Mario's first Pearson Trophy in 1986 – blatantly undeserved?

[Calderon]

I was comparing Wayne Gretzky's totals of eight Hart trophies and five Lester B. Pearson trophies. Every time that he won the Pearson he also won the Hart, but the opposite didn't occur.

One of the three seasons that Gretzky won the Hart but lost the Pearson was 1985-86. What's puzzling is that this was the season that Gretzky broke the regular season scoring record once more while also smashing the assist record, attaining the 2.0+ assists a game average he set out to do. So when you compare Gretzky's 215 points to Mario Lemieux' 141 points it just seems bizarre how anyone would consider Mario the better player or Mario's season the better one. Gretzky beat Mario in goals as well, 52 to 48.

Was there a voters' fatigue? If so, the timing sure would be peculiar as, on top of the huge point difference between the two, Gretzky had arguably become less selfish than before by virtue of his 2.0+ APG aim and sacrificing some of his goal scoring chances in the process.

Gretzky did win one more Pearson the next season so his peers didn't desert him for good.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

This is one of the reasons that I laugh when people say the Pearson/Lindsay has more meaning than the Hart. There are more mistakes with the Pearson/Lindsay than the Hart.

But for this one, I believe the players had gotten tired of voting for Gretzky and jumped at the first chance to give it to someone else. Someone can correct me if I am wrong

 

[The Panther]

The answer is: outside of online fan forums like this one, nobody gives a rat's a** about the Pearson.

Few care about it now, and nobody cared about it then. It's not an 'official' NHL award, and gets none of the press or profile of the major awards. It maybe merits a small headline on page 5 of the sports section each spring, but no one really cares. This was even more so back in the 80s.

Since the players vote on it, it's easy to see how a core collection of them might align their thinking that one player is particularly deserving each year. That certainly explains Yzerman in 1989, where the players, who universally respected Yzerman, would have thought: "Gretzky and Lemieux win everything -- let's give this one to Stevie!" And many of them got behind it.

The Lemieux one in '86 is a little harder to explain, in that Lemieux (in 1986) didn't have as much universal respect as Yzerman in '89, and more to the point, he was clearly outperformed by Gretzky. So, it's just a case of Gretzky voter-fatigue, not only among the press but even the players themselves. They were just excited to finally see a talent come along who could even approach Gretzky's level.

But really, the Pearson is kind of a small-potatoes award, I think.

 

[authentic]

Pearson is a bogus award. I don't think the players actually believed Lemieux was better than Gretzky that season, or that Orr was only the best player once, or that Naslund was better than Forsberg in 2003.

 

[quoipourquoi]

As a reminder, the Pearson was awarded in 1986 to the player who had contributed the most to the sport of hockey. It's different than the modern Pearson/Lindsay, which is awarded to the most outstanding player (whenever the ballots are actually submitted).

 

[The Panther]

Pearson is a bogus award. I don't think the players actually believed Lemieux was better than Gretzky that season, or that Orr was only the best player once, or that Naslund was better than Forsberg in 2003.

I basically agree, except Naslund possibly was better than Forsberg in 2003 -- he would have won the Art Ross and Hart except for the late season injury.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about actually. If a player suddenly elevates his play to a uniquely high level -- like Naslund in '03 -- the player-voters tend to jump all over him for the Pearson. It's sort of a "Welcome-to-the-big-show, kid" kind of thing.

 

[kaiser matias]

I basically agree, except Naslund possibly was better than Forsberg in 2003 -- he would have won the Art Ross and Hart except for the late season injury.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about actually. If a player suddenly elevates his play to a uniquely high level -- like Naslund in '03 -- the player-voters tend to jump all over him for the Pearson. It's sort of a "Welcome-to-the-big-show, kid" kind of thing.

Naslund was never hurt in 2002-03, that was 2000-01. 2003 saw him lose the Art Ross, Richard, likely the Hart, and the Canucks lose the Northwest Division, on the final day when he was shut out and the team lost to the Kings, while the Avalanche won, with Forsberg getting the points to win the Art Ross and Hejduk scoring his 50th goal for the Richard. That was also the year Naslund famously said "We choked" to Canucks fans, as the final game was at home and fan appreciation night.

 

[authentic]

Naslund was never hurt in 2002-03, that was 2000-01. 2003 saw him lose the Art Ross, Richard, likely the Hart, and the Canucks lose the Northwest Division, on the final day when he was shut out and the team lost to the Kings, while the Avalanche won, with Forsberg getting the points to win the Art Ross and Hejduk scoring his 50th goal for the Richard. That was also the year Naslund famously said "We choked" to Canucks fans, as the final game was at home and fan appreciation night.

Not to mention Forsberg played 7 less games than Naslund and still had more points. By far the better two way and all around player, there's not much of a case for Naslund being better than Forsberg that year.

 

[Wrath]

The reason why you see like Iginla>Theodore, Naslund>Forsberg, D. Sedin>Perry for those Pearson/Lindsays (over the corresponding Hart winner) is because the Pearson votes are collected in February-March if I recall correctly, which means about 1/4 of the games haven't been played yet.

It's kinda like the 3/4 season MVP trophy.

And yeah in the even earlier years, i.e. the Gretzky years, some of the voting results were flat out confounding.

 

[Theokritos]

As a reminder, the Pearson was awarded in 1986 to the player who had contributed the most to the sport of hockey. It's different than the modern Pearson/Lindsay, which is awarded to the most outstanding player (whenever the ballots are actually submitted).

That's the key point right there. People need to check the historic definition of the award. A spectacular, flashy youngster in his sophomore season beats everyone but Gretzky in the scoring race and turns the worst team in the league into a contender for a playoff spot? Definitely fits the bill of someone who contributes a lot to the sport in that particular season. Nothing wrong with him getting the award.

 

[Calderon]

As a reminder, the Pearson was awarded in 1986 to the player who had contributed the most to the sport of hockey. It's different than the modern Pearson/Lindsay, which is awarded to the most outstanding player (whenever the ballots are actually submitted).

Ok, I didn't know that. I guess Mario's win makes more sense with that definition. When did they change the definition and was there a clear reason (like a controversy) behind it?

As the Hart is awarded to the player most valuable to his team, that means back then there was no MVP type award for the best performing player. Of course usually Hart is awarded to the most outstanding player anyway.

 

[Voight]

The reason why you see like Iginla>Theodore, Naslund>Forsberg, D. Sedin>Perry for those Pearson/Lindsays (over the corresponding Hart winner) is because the Pearson votes are collected in February-March if I recall correctly, which means about 1/4 of the games haven't been played yet.

It's kinda like the 3/4 season MVP trophy.

And yeah in the even earlier years, i.e. the Gretzky years, some of the voting results were flat out confounding.

Huh? Iginla was very deserving of his Pearson.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Huh? Iginla was very deserving of his Pearson.

his point isn't that iginla, naslund, and daniel sedin (and, mind you, jagr in '06 and ovechkin in 2010) didn't deserve their pearson/selkes, but that all were heavy favourites going into the stretch run, before theodore, forsberg, perry, thornton, and henrik sedin respectively caught and, arguably, passed them.

hence, him calling the pearson/selke the 3/4 season mvp trophy.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I basically agree, except Naslund possibly was better than Forsberg in 2003 -- he would have won the Art Ross and Hart except for the late season injury.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about actually. If a player suddenly elevates his play to a uniquely high level -- like Naslund in '03 -- the player-voters tend to jump all over him for the Pearson. It's sort of a "Welcome-to-the-big-show, kid" kind of thing.

the late season naslund injuries were in '01 and '04.

also, naslund and bertuzzi finished #2 and 3 in points in '02, so i don't think you can say the '03 pearson was either new or novel.

naslund had the steadiest october to april season, but forsberg caught and passed him with a scorching, rightfully mvp-stealing spring. most likely, pearson ballots were in well before it was clear that naslund was going to lose the rocket, art ross, and division titles (which all happened on the last day of the season, to hejduk, forsberg, and the avs, respectively).

 

[The Panther]

Right, I confused the '04 Naslund injury with '03. But either way, he was a very deserving Pearson winner in '03. Forsberg may have got a few more scoring points in the end, but then again in place of Roy and Sakic, Naslund had Cloutier and Bertuzzi. Both teams were at the same winning level all season. I think Naslund would have fully deserved the Hart, too... not that Forsberg didn't.

By the way, on neither Wiki nor NHL.com does it say anything about the award previously being awarded for the player who'd contributed the most to the sport of hockey. Can we verify that?

 

[Theokritos]

By the way, on neither Wiki nor NHL.com does it say anything about the award previously being awarded for the player who'd contributed the most to the sport of hockey. Can we verify that?

See here:

Ottawa Citizen 1986:
Under the prescribed terms of the Pearson award – the player who has done the most for hockey – Lemieux was the right choice... Lemieux is a deserving winner. He's the best newcomer to the NHL since Wayne Gretzky and Edmonton Oilers joined the league. The players know it. That's why they voted for him... Lemieux is a finalist for the Hart Trophy as most valuable player and he's undoubtedly one of the best hockey players in the world.

Exact wording:

Montreal Gazette 1980:
The Pearson award is voted on by members of the players association and Dionne was chosen by his peers as "the player who contributed most to hockey in the 1979 season."

Same from 1972:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFkOk2Aqh-0&t=0m28s (listen to the announcer from 0:28 to 0:42)

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Right, I confused the '04 Naslund injury with '03. But either way, he was a very deserving Pearson winner in '03. Forsberg may have got a few more scoring points in the end, but then again in place of Roy and Sakic, Naslund had Cloutier and Bertuzzi. Both teams were at the same winning level all season. I think Naslund would have fully deserved the Hart, too... not that Forsberg didn't.

not to belabour the point, because obviously forsberg had a better supporting cast, but bertuzzi was one of the five best players in the world that year (and cloutier was vezina-level during the first half of that season, and surprisingly okay the rest of the way), while sakic missed 25 games.

but i think, and have always thought, if you lose the division title to your hated rival (the avs, to say nothing of losing to a guy you have been competing with since you were 7 years old), by getting shut out by a team that was already eliminated from the playoffs and had nothing but pride to play for, i don't think you are the mvp. and when the other guy has a huge game to take playoff seeding, plus three trophies, away from you, well...

 

[The Panther]

not to belabour the point, because obviously forsberg had a better supporting cast, but bertuzzi was one of the five best players in the world that year (and cloutier was vezina-level during the first half of that season

Exaggerating a bit...? Bertuzzi was great for a couple of years, but he was never a top-5 player in the world. Nor was Cloutier at Vezina level.

but i think, and have always thought, if you lose the division title to your hated rival (the avs, to say nothing of losing to a guy you have been competing with since you were 7 years old), by getting shut out by a team that was already eliminated from the playoffs and had nothing but pride to play for, i don't think you are the mvp.

I agree with Forsberg winning the Hart. I'm just saying a strong case could be made for Naslund as well. As far as the Pearson goes, there's nothing in the award-definition about the team (unlike the Hart), so Naslund was perhaps more deserving of that one.

 

[Calderon]

See here:


Exact wording:


Same from 1972:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFkOk2Aqh-0&t=0m28s (listen to the announcer from 0:28 to 0:42)

That contemporary definition lends itself to quite an interesting array of possible winning bids. Say some NHL'er organizes a large amount of hockey camps for kids in the summer in an area of little hockey culture. Or another buys hockey gear for a teamful of underprivileged youth. You can come up with more similar examples all of which to my mind contribute more to the sport of hockey than someone playing a season of NHL hockey at a higher level than everybody else. By this definition the award in a way resembles the Bill Masterton Trophy.

 

[tazzy19]

That's the key point right there. People need to check the historic definition of the award. A spectacular, flashy youngster in his sophomore season beats everyone but Gretzky in the scoring race and turns the worst team in the league into a contender for a playoff spot? Definitely fits the bill of someone who contributes a lot to the sport in that particular season. Nothing wrong with him getting the award.

Right...and Gretzky breaking the assist record with more assists than anyone else had ever scored points (at the time)--by scoring 61 assists (!!!) more than anyone else had ever scored--while breaking his own already ridiculous points scoring record and beating 2nd place by 74 points (!!!)....is somehow NOT a bigger contribution to hockey than Lemiuex's season?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I never knew the Person changed definition. Certainly makes the many seemingly questionably picks in the 70s and 80s make sense.

When did it change to the modern definition?

 

[Voight]

Exaggerating a bit...? Bertuzzi was great for a couple of years, but he was never a top-5 player in the world. Nor was Cloutier at Vezina level.

Arguably he was from 2001-2003

 

[Theokritos]

That contemporary definition lends itself to quite an interesting array of possible winning bids. Say some NHL'er organizes a large amount of hockey camps for kids in the summer in an area of little hockey culture. Or another buys hockey gear for a teamful of underprivileged youth. You can come up with more similar examples all of which to my mind contribute more to the sport of hockey than someone playing a season of NHL hockey at a higher level than everybody else. By this definition the award in a way resembles the Bill Masterton Trophy.

Right, but as it was voted on by the NHL players the focus was still on NHL play by default since that's what their own focus was on. The award has to be viewed as something of a crossover between the Masterton and the Hart. It should not to be misunderstood as a Hart-equivalent awarded by the players.

Right...and Gretzky breaking the assist record with more assists than anyone else had ever scored points (at the time)--by scoring 61 assists (!!!) more than anyone else had ever scored--while breaking his own already ridiculous points scoring record and beating 2nd place by 74 points (!!!)....is somehow NOT a bigger contribution to hockey than Lemiuex's season?

There is no definite answer to your question because "contributed the most to the sport of hockey" obviously opens the door for a wide range of subjective opinions. Anyway, it's more reasonable on part of the players to vote for someone else than Gretzky occasionally on this one than it would have been if the definition was "most outstanding/best player".

 

[Theokritos]

I never knew the Person changed definition. Certainly makes the many seemingly questionably picks in the 70s and 80s make sense.

When did it change to the modern definition?

Apparently after Lemieux won it in 1986. In 1987 (Gretzky won it again) it already says "the award is for the NHL's outstanding player as selected by members of the league's player association". Though personally I bet the old definition and custom was still lingering in the minds of the players when Yzerman won it in 1989.

 

[tazzy19]

Right, but as it was voted on by the NHL players the focus was still on NHL play by default since that's what their own focus was on. The award has to be viewed as something of a crossover between the Masterton and the Hart. It should not to be misunderstood as a Hart-equivalent awarded by the players.



There is no definite answer to your question because "contributed the most to the sport of hockey" obviously opens the door for a wide range of subjective opinions. Anyway, it's more reasonable on part of the players to vote for someone else than Gretzky occasionally on this one than it would have been if the definition was "most outstanding/best player".

Fair enough. I just can't fathom how Lemieux's season "contributed more to the sport of hockey" than Gretzky's. I mean, Gretzky had more goals than Lemieux that year, but if you took all of them away, he STILL would have beat him in scoring by 22 points -- with his assists alone!! I mean, think about the absurdity of that. Lol, it's a bit crazy.