1989-90 Hart Trophy Revisit

[Felidae]

One of the closest hart races I've seen, and there were only 2 contenders, Bourque and Messier.

Messier had 29 1st place votes, 24 2nd place votes and 10 3rd place votes. He had 227 votes total.

Bourque had 29 1st place votes, 26 2nd place votes and just 2 3rd place votes. He had just 2 less total votes than Messier.

The 5 other players that received votes had a combined 5 1st place votes and 115 votes total, with Hull having 80 of them as the unanimous 3rd place finalist.


So, do you think Messier was the rightful winner or should Bourque have won? Maybe someone else?

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

This should be a good thread for Canuck-fans to crap on Messier once again!! Can't wait.

Anyway, Messier was the correct winner. Bourque, of course, was equally deserving, but in this kind of coin-flip situation, it makes more sense to give the Norris to Bourque and the Hart to Messier. No one should have any issue with that. Like everybody else, I would have liked to have seen Bourque win a Hart trophy once, but looking at this season in isolation, I can't say he was more deserving than Messier. So, the final winners were correct.

By the way, I'm surprised that Hull got four 1st-place votes, and Gretzky one. Hull's 72 goals were amazing, but no better than Bernie Nicholls the year prior, and he scored 38 more points than Hull and got zero Hart votes. The Blues were a middle-of-the-pack, middling team. And why would any writer have voted Gretzky first? Presumably an L.A.-based homer...?

 

[bobholly39]

I'm 50/50 with Messier and Bourque. Sometimes in really close races you feel like "of course player X should win", but I never got that sense with 1990. Both great seasons, both deserving winners. I'll vote Messier here.

I never had a problem with Messier's hart in 1990. 1992? Completely different story...

 

[Felidae]

This should be a good thread for Canuck-fans to crap on Messier once again!! Can't wait.

Anyway, Messier was the correct winner. Bourque, of course, was equally deserving, but in this kind of coin-flip situation, it makes more sense to give the Norris to Bourque and the Hart to Messier. No one should have any issue with that. Like everybody else, I would have liked to have seen Bourque win a Hart trophy once, but looking at this season in isolation, I can't say he was more deserving than Messier. So, the final winners were correct.

By the way, I'm surprised that Hull got four 1st-place votes, and Gretzky one. Hull's 72 goals were amazing, but no better than Bernie Nicholls the year prior, and he scored 38 more points than Hull and got zero Hart votes. The Blues were a middle-of-the-pack, middling team. And why would any writer have voted Gretzky first? Presumably an L.A.-based homer...?

Well, Gretzky did win the Art Ross by 13 points. I don't think he deserves to win, but you gotta think if it was anyone other than Gretzky starting to produce like a mere mortal, a season like that would have gotten a few more 1st place votes their way.

Closest non Gretzky comparable I can think of is McDavid having a 17 point lead over Matthews hart win, and he still got his fair share of 1

 

[Staniowski]

I would've voted for Messier, without a doubt. At his best, he was a better player than Bourque, a bigger difference-maker.

The '90 season was really Messier at his absolute best. His skating best, his playmaking best, his goal-scoring best. Focused and determined. He really developed into a very smart player who could out-think almost everybody else. An extremely powerful skater, and he was at his peak for his famous wrist (or snap) shot off his left foot coming down the right side.

He very much advanced his reputation that season.

If Lemieux had been healthy, he would've scored a lot of points, so he might have put it out of reach. But as it was, Messier deserved it.

Bourque was also great, at or close to his best. He meant everything to Boston, who finished 1st overall and had the fewest GA. I remember watching the Bruins that season with a group of friends, and just marveling at how good Bourque was.

It was an exciting time for hockey.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

from the mid-70s through the 80s, my feeling is there 130 pts was an upper echelon of offensive superstar. there was a two year blip where you got spike years from kent nilsson and maruk, but otherwise, it was pretty cut and dry. post-esposito/orr, you had lafleur, dionne, and trottier hitting that mark in the late 70s, then the sub-gretzky/marios in the 80s: bossy, stastny, savard, hawerchuk, and eventually yzerman. plus of course coffey and kurri, and bernie nicholls' spike year.

this is silly numerical logic, but the general idea as i saw it is, you had your generational scorers and their creme de la creme accomplices. so orr, gretzky, mario, and arguably espo. add coffey, kurri, nicholls, and espo if you count him here. after that you have guys who can hit that level consistently for a multi-year peak, which was only lafleur (2x and 129) and dionne (3x). everyone else will only hit it once or twice in spike years. trottier, bossy, stastny, savard, hawerchuk. from the perspective of 1990, i think yzerman looked like he might be in lafleur/dionne territory but i think in retrospect he really was just the best of the next tier.

i say all this because for messier to emerge from gretzky’s shadow and hit 129 was huge. you take a guy who had an all-time rep for intangibles and then he levels up in the absence of gretzky to hit that stastny/savard/hawerchuk level of scoring, including legitimately outscoring yzerman by a hair.

that’s how i understood the temperature of the 1990 hart race, viz messier.


the bourque argument would be enormous team success with a less than powerhouse supporting cast. gone from the 1988 finals team were linseman, middleton, kasper, keith crowder all core 80s guys. there were good players in their place: poulin, dave christian, a re-built bobby carpenter, bobby gould, but that roster really looked like bourque flanked by neely and moog pulling a fairly average complement of defensive vets and youngsters were limited offensive upside to a presidents trophy.


gretzky had 80s gretzky to compete against, and mario and yzerman had the shadow of their 1989s, leaving brett hull’s 72 goals to snag the third place votes. i was very young at the time, but my memory of the conversation was it felt like a real changing of the guard for the league, entering the 90s in an environment where the hart trophy was no longer a foregone conclusion between one or two guys at the beginning of the season. but i think this was also probably magnified by commentators being excited about having new and different stories to tell.

 

[MS]

Bourque was the 'just' winner and Messier only won the award because ('allegedly' but widely reported for 30+ years) the Edmonton writers left Bourque off the ballot.

 

[overpass]

Among forwards, I agree with Messier over Gretzky. At this point in his career, Gretzky really padded his points against the worst teams. Messier outscored him against the 16 teams of 21 that made the playoffs, and was a much better two-way player.

Vs playoff teams 89-90
Messier: 59 GP, 31 G, 67 A, 98 P, 1.66 P/GP
Gretzky: 56 GP, 29 G, 67 A, 96 P, 1.75 P/GP

Vs non-playoff teams 89-90 (Quebec, Vancouver, Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh)
Messier: 20 GP, 14 G, 17 A, 31 P, 1.55 P/GP
Gretzky: 18 GP, 11 G, 35 A, 46 P, 2.56 P/GP

Messier also outscored Gretzky against playoff teams in 1991-92

Vs playoff teams 91-92
Messier: 55 GP, 31 G, 47 A, 78 P, 1.42 P/GP
Gretzky: 53 GP, 17 G, 60 A, 77 P, 1.45 P/GP

Vs non-playoff teams 91-92 (San Jose, Quebec, Toronto, Calgary, Philly, Islanders)
Messier: 24 GP, 4 G, 25 A, 29 P, 1.21 P/GP
Gretzky: 21 GP, 14 G, 30 A, 44 P, 2.10 P/GP

And Gretzky's 93-94 Art Ross was also won by beating up on weaker teams.

Vs playoff teams 93-94
Fedorov: 51 GP, 39 G, 34 A, 73 P, 1.43 P/GP
Gretzky: 53 GP, 22 G, 52 A, 74 P, 1.40 P/GP

Vs non-playoff teams 93-94
Fedorov: 31 GP, 17 G, 30 A, 47 P, 1.52 P/GP
Gretzky: 28 GP, 16 G, 40 A, 56 P, 2.00 P/GP

 

[Staniowski]

Among forwards, I agree with Messier over Gretzky. At this point in his career, Gretzky really padded his points against the worst teams. Messier outscored him against the 16 teams of 21 that made the playoffs, and was a much better two-way player.

Vs playoff teams 89-90
Messier: 59 GP, 31 G, 67 A, 98 P, 1.66 P/GP
Gretzky: 56 GP, 29 G, 67 A, 96 P, 1.75 P/GP

Vs non-playoff teams 89-90 (Quebec, Vancouver, Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh)
Messier: 20 GP, 14 G, 17 A, 31 P, 1.55 P/GP
Gretzky: 18 GP, 11 G, 35 A, 46 P, 2.56 P/GP

Messier also outscored Gretzky against playoff teams in 1991-92

Vs playoff teams 91-92
Messier: 55 GP, 31 G, 47 A, 78 P, 1.42 P/GP
Gretzky: 53 GP, 17 G, 60 A, 77 P, 1.45 P/GP

Vs non-playoff teams 91-92 (San Jose, Quebec, Toronto, Calgary, Philly, Islanders)
Messier: 24 GP, 4 G, 25 A, 29 P, 1.21 P/GP
Gretzky: 21 GP, 14 G, 30 A, 44 P, 2.10 P/GP

And Gretzky's 93-94 Art Ross was also won by beating up on weaker teams.

Vs playoff teams 93-94
Fedorov: 51 GP, 39 G, 34 A, 73 P, 1.43 P/GP
Gretzky: 53 GP, 22 G, 52 A, 74 P, 1.40 P/GP

Vs non-playoff teams 93-94
Fedorov: 31 GP, 17 G, 30 A, 47 P, 1.52 P/GP
Gretzky: 28 GP, 16 G, 40 A, 56 P, 2.00 P/GP

Yes, there were quite a lot of people who thought Messier had equaled and even surpassed Gretzky as a player around 1990, and more or less stayed there for most of the remainder of their careers.

I've talked about this topic before. It's not so much that Gretzky declined, he just had more difficulty in a better league (i.e. against tougher defense) in comparison to Lemieux and Messier (and othets, including Bourque and Chelios).

Fedorov was definitely better than Gretzky during those years.