Gretzky not receiving the Calder, nor the Art Ross in 1979/80...

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,521
Tokyo, Japan
So, I think the ranking of players in the scoring race in 2nd or 5th place is an entirely different matter from who wins the Art Ross. You're talking about two different things.

Yes, the NHL has traditionally (and to this day) placed the player with more goals higher than a player with the same points but fewer goals. That's fine, no issue with that.

However, the Art Ross trophy is not awarded to the player that is "ranked higher in a list". It's awarded to the player with the most scoring points on the season. The NHL itself designates that an assist in worth exactly the same value in points as a goal.

Therefore, it logically follows that there should not be any tie-breakers between two (or more) players with the same number of points. As more than one player can (and does) win the Maurice Richard trophy, so more than one player should logically win the Art Ross trophy (when two or more players are tied in points).

I suspect the poster, earlier, is on to something when he said maybe the NHL in the 1930s or 1940s was too cheap to get multiple awards so they invented a tie-breaker for the Art Ross. But I'm pretty sure the NHL today can afford it!
 

Hattrickkane88

Registered User
Apr 11, 2019
665
416
Goals are a component of the point total. Back when the award originated, goals being seen as more important was most likely a consensus.

What could be a logical tie breaker for the Rocket trophy?
I'd go with the most unassisted goals as the tie breaker
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,034
13,859
Well, according to the 1960-61 Press and Radio Guide, which I actually have a copy of...

uhlGDLs.jpg


C2z5z5K.jpg


Hull
Horvath
Beliveau
Bathgate
Richard
Howe


Notice how the guide doesn't list numbers next to any of their positions? It doesn't say 5) Richard 6) Howe.

This isn't a difficult topic. The NHL's position on this is well documented. The article I quoted shows that the NHL is giving Gordie Howe credit for a 5th place finish that year. (That's hardly a new position for them to take - I've heard the "top five for 20 straight years" stat since I was a kid). If your position were true, Howe wouldn't have 20 years in a row in the top five in scoring. The streak would have ended in 1960. Howe and Richard scored the same number of points, and the NHL considers it a tie - that was my point. Or has everyone in the hockey world been wrong about Howe's accomplishment for fifty years?

A quick Google search shows that the NHL is consistent with this. Take a look at 2013. Crosby and Ovechkin both record 56 points (Ovechkin had 32 goals, Crosby had 15). The NHL said that Crosby "had arguably the most dominant year of his career... finishing third (tied) in scoring with 56 points". If what you were saying were true (that the tiebreaker applies to every place in the scoring race), they'd say he was 4th in scoring (not tied for 3rd), as the tiebreaker obviously goes to Ovechkin. Link - Sidney Crosby Named One of Three Hart Trophy Finalists

Or another article, this time about 2016. Karlsson and Thornton both scored 82 points. Thornton had more goals (19 vs 16). The article says the Swede "was tied for fourth in the NHL with 82 points". If your position were true, it would say that Karlsson was 5th in scoring, as the tie-breaker goes to Thornton. Link - NHL.com staff picks: Norris Trophy

Or another article, from 2017. It involves Crosby again. He scored 89 points that year, tied with Patrick Kane. The Canadian scored 44 goals, and the American scored 34. So the tie goes to Crosby. But the article says Crosby "tied with Chicago Blackhawks forward Patrick Kane for second in the League". If your position were true, Crosby wouldn't have been tied for second in scoring with Kane, he would have had second place outright. Link - Hart Trophy finalists unveiled

It's trivial to provide more examples, but I think the point is established. It's clear what the NHL's position is on this topic - ties exist, except for determining the winner of the Art Ross.

You seem to be arguing that how an editor chose to lay out a table (which doesn't even list the player's ranks, making the evidence pretty flimsy) is more important than what the NHL has stated over and over again. Good luck with that position.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Iron Mike Sharpe

KoozNetsOff 92

Hala Madrid
Apr 6, 2016
8,567
8,228
Not a good idea. There's no assuming that a player who played one or two more games would have scored more goals. So, using this system is like punishing players for playing the full season.

It's not about assuming who might score more goals. For example this season OV scored 48 in 68 GP. That's better than Pastrnak scoring 48 in 70 GP. Crosby vs Stamkos in 09/10 as well. Same amount of goals in less GP = better goal scorer who deserves to win outright.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,521
Tokyo, Japan
It's not about assuming who might score more goals.
That's exactly what it's about. You're assuming that since Ovechkin scored the same number of goals in two fewer games that he's score more than 48 goals if he played two more games.

But, let's say he plays two more games and doesn't score (of which, there's maybe a 50% chance). So, why are we not giving Pastrnak the award also? Because you're assuming.

The award is for the player with the most goals. The Art Ross is for the player with the most points. Period.
 

ozzie

Registered User
Aug 3, 2005
1,695
489
Australia
lol....slavery....really?

Having said that, I thought it was BS that Gretzky did not win the Calder Trophy. It was probably meant to punish WHA players, for signing underage with the league.

The Art Ross should have went to Dionne, on account of a tie-breaker. I don't hear too many people complaining about teams that finish with more wins in the regular season, beating out teams that have identical number of points for a playoff spot. It is what it is..

I think the WHA punishment and disdain the NHL had towards the upstart league had a lot to do with it. Mind you, it was okay for Makarov to win the Calder. Considering the KHL was probably a better league than the WHA, one could argue?

Might of also been some heat against Gretzky, for making a mockery out of most players. It was only the beginning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Bonvie

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
So, I think the ranking of players in the scoring race in 2nd or 5th place is an entirely different matter from who wins the Art Ross. You're talking about two different things.

Yes, the NHL has traditionally (and to this day) placed the player with more goals higher than a player with the same points but fewer goals. That's fine, no issue with that.

However, the Art Ross trophy is not awarded to the player that is "ranked higher in a list". It's awarded to the player with the most scoring points on the season. The NHL itself designates that an assist in worth exactly the same value in points as a goal.

Therefore, it logically follows that there should not be any tie-breakers between two (or more) players with the same number of points. As more than one player can (and does) win the Maurice Richard trophy, so more than one player should logically win the Art Ross trophy (when two or more players are tied in points).

I suspect the poster, earlier, is on to something when he said maybe the NHL in the 1930s or 1940s was too cheap to get multiple awards so they invented a tie-breaker for the Art Ross. But I'm pretty sure the NHL today can afford it!

There was no Art Ross trophy until 1948.

Odd, eh?
 

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
Notice how the guide doesn't list numbers next to any of their positions? It doesn't say 5) Richard 6) Howe.

It doesn't say 1) Hull either, so how do you know he finished first? If Hull, Horvath, Beliveau and Bathgate were erased from history they would have given the Art Ross Trophy to Richard, so when push comes to shove Richard was fifth and Howe was sixth, whether that shatters the narrative you've been spoonfed or not.

This isn't a difficult topic. The NHL's position on this is well documented.

<examples>

It's trivial to provide more examples, but I think the point is established. It's clear what the NHL's position is on this topic - ties exist, except for determining the winner of the Art Ross.

The only thing that's clear about this is the NHL crafts stories to suit their purpose. I don't know how you can buy these stories and take them as "the NHL's [official] position on this topic", and then be so doggedly obstinate when it comes to the official guide and record book. I don't know how you reconcile that these NHL.com stories are "the truth" while arguing that the official stats, published by the league, put them in the order they're in as merely an "editorial choice". The "editorial choice" follows the rules. They are as official as official gets.

You seem to be arguing that how an editor chose to lay out a table (which doesn't even list the player's ranks, making the evidence pretty flimsy) is more important than what the NHL has stated over and over again. Good luck with that position.

The table is what the NHL has stated over and over and over and over and over again... *sigh* Honestly, from my perspective, your basic argument is that top-down lists are "flimsy", and you don't understand them without the aid of an extra column for ordinal rank. The argument itself is pants-on-head stupid to me, it's like you're trying to argue 2 + 2 = 5.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,038
12,646
It doesn't say 1) Hull either, so how do you know he finished first? If Hull, Horvath, Beliveau and Bathgate were erased from history they would have given the Art Ross Trophy to Richard, so when push comes to shove Richard was fifth and Howe was sixth, whether that shatters the narrative you've been spoonfed or not.



The only thing that's clear about this is the NHL crafts stories to suit their purpose. I don't know how you can buy these stories and take them as "the NHL's [official] position on this topic", and then be so doggedly obstinate when it comes to the official guide and record book. I don't know how you reconcile that these NHL.com stories are "the truth" while arguing that the official stats, published by the league, put them in the order they're in as merely an "editorial choice". The "editorial choice" follows the rules. They are as official as official gets.



The table is what the NHL has stated over and over and over and over and over again... *sigh* Honestly, from my perspective, your basic argument is that top-down lists are "flimsy", and you don't understand them without the aid of an extra column for ordinal rank. The argument itself is pants-on-head stupid to me, it's like you're trying to argue 2 + 2 = 5.

Which weighs more - ten pounds of rocks or ten pounds of feathers?

Does your answer change depending on which one I list first?
 

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
Stupid analogy, Jack. A far more accurate one is to say there's competition for who can gather the heaviest piles of a combination of rocks and feathers, and if two competitors have piles that weigh the same the one that has more rocks in his pile is ranked higher. Too-bad, so-sad for the guy with more feathers but those are the rules.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,038
12,646
Stupid analogy, Jack. A far more accurate one is to say there's competition for who can gather the heaviest piles of a combination of rocks and feathers, and if two competitors have piles that weigh the same the one that has more rocks in his pile is ranked higher. Too-bad, so-sad for the guy with more feathers but those are the rules.

So if I understand from your non-answer, if the NHL told you that the ten pounds of feathers weighed more than the ten pounds of rocks, you would believe that. Am I correct?

For kicks, you might also want to check out this page:

NHL.com Stats

As well as this page:

NHL.com Stats

And look carefully at the second one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quoipourquoi

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,537
4,906
A far more accurate one is to say there's competition for who can gather the heaviest piles of a combination of rocks and feathers, and if two competitors have piles that weigh the same the one that has more rocks in his pile is ranked higher. Too-bad, so-sad for the guy with more feathers but those are the rules.

I'm not sure why that would be a rule, while one can at least make an argument (whether entirely convincing or not) for goals as the tie-breaker in a scoring points race. But the actual question here is whether those are actually the rules.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
So if I understand from your non-answer, if the NHL told you that the ten pounds of feathers weighed more than the ten pounds of rocks, you would believe that. Am I correct?

For kicks, you might also want to check out this page:

NHL.com Stats

As well as this page:

NHL.com Stats

And look carefully at the second one.

That's only because you are sorting a spreadsheet by column, isn't it?
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,125
Hockeytown, MI
I wish someone could tell me how the sorting feature on the NHL’s own website worked. When you pull data, you get duplicates when navigating from page to page because they don’t have strict tie-breaking in their sorting.

Because tie-breaking doesn’t exist except as outlined in award distribution.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,038
12,646
That's only because you are sorting a spreadsheet by column, isn't it?

I'm just looking at two pages on nhl.com detailing the 1960 season, one with Howe ranked above Richard and one with Richard ranked above Howe. The second one is of course more interesting because in the cases of ties the table sometimes lists the player with more goals first but sometimes not.

But, and I know that this is repeating myself, none of that matters in the least. The NHL awards and defines points and trophies but it cannot decide scoring placements. Two players with equal point totals by definition tied in scoring. Nothing the NHL could ever claim could change that. As it pertains to this thread, Gretzky was tied for 1st in scoring in 1980 and he also lost the Art Ross in 1980 as the criteria for the trophy outlines goal total as a tie breaker.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,537
4,906
So if I understand from your non-answer, if the NHL told you that the ten pounds of feathers weighed more than the ten pounds of rocks, you would believe that. Am I correct?

For kicks, you might also want to check out this page:

NHL.com Stats

As well as this page:

NHL.com Stats

And look carefully at the second one.

While I agree that those record books without explicit ranks aren't indicative of an NHL rule, I'm not sure what the second link is supposed to demonstrate, other than that those who run the NHL website apparently don't know or care enough about the history of their own league to get the details right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoser

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,038
12,646
While I agree that those record books without explicit ranks aren't indicative of an NHL rule, I'm not sure what the second link is supposed to demonstrate, other than that those who run the NHL website apparently don't know or care enough about the history of their own league to get the details right.

The point would be to not bother putting a lot of stock into lists produced by the NHL when a single click can show the NHL contradicting itself. Also the apparent absence of any sort of mechanism to organize the players who tied in scoring.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
I'm just looking at two pages on nhl.com detailing the 1960 season, one with Howe ranked above Richard and one with Richard ranked above Howe. The second one is of course more interesting because in the cases of ties the table sometimes lists the player with more goals first but sometimes not.

But, and I know that this is repeating myself, none of that matters in the least. The NHL awards and defines points and trophies but it cannot decide scoring placements. Two players with equal point totals by definition tied in scoring. Nothing the NHL could ever claim could change that. As it pertains to this thread, Gretzky was tied for 1st in scoring in 1980 and he also lost the Art Ross in 1980 as the criteria for the trophy outlines goal total as a tie breaker.

Hockey reference lists Gretzky first in scoring in 1980 and also lists Dionne as first. (under their individual stats)

They also list Howe 5th and Richard 5th in 1960.

So yes, it appears to be only in the matter of the trophy is there a tie breaker, but they are still both listed as first.

Correct?
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,537
4,906
The point would be to not bother putting a lot of stock into lists produced by the NHL when a single click can show the NHL contradicting itself. Also the apparent absence of any sort of mechanism to organize the players who tied in scoring.
Intuitively, I would put more stock into a printed NHL guide from 1960-1961 than into the NHL website today. That said, the 1960-1961 guide doesn't feature a distinct ranking, so yeah.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,038
12,646
Hockey reference lists Gretzky first in scoring in 1980 and also lists Dionne as first. (under their individual stats)

They also list Howe 5th and Richard 5th in 1960.

So yes, it appears to be only in the matter of the trophy is there a tie breaker, but they are still both listed as first.

Correct?

That's really the only way I can see it being. I don't think that the way Hockey Reference organizes it is definitive either though, to be fair, despite it using the only method I agree with.

Intuitively, I would put more stock into a printed NHL guide from 1960-1961 than into the NHL website today. That said, the 1960-1961 guide doesn't feature a distinct ranking, so yeah.

I'll be honest, the NHL could come out in one hour and formally declare Richard the fifth highest scorer in 1960 and Howe the sixth and it wouldn't change my view in the slightest unless they altered their point totals relative to each other. Given the NHL's record when it comes to decision making and consistency I would need a lot more to convince me to accept a position that flies in the face of basic numeracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Bonvie

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->