Derick*
Guest
I suspect my wordy OP is the reason there are no responses yet so, bolded parts are tl;dr version for you.
There are a lot of references to elite, award-worthy seasons where the player didn't get the award because another player was even more elite that year, and one feels like they "deserved" the award even though the other person deserved it even more. There are also, I believe, seasons where the award winner wasn't particularly good and won it almost by default (and this is a necessary consequence of the first, really).
My question is: if awards weren't handed out on a year-to-year basis, but instead, at the end of each decade, ten were given out for the ten best player-seasons, who would be the recipients? Who would gain an award and who would have theirs taken away? This gives the possibility of some seasons having multiple winners of the awards, and some seasons having none, but the award will still be equally valuable because it still averages out to one per year.
I hope it's clear what I mean. I don't mean ten awards to ten different players based on their overall performance that decade. It's still year by year, but some years can have multiple winners and some can have none, so long as it adds up to ten at the end of the decade. So, say, Luongo-2007 and Brodeur-2007 would both win a Vezina if those were both among the top ten goalie performances of the decade, and maybe Brodeur-2008 doesn't win a Vezina, but Brodeur can still get two if Brodeur-2003 was also a top ten goalie performance of the decade. It's the top ten player-seasons, not the top ten players. It could also remain exactly the same if you think the top ten performances under the criteria of the awards all just happened to land spread out on ten different seasons.
This of course isn't a shot at the players who I might think would have an award taken away with this system. When I say "by default" I mean, on the standard of the award, it was a lower than normal performance. To win an NHL award even in a relatively weak year is an amazing achievement and I mean no disrespect to those players.
I'm not going to go out and make a list for any particular decade/award quite yet, but some players who I think might pick up an award include: Jagr Hart 2006, Luongo Vezina 2007, and Malkin Hart 2009. Some players I think might lose an award: St. Louis Hart 2004, Brodeur Vezina 2008, Sedin Hart 2010.
What do you think? For you history buffs: how does this apply to decades other than the last one?
There are a lot of references to elite, award-worthy seasons where the player didn't get the award because another player was even more elite that year, and one feels like they "deserved" the award even though the other person deserved it even more. There are also, I believe, seasons where the award winner wasn't particularly good and won it almost by default (and this is a necessary consequence of the first, really).
My question is: if awards weren't handed out on a year-to-year basis, but instead, at the end of each decade, ten were given out for the ten best player-seasons, who would be the recipients? Who would gain an award and who would have theirs taken away? This gives the possibility of some seasons having multiple winners of the awards, and some seasons having none, but the award will still be equally valuable because it still averages out to one per year.
I hope it's clear what I mean. I don't mean ten awards to ten different players based on their overall performance that decade. It's still year by year, but some years can have multiple winners and some can have none, so long as it adds up to ten at the end of the decade. So, say, Luongo-2007 and Brodeur-2007 would both win a Vezina if those were both among the top ten goalie performances of the decade, and maybe Brodeur-2008 doesn't win a Vezina, but Brodeur can still get two if Brodeur-2003 was also a top ten goalie performance of the decade. It's the top ten player-seasons, not the top ten players. It could also remain exactly the same if you think the top ten performances under the criteria of the awards all just happened to land spread out on ten different seasons.
This of course isn't a shot at the players who I might think would have an award taken away with this system. When I say "by default" I mean, on the standard of the award, it was a lower than normal performance. To win an NHL award even in a relatively weak year is an amazing achievement and I mean no disrespect to those players.
I'm not going to go out and make a list for any particular decade/award quite yet, but some players who I think might pick up an award include: Jagr Hart 2006, Luongo Vezina 2007, and Malkin Hart 2009. Some players I think might lose an award: St. Louis Hart 2004, Brodeur Vezina 2008, Sedin Hart 2010.
What do you think? For you history buffs: how does this apply to decades other than the last one?
Last edited by a moderator:
