It's funny where you say habit....show me anywhere I have appointed team success to that of a single player? Ask any NHL'er if he would rather win personal accolades/trophies or the Cup....which yeah....is a TEAM accomplishment. Curious though....by your logic too....McDavid should undisputably be the Hart winner?
Hell, my very first post in this thread was "Respect where respect's due" for ****s sake. This only started because someone said 2007-2011 OV (or whatever years it was) was better....to which I said "Perhaps....but that OV was a loser and this OV is a winner". How is that not true? Did he win the Holy Grail of Hockey before now? No. I even said, "respected him before...respected him even more now". Why? Because he stepped up his game when it mattered in a way that was impossible to criticize...unlike before.
Anyway...I am done. No point explaining further to those who can't grasp the context I am intending and are too hung up on a ****ing word. It's all semantics.
There is your habit. A habit of avoiding being on topic for longer than a couple of sentences. What's the relevance of a player's preferences for trophies to measuring individual success?
Why by my logic should McDavid be a Hart winner? What is your logic in this? He is a strong candidate as a team's MVP by a mile, but it's an individual trophy totally unrelated to team success.
The Stanley Cup btw is only a Holy Grail in NA and definitely not the Holy Hrail of all hockey. The worth of winning it for Ovechkin actually is in failing to win it for so long. He is one of the greatest of his time, but was denied this one trophy because the team around him wasn't good or sometimes lucky enough.
He stepped up his game unlike before? That's where you are terribly biased and wrong. Even the stats suggest otherwise.