Messier, ‘89-‘90 vs ‘91-‘92

[JackSlater]

Not sure how many times it can be emphasized that he was awarded the Pearson for Most Outstanding Player and took the 1st Team selection as well (though presumably by smaller margins than his Hart win), but I’ll emphasize it again that he was awarded over Mario Lemieux for being the best player/Center.

You can emphasize it as often as you want but I'm pretty sure it isn't new information to anyone. If Lemieux hadn't missed 20% of the season I would put a lot more stock into those things though even Messier winning them over a full season of Lemieux wouldn't necessarily be fuly convincing. You can keep Messier as a pet with Selanne and all goaltenders if you want but all the dancing around isn't going to make it true that Messier was viewed as a better player than Lemieux in 1992 in any meaningful sense.

It was more about pointing out the humor in you stating Sentinel was revisionist for saying that Messier, a player awarded a Most Outstanding Player award in 1992, was the best player that year while asserting that a 67-to-2 vote was “extremely debatable” - as though your extreme minority position on the Hart vote was somehow more valid and of-the-moment than Sentinel’s opinion that Messier was the “better player than Lemieux that year” (Big Phil’s exact question).

Like, I don’t understand why we wouldn’t bring up the contemporary vote totals when your response was that Sentinel was “promoting revisionism”. Especially when you didn’t say Messier’s candidacy for the Hart Trophy was debatable or perhaps debatable but rather extremely debatable and not obvious.

The only thing more obvious than Messier’s 1992 Hart Trophy win is that a comment like that is going to prompt us to bring the receipts.

Claiming that Messier was viewed as a better player than Lemieux in 1992 is indeed revisionist and again I'm pretty sure that you were around and cognizant of what was going on in the NHL at the time and are aware of this. You can pump up Messier in various threads as much as you like but citing the Hart trophy, which is not designed to select the best player at the time and has plenty of questionable results, and the Pearson, which at least is designed selecting the player's choice of outstanding player in that season but has even more questionable results than the Hart does, in a season where Lemieux missed a significant portion of the season is not overwhelming evidence. This is especially true if a person is aware of general sentiments at the time, when Lemieux was clearly viewed as the best player in the world.

I will point out again how ridiculous the stance that contemporary agreement by a small group renders something not "extremely debatable" is. The PHWA of 1992 were not divine arbiters of truth whose decisions were binding on all of us from that point forward. Every decision is debatable, and a Hart where the winner is the fifth leading scorer in the league who brings a good all around game and also has a very elite defenceman he barely outscores renders a decision that is more debatable than most. I am amused considering a world where people look at history and decide that decisions cannot be extremely debatable simply due to contemporary opinion however. Slavery? Hey it was popular at certain times so we can't question it now. US Invasion of Iraq? Can't debate it given the solid majority of votes that it recieved. Forrest Gump? Best picture winner at the Acadmy Awards AND a massive box office hit so we can't even entertain a debate that something else may have been the best movie in 1994. Is the Earth flat? People thought so before, so I guess the Earth must have been flat at the time. Contemporary opinion of some small group is worth noting but it never renders decisions unquestionably correct or beyond debate in perpetuity.

If you consider this nonsense that's been coming in a receipt I do hope that you recognize it as Morasca level at best.

it also depends on what people mean by a "better season" as well. From a team standpoint Messier has the better season, primarily because he was there for the whole thing(I think he might have missed one game). And because he was instrumental in his team achieving the best record in the league.

From an individual standpoint Lemieux is easily the best player in the league that year, and has the best season statistically. And really, it's not even close. But he still missed almost a quarter of the regular season, and his team record was disapointing.

Basically yes. Claiming that Lemieux losing that Hart trophy is evidence that Messier was viewed as the better player at the time would be weak evidence even if Messier actually had been viewed as the better player at the time. Messier may well have been the rightful recipient of the Hart but that is a different thing than Messier being perceived as a better player than Lemieux at the time.

Yes, there is obviously a giant difference between "better season" and "best player at that moment in time". And the Hart trophy isn't for either of those things.

Ding ding ding.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yes, there is obviously a giant difference between "better season" and "best player at that moment in time". And the Hart trophy isn't for either of those things.

There’s also a difference between “best player at that moment in time” and being “a better player than Lemieux that year.”

Sentinel responded to the latter. And the Pearson Trophy, as I’ve said, is a pretty standard measure of that (with the 1st Team All-Star selection being even closer to a strict head-to-head question between Messier and Lemieux being better that year).

JackSlater called it revisionist as though Sentinel was responding to the former... and now is talking about slavery and Teemu Selanne and Forrest Gump. Just another day on HOH, eh?

Saying that Messier was the “best player at that moment in time” (again... not what anyone actually said) would be every bit the minority position that the 2 in the 67-to-2 Hart margin that year was. So if someone’s going to shout out revisionist! about that (because it would be an extreme minority position to say Messier was the “best player at that moment in time”... again, not what anyone actually said), then they should probably expect that their characterization of a 67-2 vote as being “extremely debatable” and “not obvious” will raise eyebrows. If not for being equally revisionist! to the position that no one actually asserted then for being aggressive in its hypocrisy.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The PHWA of 1992 were not divine arbiters of truth whose decisions were binding on all of us from that point forward.

But by saying that it would be revisionist for someone to suggest that Mark Messier was better than Mario Lemieux, you have positioned yourself as the divine arbiter of the truth on this question.

That’s why it’s problematic.

If you can’t respect an extreme minority opinion of another person, then don’t get your hackles up when someone points out that you’re offering one of your own in your very next post.

 

[JackSlater]

But by saying that it would be revisionist for someone to suggest that Mark Messier was better than Mario Lemieux, you have positioned yourself as the divine arbiter of the truth on this question.

That’s why it’s problematic.

If you can’t respect an extreme minority opinion of another person, then don’t get your hackles up when someone points out that you’re offering one of your own in your very next post.

There is a false equivalency in comparing the two ideas where one is a reflection of what people believed at the time and one is based on what someone believes now. I do hope that most people can see the difference between noting that something wasn't true in 1992 and claiming that something isn't very debatable in subsequent years because the PHWA seemingly didn't deem it so in 1992. I'm also not convinced that Messier's 1992 Hart is extremely debatable is a extreme minority opinion either, but that may be for another time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I’d say the closest thing to determining if it is an extreme minority position to suggest that Mark Messier was an “extremely debatable” winner of the Hart Trophy would be by using the voting record itself, no?

67 first-place votes and 2 second-place votes of 69 total votes is somewhat definitive, though we don’t know how fiercely those two voters believed him to not be #1 (other than they believed him to be #2).

The idea that it wouldn’t be considered revisionist to say “it’s extremely debatable whether Messier deserved the Hart in 1992” because that is a position that is held by you in 2020 as opposed to being held by you in 1992 is a little too cute of a distinction, because you’re still assessing if he “deserved” something that is wholly determined by people living in 1992. Better to say you specifically don’t think he was most valuable than to say it is debatable if he deserved something or was an obvious choice in something that was determined by a specific vote for which we have the results that skewed overwhelmingly in his favor.

More than that, it’s not as easily transferable to re-litigate an entire 7-month NHL season in 2020 as it is to watch a couple 2-hour best picture nominees from the 1990s in a single afternoon, but even in the film example, we would have to ignore that a best picture winner very much lives within the context of the time of its release.

There’s a missed opportunity to quote 1992’s “Unforgiven” in there somewhere.

The question posed by Big Phil (“did anyone in the NHL think Messier was a better player than Lemieux that year”) if taken literally to mean the players in the NHL would be best answered by the voting results of the Pearson (where unfortunately we only have the winner) in lieu of a league-wide player poll that asks that same question with the exact same wording.

And technically, answering Big Phil’s question in the affirmative would only be revisionist if we couldn’t clear the incredibly low bar of finding a single NHL player who thought Mark Messier was a better player than Lemieux that year.

If winning an award for “most outstanding player” is not a legitimate substitute to Big Phil’s question, we can still clear that incredibly low bar with the biased opinion from Messier’s own linemate. Adam Graves said “Mess is the best player in the league” on April 20th of 1992, therefore the objective and non-revisionist answer is that yes, someone in the NHL thought Messier was a better player than Mario Lemieux in a completely unambiguous sense, unrestricted by the question of whether “that year” means factoring in the injury (as Sentinel did) or distinguishing between “most valuable” and “most outstanding” and “better”.

But the two of us continuing to clarify people’s wording and trophy definitions may be less entertaining to the rest of the forum than Forrest Gump was to either of us.

 

[JackSlater]

I’d say the closest thing to determining if it is an extreme minority position to suggest that Mark Messier was an “extremely debatable” winner of the Hart Trophy would be by using the voting record itself, no?

67 first-place votes and 2 second-place votes of 69 total votes is somewhat definitive, though we don’t know how fiercely those two voters believed him to not be #1 (other than they believed him to be #2).

The idea that it wouldn’t be considered revisionist to say “it’s extremely debatable whether Messier deserved the Hart in 1992” because that is a position that is held by you in 2020 as opposed to being held by you in 1992 is a little too cute of a distinction, because you’re still assessing if he “deserved” something that is wholly determined by people living in 1992. Better to say you specifically don’t think he was most valuable than to say it is debatable if he deserved something or was an obvious choice in something that was determined by a specific vote for which we have the results that skewed overwhelmingly in his favor.

More than that, it’s not as easily transferable to re-litigate an entire 7-month NHL season in 2020 as it is to watch a couple 2-hour best picture nominees from the 1990s in a single afternoon, but even in the film example, we would have to ignore that a best picture winner very much lives within the context of the time of its release.

There’s a missed opportunity to quote 1992’s “Unforgiven” in there somewhere.

The question posed by Big Phil (“did anyone in the NHL think Messier was a better player than Lemieux that year”) if taken literally to mean the players in the NHL would be best answered by the voting results of the Pearson (where unfortunately we only have the winner) in lieu of a league-wide player poll that asks that same question with the exact same wording.

And technically, answering Big Phil’s question in the affirmative would only be revisionist if we couldn’t clear the incredibly low bar of finding a single NHL player who thought Mark Messier was a better player than Lemieux that year.

If winning an award for “most outstanding player” is not a legitimate substitute to Big Phil’s question, we can still clear that incredibly low bar with the biased opinion from Messier’s own linemate. Adam Graves said “Mess is the best player in the league” on April 20th of 1992, therefore the objective and non-revisionist answer is that yes, someone in the NHL thought Messier was a better player than Mario Lemieux in a completely unambiguous sense, unrestricted by the question of whether “that year” means factoring in the injury (as Sentinel did) or distinguishing between “most valuable” and “most outstanding” and “better”.

But the two of us continuing to clarify people’s wording and trophy definitions may be less entertaining to the rest of the forum than Forrest Gump was to either of us.

This seems to be a repeat of the same things. In quick order

- No, stating that something is debatable (mildly, very, extremely or whatever else) it not revisionist regardless of what people, a very small group in this case or even a large group, thought at the time. Stating that those people, in this case the PHWA, believed it was debatable at that time would likely be revisionist.

-I assumed that it would be fairly obvious that Hart and Pearson winners can't be used interchangably with person believed to be the best player, but I guess not. We currently have a great example available to us in the Hart and Lindsay winner from last year, who dominated Hart voting and at east won the Lindsay but who hasn't come close to winning player polls from TSN, The Athletic, or the NHLPA regarding best player or in the last case best forward. Kucherov dominated Hart voting and won the Lindsay and yet he's been listed behind McDavid, Crosby, and MacKinnon in these polls with less than 5% support. We don't have such extensive polls for 1992 but we do have a firm example of the obvious - that these awards and player opinions cannot be used interchangably. That isn't even to say that I was referring to player opinions but that point is long gone.

- I don't know if Graves really believed that, but I will concede that yes, I'm confident that some player in the NHL at the time really did believe that Messier was the best player in the world. I would not extend this much further than that and certainly not to any meaningful level.

- I do agree with the implication that Forrest Gump and pedantry are annoying.

 

[whcanuck]

The Hart Trophy always uses the “most valuable to his team” explanation, which is the definition of the award. It gets tricky because in the other sports like the NFL, CFL, NCAA, MLB and NBA, the MVP award or Heisman trophy goes to the most outstanding player that year, that’s literally what the CFL calls its MVP. These are player of the year awards. The Hart isn’t an MVP in the same sense, it’s a “who makes the most difference for their team award.” In 1991-92, Messier came to the league’s largest market, an original six franchise, and was probably the biggest reason for the franchise’s revitalization. Even if Mario Lemieux scored more points. You could almost argue every year that Gretzky or Lemieux was Hart worthy, but Messier, while a worthy winner, was definitely the “sexy” pick that year. It’s surprising he won the Pearson too, with Lemieux, Gretzky and Hull all outscoring him. But is scoring the only thing that matters? Because Messier had the whole leadership aura and the physicality the other players did not, a “Mr. Everything” so to speak.

 

[whcanuck]

You could make an argument that Doug Gilmour was the best all-around player in the NHL in 1992-93 and made a massive impact for the Leafs that season. If it wasn’t for Lemieux’s remarkable courage and out-of-this-world season that year, I think Gilmour is a slam dunk winner. Don Cherry was saying it all-season that Gilmour was the best player in the world. But Mario was at another level, just magnificent. He was the winner no doubt.

 

[MadLuke]

You could make an argument that Doug Gilmour was the best all-around player in the NHL in 1992-93 and made a massive impact for the Leafs that season. If it wasn’t for Lemieux’s remarkable courage and out-of-this-world season that year, I think Gilmour is a slam dunk winner. Don Cherry was saying it all-season that Gilmour was the best player in the world. But Mario was at another level, just magnificent. He was the winner no doubt.

Considering that the Leafs went from:
30-43-7 (67 points),

To:
Record: 44-29-11 (99 points),

Yes it could have been a dominant year.

 

[Cup Or Bust]

I think the most amazing thing was that Messier was able to win 2 Hart trophies and 2 Lester B. Pearson awards in the Gretzky / Lemieux era without winning a scoring title. That is difficult in any era, because the bias always seems to go to the higher scorer, but to do that in that era was extremely impressive. It shows how great a player Messier was, and he was indeed. Definitely one of the most dominant players in his prime.

 

[JFedol]

He really was the 2nd coming of Gordie Howe IMO.

Just pure brute force, finesse, skill, passing and toughness all displayed at high elite levels. He was dirty asf but it all but reinforces the Howe narrative. If Messier had the scoring touch of a Jagr or Mario, he'd damn near be the perfect player in all facets and it'd be scary trying to shut him down lol.

Just watching the games for his 1990 playoff run. The dude really was a FORCE (no exaggeration) out there lmao

Does anybody know why he dropped down to the 3rd round in his draft year?

Other than that, Very Great Player!!!

 

[Staniowski]

He really was the 2nd coming of Gordie Howe IMO.

Just pure brute force, finesse, skill, passing and toughness all displayed at high elite levels. He was dirty asf but it all but reinforces the Howe narrative. If Messier had the scoring touch of a Jagr or Mario, he'd damn near be the perfect player in all facets and it'd be scary trying to shut him down lol.

Just watching the games for his 1990 playoff run. The dude really was a FORCE (no exaggeration) out there lmao

Does anybody know why he dropped down to the 3rd round in his draft year?

Other than that, Very Great Player!!!

Messier didn't drop in the draft.

The '79 and '80 drafts were the transitioning drafts where the NHL Draft moved from drafting 20 year olds to drafting 18 year olds. So these two drafts were basically double drafts, combining two age groups.

The '79 draft, in particular, was probably the most interesting ever for this reason, and the fact that it included many of the young WHA players. It basically included the 1959 and 1960 age groups, plus Messier. I believe he was the only 1961 birth year drafted, since he and Gretzky were, I think, the only 17 year olds playing in the WHA. So, all the other 1961 birth years (e.g. Denis Savard) weren't eligible for the '79 Draft.

Rob Ramage, drafted 1st overall, was two years older than Messier.

Ray Bourque, though, was a late birthday 1960, so under current draft rules he and Messier would actually be in the same draft. As would Gretzky.

But, as it was, Messier was the first 1961 birth year ever drafted.

 

[Staniowski]

He really was the 2nd coming of Gordie Howe IMO.

Just pure brute force, finesse, skill, passing and toughness all displayed at high elite levels. He was dirty asf but it all but reinforces the Howe narrative. If Messier had the scoring touch of a Jagr or Mario, he'd damn near be the perfect player in all facets and it'd be scary trying to shut him down lol.

Just watching the games for his 1990 playoff run. The dude really was a FORCE (no exaggeration) out there lmao

Does anybody know why he dropped down to the 3rd round in his draft year?

Other than that, Very Great Player!!!

Howe wasn't a bad skater, in fact when he was young he was an excellent skater, but he could never skate like Messier.

Messier was a powerful skater, which more than anything else enabled him to be a great player.

Messier and Howe could both be very dirty players!

 

[The Panther]

I think the most amazing thing was that Messier was able to win 2 Hart trophies and 2 Lester B. Pearson awards in the Gretzky / Lemieux era without winning a scoring title.

I agree, this is a very impressive thing, especially in the context of winning TWO Hart trophies on TWO different teams in this era.

Mess's first Hart trophy could be coin-flip with Ray Bourque, and his second -- though deserved -- was inflated A LOT by New York media, etc., and probably the amazing voting results there are a bit out of touch with reality. Nevertheless, he did it twice in maybe the deepest era ever of high-end talent... so, pretty impressive.

 

[MadLuke]

Someone like Steve Yzerman, going 7-4-3-7-0-7-8 during his prime in that window do show it was hard.