Brett Hull's best season is definitely one of the seasons in consideration for greatest goal-scoring season ever. But the way you say it you make it sound like that's a definite, and I don't think it is. There are other seasons in the running too.
That's fair enough; I agree that nothing is ever completely definitive (unless one looks at raw totals as the be-all and end-all), but Hull's '91 season finishes the highest overall when taking into consideration multiple different metrics in comparison to the other great goal-scoring seasons. I would post those, but it's a lot to go through and off-topic here. Instead I'll make a thread for it in the history section at some point, perhaps after we see how Matthews finishes this year because there's a chance he might have an argument as well if he stays hot all the way to the end.
If a player no one expected to hit 163 points had hit it (ie - swap out Gretzky and Sakic that year, give Sakic 163 points and Gretzky 109 points) - they defnitely get a lot more than 20 1st place hart votes. If it had been Sakic, I'm convinced he wins above Hull, who finishes second.
I'm not saying that a hypothetical 163-point season wouldn't necessarily win the Hart over Hull under any circumstance; I simply disagree with the premise that it's a sure thing. It would be a very close vote either way, likely decided based on which team finished higher in the standings. If Sakic had 163 points but the Nordiques still missed the playoffs, which they very well could have (they were that bad), there is zero chance he wins the Hart over Hull and his 86. Some might point to a few exceptions like Lemieux's win in '88, but Lemieux didn't just win the Ross; he was the one with a massive edge in goals, plus there was a huge Gretzky fatigue factor at play there, which would be irrelevant in this hypothetical scenario.
And this isn't meant to diminish Hull in anyway - only 2 players in history ever surpassed 160 points after all. But 163 points is also a historic season, but because Gretzky had won so much and because 163 points for Gretzky wasn't as impressive as Hull's season, Hull deservedly won the hart.
But exactly the same thing basically applies to an 80-goal season. Only 2 players have ever scored 80 or more goals before Hull did it in '91. If Sakic scored 160+, he would have been the 3rd player to do so, just as Hull was only the 3rd player to reach 80. But 80+ goals had only been achieved
3 times by two players prior to '91. 160 points, in comparison, had been achieved a whooping
11 times by those two players to that point. So no, I don't agree that it would automatically be a more historic season than the 3rd highest goal total ever if it was another player other than Gretzky or Lemieux scoring 160.
In 2024 - maybe if McDavid ends up with ~130 points you might say similarly for McDavid 130 points isn't all that...but for Mack or Kucherov it would be. ~130-140 points in today's league is historic too.
4 all-time great seasons happening at once in 2023-2024.
Due to the events of last season, 130 is no longer as historic as you are making it out to be. We largely have McDavid to thank for shattering that mark, but there are also many more players who've flirted with 130 than there have been players flirting with 70.
We haven't had a 70-goal season in 31 years. There's little doubt with a game or two more, Lemieux would have done it in '96, but that still makes it 28 years. By contrast, Draisaitl very likely hits 130 last year along with McDavid if he didn't miss those 2 games, MacKinnon had a decent chance without his injury, Crosby had a shot in '10, and Jagr as well in '98.
In summarization, we've had a player complete crush 130 along with 3 others who've come within
3 points of it while missing games and 2 others who had a realistic shot of it had they been healthy. Meanwhile in that same period no one has had a realistic shot of hitting 70 goals. No one was pacing for it sans injury and the closest anyone has come is
5 goals.
Why?
My argument is that 140 points is better than ~68 goals/105 points (conservative estimate). If 3 players hit 140 points, they're all 3 better. Same if it's 1 player or 20 players who hit 140 points, it doesn't change.
If Matthews falls short of the 70 mark and only ends up with 68 goals/105 points while two players reach 140, then I completely agree with you; that's too big of a gap to overcome, but that's not the projection at the moment. If you're suggesting that someone is going to slip off the pace, I would agree there's a very good chance of that, but at this point, we have no idea who will.
I'm using the current projections for all players, while you seem to be anticipating that Matthews will be the one who will fall off the pace. Currently, no one is on pace for 140 points, with Kuch being the highest at 135 in 81 games, while Matthews is on pace for 76 goals/112 points in 81. That's a very close Hart vote, but 70, never mind 76 goals, is more historic than 135 points or 100 assists, as this vote is proving:
What's more impressive; 70 goals or 100 assists?
However all that said, I still think MacKinnon is the favorite atm due to not having won it before, but he's been the one slipping the most off the pace of the 4 lately. I do think he'll bounce back with some big games soon, but if he falls off the pace and finishes behind Kuch and McDavid by a fair bit, say ~10 points, that will completely mitigate his no-win advantage.
