NHL Awards Discussion Thread

[egroen 384]

Backstrom was the most valuable goalie, not Mason.

Not if your goal is to make the playoffs!

[eva unit zero 271]

Not if your goal is to make the playoffs!

Which is why when I laid down my award winners in the pre-playoff awards thread while Minny still had a chance, I said for the Hart: "Backstrom (If Minnesota makes the playoffs) or Ovechkin (if Minnesota misses)"

[Drake_Marcus 890]

The first two months of the season - and you would be correct.

Chara had a worst +/- in front of the Vezina winning goaltender with the league-leading save percentage, while Lidstrom had a better +/- (as well as points) in front of the regular season sieve that was Osgood this year (dead last amongst starting goaltenders).

This.

(although Chara did have a whale of a season, he was just too close to Lidstrom this year for Lids to pull off his 7th of 8 Norris trophies... the hockey writers wanted change, so anyone who came close to Lids had a much better chance all of the sudden)

Props to Chara, though- he was fantastic out there and nearly had 20 goals while playing excellent defense.

Did anyone else read the article from yesterday where a reporter is talking to Chara when all of the sudden Nick pulls up to the hotel in his car? Chara watched Nick check into the hotel then went on to tell the reporter how much of a fan he was of Lidstrom. I can't find the article, though. It was linked to on the Snapshots blog, but I can't seem to go to previous page of posts on that blog (it's so frigging annoying- why can't you just have a button that says "previous posts"?).

[dat's sick 1,002]

Did anyone else read the article from yesterday where a reporter is talking to Chara when all of the sudden Nick pulls up to the hotel in his car? Chara watched Nick check into the hotel then went on to tell the reporter how much of a fan he was of Lidstrom. I can't find the article, though. It was linked to on the Snapshots blog, but I can't seem to go to previous page of posts on that blog (it's so frigging annoying- why can't you just have a button that says "previous posts"?).

There's also an interview with Chara on TSN.ca where he says how much he looks up to Nick and so on.

[egroen 384]

Did anyone else read the article from yesterday where a reporter is talking to Chara when all of the sudden Nick pulls up to the hotel in his car? Chara watched Nick check into the hotel then went on to tell the reporter how much of a fan he was of Lidstrom. I can't find the article, though. It was linked to on the Snapshots blog, but I can't seem to go to previous page of posts on that blog (it's so frigging annoying- why can't you just have a button that says "previous posts"?).

Found it:

http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins...hara/?page=full

It is tough to navigate that site -- you have to either use tags or go through the archives tab on the left side.

Nice article!

[MsRedWingFan 0]

I wonder why "THE FACE" of the NHL wasn't required to be there ... maybe he should be suspended for a game at the beginning of next season like Lids and Datsyuk were for the first game back after All Star break

I think he was afraid to face Lids after the hand shake debacle

[MsRedWingFan 0]

The Russians take over.

hehe I bet Buttman just loved that hey. and Cherry too

mike green deserved the norris this year, nick was only nominated because of his name..

excuse me but do you even know what the word defense means? Green may be have been a good scorer this past year but he certainly isn't the best defenseman in the league and that is what the Norris is for ... Norris = Defense

[blackbarbie11 0]

Bettman looked like his makeup was done by a mortician.

You are off the hook!

[FedorovGurl 2]

I wonder why "THE FACE" of the NHL wasn't required to be there ... maybe he should be suspended for a game at the beginning of next season like Lids and Datsyuk were for the first game back after All Star break

I think he was afraid to face Lids after the hand shake debacle

Sid was at his good friend Colby Armstrongs wedding.

[eva unit zero 271]

IMHO, these should have been the top five (in order) for each of the major awards:

Hart: Ovechkin, S.Mason, Parise, Lundqvist, Malkin

Norris: Lidstrom, Keith, Chara, Weber, Boyle

Vezina: Thomas, Backstrom, Vokoun, Luongo, Miller

Selke: Zetterberg, Kesler, Datsyuk, M.Richards, Conroy

If you have any complaints about this (I KNOW people will) then feel free to post them.

[dat's sick 1,002]

IMHO, these should have been the top five (in order) for each of the major awards:

Hart: Ovechkin, S.Mason, Parise, Lundqvist, Malkin

Norris: Lidstrom, Keith, Chara, Weber, Boyle

Vezina: Thomas, Backstrom, Vokoun, Luongo, Miller

Selke: Zetterberg, Kesler, Datsyuk, M.Richards, Conroy

If you have any complaints about this (I KNOW people will) then feel free to post them.

You have Mason as the 2nd most valuable player in the league, but not in the top 5 for the Vezina? That makes sense.

And Lundqvist, even when he has an off year, is more valuable to the Rangers than Mason is to the Blue Jackets.

I think Parise was a bit overlooked this year, he deserves more credit, but Datsyuk should definitely be above him.

I agree with your opinion that Z is better defensively than Pavel, but this year (in the regular season) he wasn't that much better defensively to make up for the fact that Pavel was a much bigger factor offensively.

[eva unit zero 271]

You have Mason as the 2nd most valuable player in the league, but not in the top 5 for the Vezina? That makes sense.

And Lundqvist, even when he has an off year, is more valuable to the Rangers than Mason is to the Blue Jackets.

I think Parise was a bit overlooked this year, he deserves more credit, but Datsyuk should definitely be above him.

I agree with your opinion that Z is better defensively than Pavel, but this year (in the regular season) he wasn't that much better defensively to make up for the fact that Pavel was a much bigger factor offensively.

The Hart is for MVP, not Best Player. You can be more valuable even if you are a worse player.

And you agreed that Z is better than Pavel defensively; where does the "Pavel was better offensively" affect the Selke selection? The Selke is awarded for Best Defensive Forward, not Best Two-Way forward.

Sometimes I think people (both fans and voters) don't understand what the awards are actually for.

Also, one award I left out that I shouldn't have:

Calder: Rinne, S.Mason, Ryan, Versteeg, Wheeler

[dat's sick 1,002]

The Hart is for MVP, not Best Player. You can be more valuable even if you are a worse player.

And you agreed that Z is better than Pavel defensively; where does the "Pavel was better offensively" affect the Selke selection? The Selke is awarded for Best Defensive Forward, not Best Two-Way forward.

Sometimes I think people (both fans and voters) don't understand what the awards are actually for.

Also, one award I left out that I shouldn't have:

Calder: Rinne, S.Mason, Ryan, Versteeg, Wheeler

1. I sort of agree with you on your statement about the Hart. Lundqvist had a worse season than Mason statistically, but was more valuable imo.

Of all teams that made the playoffs, the Rangers were without question the worst offensively. This season they basically couldn't win if they let in more than 2 goals. Lundy played 70 games with that kind of pressure on him and managed to get them into the playoffs and almost past the 1st round. The Blue Jackets weren't that much better offensively, but they have an underrated defense and a style of play that really helps the goalies. We saw it in all the games we played against them, they make it difficult to get good scoring chances and rebounds.

Mason was rookie of the year, but nowhere near the top 5 when talking about MVP in my eyes.

2. If the Selke always went to simply the best Defensive forward, without taking into account offense, Sammy Pahlsson would have won it several times. But it's a simple truth that a forward's main job is to produce offense. Similar to how Mike Green shouldn't win the Norris just for scoring lots of goals, I don't think you should win the Selke just for playing good defense. It's a combination of playing good defense, while producing offensively. If Datsyuk is only slightly less dominant defensively, but more flashy with takeaways and with better +/-, while at the same time putting up much better numbers offensively, he's going to rightfully get more votes than Z.

Z should have won it last year, when he had only a little less points while playing better defense against better players, but this year Datsyuk was 100% the right choice.

And again, I don't really understand your choices. Mason is to you the 2nd most valuable player in the league, but doesn't qualify for the top 5 for the Vezina or is even the best rookie-goalie? One way or another that is just wrong.

[eva unit zero 271]

1. I sort of agree with you on your statement about the Hart. Lundqvist had a worse season than Mason statistically, but was more valuable imo.

Of all teams that made the playoffs, the Rangers were without question the worst offensively. This season they basically couldn't win if they let in more than 2 goals. Lundy played 70 games with that kind of pressure on him and managed to get them into the playoffs and almost past the 1st round. The Blue Jackets weren't that much better offensively, but they have an underrated defense and a style of play that really helps the goalies. We saw it in all the games we played against them, they make it difficult to get good scoring chances and rebounds.

Mason was rookie of the year, but nowhere near the top 5 when talking about MVP in my eyes.

2. If the Selke always went to simply the best Defensive forward, without taking into account offense, Sammy Pahlsson would have won it several times. But it's a simple truth that a forward's main job is to produce offense. Similar to how Mike Green shouldn't win the Norris just for scoring lots of goals, I don't think you should win the Selke just for playing good defense. It's a combination of playing good defense, while producing offensively. If Datsyuk is only slightly less dominant defensively, but more flashy with takeaways and with better +/-, while at the same time putting up much better numbers offensively, he's going to rightfully get more votes than Z.

Z should have won it last year, when he had only a little less points while playing better defense against better players, but this year Datsyuk was 100% the right choice.

And again, I don't really understand your choices. Mason is to you the 2nd most valuable player in the league, but doesn't qualify for the top 5 for the Vezina or is even the best rookie-goalie? One way or another that is just wrong.

I only considered teams that made the playoffs when choosing my top five for the Hart; if a team didn't make the playoffs it's hard to argue that player is the most valuable in the league to his team. Otherwise I'd have given the honor to Nicklas Backstrom of the Wild as they would have finished 30th in the league without him.

And as I said, you can be more valuable without being better. Only Thomas and Luongo of my Vezina top-five even made the playoffs. Thomas wasn't even his team's MVP IMHO, so putting him in the Hart race would be silly. Luongo had a decent defense and several good forwards playing in front of him, and his team was challenging for the division title. Mason, OTOH, got hot and helped his team sneak into the 8th spot. He wasn't better than those guys, he just played well at the right time when his team needed him to.

I'll give you a simple example. Say there's a twelve-team league with two six-team divisions. The top four on each side make the playoffs. One team scores an average of five goals each game and gives up about two. One team scores two goals each game and gives up one. The 5-goal team finishes first in its division, the 2 goal team finishes 4th. The league average is 5 total goals per game, so 2.5 per team. Other teams generally score 2 or 3 goals and give up 2 or 3 each game on average. Who should be the MVP? My vote goes to the goaltender of the team that is only giving up 1 goal per game; he's basically gotten them a playoff spot the rest of the team didn't deserve.

You have to consider how talented the player's teammates are and how the team would have done without him. Seriously...which playoff teams do you think would not have made the playoffs without their team's MVP? How important was that player as compared to the next most important player? These are things that should be thought about...not "Who is the best player." You do have to consider how good the player is, because if the team is full of similarly skilled mediocre players, it's hard to argue that a low seed would miss their MVP if they have a bunch of guys at the same position who are nearly as good and would be able to step it up with more ice time. Montreal is an example. If Markov were missing, do you think Montreal doesn't make the playoffs? I think that's less likely than at least the five I mentioned.

[dat's sick 1,002]

And as I said, you can be more valuable without being better. Only Thomas and Luongo of my Vezina top-five even made the playoffs. Thomas wasn't even his team's MVP IMHO, so putting him in the Hart race would be silly. Luongo had a decent defense and several good forwards playing in front of him, and his team was challenging for the division title. Mason, OTOH, got hot and helped his team sneak into the 8th spot. He wasn't better than those guys, he just played well at the right time when his team needed him to.

Columbus finished 7th, and if you remember they looked liked they might get as high as 4th or 5th seed just a few weeks before the end of the season. And that was in a period where Mason didn't play all that well. Meanwhile, the Rangers really fought for their playoff spot and made it in because of one reason: Lundqvist playing amazing hockey in the last stretch.

I'll give you a simple example. Say there's a twelve-team league with two six-team divisions. The top four on each side make the playoffs. One team scores an average of five goals each game and gives up about two. One team scores two goals each game and gives up one. The 5-goal team finishes first in its division, the 2 goal team finishes 4th. The league average is 5 total goals per game, so 2.5 per team. Other teams generally score 2 or 3 goals and give up 2 or 3 each game on average. Who should be the MVP? My vote goes to the goaltender of the team that is only giving up 1 goal per game; he's basically gotten them a playoff spot the rest of the team didn't deserve.

Exactly. That's why Lundqvist should be regarded higher for the Hart than Mason. The Rangers scored less than the Blue Jackets, and they let in less goals. If there was a "2-1"-team in the playoffs this year, it was the Rangers. The only chance they had to win games was for Lundqvist to stand on his head and not let in more than 1 or 2 goals, and for the forwards to score on the rare chances they managed to create.

You have to consider how talented the player's teammates are and how the team would have done without him. Seriously...which playoff teams do you think would not have made the playoffs without their team's MVP? How important was that player as compared to the next most important player? These are things that should be thought about...not "Who is the best player." You do have to consider how good the player is, because if the team is full of similarly skilled mediocre players, it's hard to argue that a low seed would miss their MVP if they have a bunch of guys at the same position who are nearly as good and would be able to step it up with more ice time. Montreal is an example. If Markov were missing, do you think Montreal doesn't make the playoffs? I think that's less likely than at least the five I mentioned.

Uh huh. And that's why Lundqvist is more valuable than Mason. Take away him and the Rangers are somewhere in the bottom of the league. Valiquette is a joke.

Take away Mason from the Blue Jackets and Leclaire (if he's healthy) steps in and probably gets them in or very near to the playoffs anyway. I think Mason had a very good individual season, with good numbers and lots of shutout, and he certainly was a big reason of why Columbus was as good as they were. That's why he deserves the Calder and a Vezina nominee. Lundqvist didn't have as good a season individually, but he was way more important to the team. Who is the 2nd most valuable player on the Rangers??.... Gomez? Drury? Staal? Come on. You could argue that Nash is more important to the Blue Jackets than Mason, and that Brodeur is more important to the Devils than Parise, but it's not even close on the Rangers - they're all about Lundqvist. Just like the Caps are all about Ovechkin.

Btw I don't know why you bring up Markov, he's not even in my top 15 for the Hart.

.

[eva unit zero 271]

.

Compare Mason to Rinne, ignoring any other goaltenders. Who had the better season? Rinne owns Mason in pretty much every category. Rinne, not Mason, was the better rookie goaltender. Both teams were equally skilled defensively; Nashville had better defensemen overall but they weren't better in their own end as Columbus had mostly defensive specialists while Nashville had guys like Weber and Suter who could play decent defense but were more offense-oriented.

Mason's Vezina nomination and his Calder win were both hype-based. However, he was the most valuable goalie of any playoff team; The Jackets switched to Mason and traded LeClaire because LeClaire was s***ting the bed. If they had kept LeClaire, who didn't play a game for Ottawa, they would have been at the bottom of the conference. Without LeClaire? It's Norrena or Dubielewicz, who are mid-level backups at best and they miss the playoffs. The Jackets don't have any assets to trade to get a solid goaltender without handicapping either the offense or defense considerably. The Rangers had six forwards who scored 40 points. The Jackets had 3. The Rangers also had more tradeable defensemen; Wade Redden is as good or close to as good as anyone on the Jackets' defense, and Chicago would have rather taken on his contract for Nikolai Khabibulin and beefed up their defense than dropped him to a division rival unless the trade involved Rick Nash and more.

The Jackets had nothing without Mason...the Rangers had other good players. Lundqvist certainly did most of the work, which is why he was in the top five, but ultimately Mason was more valuable.

[dat's sick 1,002]

Compare Mason to Rinne, ignoring any other goaltenders. Who had the better season? Rinne owns Mason in pretty much every category. Rinne, not Mason, was the better rookie goaltender. Both teams were equally skilled defensively; Nashville had better defensemen overall but they weren't better in their own end as Columbus had mostly defensive specialists while Nashville had guys like Weber and Suter who could play decent defense but were more offense-oriented.

Okay, let's compare:

Mason

Shutouts: 10

GAA: 2.29

Sv%: .916

Wins: 33

Rinne

Shutouts: 7

GAA: 2.38

Sv%: .917

Wins: 29

You're right, Rinne absolutely OWNED Mason.

Mason's Vezina nomination and his Calder win were both hype-based. However, he was the most valuable goalie of any playoff team; The Jackets switched to Mason and traded LeClaire because LeClaire was s***ting the bed. If they had kept LeClaire, who didn't play a game for Ottawa, they would have been at the bottom of the conference. Without LeClaire? It's Norrena or Dubielewicz, who are mid-level backups at best and they miss the playoffs. The Jackets don't have any assets to trade to get a solid goaltender without handicapping either the offense or defense considerably. The Rangers had six forwards who scored 40 points. The Jackets had 3. The Rangers also had more tradeable defensemen; Wade Redden is as good or close to as good as anyone on the Jackets' defense, and Chicago would have rather taken on his contract for Nikolai Khabibulin and beefed up their defense than dropped him to a division rival unless the trade involved Rick Nash and more.

The only other guys than Lundqvist who could have gotten the Rangers into the playoffs are maybe Luongo and Kipprusoff. Don't tell me they could have traded WADE REDDEN for either of them. I do believe a guy like Khabibulin could have gotten the Jackets into the playoffs, something many goalies could have done. Like I said, they weren't really that close to missing the playoffs. They lost the last couple of games and still finished in 7th.

Also, Leclaire was injured in the pre-season, played hurt for like 12 games (which is why he didn't do very well) and was then place on injured reserve. Leclaire was their no.1 last year and did a great job and they weren't too far off from making the playoffs (with a worse team overall).

I don't know what stats you're looking at, but the Rangers had 7 forwards who scored 40+ points, and the Jackets had 5. It's a moot point anyway because the Rangers scored less goals. They're a worse team offensively. Their best goalscorer was Antropov with 28, who didn't even play most of the season with them. The Jackets had Nash with 40 goals. He's exactly the kind of player the Rangers need, a leader and a goalscorer.

You say Mason winning the Calder and getting nominated for the Vezina was just because of hype, but at the same time you seem to be buying into the hype that he single-handedly carried a terrible team to the playoffs. He saved their asses in many games, but for the last couple of months he wasn't anything special and they still won game after game.

[eva unit zero 271]

Okay, let's compare:

Mason

Shutouts: 10

GAA: 2.29

Sv%: .916

Wins: 33

Rinne

Shutouts: 7

GAA: 2.38

Sv%: .917

Wins: 29

You're right, Rinne absolutely OWNED Mason.

The only other guys than Lundqvist who could have gotten the Rangers into the playoffs are maybe Luongo and Kipprusoff. Don't tell me they could have traded WADE REDDEN for either of them. I do believe a guy like Khabibulin could have gotten the Jackets into the playoffs, something many goalies could have done. Like I said, they weren't really that close to missing the playoffs. They lost the last couple of games and still finished in 7th.

Also, Leclaire was injured in the pre-season, played hurt for like 12 games (which is why he didn't do very well) and was then place on injured reserve. Leclaire was their no.1 last year and did a great job and they weren't too far off from making the playoffs (with a worse team overall).

I don't know what stats you're looking at, but the Rangers had 7 forwards who scored 40+ points, and the Jackets had 5. It's a moot point anyway because the Rangers scored less goals. They're a worse team offensively. Their best goalscorer was Antropov with 28, who didn't even play most of the season with them. The Jackets had Nash with 40 goals. He's exactly the kind of player the Rangers need, a leader and a goalscorer.

You say Mason winning the Calder and getting nominated for the Vezina was just because of hype, but at the same time you seem to be buying into the hype that he single-handedly carried a terrible team to the playoffs. He saved their asses in many games, but for the last couple of months he wasn't anything special and they still won game after game.

You forgot games played in your statistical analysis. Mason played 61 to Rinne's 52, 3 of which came in relief. I didn't say it was like Terry Sawchuk vs Peter Ing. I just said Rinne was better. Better can be "WAY WAY BY FAR" better, or it can be "by a hair, if they switched places you might not notice a difference" better. Lundqvist is a very good goalie, but this season I would say there are several goalies who outperformed him. If we're going based simply on performance this season, than MANY goalies could have done what Lundqvist did with the Rangers.

This doesn't diminish the feats of Mason or Lunqvist; those two were still extremely valuable to their teams. But their being more valuable because their team isn't as good does NOT mean that they are any better than a goalie who performed better but played for a better (or worse, for that matter) team. Value and skill are not necessarily the same thing. Furthering the point: it's unusual, but you can be a team's most valuable player and not even be the best player on the team.

And BTW...Kiprusoff is probably the most overrated goaltender in the NHL. His stats were barely better than Osgood's in the regular season; Osgood's worst regular season of his career, and Kiprusoff was the worst starting goaltender of any team in the playoffs. If you think he is capable of carrying a team to the playoffs that otherwise wouldn't make it, you shouldn't be in a discussion about goaltenders because your judgement clearly holds no credibility.

[dat's sick 1,002]

I don't know how Rinne playing LESS games means he played better? If he had 10 games more played his stats might be a little bit better or a little bit worse, but you said "Rinne owns Mason in pretty much every category" and to me that sounds like there should atleast be a visible advantage for Rinne when in fact the opposite is true. You can't just assume those 9 games less played would have been shutouts for Rinne.

But since you like talking about games played, why not take that into account when looking at Kipprusoff? The guy played 76 games this season, the most of all goalies, and posted 45 wins.

Calgary only won 1 of the 6 games he didn't play. I'm sure if he played only 50-60 games (like Thomas, Osgood, Luongo etc.) he could have a lot better numbers, and maybe have som juice left for the playoffs. But how many goalies can play that many games and maintain a somewhat consistant level? Lundqvist, Backstrom, maybe Brodeur? Luongo might be able to, but he only played 50-something games this year. Cam Ward plays a lot of games too and does it well.

That imo is part of what makes those guys valuable.

The guys that had better numbers than Lundqvist this year all have one thing in common (except for Backstrom): they played significantly less games than him. And that's despite Lundy, like I've said earlier, not having a great year by his standards.

Edited June 21, 2009 by dat's sick

[eva unit zero 271]

I don't know how Rinne playing LESS games means he played better? If he had 10 games more played his stats might be a little bit better or a little bit worse, but you said "Rinne owns Mason in pretty much every category" and to me that sounds like there should atleast be a visible advantage for Rinne when in fact the opposite is true. You can't just assume those 9 games less played would have been shutouts for Rinne.

But since you like talking about games played, why not take that into account when looking at Kipprusoff? The guy played 76 games this season, the most of all goalies, and posted 45 wins.

Calgary only won 1 of the 6 games he didn't play. I'm sure if he played only 50-60 games (like Thomas, Osgood, Luongo etc.) he could have a lot better numbers, and maybe have som juice left for the playoffs. But how many goalies can play that many games and maintain a somewhat consistant level? Lundqvist, Backstrom, maybe Brodeur? Luongo might be able to, but he only played 50-something games this year. Cam Ward plays a lot of games too and does it well.

That imo is part of what makes those guys valuable.

The guys that had better numbers than Lundqvist this year all have one thing in common (except for Backstrom): they played significantly less games than him. And that's despite Lundy, like I've said earlier, not having a great year by his standards.

Rinne does have a visible advantage. Except for wins, which is why I pointed out that he played fewer games. Rinne's stats WERE BETTER than Mason's. On an equal, possibly worse, defensive team. Rinne>Mason.

[dat's sick 1,002]

Rinne does have a visible advantage. Except for wins, which is why I pointed out that he played fewer games. Rinne's stats WERE BETTER than Mason's. On an equal, possibly worse, defensive team. Rinne>Mason.

Haha come on

He has .001 better Save %, worse GAA, less shutouts and less wins.

Mason has better stats, but I could go as far as saying they're about the same.

[eva unit zero 271]

Haha come on

He has .001 better Save %, worse GAA, less shutouts and less wins.

Mason has better stats, but I could go as far as saying they're about the same.

Better save percentage, better winning percentage on a worse offensive team=better goalie. Rinne saw about 1.6 more shots per game than Mason.

But ultimately, even if you consider Mason better than Rinne...my point is they are virtually even. Rinne should have been a Calder finalist at minimum, and Mason should not have been a Vezina finalist. And any three of the five guys I mentioned would have been deserving Hart nominees.

[Guest Four]

Better save percentage, better winning percentage on a worse offensive team=better goalie. Rinne saw about 1.6 more shots per game than Mason.

But ultimately, even if you consider Mason better than Rinne...my point is they are virtually even. Rinne should have been a Calder finalist at minimum, and Mason should not have been a Vezina finalist. And any three of the five guys I mentioned would have been deserving Hart nominees.

Did Rinne even play the minimum number of games?

[eva unit zero 271]

Did Rinne even play the minimum number of games?

He played over 50 games.