Hart Trophy Perspective or Perry=Jagr=Bathgate

[Canadiens1958]

First awarded in 1924 - Frank Nighbor was the initial winner, the Hart Trophy is presented annually to the NHL MVP.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/hart.html

Since 1924 the Hart has been awarded to players from all the positions, for their contributions to non-playoff teams - Al Rollins, championship teams - Bobby Clarke, surging teams - Corey Perry, Offense,defence, versitility, stepping-up when teammates were injured. All these contributing factors combined to make each winner unique. While it may be rather straightforward to justify a winner for a specific season - not the purpose of this thread it is not as easy weighing the various winners from a History of Hockey Perspective.. Hence the second part of the thread title, Perry = Jagr = Bathgate.

Three RW, each a winner of one Hart Trophy, different eras, different contributions, different teams. Does each Hart Trophy carry equal weight or value or significance? Does a player winning or not winning multiple Hart Trophies impact on his legacy?

Similar comparisons may be made for other players, positions and eras.

Contributions welcome.

Click to read more...

 

[tarheelhockey]

It absolutely impacts legacy. Perry might not be as good a player as Jagr was, but for one season he was the best winger in the game. Especially for a relatively low-profile player, that's going to have a huge lasting impact on how he's remembered. Of course it might also work against him, a la Jose Theodore.

Like anything else, it helps immensely to have some context... particularly voting totals and some knowledge of who was injured. In Perry's case, he wasn't all that far ahead of Daniel Sedin and of course Crosby would have won it running away if he hadn't been injured.

Also, vote-splitting for players on the same team is pretty important. Particularly on dynasties.

 

[JSmith81x]

It Contributes to legacy greatly. But as a player I would rather win the Art Ross or Richard. Those are no voting you have to be the best in the NHL. You earn them on the ice. Perry won the Richard with 50 goals and was third with 98 points. How often does a player who is third in scoring win the Hart? Plus Perry has a hart now. He is now on the same list as Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, Sakic, Forsberg, Crosby, Howe, Ovechkin. Those players have all proven themselves over many years. You have to back your Hart up with other great seasons.

Messier was tied for 5th in scoring in 1991-92 and won MVP.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

All Harts are not created equal.

Plenty of non-Hart winning seasons are a lot stronger than the winners.

Also, the very definition of the Hart benefits players on 'worse' teams. They need to change the definition to League MVP instead of Team.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Messier was tied for 5th in scoring in 1991-92 and won MVP.

Messier's Harts are amongst the weakest in the modern era.

 

[Epsilon]

Jagr, more than perhaps any forward, is someone whose impact is severely understated by simply counting Hart victories. It's not just the fact that he has three 2nd place finishes in addition to multiple other high placements, but he was literally one vote away from winning a second Hart trophy and he could easily be a three-time winner with little to no dispute.

 

[tarheelhockey]

meh. If you win the hart while your 5th in scoring. It's not really impressive.

I strongly disagree with this. 2/3rds of the sport takes place away from the offensive zone.

 

[Big Phil]

Messier's Harts are amongst the weakest in the modern era.

Not the one in 1990 (despite the controversy) he was a beast that year. 1992 like I have said before many times could have gone to another player, but since it was a weird year that no one stood out (Mario was injured for a bit, Gretzky had "only" 121 points, Roy and Bourque and Yzerman didn't do anything different than the previous 5 years) who else could have gotten it?

Anyway, to the OP, I don't think it hurts your legacy at all if you only win once. I think what happens afterwards is what counts. Someone mentioned that if Perry goes the way of Theodore, then yes I think 2011 will become an abberation and the entire idea that Crosby had the MVP in his back pocket before he got hurt would only add to it. But if Perry has some more elite seasons after this then it won't hurt his legacy at all.

St. Louis has only won once but we all know what he's done since so no one will think it was an abberation. Plus I think Jagr and Bathgate are a clear cut above Perry, even in their Hart years. Bathgate was always in the mix for the Hart in the 1950s and early 1960s. It would have surprised no one had he won another one. Jagr in all honesty is snake bit that way and people if anything will point to his 5 Art Ross trophies and wonder how he didn't win more Harts.

Richard is an interesting case too. He wins in 1947 and that's it. He's always in the mix and loses out a couple of years (1945 or 1955) where, let's face it had he been a little more popular with the media he probably gets at least one of those.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Not the one in 1990 (despite the controversy) he was a beast that year. 1992 like I have said before many times could have gone to another player, but since it was a weird year that no one stood out (Mario was injured for a bit, Gretzky had "only" 121 points, Roy and Bourque and Yzerman didn't do anything different than the previous 5 years) who else could have gotten it?

Even if you think Messier had the best seasons in 1990 and 1992 (which I obviously don't), his actual seasons do not stack up well with other Hart winning (and non-winning) seasons in the context of the 80s and 90s. I just don't think the player with the most Harts is necessarily the better player, and Measier is a prime example of this - as it is a huge part of what makes him very overrated, IMO.

 

[lazerbullet]

All Harts are not created equal.

Plenty of non-Hart winning seasons are a lot stronger than the winners.

Also, the very definition of the Hart benefits players on 'worse' teams. They need to change the definition to League MVP instead of Team.

Totally agree. I want to know who had the best season that year (was the best player). I don't care on what team he plays, what position, whatever. It does not matter.

Current definition has created (or had ability to do it) many dubious winners or voting results. The fact that Nick Lidstrom has one top3 finish (if i remember correctly) is a joke. Or is Ovechkin and his 65 goals less worthy if Caps don't win the last game and don't make the playoffs. We were very close to it.

 

[canucks4ever]

Not the one in 1990 (despite the controversy) he was a beast that year. 1992 like I have said before many times could have gone to another player, but since it was a weird year that no one stood out (Mario was injured for a bit, Gretzky had "only" 121 points, Roy and Bourque and Yzerman didn't do anything different than the previous 5 years) who else could have gotten it?

Anyway, to the OP, I don't think it hurts your legacy at all if you only win once. I think what happens afterwards is what counts. Someone mentioned that if Perry goes the way of Theodore, then yes I think 2011 will become an abberation and the entire idea that Crosby had the MVP in his back pocket before he got hurt would only add to it. But if Perry has some more elite seasons after this then it won't hurt his legacy at all.

St. Louis has only won once but we all know what he's done since so no one will think it was an abberation. Plus I think Jagr and Bathgate are a clear cut above Perry, even in their Hart years. Bathgate was always in the mix for the Hart in the 1950s and early 1960s. It would have surprised no one had he won another one. Jagr in all honesty is snake bit that way and people if anything will point to his 5 Art Ross trophies and wonder how he didn't win more Harts.

Richard is an interesting case too. He wins in 1947 and that's it. He's always in the mix and loses out a couple of years (1945 or 1955) where, let's face it had he been a little more popular with the media he probably gets at least one of those.

Well in 1992, Hull scored 70 goals and patrick roy was clearly the best goalie, pretty good cases for mvp. Leetch scoring 102 points as a defenseman isn't too shabby either. Messiers 1992 hart is probably the weakest of that decade.

 

[livewell68]

Jagr, more than perhaps any forward, is someone whose impact is severely understated by simply counting Hart victories. It's not just the fact that he has three 2nd place finishes in addition to multiple other high placements, but he was literally one vote away from winning a second Hart trophy and he could easily be a three-time winner with little to no dispute.

Exactly.

Jagr lost a Hart to Lemieux in 1995-96. Any other season he would have won the Art Ross and Hart. He lost a Hart to Hasek.

Jagr was easily the best forward in most of his Art Ross winning seasons.

In total he was a Hart finalist 6 times and was 4th in the voting another 2 times.

Hart count isn't always a fair assessment of a player's career.

With that regard, some would then consider Ovechkin to be Jagr's equal in the historical context when it is not the case.

In retrospect, a player like St. Louis has 1 Hart like Jagr does, are they equals?

 

[Big Phil]

Even if you think Messier had the best seasons in 1990 and 1992 (which I obviously don't), his actual seasons do not stack up well with other Hart winning (and non-winning) seasons in the context of the 80s and 90s. I just don't think the player with the most Harts is necessarily the better player, and Measier is a prime example of this - as it is a huge part of what makes him very overrated, IMO.

I'm pretty sure that if a poll was done in 1992 that greater than 50% would want Messier on their team over Hull. Just saying. You are right about Roy, it wouldn't have been a travesty if he had won the Hart in 1992, or Lemieux. I'll agree 1992 is a very weak year but I don't think 1990 was a weak year when you look at the other Hart seasons of the 1990s at least (lets face it, Gretzky won the Harts in the 1980s, that is no comparison). I mean was Messier in 1990 weaker than Hull in 1991, Fedorov in 1994 and Lindros in 1995? No doubt that Lemieux, Hasek and Jagr's Harts to round out the 1990s were better but I think its wrong to suggest Messier's 1990 Hart is weaker than the above mentioned around that time.

Well in 1992, Hull scored 70 goals and patrick roy was clearly the best goalie, pretty good cases for mvp. Leetch scoring 102 points as a defenseman isn't too shabby either. Messiers 1992 hart is probably the weakest of that decade.

I can agree that the 1992 Hart was possibly the weakest of the decade. Like I said above, 1992 was a weird year with a lot of the stars not hitting their usual numbers.

 

[GuineaPig]

In both Jagr's and Perry's victories, the Hart deserved to go to the goaltender who had set the save percentage record that year.


And because of the binary nature of the awards, they aren't good indicators of a player's career. It goes without saying that Perry does not equal Jagr.

 

[livewell68]

In both Jagr's and Perry's victories, the Hart deserved to go to the goaltender who had set the save percentage record that year.

And because of the binary nature of the awards, they aren't good indicators of a player's career. It goes without saying that Perry does not equal Jagr.

Jagr won the Art Ross by 20 Pts in 1998-99. He had as many assists (83) as Straka had points who in turn was 2nd on the Penguins in scoring.

Selanne finished 2nd in the Art Ross race that season with 107 Pts and had Karyia on his line who had 104 Pts himself to finish 3rd.

No one meant more to his team than Jagr did to the Penguins that season.

In fact some say this was Jagr's best season ever. He deserved the Hart.

Hasek's season was impressive but considering that it was a low scoring season that was during the "Dead Puck Era", Hasek was not that far ahead of goalies like Cujo and Brodeur that season.

Jagr stood out much more as a forward than Hasek did as a goalie that season.

 

[Epsilon]

In both Jagr's and Perry's victories, the Hart deserved to go to the goaltender who had set the save percentage record that year.


And because of the binary nature of the awards, they aren't good indicators of a player's career. It goes without saying that Perry does not equal Jagr.

Despite being a big fan of Hasek, and laughing at the Toronto media's crusade to have Joseph win the Vezina and Hart trophies that year, I think in 1998-99 Jagr was absolutely the right choice for MVP. Despite setting the save % record it wasn't Hasek's most brilliant season, and Jagr absolutely carried Pittsburgh on his back that year.

I tend to agree more with regards to Perry and Thomas last season. Hindsight is 20/20, but the playoffs made it crystal clear who the most valuable player to their team was that season.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Despite being a big fan of Hasek, and laughing at the Toronto media's crusade to have Joseph win the Vezina and Hart trophies that year, I think in 1998-99 Jagr was absolutely the right choice for MVP. Despite setting the save % record it wasn't Hasek's most brilliant season, and Jagr absolutely carried Pittsburgh on his back that year.

I tend to agree more with regards to Perry and Thomas last season. Hindsight is 20/20, but the playoffs made it crystal clear who the most valuable player to their team was that season.

I think Thomas got deducted for having played a low number of games

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I think Thomas got deducted for having played a low number of games

I still think he was the best player in the league last year, and by a fair margin. He was punished for being on a good team, with a good backup and a Selke winning defenseman.

 

[canucks4ever]

Jagr won the Art Ross by 20 Pts in 1998-99. He had as many assists (83) as Straka had points who in turn was 2nd on the Penguins in scoring.

Selanne finished 2nd in the Art Ross race that season with 107 Pts and had Karyia on his line who had 104 Pts himself to finish 3rd.

No one meant more to his team than Jagr did to the Penguins that season.

In fact some say this was Jagr's best season ever. He deserved the Hart.

Hasek's season was impressive but considering that it was a low scoring season that was during the "Dead Puck Era", Hasek was not that far ahead of goalies like Cujo and Brodeur that season.

Jagr stood out much more as a forward than Hasek did as a goalie that season.

I dont mind jagr winning it, but hasek was far ahead of other goalies, none of them were even close to 93.7 save percentage.

 

[seventieslord]

I still think he was the best player in the league last year, and by a fair margin. He was punished for being on a good team, with a good backup and a Selke winning defenseman.

that would be awesome! although I don't think anyone but Bobby Orr could pull it off.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

that would be awesome! although I don't think anyone but Bobby Orr could pull it off.

Whoa... I gotta quit huffing glue.

 

[Big Phil]

I dont mind jagr winning it, but hasek was far ahead of other goalies, none of them were even close to 93.7 save percentage.

Yeah no doubt he was still far and away the best goalie in the NHL at that time. The 2nd team all-star that year (1999) was Byron Dafoe who was nowhere near him. But I think there would have been a federal case launched if Jagr didn't win in 1999. Numbers are only half the story, an important half, but still only half of it. Jagr was just on another level that year, and his numbers as well were peerless amongst forwards that year.

 

[Hammer Time]

Despite being a big fan of Hasek, and laughing at the Toronto media's crusade to have Joseph win the Vezina and Hart trophies that year, I think in 1998-99 Jagr was absolutely the right choice for MVP. Despite setting the save % record it wasn't Hasek's most brilliant season, and Jagr absolutely carried Pittsburgh on his back that year.

I tend to agree more with regards to Perry and Thomas last season. Hindsight is 20/20, but the playoffs made it crystal clear who the most valuable player to their team was that season.

The same could be said of Hasek's playoffs in 1999 vs. Jagr's.

 

[canucks4ever]

Yeah no doubt he was still far and away the best goalie in the NHL at that time. The 2nd team all-star that year (1999) was Byron Dafoe who was nowhere near him. But I think there would have been a federal case launched if Jagr didn't win in 1999. Numbers are only half the story, an important half, but still only half of it. Jagr was just on another level that year, and his numbers as well were peerless amongst forwards that year.

You do bring up a good point, based on adjusted stats, jagr's 1999 season was better than any season ovechkin, crosby, sakic, yzerman or bossy ever had, only mario and gretzky produced better offense in post-expansion era.

 

[Czech Your Math]

The same could be said of Hasek's playoffs in 1999 vs. Jagr's.

Hasek had a great playoff, but Jagr was the main reason the Pens beat the Devils (a #1 seed who were better than any team the Sabres beat). Jagr coming back from injury to lead Pittsburgh to game 6 and 7 must-wins against New Jersey is about as good as it gets. The game-tying and OT goals in game 6 were epic. Don't want to take anything away from Hasek, as he was his spectacular self. They both showed how great they were and just how important they were to their respective teams IMO.