Whose Hart-Winning Seasons Are Better: McDavid's Or Crosby's?

[BB06]

Mcdavid's 17-18 is so much better than his 16-17

really shows what a joke Hart voting is that he won in the latter year but didn't even finish top 3 in the former just because his team missed the Playoffs

Pretty weird how hard they held that line and then had Fox win the Norris this year.

 

[The Moose is Loose]

Crosby 07: Won the Art Ross by 6 points, 20th in the league in goals, 51% of his production was on the PP

Crosby 14: Won the Art Ross by 17 points, 7th in the league in goals, 37% of his production was on the PP

McDavid 17: Won the Art Ross by 11 points, 26th in the league in goals, 27% of his production was on the PP

McDavid 21: Won the Art Ross by 21 points (would have been 31 points if full season), 2nd in the league in goals, 35% of his production was on the PP


It’s also worth noting the league wide scoring levels are extremely similar comparing the 2007 Hart to the 2021 Hart and the 2014 Hart to the 2017 Hart.

I think looking at that I’d vote for McDavid because the 21 Hart win was clearly the most impressive (only unanimous win, highest goal scoring finish, and largest gap over #2) along with the fact both of McDavids wins were done more at even strength

 

[The Moose is Loose]

Pretty weird how hard they held that line and then had Fox win the Norris this year.

I agree. I really don’t mind the line in the sand but the voters need to be consistent with it.

The sole reason Hall was handed the Hart over McDavid was because Hall made the playoffs (and was subsequently curb stomped)

 

[Regal]

To the bolded - maybe. But sometimes, I find people do the opposite and try too hard to apply any type of context they can come up with to scoring totals to diminish their impact.

120 points is still 120 points, which is a lot.

I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on that point though. I think everything needs context.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Crosby's shortened seasons are constantly used as a crutch for all the stuff he didn't accomplish in the regular season. If Crosby hit 105 points in 56 games and won the Art Ross, that's not a "what if". That's a "did".

The point is you'd still use the 56 games as a reason for why it's not as impressive as something someone did in an 82 game season.

 

[Regal]

The seasons are close. At best, slight edge to one or the other either way you look at it.

Argubly McDavid's best two seasons vs. arguably Crosby's 3rd, 4th or even 5th best seasons.

I believe Crosby's best full season was '10, but I'm curious what other one you would put before these two? I agree that Crosby's value lies more in multiple seasons at that level than his peak seasons standing out (though that's likely due to injuries taking those away), but McDavid's kind of in the same boat. His '18 and '19 seasons were both similar as well. We'll see if last year was an aberration or a new level. Though it was the same age Crosby looked to be taking off as well.

 

[Regal]

Pretty weird how hard they held that line and then had Fox win the Norris this year.

Norris doesn't have the "valuable" aspect to the definition though. Voters will use that to say "well how valuable are you if your team misses the playoffs regardless" when it comes to Hart voting. That was further emphasized in '18 because McDavid didn't turn it on until after his team was already out of it.

The idea that voters held the playoffs against defensemen when it comes to the Norris was brought up with Karlsson in '16, but was always bunk. The reason no defenseman had won it while not being on a playoff team was largely due to the fact that there was rarely any worthy candidates until the league expanded and there became much more parity (as well as the same percentage of teams not in the playoffs as in), and the fact it's harder to look good defensively when on a poor team, whereas scorers will still stand out.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The point is you'd still use the 56 games as a reason for why it's not as impressive as something someone did in an 82 game season.

If Crosby hit 105-in-56 at the same time McDavid hit 145-in-82, yes I would go with McDavid. The point is that no one was anywhere close to McDavid last year, and if that was Crosby that wouldn't change a thing.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Likewise, if Crosby had McDavid's 2021 season, I suspect certain other demographics (ie. fans like you) would find reasons to downplay it because it wasn't a full 82 game season and thus "we don't know if he'd keep up the pace over a grinding 82 games".

For instance, those against Crosby consistently argue against his 41-game season being dominant because "not a whole season! he doesn't get credit when compared to full 82 game seasons!", yet have no issue talking about McDavid's dominance in 56 games even though it's also not a full 82 game season.

People argue that Crosby's 41 game season wasn't as impressive because he missed half the season. If everyone else only played 41 games then that wouldn't be an issue, but if a player only plays half the games, it means that in 50% of a teams games, he was a non-factor because he literally wasn't there to help the team. Even if he was dominant in the other 50%, you have to consider the 50% he missed. McDavid did what he did last year playing the same number of games as every other player was eligible to play. He wasn't hurt by being on the IR for a stretch of time. He wasn't hurt (in comparison to other players) by playing in fewer games than everyone else. Therefore, the "but Sid's 41 games" argument isn't exactly valid in this context.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Norris doesn't have the "valuable" aspect to the definition though. Voters will use that to say "well how valuable are you if your team misses the playoffs regardless" when it comes to Hart voting. That was further emphasized in '18 because McDavid didn't turn it on until after his team was already out of it.

The idea that voters held the playoffs against defensemen when it comes to the Norris was brought up with Karlsson in '16, but was always bunk. The reason no defenseman had won it while not being on a playoff team was largely due to the fact that there was rarely any worthy candidates until the league expanded and there became much more parity (as well as the same percentage of teams not in the playoffs as in), and the fact it's harder to look good defensively when on a poor team, whereas scorers will still stand out.

I would say that the same logic should count in Hart voting. Just because it was 20 or more years from when a non-playoff team's player won the Hart doesn't mean that non-playoff guys shouldn't be eligible. It meant that for the past 20-30 years, up until the 2018 Oilers, there was not a single team since Mario's Penguins to have the best player in the world but still be so weak in other areas of the team that they missed the playoffs. Feels like the player being penalized for being on an awful team.

 

[nowhereman]

People argue that Crosby's 41 game season wasn't as impressive because he missed half the season. If everyone else only played 41 games then that wouldn't be an issue, but if a player only plays half the games, it means that in 50% of a teams games, he was a non-factor because he literally wasn't there to help the team. Even if he was dominant in the other 50%, you have to consider the 50% he missed. McDavid did what he did last year playing the same number of games as every other player was eligible to play. He wasn't hurt by being on the IR for a stretch of time. He wasn't hurt (in comparison to other players) by playing in fewer games than everyone else. Therefore, the "but Sid's 41 games" argument isn't exactly valid in this context.

Crosby may have been an injured non-factor in those other 41 games but he still lead his team in scoring by a 25% margin. Let that sink in for a second.

 

[Paul4587]

McDavid in 2021 was the best season we’ve seen since Lemieux. The distance between him and the second best offensive player was huge.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Crosby may have been an injured non-factor in those other 41 games but he still lead his team in scoring by a 25% margin. Let that sink in for a second.

That's great. I don't think anyone would criticize that. But if you score a pile of points in half the games, you are still not there the other half. I understand that injuries happen, but 50% is still 50%.

 

[Regal]

I would say that the same logic should count in Hart voting. Just because it was 20 or more years from when a non-playoff team's player won the Hart doesn't mean that non-playoff guys shouldn't be eligible. It meant that for the past 20-30 years, up until the 2018 Oilers, there was not a single team since Mario's Penguins to have the best player in the world but still be so weak in other areas of the team that they missed the playoffs. Feels like the player being penalized for being on an awful team.

I don't think it's the history that's a factor for either award though. As you said, it's rare that the best player is on a non-playoff team, just as it's rare the best defenseman would be on a non-playoff team, so the voting has gone accordingly. I see the argument for voting for the best player regardless of team because they technically "brought the most value", but I also see the idea of saying that bringing a team from the basement to just a little higher non-playoff team isn't "valuable" because either way the team went nowhere. It certainly does punish a player for a bad team around him, but players also get punished for having good players/teams around them too.

I'm more commenting on the comparison to the Norris though. Adding the idea of "value to his team" instead of just best or most outstanding player makes the Hart different than the Norris. Someone can believe missing the playoffs takes someone out of the running for Hart but not for the Norris based on the concept of value vs. best player, and wouldn't be a hypocrite for believing as much, which seemed to be the insinuation of the post I originally responded to.

 

[McFlash97]

McDavid.

 

[McFlash97]

Likewise, if Crosby had McDavid's 2021 season, I suspect certain other demographics (ie. fans like you) would find reasons to downplay it because it wasn't a full 82 game season and thus "we don't know if he'd keep up the pace over a grinding 82 games".

For instance, those against Crosby consistently argue against his 41-game season being dominant because "not a whole season! he doesn't get credit when compared to full 82 game seasons!", yet have no issue talking about McDavid's dominance in 56 games even though it's also not a full 82 game season.

How much points did Crosby have in 41 games.

McDavid was sitting at 101 in 53 games.

 

[Regal]

How much points did Crosby have in 41 games.

McDavid was sitting at 101 in 53 games.

66, which paces to 90 in 56. McDavid had "only" 69 in his first 41, but then his pace went up. Different scoring environments though so comparing totals is flawed. McDavid was similarly dominant over his peers in terms of PPG when taking the whole year into account for both seasons, but Crosby wasn't as dominant over his peers looking just at the first half of his season, so it's not really fair to compare his half season pace to the full seasons of his competition.

 

[Son Goku]

Crosby is a great player but McD is on another level.

No he isn't stop

 

[McFlash97]

No he isn't stop

He meant as an evolved player.

 

[libertarian]

No he isn't stop

How many Crosby seasons did he have that was close to 2PPG?

Right, none.

Crosby was good but McD is on another level.

I am not a Oilers fan so please stop with your BS Crosby is better. McD has already proved that he is a Crosby plus. I am old enough to have seen Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr at their best. Crosby does not come close to any of them. McD is the only player in my lifetime that has a chance to reach the Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr level.

McD in 56 game scored 105 points which means he got more points then Crosby ever got except for 2 season where Crosby played 79 and 81 games. Crosby was/is great but he is not even in the conversation to McD level.

BTW McD is not there yet to be in the top 3 all time. McD is proving he is top 5 all time best but Crosby never even got close. Crosby top 10 all time? Maybe, but never close to the top 3 great NHL players of all time . McD still has a chance to reach top 5 level and already has proven to be much better then Crosby ever was at his best.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

How many Crosby seasons did he have that was close to 2PPG?

Right, none.

Crosby was good but McD is on another level.

I am not a Oilers fan so please stop with your BS Crosby is better. McD has already proved that he is a Crosby plus. I am old enough to have seen Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr at their best. Crosby does not come close to any of them. McD is the only player in my lifetime that has a chance to reach the Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr level.

McD in 56 game scored 105 points which means he got more points then Crosby ever got except for 2 season where Crosby played 79 and 81 games. Crosby was/is great but he is not even in the conversation to McD level.

BTW McD is not there yet to be in the top 3 all time. McD is proving he is top 5 all time best but Crosby never even got close. Crosby top 10 all time? Maybe, but never close to the top 3 great NHL players of all time . McD still has a chance to reach top 5 level and already has proven to be much better then Crosby ever was at his best.

Right because peak crosby in last years north division doesn't put up rudiculous numbers. McDavid is good. But he's not 105 in 56 good

 

[x Tame Impala]

Right because peak crosby in last years north division doesn't put up rudiculous numbers. McDavid is good. But he's not 105 in 56 good

For real. As if 2011 Crosby playing in the North last year wouldn’t have led the league in points.

 

[libertarian]

Right because peak crosby in last years north division doesn't put up rudiculous numbers. McDavid is good. But he's not 105 in 56 good

LOL!
Last time I looked McD was playing in a North division full of NHL players and the 4th place team of the North division made it to the SCF. Seems like the North was a hell of a lot better then the division that the Avs and Knights played in.

I am old enough to remember people like you in the early 80's that came up with excuse after excuse why Gretzky was not really the best player in the league. Or in the late 80's when people like you refuse to believe that Lemieux was at Gretzky's levels of greatness.

Future hockey history will prove people like you wrong.

Crosby and OV were the class of their era. McD is already on a level neither ever reached.

Again, I am not a Oiler fan but I do respect great players even while I cheer against them.

 

[McFlash97]

Right because peak crosby in last years north division doesn't put up rudiculous numbers. McDavid is good. But he's not 105 in 56 good

In this world McDavid is not as good as the insane numbers he is putting up but Crosby has better then the numbers he put up.

Signed : every salty Homer

 

[libertarian]

In this world McDavid is not as good as the insane numbers he is putting up but Crosby has better then the numbers he put up.

Signed : every salty Homer

LOL! So true!