Goodfellow and Anderson were not strictly defencemen. So 11 times.
But they were in the seasons that they won the Hart. So it would be more accurate to include them in that count.
I’m hoping the Lemieux delegation will join the party soon. Since it seems for the most part people are pretty locked in on their top 2.
I’d also be interested if someone has an argument for Howe being in the top 2
Honestly, the case for Howe being in the top-2 works just as well as the case for him being #1. The simplest way to make that case is as follows:
1. Point out his extreme longevity, particularly how high he was in the scoring race and Hart voting in his Xth best season compared to other top-4 players:
In their respective 12th best seasons:
- Howe was 3rd in points and 3rd in Hart voting
- Gretzky was 2nd in points (and? but?) 4th in Hart voting
- Lemieux was a very good player but did not play enough to be a factor in Hart voting nor was he top-10 in scoring
- Orr was retired
In their respective 15th best seasons:
- Howe was 4th in scoring and 5th in Hart voting
- Gretzky won the scoring title without receiving a single Hart vote
- Lemieux played about 20 games
- Orr was retired
In their respective 18th best seasons:
- Howe was 5th in scoring and 7th in Hart voting
- Gretzky was "just" a PPG player in the 1994-95 lockout season
- Lemieux was retired
- Orr was retired
It's arguable that, if you know how all their careers play out, and you are selecting one player to build a dynasty and your goal is to win as many cups as possible in 25 years, you take Howe because he gives you a legitimate shot approximately 16 times, as opposed to ~9 times for Orr, ~12 for Gretzky and ~9 for Lemieux.
2. Point out that his prime is not to be discounted and is actually extremely dominant offensively:
Howe is 2nd all-time in VsX scores, whether you want to 5, 7, or 10 year samples. If you go with 10, he's about 22% behind Gretzky in that time. (if you go by their best four margins of victory in the scoring race vs. non-teammates, I get the same answer: Gretzky 22% ahead of Howe) He's not even behind Lemieux, though I'm sure if you adjust for missed games you would likely find that Lemieux was producing at a similar or better rate
when he was actually playing. Gretzky outscored his nearest non-teammate by 58% n a per-game basis during his most favorable period. Howe outscored his by just 20%, but his competition was Maurice Richard, not Mike Bossy.
It's arguable that his 10-year value is "close enough" to Gretzky's, when you consider his comparative all-around play, that his seasons 11-20 bridge that gap. In those 11-20 seasons, Howe's 10-year VsX is virtually identical to that of Gretzky, yet Hart voting in those seasons seems to indicate he was seen as a considerably higher impact player than Wayne. Whether that's enough to bridge the gap depends on how wide you think that gap is. It starts at the 22% offensive edge and lessens the more you value other things.
Interesting idea about the voter percentages, my next question then would be from the list of defencemen Orr was beating for the Norris were any of them truly deserving of more Hart attention? Outside of Park the transitional group in the late 60s-early 70s is not a particularly strong group. Then the Montreal trio and Potvin arrive in the late/mid 70s and then we move into another strong age of defenders.
I think that's part of what works in Orr's favour - the position was so stagnant that, aside from some consideration to Kelly and Harvey, no one had really been seen as meriting consideration and it continued during Orr's prime, too - no one was getting Hart votes from D except him. The point is to show just how far ahead at his own position he was. From there, you'd have to normalize that to a fair comparison with the likes of Shore, Bourque and Harvey. If that's even possible.
Hasek wasn't just the "best goalie over 7 year span." He was in the talks for "the best goalie in history" over those seven years. Bourque, well, I don't think anybody ever called him that. I don't even remember anybody calling him "the best defenseman since Orr", or something to that extent... that accolade usually went to Fetisov.
Accomplishments... Harts, Vezinas/Norrises, Cups all benefit Hasek.
Bourque is becoming seriously overrated here.
Fetisov peaked earlier in the 80s than Bourque. It's possible that he was called "the best defenseman since Orr" before Bourque peaked. in any case, do you have something you can cite?
Hasek had some sweet numbers and won 6 vezinas and a couple of Harts, but his resume wasn't without its question marks even
during that time, and then outside of that time he accomplished relatively little. I say "relatively" because he did accomplish a lot, just not relative to the kinds of players he'd be compared to here, and not a lot of stuff that moves the needle much for us in vote one or two. No strong vezina/all-star consideration, no world-beating playoffs, no exceptional personal numbers, no major international successes to compare to Nagano...
Just like Bernie Parent wasn't crap outside of 1974 and 1975, he did relatively so much less outside that time. Hasek outside of 1994-2001 is the same, he's like a very rich man's Parent, a Parent times three. I kinda would like a little more than that out of a top-10 player. I want to know I can put him out there for 20 years and he'll give me a real chance at the cup for most of that time.
i think if we are going to take a fine tooth comb to orr's 1968 norris, which fair enough, the same should be taken to bourque's rookie year first team all-star placement.
that first team all-star in his first and last season, 22 years apart, is a nice soundbyte and is technically true. but while bourque made the first all-star team over salming and schoenfeld, he also finished 4th in norris voting that year, behind those two and robinson.
It's a fairly rare case of the norris and all-star voting being different in results, which could be nothing more than the sizes and point systems of the ballots messing things up this one time. I'd have expected he and Salming/Schoenfeld to be closer than they were, but he conclusively beat Schoenfeld in all-star voting while the reverse happened for the Norris. They were voted on by the same people, I think.
Which result is more "true"? Who's to say?
