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 others, including Bourque and Chelios).

Fedorov was definitely better than Gretzky during those years.

 

[Albatros]

Messier was deserving for sure, HM to Brett Hull and also Stéphane Richer in Roy's shadow.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Narratives are one thing, but numbers wise the top tier forwards were much closer in the regular season than the voting makes it seem. Yzerman for instance led the league with 79.62+42=104 primary points and placed second with 39+40=79 even strength points. Gretzky was the opposite: second in primary points with 73.40+63=103 and first in ES points with 26+70=96. Lemieux was minus 18 and missed 21 games, yet managed 45+52=97 primary points and 28+43=71 even strength points despite major health issues. Hull scored 72+27=99 primary points and 45+24=69 ES points. Messier scored 45+56=101 primary points and 26+45=71 ES points along with all the intangibles.

I'm glad Messier got the Hart though, since I like to emphasize the full season and Messier was at his absolute best in the playoffs. He led the NHL with 9+18=27 primary points and 7+13=20 ES points in 22 games. Regular season impact might be closer, but the playoffs act as a pretty clear cut tie-breaker for the full season: Stanley Cup -winning Messier first, Stanley Cup finalist Bourque second, division finalists Hull and Roy third and fourth, division semifinalists Gretzky and MacInnis fifth and sixth, and regular season beasts Yzerman and Lemieux seventh and eighth. Messier was undoubtedly the MVP of the full season and Bourque just as undoubtedly the runner-up.

 

[MadLuke]

Regular season impact might be closer, but the playoffs act as a pretty clear cut tie-breake

Not sure how much that is, when the main opposition was Bourque.

Bourque was +11 in the playoff, all D not playing on his pair were +1 or in the negative, Sweeney was -10.

 

[Felidae]

BTW, not to say Bourque wasn't a deserving Hart finalist, but it seems like team situation played a huge role in his narrative for the Hart. Of course that's usually how it goes..

But is this even a top 3 season for Bourque? Unless he was noticeably better defensively in 89-90, he has 5 seasons that are more productive, some maybe even more deserving of being a hart runner up.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Not sure how much that is, when the main opposition was Bourque.

Bourque was +11 in the playoff, all D not playing on his pair were +1 or in the negative, Sweeney was -10.

Fair point, and the head-to-head Stanley Cup finals contest is admittedly close:

Bourque 5.3+2=5.6-1 vs. Messier 5.0+5=5.6+3.

But Bourque missed 4 playoff games in the first round, only playing 17 in total (missing 19 % of the games). This and the fact that his team lost makes it unlikely that he would have been the Conn Smythe winner over Messier, had Ranford not won it. Not a huge difference but I think it's enough.

 

[MadLuke]

some maybe even more deserving of being a hart runner up.

Looking at their roster and coach, Bruins finishing number 1 do seem quite something. It could be usual peak Bourque but with a worst team-better result than usual, but that what the Hart is a lot about, how important you were to the team.

If Messier had more impact on his team, are we saying than the rest of the Oilers roster outside Messier was inferior to the Bruins roster outside Bourque ?

I wonder what Bourque ice time looked like.

He was on the ice for 95 of the non power play Bruins goals, they scored 206, while being on the ice for only 64 of their non PK goals against. He had 12% of the team shots while missing games

 

[Staniowski]

BTW, not to say Bourque wasn't a deserving Hart finalist, but it seems like team situation played a huge role in his narrative for the Hart. Of course that's usually how it goes..

But is this even a top 3 season for Bourque? Unless he was noticeably better defensively in 89-90, he has 5 seasons that are more productive, some maybe even more deserving of being a hart runner up.

I think it's probably a top-3 season. He was really, really good that season. He was at his very best from about '87 to '91 or so.

But I also think you're correct that the success of the Bruins in '90 played a part in his finishing so high in Hart voting. But he also was deserving.

 

[The Panther]

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.

"Allegedly" = didn't happen

 

[The Panther]

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)

You're wrong. It is exactly that Gretzky declined -- there is not a shadow of doubt about it:

Even-strength points (per 80GP = projected):

1989-90
105 -- Gretzky
96 -- Lemieux
80 -- Yzerman
72 -- Messier

1990-91
106 -- Gretzky
96 -- Oates
95 -- Lemieux (barely played)
88 -- Hull

[September 1991 -- Gretzky is "Suter-ed".]

1991-92
93 -- Lemieux
80 -- Stevens
71 -- Roberts
70 -- Hull
69 --Jagr
68 -- Gretzky
67 -- Yzerman
66 -- Messier
66 -- Ferraro
64 -- Turgeon
63 -- Mullen

So, literally in four weeks --- from Canada Cup '91 to October 1991 --- Gretzky went from scoring more ES points-per-82 than any player in NHL history to matching Ray Ferraro.

So, unless you think NHL defence suddenly got massively better exactly in the summer of 1991, your theory is clearly wrong.

 

[The Panther]

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

I agree that Messier was overall more effective (read: better) than Gretzky in 1989-90, but it's not like it ended there.

Gretzky was massively better than Messier (and everyone else) in 1990-91, for example.

I also can't see Messier as better than Gretzky in the '93 playoffs through the entire 1993-94 season.

On the same club again, Gretzky was probably a little better than Messier in 1996-97, too, and certainly in the playoffs.

I also think the kind of stats you're showing (above) have to take into consideration team strength. You're comparing Gretzky to Messier with the (not great, but Cup winning) Oilers in 1989-90, and Messier / Rangers and Fedorov / Red Wings. Those are super-deep and talented clubs that were around the top of the League and competing for Cups. Obviously such teams are going to do better against better playoff teams than the Gretzky-Kings.

It would probably be more instructive to compare 1990-91 Gretzky vs. playoff teams with Messier '90 or '92 and Fedorov '94 / '95.