Hindsight & awards voting

[Hockey Outsider]

When players, general managers and the media vote on season-end awards, they must vote within a few days of the end of the year. They cast their ballots based on the facts available to them at the time. It's possible that, had they known what we know today (2010), their decisions would have been different.

====

For example: in 1991, Brett Hull won the Hart (with a comfortable lead over Gretzky), and Oates didn't earn a single vote. Knowing what we know about Hull & Oates' careers post-1991, I wonder if Hull still would have won the Hart.

The consensus at the time was that, although Oates was a great playmaker, Hull was the Blues' driving force. That was probably a reasonable assumption at the time (as Oates didn't have his breakout season until being paired with Hull, and Hull was already an excellent goal-scorer without Oates). But, based on what we've seen post-1991, we know that even prime Hull was "just" a 50 goal scorer without Oates, and Oates had a knack for considerably elevating his linemates' production. Looking back, I would argue that Oates was at least as important as Hull, possibly more so.

It's possible they would have split the Hart votes, and Gretzky could have emerged as the winner. (Even though Oates missed around 20 games, he may have split enough votes to allow TGO to take yet another Hart).

====

On the other hand, sometime we can use hindsight to confirm a decision. After the 2006 season, I thought Jagr was more deserving of the Hart (rather than Thornton, who won). However, in hindsight, I'm comfortable saying that Thornton was the deserving MVP. As we all know, Thornton turned Cheechoo into a 56-goal scorer; I suspect many people overrated Cheechoo at the time (as he was quite young and had a fair amount of potential) and therefore underestimated just how much playmaking value Thornton brought to the Sharks.

Similarly, I gave Jagr what was, in retrospect, far too much credit for the Rangers' resurgence from 2004 to 2006. Looking back, it's clear to me that Lundqvist played a huge role in that. Between 2006 and 2009, Lundqvist remained an elite goalie (three straight Vezina nominations) and the Rangers hovered between 94 and 100 points, despite Jagr dropping from 123 to 96 to 71 points, then retiring. I think in retrospect Jagr got far too much credit for the Rangers' turnaround - Lundqvist was the constant who helped turn the franchise around.

Another way of looking at it: in 2004, the Rangers were 17th in GF and 27th in GA, and finished with 69 points. In 2006, the Rangers were 11th in GF and 4th in GA, and finished with 100 points. Clearly they improved both their offense and defense, but it was their defense that made a large improvement. I'd wager that was due more to Lundqvist than Jagr (though of course there are other factors at play - coach Renney, who took over late in 2004, was a better fit than Sather IMO). Lundqvist was only a very distant 9th in Hart voting; had his votes been split with Jagr's, Thornton would have comfortably been MVP. At the very least, I feel like hindsight confirms that Thornton was the deserving MVP in 2006.

====

I'm not talking about second-guessing tough decisions between two equally deserving players. For example, Jagr/Pronger in 2000 was an extremely close vote and I don't think that any new evidence has come to light that would require us to reevaluate the decision.

Any thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Oowatanite]

I think Jagr was robbed of the Hart trophy in 2006, 54 goals to Thornton's 29 and Thornton only had 2 more points 125 to 123, goals are more important than assists IMO.

 

[matnor]

When players, general managers and the media vote on season-end awards, they must vote within a few days of the end of the year. They cast their ballots based on the facts available to them at the time. It's possible that, had they known what we know today (2010), their decisions would have been different.

====

For example: in 1991, Brett Hull won the Hart (with a comfortable lead over Gretzky), and Oates didn't earn a single vote. Knowing what we know about Hull & Oates' careers post-1991, I wonder if Hull still would have won the Hart.

The consensus at the time was that, although Oates was a great playmaker, Hull was the Blues' driving force. That was probably a reasonable assumption at the time (as Oates didn't have his breakout season until being paired with Hull, and Hull was already an excellent goal-scorer without Oates). But, based on what we've seen post-1991, we know that even prime Hull was "just" a 50 goal scorer without Oates, and Oates had a knack for considerably elevating his linemates' production. Looking back, I would argue that Oates was at least as important as Hull, possibly more so.

It's possible they would have split the Hart votes, and Gretzky could have emerged as the winner. (Even though Oates missed around 20 games, he may have split enough votes to allow TGO to take yet another Hart).

====

On the other hand, sometime we can use hindsight to confirm a decision. After the 2006 season, I thought Jagr was more deserving of the Hart (rather than Thornton, who won). However, in hindsight, I'm comfortable saying that Thornton was the deserving MVP. As we all know, Thornton turned Cheechoo into a 56-goal scorer; I suspect many people overrated Cheechoo at the time (as he was quite young and had a fair amount of potential) and therefore underestimated just how much playmaking value Thornton brought to the Sharks.

Similarly, I gave Jagr what was, in retrospect, far too much credit for the Rangers' resurgence from 2004 to 2006. Looking back, it's clear to me that Lundqvist played a huge role in that. Between 2006 and 2009, Lundqvist remained an elite goalie (three straight Vezina nominations) and the Rangers hovered between 94 and 100 points, despite Jagr dropping from 123 to 96 to 71 points, then retiring. I think in retrospect Jagr got far too much credit for the Rangers' turnaround - Lundqvist was the constant who helped turn the franchise around.

Another way of looking at it: in 2004, the Rangers were 17th in GF and 27th in GA, and finished with 69 points. In 2006, the Rangers were 11th in GF and 4th in GA, and finished with 100 points. Clearly they improved both their offense and defense, but it was their defense that made a large improvement. I'd wager that was due more to Lundqvist than Jagr (though of course there are other factors at play - coach Renney, who took over late in 2004, was a better fit than Sather IMO). Lundqvist was only a very distant 9th in Hart voting; had his votes been split with Jagr's, Thornton would have comfortably been MVP. At the very least, I feel like hindsight confirms that Thornton was the deserving MVP in 2006.

====

I'm not talking about second-guessing tough decisions between two equally deserving players. For example, Jagr/Pronger in 2000 was an extremely close vote and I don't think that any new evidence has come to light that would require us to reevaluate the decision.

Any thoughts?

Interesting points. I think it would be very interesting for this board to re-do the major awards through history. Another vote that may have turned out different with what we know in hindsight was the Blake/Lidström Norris vote in 1998.

However, I don't think Hull's 86 goal season should really be attributed to Oates to such a large extent. If I did the calculations correct Oates actually only assisted on 42 of his goals. Furthermore, in the 19 games Hull played without Oates he still scored 17 goals.

 

[SidGenoMario]

I think Jagr was robbed of the Hart trophy in 2006, 54 goals to Thornton's 29 and Thornton only had 2 more points 125 to 123, goals are more important than assists IMO.

Not when the assists are coming from Joe Thornton. Very few of those ninety-some assists were secondary and coincidentally. He single-handedly manufactured his assists just as much as Jagr single-handedly manufactured his goals.

 

[Tavaresmagicalplay*]

I think you might be overrating Oates a bit. To say he inflated Hulls goal totals by as much as 35 goals? That's a bit much.

 

[MXD]

Not when the assists are coming from Joe Thornton. Very few of those ninety-some assists were secondary and coincidentally. He single-handedly manufactured his assists just as much as Jagr single-handedly manufactured his goals.

He single-handedly manufactured a 50 goals scorer, as well.
And, ho, he's probably tearing Lisa apart as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Voting: Perceptions and Variations

When players, general managers and the media vote on season-end awards, they must vote within a few days of the end of the year. They cast their ballots based on the facts available to them at the time. It's possible that, had they known what we know today (2010), their decisions would have been different.

====

For example: in 1991, Brett Hull won the Hart (with a comfortable lead over Gretzky), and Oates didn't earn a single vote. Knowing what we know about Hull & Oates' careers post-1991, I wonder if Hull still would have won the Hart.

The consensus at the time was that, although Oates was a great playmaker, Hull was the Blues' driving force. That was probably a reasonable assumption at the time (as Oates didn't have his breakout season until being paired with Hull, and Hull was already an excellent goal-scorer without Oates). But, based on what we've seen post-1991, we know that even prime Hull was "just" a 50 goal scorer without Oates, and Oates had a knack for considerably elevating his linemates' production. Looking back, I would argue that Oates was at least as important as Hull, possibly more so.

It's possible they would have split the Hart votes, and Gretzky could have emerged as the winner. (Even though Oates missed around 20 games, he may have split enough votes to allow TGO to take yet another Hart).

====

On the other hand, sometime we can use hindsight to confirm a decision. After the 2006 season, I thought Jagr was more deserving of the Hart (rather than Thornton, who won). However, in hindsight, I'm comfortable saying that Thornton was the deserving MVP. As we all know, Thornton turned Cheechoo into a 56-goal scorer; I suspect many people overrated Cheechoo at the time (as he was quite young and had a fair amount of potential) and therefore underestimated just how much playmaking value Thornton brought to the Sharks.

Similarly, I gave Jagr what was, in retrospect, far too much credit for the Rangers' resurgence from 2004 to 2006. Looking back, it's clear to me that Lundqvist played a huge role in that. Between 2006 and 2009, Lundqvist remained an elite goalie (three straight Vezina nominations) and the Rangers hovered between 94 and 100 points, despite Jagr dropping from 123 to 96 to 71 points, then retiring. I think in retrospect Jagr got far too much credit for the Rangers' turnaround - Lundqvist was the constant who helped turn the franchise around.

Another way of looking at it: in 2004, the Rangers were 17th in GF and 27th in GA, and finished with 69 points. In 2006, the Rangers were 11th in GF and 4th in GA, and finished with 100 points. Clearly they improved both their offense and defense, but it was their defense that made a large improvement. I'd wager that was due more to Lundqvist than Jagr (though of course there are other factors at play - coach Renney, who took over late in 2004, was a better fit than Sather IMO). Lundqvist was only a very distant 9th in Hart voting; had his votes been split with Jagr's, Thornton would have comfortably been MVP. At the very least, I feel like hindsight confirms that Thornton was the deserving MVP in 2006.

====

I'm not talking about second-guessing tough decisions between two equally deserving players. For example, Jagr/Pronger in 2000 was an extremely close vote and I don't think that any new evidence has come to light that would require us to reevaluate the decision.

Any thoughts?

Voting is rarely or ever 100% fact based, just degrees of perception. Be it years later or after the playoffs as opposed to after the regular season or a 50/50 cumulative mid season end of season you will always have variances.

Oates missing app. 20 games did not detour Brett Hull's path to the Hart and in subsequent season's neither Oates nor his linemates came close to the Hart so the Oates / Hart connection is rather difficult to support.

As for the Jagr / Lundqvist analogy, far from hindsight just reconfirming what great coaches knew over fifty years ago, reducing goals against by 15-20% from a 2003-04 high of 250 like the Rangers did is much more effective and durable then hoping to score 15-25% more goals to overcome the defensive weakness. Elementary to all team sports before the dawn of metrics.Intuition confirmed by Pythagorean Expectation.

Jagr/Pronger - see Jagr / Lundqvist.Not tough at all. Not popular but correct.

Jagr/Thornton interesting. One of those multiple misinterpretations coming out plausibly right scenarios. Specifically San Jose before Thornton was a < .350 team. Thornton's arrival coincided with Toskala getting more playing time and producing in goal. Pre Thornton Sharks goals against was < 3.50 GAA after Thornton with Toskala getting more playing time it dropped to < 2.75 GAA. Effectively .75GA less per game or app 43 fewer goals given up over the remaining 58 games after Thornton's arrival then projected over the first 24 games without Thornton. So voters were misdirected from defensive factors to offensive factors. Not surprising. Still in terms of impact a viable choice given the Jagr / Lundqvist scenario admitted to previously. Jonathan Cheechoo had an eye candy effect.

 

[Big Phil]

For example: in 1991, Brett Hull won the Hart (with a comfortable lead over Gretzky), and Oates didn't earn a single vote. Knowing what we know about Hull & Oates' careers post-1991, I wonder if Hull still would have won the Hart.

The consensus at the time was that, although Oates was a great playmaker, Hull was the Blues' driving force. That was probably a reasonable assumption at the time (as Oates didn't have his breakout season until being paired with Hull, and Hull was already an excellent goal-scorer without Oates). But, based on what we've seen post-1991, we know that even prime Hull was "just" a 50 goal scorer without Oates, and Oates had a knack for considerably elevating his linemates' production. Looking back, I would argue that Oates was at least as important as Hull, possibly more so.

There is rarely a time I think Gretzky was shafted for an award (possibly the 1984 Conn Smythe) but 1991 would be that example. He had all the ingredients for a Hart trophy. He made a mockery of the scoring race (163 to 131 which was Hull) he led the Kings to a 102 point season good for 3rd in the NHL. And the next best King was Robitaille with 91 points. Amazing and an incredibly underrated season for #99.

I think a lot of it had to do with a new face in the crowd of the NHL landscape, that and the fact Hull came close to breaking the single season goals mark with 86 goals. I can see how he won the Hart, but I could also see how Gretzky could have done it.

Another thing, do you really think Hull was an excellent goal scorer prior to 1989-'90? He had a 41 goal season the year before with Oates getting 78 points on different teams. Once they were paired in St. Louis in 1989-'90 is when the three straight 70+ goal seasons started. I don't think either player was really regarded as being better than the other at that time, none were superstars yet

I'm not talking about second-guessing tough decisions between two equally deserving players. For example, Jagr/Pronger in 2000 was an extremely close vote and I don't think that any new evidence has come to light that would require us to reevaluate the decision.

Any thoughts?

No. Pronger had a great year and even he stated at the time that he realized Jagr would have won the Hart had he not missed 20 games to injury.

 

[Big Phil]

I think Jagr was robbed of the Hart trophy in 2006, 54 goals to Thornton's 29 and Thornton only had 2 more points 125 to 123, goals are more important than assists IMO.

But Thornton took a mediocre team going nowhere and made them Cup contenders overnight. He also took Cheechoo a guy who may have gotten 25-30 goals and had 7 at that moment into a 56 goal scorer and one who led the NHL that season. If you remember that season, it wasn't out of the ordinary for Thornton to get multiple assist games. He ended up with 96 that year a mark beaten in a single season by only 4 other guys. He was the epitome of a player who made others around him better. Another earmark for a Hart Trophy winner. Jagr was a fine choice but he wasn't robbed by any means, the right guy won it in 2006

 

[Epsilon]

My main problem with Thornton winning that year is that his points scored for Boston really didn't contribute anything, since Boston finished in the basement of their division. So you are basically comparing Jagr's vastly superior totals to Thornton's accomplished in less games. Also, I feel like he is given too much credit for turning around the Sharks, who were in reality a pretty good team (conference finalist the year before) that were off to a lousy start to the season. I think any shakeup would have been enough to snap that team out of their funk, it didn't have to be as drastic a move as bringing in a superstar player. On the other hand, the argument presented here about how in hindsight, Lundqvist was more important to the Rangers turnaround than Jagr is fairly compelling, which hurts Jagr's case as well. Even in hindsight it's a pretty close call.

 

[Dark Shadows]

My main problem with Thornton winning that year is that his points scored for Boston really didn't contribute anything, since Boston finished in the basement of their division. So you are basically comparing Jagr's vastly superior totals to Thornton's accomplished in less games. Also, I feel like he is given too much credit for turning around the Sharks, who were in reality a pretty good team (conference finalist the year before) that were off to a lousy start to the season. I think any shakeup would have been enough to snap that team out of their funk, it didn't have to be as drastic a move as bringing in a superstar player. On the other hand, the argument presented here about how in hindsight, Lundqvist was more important to the Rangers turnaround than Jagr is fairly compelling, which hurts Jagr's case as well. Even in hindsight it's a pretty close call.

Boston was in 9th place in the East when Thornton left and Boston Finished the season without him 13th east 5th last in the entire league.

His points in Boston might not have amounted to much, but he was also the ONLY one on that team scoring. Management had put together a ragtag group who could not win, while letting go key players from the last year(Rolston, Nylander, Knuble). The team really went down the toilet without him and took years to recover.

Meanwhile, the Sharks, who were 2nd last place at the time, having extreme trouble generating wins outside of the clutch and grab era(Which is why they finished so well the year before. Very clutch and grab team and one of the worst affected by the new rules), went on a tear and ended up finishing 5th in the west.

For those talking about the "Goals vs Assists" again. Assists matter just as much as goals when talking about an elite playmaker who could make anyone score and can score with anyone.
In hindsight, him propelling Cheechoo to the Rocket Richard trophy looks much much better now.

 

[Oowatanite]

Boston was in 9th place in the East when Thornton left and Boston Finished the season without him 13th east 5th last in the entire league.

His points in Boston might not have amounted to much, but he was also the ONLY one on that team scoring. Management had put together a ragtag group who could not win, while letting go key players from the last year(Rolston, Nylander, Knuble). The team really went down the toilet without him and took years to recover.

Meanwhile, the Sharks, who were 2nd last place at the time, having extreme trouble generating wins outside of the clutch and grab era(Which is why they finished so well the year before. Very clutch and grab team and one of the worst affected by the new rules), went on a tear and ended up finishing 5th in the west.

For those talking about the "Goals vs Assists" again. Assists matter just as much as goals when talking about an elite playmaker who could make anyone score and can score with anyone.
In hindsight, him propelling Cheechoo to the Rocket Richard trophy looks much much better now.

Yeah I saw Cheechoo play this season for Ottawa and he was brutal, he certainly didn't look like a 56 goal scorer.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Yeah I saw Cheechoo play this season for Ottawa and he was brutal, he certainly didn't look like a 56 goal scorer.

In his defense, a series of injuries really ruined his confidence.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

But Thornton took a mediocre team going nowhere and made them Cup contenders overnight. He also took Cheechoo a guy who may have gotten 25-30 goals and had 7 at that moment into a 56 goal scorer and one who led the NHL that season. If you remember that season, it wasn't out of the ordinary for Thornton to get multiple assist games. He ended up with 96 that year a mark beaten in a single season by only 4 other guys. He was the epitome of a player who made others around him better. Another earmark for a Hart Trophy winner. Jagr was a fine choice but he wasn't robbed by any means, the right guy won it in 2006

I personally would have chosen Jagr, but that said, Thornton was a good choice that season. Just one of those years where you kind of wish they had a tie in the voting and both guys got their name on the award.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Injuries

In his defense, a series of injuries really ruined his confidence.

Plus his first step quickness, mobility and lateral movement.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah I saw Cheechoo play this season for Ottawa and he was brutal, he certainly didn't look like a 56 goal scorer.

Yeah he takes a beating here on the boards but this is a guy who had his ability to get where he needs to be taken away by injury.

 

[IggyFan12]

For me it was the 2001-2002 season where Theodore won the Hart trophy ahead of Iginla and the Veizna ahead of Roy.

 

[Dissonance]

I wonder if voters still would've given Jim Carey the Vezina in '96 if they knew his career would go down the toilet and he'd be out of the league within three years. His nine shutouts that season were pretty tough to ignore (and the hands-down best goalie that year, Hasek, was hampered by a horrendous team), but it's clear in retrospect that Carey had a lot of severe flaws in his game that became fatal as soon as the rest of the league figured him out.

Some of the Calders might get revamped in retrospect, too. If voters knew how their full careers would pan out, would they still have picked Berard over Iginla in '97? Samsonov over Ohlund in '98? Jackman over Zetterberg in '03? Etc.

 

[Dark Shadows]

For me it was the 2001-2002 season where Theodore won the Hart trophy ahead of Iginla and the Veizna ahead of Roy.

They actually tied for the Hart, but Theo had more 1st place votes.

It is extremely rare for the Hart to go to a player on a losing non-playoff team. On a team with top scorer Yanik Perreault having 56 points, Montreal certainly had more success specifically because of Theodore's performance(Flash in the pan as it may have been) and it was not a bad choice.

 

[Epsilon]

I wonder if voters still would've given Jim Carey the Vezina in '96 if they knew his career would go down the toilet and he'd be out of the league within three years. His nine shutouts that season were pretty tough to ignore (and the hands-down best goalie that year, Hasek, was hampered by a horrendous team), but it's clear in retrospect that Carey had a lot of severe flaws in his game that became fatal as soon as the rest of the league figured him out.

Some of the Calders might get revamped in retrospect, too. If voters knew how their full careers would pan out, would they still have picked Berard over Iginla in '97? Samsonov over Ohlund in '98? Jackman over Zetterberg in '03? Etc.

This is the absolute worst type of hindsight analysis. Future performance should have no bearing on what a player did in a particular year and whether or not it is award-worthy. This is especially true of the Calder trophy, it's not supposed to be "Rookie with the Brightest Career Path".

 

[Dissonance]

This is the absolute worst type of hindsight analysis. Future performance should have no bearing on what a player did in a particular year and whether or not it is award-worthy. This is especially true of the Calder trophy, it's not supposed to be "Rookie with the Brightest Career Path".

Sure, though I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of voters do think a bit about how a player's career will pan out when thinking about the Calder, especially when it's a close call. (And none of the three Calder years I mentioned were obvious no-brainer picks. I left out Raycroft in '04 because he may have been a one-hit wonder, but he was also the best rookie that year by a good margin.)

 

[BraveCanadian]

This is the absolute worst type of hindsight analysis. Future performance should have no bearing on what a player did in a particular year and whether or not it is award-worthy. This is especially true of the Calder trophy, it's not supposed to be "Rookie with the Brightest Career Path".

True.. that is why the awards are yearly in the first place.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My main problem with Thornton winning that year is that his points scored for Boston really didn't contribute anything, since Boston finished in the basement of their division. So you are basically comparing Jagr's vastly superior totals to Thornton's accomplished in less games. Also, I feel like he is given too much credit for turning around the Sharks, who were in reality a pretty good team (conference finalist the year before) that were off to a lousy start to the season. I think any shakeup would have been enough to snap that team out of their funk, it didn't have to be as drastic a move as bringing in a superstar player. On the other hand, the argument presented here about how in hindsight, Lundqvist was more important to the Rangers turnaround than Jagr is fairly compelling, which hurts Jagr's case as well. Even in hindsight it's a pretty close call.

Thornton over Jagr in 2006 was for the same reason Forsberg won over Naslund in 2003 - he and his team were on fire down the stretch, while the runner up and his team were not playing well down the stretch (Jagr/Naslund both lost large leads in the Art Ross race and both played on teams that lost large leads in their divisions in the last days of the season).

 

[SidGenoMario]

He single-handedly manufactured a 50 goals scorer, as well.
And, ho, he's probably tearing Lisa apart as well.

Haha. Instant respect for you.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Boston was in 9th place in the East when Thornton left and Boston Finished the season without him 13th east 5th last in the entire league.

His points in Boston might not have amounted to much, but he was also the ONLY one on that team scoring. Management had put together a ragtag group who could not win, while letting go key players from the last year(Rolston, Nylander, Knuble). The team really went down the toilet without him and took years to recover.

Meanwhile, the Sharks, who were 2nd last place at the time, having extreme trouble generating wins outside of the clutch and grab era(Which is why they finished so well the year before. Very clutch and grab team and one of the worst affected by the new rules), went on a tear and ended up finishing 5th in the west.

For those talking about the "Goals vs Assists" again. Assists matter just as much as goals when talking about an elite playmaker who could make anyone score and can score with anyone.
In hindsight, him propelling Cheechoo to the Rocket Richard trophy looks much much better now.

I've been through this one before a few times, but here's my take anyway:

Though Thornton was scoring when in Boston, he was doing so putting in very little effort. It was the first part of the first season after the lockout and everyone was scoring like crazy early on with all the power plays and limited contact. Thornton was 11th in scoring when he left Boston. He went to San Jose with something to prove, and he did it. But I have a hard time giving a player an MVP when over a quarter of his season was spent basically floating by.