Fair to say the Art Ross, Rocket Richard, and Ted Lindsay the three most prestigious awards?

[keglu]

Can't vote and don't really know much about awards but I do have a question..

Why do people generally rate the Art Ross in a higher tier than Rocket? Goals are harder to get and usually more valuable than points (to a certain extent..). I would think those awards are pretty equal accomplishments, no?

Because Art translates better to "best forward ranking". Last time Rocket Richard winner was considered best forward was probably 10+ years ago

 

[Busher]

To me, I only consider it secondary because it's easier to win while not being among the very best players for the season, which was the case with Ovechkin for a couple of his wins, Cheechoo, Nash, and Hejduk. And going back to goal leaders before the award, Tkachuk, Bondra, Stoughton, Gare, Simmer, Shutt, Leach, etc. I'll see Washington fans use trophy counting in arguments for Ovechkin over Crosby, but there's some years where he won the Richard, Crosby won nothing, and yet Sid was the better player. That doesn't really happen with the Hart, Lindsay or Ross very often.

The list of goal scorers is actually very prestigious.

Excluding Matthews and Pastrnak (too early to say), 93 of the 111 goal scoring leaders since 1918 are or will go on to the hall of fame (assuming Ovechkin, Crosby and Stamkos are in, and Kovalchuk and Perry stay out). Of the 102 seasons excluding the most recent, 93 of those seasons will see the goal scoring leader for that year go into the hall of fame. That’s 91% of all seasons.

Those names you listed above are basically the only outliers of non-greats in NHL history. The “etc” you’ve used is misleading because there are only about 3-4 more names you could include as non-greats since 1918. You might as well have listed them all.

Here are some prominent goal scoring leaders from the 50 years before the Rocket was introduced in 1999:

Maurice Richard (3)
Gordie Howe (5)
Jean Beliveau (2)
Bobby Hull (7)
Phil Esposito (6)
Guy Lafleur (1)
Mike Bossy (2)
Wayne Gretzky (5)
Jari Kurri (1)
Mario Lemieux (3)
Brett Hull (3)
Teemu Selanne (2)
Pavel Bure (1)

Thats 41 all-time greats leading in goals over the 50 years from 1949-1998. And that doesn’t even include Sid Abel, Bernie Geoffrion, Dickie Moore, Norm Ullman.

And then post-1999, you have more Selanne, more Bure, and Ovechkin, Crosby, Stamkos and Matthews. The only real down period for goal scorers was 2002-2007, part of which coincided with the worst collection of offensive superstars in modern NHL history. Which just so happened to occur at the same time the Rocket trophy was officially introduced.

The best players in NHL history will most likely need to win at least one Rocket in their career, just as their predecessors led in goals pre-1999. The list of all-time greats without a Rocket or retro-Rocket is tiny- Mikita, Trottier and Clarke basically complete the list of exceptions until the 1990’s.

The Art Ross and Hart is above the Rocket, but the Rocket is still a primary award. For forwards, I consider the Big 3 awards to be the Art Ross, Hart and Rocket. The Lindsay has an impressive list of names too, but I don’t see the purpose of that award, as it’s simply a less prestigious and less historical duplicate of the Hart. But I can still see the Lindsay as a nice “notch on your belt”.

The Selke is nice too, but is below the others and works best as a side-addendum to one of the other Big 3 (or big 4): Art Ross, Hart, Rocket, Lindsay. The Selke winners we hold in highest regard are those that won another major award because of their offense (Clarke, Fedorov) or were at least capable of doing so (Yzerman, Gilmour, Francis, Datsyuk).

 

[Regal]

The list of goal scorers is actually very prestigious.

Excluding Matthews and Pastrnak (too early to say), 93 of the 111 goal scoring leaders since 1918 are or will go on to the hall of fame (assuming Ovechkin, Crosby and Stamkos are in, and Kovalchuk and Perry stay out). Of the 102 seasons excluding the most recent, 93 of those seasons will see the goal scoring leader for that year go into the hall of fame. That’s 91% of all seasons.

Those names you listed above are basically the only outliers of non-greats in NHL history. The “etc” you’ve used is misleading because there are only about 3-4 more names you could include as non-greats since 1918. You might as well have listed them all.

Here are some prominent goal scoring leaders from the 50 years before the Rocket was introduced in 1999:

Maurice Richard (3)
Gordie Howe (5)
Jean Beliveau (2)
Bobby Hull (7)
Phil Esposito (6)
Guy Lafleur (1)
Mike Bossy (2)
Wayne Gretzky (5)
Jari Kurri (1)
Mario Lemieux (3)
Brett Hull (3)
Teemu Selanne (2)
Pavel Bure (1)

Thats 41 all-time greats leading in goals over the 50 years from 1949-1998. And that doesn’t even include Sid Abel, Bernie Geoffrion, Dickie Moore, Norm Ullman.

And then post-1999, you have more Selanne, more Bure, and Ovechkin, Crosby, Stamkos and Matthews. The only real down period for goal scorers was 2002-2007, part of which coincided with the worst collection of offensive superstars in modern NHL history. Which just so happened to occur at the same time the Rocket trophy was officially introduced.

The best players in NHL history will most likely need to win at least one Rocket in their career, just as their predecessors led in goals pre-1999. The list of all-time greats without a Rocket or retro-Rocket is tiny- Mikita, Trottier and Clarke basically complete the list of exceptions until the 1990’s.

The Art Ross and Hart is above the Rocket, but the Rocket is still a primary award. For forwards, I consider the Big 3 awards to be the Art Ross, Hart and Rocket. The Lindsay has an impressive list of names too, but I don’t see the purpose of that award, as it’s simply a less prestigious and less historical duplicate of the Hart. But I can still see the Lindsay as a nice “notch on your belt”.

The Selke is nice too, but is below the others and works best as a side-addendum to one of the other Big 3 (or big 4): Art Ross, Hart, Rocket, Lindsay. The Selke winners we hold in highest regard are those that won another major award because of their offense (Clarke, Fedorov) or were at least capable of doing so (Yzerman, Gilmour, Francis, Datsyuk).

I know the list of names is mostly an impressive list of greats as well, but there's also a number of those who weren't, say, top 5 players in the years they won imo, whereas I think it's more rare that that's the case with the Art Ross or the Hart, and the Lindsay in recent years (it used to have more weird winners). I guess my point is that it's a primary award in terms of prestige for the season, but I don't think it's on the same level as the Art Ross and Hart (and to some degree Lindsay) in terms of comparing resumes.

 

[Steven Toast]

Hart above rocket. My tiering for the big awards is:

Hart
Lindsay
Ross
Norris
Rocket
Vezina
Selke
Calder

 

[geofff]

Hart
Lindsay
Norris
Vezina
Ross
Rocket
Selke
Calder

 

[Busher]

I know the list of names is mostly an impressive list of greats as well, but there's also a number of those who weren't, say, top 5 players in the years they won imo, whereas I think it's more rare that that's the case with the Art Ross or the Hart, and the Lindsay in recent years (it used to have more weird winners). I guess my point is that it's a primary award in terms of prestige for the season, but I don't think it's on the same level as the Art Ross and Hart (and to some degree Lindsay) in terms of comparing resumes.

Agreed. The Art Ross and Hart are above the Rocket, but I see all three as primary awards that bolster a career resume.

I also agree that a particular Rocket will be context-dependant. Winning a Rocket in any circumstance is a major achievement, but doing so while also finishing (say, top 5 in points as you mentioned) elevates the peak of that player. It also usually results in at least a Hart finalist nomination and an all-star team selection, all of which enhance a career resume as a whole.

Also, on the flip side, something seems lacking on the resume of an all-time great if he doesn’t have at least one Rocket or retro-Rocket on his resume. The list of goal scoring leaders over history is just too impressive to ignore.

 

[keglu]

Also, on the flip side, something seems lacking on the resume of an all-time great if he doesn’t have at least one Rocket or retro-Rocket on his resume. The list of goal scoring leaders over history is just too impressive to ignore.

It does not make much sense to jugde mainly playmakers by their Rocket Richard awards.
Sakic, Forsberg, Malkin dont need Rockets in their resume. Does Jagr even have one?

Winning a Rocket in any circumstance is a major achievement, but doing so while also finishing (say, top 5 in points as you mentioned) elevates the peak of that player. It also usually results in at least a Hart finalist nomination and an all-star team selection

Tell that to Pastrnak.

 

[Busher]

It does not make much sense to jugde mainly playmakers by their Rocket Richard awards.
Sakic, Forsberg, Malkin dont need Rockets in their resume. Does Jagr even have one?

Tell that to Pastrnak.

Sakic, Forsberg and Malkin don’t “need” a Rocket on their resume, nor Jagr, but they would’ve looked even better if they had. Can you imagine Forsberg with a Rocket? He never scored more than 30 goals. A Rocket with his elite playmaking would completely change our perception of his peak capabilities. In any case, those that “need” a Rocket are those flirting in all-time great category. Crosby, for example. I’d have held it against him if he never won a Rocket.

As for Pastrnak, he won 1st team all-star. They don’t always become Hart finalist, but very often do. Had Pastrnak won the Rocket by a larger margin, he’d have been a Hart finalist too. And yet he still finished 4th.

 

[MadLuke]

People seem to have an hard time separating their opinion with prestige, even if you think the Nobel trophy is a ridiculous meaningless popularity contest, it would still be prestigious.

It is almost in a trivial way not fair to say that the Rocket, Lindsay and Art Ross are the 3 most prestigious awards.

The Hart is more prestigious than the Lindsay.

prestige
1: standing or estimation in the eyes of people : weight or credit in general opinion
2: commanding position in people's minds

Prestige is all about general opinion, not of someone in particular.

 

[pcruz]

To me the Smythe is the most prestigious individual award. You showed up when it matters most and were the best player on a championship team. Doesn’t get more valuable than that.

And yet, being a voted on award, it is susceptible to bias voting.
Kessel was screwed out of the Conn Smythe the first year he won the Cup - going to Sid who was only better in the final series.

 

[pcruz]

It does not make much sense to jugde mainly playmakers by their Rocket Richard awards.
Sakic, Forsberg, Malkin dont need Rockets in their resume. Does Jagr even have one?



Tell that to Pastrnak.

Didn't he share the Rocket with Ovechkin?
And they beat Matthews by 1 entire goal. On far superior teams?

 

[x Tame Impala]

All his 9 Rockets prove is that Alex Ovechkin is perhaps the best goal scorer of all time. That's awesome, but that it is one aspect. The guy has not scored 90 points a season in a decade and is pacing under a PPG for that decade. That is also part of his legacy.

If you want to talk "legacy", you also have to add playoffs and team results.

Legacy-wise Ovechkin is firmly behind Crosby. When it comes to the conventional definition of "legacy", winning has a LOT of weight (good or bad). Now, does that mean that he is firmly behind him as a player? Not necessarily, there can be arguments both ways and we have been having those on HF for more than 18 years (yes, as far as 2 years before Sid was drafted).

That being said, leading the league in goal scoring is absolutely a very big deal and doing it at a rate nobody else did is a huge legacy enhancer.

Chill out, Pens fan. I didn’t say anything about Crosby. I’m saying that the Richard is a legacy-defining trophy, regardless of the implications it has on peer-standing.

“All his 9 Rockets prove is that Alex Ovechkin is perhaps the best goal scorer of all time.”

That’s all? Being probably the greatest goal scorer of all time is probably the only way a skater can ever surpass Gretzky in any aspect so it’s disingenuous for you to downplay it at all.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Chill out, Pens fan. I didn’t say anything about Crosby. I’m saying that the Richard is a legacy-defining trophy, regardless of the implications it has on peer-standing.

“All his 9 Rockets prove is that Alex Ovechkin is perhaps the best goal scorer of all time.”

That’s all? Being probably the greatest goal scorer of all time is probably the only way a skater can ever surpass Gretzky in any aspect so it’s disingenuous for you to downplay it at all.

You said it made Ovechkin's legacy bigger than Crosby's. It does not. That was my point.

I mean, I won't fight you if you do believe it makes his legacy bigger, but very few people will have that position.

 

[x Tame Impala]

You said it made Ovechkin's legacy bigger than Crosby's. It does not. That was my point.

I mean, I won't fight you if you do believe it makes his legacy bigger, but very few people will have that position.

Where did I say that? I think you’re misunderstanding me

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Where did I say that? I think you’re misunderstanding me

You said it in the post I initially quoted, I think. I apologize it I misunderstood/misread.

 

[Wings4Life]

It goes like this IMO (forwards major regular season awards):

1. Hart
2. Art Ross
3. Lindsay
4. Rocket
5. Selke
6. Minor awards (Masterton, Messier, Lady Byng etc.)

That's close to my ranking for major individual forward awards:
1a. Hart
1b. Art Ross
3. Lindsay
4. Selke
5. Rocket

 

[Laveuglette]

Hart and Lindsay are overrated for sure. Same for Conn Smythe. These are popularity contests.

Stanley Cup is obviously what truly matters, then objective awards like Art Ross and Rocket are prestigious too. But even those... hockey is a team game, I don't like the notion of individual awards at all personnally. I'm probably in the minority.

 

[BorntoLose]

Hart
Ross
Lindsay
Rocket
Norris
Selke

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Hart and Lindsay are overrated for sure. Same for Conn Smythe. These are popularity contests.

Therein lies the problem. Anything involving a vote is highly suspect.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Art Ross
Norris
Vezina

 

[ManofSteel55]

It used to be the Hart and the Art Ross, hands down. Since media type voters have decided to vote for the Hart based on weird parameters (didn't make the playoffs? you can't win the Hart), I think most players are appreciating the Lindsay more. The Hart has gradually lost some respect to me, ever since Theodore won it over Iginla. Hall winning it a couple of years ago didn't help.

General public opinion is probably Hart, Ross, then Lindsay, but I think players probably would reverse that order. To me, it goes Lindsay, Ross, Hart, Rocket, Conn Smythe, Vezina, Norris (would be on equal footing to the Vezina if it wasn't voted on reputation so often), Selke, Calder, Jennings/Lady Byng/Masterton, Messier

 

[aufheben]

No. I can never even remember what the Lindsay is for.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Stop listing the Stanley Cup, that's corny and obviously now what the thread is about.

Lindsey
Hart
Ross
Rocket
Vezina
Norris
Selke
who cares.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Hart, Vezina, Norris.