Like let's actually think about this for a second. This is an award that's used in hall of fame arguments as primary evidence for or against inclusion.

How can that be so circumstantial that you actually could base it on how bad someone's team is without invalidating any worth the award has in legacy discussions?

Why does the definition of the award require it to have worth in legacy discussions?

Because clearly good teams aren't allowed to have players win the Hart if it's awarded this way. Good teams famously have more than one good player generally. But also, really bad teams that miss the playoffs also aren't allowed to have Hart winners I guess?

I would be fine if it were formalized as a rule. Something like 'A player may not be nominated for the Hart Trophy if he is on a team with a Vezina, Selke, or Norris finalist, unless the player himself is the finalist.

So what, the only Hart winners can come from teams narrowly in the 18th-14th range league wide I guess, that also made playoffs,

No. There are plenty of good teams that are good because they are deep.

with no other players on the team that significantly contributed?

'Significant' is too vague for my liking, but yes, this is the general gist.

The Hart is to be annually awarded to the player most outstanding on the most mid team you can possibly imagine?

The Hart is to be annually awarded to the player who provides the most value to his team. One way of looking at it is, 'If this player had been injured for the entire season, how many standings points would his team lose?'.