Why was there no official award for the best goalscorer before '99 and the Richard Trophy?

[Nick Hansen]

Is it only me that finds that bizarre? Such an obvious thing to have an award for.

The far more nebulous Selke award came about in the 70's for Christ's sake.

Click to read more...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Until the last generation NHL hockey was viewed as a team game.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Until the last generation NHL hockey was viewed as a team game.

Funny. I knew you'd say something like that. You're predictable.

Why give an Art Ross to any one then? And as I said, the goalscoring award is much more quantifiable than the so called Selke.

It's just a rubbish excuse. No goalscoring award for such a long time is just sort of laughable.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Until the last generation NHL hockey was viewed as a team game.

The objective of a hockey game is score goals

 

[Canadiens1958]

The objective of a hockey game is score goals

The objective is to win.

 

[Nick Hansen]

The objective of a hockey game is score goals

Maurice Richard's entire legacy is built around his ability to score goals, both RS and PO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Funny. I knew you'd say something like that. You're predictable.

Why give an Art Ross to any one then? And as I said, the goalscoring award is much more quantifiable than the so called Selke.

It's just a rubbish excuse. No goalscoring award for such a long time is just sort of laughable.

Took 30 season before the Art Ross was created, Long after the Hart, Vezina, Byng, illustrating the perceptions of the game

 

[Canadiens1958]

Maurice Richard's entire legacy is built around his ability to score goals, both RS and PO.

In a winning context - OT, playoffs.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Took 30 season before the Art Ross was created, Long after the Hart, Vezina, Byng, illustrating the perceptions of the game

The Vezina was a completely different award back then. Based on statistics much like the Art Ross or Rocket Richard

 

[Nick Hansen]

Whatever.

I can't see any reason to disagree with the notion that it is weird that no award for the best goalscorer came about before freakin' 1999.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Vezina was a completely different award back then. Based on statistics much like the Art Ross or Rocket Richard

Really?

Original Vezina went to the regular goalie on the TEAM allowing the fewest goals against in the RS.

When was the Art Ross or Rocket Richard a team award?

Was there ever an award for the team scoring the most RS goals?

 

[Nick Hansen]

Really?

Original Vezina went to the regular goalie on the TEAM allowing the fewest goals against in the RS.

That is equivalent with the regular goalie allowing the fewest goals against in the RS. Pure semantics on your part.

Either way, if goalies were switching back and forth or not, the points still stands: it was based on statistics.

 

[Canadiens1958]

That is equivalent with the regular goalie allowing the fewest goals against in the RS. Pure semantics on your part.

No it is not semantics. Goalies miss games so the team performance during the games missed was factored in.

 

[Nick Hansen]

No it is not semantics. Goalies miss games so the team performance during the games missed was factored in.

Tell me why it'd be wrong with a goalscorer award. As someone who values the playoffs as highly as you do, it seems odd considering the Conn Smythe which I imagine you take quite seriously.

This is just f***ing basic logic thinking. The best goalscorer should get an award regardless of (relevant) sport. I don't get how you can question that. What do you think of the nebulous Selke?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I always thought it was because (as a statistical trophy) it provides no information that's not already apparent. For example, the NHL doesn't have a Gretzky trophy for the most assists each year, but it's not really needed since you can easily look that up.

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice touch to have the Richard trophy, but I never thought it was "necessary" because it doesn't tell you something that you don't already know. (The Selke, on the other hand, like the Hart, Smythe and Norris, is subjective, so there's some value in having everyone vote at the end of the year).

 

[Nick Hansen]

I always thought it was because (as a statistical trophy) it provides no information that's not already apparent. For example, the NHL doesn't have a Gretzky trophy for the most assists each year, but it's not really needed since you can easily look that up.

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice touch to have the Richard trophy, but I never thought it was "necessary" because it doesn't tell you something that you don't already know. (The Selke, on the other hand, like the Hart, Smythe and Norris, is subjective, so there's some value in having everyone vote at the end of the year).

Goes both ways - the Art Ross and the Richard are objective awards - it is readily apparent what the players in question are being awarded for. The others, especially the Selke, is highly subjective (but most of the time correct, I believe, not many Norris and Hart winners you question). But I can understand your point.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tell me why it'd be wrong with a goalscorer award. As someone who values the playoffs as highly as you do, it seems odd considering the Conn Smythe which I imagine you take quite seriously.

This is just ****ing basic logic thinking. The best goalscorer should get an award regardless of (relevant) sport. I don't get how you can question that. What do you think of the nebulous Selke?

As stated by HO, in pro sports, the obvious is not rewarded while the sublime is. Individual "most" awards
- most PIMs, most saves that involve counting rarely exist unless there is corporate sponsorship.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, the better question is, why have an award for something easily counted...?

While we're on the subject...why have points at all? What is the value of combining goals and assists really...? There's currently 1.7 assists per goal, has varied over history greatly, why combine these two things? What does that represent? Does any other sport do this?

I'm waxing dorm-room philosophical here...but the most goals award is silly...but it's an excuse to keep Richard from fading from memory, so I appreciate that much...but I mean, let's not kid ourselves, it's completely pointless...

 

[Brodeur]

Maybe it's just me, but maybe they thought giving a trophy for most goals might have been somewhat redundant to the Art Ross? Just a quick look at the Art Ross winners from 1970-98 with the corresponding leader(s) in goals:

1970: Esposito (152) || Esposito (76)
1971: Esposito (133) || Esposito (66)
1972: Esposito (130) || Esposito (55)
1973: Esposito (145) || Esposito (68)
1974: Orr (135) || Esposito (61)
1975: Lafleur (125) || Leach (61)
1976: Lafleur (136) || Shutt (60)
1977: Lafleur (132) || Lafleur (60)
1978: Trottier (134) || Bossy (69)
1979: Gretzky/Dionne (137) || Stoughton/Simmer/Gare (56)
1980: Gretzky (164) || Bossy (68)
1981: Gretzky (212) || Gretzky (92)
1982: Gretzky (196) || Gretzky (71)
1983: Gretzky (205) || Gretzky (87)
1984: Gretzky (208) || Gretzky (73)
1985: Gretzky (215) || Kurri (68)
1986: Gretzky (183) || Gretzky (62)
1987: Lemieux (168) || Lemieux (70)
1988: Lemieux (199) || Lemieux (85)
1989: Gretzky (142) || Hull (72)
1990: Gretzky (163) || Hull (86)
1991: Lemieux (131) || Hull (70)
1992: Lemieux (160) || Mogilny/Selanne (76)
1993: Gretzky (130) || Bure (60)
1994: Lindros/Jagr (70) || Bondra (34)
1995: Lemieux (161) || Lemieux (69)
1996: Lemieux (122) || Tkachuk (52)
1997: Jagr (102) || Selanne/Bondra (52)

Maybe by the 90s there was greater frequency that the Art Ross winner wasn't also leading the league in goals?

Edit: Here's 1950-1969

1950: Howe (86) || Howe (43)
1951: Howe (86) || Howe (47)
1952: Howe (95) || Howe (49)
1953: Howe (81) || Richard (37)
1954: Geoffrion (75) || Richard (38)
1955: Beliveau (88) || Beliveau (47)
1956: Howe (89) || Howe (44)
1957: Moore (84) || Moore (36)
1958: Moore (96) || Beliveau (45)
1959: Hull (81) || Hull (39)
1960: Geoffrion (95) || Geoffrion (50)
1961: Hull/Bathgate (84) || Hull (50)
1962: Howe (86) || Howe (38)
1963: Mikita (89) || Hull (43)
1964: Mikita (87) || Ullman (42)
1965: Hull (97) || Hull (54)
1966: Mikita (97) || Hull (52)
1967: Mikita (87) || Hull (44)
1968: Esposito (126) || Hull (58)
1969: Orr (120) || Esposito (43)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yeah, the better question is, why have an award for something easily counted...?

While we're on the subject...why have points at all? What is the value of combining goals and assists really...? There's currently 1.7 assists per goal, has varied over history greatly, why combine these two things? What does that represent? Does any other sport do this?

I'm waxing dorm-room philosophical here...but the most goals award is silly...but it's an excuse to keep Richard from fading from memory, so I appreciate that much...but I mean, let's not kid ourselves, it's completely pointless...

Points are interesting since you can see their fluid nature defined by a changing game.

Remove the center Red Line for offsides and scoring by defencemen goes up.

 

[BadgerBruce]

If you view the first 30 years of NHL history through the prism of world events, one thing is crystal clear: 2 World Wars. When North American nations joined those conflicts, “We” meant far more than “Me.” Frankly, it had to, or the good guys would lose. At any rate, having an actual award for scoring the most goals would have been .... well, “unseemly.”

Frank Nighbor won the first Hart Trophy in 1924 but was third in scoring on his own team. Yet, he embodied the “team first” philosophy so highly valued at that time. The same could be said about Teeder Kennedy’s Hart near the end of his career. Both wins are roughly 5 years after the end of the respective World Wars, when the collectivist/“All For One, One For All” spirit was very much alive.

 

[Doctor No]

but the most goals award is ... completely pointless...

Strong pun game out of you.

 

[streitz]

Not sure what the point of the art ross even is. Sure the rocket isn't worth as many points but I'm sure someone could come up with some good points as to why the awards have positive points, maybe some negative points aswell.


Not sure if anyone can point out a problem with the award.

 

[Big Phil]

Yes people...........it was thought to be something that could be recognized. Even before 1999. Granted, someone pointed out earlier, especially in the 1970s and 1980s the leader in points was often the leader in goals (Gretzky, Esposito, Lemieux, etc.) so it may have seemed pointless.

But there was another thing at play here. Rocket Richard was getting old. A guy with his career did not have an award named after him and some felt he deserved it. He was the first one to 500 goals so it was fitting. And it still is.

 

[NyQuil]

I agree that it's a little odd to not have a goal scoring trophy and yet give the Art Ross to the higher goal scorer in the event of ties.

Not sure why they wouldn't just put both names on the trophy for that year.