Why is the Lindsay seen as less prestigious?

[DrJustice]

2nd in points per game is not a hypothetical.

And Ratelle was leading the scoring race when he got hurt.

Again, this is just saying that it’s a valid conversation. I’m not saying anything about who deserves what.

What I meant is what he could have hypothetically done based on that PPG (lead the league in scoring ect)

It's not something I'm very fired up about either it's just interesting trying to see why the players vote the way they do.

In this case they valued what Ratelle did through 63 games over what Esposito and Orr did over a whole season.

Ratelle was a long time Ranger and NHL veteran at the time, having a career year and was probably very popular among his peers.

I'm also not trying to tear the trophy out of his hands but in hindsight I can see why people have problems with the award in general.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Hart >> lindsay all day. People complain about the media, but at least they watch games, it's their job. Other than checking the stats, how the f*** would players know who's having the best season? Do you think Crosby knows what Kopitar is doing for example? Players are too busy playing, practicing, travelling, resting to pay attention or actually watch other players. In their spare time they have to make time for family too. Yeah they play each other 1-5x a year, but that doesn't mean anything, a player can just have a great game against you and then you pump his tires. The media's job is to watch games and analyze the stats, etc. Yes some of them are goofs, but some players are goofs too. And any "outstanding player" award that only went to Bobby Orr 1x shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

[McShogun99]

It’s becaise it’s selceted by the actual guys on the ice that get a first hand experience of who they will vote for instead of some fat dinosaurs that watch the game in the town they write for from the top of the arena and YouTube highlights of the other 30 teams.

 

[McShogun99]

Hart >> lindsay all day. People complain about the media, but at least they watch games, it's their job. Other than checking the stats, how the **** would players know who's having the best season? Do you think Crosby knows what Kopitar is doing for example? Players are too busy playing, practicing, travelling, resting to pay attention or actually watch other players. In their spare time they have to make time for family too. Yeah they play each other 1-5x a year, but that doesn't mean anything, a player can just have a great game against you and then you pump his tires. The media's job is to watch games and analyze the stats, etc. Yes some of them are goofs, but some players are goofs too. And any "outstanding player" award that only went to Bobby Orr 1x shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Do you really think that the voting media sits at home and watches games in their free time? Most of the team that pays them to watch them or the team of the city they watch for with a few other games scattered in between. Their opinion on most players is from highlights and word of mouth.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

I think that some of the recipients relative to their Hart Trophy counterparts are perceived to be a little bit suspect. The NHLPA may also favor underdogs, such as during the Gretzky years.

 

[HockeyGuy1964]

Says every Hockey Show, message boards, Podcast, Broadcast that debate over who is going to win the Hart, meanwhile there is next to none for the Lindsay.

Do you really think the players are gonna listen to a bunch of debating journalists tell them who the best player is?

The Hart gets debated because the journalists can be swayed by shallow flattery & shiny objects.

 

[puckpilot]

Seems like teams playing in coastal cities would have an unfair advantage.

There's east coast bias and then there's pier bias. What'cha going to do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[HugginThePost]

The media thinking the media award means more? Colour me shocked.

An Olier fan thinking the Lindsay is more valuable "this year"......color me shocked.

 

[acor]

It sounds nice in theory that the players know more and make better decisions than the media. Looking back at results doesn't support this. There are a few more random Lindsay winners than there are Hart winners, and player polls consistently reveal that the players opinions aren't all that accurate.

Media opinion also aren't excatly accurate... TBH most competent people to vote for awards would be not players (lol), not media, but GMs/coaches, since they are actually getting paid for evaluating the talent, and they have to know the game. But there's the risk they will be biased towards their players...

 

[Legionnaire]

Because there are a lot of fans that think that hockey players are just brain damaged brutes who can't reason and that they know more than someone who has played the game at the professional level.

Not true. Yes, it does happen, but the George Parroses of the world, the current head of the Player Department of Player Safety, is sooooooooo smart. And yes, that man has made a lot of cash because he was smart - not too unlike Len Barrie, except Parros went to Princeton.

The players know.

Stu Grimson has a law degree.

One of the best things about staying in juniors is that you can get your degree at any time. Is there any coincidence that the majority go into financial management. Right. Just brain damaged fools.

 

[daver]

The Lindsay winner is usually at least 2nd in Hart voting. Not sure why this topic is meaningful.

 

[Tage2Tuch]

Do you really think the players are gonna listen to a bunch of debating journalists tell them who the best player is?

The Hart gets debated because the journalists can be swayed by shallow flattery & shiny objects.

Why are so many people misunderstanding what I wrote. I WAS ANSWERING the guys question. I didn't say it was right or why or anything else.

 

[Semantics]

Because there are a lot of fans that think that hockey players are just brain damaged brutes who can't reason and that they know more than someone who has played the game at the professional level.

Not true. Yes, it does happen, but the George Parroses of the world, the current head of the Player Department of Player Safety, is sooooooooo smart. And yes, that man has made a lot of cash because he was smart - not too unlike Len Barrie, except Parros went to Princeton.

The players know.

Stu Grimson has a law degree.

One of the best things about staying in juniors is that you can get your degree at any time. Is there any coincidence that the majority go into financial management. Right. Just brain damaged fools.

But for every Parros and Grimson there's a Seguin or Domi.

 

[Legionnaire]

But for every Parros and Grimson there's a Seguin or Domi.

How is that even relevant to to what I was trying to say? No offence.

 

[Beukeboom]

Because in theory, how many games can players see? If you play in the Eastern Conf you meet McDavid twice. That is it. I hardly think you have the time to watch other Edmonton games. So it is more likely you vote for whoever you had a good game against you or perhaps hearsay.

 

[Barrie22]

Norris voted on by the writers. Hart voted on by the writers. Lindsey voted on by the players.

Funny how this year for some reason the lindsey should be more prestigious since its voted on by the players.

But last year the tune was different when burns was voted 3rd for the lindsey and 1st for the norris.

Fans can't have it both ways. Either the players know more or they don't.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Isn't the Hart basically given to the most outstanding player anyway? Most valuable player is probably the best player on the worst playoff team.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The Ted Lindsay (formerly Pearson) used to be awarded for "contribution to the sport of hockey" and changed definition in the late-1980s. It is also voted on prior to the end of the season, so it doesn't contain the full scope of the season (hence no Theodore nomination in 2002 and occasional flips compared to the Hart due to late-season races).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The Ted Lindsay (formerly Pearson) used to be awarded for "contribution to the sport of hockey" and changed definition in the late-1980s. It is also voted on prior to the end of the season, so it doesn't contain the full scope of the season (hence no Theodore nomination in 2002 and occasional flips compared to the Hart due to late-season races).

This is an important point, and is the single biggest reason why I think the Hart is more prestigious than the Lindsay/Pearson.

For example, in 2003, Markus Naslund was leading the league in goals and points late in the season. The Canucks were also leading their division (after Colorado had done so for eight straight years). When the Lindsay/Pearson voting took place in mid or late March, he was probably the right pick. Down the stretch, Naslund continued to play well, but Forsberg was unstoppable (18 points in the last 9 games). He captured the Art Ross very late in the season, and he helped his linemate Milan Hejduk win the Rocket Richard. Colorado also came back to win their division. Since the Hart is voted on after the season is over, it takes into account more relevant information - so Forsberg was the correct pick for the Hart. The Lindsay/Pearson is less prestigious because it didn't take relevant information into account.

Similarly, in 2006, Jaromir Jagr led the league in goals and points late in the season. Joe Thornton had an incredible finish (17 points in his last 7 games), which allowed him to win the Art Ross. He also helped his linemate Jonathan Cheechoo win the Rocket Richard (10 goals in those last 7 games). When the voting was done in mid/late March, Jagr was probably the right choice, but Thornton was probably the right choice taking into account the entire season.

2013 is a similar story. When voting took place in late March, Crosby was easily leading the league in scoring. He suffered a freak injury on March 30th and missed the rest of the season, allowing three players to pass or tie him in scoring. He was easily deserving of the Lindsay/Pearson when voting took place, but probably wasn't the right pick for the Hart since he ultimately missed a quarter of the season (which the players didn't know at the time).

There are other, similar examples (go back to 1972 for Jean Ratelle, who was having a historic season before getting injured late in the year - he still won the Lindsay/Pearson over Bobby Orr due to premature voting).

In summary - the Hart is the more accurate/reliable award because it's based on a full season's worth of information - the Lindsay/Pearson isn't.

 

[Zuluss]

In the seasons when Hart and Lindsay winners/nominees are different, I tend to agree with Lindsay more.
One huge issue with Hart is its bizarre definition, which, for example, results in snubbing players on non-playoff teams and overemphasizing players on bubble teams.
Lindsay/Pearson has its issues too: early vote and non-release of voting results (it is impossible to learn whether the race was close, who was on the outside looking in, etc.)

 

[jbobell98]

They should just change the hart ffs make it it what it really should be MVP and stop there. None of the most valuable to their team.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Because in theory, how many games can players see? If you play in the Eastern Conf you meet McDavid twice. That is it. I hardly think you have the time to watch other Edmonton games. So it is more likely you vote for whoever you had a good game against you or perhaps hearsay.

I think that's one of the downfalls of the Lindsay. Like you said, players only get to see players from the opposite conference like twice a season. And it could work out that you end up playing a team both times early in November, and never see them again the rest of the year. So you'd be basing your vote on whether they should be the Lindsay winner based on how they did in a couple of games in November.

On the flip side, the same is true of the writers who vote on the Hart. How many times has a guy like Rob Rossi (local guy who covers the Pens) actually seen Kopitar or MacKinnon play? Maybe just the times the Kings or Avs played the Pens? And that's assuming those guys even know how to judge players (Rossi, I believe, gets a vote and the guy is a complete idiot when it comes to hockey).

I still think the GMs/Coaches should be the ones to vote on the awards. At the very least, they'd have the best knowledge of these players since they're the ones who have to keep an eye on them and game plan for them when they face them.

 

[Zuluss]

Because in theory, how many games can players see? If you play in the Eastern Conf you meet McDavid twice. That is it. I hardly think you have the time to watch other Edmonton games. So it is more likely you vote for whoever you had a good game against you or perhaps hearsay.

Don't players watch tapes before they play someone? The coaching staff is supposed to tell them how to play against McDavid before they play McDavid and to show them some relevant recent stuff. Plus, they probably learn from the coaching staff who is having a great season / riding a hot streak and is particularly important to contain/beat.

 

[saffronleaf]

I hate the name change. It's Pearson to me. What was wrong with Pearson?? So now I don't care for it.

 

[Beukeboom]

Don't players watch tapes before they play someone? The coaching staff is supposed to tell them how to play against McDavid before they play McDavid and to show them some relevant recent stuff. Plus, they probably learn from the coaching staff who is having a great season / riding a hot streak and is particularly important to contain/beat.

Yes but that is my point. If you're an Islander you play McDavid twice but Crosby six times or something. Natural that bias might happen. You watch tapes on Crosby three times as often too.