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

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,261
16,507
Mulberry Street
Regarding the Calder, I can at least see the argument for giving it to Makarov and Stastny. Both played in Communist states, and were technically amateur. While that was obviously a farce, on paper it was accurate, so there is at least a basis to give them the award.

However for the other European players, it is interesting that the NHL doesn't consider them professional leagues, despite them literally being so. But what is the NHL without massive inconsistencies in how it does things.

They may have been "amateurs" but everyone knows they were essentially pro athletes. Hence how in the 70s and 80s, many Eastern Bloc countries destroyed at the Olympics and World Championships (not just in hockey, and this was mainly the USSR) because their athletes were provided everything they need by the government to just tricky train all year long. They didn't have to worry about having a 9-5 job, paying a mortgage or feeding their kids as long as they trained & competed. Hence why FIBA and then the IIHF eventually allowed pro players to compete in the Olympics, it just wasn't fair anymore (plus the Iron Curtain had fallen, so that advantage wasn't the same anymore)

(don't get me wrong, I'm sure they would have traded their lives for those of us in the West 7 days a week & twice on Sundays)
 

kaiser matias

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
4,703
1,836
They may have been "amateurs" but everyone knows they were essentially pro athletes. Hence how in the 70s and 80s, many Eastern Bloc countries destroyed at the Olympics and World Championships (not just in hockey, and this was mainly the USSR) because their athletes were provided everything they need by the government to just tricky train all year long. They didn't have to worry about having a 9-5 job, paying a mortgage or feeding their kids as long as they trained & competed. Hence why FIBA and then the IIHF eventually allowed pro players to compete in the Olympics, it just wasn't fair anymore (plus the Iron Curtain had fallen, so that advantage wasn't the same anymore)

(don't get me wrong, I'm sure they would have traded their lives for those of us in the West 7 days a week & twice on Sundays)

Of course, and I should clarify I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary. Just because they were paid from the military or local factory didn't exactly fool anyone, though why the IIHF and IOC tolerated the sham is one of the lowest points in international sports (though I'm stridently opposed to the ideal of keeping such events strictly amateur, but that's not the topic here).

I just can see the justification for naming the players amateur, as false as it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

Albatros

Registered User
Aug 19, 2017
12,218
7,639
Ostsee
One thing to note is that this system had not been created with international sport in mind, but developed naturally as the various Soviet sport societies competed against one another.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,034
13,858
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.

If the list you provided showed Richard as 5th and Howe as 6th, then the matter would be settled. But it doesn't. Your entire position is, essentially, you're assuming that the NHL treated Richard as 5th and Howe as 6th, even though the list you're using as evidence doesn't actually say that! It's well-established that Howe was top five in scoring that year, which would be impossible if your position were true.

Equations aside, I'm trying to argue that 2 + 2 = 4. You're apparently trying to argue that 3 + 1 doesn't equal 2 + 2.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jiuwan

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,519
Tokyo, Japan
Awards that Dynasty Oilers should have won, but didn't:

1980: Gretzky -- Calder
1980: Gretzky -- Art Ross
1983: Kurri -- Selke
1984: Coffey -- Norris
1985: Kurri -- Selke
(Then there's the "Retro Richard awards" for Gretzky in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, and Kurri in 1986.)
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
Awards that Dynasty Oilers should have won, but didn't:

1980: Gretzky -- Calder
1980: Gretzky -- Art Ross
1983: Kurri -- Selke
1984: Coffey -- Norris
1985: Kurri -- Selke
(Then there's the "Retro Richard awards" for Gretzky in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, and Kurri in 1986.)

I never considered Kurri to be a Selke level defensive player. One of the very best two-way wingers, sure.

He was very good but only stood out because he was the guy that played the defensive role as center for Gretzky.
 

Passchendaele

Registered User
Dec 11, 2006
7,731
1,148
Awards that Dynasty Oilers should have won, but didn't:

1980: Gretzky -- Calder
1980: Gretzky -- Art Ross
1983: Kurri -- Selke
1984: Coffey -- Norris
1985: Kurri -- Selke
(Then there's the "Retro Richard awards" for Gretzky in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, and Kurri in 1986.)
I'd argue Gretzky deserves at least one more Conn Smythe.
 

TheOtherOne

Registered User
Jan 2, 2010
8,265
5,256
This is only proof that goals have always been worth 1.00001 points. We always just rounded it off because the only time it matters is in the case of tiebreakers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beau Knows

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,519
Tokyo, Japan
I never considered Kurri to be a Selke level defensive player. One of the very best two-way wingers, sure.

He was very good but only stood out because he was the guy that played the defensive role as center for Gretzky.
No.

The whole Selke concept is flawed and silly anyway. As far as I'm concerned, the Lady Byng has more prestige than the Selke.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,519
Tokyo, Japan
It's the NHL's roundabout way of saying that goals are better than assists.
Except the NHL itself has always officially designated 1 assist as equal in points to 1 goal. So, no.

There just need not be a tie-breaker. Why would there be a tie-breaker for points and not for goals? Stupid.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,519
Tokyo, Japan
Rocket should be named after Gretzky. Hes got the record for most goals just would make sense.
Shouldnt there be atleast one trophy named after the greatest hockey player to ever play the game?
I don't think the Richard award make any more sense being named after Gretzky than Richard (or Hull or Ovechkin). Actually, Gretzky has the same number of (retro) Richards as Richard.

There will obviously be a trophy named after Gretzky and Orr someday. Just have to wait for them to die.
 

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
115
We all know Gretzky would have another Conn Smythe (and Stanley Cup) if it wasn't for McSorely forgetting to switch to a legal stick in '93...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 95Tal

Arthur Morgan

Registered User
Jul 6, 2016
7,729
5,095
Toronto
www.youtube.com
I don't think the Richard award make any more sense being named after Gretzky than Richard (or Hull or Ovechkin). Actually, Gretzky has the same number of (retro) Richards as Richard.

There will obviously be a trophy named after Gretzky and Orr someday. Just have to wait for them to die.
Yeah I was thinking that after I posted. lol
 

Hynh

Registered User
Jun 19, 2012
6,170
5,345
While people are discussing the Art Ross tiebreakers, anyone want to explain this?

If two or more players finish the season with the same number of points, the trophy is awarded in the following manner:


  1. Player with most goals
  2. Player with fewer games played
  3. Player scoring first goal of the season.
The first two are straight forward. The third one is confusing. What is the definition of "the first goal of the season" and why is it important in determining who wins the award? Why not just have a tie at that point?
 

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
115
Give it a rest. As folks have argued above, there were valid enough reasons he didn't win either.
Actually, there have been no valid reasons, simply opinions. Validity requires not just sound argument, but also sound logic, neither of which the outcomes in question employs.
 

Oheao

Registered User
Apr 17, 2014
662
348
London
Except the NHL itself has always officially designated 1 assist as equal in points to 1 goal. So, no.

There just need not be a tie-breaker. Why would there be a tie-breaker for points and not for goals? Stupid.
Because it's much better for media/PR reasons to have one top scorer for a season than there is to have multiple.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->