Ted Lindsay Award finalists unveiled

[-Vintage Canuck-]

[J-23]

Nathan MacKinnon. 

[-AJ-]

McDavid. MacKinnon is the only one who can give him a run for his money. MacKinnon might win the Hart though.

 

Interestingly enough, these would've been my three final candidates for the Hart. A bit surprised to see Hall in the final three. I would have both Malkin and Kucherov over Hall. Hall would be third in my Hart voting though.

[goalie13]

This award makes the most sense.

 

Most Outstanding Player, voted for by players.

[BananaMash]

Wow, two Oilers?!

 

Oh...wait, never mind. I'm sure Larsson will be up for the Norris, though.

[Rick Blight]

I think I would have Kucherov and Wheeler ahead of Hall.

 

[Down by the River]

McDavid deserves this one and I don't think it is particularly close. It is most outstanding player, not most valuable. I can't understand why people think McDavid should win the Hart. Edmonton would have finished in the exam same spot in the standings without him, so how does that make him valuable to his team in this particular season?

[Noble 6]

With all due respect to the other candidates, I think it would be a travesty if MacKinnon didn't win this and the Hart. 

[-AJ-]

16 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

McDavid deserves this one and I don't think it is particularly close. It is most outstanding player, not most valuable.

100% agree with this. McDavid was on another level in the back half of the season. I don't think we've seen a player dominate like that since Crosby a few years back.

[Angry Goose]

No Brock pffffft

[6string]

McDavid played without pressure into the second half of the season, the Oilers were out of playoff contention.

 

Hall and MacKinnon were playing meaningful games with a lot of pressure to make the playoffs, each of these two had to perform for team success not individual success.

 

I would pick either Taylor or Nathan, not a media darling.

[theo5789]

6 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

I think I would have Kucherov and Wheeler ahead of Hall.

 

Kucherov and Wheeler had a better supporting group. The next highest scorer in NJ had 40 points less than Hall and NJ made the playoffs. I think Hall is truly deserving of this nomination, but I think I would give it to MacKinnon.

[Rick Blight]

6 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Kucherov and Wheeler had a better supporting group. The next highest scorer in NJ had 40 points less than Hall and NJ made the playoffs. I think Hall is truly deserving of this nomination, but I think I would give it to MacKinnon.

That is why I would have Hall on my list of finalists for the Hart trophy (player who was the most valuable to his team during the regular season).but not the Ted Lindsay (National Hockey League's most outstanding player in the regular season}. In my opinion, Hall had a great season and certainly carried his team but I don't think he was one of the top 3 performing players in the NHL this year. I always find it difficult to separate the finalists for these these two awards though........

[-AJ-]

9 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Kucherov and Wheeler had a better supporting group. The next highest scorer in NJ had 40 points less than Hall and NJ made the playoffs. I think Hall is truly deserving of this nomination, but I think I would give it to MacKinnon.

 

2 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

That is why I would have Hall on my list of finalists for the Hart trophy (player who was the most valuable to his team during the regular season).but not the Ted Lindsay (National Hockey League's most outstanding player in the regular season}. In my opinion, Hall had a great season and certainly carried his team but I don't think he was one of the top 3 performing players in the NHL this year. I always find it difficult to separate the finalists for these these two awards though........

This interaction epitomizes the confusion that many have between the Hart and the Ted Lindsay. I think you're bang on here @Rick Blight. I too would have Hall as a Hart finalist because he carried his team, but in terms of pure ability to play, Kucherov and Malkin (and perhaps Wheeler, as you suggested) were better players this season, making them better Lindsay finalists.

[Adarsh Sant]

17 hours ago, -AJ- said:

McDavid. MacKinnon is the only one who can give him a run for his money. MacKinnon might win the Hart though.

 

Interestingly enough, these would've been my three final candidates for the Hart. A bit surprised to see Hall in the final three. I would have both Malkin and Kucherov over Hall. Hall would be third in my Hart voting though.

Agreed 100%

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Taylor Hall is a bit of a sneaky cheapshot artist...actually come to think of it...Ted Lindsey didn't get his "Terrible Ted" nick by being a candidate for the Lady Byng trophy.

[theo5789]

4 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

That is why I would have Hall on my list of finalists for the Hart trophy (player who was the most valuable to his team during the regular season).but not the Ted Lindsay (National Hockey League's most outstanding player in the regular season}. In my opinion, Hall had a great season and certainly carried his team but I don't think he was one of the top 3 performing players in the NHL this year. I always find it difficult to separate the finalists for these these two awards though........

 

2 hours ago, -AJ- said:

 

This interaction epitomizes the confusion that many have between the Hart and the Ted Lindsay. I think you're bang on here @Rick Blight. I too would have Hall as a Hart finalist because he carried his team, but in terms of pure ability to play, Kucherov and Malkin (and perhaps Wheeler, as you suggested) were better players this season, making them better Lindsay finalists.

Depends on how you define outstanding. Hall was very valuable to his team, but the numbers he put up without a strong support cast is outstanding to me. Hall was 6th in the NHL in scoring while the 2nd person on his team was 104th. Without Hall, NJ was no better than a bottom feeder team. So he is probably the most valuable to his team and one of the most outstanding players this year in my opinion.

 

I think these are basically the same award, but just one is voted by the league and the other is voted on by the players.

[JeremyCuddles]

MacKinnon has been around so long I forget he's still only 22. Lol. I'd give it to McDavid, just purely for finding ways to score on that dumpster fire of a team. Hall is lucky to even be a finalist honestly. Kucherov probably, very likely should have been there. But the recency bias kicked in and gotta give Hall his due.

[-AJ-]

7 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

 

Depends on how you define outstanding. Hall was very valuable to his team, but the numbers he put up without a strong support cast is outstanding to me. Hall was 6th in the NHL in scoring while the 2nd person on his team was 104th. Without Hall, NJ was no better than a bottom feeder team. So he is probably the most valuable to his team and one of the most outstanding players this year in my opinion.

 

I think these are basically the same award, but just one is voted by the league and the other is voted on by the players.

The way the award is given out, it does seem to be the same award, but I would personally really appreciate a noteworthy difference between the two. The Ted Lindsay award doesn't get enough credit because it's seen as the Hart trophy, but with much less history. I'd prefer that the awards be more clearly distinct. Back in the old days, players who were far from the best in the league would win the Hart, just because they were so darn valuable to their team. 

 

Chuck Rayner, a famous netminder for the Rangers won the Hart in 1950 despite being 4th out of 6 netminders in GAA, Shutouts, and wins. By those metrics, he was worse than average; but his value to the Rangers was obvious, as he was one of the biggest reasons they made the playoffs. Would he have won the Ted Lindsay? Probably not. It's not even likely he was the best goaltender, as Bill Durnan was still kicking around back then and dominating for the Canadiens. On top of that, the Production Line in Detroit was just picking up steam and Maurice Richard once again broke the 40-goal mark.

 

I'd like it to be more like the old days when the Hart was more focused on the value of a player to his team, more than just the best player.

[Rick Blight]

5 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

The way the award is given out, it does seem to be the same award, but I would personally really appreciate a noteworthy difference between the two. The Ted Lindsay award doesn't get enough credit because it's seen as the Hart trophy, but with much less history. I'd prefer that the awards be more clearly distinct. Back in the old days, players who were far from the best in the league would win the Hart, just because they were so darn valuable to their team. 

 

Chuck Rayner, a famous netminder for the Rangers won the Hart in 1950 despite being 4th out of 6 netminders in GAA, Shutouts, and wins. By those metrics, he was worse than average; but his value to the Rangers was obvious, as he was one of the biggest reasons they made the playoffs. Would he have won the Ted Lindsay? Probably not. It's not even likely he was the best goaltender, as Bill Durnan was still kicking around back then and dominating for the Canadiens. On top of that, the Production Line in Detroit was just picking up steam and Maurice Richard once again broke the 40-goal mark.

 

I'd like it to be more like the old days when the Hart was more focused on the value of a player to his team, more than just the best player.

I can agree with that decision if the voters for Rayner did so on the basis that they did not believe the Rangers could have made the playoffs without him......same reason why Hall should be a strong candidate this year for the Hart as I don't believe Jersey makes the playoffs without Hall. I also could not vote for McDavid for the Hart as, as great as he is, they still could have missed the playoffs without him. McDavid would, however, be my leading candidate for the Ted Lindsay award as I believe the players will vote for him as the best player they play against.