What star player surprisingly didn't get a lot of Hart votes

[Asheville]

We ALL see what is going on on the ice. We don't need to be on the ice to judge it.

Watching and understanding are in different galaxies.

Split the difference and give NHL executives all the votes. GMs already pick the Vezina. Why stop there?

 

[Eisen]

Watching and understanding are in different galaxies.

Split the difference and give NHL executives all the votes. GMs already pick the Vezina. Why stop there?

But we are talking about hockey and not rocket science. Hockey just isn't that hard (most sports aren't). Most people watching understand it after a short time.

 

[Asheville]

But we are talking about hockey and not rocket science. Hockey just isn't that hard (most sports aren't). Most people watching understand it after a short time.

Familiarize yourself with the infamous '12-'13 post-season All-Star selections.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If you're watching all the games, what else is there to being qualified? I agree with the poster saying I'd rather win the Hart than the Pearson. Players aren't watching nearly as many games.

I used to agree with this. Then I found a ton of people who watch games and have no idea what's happening out there. I mean, hell, read some GDTs on the main board...it's far more common for someone to not understand what they're watching than they inverse haha

Journalism has slid over the years...at the same time, the game has expanded. Six teams with three lines each, that's easy to track. 31 teams, each team has about five lines worth of players...that's a tough ask.

I get home from work and I watch hockey from about 6 to 12 every night or so. I'll try to zip through a late game from the night before or a junior game. I probably get in a good 10 games a week or so. There's no way that most people are doing that, even if it's their job. I watch games closely, I even cut some video up from them for the players that I coach or for scouting projects and what not...you ask me at the end of the year who was the best defensive forward in the league...geez, that's so tough...I have an idea, I have some guys...but who was the absolute best defensive forward in the league? I don't actually know...people talk about splitting up the Norris as an offensive and defensive award...yeah, ok...these guys who voted Alexander Ovechkin for both LW and RW postseason all-star teams in the same season, those guys are going to rate something like a defensive defenseman? Sounds like a foolproof plan...

I think back before TV, where journalists were the gatekeepers of information, I think the story was better...I trust a lot of that, it matches film I've seen...it makes sense. One of the Penguins writers who has a vote asked Sidney Crosby what "F1" meant on a forecheck...and after explanation, didn't understand...it's night and day...

That's why I'm in favor of the full disclosure...I trust Bob McKenzie, I trust Elliotte Friedman, I would be Ray Ferraro's butler if he asked me, that guy is awesome...but I don't trust the guy giving Jagr Selke votes...

But the old thing on this board was "do you even watch games?" and then you realize, "man, that doesn't even matter if you don't know what you're watching"

 

[Johnny Engine]

Ideally, a good journalist should be adept at gathering as much information as possible, and processing it into something coherent. These are people who can talk to dozens of different players, coaches and managers about their differing perspectives on who's good, who's valuable, and how they compare to other players around the league. At it's best, this birds-eye view of the game might be more suited to voting on awards than someone whose focus is on tending their own shop - improving their own game, focussing disproportionately on division rivals or upcoming opponents, etc. Not every journalist does a good job of that unfortunately, but then, show me a single profession in the world that isn't at least partially corrupted by money, politics, laziness or incompetence.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I used to agree with this. Then I found a ton of people who watch games and have no idea what's happening out there. I mean, hell, read some GDTs on the main board...it's far more common for someone to not understand what they're watching than they inverse haha

Journalism has slid over the years...at the same time, the game has expanded. Six teams with three lines each, that's easy to track. 31 teams, each team has about five lines worth of players...that's a tough ask.

I get home from work and I watch hockey from about 6 to 12 every night or so. I'll try to zip through a late game from the night before or a junior game. I probably get in a good 10 games a week or so. There's no way that most people are doing that, even if it's their job. I watch games closely, I even cut some video up from them for the players that I coach or for scouting projects and what not...you ask me at the end of the year who was the best defensive forward in the league...geez, that's so tough...I have an idea, I have some guys...but who was the absolute best defensive forward in the league? I don't actually know...people talk about splitting up the Norris as an offensive and defensive award...yeah, ok...these guys who voted Alexander Ovechkin for both LW and RW postseason all-star teams in the same season, those guys are going to rate something like a defensive defenseman? Sounds like a foolproof plan...

I think back before TV, where journalists were the gatekeepers of information, I think the story was better...I trust a lot of that, it matches film I've seen...it makes sense. One of the Penguins writers who has a vote asked Sidney Crosby what "F1" meant on a forecheck...and after explanation, didn't understand...it's night and day...

That's why I'm in favor of the full disclosure...I trust Bob McKenzie, I trust Elliotte Friedman, I would be Ray Ferraro's butler if he asked me, that guy is awesome...but I don't trust the guy giving Jagr Selke votes...

But the old thing on this board was "do you even watch games?" and then you realize, "man, that doesn't even matter if you don't know what you're watching"

I used to agree with this. Then I found a ton of people who watch games and have no idea what's happening out there. I mean, hell, read some GDTs on the main board...it's far more common for someone to not understand what they're watching than they inverse haha

Journalism has slid over the years...at the same time, the game has expanded. Six teams with three lines each, that's easy to track. 31 teams, each team has about five lines worth of players...that's a tough ask.

I get home from work and I watch hockey from about 6 to 12 every night or so. I'll try to zip through a late game from the night before or a junior game. I probably get in a good 10 games a week or so. There's no way that most people are doing that, even if it's their job. I watch games closely, I even cut some video up from them for the players that I coach or for scouting projects and what not...you ask me at the end of the year who was the best defensive forward in the league...geez, that's so tough...I have an idea, I have some guys...but who was the absolute best defensive forward in the league? I don't actually know...people talk about splitting up the Norris as an offensive and defensive award...yeah, ok...these guys who voted Alexander Ovechkin for both LW and RW postseason all-star teams in the same season, those guys are going to rate something like a defensive defenseman? Sounds like a foolproof plan...

I think back before TV, where journalists were the gatekeepers of information, I think the story was better...I trust a lot of that, it matches film I've seen...it makes sense. One of the Penguins writers who has a vote asked Sidney Crosby what "F1" meant on a forecheck...and after explanation, didn't understand...it's night and day...

That's why I'm in favor of the full disclosure...I trust Bob McKenzie, I trust Elliotte Friedman, I would be Ray Ferraro's butler if he asked me, that guy is awesome...but I don't trust the guy giving Jagr Selke votes...

But the old thing on this board was "do you even watch games?" and then you realize, "man, that doesn't even matter if you don't know what you're watching"

People usually watch hockey for its entertainment value. Media watches for the "story" that drives ratings or their career. These people watch for what happens, with media at times trying to go beyond the story by becoming the story.

In the game people - players, coaches,managers, scouts, etc watch based on specific objectives. Example an advance scout watches a game differently than a talent scout.

Everyone filters or processes information and what they see differently. Conversely not everyone is able to comprehend and apply the same information equally.

Your point about Ovechkin getting LW and RW votes the same season underlines this.Take things a bit further. Ask for a breakdown by handedness. Best LHS or RHS center, defenceman. Most journalists/media types would be extended seriously to answer.

 

[Eisen]

Familiarize yourself with the infamous '12-'13 post-season All-Star selections.

That was an embarassing one, albeit a little understandable. Some of the PHWA didn't read their mail.

 

[Eisen]

I used to agree with this. Then I found a ton of people who watch games and have no idea what's happening out there. I mean, hell, read some GDTs on the main board...it's far more common for someone to not understand what they're watching than they inverse haha

Journalism has slid over the years...at the same time, the game has expanded. Six teams with three lines each, that's easy to track. 31 teams, each team has about five lines worth of players...that's a tough ask.

I get home from work and I watch hockey from about 6 to 12 every night or so. I'll try to zip through a late game from the night before or a junior game. I probably get in a good 10 games a week or so. There's no way that most people are doing that, even if it's their job. I watch games closely, I even cut some video up from them for the players that I coach or for scouting projects and what not...you ask me at the end of the year who was the best defensive forward in the league...geez, that's so tough...I have an idea, I have some guys...but who was the absolute best defensive forward in the league? I don't actually know...people talk about splitting up the Norris as an offensive and defensive award...yeah, ok...these guys who voted Alexander Ovechkin for both LW and RW postseason all-star teams in the same season, those guys are going to rate something like a defensive defenseman? Sounds like a foolproof plan...

I think back before TV, where journalists were the gatekeepers of information, I think the story was better...I trust a lot of that, it matches film I've seen...it makes sense. One of the Penguins writers who has a vote asked Sidney Crosby what "F1" meant on a forecheck...and after explanation, didn't understand...it's night and day...

That's why I'm in favor of the full disclosure...I trust Bob McKenzie, I trust Elliotte Friedman, I would be Ray Ferraro's butler if he asked me, that guy is awesome...but I don't trust the guy giving Jagr Selke votes...

But the old thing on this board was "do you even watch games?" and then you realize, "man, that doesn't even matter if you don't know what you're watching"

I do agree with that. You can't watch all the games. There are simply too many and it effects the quality of voting. I just claim that the media members likely watch more games than the athlete and therefore, while their vote is not perfect, should be better.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That's correct. Well, the "good" media...the bad media doesn't do anything...and frankly, the other side is true, just because you played doesn't mean you're smart. Great example is Eddie Olczyk...he had like 300 or 400 goals in the show...he diagrams things wrong all the time on the air, he offers almost no insight ("stick on stick, stick on puck" and "throw those hands up" and I know he can at least count to six because he can spot too many men after a whistle blows I guess)...I mean, if what he shows on the air is even close to the top level of insight he can provide then I wouldn't hire him to be my assistant coach haha...

There are some in the media that care about the game and love it and understand it...there are some players that care about the game and love it and understand it...then there's the other side of the tracks too...

 

[Ishdul]

Does any of that difference boil down to how the Lindsay/LBP or Hart are actually voted on? We don't get the breakdown of Lindsay voting totals but the names are usually pretty similar considering that they're supposedly measuring different things and a lot of the difference is when they actually vote. Outside of that, the actual differences are that the Lindsay cares less about making the playoffs and favours forwards even more than the Hart. There have not been many wild deviations, and in those cases I would favour the Hart.

 

[Epsilon]

Does any of that difference boil down to how the Lindsay/LBP or Hart are actually voted on? We don't get the breakdown of Lindsay voting totals but the names are usually pretty similar considering that they're supposedly measuring different things and a lot of the difference is when they actually vote. Outside of that, the actual differences are that the Lindsay cares less about making the playoffs and favours forwards even more than the Hart. There have not been many wild deviations, and in those cases I would favour the Hart.

It's a combination of this and the fact that the Lindsay is voted on over the last month of the season or so. It makes some sense to do this - players are busy with more important things and so if they gave them a really tight window like from the end of the regular season to the start of the playoffs, the response rate would probably drop off quite a bit. But it does render it susceptible to issues of incomplete information. The 2003 Hart/Lindsay split between Forsberg and Naslund is probably a good example of that effect, whereas some of the other splits would have more to do with the playoffs/no playoffs difference (Theodore/Iginla comes to mind) or subtleties related to "most valuable" vs "most outstanding" (Sedin/Ovechkin would probably be a good one here).

 

[Big Phil]

In the 1979-80 season, Dionne tied Wayne Gretzky in the scoring race with 137 points, only to have Gretzky win the Hart Trophy.

Marcel Dionne retired in 1989 without a Hart Trophy but as a six-time 50-goal scorer, with eight seasons with 100 or more points and 1,771 career points in 1,358 games, .

It isn't that bad, because this thread was more about the players that have surprisingly low Hart voting finishes, not just a lack of Hart trophies. Dionne finished 2nd, 3rd (twice), 5th and 8th. Great players ahead of him won.

Anybody who thinks Goulet was more of a Hart trophy candidate than Dale Hunter simply wasn't there!

I was around............and I can't see how it would be Hunter over Goulet. I am also factoring in the fact Hunter was better defensively. There is too much offense between the two of them.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I agree, Robitaille is the best player to never receive a single vote for the Hart. I'll limit this to forwards since they dominate the Hart voting:

• Mike Gartner never got any Hart votes either.
• The same is true of Dave Andreychuk - zero votes.
• Joe Mullen only received a single 3rd place vote in his entire career (1989).
• Bernie Federko received two 3rd place votes (1985 and 1986).
• Dino Ciccarelli got three 3rd place votes (one in 1982, two in 1987).
• Bob Gainey got a single third-palce vote in 1980 and 1982. He also got three voting points (so either a 2nd place vote, or three 3rds) in 1979.
  
• Clark Gillies got votes once in his career. In 1978 he had 5 voting points (either one first, a second and two thirds, or five thirds - not sure).
• Johnny Bucyk got Hart votes just twice in his long career. A third place vote in 1968, and either one second or three thirds in 1976.
• Yvan Cournoyer got Hart votes four times (1967, 1969, 1973 and 1974) - but never more than five points.
  
• Ron Francis only received votes four times in his career. In two of those (1986 and 1987), it was only a single vote, and in 1998, it was only two 4th place votes. His one big year was 2002, when he finished 6th, at age 38.
• Adam Oates is similar. He got a single vote in 2000 and two votes in 1994. His big year, of course, was 1993, when he finished 4th, but that's really it.
• Mark Recchi follows a similar pattern. One big year (2000 when he finished 6th), then three years (1991, 2001 and 2004) with a single vote each.
• Brendan Shanahan, too, follows the same pattern. His big year was 2002 (9th), then he got a trivial number of votes in 1997, 2000, and 2007.

Maybe none of those are surprising as these are mostly "low peak" players, when compared to the typical HOFer.

of those, i’d argue oates was probably short changed, by bad luck and by just being a guy the voters didn’t notice or like enough.

in 1991, how he could not get a single hart vote is criminal. he was unlucky to miss almost 20 games in his absolute best season, for sure. but it also strikes me as off that his linemate, who won the hart handily, scored ten points less than him in the 60-odd games they both played in. i’m not saying oates should have won that hart, but it is unbelievable that a guy who finished third in points and was on pace for 150 got zero hart votes.

in 1993, that’s just bad timing. oates has that year (statistically, i mean) in 1990, 1992, 1994, or 1995 and he probably finishes at least top three.

he probably deserved some more hart love in 1994 too. more than almost zero, that is.

and recchi—i don’t think there’s a year where i’m outraged he didn’t get more hart votes but is there a more accomplished scorer who never finished top five in hart voting? 3rd, 4th, and 5th place points finishes and that’s not even counting his 53 goal, 123 point season.

 

[ThreeLeftSkates]

Mike Bossy also fares worse than you'd expect. On the one hand, he got Hart votes eight times in his ten-year career. But only twice did he get more than 5% of the vote (the threshold that I usually use to identify a non-trivial number). Even if we look at the first nine years of his career (ignoring the injury-plagued 1987), he was only 3rd on his team in Hart votes during that span, and out of the top 10 overall. Not bad of course, but I think he gets somewhat overrated because people like round, arbitrary seasonal milestones.

I think he was underrated on his own team. Career-wise, only 20 less assists than goals. He grew from a scorer into a complete player, and never got credit for it due to Potvin and Trottier.