Individual Awards: Worst performance to be nominated

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Speaking of Iginla in this thread; 2nd for the Hart in 2004... for what? He won the Rocket with two other guys. Was tied with Steve Sullivan as the 6th/7th highest scoring RW. Was within a handful of points near Tkachuk, Doan, Guerin and Scott Walker. Posted basically the same season he did in 2003. The reason they made the playoffs was the addition of Kiprusoff.

Good one. Appeared on less than half of the 10-7-5-3-1 ballots. Oddly the voters punished Pearson nominee Roberto Luongo the way they did not punish Iginla in 2002. The other Pearson nominee, Joe Sakic, had the misfortune of playing on an under-performing Colorado Avalanche who lost their division for the first time since 1993-94. He was also very obviously not their best player, which hurts.

Basically everyone after St. Louis had a very glaring reason not to be on the ballot. With how popular Scott Niedermayer was just 3 years later, it’s almost surprising we didn’t see him land in the top-3.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
Good one. Appeared on less than half of the 10-7-5-3-1 ballots. Oddly the voters punished Pearson nominee Roberto Luongo the way they did not punish Iginla in 2002. The other Pearson nominee, Joe Sakic, had the misfortune of playing on an under-performing Colorado Avalanche who lost their division for the first time since 1993-94. He was also very obviously not their best player, which hurts.

Basically everyone after St. Louis had a very glaring reason not to be on the ballot. With how popular Scott Niedermayer was just 3 years later, it’s almost surprising we didn’t see him land in the top-3.

St. Louis had 97 of the 105 first place votes.

It was really a goaltender's season outside of him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quoipourquoi

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
How solid was Barret Jackman's Calder win in 02/03? Closest guys were Zetterberg by an inch and Rick Nash.

Man those years in early 2000's really were a weak era in the history of the NHL.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,431
Vancouver, BC
How solid was Barret Jackman's Calder win in 02/03? Closest guys were Zetterberg by an inch and Rick Nash.

Man those years in early 2000's really were a weak era in the history of the NHL.

Zetterberg really should have won that.

Jackman should thank Al MacInnis for that trophy and basically making his career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockey Outsider

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,508
3,057
The Maritimes
I think you can infer it based on the fact that Langway is by far the lowest scoring defenseman to ever win the Norris by an order of magnitude. He's an extreme outlier. And you can infer it to a degree based on who he beat - unless you think Mark Howe and Ray Bourque weren't excellent defensemen in their own zone while contributing roughly 50 points or more offensively than Langway.

It was probably somewhat narrative based (Washington's D improved significantly when he arrived, although it ignores contributions of Engblom and Stevens who arrived at the same time).

I mean, if you want chapter and verse, you're not going to get it, but god graced us all with the ability to use inductive reasoning, and I for one am going to use that gift.
This theory has been making the rounds for 20 years or so, but I don't think it makes any sense.

Let's go back to 1982, Doug Wilson - universally regarded as one of the best defensemen of that period - wins the Norris. Was there some kind of public backlash about this? I don't remember any backlash. Are you saying that a bunch of PHWA voters immediately regretted voting for Doug Wilson? If not, why would they need to correct?

I think Langway won 2 Norris Trophies because many people thought he was the most dominant defenseman in the NHL, especially in the defensive zone. And because he was credited with being the biggest factor in the Capitals' improvement.

Immediately after winning his 2 Norris Trophies, he was named all-star defenseman (along with Fetisov) in the '84 Canada Cup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: double5son10

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
This thread has convinced me that I was wrong about Theodore. Okay, I'm on board with his winning that Hart... just based on that season, he did deserve it, I suppose. (It was probably the weakest era for forwards, in recent memory anyway.)

I guess I'm always gonna be on the fence re: Langway. I can kind of see both arguments. (I did not see Langway play in his heyday as I was too young, but I did see him play a bit in the latter years of his career.) In the same way that Coffey will always be divisive because he was essentially a rover more than a defenceman, Langway's level of early-80s' acclaim will always be divisive because he was a stay-at-home who had a zero offensive side.

I do think Langway got way too much individual credit for the Caps' defensive game in the early/mid-80s, similar to how Mike Liut got way too much individual credit for the Blues' improvement in 1980-81 (when the record clearly shows that Liut's numbers were no better than the year before, but rather the Blues suddenly started scoring more that season).

Quick Quiz Q: What was the best RS defensive team in the entire 1980s? It was Montreal in 1988-89, but the second best of the decade was Montreal of 1981-82 followed by Washington of 1983-84. The latter two teams had Langway. My question would be, why did Langway get all the credit in Washington c. 1982-1985, and very little credit in Montreal c.1980-1982? Sure, in Montreal there was Larry Robinson, but in Washington there was Murphy and Stevens.

Brian Engblom was on the early-80s Montreal clubs, and he was +63 in 1980-81 and +78 in 1981-82. On the 1982-83 Capitals, Langway was -2 and rookie Scott Stevens +15. The next season Langway was +14 and Stevens +25 and outscored Langway. Now, I'm not seriously suggesting that rookie Stevens was as good as Langway at that point (obviously Langway had the harder match-ups and played in all the biggest situations, defensively), but it's odd to me that on a team with 3 Hall of Fame defencemen, Langway got all the Norris-level credit.

The thing is: If Ray Bourque or Denis Potvin had gone to Washington in 1982 and decided to play an all-defense style, could they have matched Langway's defensive game? I think they could. But could Rod Langway match either of their defensive + offense style? No chance.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,508
3,057
The Maritimes
This thread has convinced me that I was wrong about Theodore. Okay, I'm on board with his winning that Hart... just based on that season, he did deserve it, I suppose. (It was probably the weakest era for forwards, in recent memory anyway.)

I guess I'm always gonna be on the fence re: Langway. I can kind of see both arguments. (I did not see Langway play in his heyday as I was too young, but I did see him play a bit in the latter years of his career.) In the same way that Coffey will always be divisive because he was essentially a rover more than a defenceman, Langway's level of early-80s' acclaim will always be divisive because he was a stay-at-home who had a zero offensive side.

I do think Langway got way too much individual credit for the Caps' defensive game in the early/mid-80s, similar to how Mike Liut got way too much individual credit for the Blues' improvement in 1980-81 (when the record clearly shows that Liut's numbers were no better than the year before, but rather the Blues suddenly started scoring more that season).

Quick Quiz Q: What was the best RS defensive team in the entire 1980s? It was Montreal in 1988-89, but the second best of the decade was Montreal of 1981-82 followed by Washington of 1983-84. The latter two teams had Langway. My question would be, why did Langway get all the credit in Washington c. 1982-1985, and very little credit in Montreal c.1980-1982? Sure, in Montreal there was Larry Robinson, but in Washington there was Murphy and Stevens.

Brian Engblom was on the early-80s Montreal clubs, and he was +63 in 1980-81 and +78 in 1981-82. On the 1982-83 Capitals, Langway was -2 and rookie Scott Stevens +15. The next season Langway was +14 and Stevens +25 and outscored Langway. Now, I'm not seriously suggesting that rookie Stevens was as good as Langway at that point (obviously Langway had the harder match-ups and played in all the biggest situations, defensively), but it's odd to me that on a team with 3 Hall of Fame defencemen, Langway got all the Norris-level credit.

The thing is: If Ray Bourque or Denis Potvin had gone to Washington in 1982 and decided to play an all-defense style, could they have matched Langway's defensive game? I think they could. But could Rod Langway match either of their defensive + offense style? No chance.
Langway was better defensively than both Potvin and Bourque.
 
Last edited:

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,663
I have no issue with Theodore's Hart. He was one of the most outstanding players for that season and was even more arguably the player who was most valuable to his team. Fans, myself included, tend to want the trophy to go to the best player, but that is not the definition and sometimes it end up that way and people call it a poor win. Theodore happened to be close to that on both fronts.

I can accept Langway's second in Hart voting more easily than I can his Norris wins. The Hart is by definition supposed to go to the player mot valuable to his team, while the Norris just goes to the best defenceman. I can buy that Langway was one of the most valuable players (not as to the degree that is sometimes made out) but not the best defenceman by any stretch.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Langway was a lot better defensively than both Potvin and Bourque.
It depends what you mean by "defensively". If you take the extreme and illogical position that losing 1-0 is better than winning 6-5, then Langway was better. But if you take the position that however you outscore your opponent is a "win", then I don't really see it.

Potvin
+456 in 1060 games
2251 goals for, 1427 goals against (+0.78 per game)
Bourque
+527 in 1612 games
3247 goals for, 2144 goals against (+0.68 per game)
Langway
+276 in 994 games
1155 goals for, 1167 goals against (-0.01 per game)
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
It depends what you mean by "defensively". If you take the extreme and illogical position that losing 1-0 is better than winning 6-5, then Langway was better. But if you take the position that however you outscore your opponent is a "win", then I don't really see it.

Potvin
+456 in 1060 games
2251 goals for, 1427 goals against (+0.78 per game)
Bourque
+527 in 1612 games
3247 goals for, 2144 goals against (+0.68 per game)
Langway
+276 in 994 games
1155 goals for, 1167 goals against (-0.01 per game)

EDIT: I guess, for interest's sake, I should also show that latter stat with PP-goals for removed, since (as we all already know) Langway wasn't a power-play beast, while Potvin and Bourque were:

Potvin
(+0.01 per game)
Bourque
(-0.10 per game)
Langway
(-0.11 per game)

So, this doesn't suggest that Bourque or (esp.) Potvin couldn't have very successfully played an all-defense, all-the-time kind of role like Langway and been as good or better than him at it.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,508
3,057
The Maritimes
It depends what you mean by "defensively". If you take the extreme and illogical position that losing 1-0 is better than winning 6-5, then Langway was better. But if you take the position that however you outscore your opponent is a "win", then I don't really see it.

Potvin
+456 in 1060 games
2251 goals for, 1427 goals against (+0.78 per game)
Bourque
+527 in 1612 games
3247 goals for, 2144 goals against (+0.68 per game)
Langway
+276 in 994 games
1155 goals for, 1167 goals against (-0.01 per game)
I was talking about their play in 1982, the year you mentioned. Potvin was a bit past his best; Bourque was not great defensively in '82.

By "defensively", I simply am referring to his play in defensive situations, primarily in his own zone.

The +/- statistic has very little to do with the quality of defense. It is primarily an offensive statistic (for obvious reasons) and a team-determined statistic. In Langway's final season in Montreal, he was +66 in 66 games played, and in his first year in Washington, he was -2 in 80 games, even though everybody thought he played better defense in the latter.
 

MichaelFarrell

Registered User
Aug 29, 2016
2,217
2,916
Pittsburgh, PA
Giroux, Malkin, Kucherov, and Ovechkin all had a better case than him imo
He had 41 more points than the 2nd leading scorer on his team and led his team single handidly to a playoff spot. Come on man. He was the most valuable player TO HIS TEAM (which is the criteria for the award) by a mile.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,431
Vancouver, BC
This thread has convinced me that I was wrong about Theodore. Okay, I'm on board with his winning that Hart... just based on that season, he did deserve it, I suppose. (It was probably the weakest era for forwards, in recent memory anyway.)

I guess I'm always gonna be on the fence re: Langway. I can kind of see both arguments. (I did not see Langway play in his heyday as I was too young, but I did see him play a bit in the latter years of his career.) In the same way that Coffey will always be divisive because he was essentially a rover more than a defenceman, Langway's level of early-80s' acclaim will always be divisive because he was a stay-at-home who had a zero offensive side.

I do think Langway got way too much individual credit for the Caps' defensive game in the early/mid-80s, similar to how Mike Liut got way too much individual credit for the Blues' improvement in 1980-81 (when the record clearly shows that Liut's numbers were no better than the year before, but rather the Blues suddenly started scoring more that season).

Quick Quiz Q: What was the best RS defensive team in the entire 1980s? It was Montreal in 1988-89, but the second best of the decade was Montreal of 1981-82 followed by Washington of 1983-84. The latter two teams had Langway. My question would be, why did Langway get all the credit in Washington c. 1982-1985, and very little credit in Montreal c.1980-1982? Sure, in Montreal there was Larry Robinson, but in Washington there was Murphy and Stevens.

Brian Engblom was on the early-80s Montreal clubs, and he was +63 in 1980-81 and +78 in 1981-82. On the 1982-83 Capitals, Langway was -2 and rookie Scott Stevens +15. The next season Langway was +14 and Stevens +25 and outscored Langway. Now, I'm not seriously suggesting that rookie Stevens was as good as Langway at that point (obviously Langway had the harder match-ups and played in all the biggest situations, defensively), but it's odd to me that on a team with 3 Hall of Fame defencemen, Langway got all the Norris-level credit.

The thing is: If Ray Bourque or Denis Potvin had gone to Washington in 1982 and decided to play an all-defense style, could they have matched Langway's defensive game? I think they could. But could Rod Langway match either of their defensive + offense style? No chance.

Langway was a case of a perfect storm coming together to win him those awards.

First off, there had been significant resentment building from traditionalists as to how the Norris had become the 'most points' trophy after the wins of Carlyle and Wilson in 1981 and 1982 and those traditionalists were harking back to the days where Doug Harvey would win rather than some guy who scored 50 points on the PP but couldn't really play defense.

And then you had Paul Coffey coming along who was that type of player on steroids - all offense and no defense at all, and those traditionalists REALLY didn't want to vote for him.

And then there was Washington. The biggest laughingstock in the NHL. Hadn't made the playoffs in their history. And then they acquire this good defensive defender in Langway (as well as a whole bunch of other quality players) and have a huge turnaround, and it's one of the biggest stories in the NHL in the 82-83 season. And it's the perfect thing for the traditionalists to latch onto to say 'SEE? This is the value of a great defensive defender!'

The fascinating thing is how it became so polarized as new vs. old and Coffey vs. Langway. And how guys like Potvin/Bourque/Howe who were some of the greatest defensive defenders of the time and not significantly different from Langway in that regard while also scoring 60 more points than Langway ended up being marginalized.

Howe was robbed of the 1983 Norris. Any of Bourque/Potvin/Coffey were robbed in 1984.

If Langway had been traded to any middling team in 1982 and not the hapless Capitals on the verge of a huge turnaround, he doesn't finish top-5 in Norris voting either year.


Langway was better defensively than both Potvin and Bourque.

Not by a whole hell of a lot and not nearly enough to compensate for the massive difference in offensive ability.
 

ShelbyZ

Registered User
Apr 8, 2015
3,799
2,561
How solid was Barret Jackman's Calder win in 02/03? Closest guys were Zetterberg by an inch and Rick Nash.

Man those years in early 2000's really were a weak era in the history of the NHL.


Zetterberg really should have won that.

Jackman should thank Al MacInnis for that trophy and basically making his career.

That was a super weak year for rookies... No notable goalie performances that were eligible for the Calder, Zetterberg the only player with more than 40 points, and one of 2 with more than 20 goals (the other being Kotalik), and two guys that were top picks in the previous summers draft were underwhelming (Nash and Bouwmeester).

Jackman arguably played the biggest "role" out of all the rookies that season and was also big on "story". I would argue that he needs to thank Pronger more than MacInnis though. Pronger missed most of that season, which allowed Jackman to quickly take that #2D spot next to MacInnis while Al had that somewhat resurgent final full season. Then Jackman missed most of the next season along with McInnis, and played his prime on a Blues team that tore down its roster and entered a rebuild to lower salary to attract a new buyer.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,609
28,846
Howe was robbed of the 1983 Norris. Any of Bourque/Potvin/Coffey were robbed in 1984.

I absolutely agree with the above except for including Coffey in the Bourque/Potvin discussion of 1984. I don't care how many points he scored - he wasn't a defenseman. I don't care where he lined up on the faceoff.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,431
Vancouver, BC
That was a super weak year for rookies... No notable goalie performances that were eligible for the Calder, Zetterberg the only player with more than 40 points, and one of 2 with more than 20 goals (the other being Kotalik), and two guys that were top picks in the previous summers draft were underwhelming (Nash and Bouwmeester).

Jackman arguably played the biggest "role" out of all the rookies that season and was also big on "story". I would argue that he needs to thank Pronger more than MacInnis though. Pronger missed most of that season, which allowed Jackman to quickly take that #2D spot next to MacInnis while Al had that somewhat resurgent final full season. Then Jackman missed most of the next season along with McInnis, and played his prime on a Blues team that tore down its roster and entered a rebuild to lower salary to attract a new buyer.

As a Canuck fan, that award is especially frustrating.

In 1997, Mattias Ohlund had a lights-out rookie year, far better than Jackman's - 30 points, would have averaged around 25 minutes/game if TOI was recorded at that time. And it was decided that a one-dimensional Euro with 45 points in Sergei Samsonov was the winner.

Fast-forward 6 years, and you have basically the exact same race, only Jackman is much worse than Ohlund (19 points being babysat by MacInnis) and Zetterberg is a far better two-way player than Samsonov. And Jackman somehow wins.
 

frisco

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
Sep 14, 2017
3,553
2,643
Northern Hemisphere
Red Berenson racked up 72 points (7th in the NHL and 2nd best on his team) and a minus -3 in 1969-70. Good for third place in the Hart voting.

My Best-Carey
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Red Berenson racked up 72 points (7th in the NHL and 2nd best on his team) and a minus -3 in 1969-70. Good for third place in the Hart voting.

My Best-Carey

1969-70 was one of those years, where it was a two-man race (Bobby Orr and Tony Esposito) with the 3rd place votes all over the place: 1969-70 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com.

It should also be noted that St. Louis had proven itself over the last few years to be the best of the expansion teams by far. Their leading scorer, Phil Goyette won the Lady Byng and also received a couple of Hart votes. Did a few voters want to "spread the love" by voting Goyette 1st for the Lady Byng and Berenson 3rd for the Hart?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kaiser matias

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,508
3,057
The Maritimes
Langway was a case of a perfect storm coming together to win him those awards.

First off, there had been significant resentment building from traditionalists as to how the Norris had become the 'most points' trophy after the wins of Carlyle and Wilson in 1981 and 1982 and those traditionalists were harking back to the days where Doug Harvey would win rather than some guy who scored 50 points on the PP but couldn't really play defense.

And then you had Paul Coffey coming along who was that type of player on steroids - all offense and no defense at all, and those traditionalists REALLY didn't want to vote for him.

And then there was Washington. The biggest laughingstock in the NHL. Hadn't made the playoffs in their history. And then they acquire this good defensive defender in Langway (as well as a whole bunch of other quality players) and have a huge turnaround, and it's one of the biggest stories in the NHL in the 82-83 season. And it's the perfect thing for the traditionalists to latch onto to say 'SEE? This is the value of a great defensive defender!'

The fascinating thing is how it became so polarized as new vs. old and Coffey vs. Langway. And how guys like Potvin/Bourque/Howe who were some of the greatest defensive defenders of the time and not significantly different from Langway in that regard while also scoring 60 more points than Langway ended up being marginalized.

Howe was robbed of the 1983 Norris. Any of Bourque/Potvin/Coffey were robbed in 1984.

If Langway had been traded to any middling team in 1982 and not the hapless Capitals on the verge of a huge turnaround, he doesn't finish top-5 in Norris voting either year.




Not by a whole hell of a lot and not nearly enough to compensate for the massive difference in offensive ability.
You replied to me, but I didn't mention anything about offensive ability, nor did I make any comparison between Langway and Potvin/Bourque about all-around quality. I talked only about defense. Nothing you said (in your reply to me) is in disagreement with what I said.
 
Last edited:

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
Messier's '92 Hart and Pearson never seemed right

He lead his team in scoring by only 5 points (Messier had 107. Leetch had 102)

He finished tied with Robitaille for 5th in scoring, and 7th in PPG at 1.35

Meanwhile, Lemieux finished with 131 points in 64 games, and lead the league in PPG at 2.05. Runner-up that year was Gretzky at 1.64
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheStatican

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,585
15,948
i think it should probably be universally recognized that gretzky in '90, '91 and '94 and mario in '92 and '97 were competing for the hart trophy against their previous accomplishments, not against messier, hull, fedorov, or hasek.

not to say necessarily that they should have won those trophies, but i think in all those years gretzky and mario lost votes for not totally and completely lapping the field.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,585
15,948
acknowledging that no one is actually nominated per se, the worst finalists among the major awards (i.e., not the calder) probably reside in the vezina voting.

for example, '92 bob essensa really stands out. he wasn't terrible, but we're talking about a guy who doesn't crack the top 10 in games played (he's 15th in games and wins), tied for 2nd in SV% with cujo and beezer but both guys won way more games than him, and was 5th in GAA (basically tied with his own backup).
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Messier's '92 Hart and Pearson never seemed right

He lead his team in scoring by only 5 points (Messier had 107. Leetch had 102)

He finished tied with Robitaille for 5th in scoring, and 7th in PPG at 1.35

Meanwhile, Lemieux finished with 131 points in 64 games, and lead the league in PPG at 2.05. Runner-up that year was Gretzky at 1.64
I don't know if you were around at the time (I think you were...?), but it was pretty much a universal agreement that Messier deserved the Hart. Of 69 first-place votes, 67 went to him. (Hilariously, I note that Tim Cheveldae and Bob Essensa both picked up one third-place vote for the Hart trophy.)

I agree that Mario should have finished higher than 5th/6th in Hart voting (he was behind Kirk McLean....really??), but his problems that season were (a) missed several games (see: Gretzky in 1988; Jagr in 2000, etc.), (b) team didn't improve with his presence, despite being Cup defenders (from 1st in Patrick to 3rd), since the Hart usually accords with team accomplishment; (c) competing with himself.

I do think Messier deserved the Hart that year, though I am always a bit shocked by the enormity of his win. (He was better in 1989-90, when he won it by the narrowest of margins, although that's more of a credit to Bourque's great season.)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->