i have mentioned this before, but i think norm ullman would have won '65 hart under current circumstances. voting in 2 parts is a very important difference.
1964-65
HART: (324/324, 162-162)
1. Bobby Hull, Chi LW 103 (88-15)
2. Norm Ullman, Det C 96 (22-74)
3. Gordie Howe, Det RW 35 (9-26)
hull dominated in the 1st half, scoring nearly a goal per game (17g in 18 games, 23g in 25 games, 32g in 35 games), but had a big slump in 2nd half before getting knee injuries, and finished with 39g in 61 games. hull fell to 4th in scoring by the end of the season, 12p behind ullman, and got few votes for 2nd half.
ullman was also one of the main reasons DRW finished 1st for the 1st time in 7 years.
also notable is how little vote mikita got, even though he again won the art ross. even though he outscored hull by a wide margin, he still got fewer votes in 2nd half (13 vs 15).
The offensive part at least I am not so sure about.
seems to me ullman was better offensively than richard.
more information on TOI would be very useful, but ullman usually outscored richard, and i think it is a safe bet that habs were superior in transition and possession. i think richard probably had better linemates as well (maurice richard, moore), since ullman did not play much with howe other than in '57 and '58.
both richard and ullman played 20 seasons in NHL, joined NHL in '56, and ullman is only 1 year older, so the offensive comparison is not difficult.
richard outscored ullman '56, '57, '58, '60, '63, '64
ullman outscored richard: '59, '61, '62, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '70, '71, '72, '73, '74, '75
richard had 3 point per game seasons. ullman had 7 in NHL, and 1 in WHA.
OTOH, richard apparently had a larger defensive role, and may have had lower TOI b/c of habs' depth.
imo, playing against top defensive units limits offense more than checking opponents' best offensive players, since keeping possession and making opponents play D is so important in such matchups. i think richard's ES scoring corroborates this.