Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,834
- 5,404
Crosby 2013
D.sedin 2011
Jagr 06?
Who else?
Why do you think that giving Theodore the Hart was beyond terrible?Iginla-2002.
It was bad enough they gave the Vezina to Theodore, but giving him the Hart was beyond terrible, but that's just my opinion. He'll just have to comfort himself that the only way Theodore is getting into the hof is if he buys a ticket.
I still prefer Ovechkin to Crosby for 2013, personally.
Why do you think that giving Theodore the Hart was beyond terrible?
The MVP is a seasonal award and it's probably a good thing that the voting reflects as such, and of course it was Iginla's big breakout season as well so there were no guarantees about him either. I don't think they should have tried to predict the future with Theodore's collapse.Maybe saying "terrible" was pushing it, but I though Iginla deserved it more. Theodore was just having a fluke season he never came close to repeating.
The MVP is a seasonal award and it's probably a good thing that the voting reflects as such, and of course it was Iginla's big breakout season as well so there were no guarantees about him either. I don't think they should have tried to predict the future with Theodore's collapse.
I also thought he was pretty clearly better than Roy, playing more games at a higher level with a much, much worse team.
Iginla-2002.
It was bad enough they gave the Vezina to Theodore, but giving him the Hart was beyond terrible, but that's just my opinion. He'll just have to comfort himself that the only way Theodore is getting into the hof is if he buys a ticket.
well hart is voted for the player who "was" the most valuble for their team. if theodore played for the red wings or something, no way he would have won hart.
that's just how it goes.
Missing a sizeable amount of time should be a big deal though? We're talking a quarter of the season in both cases, that's something that absolutely should be 'penalized'.Crosby definitely deserved the Hart over Ovechkin in 2012-13. The latter only won it because Sid took a freak puck in the face and missed the final twelve games of the year. He wins it otherwise.
Pronger won the Hart but Jagr won the Pearson in 2000, another example of a player winning the player's vote but being penalized by the media for missing a sizeable amount of time.
This would stand if players on really good teams didn't win the Hart often, which is not true at all.well hart is voted for the player who "was" the most valuble for their team. if theodore played for the red wings or something, no way he would have won hart.
that's just how it goes.
Missing a sizeable amount of time should be a big deal though? We're talking a quarter of the season in both cases, that's something that absolutely should be 'penalized'.
I don't see why this specific injury is an exceptional case. Injuries detract from your value. That is a rule for every player in history, across every sport in the world. You can argue about the fairness of such a rule (although that's a far more philosophical argument than seems appropriate) but I don't see the argument for ignoring it altogether. The point isn't to blame Crosby for not ducking, anyways.The fact that Crosby was unable to dodge a 100+ mile per hour Brooks Orpik slapshot shouldn't detract from the greatness of his season.
The question should be: would you have preferred 36 games of 2013 Crosby to 48 of 2013 Ovechkin/Toews/Tavares/etc, which is a good, worthy debate to have (and which has been had a number of times).It's not like he only played five games or something. He missed a quarter of the season and still finished third in league scoring behind St. Louis and Stamkos, and tied with Ovechkin. The fact that Ovechkin played 12 more games that season but still failed to outscore Crosby even with that massive advantage should be penalized just as heavily as Crosby missing those 12 games.
Missing a sizeable amount of time should be a big deal though? We're talking a quarter of the season in both cases, that's something that absolutely should be 'penalized'.
Missing a sizeable amount of time should be a big deal though? We're talking a quarter of the season in both cases, that's something that absolutely should be 'penalized'.
Ovechkin in 2009 was far and away the best player but lost it for the same reason Crosby did in 2013.
Ovechkin in 2009 was far and away the best player but lost it for the same reason Crosby did in 2013.
Crosby DEFINITELY in 2013. I actually thought that this was the point in history where he was most clearly the best player.
I can't get over Naslund beating Forsberg. I was a Canucklehead in those days, and saw a ton of both of them. Forsberg was the most jaw-dropping all arounder I could remember seeing, and Naslund.... had a wicked wrister and seemed like a really nice guy.
Orr was the better player, Clarke was more valuable to his team. Both awards went to the right person.Yeah I guess. I can sort of live with Theodore getting the Vezina that year, but not the Hart. Thats just my opinion.
To move the topic along, was Clarke better in 74-75 than Orr when he won his only Lindsay?
Pronger should have won in a blowout, IMO, and didn't because there were a lot of people who wouldn't have ever voted for a defenseman.Well in Jagr's case, he did miss 1/4 of the season and still won the Art Ross and finished 4th in goals and 3rd in assists. The Penguins were 2nd in the East at the time Jagr gor injured, by the time he came back, they had dropped to 9th in East. He played well enough down the stretch to help them secure the 7th seed.
Jagr lost the Hart by just 1 point and this was by far the biggest Hart robbery of all time.