Hart winning forward, not leading team in scoring

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's a list of Hart trophy winning forwards who didn't lead their team in scoring that year. Let me know if I missed anybody:

Frank Nighbour, 1924. The first-ever Hart winner was only third on his team in scoring - but is generally considered one of the best defensive forwards of all-time. The earlier one goes back, the less award voters seemed to rely on statistics (presumably because the league was so small, they watched each player frequently and didn`t need to rely on media hype & statistics).

Billy Burch, 1925. What I said about the voters apparently not caring much for statistics in the NHL`s earliest days is true, but we also know in Nighbour`s case that he was great defensively. Can the same be said about Burch? He's perhaps the most anonymous Hart winner of all time.

Sid Abel, 1949. He's tied for the team lead in scoring with Ted Lindsay. Perhaps Abel won because he was a more proven veteran, or because he scored slightly more goals. Is it possible Terrible Ted's rambunctiousness worked against him?

Ted Kennedy, 1955. This has been discussed at length in other threads. This was a lifetime achievement award for Kennedy, who announced his retirement before the start of the season.

Bobby Hull, 1965. This is somewhat puzzling. On paper it's far from his best season (missed nine games to injury, didn't lead the league in goals, and was fourth in scoring). Mikita outscored him 87-71. Maybe Chicago had a poor record in the games he missed?

Joe Thornton, 2006. This is perhaps a technicality. Thornton was the first Hart trophy winner traded mid season. He was traded around one-third of the way through the season and, even though he won the Art Ross, he led neither the Bruins or Sharks in scoring. (Incredibly, he scored just one point less than Jonathan Cheechoo in 24 fewer games).

Click to read more...

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Burch was probably creditted as the biggest reason the Tigers jumped from last to first place in the NHL even though Red Green had more points. Burch was the goal scoring leader though by one goal.

Abel and Lindsay technically tied for the scoring lead but Lindsay played six less games. Abel won the goal scoring title and voters probably thought my as well give it to the guy who won the title. Abel was also the captain so I'm guessing intangibles played a big role.

 

[Theokritos]

Good topic, seems there are plenty of aspects to debate.

The earlier one goes back, the less award voters seemed to rely on statistics (presumably because the league was so small, they watched each player frequently and didn`t need to rely on media hype & statistics).

This assumption seems highly plausible. Additionally we should also consider that there were less than 0.6 assists per goal awarded in the mid-1920s NHL, so assist numbers (whether raw or per game) from back then can not simply be put on par with assist numbers today.

Sid Abel, 1949. He's tied for the team lead in scoring with Ted Lindsay. Perhaps Abel won because he was a more proven veteran, or because he scored slightly more goals. Is it possible Terrible Ted's rambunctiousness worked against him?

Ted Kennedy, 1955. This has been discussed at length in other threads. This was a lifetime achievement award for Kennedy, who announced his retirement before the start of the season.

Bobby Hull, 1965. This is somewhat puzzling. On paper it's far from his best season (missed nine games to injury, didn't lead the league in goals, and was fourth in scoring). Mikita outscored him 87-71. Maybe Chicago had a poor record in the games he missed?

What you said earlier about voters not having to rely on stats as much due to the frequent observation of each team would also apply to the whole O6 era and cover all of the three examples above.

 

[Theokritos]

Bobby Hull, 1965. This is somewhat puzzling. On paper it's far from his best season (missed nine games to injury, didn't lead the league in goals, and was fourth in scoring). Mikita outscored him 87-71. Maybe Chicago had a poor record in the games he missed?

Going by contemporary sources, it was a season of two halfs for him:

Associated Press (1965, January 19):
Hull, unanimous choice at left wing on the NHL first-half All-Star team and the top scorer in the league at the halfway point, also leads in the race for the Hart Trophy as the most valuable player and Lady Byng Trophy for gentlemanly and effective play.

Montreal Gazette (1965, January 19):
Hull leads by a country mile in the voting for the Hart Trophy, awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team, with 88 points, two short of a unanimous vote. His closest rival is centre Norm Ullman of Detroit who has 22 points, six ahead of third-place Charlie Hodge, Canadiens' goaltender... Other players who received points in the balloting were: Hart—Henri Richard, Montreal, 11; Gord Howe, Detroit, 9; [Roger] Crozier, [Detroit] 8; [Jacques] Laperriere, [Montreal] 3; Claude Provost, Montreal, 1; Ted Green, Boston Bruins, 1; Stan Mikita, Chicago, 1; Jean Beliveau, Montreal, 1; [Bill] Gadsby, Detroit, 1.

Second half of the season was a different story. Hull only scored 7 goals (as opposed to 32 in the first half) and picked up just 15 points in Hart voting. He lost a lot of ground to Norm Ullman (74 points in the second half), but still ended up first overall:

United Press International (1965, May 20):
Bobby Hull, who survived a near-disastrous second-half slump to win All-Star honors and the Lady Byng Trophy, today was named winner of the National Hockey League's most prized award—the Hart Trophy as the league's most valuable player. The 26-year-old left winger of the Chicago Black Hawks almost blew it after building up a 66-point first-half lead over center Norm Ullman of the Detroit Red Wings.

Mikita must have outscored Hull in the second half, but he only received 13 Hart votes himself versus Hull's 15. Seems like the latter was considered the clear cut go-to guy in Chicago, no matter what.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Commenting on two of these:

Sid Abel 1949:

When Lindsay and Howe were young star scorers, Abel was considered the glue that held the line together. He stayed back defensively when his two wingers went extremely hard into the corners in the Production Line's aggressive dump and chase game. The veteran Abel also had a "captain's aura" around him a like veteran Yzerman. When Lindsay won the Art Ross in 1950, Abel also led the team in Hart voting.

Bobby Hull 1965

As theo points out, it was a product of having a great 1st half and the NHL's strange system of separating 1st and 2nd half voting. If they voted only at the end of the season, it seems like Norm Ullman would have won the Hart.

 

[tony d]

Neat, thanks for sharing this.

 

[seventieslord]

We're six posts in, and I'd say only Burch is unexplained.

 

[Theokritos]

As theo points out, it was a product of having a great 1st half and the NHL's strange system of separating 1st and 2nd half voting. If they voted only at the end of the season, it seems like Norm Ullman would have won the Hart.

Is it known whether they took the whole season into account at the 2nd vote or strictly the 2nd half of the season only?

 

[Theokritos]

Here's a list of Hart trophy winning forwards who didn't lead their team in scoring that year. Let me know if I missed anybody:
...
Ted Kennedy, 1955. This has been discussed at length in other threads. This was a lifetime achievement award for Kennedy, who announced his retirement before the start of the season.

While it's up to debate whether Kennedy deserved the Hart that season or not, is there any reason to doubt he was the leading player on his own team? He had 52 points (10+42) while Sid Smith had 54 (33+21), both in 70 games. No other Toronto player had more than 30 points, so Kennedy and Smith were in their own league among scorers for sure. The difference between the two of them (2 points) is negligible. Kennedy was centering the top line (with Smith on one wing), captaining* the team and is referred to as "the take-charge man" of the Maple Leafs ("]Canadian Press) – I don't see an issue with the assumption he was the #1 player for Toronto in 1954-55 despite not leading the team in scoring.

*Not sure whether that word even exists in English vocabulary.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Bobby Hull 1965

As theo points out, it was a product of having a great 1st half and the NHL's strange system of separating 1st and 2nd half voting. If they voted only at the end of the season, it seems like Norm Ullman would have won the Hart.

Honestly...I know that old system isn't the answer, but I do think that there's too much recency bias in awards voting and that needs to be fixed. First halves are often forgotten by the time the voting is done.

 

[VanIslander]

Here's a list of Hart trophy winning forwards...

Then there are the Hart trophy defensemen and goaltenders.

The assumption that the MVP-recognized forwards are the statistically-top scorers is no surprise, especially in the modern era.

 

[Ishdul]

While it's up to debate whether Kennedy deserved the Hart that season or not, is there any reason to doubt he was the leading player on his own team? He had 52 points (10+42) while Sid Smith had 54 (33+21), both in 70 games. No other Toronto player had more than 30 points, so Kennedy and Smith were in their own league among scorers for sure. The difference between the two of them (2 points) is negligible. Kennedy was centering the top line (with Smith on one wing), captaining* the team and is referred to as "the take-charge man" of the Maple Leafs ("]Canadian Press) – I don't see an issue with the assumption he was the #1 player for Toronto in 1954-55 despite not leading the team in scoring.

*Not sure whether that word even exists in English vocabulary.

Lumley would probably be a popular choice, being the 1st Team All-Star goalie and 2nd in Hart voting on a team that was quite a bit better defensively than offensively.

 

[Theokritos]

Lumley would probably be a popular choice, being the 1st Team All-Star goalie and 2nd in Hart voting on a team that was quite a bit better defensively than offensively.

But that just makes the two guys who actually do provide offense (Kennedy and Smith) even more valuable to the team, doesn't it?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Honestly...I know that old system isn't the answer, but I do think that there's too much recency bias in awards voting and that needs to be fixed. First halves are often forgotten by the time the voting is done.

recent "victims" include: iginla (theodore), roy for vezina (theodore), naslund (forsberg), jagr (thornton), ovechkin (h. sedin), and d. sedin (perry).

but i don't know: i mean, yes a point in october counts just as much as a point in april, but we do put more stock in dominating "when the games count," and the stretch run to the playoffs is when the games are perceived to count more.

that perception is at least party true, right? i mean, when teams are gunning for the playoffs and home ice seeds there's more pressure to perform.

i guess the flipside is if you killed it all year and your team ran away with first place, like daniel sedin in 2011, you can coast a little before the playoffs.

but i neither know how to resolve it, nor even how to think about the problem. which i agree is a problem, but how much of one? i guess one unrealistic solution would be if we could create a perfect world where sportswriters watch hockey games not involving the teams they cover all year, instead of just when it gets exciting in late-march/april.

 

[Ishdul]

But that just makes the two guys who actually provide offense (Kennedy and Smith) even more valuable to the team, doesn't it?

Not really, and that's never been the way people have evaluated it before or since, especially in regards to Hart voting.

That was also a year in which Detroit and Montreal were the 2 clear best teams in the league.

recent "victims" include: iginla (theodore), roy for vezina (theodore), naslund (forsberg), jagr (thornton), ovechkin (h. sedin), and d. sedin (perry).

but i don't know: i mean, yes a point in october counts just as much as a point in april, but we do put more stock in dominating "when the games count," and the stretch run to the playoffs is when the games are perceived to count more.

that perception is at least party true, right? i mean, when teams are gunning for the playoffs and home ice seeds there's more pressure to perform.

i guess the flipside is if you killed it all year and your team ran away with first place, like daniel sedin in 2011, you can coast a little before the playoffs.

but i neither know how to resolve it, nor even how to think about the problem. which i agree is a problem, but how much of one? i guess one unrealistic solution would be if we could create a perfect world where sportswriters watch hockey games not involving the teams they cover all year, instead of just when it gets exciting in late-march/april.

That's the narrative, but for a lot of those is of questionable accuracy. Iginla had a big lead in scoring but had a lull in the middle of the season (December, January and February) before picking it up at the end (with Calgary well out of the playoff race). Theodore and Roy were pretty even the whole year, as well. I think the relative position of Colorado/Montreal kind of explains some of that. Henrik had a lead in the scoring race in the middle of the 09/10 season, and I felt like Crosby was the "hot" candidate at the end of the season.

Keith's Norris win last year was another criticized as a guy getting an early lead and sitting on it a bit to win.

Really, I don't think it's much of a problem isolated. In the case of Theodore, Theodore and Forsberg I think the right guy won. With Henrik, Forsberg and Thornton I think they all fall short if they don't win the Art Ross, which is a much more serious problem.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

That's the narrative, but for a lot of those is of questionable accuracy. Iginla had a big lead in scoring but had a lull in the middle of the season (December, January and February) before picking it up at the end (with Calgary well out of the playoff race). Theodore and Roy were pretty even the whole year, as well. I think the relative position of Colorado/Montreal kind of explains some of that. Henrik had a lead in the scoring race in the middle of the 09/10 season, and I felt like Crosby was the "hot" candidate at the end of the season.

Keith's Norris win last year was another criticized as a guy getting an early lead and sitting on it a bit to win.

Really, I don't think it's much of a problem isolated. In the case of Theodore, Theodore and Forsberg I think the right guy won. With Henrik, Forsberg and Thornton I think they all fall short if they don't win the Art Ross, which is a much more serious problem.

i didn't mean to call those out as factual, just examples of "narrative," as you say. theodore is especially true of what i meant by my last post, wondering whether a crazy hot stretch run is intrinsically more hart worthy because that means the guy stepped up when he had to.

 

[Voight]

Anyone else agree that Iginla was robbed in 2002?

 

[Theokritos]

Not really, and that's never been the way people have evaluated it before or since, especially in regards to Hart voting.

That was also a year in which Detroit and Montreal were the 2 clear best teams in the league.

I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Anyone else agree that Iginla was robbed in 2002?

no. he wasn't the difference btw winning and losing. and if yr team doesn't come close to making the playoffs you better be a mario level scorer, imo.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Anyone else agree that Iginla was robbed in 2002?

I like Iginla a lot, but he was way closer to winning the Hart in 2002 than he deserved to be

 

[Hockey Outsider]

We're six posts in, and I'd say only Burch is unexplained.

Agreed - good work everyone.

While it's up to debate whether Kennedy deserved the Hart that season or not, is there any reason to doubt he was the leading player on his own team? He had 52 points (10+42) while Sid Smith had 54 (33+21), both in 70 games. No other Toronto player had more than 30 points, so Kennedy and Smith were in their own league among scorers for sure. The difference between the two of them (2 points) is negligible. Kennedy was centering the top line (with Smith on one wing), captaining* the team and is referred to as "the take-charge man" of the Maple Leafs ("]Canadian Press) – I don't see an issue with the assumption he was the #1 player for Toronto in 1954-55 despite not leading the team in scoring.

*Not sure whether that word even exists in English vocabulary.

I'm not questioning whether Kennedy was the most valuable forward on the Leafs that year. He was more of an offensive catalyst than Smith and was certainly better defensively, so he brought more value overall, even if he scored a couple of fewer points. But I don't think there's any argument that he was the best or most valuable player in the entire league.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

no. he wasn't the difference btw winning and losing. and if yr team doesn't come close to making the playoffs you better be a mario level scorer, imo.

But the difference between winning and losing is not the same thing as the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. They're related, but would a player who takes a really bad team and just misses the playoffs with them not be more valuable than a player on a good team that would have made the playoffs without them anyway? If making the playoffs is the bar, then no player on a great team should ever win MVP, because no individual player is good enough to make a non-playoff team a really great one all by himself. "They would have made the playoffs without him anyway" would be the argument against him.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

But the difference between winning and losing is not the same thing as the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. They're related, but would a player who takes a really bad team and just misses the playoffs with them not be more valuable than a player on a good team that would have made the playoffs without them anyway? If making the playoffs is the bar, then no player on a great team should ever win MVP, because no individual player is good enough to make a non-playoff team a really great one all by himself. "They would have made the playoffs without him anyway" would be the argument against him.

but my point is iginla's team didn't even come close to making the playoffs. they missed the playoffs by 15 points. and if your team is that bad, you better have scored 168 points.

i think it's a difference of semantics. i meant "difference between winning and losing" not in the literal sense, but in the hypothetical sense that a great player on a great team would have put a mediocre team on his back to overachieve if he'd been on one. again, clearly iginla didn't do that.

 

[reckoning]

Expanding on the thread topic, I looked up forwards who finished top-5 in Hart voting but didn't lead their team in scoring. I only went back as far as '68-'69 when the split/season voting format was scrapped, and I'm obviously not counting it if a team had two players in the top-5 with the leading scorer being higher (i.e. Ratelle/Hadfield in '72)

'69: Beliveau
'70: Berenson
'71: Keon
'77: Clarke
'80: Gare
'82: Trottier
'84: Trottier, Middleton
'01: Lemieux
'13: Toews
'14: Bergeron

As expected, most of the players had reputations as top-notch defensive forwards.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

but my point is iginla's team didn't even come close to making the playoffs. they missed the playoffs by 15 points. and if your team is that bad, you better have scored 168 points.

I wasn't addressing Iginla specifically, but the point in general.