- Jul 30, 2016
- 3,271
- 3,576
Hart Trophy Tournament (Post 2000's) Round 1: 2006 Thornton vs 2018 Hall
- Thread starter blundluntman
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 29,042
- 38,466
Jagr should have won in 05-06 so Hall is getting his first vote here.
Jagr: 52 Goals - 123 Points
Thornton: 29 goals - 125 points for two separate teams.
Jagr dominated on the same team all season, Joey didn't.
Jagr: 52 Goals - 123 Points
Thornton: 29 goals - 125 points for two separate teams.
Jagr dominated on the same team all season, Joey didn't.
wintersej
Registered User
I mean the Pens were brutal. For better or worse, the world has decided that a minimum amount of team success matters.
- Jul 30, 2016
- 3,271
- 3,576
Even if true, the Poll's asking which Hart Winner had the better season, not which one deserved it more. Would you say Hall's season was better than Thornton's?
DitchMarner
TheGlitchintheSwitch
Jagr played for the Rangers in 2006.
wintersej
Registered User
McPoyle
Start breaking bricks wet nips
These are two Harts that went to the wrong player IMO. But Thornton's was a much stronger win still.
I’ve always been critical of Thornton’s win because it was too narrative driven. He was obviously great with the Sharks, and turned their year around, but I think they would have turned around somewhat anyway (after a year off and the rule changes teams needed to find their footing), and I think the “value to his team” that should be considered in terms of San Jose was only from those games with them, not his overall season. With that in mind, I think there’s a good argument for Hall being more valuable, though it’s a testament to how good Thornton was that I think his 58 games still makes it an argument. But I don’t think there’s an argument for Hall’s overall season being “better” and that’s why I voted Thornton.
Bouboumaster
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2014
- 11,376
- 10,277
TheGoldenJet
Registered User
Jagr like peak Ovechkin ignored the defensive end of the ice, so he got rightfully punished for that in the voting.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,632
- 11,711
Ovechkin's goals against in his peak seasons were quite low (44 GA in 2010 and 48 in 2011). Same goes for Jagr for some of his best seasons (52 GA in 2006 and 49 in 2007). Interestingly, 2006 is the season you are criticizing here for Jagr. Your criticism is wildly off base.
But by all means continue to claim Sidney Crosby is good defensively despite him being on the ice for more ES goals against (93 in 2024) in a season than Jagr or Ovechkin ever had.
Last edited:
Jagr’s possession game limited goals against to a similar degree to Thornton. Thornton won because the Sharks turned their season around and he managed the Art Ross at the end. A lot of people thought Jagr was better and he still won the Pearson
I have been told that assists are more difficult to achieve and therefore 96 assists in a relatively low scoring league is akin to over 100 assists today.
That's the new barometer for everything, so in an effort towards consistency, this should be unanimous.
TheGoldenJet
Registered User
Equating possession game with defensive acumen is shallow analysis.
Thornton was definitely better than Jagr defensively, and his Hart was well deserved.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Well, I never thought I’d see the day where we argued over whether Jagr was actually good defensively.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,632
- 11,711
It's not that he was good in his own end so much as it's that his possession game was so strong that it prevented arguably more goals against than a strong defensive game would have. The stats are quite clear on this.
So basically he's getting dinged for a fault that either didn't matter or was more than made up for by other strengths - and this alleged drawback is not being applied evenly to the players Jagr is being compared to - who again, were on the ice for more, and in some cases waaaaay more - ES goals against despite similar deployment and TOI and also similar caliber of teams around them in some cases.
I’d argue yours is the shallow analysis. These were two offensive players playing offensive minutes. What matters is whether their games prevented goals against, not how they did it. Thornton had an argument for better player, but it wasn’t clear by any means, and his Hart was completely narrative driven
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
Why would you only consider Thornton's time with the Sharks for the hart? I know it's weird for hart candidates to be traded in-year, but you should absolutely look at the full year. Nowhere in any rule does it say "value to team you ended season with only" - it's the full year.
I don't have an issue with Thornton being helped by narrative. Being traded in-season is a huge clusterf***, and being able to excel the way he did right away in SJ and help turn his team's season around is actually extremely impressive. This isn't a shot at Jagr - he was fantastic, and I'd have been fine with either/or winning, but I think the narrative with Thornton isn't unwarranted and I don't mind if it played into him winning a bit.
Because it doesn’t make sense to consider the whole year in my mind. Dude meant so little to his first team they decided to trade him (they literally decided they were never going to win with him), and we’re supposed to put value in that? It doesn’t say anything in the rules about having to be on a playoff team either but yet that usually is the case because of the sense that your value is irrelevant to a team that isn’t winning. To me, his value to the Bruins is irrelevant to his value to the Sharks
His value to the Bruins may be irrelevant to the Sharks and vice versa - but hart is voted on full season, and so when considering his season you have to add both. Common sense.
If Kucherov had been traded to Boston on January 14th this year (he had 72 points on that date) and finished with the same statline of 144 points - his hart season value is that of 144 points. It's not only half of it based on whichever team you're looking at.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
Not sure why the distinction is being made (besides the value to Sharks argument).
Thornton had 33 in 23 on a horrible Boston team in '06, good for a 117pt pace which would've still been 2nd in scoring that year. It's not like he was bad for 23 games then great in SJ, he was producing at an MVP level in Boston
I mean that’s entirely your opinion and as I explained, I disagree. The fact that people tie themselves into knots over the “value to the team” aspect to vote for a worse player than another and then somehow amalgamate value to two separate teams in this instance really isn’t common sense. The Lindsay, Norris, Selke, Vezina, I agree you add the whole season. I disagree on the Hart and I’d feel the same about Kucherov
