. The Sabres easily could have been much worse, and without Hasek, they would have.

Calder: 1989-90, Mike Modano
Sergei Makarov was a rookie in name only. He's one of the greatest right wingers to ever play the game, but his Calder win absolutely was not in the spirit of the award. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how on earth the voters felt that it was more appropriate to give the award to a 31-year-old veteran over a 19-year-old kid who made such a splash in what was actually his rookie year. In fact, it's so obvious to me that it wasn't, that this was the easiest pick of all for me to make.

Great idea for a post.

Gretzky over Mario was certainly an all-time screwing.

Its a bad look for a Norris winner to have a minus plus/minus. So Karlsson had that against him, although others have won with that negative attribute. Of course, all of those were considered bad picks. Some North American bias? Probably.

Hasek finished 8th in Vezina voting that year so its a real stretch for him to have won. Some North American bias? Probably.

I guess because the league allowed Peter Stastny to be a Calder winner they had to let Makarov be eligible.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yep, that's why I felt compelled to fix what happened. If the Vezina defaulted to the goaltender with the highest save percentage (given a certain number of games played) then I'd keep it with Thomas.

And best goals against percentage.

But you are correct in terms of games played.

 

[JackSlater]

And best goals against percentage.

But you are correct in terms of games played.

Sure, if it was a number based trophy like the Art Ross or the Jennings I'd be fine with Thomas winning it. The description for the Vezina in recent times is that it is awarded to the best goaltender, and I do not think that Thomas was ever the best goaltender in the NHL. Thomas' numbers were the best at times though.

 

[Dingo]

Here's the premise of this thread: you're allowed to pick one season for each voted award and change the winner. Personally, I'm not going to do anything with the Selke, because it's so subjective and can be viewed in so many different ways, but others can feel free to include it if they like. I will, however, make a choice for the Hart, Norris, Vezina, and Calder, and I'm interested to see which years others will come up with.

Hart: 1988-89, Mario Lemieux
I've never been able to wrap my head around why this one went to Gretzky, other than chalking it up to excitement over his being in a market like Los Angeles. Lemieux was only a single point away from joining Gretzky in the 200-point club, and is one of only three players to ever score 80 in a season, thanks to his 85 goals that year. Given that Gretzky and Lemieux tied in assists, and I think it can be agreed that piling up goals is is a bigger deal than racking up assists, I really can't figure out how 54>85.

Norris: 2015-16, Erik Karlsson
I'll admit that Coffey in 1983-84 was an attractive option here, but for Karlsson to be the first defensemen since Orr, and the only one other than Orr to lead the league in assists since the league's infancy, as well as picking up a rare top five finish in scoring for a blueliner, despite being on a team that would have been a complete dumpster fire without him has to top it. Doughty was great that year, but Karlsson literally had a season for the ages.

Vezina: 1995-96, Dominik Hasek
Okay, so the record doesn't look very good that year. But, just as much as I have a problem with wins being too heavily credited to goalies, I have a problem with losses being blamed too heavily on them. Hasek played on an atrocious team that year. The only significant offense game from LaFontaine, and there wasn't much at all to that defensive corps. Yet, Hasek still managed to lead the league in save percentage and walked away with the goals saved above average stat. The Sabres easily could have been much worse, and without Hasek, they would have.

Calder: 1989-90, Mike Modano
Sergei Makarov was a rookie in name only. He's one of the greatest right wingers to ever play the game, but his Calder win absolutely was not in the spirit of the award. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how on earth the voters felt that it was more appropriate to give the award to a 31-year-old veteran over a 19-year-old kid who made such a splash in what was actually his rookie year. In fact, it's so obvious to me that it wasn't, that this was the easiest pick of all for me to make.

i was just arguing Doughty/Karlsson last night. I had seen Doughty’s shocking takeaway:giveaway ratio, (and then Karlsson’s high blocked shots) and it got me going again. Karlsson was the best defenseman, very clearly, to me. So, thats mine, too.
I cant think of a true Vezina snub offhand, and I dont care much for the other awards, so thats all!

 

[Professor What]

Great idea for a post.

Gretzky over Mario was certainly an all-time screwing.

Its a bad look for a Norris winner to have a minus plus/minus. So Karlsson had that against him, although others have won with that negative attribute. Of course, all of those were considered bad picks. Some North American bias? Probably.

Hasek finished 8th in Vezina voting that year so its a real stretch for him to have won. Some North American bias? Probably.

I guess because the league allowed Peter Stastny to be a Calder winner they had to let Makarov be eligible.

Did I ever mention how I feel about plus/minus? LOL

I can agree that taking Hasek from his actual finish to a win is a stretch considering how far he has to rise, but when I look at that season, I come to the conclusion that he was the best. I think probably part of what draws me to that season is that he finished so ridiculously low. There probably was a bit of North American bias, but I wonder about one other thing too. I may be way off base here, but Harry Howell's comment after he won the Norris comes to mind when he said he was glad he won it when he did because Bobby Orr was going to own it going forward. Hasek exploded onto the scene so impressively two years earlier and had maintained his level of play ever since that I can't help but wonder if some of the voters might have felt that he was going to dominate the award for so long that they saw 1996 as an opportunity to give someone else a chance. That could be simply 20/20 hindsight, but he was so good that it would have been hard to see anyone else topping him.

As for Stastny, he was 24 when he won the Calder. Imagine a Russian prospect playing in the KHL for several years, whether it be because he didn't want to leave home or the Russian government forced it. Then he came to the NHL and had the kind of season Stastny did in 1980-81. He'd still be eligible for the Calder and he'd almost certainly win it. There might not be the best optics to some, since I suspect the limit of 26 is to give late bloomers a chance (I think Mark Stone should have won it, and he would have been a perfect example), but it's still within the rules that the Makarov win created. And 24 doesn't look nearly as bad as 31. Bobby Orr, Mike Bossy, Ken Dryden, and Mario Lemieux (first time) all retired at or before 31.