Talk:Presidents' Trophy

message: What rationale constitutes not posting updates to The Trophy before the Stanley Cup Playoffs have finalized? The President's Trophy is an award independent from the Stanley Cup and is won before the playoffs begin, and is sometimes regarded a greater achievement than the Cup. Seeing as it's usually clinched before the end of the regular season, I recommend updating the page when it has been awarded and not after the Stanley Cup has been awarded. Associating the two implies not only a synonymous relationship between the Trophy and the Cup, but also that the season isn't over until the Cup is awarded. Keep in mind - it's The Stanley Cup Playoffs, not The NHL Playoffs.75.143.209.242 (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had actually checked the page, you would have seen that it was updated. But, WP:HOCKEY policy is to wait until the end of the regular season to update stats. -- Scorpion0422 14:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Editing Pre-Playoffs"

message: The League chose unfortunate terminology when they picked this particular language to allow teams to display in their arenas. The article has been edited to make note of the Stanley Cup Champion "technically" being the league champion all those years. Is this entirely accurate? I took the League's choice of language to be highlighting the fine distinction between winning the NHL "League" Championship (the one the league as an institutional entity can award) and the Stanley Cup Championship, which is in some sense external to the NHL (since it predates the league's inception and officially has its own trustees). I realize this is operating at a relatively high level of abstraction and in reality may not make much of a difference, but I am just questioning whether we know enough about this theoretical concern to say with confidence that the Stanley Cup winners those years were "technically" the league champion.
: I have commented out that text. Alaney2k (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "NHL League Champions"

message: Whatever happened to the useful listing of the top regular season finishers before the inception of the Presidents' Trophy? I can think of no better place to put that information and cannot understand why it was deleted. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we decided not to display pre-Trophy winners is because several other trophies were previously given to the team with the top NHL record, for example the Prince of Wales Trophy from 38 to 67. -- Scorpion0422 02:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good rationale to have a cross-reference, not to eliminate the list. The Presidents' Trophy currently goes to the team that finishes with the best overall record. If there was 1 place I would guess to look to find the list of teams that achieved that distinction in prior years, it would be on the Presidents' Trophy page. Much like I would anticipate being able to find the players that led the league in goal scoring at the Rocket Richard Trophy page. MrArticleOne (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that this article needs to list all of the 1st-overall finishers. Somewhere on Wikipedia, a list of the 1st-overall finishers in NHL history should be compiled. As it is currently, to splice together that list you'd have to look over a few different trophies' articles and external research on historic standings pages. I see no place more appropriate than this article to compile that list, because while historically other trophies were awarded for finishing 1st overall, currently this trophy is awarded for that, and so it makes the most sense to include that information with this. We do not (and should not), for example, have separate articles for all goal-scoring champions, and for winners of the Maurice Richard Trophy; it is natural to include the pre-Maurice Richard Trophy goal-scoring champions with the Maurice Richard Trophy article. The logic is identical here, and is not substantially affected by the fact that other trophies were sometimes (but not even uniformly) awarded for the 1st-overall distinction. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

text: In addition, in looking through the article history, Scorpion's explanation of why this information got removed is apparently inaccurate. There was no "we" about this removal; there is no discussion that I am aware of that happened. Moreover, this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidents%27_Trophy&diff=155866412&oldid=155866246 makes it clear that the rationale had nothing to do with the Prince of Wales Trophy, and instead was an overzealous application of a sourcing rule. But there is no sourcing problem here; it is well within the corpus of knowledge of this project to know which teams finished in 1st place any given year. Must we cite to each and every article for each season or something? Let's not be absurd. I am restoring this useful information immediately. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Overzealous? This page is an FL and thus everything added needs a source. There is nothing overzealous about it. It's out of place here since this article is about the Trophy and not just teams that led during the regular season. -- Scorpion0422 20:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make any more sense than saying that pre-Art Ross Trophy scoring winners, or pre-Rocket Richard Trophy goal-scoring winners, shouldn't be on those respective articles. There is no other logical place for it. As for needing a source, there is no dispute over this! It's a fact. It's like needing to come up with a source for what the name of the game of ice hockey is. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A> The logic place would be List of NHL regular season champions etc. B> You have to source everything, the fact they lead the league could be questioned so you need a source. -Djsasso (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that they led the league is a fact that is derived from other information that is already available and verified within Wikipedia. It demands no independent verification. The only one that might require some verification is the very first one, where there was a tie between Montreal and Toronto; I don't know how (or if) the NHL broke that tie. Every other year, there is no verification problem. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying, but it has to be verifiable on the page. So that if someone questions it they can click on the reference immediately. -Djsasso (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Presidents' Trophy

message: I think this section, instead of being a simple list, should be converted into the same table as the main table with the Presidents' Trophy winners. I'd do it myself, but I'm hoping whoever created the main table would be so kind as to do the pre- too. Thanks. Jmj713 (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Presidents' Trophy section 

message: Any objections to also mark which Presidents' Trophy winners were eliminated in the first round in the playoffs? IMO, it would also emphasize the fact that the Presidents' Trophy does not guarantee Cup success. And it is hard to notice at first glance with the different playoff systems in place during the years (i.e. conference-based seedings vs. division-based seeding). Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...especially when the most recent winner has become "a member of this club". Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teams eliminated in the first round 

message: I have reverted the current holder back to SJ.  As a die hard Caps fan, I'm happy to see them clinch the trophy; however, the trophy does not get awarded until the completion of the regular season.  Until April 11, the Sharks are still the current holders of the trophy. Sam (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as a team clinches the trophy, they hold it for that season. The NHL routinely has a ceremony on the winning team's home ice before the end of the regular season when it is appropriate. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current holder 

message: This is in response to the edit which claimed that San Jose's and St. Louis' Presidents' Trophy winning clubs had a "lack of playoff experience", while the 2009-10 Washington Capitals had "significant playoff experience"...
5-year Playoff Histories of Presidents' Trophy winners who lost in Confererence Quarters or Semis (the 'Curse')...
1990-91 Chicago Blackhawks - played in 9 series, won 4.
1999-00 St. Louis Blues - played in 8 series, won 3.
2003-04 Detroit Red Wings - played in 10 series, won 6.
2005-06 Detroit Red Wings - played in 10 series, won 6.
2008-09 San Jose Sharks - played in 9 series, won 5.
2009-10 Washington Capitals - played in 6 series, won 1.
Thus... as the Capitals are the clearly least playoff-experienced in this group, and whereas the opposite is just about true for the Sharks, I believe my edit was necessary.  (And as I am a virginal Wiki-editor, I apologize for the number of attempts it took me to accomplish it!)
:Removed it all as original research. -- Scorpion0422 01:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playoff Experience and the "Presidents' Trophy Curse" 

message: In the Winners section, it shows a man representing Detroit holding the Stanley Cup, but this article is about the President's Trophy and the caption mentions the trophy, not the cup. Does it make sense to use that picture in this context? 173.59.59.232 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the image. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong trophy 

message: There is an obvious curse on the team that is the oldest never to have won the cup. Here is an ESPN article talking about it, and it's clear they're cursed, because in nearly fifty years, chances you'll win one are pretty high. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=cursed/041029  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.50.238 (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curse 

message: How come the Trophy is not called the "President's Trophy" (the singular form) but the "Presidents' Trophy" (the plural form.)  Should it not be in the singular, as there can only be one President at a time, not multiple ones? Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The NHL does not have a president anymore. The office was replaced by the NHL Commissioner in the early 1990s. The trophy is thus now named to honour all the previous NHL presidents. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidents' Trophy or President's Trophy

message: An IP attempted to recently add a column for the "Next NHL season result". I find this irrelevant and trivial, since each season is its own animal and various other factors come into play, like the effects of the shortened seasons dues to labour disputes, or the cancelled 2004-05 season, or player and head coaches movement. The only reason there is a "Playoff Result" column in the first place is that we have a whole section on "Playoff implications" and the so-called "Presidents' Trophy curse". There is no cited source that explains how the next season result is relevant. This is a concern since this page is currently a Wikipedia featured list, and such unsourced content may fall outside the featured list criteria. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of next season 

message: Anyone know how it was determined that Toronto would be listed as the 1917-18 winner on their own, considering they were tied with Montreal? Indeed, the numbers suggest, if anything, it should be the other way around:
Montreal: 13 wins, 9 losses, 26 points. 115 goals for, 84 goals against (+31 difference)
Toronto: 13 wins, 9 losses, 26 points. 108 goals for, 109 goals against (-1 difference)
So based purely on regular season record, it should either be both teams tied (via the 26 points) or Montreal ahead (based on goals scored or goal difference). We can even look at the head-to-head record and see advantage for Montreal:
Dec 26 - Tor 7, Mtl 5
Dec 29 - Mtl 9, Tor 2
Jan 9 - Tor 6, Mtl 4
Jan 19 - Mtl 5, Tor 1
Jan 28 - Tor 5, Mtl 1
Feb 2 - Mtl 11, Tor 2
Feb 9 - Tor 7, Mtl 3
Feb 18 - Mtl 9, Tor 0
Feb 20 - Mtl 5, Tor 4
Mar 2 - Tor 5, Mtl 3
So the head-to-head record was even, both teams winning 5 games, but Montreal clearly comes out ahead on the goals, scoring 55 and giving up 39.
The only reasons I can see why Toronto would be there alone are based entirely on the post-season, which is irrelevant to the Presidents Trophy.
:It's something​ that we should look into further. From just a preliminary look at it, Toronto won the second half of the regular season and Montreal won the first half. As for what they used as a tiebreaker back then I'm unsure of that at the moment. I'll look into it further over the coming days, though maybe one of the other editors may have a reason for why things were written the way that they currently are. Deadman137 (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to the institution of the Presidents' Trophy, when the teams put up a "League Champions" banner, the apparent conceit was that finishing in 1st place in the regular season standings made you the "NHL Champion," and winning the playoff tournament made you the "Stanley Cup Champion." But during the multi-league era of the Stanley Cup, wouldn't the NHL Champion just be the team that represented the NHL in the Stanley Cup series (against the PCHL or whatever)? Seems like there's no real need to fixate on the 1st place team during the regular season during that era. The 1st place team during the regular season only becomes important when the NHL is the only league left, it seems to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.173.50 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1917-18 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Presidents' Trophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090403053405/http://www.nhl.com/history/fstand10s.html to http://www.nhl.com/history/fstand10s.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629213230/http://www.nhl.com/cup/champs.html to http://www.nhl.com/cup/champs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Presidents' Trophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929154039/http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/silver_splashprinceofwales.htm to http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/silver_splashprinceofwales.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922115938/http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/silver_splashpresidents.htm to http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/silver_splashpresidents.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified