Hart Trophy Tournament (Post 2000's) Round 1: 2006 Thornton vs 2018 Hall

[blundluntman]

MATCHUP #5: Joe Thornton (2006) vs Taylor Hall 2018)

Joe Thornton 2005-06):
82 GP 29 G 96 A 125 Points | 1st In Scoring, 1st in Assists

Taylor Hall (2017-18):
76 GP 39 G 54 A 93 Points | 6th in Scoring, Top 10 in Goals, Top 20 in Assists

Round 1 Matchups:
Sakic 01 vs Crosby 14 Thread
Theodore 02 vs Price 15 Thread
Forsberg 03 vs Kane 16 (Still Active) Thread
St. Louis 04 vs Kucherov 19 Thread
Thornton 06 vs Hall 18
Crosby 07 vs McDavid 17
Ovechkin 08 vs Matthews 22
Ovechkin 09 vs Malkin 12
Sedin 10 vs Draisaitl 20
Perry 11 vs McDavid 21
Ovechkin 13 vs McDavid 23

Click to read more...

 

[Johnny Tomala]

Thornton.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

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.

 

[wintersej]

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.

I mean the Pens were brutal. For better or worse, the world has decided that a minimum amount of team success matters.

 

[blundluntman]

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.

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]

I mean the Pens were brutal. For better or worse, the world has decided that a minimum amount of team success matters.

Jagr played for the Rangers in 2006.

 

[wintersej]

Jagr played for the Rangers in 2006.

f*** time flies.

 

[Steven Toast]

These are two Harts that went to the wrong player IMO. But Thornton's was a much stronger win still.

 

[Regal]

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]

Thornton obviously

 

[TheGoldenJet]

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 like peak Ovechkin ignored the defensive end of the ice, so he got rightfully punished for that in the voting.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Jagr like peak Ovechkin ignored the defensive end of the ice, so he got rightfully punished for that in the voting.

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.

 

[Regal]

Jagr like peak Ovechkin ignored the defensive end of the ice, so he got rightfully punished for that in the voting.

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

 

[pcruz]

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.

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]

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

Equating possession game with defensive acumen is shallow analysis.

Thornton was definitely better than Jagr defensively, and his Hart was well deserved.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well, I never thought I’d see the day where we argued over whether Jagr was actually good defensively.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Well, I never thought I’d see the day where we argued over whether Jagr was actually good defensively.

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.

 

[Regal]

Equating possession game with defensive acumen is shallow analysis.

Thornton was definitely better than Jagr defensively, and his Hart was well deserved.

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]

I couldn't even pity vote for Hall.

Tough matchup for him.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

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.

 

[Plural]

Weirdly enough, I am not sure if either of the two actually deserved the Hart that year. But Thornton's season was spectacular. Almost historically good. Hall was one of the weakest Hart's in modern era.

 

[Regal]

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

 

[bobholly39]

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]

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.

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

 

[Regal]

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.

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