The most prestigious individual award?

[Shaman 713]

Seeing as Pronger has won the Hart... I think its lost a lot of its prestige, why? because hes a cheap shot artist, and he makes any game hes in a joke.

[datsyukismyfriend 4]

Conn Smythe is the best. And yes, 3 Conn Smythes is better than 2 straight Harts.

not for a goalie.

[Reds4Life 51]

BTW, I will correct myself and say that Feds won the Hart based on what he did for the team, he was a defensive beast, he was an offensive beast.

I also offer this up:

If the Hart was given after the playoffs and playoffs were taken into consideration, then the Hart to me would be more prestigious because it takes into consideration being the MVP of the regular season and the playoffs.

Ok whatever

I already wasted my time discussing this kinda pointless stuff.

[Opie 308]

Yet another eloquent rebuttal!

Thanks for your insight I definitely change my opinion now!!

[Reds4Life 51]

Yet another eloquent rebuttal!

Thanks for your insight I definitely change my opinion now!!

I do not want to change your opinion, think whatever you want. Ignore history all you want..I don't care.

I just stated I am done with this matter and I am not gonna waste any more time..which I did now anyways.

I also thank you for your thoughtful input..you definitely proved Conn Smythe is da best

Edited June 13, 2008 by Reds4Life

[Opie 308]

I am not ignoring history I am saying the current way the award is handed out tarnishes the history of the award if you read my posts instead of posting things like: people don't know the meaning of the word, or sure ignore history you would have known that.

I also said that yes in the 70's, and I will go as far as to say up until about 94, the award would have been the most prestigious, but now the best offensive player gets the award, as proven by a guy who won it this year and plays no PK's and is actually his coaches first choice to be sent in to the sin bin, where as Z or lids are the first guys chosen to be on the ice to kill penalties.

AGAIN, I ask how can he be the most valuable player if when his team needs him the most, in a pk situation, he is not on the ice, and is one of his coach's (Coach of the year mind you) last choices?

[Reds4Life 51]

I am not ignoring history I am saying the current way the award is handed out tarnishes the history of the award if you read my posts instead of posting things like: people don't know the meaning of the word, or sure ignore history you would have known that.

I also said that yes in the 70's, and I will go as far as to say up until about 94, the award would have been the most prestigious, but now the best offensive player gets the award, as proven by a guy who won it this year and plays no PK's and is actually his coaches first choice to be sent in to the sin bin, where as Z or lids are the first guys chosen to be on the ice to kill penalties.

AGAIN, I ask how can he be the most valuable player if when his team needs him the most, in a pk situation, he is not on the ice, and is one of his coach's (Coach of the year mind you) last choices?

Because it is awarded to the most valuable player. Not the most complete player..or Gretzky would never won that award.

Ovechkin scored 65 goals and was by far the best player Caps had. He scored almost 30% of Caps goals not to mention 40+ helpers..his Hart is well deserved. The fact that he does not kill penalties does not change a thing.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Reds4Life

[Opie 308]

I never said he didn't deserve it, because based on who has received it in the recent past and what they did to receive it, he deserved.

But to me a guy who can score 90+ points and still be counted on to kill penalties (and score a few shorties) is more valuable to a team than a guy that scores 65 & 47 but can't kill penalties.

Is AO the most gifted and talented offensive player in the game, with out a doubt, but so wasn't Pavel Bure at one point in time.

All the offense in the world isn't going to help your team if you can't stop the other team from scoring or every time your team is shorthanded they give up a goal.

I value defense as much as offense and in the post season even more.

Edit: I will argue that without Messier and Kurri, Gretz doesn't even get a sniff of the Hart, plus in that era the game was all about scoring, not stopping scoring, the game has evolve from that.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Opie

[Reds4Life 51]

I never said he didn't deserve it, because based on who has received it in the recent past and what they did to receive it, he deserved.

But to me a guy who can score 90+ points and still be counted on to kill penalties (and score a few shorties) is more valuable to a team than a guy that scores 65 & 47 but can't kill penalties.

Is AO the most gifted and talented offensive player in the game, with out a doubt, but so wasn't Pavel Bure at one point in time.

All the offense in the world isn't going to help your team if you can't stop the other team from scoring or every time your team is shorthanded they give up a goal.

I value defense as much as offense and in the post season even more.

Ovechkin is much better than Bure ever was. He is also physical force, unlike Z or Pav. Also, without Ovechkin Caps would not make playoffs. We would make playoffs without Pavel or Hank. Ovechkin may not be the best player, but he was definitely most valuable player.

Edit: I will argue that without Messier and Kurri, Gretz doesn't even get a sniff of the Hart, plus in that era the game was all about scoring, not stopping scoring, the game has evolve from that.

That is one of the most ridiculous sentences I have ever read. Gretzky was surrounded by very mediocre talent after the 1993 Cup run. LA was terrible in 1993-94. No Art Ross winner has had less talent around him post-expansion. Gretzky still hit 100 points in 95-96. The one year he had talent around him (1996-97 in New York) he had 97 points in the regular season, and he scored at about a 110-point clip in the playoffs.

He had nothing for surrounding talent in 97-98 and he still finished third in points. He was the top scorer after the Olympics even though the Rangers only other credible offensive threat (Pat Lafontaine) missed the final month of the season.

How bad was it in 98-99? Gretzky, mired by injuries, helped Adam Graves put up the second best goal total of his career (Graves never hit 25 again), and, well, Todd Harvey and Niklas Sundstrom never looked better than they did while playing with Gretzky.

To be honest, I never liked Gretzky, but he was the best player ever. Kurri was really good player, but he would never scored so many goals if not for Gretzky. Messier was even better than Kurri, but not even close to Gretzky.

Gretzky would dominate any era because of his vision.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Reds4Life

[Opie 308]

RE: Gretz point well taken, my argument wasn't strong one to begin with. I just think with Edmonton he was the most impressive player on that team, and in the league, but IMO he gets a lot of credit for them winning and Kurri was one of the early Euro's that didn't get nearly enough credit, and Mess was well Mess, but you are right.

Gretz in LA took an atrocious team further than they deserved and he was a major factor in Edm.

I should have prefaced my thought better, by classifying, either way my statement was wrong!!!

BTW take a look at Bure's 93-94 season in which he played 76 games and put up 60 and 47 or 92-93 when he put up 60 & 50 with a +35.

What keeps Bure form being mentioned in a lot of the all time greats is his Prima Donna attitude and his injuries. To say AO is better than Bure ever was is a bit of a stretch this is a guy who was over a PPG player. Currently AO is on track to be the better player and has the natural talent, but has yet to proven he is better. Would it surprise me if he was, no way in hell!

Edited June 13, 2008 by Opie

[egroen 384]

Seeing as Pronger has won the Hart... I think its lost a lot of its prestige, why? because hes a cheap shot artist, and he makes any game hes in a joke.

I can't stand Pronger as much as the next guy, but the Hart lost it's prestige about 80 years ago if that is the case. Same goes for all the trophies, including the Conn Smythe, with the possible exception of the Lady Byng...

... though even the Lady Byng went to Mikita, and he was one of the dirtiest SoB's to ever play... until his 6 year-old daughter once asked why he had to sit by himself across the ice from his team so often. He then went on to win the Lady Byng two years in a row.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

Huh? The Conn Smythe just means you were one of the many contributing players to a winning team based on a sample size of about 22-24 playoff games. Considering half the league can't make the postseason, saying the Smythe winner is the best player in the league is hogwash. Winning the Cup is a team effort, and I don't care how cliche it is.

The Hart is still, by far, the most prestigious award. Don't tell me the Smythe goes to the best player in the league when Richards, Nieuwendyk, Claude Lemieux, Bill Ranford, Ron Hextall, Butch Goring, etc have won it. And Considering Cup losers have won it as well, that kind of throws a wrench in the "best player on the best team" argument, which was already porous in the first place.

Is Ovechkin's name on the cup? no. Hank shut down crosby and hossa and had the most point in the playoffs had i think 5th most points overall in the reg season, and is far better defensively than ovechkin, same goes with pavel, they are obviously better than ovechkin right now and being the best in the playoffs is way better than being the best in the regular season cup>no cup who cares if pav and hank are more dynamic players than Ovechkin that dosent mean that hes any better, hank and pavel both should have been on that ballot rather than iginla or baby malkin

[betterREDthandead 58]

... though even the Lady Byng went to Mikita, and he was one of the dirtiest SoB's to ever play... until his 6 year-old daughter once asked why he had to sit by himself across the ice from his team so often. He then went on to win the Lady Byng two years in a row.

I probably wouldn't have had a problem with telling her, "Sweetie, Daddy likes to elbow fools in the head, because they deserve it. You'll know what I mean when you're 16 and the worst kind of people are asking you out."

[egroen 384]

... hank and pavel both should have been on that ballot rather than iginla or baby malkin

Neither Hank nor Pavel were the most valuable on their team.

[Opie 308]

Neither Hank nor Pavel were the most valuable on their team.

Who was? May I ask, not arguing with you because to tell you the truth, I am not sure who was.

Ozzie? a back up that won as many games as the starter with better stats?

Lids?

Hank?

Dats?

To me they all could be, which is why I have a hard time saying one of them deserved the Hart.

[egroen 384]

I strongly feel Lidstrom continues to be the most valuable to this team.

Others may have more impact during a given time, but Lidstrom is the foundation.

[Opie 308]

I strongly feel Lidstrom continues to be the most valuable to this team.

Others may have more impact during a given time, but Lidstrom is the foundation.

I will give you that, I just know in my head, I have reasons for each of the guys I listed to be it and reasons some one else should be.

But I think Lids sets the tone, I think he is the best all around player in the world, he is the best defenseman in 30+ years, and he is the core of the best PK and PP in the league, with out him are the wings still good, without a doubt and that is a testament to the org, but would they be as good or as dominant, I lean towards no.

[Slave 31]

RE: Gretz point well taken, my argument wasn't strong one to begin with. I just think with Edmonton he was the most impressive player on that team, and in the league, but IMO he gets a lot of credit for them winning and Kurri was one of the early Euro's that didn't get nearly enough credit, and Mess was well Mess, but you are right.

Gretz in LA took an atrocious team further than they deserved and he was a major factor in Edm.

I should have prefaced my thought better, by classifying, either way my statement was wrong!!!

BTW take a look at Bure's 93-94 season in which he played 76 games and put up 60 and 47 or 92-93 when he put up 60 & 50 with a +35.

What keeps Bure form being mentioned in a lot of the all time greats is his Prima Donna attitude and his injuries. To say AO is better than Bure ever was is a bit of a stretch this is a guy who was over a PPG player. Currently AO is on track to be the better player and has the natural talent, but has yet to proven he is better. Would it surprise me if he was, no way in hell!

but the only time bure was in his own zone was when there was a faceoff there

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Which individual NHL award do you hold in the highest regard? It's easy to quickly say the Hart, but when I really think about it, I actually hold the Conn Smythe in the highest regard. Being the most valuable player in the playoffs while leading your team to playoff success is the greatest accomplishment in my opinion. I think its the hardest trophy to win. I know the Hart is great, but I think the Conn Smythe is the best. Here's a simply question to test your opinion: what is more impressive, Hasek's 2 straight Hart trophies, or Roy's 3 Conn Smythe's? I know we all hate Roy, but 3 Conn Smythe's is more impressive IMO. Thoughts?

I say Pearson. Gotta agree with those in the thinking that being voted the best by your fellow players over an 82 game season is the best.

Obviously the Con Smyth is so uber important but IMO, its a crapshoot. Just a few more points here or there, a save or 2 more hear or there and we could be talking about Crosby winning it or Ozzie winning it. It's way too close in my opinion. Heck, some years some average guy like a Claude Lemeiux goes apes*** come playoff time and has a crack at the Con Smyth maybe.

Doing it over a full season and your peers in a majority believing you were the best player would probably mean more to me.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

As far as the most prestigious around the league, it would be the Hart.

However, the one I think a player should want more than any other is the Conn Smythe, since it usually goes to the team that wins the Cup, and solidifies someone as a great playoff performer.

[Vincanni 1]

I typically view the COnn Smytghe as a greater acheviement than the Hart, but it really depends especially if a goalie is involved. Considering the goalie is practically the default for any good team effort in the playoffs I feel it cheapens the potency of the award, though contrarily what Giguere did was concurrently impressive to any skater winning the award if not more. SO in effect being on a winning or losing team counts into the equation as well.

Basically on a graduated scale my list goes as...

1. Non-goalie Conn Smythe from the losing team in the playoffs.

2. Non-goalie Conn Smythe from the winning team in the playoffs.

3. Goalie Conn Smythe from the losing team in the playoffs.

4. Hart.

5. Conn Smythe won by goalie (sorry Vernon.)

[Wingman 0]

Ok let's try simple math..maybe it will help some folks.

There are 30 teams in the NHL, each team has +-25 players..that means more than 700 players (750). Each end every player has chance to win Hart trophy.

Now playoffs..you only have 16 teams..then 2 teams in the finals. Only one team wins it all..

so one of the 25 players (yes few exceptions..like Giguere in 03) gets the Conn Smythe.

You need to play for the best team..and one player can only do so much. You need to be lucky to be on that team..and even if the Conn Smythe winner happens to be the best player on the team (not every winner was the best player though) you needed other players to be better than the players from the other team..

Conn Smythe is not even close to Hart when it comes to prestige.

Darn, I thought all the years of math at college would save me from being patronized on this subject...I was wrong About "you have to be on the winning team to win the Smythe"; so do you have any specific Conn Smythe selection you disagree with? Z this year maybe? Or perhaps the case often is, simply, that the winning team is the winning team, since they have the MVP.

The point that the selection out of which to chose the Smythe does not include all NHL players is, however hypothetical, still correct. But I still believe the only, defining factor for the prestige is not the opinion of fans or journalists, but the players desire to win it. The more desire, the harder you fight for it, the tougher the competition, the higher the prestige.

Here we go with made up phrases like "performing under the most pressure and intensity" Guys don't start magically sucking when the postseason comes around. Everyone wants to win the Cup, and a lot of guys have the unfortunate task of facing better teams every year that knock them out of the playoffs.

For the record, the Smythe is "awarded annually to the player judged most valuable to his team during the National Hockey League's Stanley Cup playoffs."

I stand by my "made-up" statement; intensity and pressure affect the way players perform. Some are affected negatively, and underperform as a result. Others raise their game and play out of their minds. I refer to mainstream psychology for the background explanations for this and if you disagree, feel free to share your arguments.

My point with this statement was simply that the higher the stakes, the harder to perform well, and the clearer it becomes who's able to or not. This particular aspect favor Conn Smythe over Hart.