Why haven't we seen a defenseman win the Hart recently?

[YpsiWings]

Even still, we're not all a bunch of clueless observers who can't see the value in a great defenseman and who are getting fooled by offensive stats. My point was more concrete: The actual best player in the world is usually a forward, straight up, even after adjusting for whatever "hidden" value a defenseman might have. Which defenseman exactly do you think was the best player in the world, and in what approximative window?

My controversial hot take is that Chris Pronger was the best player in the world from around 2006 to 2010, because he'd be my #1 pick for a playoff run.

And my point is no, it is not always a forward who is the best player. Lidstrom is the 2nd best defenseman of all time, I take him over Pronger every day. Players that do the dirty work often don’t get credit, that is my point. And it’s not just hockey that applies to, unless you are a fan of the team nobody remembers offensive linesman or defensive players that don’t get sacks or interceptions.

And to reply to your controversial hot take how is this, Detroit had two players better than Pronger. Already said Lidstrom, but Pavel Datsyuk was the best hockey player in the world for a short time.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Hart trophy goes to the Art Ross Trophy winner in what, 70% of cases? And in 20%, to the Rocket Richard winner or a top 3 finisher in Art Ross. And then once every 10 years or so a goalie takes it.

I don't know why people even pay much attention to it, it's nearly always completely obvious who will win it (clue: look at who had the most points).

Look at 2001-2002. Lidström lead all D-men in scoring, was the icetime leader in the league, led his team to the Stanley Cup and won the Conn Smythe. He wasn't top 10 in Hart voting. Are you really going to tell me there were 10+ players more valuable to their than Lidström that season? Or any season?

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Karlsson would have undoubtedly won one had he been on a contending team during his prime.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I think that Burns in 16-17 shouldve got that Hart.


Theres no argument for him not getting it, IMO.

Lead his team in goals and points (by 10 pts) lead the league in shots taken, 100 hits, his point production was "normal" as in, not boosted by PP points, 40 primary points at ES while McDavid had 50... I have a hard time believing the 20 points difference between Burns and Connor was enough to close the gap.

Burns was more of a rover than Dman.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

To answer the OP, the most talented hockey players typically play forward.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Karlsson would have undoubtedly won one had he been on a contending team during his prime.

No, because if you are on a contending team the excuse is that the team is too good for him to MVP (case in point; the "coincidence" that Detroit was a contending team during the entirety of Lidström's career).

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

No, because if you are on a contending team the excuse is that the team is too good for him to MVP (case in point; the "coincidence" that Detroit was a contending team during the entirety of Lidström's career).

Lidstrom played on dynasties.

I said contending team, that means a team capable of making it to finals or having one or two more stars. Karlsson finished top 5 in points in the NHL in 2015-2016. Last time that happened was Coffey almost 40 years ago. He also had 20 point lead, I think last time that happened was Potvin over 25+ years ago. Karlsson was a phenom and generational in his prime. We know there is some point bias. Karlsson was top 3 in the league for a good stretch, had he played on a contending team he would have eclipsed 90 points or more. In a tournament with talent, he lead the entire Olympics in points over Kane and whoever.

He would have won the hart.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Lidstrom played on dynasties.

I said contending team, that means a team capable of making it to finals or having one or two more stars. Karlsson finished top 5 in points in the NHL in 2015-2016. Last time that happened was Coffey almost 40 years ago. He also had 20 point lead, I think last time that happened was Potvin over 25+ years ago. Karlsson was a phenom and generational in his prime. We know there is some point bias. Karlsson was top 3 in the league for a good stretch, had he played on a contending team he would have eclipsed 90 points or more. In a tournament with talent, he lead the entire Olympics in points over Kane and whoever.

He would have won the hart.

What is the difference between a contender and a dynasty?

If you answered "a Nick Lidström caliber talent" you are correct.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

What is the difference between a contender and a dynasty?

If you answered "a Nick Lidström caliber talent" you are correct.

A dynasty is playing with 2+ other hart calibre players for multiple seasons. Red Wings still made playoffs 4 years in a row after Lidstrom left.

Last time Karlsson played with anything close to 1, he won Norris as the youngest defender in history since Orr at 21.

 

[Mickey Marner]

It's definitely biased towards forwards.

A good example is the 2013-14 Boston Bruins.

Bergeron was 5th in Hart voting, 4th in all-star voting and obviously won the Selke.

Rask was 11th in Hart voting, 1st in all-star voting, won the Vezina.

Chara received no Hart votes, was 2nd in all-star voting (1st team), and 2nd in Norris voting.

Vezina is voted on by the GMs, so not directly comparable, but generally matches all-star voting.

According to the writers in this example 4th best center>best goalie>2nd best defenseman.

Maybe that's true sometimes, but on average probably not.

 

[Pavels Dog]

A dynasty is playing with 2+ other hart calibre players for multiple seasons. Red Wings still made playoffs 4 years in a row after Lidstrom left.

Last time Karlsson played with anything close to 1, he won Norris as the youngest defender in history since Orr at 21.

Who were the Hart-trophy caliber players in 2001-2002 for Detroit? There was one: Lidström.

Between 96 and 2008, the Wings had ONE top 5 finish in Hart voting (Lidström). The argument you're making is the same lazy argument that's been made to dismiss Lidström's claim to a Hart, the team was too good. Except you're simultaneously making the argument that Karlsson would have won if his team was better..

Somehow, anytime there's a Datsyuk discussion; he was never Hart calibre. Zetterberg was never Hart Calibre. Osgood wasn't, no one was. But Lidström wasn't either, because he was playing with Hart calibre players. It's really, really strange.

Karlsson had less talent, yes, but Spezza/Ryan/Hoffman/Stone/etc. weren't bad players.

 

[danincanada]

Hart trophy goes to the Art Ross Trophy winner in what, 70% of cases? And in 20%, to the Rocket Richard winner or a top 3 finisher in Art Ross. And then once every 10 years or so a goalie takes it.

I don't know why people even pay much attention to it, it's nearly always completely obvious who will win it (clue: look at who had the most points).

Look at 2001-2002. Lidström lead all D-men in scoring, was the icetime leader in the league, led his team to the Stanley Cup and won the Conn Smythe. He wasn't top 10 in Hart voting. Are you really going to tell me there were 10+ players more valuable to their than Lidström that season? Or any season?

Another telling example comes from that ‘01-02 season, and that is that Shanahan got more Hart votes than Lidstrom that season. That’s right, according to voters Shanahan was more valuable to their team than the Norris winner and league leader in ice-time that season. In fact, Lidstrom didn’t even appear in voting at all:

2001-02 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

This is a season where everyone seemingly decided “defenseman have their own trophy” already.

 

[Voight]

Pronger was just that dominant...

Lead the NHL in +/- twice in a 3 year stretch with St. Louis, and then went on to lead 3 different teams to the Finals in the span of 5 years

Lidstrom gets all the glory, but I think Pronger was the best Dman of his era

Pronger won it because Jagr missed 1/4 of the season. Heck, Pronger only beat him by a razor thin margin anyhow.

Had Jagr played a full season, he would have won it in a landslide. He won the Art Ross despite only playing 61 games and he was pacing for nearly 130 points.

 

[alphahelix]

You want a complete defenceman. You want to see one that is near the best in the league both defensively and offensively have a terrific season and lead his team. That’s what it takes for Hart consideration. Bourque is a good example, having twice finished second in Hart voting. The problem is that he did it when guys like Mario Lemieux and Gretzky were still around torching the league in a way that has never and will never be done again. He lost to Messier in the 90 season in the closest race ever, while Messier led the Oilers to a post-Gretzky/Coffey cup and beat the Bruins on that path. You could argue that he deserved it, but its hard to Deny Messier and his 129 point captaincy season.

Victor Hedman is having a great season this year and he is the kind of player who IMO should be able to challenge for a Hart when he is having his best offensive seasons. Unfortunately he is in a league with McDavid who is absolutely torching the field. It’s tough hoeing for D out there.

 

[Voight]

More likely to win the green jacket award than the Hart.

As for this thread, the obligatory Eddie Shore shout out is deserved. 4 time Hart Trophy winner as a D man.

Crazy to think of the D men the Bruins have had in their history — Shore, Orr, and Bourque.

+ Chara & Brad Park

Two main reasons:

1. Offensive contributions are easy to measure statistically. So is a goaltender's performance, but somewhat less so. Defense has always been difficult to measure. Since defensive play is the primary way most defensemen contribute, they face an uphill battle since you can't capture their performance with a single eye-grabbing statistic like goals, points, save percentage, etc.

2. Defensemen are almost certainly penalized for having "their own" trophy. Defensemen used to get a significant portion of the votes for the Hart trophy in the 1930's and 1940's. That dropped immediately when the first Norris trophy was introduced in 1953-54. The timing is unlikely to be a coincidence. You see the same thing in other sports (ie in baseball, pitchers don't get as much consideration for the MVP trophy because there's a separate award just for pitchers).

Pronger was excellent in 2000, but he was fortunate that there were two forwards on track for 100+ points (Jagr and Sakic), who both missed around ~20 games. As great as he was, based on historical patterns, I don't see the voters giving the Hart to a two-way defenseman over a forward with 100+ points.

Similar to the NFL when defensive players basically never win MVP - they have the Defensive Player of the Year. As well as big offensive numbers being more "attractive" to voters.

In the NBA its interesting because the highest scoring player does not win MVP nearly as often as the Art Ross winner wins the Hart in the NHL.

 

[Voight]

43 year's old Jaromir Jagr was closer in voting point that season.....

Jagr lead his team to the playoffs, whereas Ottawa didn't make it. & even if they did, voters would see a 43 year old leading his team in scoring and into the playoffs as an impressive feat.

 

[MadLuke]

Jagr lead his team to the playoffs, whereas Ottawa didn't make it. & even if they did, voters would see a 43 year old leading his team in scoring and into the playoffs as an impressive feat.

A bit like Iginla, most useful to is team in the context of a non playoff team can be a bit of a strange concept. But yes that exactly the example of narrative strength that influence voters mind.

Still out of the top 3 for the Lindsay.

 

[JianYang]

It's always felt to me that the norris is specifically there to to be the "hart trophy for dmen", and that you really have to have a mind blowing season to transcend that into an actual hart trophy.

 

[PaulD]

Lately is maybe not necessary since the end of WW2 would it not be of phenom that was Orr the defenseman hart winner list would be:

Chris Pronger.

The question could be extended why almost no defenseman won the hart in the last 75 years.

Talent poll could be in play, maybe the most talented are more attracted to play forward, maybe there is some bias.

and there are twice as many forwards to choose from

 

[19 for president]

It's simple... defense isn't flashy and to appreciate elite defense you have to watch a player a lot. The fact is that voters don't watch every regular season game, so many of them stat and highlight reel watch. It's why the one guy to win it since Orr was Chris Pronger. Pronger had the flashy physical game and bomb shot to make reels whereas a guy like Lidstrom never really did. I will say I think Pronger's Hart season was probably the most dominant by a dman in the past 30 years, but I think dmen should get more consideration than they do.

If you want proof simply look at the disparity in winners between the Conn Smythe and Hart in terms of % of goalie/ dmen winners. Since 1990 there have been 1 Dman and 4 Goalies that have won the Hart trophy. In contrast 6 Dmen and 8 Goalies have won the Conn Smythe. The difference is that there are a lot less playoff games, so voters can actually watch a lot of the games and thus appreciate the less flashy play of dmen and goalies more.

 

[danincanada]

You want a complete defenceman. You want to see one that is near the best in the league both defensively and offensively have a terrific season and lead his team. That’s what it takes for Hart consideration. Bourque is a good example, having twice finished second in Hart voting. The problem is that he did it when guys like Mario Lemieux and Gretzky were still around torching the league in a way that has never and will never be done again. He lost to Messier in the 90 season in the closest race ever, while Messier led the Oilers to a post-Gretzky/Coffey cup and beat the Bruins on that path. You could argue that he deserved it, but its hard to Deny Messier and his 129 point captaincy season.

Victor Hedman is having a great season this year and he is the kind of player who IMO should be able to challenge for a Hart when he is having his best offensive seasons. Unfortunately he is in a league with McDavid who is absolutely torching the field. It’s tough hoeing for D out there.

Lidstrom was all these things for several seasons but never got the Hart votes he deserved. Best offensively and defensively, playing the most minutes in the league, with his team finishing near or at the top of the league as well.

The Hart is for the “most valuable to his team” so one could see how Lidstrom would be overlooked since his teams were usually expected to be elite, he often had lots of support, and he was typically winning the Norris so he had his own trophy.

 

[deckercky]

Pronger had an awesome year, a Hart consideration worthy year, but people are overblowing how good it was.

He was indeed brilliant and helped lead the Blues to the best record in the league, but it took certain things happening that he had no control over to help his case.

If these things didn’t happen, he does not win that trophy.

No one scored 100 points.

If Jagr played a few more games and hit 100 points, he wins it.

Nearly every top forward (or high point getter) missed significant time. Jagr missed 19 games, Sakic missed 22 games, Forsberg missed 33 games, Lindros missed 27, Yashin missed the entire year after a 94 point Hart runner up season, Turgeon missed 30 games (he had 66 in 52. In a vacuum, this helps Pronger’s case).

Maybe Bure wins it if he plays more than 74 games and gets to 60 goals 100 points and wins the Art Ross instead of Jagr.

There wasn’t an ethereal goalie season (Hasek played 35 games).

Pronger won by a single vote. If Jagr in particular simply hits 100 points, he picks up the vote needed to win.

Great season, Pronger goes down in history with that trophy, but let’s not forget the context that led to the win.

I seem to remember that there was discussion about it being overdue for a defenceman to win.

It was a strange time. Jagr, as the most dominant offensive forward of the era, had already 'missed out' on two Harts during Art Ross seasons. His reputation, deserved or not, was as a one way player and that opened up winning to other positions.

Voters were used to voting for non-forwards - they had just given two Harts to Hasek, so the focus of the award wasn't so much on points alone.

Add to that the missed time by all the top offensive forwards and it was a perfect opportunity, and as you mention, Pronger just squeaked by.

 

[jetsforever]

Karlsson's best finish was 5th, and he's probably the best recent candidate during that insane stretch.

 

[sxvnert]

Because the D have their own trophy. The MVP award should be split into three: Best F (Howe/Gretz), Best D (Norris), Best G (Plante) and move on.

 

[Video Nasty]

I seem to remember that there was discussion about it being overdue for a defenceman to win.

It was a strange time. Jagr, as the most dominant offensive forward of the era, had already 'missed out' on two Harts during Art Ross seasons. His reputation, deserved or not, was as a one way player and that opened up winning to other positions.

Voters were used to voting for non-forwards - they had just given two Harts to Hasek, so the focus of the award wasn't so much on points alone.

Add to that the missed time by all the top offensive forwards and it was a perfect opportunity, and as you mention, Pronger just squeaked by.

Excellent additional points. I kind of remember that perception as well.

Truly a perfect storm season for Pronger and the Blues (besides getting upset in the first round).

Clearly, it’ll take another unusual cocktail of circumstances or the next Bobby Orr-esque talent for a defenseman to win the Hart again.