You Can Change Each Award Once

[TheGuiminator]

Hart : Sidney Crosby 2012-13

Pearson/Lindsay : Wayne Gretzky 1985-86 or Mario Lemieux 1988-89

Norris : Paul Coffey 1983-84

Vezina : Patrick Roy 2001-02

Conn Smythe : Wayne Gretzky 1983-84

Selke : Joe Sakic 2000-01

Calder : Wayne Gretzky 1979-80

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Hart : Sidney Crosby 2012-13

Pearson/Lindsay : Wayne Gretzky 1985-86 or Mario Lemieux 1988-89

Norris : Paul Coffey 1983-84

Vezina : Patrick Roy 2001-02

Conn Smythe : Wayne Gretzky 1983-84

Selke : Joe Sakic 2000-01

Calder : Wayne Gretzky 1979-80

Disagree on Crosby. He didn't separate himself from the pack in any sense to justify missing so many games. It's not like he ran away with the Ross (or even won it). He missed the equivalent of 20 games on an 82 game schedule, you have to be nearly all time dominant to win the Hart in that situation

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

2010-11 Norris going to Lidstrom over Weber. The career achievement Norris might be the worst voting choice in league history

It's a bad one, sure- but the bizarre Al Rollins Hart Trophy of 1953-1954 crests it comfortably. My thumbnail view of the matter seems to indicate that the split of Detroit support between Kelly & Gordie Howe helped grease the skids on that one. I think I'm also catching a whiff of voter-weariness with Gordie Howe. [Are we going to vote for the runaway Art Ross Trophy winner again? Or are we going to change things up a little bit?!]

Truth is, I'm not even so sure that the Lidström 2010-2011 Norris is any worse that the Pierre Pilote Norris of 1962-1963. I go back and forth between the two- but for the purpose of this thread, I'd rather wail on a fresh nag rather than opt for the that is the final Lidström Norris.

In 1962-1963, voters can be forgiven that they didn't have access to a stat we take for granted like plus/minus. What's not so forgivable is that Pierre Pilote's signature skill is Offensive Defenseman... and three defensemen finished ahead of Pilote in points [Harvey, Gadsby, and Doug Barkley] and Pilote's points were level-pegging with Leo Boivin and only one point ahead of Hall-of-Famers Tim Horton & Harry Howell, as well as strong Hall-of-Fame candidate Carl Brewer.

Some of this lack of offensive output may be directly on account of Pilote missing 11 games, which at that time meant that he didn't play a little under 1/6ths of the team's contests. That year's BlackHawks were bottom-of-the-charts in goals scored (which is a testament to their incredibly craptastic lack of Forward-depth after Hull, Mikita, and [sort of] Wharram) but they were also top-of-the-charts in fewest goals allowed- and outperformed their Pythagoreans, as Glenn Hall was having his greatest Regular Season in his long-and-storied career filled with great Regular Seasons.

Like Lidström, Pilote won this Norris Trophy in spite of the fact that there were multiple better candidates for that honor that year. If we look for a signature accomplishment for Lidström (in 2010-2011), I suppose one could say that he was the most crucial part of the most productive Power Play in the Eastern Time Zone. It's unconscionably thin soup on which to pass out a Norris- but what's Pilote's signature accomplishment in 1962-1963? Somebody? Anybody?!

In conclusion, what perfect storm led to the first Pierre Pilote Norris?
A) The monster Toronto Defensemen [Horton-Brewer] split support.
B) Growing Voter-Fatigue re: Doug Harvey.
C) The shine of Glenn Hall's career-year rubbing off on Pilote, in spite of subsequent statistical evidence to the contrary. [Pilote was a "minus" player that year.]

 

[Voight]

2007 Vezina - Luongo

2016 Smythe - Kessel

Either the 2011 or 2012 Norris - Weber. Hard to pick between the two, but gun to my head I'd go with 2011.

1990 Hart - Bourque.

2001 Selke - Sakic

Disagree on Crosby. He didn't separate himself from the pack in any sense to justify missing so many games. It's not like he ran away with the Ross (or even won it). He missed the equivalent of 20 games on an 82 game schedule, you have to be nearly all time dominant to win the Hart in that situation

Exactly. Basically Jagr in 2000.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Gretzky was scoring 200 points and sweeping the harts. Lemieux scores 199 and gets screwed. Biggest robbery. 85 goals and 199 points....

 

[scott clam]

Disagree on Crosby. He didn't separate himself from the pack in any sense to justify missing so many games. It's not like he ran away with the Ross (or even won it). He missed the equivalent of 20 games on an 82 game schedule, you have to be nearly all time dominant to win the Hart in that situation

In other words you have to be Mario Lemieux...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

In other words you have to be Mario Lemieux...

the other example that comes to mind is bobby orr winning the norris (and getting just under 1/3 of the first place hart votes) in his second year, despite missing 18 games.

 

[Elvis P]

Norris: In 2000-01 Bourque was voted a First Team All-Star and he also finished 2nd for the Norris. Did he really deserve the 2nd place Norris finish?

Selke: In 1994-95 Ron Francis won the first of his 3 Byngs and won the Selke. Did he really deserve the Selke?

 

[daver]

Also, I didn't even think about the Conn Smythe, but I know which one I'd change, but it's tougher knowing who I'd give it to. Crosby was a no-show for two out of four series in 2016, and was a very undeserving winner in my opinion. Honestly, I think there were a few Sharks who were more deserving. With a gun to my head, I probably choose Kessel, but I reserve the right to change my mind.

What was the 2nd series besides the Caps? Assuming it was the SCF but he outplayed Kessel in that series, and notably in the Cup clinching game. Like the whole run, it was a real team effort but Crosby's 2-way play and timely scoring was worthy of his win, as was Kessel's effort too.

No Shark had a run that was worthy of the very rare "non Cup winner" Conn Smythe.

 

[VanIslander]

1999 Stanley Cup: Buffalo Sabres
1999 Conn Smythe: Dominik Hasek

 

[bobholly39]

Hart - Lemieux 1989. He should have won, plain and simple. It probably helps that Gretzky was as good as he was that year, as in, 1989 Gretzky is still one of the best hart winners of all-time, but Lemieux was clear MVP. Bad choice. There have been other bad winners, but this is probably the greatest season of all-time that didn't result in a Hart win (Orr might have a case too, but I'd give Lemieux edge).

Pearson - So I said above Lemieux should have won, but at least Gretzky isn't a bad winner. Well in 1986 - Gretzky should have won and Lemieux is a bad winner. I love Lemieux - but how does the guy with 141 points top the guy with 215 points lol - that makes no sense.

Conn Smythe - Gretzky. 83, 84, 88....take your pick. He was the best player all 3 years. I think voters were fishing too much for a 'narrative' and a reason not to give him. If they had simply voted on best/most valuable player - he wins all 3, and at the very least wins in the 2 cup wins.

 

[bobholly39]

• Pearson/Lindsay – I echo Forsberg in 02–03

Couple of things.

1. There's no way you can genuinely believe this is a bigger travesty than Lemieux over Gretzky in 1986 (141 points to 215) or Yzerman over Lemieux in 1989 (155 points to 199) - right?

2. Pretty sure players were said to vote for this award earlier in this season, sometimes as early as February. Forsberg's season is better than Naslund - but by February, it's probably still Naslund > Forsberg. Forsberg had that monster end to season. My guess is a lot of the players voted earlier - and if they had instead voted at the end of the season, I think Forsberg would have won. So...yeah it sucks that he didn't win, but I think it's less a question of voters getting it wrong, than it is a limitation in the way votes were made back then. Pretty sure that's different today

 

[bobholly39]

While I agree the award should have gone to Lemieux, as imperfect NHL awards go, this one isn't overly hard to understand, is it? The Kings went from 4th-worst overall to 4th-best overall in the season Gretzky joined, while the Pens had a solid but not overly impressive season. I guarantee you that if, say, Dale Hawerchuk had scored 168 points in 1984-85 (when the Jets had their biggest season), he would have won the Hart instead of 208-point Gretzky. You have to remember that there is a team-success narrative attached to basically every Hart trophy (which is why, for example, Bobby Orr didn't win the 1974-75 Hart, despite winning the scoring title and going +80).

Calder: 1979-80, Wayne Gretzky or if that doesn't fly, then 1989-90, Mike Modano
Completely agree with the OP. That Makarov thing was just stupid. Why are the NHL such idiots? Either Gretzky wasn't a rookie and Makarov wasn't either, or they both were, but you sure as hell can't have it both ways, unless you're idiotic. Oh! Hello, NHL.

Conn Smythe: undecided!
I think most of the Conn Smythes are more-or-less correct. Sometimes, there is someone I would have preferred, but usually I can see the case for the guy who won it. (Speaking of Grant Fuhr, he legitimately could have won the 1987 Conn Smythe!) My probable choice here would be Joe Sakic over Patrick Roy in 2001. Butch Goring in '81 seems a little suspect to me, too, but that was before my time, so I'll defer to the experts...

I think Lemieux in 1989 should be a slam dunk winner - but I agree with you that it bothers me maybe a bit less because at the very least Gretzky in 1989 was still a super strong winner. Still - should have been Lemieux

Gretzky for Calder in 1980 is obvious...and probably the greatest rookie season of all-time right? But it's more a case of him being ineligible - so a technicality, even if it's dumb.

Conn Smythe - it's funny that you argue 2001 Sakic over Roy - because I almost wanted to say the opposite, 1996 Conn Smythe, Roy over Sakic
It's not that Sakic wasn't great in 1996 - he was, and had an all-time great playoff. But Roy's presence in Colorado is really what turned the franchise around, and he was fantastic in 1996. His overall stats don't stand out as much because in some losses he let in a lot of goals which affects his average - but in the conference finals and finals he was fantastic - and in any must-win games, he did great too. So not best overall stats - but in terms of meaningful wins and performances, super solid. To your point - you can probably also make an argument for Sakic in 2001 too. I think in the end - 1 smythe for Roy and 1 for Sakic is an even middle ground

 

[Hobnobs]

Hart - 2012-13, Toews over Ovechkin. Picking a lockout season feels like cheating, but I didn’t like Ovechkin for Hart that season, and Toews was the best even strength player in the league. Just an incredible season driving an incredible team, even if it was only 48 games. +21 on the road!

Norris - 1980-81, Potvin over Carlyle. Probably most of the forum would agree with this one. Carlyle had a big year on the power play but Denis Potvin was just another class of player.

Vezina - 2003-04, Luongo over Brodeur.

Selke - 2006-07, Pahlsson over Brind’Amour. Pahlsson was just better defensively this season. I think Brind’Amour was getting some credit for lifting the Cup the previous June.

Smythe - 2013-14, Doughty over Williams. Williams had a really good playoff, but Doughty had a classic Conn Smythe defenceman playoff.

Calder - 1991-92, Lidstrom over Bure. I know Bure had the wow factor and a great finish to the season, but Lidstrom looks to have been clearly more valuable over the course of the year, helping drive the Wings to a 22 point improvement and division title.

I dont agree with the Hart choice here but the rest yes, probably. The only one that rival the 04 robbery of Luongo is Careys in 96 robbing everyone from Hasek to Puppa who all were better than Carey that season.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

2016 Conn Smythe -- Kessel

Crosby really benefited from the PWHA's insistence he win a trophy.

 

[frisco]

Hart
Lemieux 1989
Jagr 2000/2006

Calder
Larry Murphy 1981
Housley 1983

Stanley Cup
Buffalo 1999

Vezina
Barrasso 1988. Fuhr won because he played lots after Moog sat out on a stacked dynasty with no real standout numbers except GP and wins. But Barrasso had a way better save percentage (.896 to .881) and basically carried a Buffalo team (last overall the previous year) to the playoffs.

My Best-Carey

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Calder - I really couldn't care less about the Calder. Let's say Zetterberg in 2003 because Jackman was just the guy that MacInnis carried around in 2003.

i know i'm responding to an old comment, but couldn't you just as easily marvel at barrett jackman taking on first pair minutes and playing a supporting role to macinnis' MVP-level season while zetterberg was "carried around" by datsyuk and hull, and insulated behind the fedorov/shanahan line?

 

[JackSlater]

i know i'm responding to an old comment, but couldn't you just as easily marvel at barrett jackman taking on first pair minutes and playing a supporting role to macinnis' MVP-level season while zetterberg was "carried around" by datsyuk and hull, and insulated behind the fedorov/shanahan line?

Not when it's the 2003 versions of Datsyuk and Hull, which were still quite good but not what their names imply at first glance. MacInnis was ancient in 2003 but also a top two defenceman in the NHL that year.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Not when it's the 2003 versions of Datsyuk and Hull, which were still quite good but not what their names imply at first glance. MacInnis was ancient in 2003 but also a top two defenceman in the NHL that year.

my point was that jackman had the much harder job, MVP level partner notwithstanding.

and it's not like zetts did his own line's heavy lifting either

 

[blogofmike]

Gretzky was scoring 200 points and sweeping the harts. Lemieux scores 199 and gets screwed. Biggest robbery. 85 goals and 199 points....

The scale was broken because:

A) Gretzky scored 200 so many times that 199 wasn't special in the immediate aftermath of those seasons.

B) People were also used to seeing Gretzky winning the race by 70+ points. Leading by 31 wasn't a huge deal at the time. Remember, Yzerman at 155 had a Hart case too.

C) 4 guys scored 150 points that year. Instead of the 75 point lead (69%) over 2nd Gretzky had in 1987, Lemieux was 49 points ahead of 4th (33%), which is far less impressive. For reference McDavid was 38 points and 57% ahead of 4th this year. People wouldn't have talked about his regular season as highly if the 2021 scoring race resembled the 1989 proportions:

McDavid	89
Draisaitl	75
Marchand	69
Marner	67

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

McDavid still has a good Hart case, but if Draisaitl was say, a 75-point Sidney Crosby who was traded to last year's 4th worst team (coincidentally the Kings), and then all of a sudden the Kings are the 4th best team this year, McDavid's Hart doesn't look so certain next to hypothetical Crosby.

 

[Soundgarden]

Norris: Going against the grain and saying Weber should have won in '13-14 over Keith.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

historically, the norris has had a lot of tossups, and a few flat out wrong choices. carlyle is one, the last lidstrom is another.

but the pearson award up to 1990 notwithstanding, i don't think you can be more wrong than some of the harts bobby orr didn't win.

people have argued 'til the cows come home about gretzky vs mario in 1989, but how can you even argue about 1974 and 1975 orr?

 

[Davenport]

I would recognize ties in awarding the Art Ross Trophy. Belatedly, recognize Andy Bathgate (1961-62) , Wayne Gretzky (1979-80) and Eric Lindros (1994-95) as winners of the Art Ross Trophy. They recognize ties with other trophies.

 

[blogofmike]

historically, the norris has had a lot of tossups, and a few flat out wrong choices. carlyle is one, the last lidstrom is another.

but the pearson award up to 1990 notwithstanding, i don't think you can be more wrong than some of the harts bobby orr didn't win.

people have argued 'til the cows come home about gretzky vs mario in 1989, but how can you even argue about 1974 and 1975 orr?

For 1975, if anyone's ever made an argument for Orr about ratios, they have to concede the 1975 Hart to be logically consistent.

Orr pounded the bottom teams, but Clarke was better against good teams. Going for Orr in 75 is putting a lot of weight on his going 8-8-16, +20 against the expansion Caps, which shouldn't really add a lot of value in a Hart race.

vs Top 5 teams (.560 or better)
Clarke 16 GP, 19 PTS, +13
Orr 20 GP, 24 PtS, -4

vs Middle 8 teams (.480 - .560)
Clarke 41 GP, 53 PTS, +38
Orr 36 GP, 60 PTS, +34

vs Bottom 5 teams (less than .365)
Clarke 23 GP, 44 PTS, +28
Orr 24 GP, 51 PTS, +50

 

[The Panther]

Pearson - So I said above Lemieux should have won, but at least Gretzky isn't a bad winner. Well in 1986 - Gretzky should have won and Lemieux is a bad winner. I love Lemieux - but how does the guy with 141 points top the guy with 215 points lol - that makes no sense.

The Pearson in those days, as you probably know, was a very low-prestige award, awarded in the media only (as far as I know) by the NHLPA, not even presented at NHL Awards night, and generally receiving scant attention. The definition of the award also changed from something like 'contribution to hockey' into 'best player in the NHL' at some indeterminate point in the early/mid-1980s, and since we haven't been able to determine that exactly in the internet era, I'm pretty sure the players back then didn't know about it either (nor really cared).

I think the players didn't take the Pearson overly seriously in the 70s/80s and into the 90s as well. That probably explains Lemieux in '86, Yzerman in '89, etc. It was more like the "players'-narrative" award.

Conn Smythe - Gretzky. 83, 84, 88....take your pick. He was the best player all 3 years. I think voters were fishing too much for a 'narrative' and a reason not to give him. If they had simply voted on best/most valuable player - he wins all 3, and at the very least wins in the 2 cup wins.

I assume you meant '87, as Gretzky did win in '88.

I dunno... in 1983, he was the best player for sure and set the all-time records for points in a playoff year. Sounds great, right? But if your club gets swept in the Finals, should you win the MVP? I'm gonna say 'no'.

In 1987, Gretzky dominated scoring far less than usual (he was concussed throughout the Detroit series, I think), and there were just a lot of Edmonton players, plus Ron Hextall, who were stand-outs. So, I can see that one, too, even if I do sometimes tire of the "no-obvious-skater, so-let's-give-it-to-the-goalie" thing that kind of started with Hextall and became a common thing ever after.