Which Individual Trophies mean the most today? How has that changed over time?

[bobholly39]

There was an interesting poll in the poll section yesterday asking about the top 3 most prestigious trophies in hockey today. There was talk of Rocket, Ross and Lindsay among others.

So it got me to thinking - how has that changed over time? I'm curious if anyone is able to provide some perspective. So two part question:

1. Which trophies are the most prestigious to win today? (You can rank the top few in order, or all of them)

2. How about in the past? Was there a time where there was a big difference in perceived value vs today? Maybe even an unspoken trophy - was leading the league in goals (ie rocket) more prestigious than a Ross win, or even a Hart win at any point?

For what it's worth, in today's league, I feel the order of prestige goes something like this:

Tier 1:

1. Hart
2. Lindsay
3. Ross (I'd want this higher - but there are years where the Ross winners seems meaningless. Gretzky in 94, St Louis in 2013, Benn in 2015...hart/lindsay winners always seem to be seen as the best players that year)
4. Smythe* (this can be bumped up all the way to 1, maybe. I have it a bit lower because it's often won by non-star players - but if you consider it means you're almost certainly winning a cup, clearly it's important).

Tier 2:

5. Norris
6. Rocket

Those two above are interchangeable.

7. Vezina. So much turnaround at the goalie position in the past ~10 years, I feel like this has lot its luster a bit. When any random goalie you've never heard of can win this - and then go back to being barely a starter the next year - it's become a bit less prestigious for me.

8. Selke

Tier 3:

9. Lady Byng, Messier and everything else

Going back to the original premise - do you agree with above ranking, and mostly, how was that different in past eras? Ross/Hart have been around forever - has one been more prestigious than the other/and flipped at times?

Click to read more...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I don't think any trophy has been downgraded more than the Lady Byng. Newspaper articles from the 1930's gave it prominent coverage - only slightly less than the Hart trophy. That's a far cry from today when it's seen as a minor trophy at best, and a backhanded compliment at worst.

 

[Cricket Green]

Anything that involves subjectivity doesnt matter, incl the HHOF. Stanley Cup and Art Ross are all that matter.

 

[MadLuke]

I think Vezina is a bit of a roller coaster you had an era where the goaltenders from the team with the best GAA automatically won it, to a vote with mostly Roy-hasek-Brodeur-Belfour winning them for a while pepepper with some others 1 off hot season, to now being a bit of a turn table with only 2 repeat winner since 2008.

What about Bill Masterton ? When it was Lemieux cancer return, Neely, Lafontaine, Roberts return it was somewhat higher profile than now I feel like.

Jack Adams lack of repeat winner since Demers must have been into a slow decline has well, how fast you can win it to be out of the league completely despite being active (like Hartley, Paul MacLean got fired what the very year after winning it).

Trotz winning it do feel like something, but often you always have a ? around it, was it simply the team that happen to have changed result from last season and also happened to change coach to simply win it ? In a 30 team league when the easiest thing to change is the coach and are very often changed, you are almost bound to have at least a team that improved and changed coach regardless if they had any actual effect on it.

 

[MadLuke]

Anything that involves subjectivity doesnt matter, incl the HHOF. Stanley Cup and Art Ross are all that matter.

What would matter mean when talking entertainment pro hockey here, for which an Art Ross matter but not a Norris ?

 

[Cricket Green]

What would matter mean when talking entertainment pro hockey here, for which an Art Ross matter but not a Norris ?

I dont understand your response

 

[MadLuke]

I dont understand your response

I am not sure anything matter here, we are talking about just fun hockey for fun ?

Matter for what ? why a cup matter ?, if you mean the only trophy thing that matter to have some idea of a player career or worth, that seem obviously completely false, has I really doubt there is a bad 3 time Norris or 2 Hart winner ever and the list of Hart winner is a much more impressive accomplishment than cups winners.

Subjective somewhat informed from somewhat expert group judgment is way above random and something like an Art Ross, has some subjectivity build in, why a max of 2 assist and the lack of subjectivity to attribute what are relevant play to have lead to a goal is far from a plus here.

 

[Cricket Green]

I am not sure anything matter here, we are talking about just fun hockey for fun ?

Matter for what ? why a cup matter ?, if you mean the only trophy thing that matter to have some idea of a player career or worth, that seem obviously completely false, has I really doubt there is a bad 3 time Norris or 2 Hart winner ever and the list of Hart winner is a much more impressive accomplishment than cups winners.

Subjective somewhat informed from someone expert group judgment is way above random and something like an Art Ross, has some subjectivity build in, why a max of 2 assist and the lack of subjectivity to attribute what are relevant play to have lead to a goal is far from a plus here.

Oof! Im struggling to understand your English.

"Expert group judgement"? If you are referring to voters, THAT is funny. I place no value on opinions. Statistics can't be refuted. Wins, goals, assists, etc cant be refuted. The only prominent awards that recognize such objective achievements are the Cup, Ross and Rocket. The rest are shit.

 

[MadLuke]

Statistics can't be refuted. Wins, goals, assists, etc cant be refuted.

Not only some can (look at how hits, turn over, shots can change from home vs away for the same team), but for sure their value can be refuted.

Look all the debate surrounding plus-minus, secondary assist value and so on.

If the goal of the NHL was to be the player that happen to be among the last 3 on the teams to have touched the pucks before a goal, yes Art Ross could not be refuted. But that not what the sport is supposed to be about.

Say the rules always had been the 4 last player that touched the puck got a point and the Art Ross winner list would be different, would you have the same opinion ? I the shootout goals counted in the rocket race and list of winners would be different (or empty net goals and 3v3 overtime one where excluded) ?

Why does it matter who won the Art Ross or the Rocket ? That what I am not sure in your statement, matter into evaluating the best player in the league ?

 

[Cricket Green]

Not only some can (look at how hits, turn over, shots can change from home vs away for the same team), but for sure their value can be refuted.

Look all the debate surrounding plus-minus, secondary assist value and so on.

If the goal of the NHL was to be the player that happen to be among the last 3 on the teams to have touched the pucks before a goal, yes Art Ross could not be refuted. But that not what the sport is supposed to be about.

Say the rules always had been the 4 last player that touched the puck got a point and the Art Ross winner list would be different, would you have the same opinion ? I the shootout goals counted in the rocket race and list of winners would be different (or empty net goals and 3v3 overtime one where excluded) ?

Why does it matter who won the Art Ross or the Rocket ? That what I am not sure in your statement, matter into evaluating the best player in the league ?

If someone can translate, i'd appreciate it. Not trying to be a pos. I genuinely dont understand you. Im trying.

 

[MadLuke]

If someone can translate, i'd appreciate it. Not trying to be a pos. I genuinely dont understand you. Im trying.

No problem english is a second language (not that I am much clearer in my first one)

The value of a points is quite subjective and what count has a point was completely subjectively set.

Think about it, for a while the Vezina trophy was objective and not subjective, the goaltenders of the team that allowed the less goals won it, if it was still like that would you say that the Vezina would have more, equal or less value than the current voted one ? I mean value, by how likely that a goaltender is an elite one that had an elite season for having winning it here.

If you change the definition of a point (for example you can decide that secondary assist do not count anymore, that completely arbitrary), your list of art ross winner just changed, probably more than the list of Hart winner.

 

[Eisen]

I don't think any trophy has been downgraded more than the Lady Byng. Newspaper articles from the 1930's gave it prominent coverage - only slightly less than the Hart trophy. That's a far cry from today when it's seen as a minor trophy at best, and a backhanded compliment at worst.

And it's sad thing when that spirit is lost in sports.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't think any trophy has been downgraded more than the Lady Byng. Newspaper articles from the 1930's gave it prominent coverage - only slightly less than the Hart trophy. That's a far cry from today when it's seen as a minor trophy at best, and a backhanded compliment at worst.

There weren't many candidates for it in the 1930s.

Half the league is a candidate now.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

My top 5 are:

Hart
Ross
Norris
Vezina
Smythe

For most important, always has been and always will be the Hart

 

[alko]

For a Defensman is Norris a Top trophy. Ok, there are Hart and Conn Smythe also possible , but Art Ross if for them impossible.

That means, it your rankings somehow downgrade a D position and also a goalie position (Vezina).

 

[The Panther]

I'm not understanding how Art Ross winners are "meaningless". Aren't all of them kind of equally meaningless?

My problem with the NHL awards is that the current generation of players (and recent one now retiring, which is mine) has no idea who most of the trophies are named after. If you're going to accept an award, you should do the research to find out who the person the award is named after is. Even if some of them were dicks.

I suspect today's generation of players vaguely knows that Ted Lindsay, for example, had something to do with early attempts at an NHLPA, but I guess most of them (outside of Detroit) don't know he was an all-star player.

 

[DJ Man]

I know this isn't an individual award, but I thought this point was noteworthy.

Throughout the so-called Original Six era, the NHL was the only pro organization that had a single champion, with no conferences and divisions, and that was embodied in the Prince of Wales Trophy. Lots of fans considered this as more important that the Stanley Cup, as it represented superiority over a long season, not a shorter series.

However, after NHL expansion, it became just a divisional or a conference prize, at times decided by a playoff series, at other times just based upon won-lost record. For a few years, it was a semi-geographical prize: there was one huge league with a balanced schedule, and the trophy went to the top team in an arbitrary grouping.

Last season, they couldn't figure out who should get it!

That's quite a decline in meaningfulness!

 

[GMR]

I'm not understanding how Art Ross winners are "meaningless". Aren't all of them kind of equally meaningless?

My problem with the NHL awards is that the current generation of players (and recent one now retiring, which is mine) has no idea who most of the trophies are named after. If you're going to accept an award, you should do the research to find out who the person the award is named after is. Even if some of them were dicks.

I suspect today's generation of players vaguely knows that Ted Lindsay, for example, had something to do with early attempts at an NHLPA, but I guess most of them (outside of Detroit) don't know he was an all-star player.

You mean the William Jennings Bryan award is not what I think it is?

 

[Busher]

For forwards, my clear top 3 regular season awards:

Hart
Art Ross
Rocket

I prioritize the Rocket over the Lindsay for a couple of reasons:

1) Lindsay is largely redundant, serving nearly the same purpose as the Hart. Except that it has neither the historical prestige of the Hart and is more secretive in its selection process. The Lindsay is also arguably chosen by a lesser quality of voters (the media has historically chosen better than players).

2) The list of players that have led the league in goals every year is mighty impressive if we look past the Rocket’s creation in 1999. Almost on a yearly basis, you begin to include names like Lemieux (3), Brett Hull (3), Gretzky (5), Kurri, Bossy (2), Lafleur, Esposito (6), Bobby Hull (7), Howe (5), Beliveau (2), Richard (5) and Conacher (5). And more titles attached to Bure and Selanne’s name.

The list of actual Rocket winners looks less impressive at the beginning because the quality of offensive superstars was weak from the start of the award in 1999 to the time the post-lockout crop really hit their prime around 2007 (the Art Ross list looks weak too around that time). Add the list of names above from before 1999, and then the names since 2007 (Ovechkin, Crosby, Stamkos, Matthews). By stepping back and looking at the overall picture of goal scoring leaders from 1918-2021, it’s a very prestigious list as a whole, with the occasional outliers.

In fact, with the exception of some notable names like Mikita, Clarke and Trottier, just about every single all-time forward great has historically won the goal scoring title at least once in their career. Certainly at least until about the 1990’s. I’d go as far as to say if you want to be considered an all-time great even in this era, your case takes a hit unless you win at least one Rocket (even exceptions like Jagr would have an even more impressive resume had he led in goals at some point).

I get the sense that as time goes on and more impressive names are added to the list of “official” Rocket winners (and consequently the ratio of “impressive winners: not impressive winners” grows larger, the prestige of the award will speak for itself. Check back in 20 years.