When should a goalie win the Hart Trophy?

[ScottM]

 

If things play out as they're expected to, Carey Price will be named the winner of the Hart Trophy in a few hours. In this case, I don't have a problem with the Hart going to him. If not for Price, the Habs would have been in over their heads because of the lack of offense. He led the league in GAA and SV%, and was only one off the league lead in shutouts. Plus, he is the only one of the finalists that played consistently well across the entire season. He stood out among goalies, whereas there wasn't quite as much of an obvious standout among skaters.

 

Let's look at some other instances that a goalie won the Hart. The most recent is 2002 when Jose Theodore won it. I'm not going to argue that he shouldn't have won the Vezina, but I don't think he was a slam dunk for it. Patrick Roy had just as strong a case that year in my mind. I'm not really a fan of a goalie getting the Hart if he doesn't really stand out from the other netminders, and to me Theodore didn't. There was a guy that really had a standout year, though, and that was Jarome Iginla. I absolutely do not believe that the Hart should go to a guy just because he had the most goals or the most points (both of which Iginla did that year), but he did have a pretty significant margin on goals (11), so that does say a little. Plus, I ask myself a couple of questions. Would the Habs have been in the playoffs without Theodore? Their record probably wouldn't have been quite as good, but yes. Would the Flames have been in the playoffs without Iginla? No way. I don't think Theodore should have received that year's Hart. I would have awarded it to Iginla.

 

Next we find Dominik Hasek in 1998. I don't have a problem with this one. He had the best SV% by ten points, and he had 13 shutouts -- three better than anyone else. He was fourth in GAA, but when he faced nearly 250 more shots than anyone else, I think some allowances have to be made. I don't think the Sabres were a lock for the playoffs without him, and they certainly wouldn't have made the Finals. This one was correct.

 

We find Hasek again in 1997. This one I'll take issue with. The team was certainly far better for having Hasek, but did he really stand out among goalies? No. Martin Brodeur had just as much of a claim to the Vezina as Hasek did. Many argue that Brodeur's claim was stronger. I don't want to go down that road, but I think that makes the point that maybe Hasek shouldn't have won the Hart. My pick that year? Mario Lemieux.

 

Next up: 1962 and Jacques Plante. This one is a little tougher because we don't have as many stats for that year as we do for more recent seasons. I think digging a little will give us a good answer. There was no SV% stat back then. All we have to go on is GAA and shutouts. Plante's GAA was 2.37, well ahead of second place Johnny Bower's 2.56. The shutout statistic sticks out like a sore thumb, though. First place: Glenn Hall (10), second place: Terry Sawchuk (5), third place: Jaques Plante (4). Those numbers give me pause. I wonder what Plante's SV% would have looked like. I'm almost positive it wouldn't have been as good as Hall's. Hall had a shutout in one out of every seven games. Both goalie's had a good defense in front of them, so, while Hall's was somewhat better, I don't think that can fully explain the difference. I just don't think I could have given the Hart trophy in good conscience. My pick? Doug Harvey. It wasn't easy to look like an MVP with the Rangers in those days, and Harvey did just that. Oh, btw, Harvey got the most first place votes. Plante won the award on second place votes.

 

Al Rollins won the Hart in 1954. Quite frankly, this one makes ZERO sense. No goalies really stood out clearly above the rest that year. Harry Lumley and Terry Sawchuk were pretty close to one another. I'd give a slight edge to Lumley, but not enough to give him the Hart. My pick would be Detroit's Red Kelly.

 

Chuck Rayner won the Hart in 1950. This makes more sense than Rollins, but it still doesn't make a lot of sense. I think there was a clear-cut best goalie in 1950, but it wasn't Rayner -- it was Bill Durnan. I'm still not sure I would have given the Hart to Durnan, though. Personally, I would have given Sid Abel his second consecutive trophy.

 

The very first goalie to win the Hart was Roy Worters of the New York Americans. He did so in 1929. I think this one is just plain wrong as well. Unlike the other years, however, I don't have a clear-cut pick, and unlike the other years that I disagree with the selection, I might have picked a goalie. The best goalie that season was George Hainsworth, no if's and's or but's. Hainsworth had a GAA of 0.92 and 22 shutouts. He shut out the opponents in HALF of the Canadiens' games that year. He very well could have won the Hart. I think Ace Bailey and Eddie Shore would have also been outstanding picks. In fact, both of them came very close. Hainsworth, Shore, Bailey: take your pick.

 

Okay, that was long, but here's my point: we all know that goalies are vital to a team's success. As such, while they may be the best fit for the literal qualifications, I'm not so sure that they meet them practically. I really think a goalie should have to stand out clearly above his comrades, or be the VERY obvious primary reason for his team's to get the Hart for just that reason.  My personal opinion is that most of the goalies that won the Hart should not have. What's your take? What should a goalie have to do to take home the MVP?

[luckylarry]

Nope.  Goalies have their own award.  It's proven with the Hawks and the Lightening this year, that teams can insulate average goaltending by having great players and sound systems.  Did Dubnyk get really good all of a sudden, or did he just get out of Edmonton (a really bad team) to a really good team, where his faults are insulated?

[pilldoc]

Nope.  Goalies have their own award.  It's proven with the Hawks and the Lightening this year, that teams can insulate average goaltending by having great players and sound systems.  Did Dubnyk get really good all of a sudden, or did he just get out of Edmonton (a really bad team) to a really good team, where his faults are insulated?

Great point!..I want to follow Dubnyk closer next season for that very reason. Granted he helped me win my fantasy league last year, but I always subscribe to theory anyone can catch lightning in a bottle.  If he can replicate what he did this past year next season, then he is on his way to proving he is a top tier goalie.

[ScottM]

Nope.  Goalies have their own award.  It's proven with the Hawks and the Lightening this year, that teams can insulate average goaltending by having great players and sound systems.  Did Dubnyk get really good all of a sudden, or did he just get out of Edmonton (a really bad team) to a really good team, where his faults are insulated?

 

I agree with that to a large degree. That's why I disagreed with most of the instances that goalies have won. I think it should be done if truly warranted, but how often is that? Not that often, I'd argue.

[ruxpin]

I'm not a fan of goalies winning the Hart anymore than I like a pitcher winning MVP in baseball.

 

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, though (starting pitchers only go every 5 games vs. daily position players.  Goalies don't play every game, but any goalie even being considered for the Hart obviously played the bulk of them).

 

I'm going to hang my hat on the "but they have their own award" argument despite the fact that defensemen also have their own award but I probably wouldn't have a problem with one winning the Hart.

 

I just think with goalies vs. skaters you're talking about entirely different beasts with entirely different sets of stats and games that don't really compare very well.  That said, if we're going strictly by Most Valuable Player to his team (rather than "best player") then I suppose that argument doesn't hold and it's okay for a goalie to win the Hart.   I just don't like it and think they should be kept separate.

 

My problem this year is who among the skaters?   Toews?  Stamkos? Ovalchicken?  Gixoux (kidding)?  I think Price is getting heavy consideration because there is no clear cut head-and-shoulders winner among skaters.

[luckylarry]

I'm not a fan of goalies winning the Hart anymore than I like a pitcher winning MVP in baseball.

 

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, though (starting pitchers only go every 5 games vs. daily position players.  Goalies don't play every game, but any goalie even being considered for the Hart obviously played the bulk of them).

 

I'm going to hang my hat on the "but they have their own award" argument despite the fact that defensemen also have their own award but I probably wouldn't have a problem with one winning the Hart.

 

I just think with goalies vs. skaters you're talking about entirely different beasts with entirely different sets of stats and games that don't really compare very well.  That said, if we're going strictly by Most Valuable Player to his team (rather than "best player") then I suppose that argument doesn't hold and it's okay for a goalie to win the Hart.   I just don't like it and think they should be kept separate.

 

My problem this year is who among the skaters?   Toews?  Stamkos? Ovalchicken?  Gixoux (kidding)?  I think Price is getting heavy consideration because there is no clear cut head-and-shoulders winner among skaters.

That's a good point too.  Who, other than Price, was so important to their team's success?  If OV wins, is that not 4 for him? 

[ScottM]

I'm not a fan of goalies winning the Hart anymore than I like a pitcher winning MVP in baseball.

 

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, though (starting pitchers only go every 5 games vs. daily position players.  Goalies don't play every game, but any goalie even being considered for the Hart obviously played the bulk of them).

 

I'm going to hang my hat on the "but they have their own award" argument despite the fact that defensemen also have their own award but I probably wouldn't have a problem with one winning the Hart.

 

I just think with goalies vs. skaters you're talking about entirely different beasts with entirely different sets of stats and games that don't really compare very well.  That said, if we're going strictly by Most Valuable Player to his team (rather than "best player") then I suppose that argument doesn't hold and it's okay for a goalie to win the Hart.   I just don't like it and think they should be kept separate.

 

My problem this year is who among the skaters?   Toews?  Stamkos? Ovalchicken?  Gixoux (kidding)?  I think Price is getting heavy consideration because there is no clear cut head-and-shoulders winner among skaters.

 

Well said, sir. The Norris thing is another conversation obviously, but defensemen probably don't win the Hart enough. I'll stop now. Lol

[ruxpin]

That's a good point too.  Who, other than Price, was so important to their team's success?  If OV wins, is that not 4 for him? 

 

Yeah, it would be his fourth.

 

I don't know if I like him winning it this year.  I guess in an otherwise weak(ish) field someone has to win it.  I'm really struggling with who I'd vote for of the three nominated.  I don't think I'd vote for Tavares and I already said I don't like goalie for the award, so I guess I'm left with Ovalchicken.

[ScottM]

Yeah, it would be his fourth.

 

I don't know if I like him winning it this year.  I guess in an otherwise weak(ish) field someone has to win it.  I'm really struggling with who I'd vote for of the three nominated.  I don't think I'd vote for Tavares and I already said I don't like goalie for the award, so I guess I'm left with Ovalchicken.

 

The weak field is one of the reasons I'm okay with Price winning it this year. I'm not comfortable with a dogmatic never, and this past season is a good example as to why. I'm not even convinced that Ovechkin was the player that was most valuable to the Caps. I'd actually lean toward Holtby there.

 

Edit: Let me add that I think Ovi's there simply because he had the most goals this year.

[ruxpin]

The weak field is one of the reasons I'm okay with Price winning it this year. I'm not comfortable with a dogmatic never, and this past season is a good example as to why. I'm not even convinced that Ovechkin was the player that was most valuable to the Caps. I'd actually lean toward Holtby there.

 

Edit: Let me add that I think Ovi's there simply because he had the most goals this year.

 

 

I completely agree with the bolded.   I also agree with the not necessarily the MVP on the Caps.  Although, I'm not sure they get where they did without him, either.

 

Yeah, I'm not necessarily "dogmatic" either (great word, btw) but would usually prefer against it.    I didn't like Hasek winning it, for example.  Basically because he was no where near as good as Brodeur (I had to).

 

Price likely wins.  Of the three nominated, he's the best bet.

[ScottM]

@ruxpin I think we're pretty much completely on the same page here. I thought the look at the past wins was pretty revealing. As vital as goalies are, they are sometimes over-glamorized.

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin I think we're pretty much completely on the same page here. I thought the look at the past wins was pretty revealing. As vital as goalies are, they are sometimes over-glamorized.

 

I found it really pretty interesting.  Thanks for posting it!