Hart trophy (99.1% complete historical data)

[The Panther]

Thanks again to @Hockey Outsider for updating this.

So, assuming the info provided is correct, there are 14 instances since 1947 where a player has received 60.0% or more of the Hart trophy shares... and failed to win the Hart (in each case, finishing 2nd).

In order from highest-to-lowest Hart shares, those are:
1) 75.5% Jagr 2006
2) 75.2% Liut 1981
3) 72.8% MacKinnon 2018
4) 72.2% D. Sedin 2011
5) 71.4% Bourque 1990
6) 68.4% MacKinnon 2020
7) 68.1% Jagr 2000
8) 66.7% Durnan 1949
9) 66.7% Gretzky 1991
10) 66.1% Crosby 2017
11) 64.0% Getzlaf 2014
12) 62.7% Ovechkin 2010
13) 60.5% Esposito 1971
14) 60.0% Matthews 2021

And just bubbling under that 60% cut-off are:
15) 59.7% Bure 2000 (finished 3rd)
16) 59.4% M. Lemieux 1989
17) 59.1% Crosby 2013

So, while we often think of Jagr as the superstar who was most "unlucky" not to win one or two more Harts (and he was unlucky, as the voting record shows), perhaps the most unlucky is now Nathan MacKinnon, who was had recent seasons with 72.8% and 68.4% of Hart shares, and has never won the Hart!

As a bit of a Jagr-booster, I'm still cheesed-off about the 2006 Hart results, which I feel -- I know I'm in the minority -- were unfair in that Thornton played only 58 games with "his team", outscored Jagr by only a couple of points (due to gaining extra games after being traded), and didn't see his team improve, compared to the preceding season, due to his presence (while Jagr's team massively improved and made the playoffs for the first time in 9 years). That one still makes no sense to me, but THERE!, I've said my piece. I'm done!

The Hart trophy is weirdly both the most 'accurate' award in showing the best/MVP-type players in history and the most infuriating with certain voting results. To point out a famous example -- Mario Lemieux in 1989. Okay, he finished 2nd overall (to Gretzky, first year in L.A.). That in itself has always been 'iffy', but at least I can sort-of understand it in terms of Gretzky's first-year impact on the Kings, plus all the media hype that went along with that, etc. But still: Mario scored at a 200+ point pace, his team made the playoffs (missed the previous year when he won the Hart), finishing 2nd in the tough Patrick division, he had the historically-greatest domination of team scoring in NHL history (until McDavid this year... barely), and he got . . . 29% of the 1st-place votes. 5 voters thought Yzerman (whose team fell 13 points in the standings) was a more deserving MVP. Tough crowd!

But at least in '89 all the 1st-place votes were Gretzky, Lemieux, or Yzerman. In 1986, somebody (presumably in New York) gave their 1st-place vote to John Vanbiesbrouck. Someone gave Kevin Dineen a 3rd-place vote.

In 1985 (Gretzky had 208 points and went +100), one voter had Rod Langway as his 1st-place Hart vote, while another (hilariously) had Brian Sutter of St. Louis (!).

In the modern era, the year 2000 vote was totally dominated by Pronger, Jagr, and Bure. Each received 60-68% of the voting shares. That same season, though, someone voted Owen Nolan as their 1st-place Hart vote.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm presenting this as only semi-serious analysis, but figured it might be interesting. Hart trophy results, 1947 to 2021, excluding defensemen and goalies from the results (so, for example, Jagr gets credit for an "F-only Hart" in 1998, Bondra gets credit for finishing 4th, etc):

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	Total
Gordie Howe	6	4	5	5		20
Wayne Gretzky	9	2	2			13
Bobby Hull	3	4	1	2		10
Jean Beliveau	2	4	3	1		10
Sidney Crosby	2	4	2	1	1	10
Mario Lemieux	3	5	1			9
Bobby Clarke	3	2	1	1	2	9
Stan Mikita	2	2	1	1	2	8
Ted Kennedy	2	1	1	3	1	8
Phil Esposito	4	1	1		1	7
Alex Ovechkin	4	1			2	7
Jaromir Jagr	3	2	1	1		7
Guy Lafleur	2	3	1			6
Maurice Richard	2	3			1	6
Marcel Dionne		2	3	1		6
Steve Yzerman			2		4	6
Connor McDavid	2		1		2	5
Bryan Trottier	1	3		1		5
Milt Schmidt	1	1	2	1		5
Andy Bathgate	1	1	2		1	5
Joe Thornton	1		2	2		5
Joe Sakic	1			3	1	5
Mike Bossy			3	2		5
Brett Hull	1	2		1		4
Patrick Kane	1		1		2	4
Teemu Selanne		1	2		1	4
Dale Hawerchuk		1		1	2	4
Henri Richard			2	1	1	4
Ted Lindsay			1	2	1	4
Darryl Sittler			1		3	4
Mark Messier	2	1				3
Evgeni Malkin	1	2				3
Jarome Iginla	1	1	1			3
Eric Lindros	1		1	1		3
Doug Gilmour		2	1			3
Markus Naslund		2	1			3
Nathan MacKinnon		2	1			3
Jean Ratelle		1	1		1	3
Claude Giroux			2	1		3
Gilbert Perreault			1	2		3
Peter Stastny				3		3
Bert Olmstead				2	1	3
Brad Marchand				1	2	3
Martin St. Louis	1		1			2
Sid Abel	1		1			2
Red Berenson	1		1			2
Peter Forsberg	1				1	2
Bernie Geoffrion	1				1	2
Nikita Kucherov	1				1	2
Henrik Sedin	1				1	2
Sergei Fedorov	1				1	2
Elmer Lach		2				2
John Tavares		1	1			2
Steven Stamkos		1		1		2
Ryan Getzlaf		1		1		2
Norm Ullman		1		1		2
Denis Savard		1		1		2
Tod Sloan		1			1	2
Frank Mahovlich			2			2
Theoren Fleury			2			2
Max Bentley			2			2
Pat Lafontaine			1	1		2
Dave Keon			1	1		2
Jeremy Roenick			1		1	2
Jonathan Toews				2		2
Pete Mahovlich				1	1	2
Tim Kerr				1	1	2
John LeClair				1	1	2
Syl Apps				1	1	2
Dickie Moore				1	1	2
Mike Modano					2	2
Edgar Laprade					2	2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

A junk stat, weighing a 1st place finish with 5 points, 2nd place finish 4 points, etc:

Player	Result
Gordie Howe	71
Wayne Gretzky	59
Bobby Hull	38
Mario Lemieux	38
Jean Beliveau	37
Sidney Crosby	35
Bobby Clarke	30
Phil Esposito	28
Jaromir Jagr	28
Alex Ovechkin	26
Stan Mikita	25
Guy Lafleur	25
Ted Kennedy	24
Maurice Richard	23
Marcel Dionne	19
Bryan Trottier	19
Milt Schmidt	17
Andy Bathgate	16
Connor McDavid	15
Joe Thornton	15
Brett Hull	15
Mark Messier	14
Mike Bossy	13
Evgeni Malkin	13
Joe Sakic	12
Jarome Iginla	12
Teemu Selanne	11
Doug Gilmour	11
Markus Naslund	11
Nathan MacKinnon	11
Steve Yzerman	10
Patrick Kane	10
Eric Lindros	10
Henri Richard	9
Dale Hawerchuk	8
Ted Lindsay	8
Jean Ratelle	8
Claude Giroux	8
Martin St. Louis	8
Sid Abel	8
Red Berenson	8
Elmer Lach	8
Gilbert Perreault	7
John Tavares	7
Darryl Sittler	6
Peter Stastny	6
Peter Forsberg	6
Bernie Geoffrion	6
Nikita Kucherov	6
Henrik Sedin	6
Sergei Fedorov	6
Steven Stamkos	6
Ryan Getzlaf	6
Norm Ullman	6
Denis Savard	6
Frank Mahovlich	6
Theoren Fleury	6
Max Bentley	6
Bert Olmstead	5
Tod Sloan	5
Pat Lafontaine	5
Dave Keon	5
Paul Kariya	5
Leon Draisaitl	5
Corey Perry	5
Taylor Hall	5
Buddy O'Connor	5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm presenting this as only semi-serious analysis, but figured it might be interesting. Hart trophy results, 1947 to 2021, excluding defensemen and goalies from the results (so, for example, Jagr gets credit for an "F-only Hart" in 1998, Bondra gets credit for finishing 4th, etc):

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	Total
Gordie Howe	6	4	5	5		20
Wayne Gretzky	9	2	2			13
Bobby Hull	3	4	1	2		10
Jean Beliveau	2	4	3	1		10
Sidney Crosby	2	4	2	1	1	10
Mario Lemieux	3	5	1			9
Bobby Clarke	3	2	1	1	2	9
Stan Mikita	2	2	1	1	2	8
Ted Kennedy	2	1	1	3	1	8
Phil Esposito	4	1	1		1	7
Alex Ovechkin	4	1			2	7
Jaromir Jagr	3	2	1	1		7
Guy Lafleur	2	3	1			6
Maurice Richard	2	3			1	6
Marcel Dionne		2	3	1		6
Steve Yzerman			2		4	6
Connor McDavid	2		1		2	5
Bryan Trottier	1	3		1		5
Milt Schmidt	1	1	2	1		5
Andy Bathgate	1	1	2		1	5
Joe Thornton	1		2	2		5
Joe Sakic	1			3	1	5
Mike Bossy			3	2		5
Brett Hull	1	2		1		4
Patrick Kane	1		1		2	4
Teemu Selanne		1	2		1	4
Dale Hawerchuk		1		1	2	4
Henri Richard			2	1	1	4
Ted Lindsay			1	2	1	4
Darryl Sittler			1		3	4
Mark Messier	2	1				3
Evgeni Malkin	1	2				3
Jarome Iginla	1	1	1			3
Eric Lindros	1		1	1		3
Doug Gilmour		2	1			3
Markus Naslund		2	1			3
Nathan MacKinnon		2	1			3
Jean Ratelle		1	1		1	3
Claude Giroux			2	1		3
Gilbert Perreault			1	2		3
Peter Stastny				3		3
Bert Olmstead				2	1	3
Brad Marchand				1	2	3
Martin St. Louis	1		1			2
Sid Abel	1		1			2
Red Berenson	1		1			2
Peter Forsberg	1				1	2
Bernie Geoffrion	1				1	2
Nikita Kucherov	1				1	2
Henrik Sedin	1				1	2
Sergei Fedorov	1				1	2
Elmer Lach		2				2
John Tavares		1	1			2
Steven Stamkos		1		1		2
Ryan Getzlaf		1		1		2
Norm Ullman		1		1		2
Denis Savard		1		1		2
Tod Sloan		1			1	2
Frank Mahovlich			2			2
Theoren Fleury			2			2
Max Bentley			2			2
Pat Lafontaine			1	1		2
Dave Keon			1	1		2
Jeremy Roenick			1		1	2
Jonathan Toews				2		2
Pete Mahovlich				1	1	2
Tim Kerr				1	1	2
John LeClair				1	1	2
Syl Apps				1	1	2
Dickie Moore				1	1	2
Mike Modano					2	2
Edgar Laprade					2	2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

A junk stat, weighing a 1st place finish with 5 points, 2nd place finish 4 points, etc:

Player	Result
Gordie Howe	71
Wayne Gretzky	59
Bobby Hull	38
Mario Lemieux	38
Jean Beliveau	37
Sidney Crosby	35
Bobby Clarke	30
Phil Esposito	28
Jaromir Jagr	28
Alex Ovechkin	26
Stan Mikita	25
Guy Lafleur	25
Ted Kennedy	24
Maurice Richard	23
Marcel Dionne	19
Bryan Trottier	19
Milt Schmidt	17
Andy Bathgate	16
Connor McDavid	15
Joe Thornton	15
Brett Hull	15
Mark Messier	14
Mike Bossy	13
Evgeni Malkin	13
Joe Sakic	12
Jarome Iginla	12
Teemu Selanne	11
Doug Gilmour	11
Markus Naslund	11
Nathan MacKinnon	11
Steve Yzerman	10
Patrick Kane	10
Eric Lindros	10
Henri Richard	9
Dale Hawerchuk	8
Ted Lindsay	8
Jean Ratelle	8
Claude Giroux	8
Martin St. Louis	8
Sid Abel	8
Red Berenson	8
Elmer Lach	8
Gilbert Perreault	7
John Tavares	7
Darryl Sittler	6
Peter Stastny	6
Peter Forsberg	6
Bernie Geoffrion	6
Nikita Kucherov	6
Henrik Sedin	6
Sergei Fedorov	6
Steven Stamkos	6
Ryan Getzlaf	6
Norm Ullman	6
Denis Savard	6
Frank Mahovlich	6
Theoren Fleury	6
Max Bentley	6
Bert Olmstead	5
Tod Sloan	5
Pat Lafontaine	5
Dave Keon	5
Paul Kariya	5
Leon Draisaitl	5
Corey Perry	5
Taylor Hall	5
Buddy O'Connor	5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

This certainly makes Crosby look good.

 

[The Panther]

Probably a more "accurate" way to count points would be something like:
1st - 10
2nd - 8
3rd - 6
4th - 5
5th - 4

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This entire thread has been updated for 2022. As always, let me know if you see any errors. A quick summary of this year's results:

Auston Matthews won the Hart trophy. He now has two "significant" finishes (which I've defined as any season where a player gets at least 5.0% of the votes). He was also runner-up last year.

Connor McDavid was runner-up. In addition to his two wins, he's also placed 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 5th. McDavid is one of only 11 players, going back to the end of WWII, with six years in the top five in voting. He also ranks 8th in the number of (adjusted) votes he's earned over the course of his career. He's still only 25.

Igor Shesterkin (3rd), Jonathan Huberdeau (5th), Roman Josi (6th), and Kirill Kaprizov (7th) had the first significant finishes of their careers.

Johnny Gaudreau finished 4th. This was the second significant finish (he also finished 4th in 2019).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This entire thread has been updated for 2023. As always, let me know if you see any errors. I'll use this post to provide a factual summary, and another post to add some commentary:

Connor McDavid won the Hart trophy for the 3rd time. This was his 7th "significant" season (as I've defined the term on the first page). In addition to his three wins, he's also finished he's also placed 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 5th.

David Pastrnak was runner-up. This was his second significant finish (he also finished 4th in 2020).

Nathan MacKinnon finished 5th. This was already the 5th significant finish of his career. He's also finished 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, and 6th. (This already gives him more significant finishes than some big names, including Messier, Sakic and Trottier).

Leon Draisaitl finished 7th. This was his second significant finish (he won the trophy in 2020).

Matthew Tkachuk (3rd), Jason Robertson (4th), Mikko Rantanen (6th), Jack Hughes (8th) and Ilya Sorokin (9th) each had the first significant finishes of their careers.

 

[MadLuke]

Leon single Top 5 hart finish

2016-17 NHL 77 (8th)

2018-19 NHL 105 (4th)

2019-20 NHL 110 (1st)

2020-21 NHL 84 (2nd)

2021-22 NHL 110 (4th)

2022-23 NHL 128 (2nd)

Seem to be starting to build some highest scorer with lowest Hart finish type of resume.

There was really giant gap with the 3rd place both time. Natural result of having McDavid on your team. But Jagr with Lemieux could get Top 5 hart attention

 

[Hockey Outsider]

To add some commentary to the factual summary above (some of this has been compiled from comments I made in other threads):

Connor McDavid won the Hart trophy for the 3rd time. There were 196 voters this year. 195 of them picked him first. The final voter ranked him 5th.

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, there should be freedom of thought. There's no point in having so many voters if we expect all of them to vote the same way. On the other hand, we need to watch out for indications of bias. It looks like that voter (Seth Rorabaugh) really doesn't like McDavid:

• 2018: he didn't include McDavid (who was named on 79 ballots).
• 2019: he didn't include McDavid (who was named on 110 ballots).
• 2020: he didn't include McDavid (who was named on 96 ballots).
• 2022: he didn't include McDavid (who was named on 190 ballots).
• 2023: he was the only voter (out of 196) who didn't give McDavid a first place vote

The bottom line is, Rorabaugh has ranked McDavid in the top four once in the past six years. I think that deserves an explanation.

Another way of looking at it - I could understand how somebody ranked McDavid 2nd. An argument could be made for Pastrnak (as the best player on a historically great team). Similarly, an argument could be made for Tkachuk (the best player on a team that barely squeaked into the playoffs). Those arguments, of course, are contradictory. I can't find any internally consistent argument that allows Rorabaugh to rank all of Pastrnak, Tkachuk, Robertson and Sorokin ahead of McDavid.

Ultimately, none of this matters. It would have been a nice bit of trivia for McDavid to become the only player in NHL history to win two unanimous Hart trophies - but it's just trivia. If he eventually joins the Big Four (remolding it into a Big Five), he'll need longevity, and he'll need playoff success. The voting results of one award won't matter.

Still, I understand why so many people are frustrated. If Rorabaugh had ranked McDavid 2nd or even 3rd, I don't think anybody would have complained. The 5th place ranking feels like he's either being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian, or he's trying to generate controversy to become more popular, or he has a personal bias against McDavid. None of those possible explanations, of course, are appropriate.

Looking at the bigger picture - as far as I can tell, only 11 players in all of NHL history have placed in the top five in Hart trophy voting 4+ times by the time they're 26 (using ages from hockey-reference.com):

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	Total
Gretzky	8					8
Orr	3		4	1		8
McDavid	3	1	1		2	7
Lemieux	1	2		1	1	5
Clarke	3			1		4
Crosby	2	1	1			4
Howe	2		1	1		4
Lafleur	2		1		1	4
Hull	1	2	1			4
Jagr	1	2		1		4
Trottier	1	2			1	4

I've found 10 players who have done this three times: Apps, Bathgate, Beliveau, Bourque, Harvey, Kelly, MacKinnon, Malkin, Mikita, and Ovechkin. There may be a few that I missed.

 

[Professor What]

I'd ask how does anyone not have McDavid first this year, but how on earth did anyone have him 5th?

 

[jigglysquishy]

McDavid’s ascent on basically any list is pretty crazy. He's a Hart win away from having more career Hart votes than Crosby.

 

[Professor What]

McDavid’s ascent on basically any list is pretty crazy. He's a Hart win away from having more career Hart votes than Crosby.

Which, personally, I think he should already have. I firmly believe that Matthews got the one last season based on the number 60 alone.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's the career Hart trophy data calculated under a new approach. (I'm not going to re-post all the verbiage, but a summary of the issue is included here in a post about the Norris trophy):

Wayne Gretzky	4.99
Gordie Howe	3.40
Mario Lemieux	2.43
Bobby Orr	1.98
Sidney Crosby	1.92
Bobby Hull	1.63
Jaromir Jagr	1.61
Jean Beliveau	1.61
Connor McDavid	1.59
Alexander Ovechkin	1.59
Phil Esposito	1.54
Bobby Clarke	1.53
Dominik Hasek	1.22
Mark Messier	1.15
Stan Mikita	1.15
Guy Lafleur	1.14
Maurice Richard (partial)	1.14
Bryan Trottier	0.99
Andy Bathgate	0.94
Evgeni Malkin	0.82
Milt Schmidt	0.82
Nathan MacKinnon	0.78
Martin Brodeur	0.77
Ted Kennedy	0.75
Red Kelly	0.74

It's good to see that, under this method, the "big four" have the top four positions. McDavid is already tied for 9th at age 26.

Here's how everyone compares to the old method (which you can see on this first page):

Player	New	Old	Difference
Wayne Gretzky	1	1​	-
Gordie Howe	2	2​	-
Mario Lemieux	3	4​	1
Bobby Orr	4	8​	4
Sidney Crosby	5	3​	(2)
Bobby Hull	6	9​	3
Jaromir Jagr	7	7​	-
Jean Beliveau	8	10​	2
Connor McDavid	9	5​	(4)
Alexander Ovechkin	10	6​	(4)
Phil Esposito	11	12​	1
Bobby Clarke	12	13​	1
Dominik Hasek	13	11​	(2)
Mark Messier	14	14​	-
Stan Mikita	15	17​	2
Guy Lafleur	16	18​	2
Maurice Richard	17	15​	(2)
Bryan Trottier	18	21​	3
Andy Bathgate	19	22​	3
Evgeni Malkin	20	16​	(4)
Milt Schmidt	21	23​	2
Nathan MacKinnon	22	19​	(3)
Martin Brodeur	23	20​	(3)
Ted Kennedy	24	27​	3
Red Kelly	25	29​	4

All things considered, there aren't too many changes. 20 of the top 25 players change by no more than three spots in either direction. Not a single player changes by more than four positions. The biggest gainers are Orr (even with a short career, it feels more appropriate to have him ranked 4th rather than 8th) and Kelly. A few recent forwards drop somewhat (McDavid still feels high at 9th, but it didn't feel right to have him at 5th already - though he'll presumably get there within the next few years).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's a summary of the top 20 forwards in career Hart votes (under the new method), and where they were ranked on the HOH Top 100 project from 2019:

Player	Hart	HOH	Difference
Wayne Gretzky	1	1​	-
Gordie Howe	2	2​	-
Mario Lemieux	3	3​	-
Sidney Crosby	4	7​	(3)
Bobby Hull	5	4​	1
Jaromir Jagr	6	8​	(2)
Jean Beliveau	7	5​	2
Connor McDavid	8	N/A	N/A
Alexander Ovechkin	9	10​	(1)
Phil Esposito	10	13​	(3)
Bobby Clarke	11	14​	(3)
Maurice Richard	12	6​	6
Mark Messier	13	9​	4
Stan Mikita	14	12​	2
Guy Lafleur	15	11​	4
Bryan Trottier	16	15​	1
Andy Bathgate	17	25​	(8)
Evgeni Malkin	18	21​	(3)
Milt Schmidt	19	22​	(3)
Nathan MacKinnon	20	N/A	N/A

Although there have been a few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of Hart votes go to forwards. The HOH list has (I think) a reasonable balance across positions. But since the Hart has generally been a trophy for forwards, we need to limit the data to forwards only, otherwise there are going to be a ton of discrepancies due to positional bias.

Generally, the data correlates fairly well with the results of top 100 project. This tells me that we have a reasonable factual basis for our rankings.

McDavid, obviously, has shot up the all-time ranks since 2019. I wouldn't rank him as the 8th greatest forward just yet, but he'll get there (and beyond), barring catastrophic injury.

The bigger surprise is seeing MacKinnon already in 20th. He's never won the Hart, but he has two strong 2nd place finishes (2018 and 2020), and he's also finished 3rd, 5th and 6th.

The data I presented on the first page only goes back to 1947. That means Richard loses credit for a strong 2nd place finish in 1945. I gave him a conservative estimate so that we have a picture of his full career.

As expected, the players with the biggest jumps (between how he fared in Hart voting, and where he ranked on our list) were stellar playoff performers - Richard, Messier, and Lafleur. This makes sense (since HOH takes playoff performances into account, while the Hart voting doesn't).

The player with the biggest shortfall (between how he fared in Hart voting, and where he ranked on our list) is Bathgate. That's the opposite of the comments above - his playoff resume is incomplete at best, disappointing at worst. I think he's pretty clearly the worst playoff performer on this list.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'll add a comment about Ovechkin. There's one poster who's running around the main boards, shouting to anyone who will listen about how unfair the HOH Top 100 list was to Ovechkin. (He challenges other aspects of the list, but it always come back to Ovechkin). The data I've presented here supports our ranking. Ovechkin was ranked 10th in the Top 100, among post-WWII forwards. He ranks 9th in career Hart voting as of today. That seems perfectly reasonable.

I also re-ran the Hart results excluding everything after the 2017-18 season, which was when the Top 100 project was done. The only thing that changes is McDavid has since passed Ovechkin, so (fittingly) #8 would have been 8th back then. If Ovechkin is your all-time favourite player, maybe seeing him ranked 10th instead of 8th is traumatizing. But the reality is, as of late 2018, Ovechkin was only 32 and had just barely reached 1,000 games. He had less longevity than any of the other top 15 post-WWII forwards (except Lemieux who's a special case, and Crosby who was similarly penalized). And among that group of forwards, there isn't a single one who I'd say Ovechkin was clearly ahead of in terms of playoff performances.

The bottom line is - when we run the data today, and compare it to the voting results from almost five years ago, there isn't a big discrepancy between where Ovechkin "should" rank among post-WWII forwards, and where HOH ranked him. And that difference is easily explained by Ovechkin (at the time) not yet building up his career value (Crosby was similarly penalized) and by him being a weaker playoff performer (relative to the very high standards of these 15 forwards).

 

[Jets4Life]

Crazy how close Liut came to beating Gretzky for the Hart. He did win the Pearson, so maybe he actually had season almost as good as Gretzky's. I just don't see it.

Liut was overrated, and his numbers for 1980-81 were nothing spectacular. I've noticed that Gretzky never received much love from voters. He barely beats Liut, despite breaking the points record that year. Then in 1988, Grant Fuhr receives more votes, even though Gretzky was by far and away the most valuable member of the Oilers dynasty. Then for pretty much the entire 90s decade, he places no higher than 5th, despite leading the league in scoring 4 times.

 

[Victorias]

Liut was overrated, and his numbers for 1980-81 were nothing spectacular. I've noticed that Gretzky never received much love from voters. He barely beats Liut, despite breaking the points record that year. Then in 1988, Grant Fuhr receives more votes, even though Gretzky was by far and away the most valuable member of the Oilers dynasty. Then for pretty much the entire 90s decade, he places no higher than 5th, despite leading the league in scoring 4 times.

Well, there’s a discussion in the Ken Dryden vs Soviet thread about how Liut was actually underrated and I think there’s something to that.

Gretzky won 9 Harts, so I think he got a reasonable amount of love from the media. He led the league in scoring twice in the 90’s, so not sure where 4 times comes from. And, of course, he won in 88-89 despite finishing well behind Mario in points. The 90’s also probably had the toughest Hart competition ever with Mario, Hasek, Jagr, etc in the primes.

Maybe it’s the NHLPA that didn’t properly recognize his dominance in the 80’s (“only” 5 Pearsons).

 

[The Panther]

Well, there’s a discussion in the Ken Dryden vs Soviet thread about how Liut was actually underrated and I think there’s something to that.

As I didn't see Liut in his prime (I think I barely remember him a bit toward the end), I'm sort of talking out of my ass here, but the stats certainly support the notion (which I have presented before) that Liut was massively overrated by League narrative in the 1980-81 season. (I don't say he was over- or underrated for his career as a whole --- if Dryden is saying that Liut unfairly took the blame for Team Canada in 1981, then of course I agree).

Anyway, a quick look at the St. Louis Blues in 1980 and in 1981 shows that nothing really changed about the club in terms of goaltending or defense (the raw goalie stats, I think, are actually slightly worse in '81 than in '80). However, the one notable thing that radically changed about the club from the preceding season to the next was offense. The Blues scored, like, a goal a game more in '81 than in '80, and voters seemed to think this was due to Liut.

Gretzky won 9 Harts, so I think he got a reasonable amount of love from the media. He led the league in scoring twice in the 90’s, so not sure where 4 times comes from. And, of course, he won in 88-89 despite finishing well behind Mario in points. The 90’s also probably had the toughest Hart competition ever with Mario, Hasek, Jagr, etc in the primes.

Actually, both you and the poster you quoted are wrong. Gretzky led the NHL in scoring THREE times in the 1990s, if you count 1990. The years are 1990, 1991, and 1994. (If you don't count 1989-90 as "the nineties", then obviously it's twice.)

Maybe it’s the NHLPA that didn’t properly recognize his dominance in the 80’s (“only” 5 Pearsons).

The NHLPA votes in the 70s and 80s weren't comparable to the purpose of today's votes. The NHLPA awards back then got no attention whatsoever from the NHL --- like, they didn't even present the winner on NHL Awards night. The Pearson (Lindsay) was until maybe post-Lockout a fairly minor award that got very little attention. It simply wasn't very relevant when Gretzky played. The players back then basically used it as a way to recognize the new superstar as one emerged, or to reward a much-admired player who hadn't gotten his due yet (like Yzerman in '89).

In Gretzky's case, the NHLPA obviously pursued a narrative in seasons like 1986 that they were going to reward Lemieux rather than give Gretzky (who didn't require another fairly obscure award) yet more recognition.

Even more confusing --- compared to today's simple 'best player' designation --- is exactly what the Pearson was being awarded for. The best information this forum has uncovered appears to conclude that at some point in the 1980s, the media (and quite likely the players themselves) didn't agree on, or even know, what the award was for (!).

 

[bobholly39]

The bigger surprise is seeing MacKinnon already in 20th. He's never won the Hart, but he has two strong 2nd place finishes (2018 and 2020), and he's also finished 3rd, 5th and 6th.

I came here specifically looking for MacKinnon - as I expected him to slot #1 for players without an actual hart win, so not surprised to see him this high. He's has a lot of very close finishes for sure.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'll add a comment about Ovechkin. There's one poster who's running around the main boards, shouting to anyone who will listen about how unfair the HOH Top 100 list was to Ovechkin. (He challenges other aspects of the list, but it always come back to Ovechkin). The data I've presented here supports our ranking. Ovechkin was ranked 10th in the Top 100, among post-WWII forwards. He ranks 9th in career Hart voting as of today. That seems perfectly reasonable.

I also re-ran the Hart results excluding everything after the 2017-18 season, which was when the Top 100 project was done. The only thing that changes is McDavid has since passed Ovechkin, so (fittingly) #8 would have been 8th back then. If Ovechkin is your all-time favourite player, maybe seeing him ranked 10th instead of 8th is traumatizing. But the reality is, as of late 2018, Ovechkin was only 32 and had just barely reached 1,000 games. He had less longevity than any of the other top 15 post-WWII forwards (except Lemieux who's a special case, and Crosby who was similarly penalized). And among that group of forwards, there isn't a single one who I'd say Ovechkin was clearly ahead of in terms of playoff performances.

The bottom line is - when we run the data today, and compare it to the voting results from almost five years ago, there isn't a big discrepancy between where Ovechkin "should" rank among post-WWII forwards, and where HOH ranked him. And that difference is easily explained by Ovechkin (at the time) not yet building up his career value (Crosby was similarly penalized) and by him being a weaker playoff performer (relative to the very high standards of these 15 forwards).

The flaws are primarily explained by anti-recency bias.

For example, the project asserts that Canada alone, with a population of 4-5 million people produced more top 100 players from 1884 to 1894 (8) than the international community plus Canada did from 1977 to 1987 (6).

I find this to be highly unlikely.

But then you guys go on to assert that every other generation in hockey history produced more elite talent than the modern generation.

And that's where it crosses over into bordering on impossible IMO.

You might claim that the reason the modern generation is underrepresented is the modern generation hasn't played out their careers yet. That is likely false.

The youngest players born in '87 were 32 by the time the project was completed in 2019. You likely can't name a single player born between '77 and '87 that has played their way into the top 100 based on their post age 32 career. Can you?

So the first large international generation is going to stay at an all-time low of 6 for the Ovechkin/Crosby/Malkin generation unless some of you simply change your minds. Less high end talent than the 1920s despite the pool being 3-4 times larger? Less talented than the 1950s despite the talent pool being 100% larger? Less talented than the....1890s despite the talent pool being 6 or 7 times larger?!?

It doesn't pass the smell test dude.

Here's some data. I just counted the project's top 100 players going in 11 year stints. So I measure from 1884 to 1894, and then 1894 to 1904, then 1904 to 1914, so on and so forth. I actually randomly picked the 2s and the 7s but it really won't change the outcome much if we do any other number. The anti-recency is going to show regardless.

Hopefully you are able to acknowledge the point here.

Edit: I do not know why this is fuzzy. I'll try to make it look nicer.

Edit 2: Okay so what I did was take the talent pool as estimated by Hockey Outsider, and I apply it roughly 25 years after the last year of an 11 year generation. Every birth year is accounted for twice in the boxes below. So if you were born in 1893, you get the 1918 and 1923 size talent pool size attached to your career (yes this is a rough approximation but you wouldn't expect a super high correlation in the best of circumstances and so I think going to lower decimals or whatever would likely be a case of our precision exceeding our accuracy). Hockey outsider didn't estimate talent pool size prior to 1950 so I just curved it down roughly in accordance with Canada's population growth.

Then I divided top 100 players for a generation by talent pool size. Not surprisingly, this highlights the inequitable distribution of places among modern players.

 

[Midnight Judges]

But yes, based on the sheer volume of unchallenged falsehoods that are uniquely directed at Alex Ovechkin in this forum, I (unfortunately) am comfortable asserting bias.

The largest factor in that bias appears to be anti-recency (as demonstrated above). But yes, there was an overrepresentation of rival Pens fans in the project and they are predictably among the least charitable to Ovie. And then there's the whole Russian thing. It just doesn't add up to a favorable electorate for Ovechkin.

And you of all people (Hockey Outsider) know that comparing Ovechkin to his peers vs comparing Beliveau to his smaller generation and Bobby Hull to his smaller generation or Maurice Richard (etc.) is not equitable to Ovechkin or any modern player. Yet you did it anyway. What is the explanation for that?

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[bobholly39]

The flaws are primarily explained by anti-recency bias.

For example, the project asserts that Canada alone, with a population of 4-5 million people produced more top 100 players from 1884 to 1894 (8) than the international community plus Canada did from 1977 to 1987 (6).

I find this to be highly unlikely.

But then you guys go on to assert that every other generation in hockey history produced more elite talent than the modern generation.

And that's where it crosses over into bordering on impossible IMO.

You might claim that the reason the modern generation is underrepresented is the modern generation hasn't played out their careers yet. That is likely false.

The youngest players born in '87 were 32 by the time the project was completed in 2019. You likely can't name a single player born between '77 and '87 that has played their way into the top 100 based on their post age 32 career. Can you?

So the first large international generation is going to stay at an all-time low of 6 for the Ovechkin/Crosby/Malkin generation unless some of you simply change your minds. Less talented than the 1920s. Less talented than the 1950s. Less talented than the....1890s?!?

Here's some data. I just counted the project's top 100 players going in 11 year stints. So I measure from 1884 to 1894, and then 1894 to 1904, then 1904 to 1914, so on and so forth. I actually randomly picked the 2s and the 7s but it really won't change the outcome much if we do any other number. The anti-recency is going to show regardless.

Hopefully you are able to acknowledge the point here.

Edit: I do not know why this is fuzzy. I'll try to make it look nicer.

View attachment 736198

I think there's a difference between "bias" and "weakness".

I think one of the weaknesses of many of these projects is the ability to properly evaluate/slot/rank active players. If we did a top 100 list today - I honestly have no idea where to rank McDavid. He's "better" than most, but lack of longevity is also important. Same for Draisaitl, Kucherov, MacKinnon, etc. It becomes a lot easier to put a player's overall career in perespective after it's over.

Also - your images suck and I cannot view them, way too small font.

But yes, based on the sheer volume of unchallenged falsehoods that are uniquely directed at Alex Ovechkin in this forum, I (unfortunately) am comfortable asserting bias.

The largest factor in that bias appears to be anti-recency (as demonstrated above). But yes, there was an overrepresentation of rival Pens fans in the project and they are predictably among the least charitable to Ovie. And then there's the whole Russian thing. It just doesn't add up to a favorable electorate for Ovechkin.

And you of all people (Hockey Outsider) know that comparing Ovechkin to his peers vs comparing Beliveau to his smaller generation and Bobby Hull to his smaller generation or Maurice Richard (etc.) is not equitable to Ovechkin or any modern player. Yet you did it anyway. What is the explanation for that?

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

In the top 100 project it's true there were some penguin fans - and I can think of 1 Penguins fan off-hand who was probably a bit bias against Ovechkin in his voting (won't name him). 1 out of ~25+ voters. But flipside is, one guy had Crosby ranked 37 ranks below Ovechkin, so it's kind of a tradeoff.

Just because people don't agree with you - it doesn't always mean it's bias.

Sidney Crosby is easy to rank high in such rankings usually because his resume has no real weakness. He checks a lot of boxes. Beliveau is similar. Someone like Ovechkin has a few more weaknesses and strengths - so if one person voting is absolute huge on playoffs - well he likely values Ovechkin less than others.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

But yes, based on the sheer volume of unchallenged falsehoods that are uniquely directed at Alex Ovechkin in this forum, I (unfortunately) am comfortable asserting bias.

Would you agree that this is a good example of an unchallenged falsehood in HOH about Ovechkin?

"Several of them claimed Ovechkin is a "shoot-only" player despite him being top 4 in hits and top 10 in assists during his career. None of the regulars corrected these falsehoods, despite appearing to be otherwise knowledgeable about hockey" (quoting you from this post)

 

[Midnight Judges]

Would you agree that this is a good example of an unchallenged falsehood in HOH about Ovechkin?

"Several of them claimed Ovechkin is a "shoot-only" player despite him being top 4 in hits and top 10 in assists during his career. None of the regulars corrected these falsehoods, despite appearing to be otherwise knowledgeable about hockey" (quoting you from this post)

No I wouldn't, because I challenged that specific falsehood in real time. And while it is obviously false, many of your fellow history forum members were good with those types of lies, and even liked the posts in which they were stated - even after the incorrect statements were highlighted. And yes, some folks acknowledged the very basic accessible facts I was providing, so it's not all bad.

Look man, I don't know what your biases are but you seem to have a vested interest in vindicating them rather than getting it right. So when a history forum regular claims Getzlaf is a better player than Ovechkin, you seem more intent on sweeping it under the rug than asking if this is a rational opinion.

 

[Midnight Judges]

In the top 100 project it's true there were some penguin fans - and I can think of 1 Penguins fan off-hand who was probably a bit bias against Ovechkin in his voting (won't name him). 1 out of ~25+ voters. But flipside is, one guy had Crosby ranked 37 ranks below Ovechkin, so it's kind of a tradeoff.

1? Ha! It's more like 10. And it's not just the Pens fans, it's also a contingent of people who take a lot of Canadian pride in hockey. -The types that are offended if you claim there are more hockey players now than there were in 1954, or even if they can acknowledge that, they can't acknowledge that this would impact the level of competition.

And if it's daver you're thinking of - yeah he's overly biased IMO, and yet somehow not remotely the most biased person over there as evidence by even he voted that Ovechkin was better than Crosby in 05-06. So relative to the history forum, even daver is fairly moderate relative to the Ovechkin hate. Now THAT says something.

Yeah no, it's a not a trade off. It's a massively lop-sided affair.

During the project I was told there were some big Ovechkin fans to balance things out. The specific guy I was told was a big Ovechkin fan recently claimed if there was a case for Ovechkin inside the top 20, he'd be curious to see it.

 

[bobholly39]

No I wouldn't, because I challenged that specific falsehood in real time. And while it is obviously false, many of your fellow history forum members were good with those types of lies, and even liked the posts in which they were stated - even after the incorrect statements were highlighted. And yes, some folks acknowledged the very basic accessible facts I was providing, so it's not all bad.

Look man, I don't know what your biases are but you seem to have a vested interest in vindicating them rather than getting it right. So when a history forum regular claims Getzlaf is a better player than Ovechkin, you seem more intent on sweeping it under the rug than asking if this is a rational opinion.

"Look man, when a history forum regular votes Sidney Crosby 37 ranks below Alex Ovechkin and when his list is approved as valid, it proves that this forum is bias against Sidney Crosby and way too pro-Alex Ovechkin. But keep on sweeping it under the rug along with your other co-history forum regular posters."

Generalizations are fun.