Team Trophy Concept

[Canadiens1958]

The Stanley Cup is viewed as a team trophy for rather obvious reasons amongst them being its original purpose when donated by Lord Stanley.

But aren't all the other trophies, awards and nominations "team" generated as well?

Calder - the rookie has to first make the team and then integrate within the team in a fashion that makes the rookies individual skills and contributions standout within the team concept.

Norris - the defenseman has to play his specific position in harmony with his partner, the goalie and his teammates to be effective.

Similar "team" factors are part of every trophy, award and nomination.

Click to read more...

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Does it have to be black and white?
Or can we accept that (most of) the individual trophies have more to do with the "individual" than the "team" -- at least moreso than the Stanley Cup?

 

[lextune]

Hockey is a team sport. And thus every aspect of it has a 'team' factor.

But logically, some aspects have a greater team factor than others.

For instance, one could win the Norris on a sub-par team through an extraordinary level of individual skill.

The level of individual skill that would be needed to compensate for a sub-par team and win the Cup is exponentially higher.

 

[arrbez]

Yeah, pretty much what these guys said.

The Stanley Cup is the only award you can't win on a bad or mediocre team. Look at the consensus top-4 skaters of all time: Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe. For all their dominance and legendary play, what was the worst team that any of them won the Cup on? The 1970 Bruins maybe? Even the greatest players in history can't just carry any old team to the promised land. But they can certainly win the Hart on any old team.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

When for instance we are discussing guys like Trottier, Roy, etc they were always on a good team because their presence made it a good team. Trottier wasnt "lucky" to be on a dynasty team like the Isles, he made the Isles a dynasty team (obviously he had help for it). Saying a player was lucky to win so many cups is an argument seen way too often and it is insulting to the players who led their team to victory.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Team

There are three performance options for a team. Play above the level of the sum of its parts, play equal to the level of the sum of its parts or play below the level of the sum of its parts.

Individual awards are meant to recognize that a player exceeded the expected contribution to the team.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

When for instance we are discussing guys like Trottier, Roy, etc they were always on a good team because their presence made it a good team. Trottier wasnt "lucky" to be on a dynasty team like the Isles, he made the Isles a dynasty team (obviously he had help for it). Saying a player was lucky to win so many cups is an argument seen way too often and it is insulting to the players who led their team to victory.

Put Trottier or Roy on a bad team those years and they would be lucky to make the playoffs, let alone win a Cup. Though I agree their presence largely helped make their teams elite instead of merely good.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not So

Yeah, pretty much what these guys said.

The Stanley Cup is the only award you can't win on a bad or mediocre team. Look at the consensus top-4 skaters of all time: Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe. For all their dominance and legendary play, what was the worst team that any of them won the Cup on? The 1970 Bruins maybe? Even the greatest players in history can't just carry any old team to the promised land. But they can certainly win the Hart on any old team.

Orr and Lemieux took the worst teams or their era to the Stanley Cup in short order while Gretzky did the same with a hybrid expansion team after the WHA was partially merged into the NHL.

The 1938 Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup after a seasonal 14-25-9 record while other 3rd or 4th place teams won the Stanley Cup - 1967 Leafs, 1961 Blackhawks, amongst others

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Orr and Lemieux took the worst teams or their era to the Stanley Cup in short order while Gretzky did the same with a hybrid expansion team after the WHA was partially merged into the NHL.

The 1938 Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup after a seasonal 14-25-9 record while other 3rd or 4th place teams won the Stanley Cup - 1967 Leafs, 1961 Blackhawks, amongst others

I think some of your claims "worst" teams are dubious at best, but even if we accept it, those players are on another level and clearly an exception to the rule... they are rightfully lauded for those accomplishments, as well as Hasek's feats with Buffalo.

Players should not be criticized for a lack of Cup(s), but instead for lesser play in the post-season.

 

[Axxellien]

Bobby Orr:

Bobby Orr led a winning team to the Stanley cup. Aided by Derek Sanderson, Esposito, Hodge, Stanfield, Cheevers, E.Johnston, the maturing of veterans Dallas Smith, Don Awrey,Ed Westfall...Longtime Leader John Bucyk at the top of his game..The turnaround was sharp as it was swift & sudden!!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Four Seasons

Bobby Orr led a winning team to the Stanley cup. Aided by Derek Sanderson, Esposito, Hodge, Stanfield, Cheevers, E.Johnston, the maturing of veterans Dallas Smith, Don Awrey,Ed Westfall...Longtime Leader John Bucyk at the top of his game..The turnaround was sharp as it was swift & sudden!!

Four seasons is not swift and sudden. First season did not even make the playoffs.

But you can chart Orr's progressive contribution and how he made the various parts better by looking at his individual awards and nominations.

 

[arrbez]

Orr and Lemieux took the worst teams or their era to the Stanley Cup in short order while Gretzky did the same with a hybrid expansion team after the WHA was partially merged into the NHL.

Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux certainly did help make their teammates better, but they also benefited Cup-wise from playing with multiple Hall of Fame players in their peak. This is easier to point out with Gretzky and Lemieux, since they put up absolutely dominant seasons both before and after their teams developed around them, but only won the cup once this occurred. They both had multiple Art Ross trophies early in their careers, but only won the Cup when surrounded by plenty of elite talent. And that's no knock on them, it's just the way it is. No one player can be expected to carry a mediocre team to a Stanley Cup victory.

The 1938 Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup after a seasonal 14-25-9 record while other 3rd or 4th place teams won the Stanley Cup - 1967 Leafs, 1961 Blackhawks, amongst others

The 1967 Leafs and 1961 Blackhawks were far from bad teams. The '67 Leafs were at the end of their "window", but stacked with Hall of Famers and cup-winning experience. The Blackhawks had Hull, Mikita, Pilote, Hall, Vasko, Wharram, Litzenberger, Nesterenko, etc. These aren't bad teams, not even close.

I'll give you the 1938 Blackhawks. And I guess it goes to show that a bad team in a small league can get hot and win it once every 100 years or so.

 

[Axxellien]

The Boston Bruins of the late 1960s were on a Vertical ascendancy... That they would dominate the league in short order was an inevitable fact!..Like the late 1960s Leafs in reverse...

 

[Axxellien]

The 1967 Leafs were the remnants, the last stand of a Dynasty...One knew it was the end of an era...The last Hurrah.....

 

[Axxellien]

The 1961 Hawks were the birth of a Dynasty that did not materialise, They nevertheless dominated the NHL for several seasons..They just could never pull away as everyone expected...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Back on Track

Let's get the thread back on track as posters are drifting away from the seminal post.

If you don't want to discuss how players starting on last place teams grew to championship levels and how this was reflected in individual awards then fine but don't hijack the thread with topics that merit their own thread.

 

[Axxellien]

Well, in the case of the Hawks, new ownership, new organization, great new sweaters, the St Catherine Teepees/Buffalo Bisons connection turned a longstanding losing doormat into a proud & winning franchise in a very quick space of time...1956/57, being the seminal season...Glenn Hall, Pierre Pilote, Bob Hull, Ken Wharram & Ted Lindsay along with Ed Litzenberger were lynchpins

 

[arrbez]

Let's get the thread back on track as posters are drifting away from the seminal post.

If you don't want to discuss how players starting on last place teams grew to championship levels and how this was reflected in individual awards then fine but don't hijack the thread with topics that merit their own thread.

What?

Your thread is basically asking why the Stanley Cup is seen as more of a team accomplishment than individual awards are.

Myself and a couple others have stated that it's because a great player can win an individual award solely on their own merit, but not a Stanley Cup. Gretzky, Lemieux, etc are clear and obvious examples of this. How is that not relevant?

It was you who was the first to mention expansion teams and the like.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Here are Wayne Gretzky's points per game results in the regular season and playoffs for every season from 1980-81 to 1988-89, presented in random order:

A: 2.05 season, 2.33 playoffs
B: 2.77 season, 1.84 playoffs
C: 2.33 season, 2.26 playoffs
D: 2.60 season, 2.61 playoffs
E: 2.45 season, 2.38 playoffs
F: 2.65 season, 2.40 playoffs
G: 2.32 season, 1.62 playoffs
H: 2.15 season, 2.00 playoffs
I: 2.69 season, 1.90 playoffs

Question 1: Which 4 seasons did Gretzky and his teammates win the Stanley Cup?

Question 2: Which 6 seasons did Gretzky win the Art Ross Trophy?

Which of the two questions you find more difficult to answer should tell you whether Stanley Cups or individual awards are more team dependent.