The 1988-1989 NHL Season

[Kinnikuniverse]

that year the presidents trophy flames were a vernon save on stan smyl in OT from a stunning upset to a canucks team led by 18 year old trevor linden (the youngest player in the league), their old broken down PMD that they gave away because they had too many puck movers (paul reinhart), brett hull’s old center from the farm team who they also gave away because they had no room for him (brian bradley), and basically a blueline that was half human garbage.

it would have been epic. remember that this flames team had three future conn smythe winners (macinnis, vernon, nieuwendyk) plus doug fffffing gilmour as their 1C. their fourth line center was theo fleury. remember also that otto kicked it in.

f***ing mike vernon making that save, man...would've had 25 cups instead of 24...of course, that wouldn't change the club turning into the new york jets of hockey a few years later and still counting. Oh well, not my problem anymore.

 

[Moose Head]

You're right!

What's crazy (looking at the game logs) is that Brian Hayward somehow lost, on home ice, to Quebec (twice), Toronto, and the last-overall Islanders (and to Pittsburgh and Calgary, which are more understandable). What a change from a couple seasons earlier when Hayward had briefly looked as good, or better, than Roy.

Hayward’s schedule was skewed more to road games which partially explains why his numbers weren’t as good as Roy’s. Burns even called him the Road Warrior.

 

[The Panther]

The Vernon save in game 7 overtime that stands out is the save on Tony Tanti. That was epic. (Stan Smyl wasn't much of a scorer by 1989, and his shot was just a low one into Vernon's glove.)

Vernon gets, and deserves, a lot of the flack for some of The Flames' many chokes (in 1987...1988...1990...1991...1993...1994), but credit where due -- he did get the job done impressively in '89.

 

[LightningStorm]

The 1989 Flames have always fascinated me, so I've found this season intriguing, specifically when it comes to the finals matchup. It's a myth that the finals is always the 2 best teams, but it sure was this season, as they were on a collision course. The Flames were also first in goal differential, and the Habs 2nd. Montreal allowed the fewest goals while scoring the 5th most, while Calgary was 2nd in each category. I think the Flames were the best single cup winning core post expansion, and while I'd have to think about it more, the 1989 Habs would probably be the best single season cup runner up in that same span. Heck, I thought they were better than their teams that actually won it in 1986 and 1993. The 1989 Flames were simply that much better than their 2 opponents those seasons, including a less refined Flames team in 1986.

Game 6 was one of the most climactic games in NHL history. Lanny McDonald, in his 16th season, scores the goal to put the Flames ahead for good, and finally captures his elusive cup. In doing so, the Flames became the first visiting team to hoist the cup on the Montreal Forum ice. Larry Robinson said if there was one guy he didn't mind losing to it was McDonald that year, as he knew how hard he'd worked his entire career for that cup.

 

[The Panther]

...the 1989 Habs would probably be the best single season cup runner up in that same span. Heck, I thought they were better than their teams that actually won it in 1986 and 1993.

I completely agree with you. The 1989 Montreal Canadiens are still one of the best teams I've ever seen, and they were certainly better than the '86 or '93 Habs.

 

[The Panther]

Also, agree about how amazing the Flames' line-up was in the late-80s.

People talk about the mid-80s' Oilers and early-90s' Penguins having stacked line-ups, and it's true to a degree, but I think it's mainly in terms of how the top two guys or so (Gretzky / Messier and Lemieux / Jagr, throw in Coffey, Kurri, Francis...) were so uniquely strong in historical terms.

But aside from the peak-level guys, I think the Flames c. 1987 to 1991 were about as stacked as any post-expansion club.

I mean, peak Doug Gilmour was on the 2nd line and 23-year-old Brett Hull was a healthy scratch.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

What are the chances someone finishes with 199 points? Like that's actually insane. The odds of not scoring that single extra point in all those 76 gp. Lol

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

or one less and ending up with 198 and we never have to have this conversation

 

[Michael Farkas]

In before the goal that Lemieux scored against Winnipeg or whatever...

 

[TheStatican]

In before the goal that Lemieux scored against Winnipeg or whatever...

You mean this non-goal?

But yeah, I mean it's not like it would have been of much historical significance anyways... 200 point seasons happen all the time.

 

[TheStatican]

I will say this; I understand why some tire of hearing about it. Lemieux was hardily the only victim of a missed goal call, it happened with some frequency back then. Thankfully such occurrences are exceedingly rare now and have been for some time. Still outside of a playoff deciding goal or the tie breaker in an Art Ross race this particular missed call is of some historical relevance. And since there actually is evidence of it I don't think it's fair to completely dismiss it or just write it off as "happenstance".

You don't have to be a Lemieux fan to at least acknowledge the NHL did a poor job of making sure it's top star(s) got their undivided attention in the past. Honestly looking back at that season it seems just down right bizarre... here there was a player who was tracking down some of the most hollowed records in the sport(in actuality that was his mistake) and yet instead of celebrating the pursuit and making sure it didn't miss anything during it, the league seemed to largely ignore it - the press releases from that time make that entirely evident, they were almost comical in their lack of detail. If there was a worse sport when it came to celebrating the historical pursuits of it's own athletes I'm not sure which one it would be. Just compare it with the home run record chases that happened in baseball soon thereafter(first 1994, then 1998 and finally 2001). The entire baseball world became completely enthralled with those pursuits and it drew a huge amount of positive attention to the sport. I'm not even a big baseball fan but it was an incredibly exciting time for the league - not withstanding the taint that came thereafter. Lemieux had none of those taints, but he seemingly did do a 'wrong' by not being personable enough and for attempting to do the unthinkable so soon after Gretzky did it. Then again the sport was also just really bad at marketing itself back then.

Fortunately for players like McDavid, Matthews and others, the hockey world is no longer as obstinate as it used to be and seems to fully appreciate the talent playing in the sport today.

 

[reckoning]

I think people are overestimating the importance of 200 points at the time. Nobody knew back then that it would never happen again. Nobody knew that it would be Lemieux's last healthy season. Everyone thought he'd have more chances to put up higher totals.

Gretzky had already hit 200 points four times in the same decade, so while Lemieux getting 200 would have been a huge accomplishment, it wasn't some hallowed record.

 

[Hynh]

I will say this; I understand why some tire of hearing about it. Lemieux was hardily the only victim of a missed goal call, it happened with some frequency back then. Thankfully such occurrences are exceedingly rare now and have been for some time. Still outside of a playoff deciding goal or the tie breaker in an Art Ross race this particular missed call is of some historical relevance. And since there actually is evidence of it I don't think it's fair to completely dismiss it or just write it off as "happenstance".

You don't have to be a Lemieux fan to at least acknowledge the NHL did a poor job of making sure it's top star(s) got their undivided attention in the past. Honestly looking back at that season it seems just down right bizarre... here there was a player who was tracking down some of the most hollowed records in the sport(in actuality that was his mistake) and yet instead of celebrating the pursuit and making sure it didn't miss anything during it, the league seemed to largely ignore it - the press releases from that time make that entirely evident, they were almost comical in their lack of detail. If there was a worse sport when it came to celebrating the historical pursuits of it's own athletes I'm not sure which one it would be. Just compare it with the home run record chases that happened in baseball soon thereafter(first 1994, then 1998 and finally 2001). The entire baseball world became completely enthralled with those pursuits and it drew a huge amount of positive attention to the sport. I'm not even a big baseball fan but it was an incredibly exciting time for the league - not withstanding the taint that came thereafter. Lemieux had none of those taints, but he seemingly did do a 'wrong' by not being personable enough and for attempting to do the unthinkable so soon after Gretzky did it. Then again the sport was also just really bad at marketing itself back then.

Fortunately for players like McDavid, Matthews and others, the hockey world is no longer as obstinate as it used to be and seems to fully appreciate the talent playing in the sport today.

If the NHL wanted to strangle Lemieux in the cradle, why not just stop feeding him PPs? Outside of the 2005-06 season the 1987-88 and 1988-89 Penguins represent 2 of the top 3 seasons in PPO/GP. 987 PPOs in two years is hardly a sign the world was against him.

 

[TheStatican]

I think people are overestimating the importance of 200 points at the time. Nobody knew back then that it would never happen again. Nobody knew that it would be Lemieux's last healthy season. Everyone thought he'd have more chances to put up higher totals.

Gretzky had already hit 200 points four times in the same decade, so while Lemieux getting 200 would have been a huge accomplishment, it wasn't some hallowed record.

It's not the 200 point mark that I'm referring to it's the point record. Like you said nobody knew the importance of 200 alone but they sure as heck would have or should have appreciated a new player taking a run at the point record. Ultimately there ended up being a bit of a margin so one missed goal of course didn't matter but Lemieux was on pace to break the record at the time. I guess part of it is maybe because it happened relatively soon after Gretzky's marks so the interest in it wasn't as high as it really should have been. Still here we are 34 years later and nobody has even come remotely as close to it.

If the NHL wanted to strangle Lemieux in the cradle, why not just stop feeding him PPs? Outside of the 2005-06 season the 1987-88 and 1988-89 Penguins represent 2 of the top 3 seasons in PPO/GP. 987 PPOs in two years is hardly a sign the world was against him.

Yeah, unfortunately they seemed to have missed the memo about not penalizing the Penguins as well. Outside of the 2005-06 season the 1987-88 and 1988-89 Penguins hold the number 1 and number 4 spots in PPO against/GP. 987 PPOA's in two years... the exact same number of PPO's they received, hardily a sign that the team was receiving preferential treatment when it comes to special teams.

Anyways I'm not saying there was some grand conspiracy against Lemieux. I'm simply making light of the seemingly amateurish approach and lackadaisical integrity the league displayed a little too often for a professional sports league, even back then. A perfect example of that is the lights going out during a Stanley Cup final game. This happened the season prior and the league was forced to cancel that game. Then instead of continuing the game from where it ended - it was tied so there was literally no advantage to either team, they restarted the entire game from scratch but bizarrely included the stats that players put up in a game that essentially no longer existed.

 

[Hynh]

It's not the 200 point mark that I'm referring to it's the point record. Like you said nobody knew the importance of 200 alone but they sure as heck would have or should have appreciated a new player taking a run at the point record. Ultimately there ended up being a bit of a margin so one missed goal of course didn't matter but Lemieux was on pace to break the record at the time. I guess part of it is maybe because it happened relatively soon after Gretzky's marks so the interest in it wasn't as high as it really should have been. Still here we are 34 years later and nobody has even come remotely as close to it.


Yeah, unfortunately they seemed to have missed the memo about not penalizing the Penguins as well. Outside of the 2005-06 season the 1987-88 and 1988-89 Penguins hold the number 1 and number 4 spots in PPO against/GP. 987 PPOA's in two years... the exact same number of PPO's they received, hardily a sign that the team was receiving preferential treatment when it comes to special teams.

Anyways I'm not saying there was some grand conspiracy against Lemieux. I'm simply making light of the seemingly amateurish approach and lackadaisical integrity the league displayed a little too often for a professional sports league, even back then. A perfect example of that is the lights going out during a Stanley Cup final game. This happened the season prior and the league was forced to cancel that game. Then instead of continuing the game from where it ended - it was tied so there was literally no advantage to either team, they restarted the entire game from scratch but bizarrely included the stats that players put up in a game that essentially no longer existed.

I wasn't saying they were being unduly favored, merely that the best way to slow down Lemieux's totals would have been to reduce how much special teams time was being played in Pittsburgh games. If you were chasing scoring records, would you want to play on the team with the most PPOs or the fewest, assuming your team suffers an equal number of PPOs against?

 

[The Panther]

I'm simply making light of the seemingly amateurish approach and lackadaisical integrity the league displayed a little too often for a professional sports league, even back then. A perfect example of that is the lights going out during a Stanley Cup final game. This happened the season prior and the league was forced to cancel that game. Then instead of continuing the game from where it ended - it was tied so there was literally no advantage to either team, they restarted the entire game from scratch but bizarrely included the stats that players put up in a game that essentially no longer existed.

Oh, it got a lot worse than that in the 1988 playoffs:

 

[TheStatican]

I wasn't saying they were being unduly favored, merely that the best way to slow down Lemieux's totals would have been to reduce how much special teams time was being played in Pittsburgh games. If you were chasing scoring records, would you want to play on the team with the most PPOs or the fewest, assuming your team suffers an equal number of PPOs against?

Sure on the surface that's correct but your not considering something, specifically how Lemieux was deployed that season. Lemieux's ice time didn't just encompass high scoring situation, he also played in a high number of low scoring situations. The available numbers suggest he was the teams primary PK'er. As much as he benefited from having a high number of powerplay opportunities, he was also hurt by having to deal with a high number of penalty killing situations.

There's hardily any comparable for Lemieux since no one has ever been out on the ice for anywhere near as many special team goals as he was that season but the closest example I could find for which there actually are numbers for is Joe Sakic in 98-99. The Avs had a higher than average number of powerplay opportunities that year and Sakic had 5:13 minutes of powerplay time per game. He also notably played 3:20 minutes per game on the PK that season. That was by far the highest PK TOI he played in a year(for which we have numbers for), likely due to the Avs also receiving a high number of powerplay opportunities against.

The TOI numbers don't exist for '89 but there are figures which can give us an idea; the total number of powerplay goals for and against that Lemieux was on the ice for. Sakic was on the ice for 54 powerplay goals for and 21 powerplay goals against in 98-99, a 2.6 to 1 ratio. Lemieux by contrast was out on the ice for 110 powerplay goals for and 60 powerplay goals against a 1.8 to 1 ratio, like I said he has no true comparable but Sakic is one of only two player who ever scored at least 90 points in a season while playing 3+ minutes of shorthanded ice time per game since the numbers were tracked(Bure is the other).

Now let's hypothetically cut Sakic's special team ice time knocking his powerplay and short handed ice times down by 2 minutes a game and correspondingly increase his even strength time by 4 minutes. Why reduce both by an equal amount? Well for one it's fair, but secondly 98-99 was an outliner - Sakic didn't normally play that much on the PK and in actuality in the years we have numbers for he averaged around a minute and a half. Likewise the same almost assuredly applies to Lemieux, based on his PP goals against there is little doubt that 88-89 was by far the high water mark for his short handed TOI.

Here's what happens to Sakic's numbers if you adjust his minutes based on his scoring rates in each situation:

Sakic '99​	PP for​	PP against​	ES TOI​	PP TOI​	SH TOI​	ES Pts​	PP Pts​	SH Pts​	Total Pts​
actual​	54​	21​	15:56​	5:13​	3:20​	56​	34​	6​	96​
change​	​	​	+4:00​	-2:00​	-2:00​	+14​	-13​	-4 or 3​	-2 or 3​
adjusted​	​	​	19:56​	3:13​	1:20​	70​	21​	3 or 2​	94 or 93​

As you see the difference is marginal. The difference for Lemieux would have even been less considering - his PP goals on ice for/against ratio was lower and his powerplay to even strength scoring ratio was likely far better than Sakic's. If your a player like Ilya Kovalchuk and you only ever play on the powerplay and not the penalty kill then sure, such a situation will be a huge boon for your numbers. But if you have to also cover a lot of minutes on the PK as well then you have to account for how that's going to correspondingly negatively effect a players numbers.

 

[TheStatican]

Oh, it got a lot worse than that in the 1988 playoffs:

View attachment 748142

Almost can't believe I forgot about that story! That's an even better example and exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[daver]

I wasn't saying they were being unduly favored, merely that the best way to slow down Lemieux's totals would have been to reduce how much special teams time was being played in Pittsburgh games. If you were chasing scoring records, would you want to play on the team with the most PPOs or the fewest, assuming your team suffers an equal number of PPOs against?

Mario's production in 92/93 was as good as 88/89 while the Pens were #14 in PPOs. He won the Ross that year on the strength of his ES scoring. Not sure the narrative that Mario relied on the PP is true.

 

[JianYang]

If I'm not mistaken, the 89 cup won by the flames became the first and only time that the cup was presented to the road team at the Forum.

It must have been such a weird feeling for the forum faithful to see that happening, but I think they were giving a round of applause for the flames while they celebrated on the ice.

 

[Hynh]

Sure on the surface that's correct but your not considering something, specifically how Lemieux was deployed that season. Lemieux's ice time didn't just encompass high scoring situation, he also played in a high number of low scoring situations. The available numbers suggest he was the teams primary PK'er. As much as he benefited from having a high number of powerplay opportunities, he was also hurt by having to deal with a high number of penalty killing situations.

There's hardily any comparable for Lemieux since no one has ever been out on the ice for anywhere near as many special team goals as he was that season but the closest example I could find for which there actually are numbers for is Joe Sakic in 98-99. The Avs had a higher than average number of powerplay opportunities that year and Sakic had 5:13 minutes of powerplay time per game. He also notably played 3:20 minutes per game on the PK that season. That was by far the highest PK TOI he played in a year(for which we have numbers for), likely due to the Avs also receiving a high number of powerplay opportunities against.

The TOI numbers don't exist for '89 but there are figures which can give us an idea; the total number of powerplay goals for and against that Lemieux was on the ice for. Sakic was on the ice for 54 powerplay goals for and 21 powerplay goals against in 98-99, a 2.6 to 1 ratio. Lemieux by contrast was out on the ice for 110 powerplay goals for and 60 powerplay goals against a 1.8 to 1 ratio, like I said he has no true comparable but Sakic is one of only two player who ever scored at least 90 points in a season while playing 3+ minutes of shorthanded ice time per game since the numbers were tracked(Bure is the other).

Now let's hypothetically cut Sakic's special team ice time knocking his powerplay and short handed ice times down by 2 minutes a game and correspondingly increase his even strength time by 4 minutes. Why reduce both by an equal amount? Well for one it's fair, but secondly 98-99 was an outliner - Sakic didn't normally play that much on the PK and in actuality in the years we have numbers for he averaged around a minute and a half. Likewise the same almost assuredly applies to Lemieux, based on his PP goals against there is little doubt that 88-89 was by far the high water mark for his short handed TOI.

Here's what happens to Sakic's numbers if you adjust his minutes based on his scoring rates in each situation:

Sakic '99​	PP for​	PP against​	ES TOI​	PP TOI​	SH TOI​	ES Pts​	PP Pts​	SH Pts​	Total Pts​
actual​	54​	21​	15:56​	5:13​	3:20​	56​	34​	6​	96​
change​	​	​	+4:00​	-2:00​	-2:00​	+14​	-13​	-4 or 3​	-2 or 3​
adjusted​	​	​	19:56​	3:13​	1:20​	70​	21​	3 or 2​	94 or 93​

As you see the difference is marginal. The difference for Lemieux would have even been less considering - his PP goals on ice for/against ratio was lower and his powerplay to even strength scoring ratio was likely far better than Sakic's. If your a player like Ilya Kovalchuk and you only ever play on the powerplay and not the penalty kill then sure, such a situation will be a huge boon for your numbers. But if you have to also cover a lot of minutes on the PK as well then you have to account for how that's going to correspondingly negatively effect a players numbers.

Lemieux 60 GA out of 111 Penguins GA = 54% of his team's total (in 76/80 GP)
Sakic 21 GA out of 61 Avalanche GA = 33% of his team's total (in 73/82 GP)

Here we come to a fork. Was Lemieux on the ice for so many GA because he was actually better at it than everyone else the Penguins had/could trade for/could claim on waivers? This would suggest he was actually on the ice for far more than 54% of his team's SH TOI. After all, being "the same as everyone else" isn't a good enough reason to deploy your record chasing superstar on the offense sapping PK.

Or maybe it is. Not only does the NHL establishment turn a blind eye to his exploits, his own coach and GM also thought protecting The Great One's records was more important than their own jobs. Maybe the owner wised up that he had double agents in his front office turfed them in December of '89. Because remember, that's what this is about. The cards being stacked against Lemieux by a hostile world and him valiantly rising to the resist just to be struck down at the finish line because a goal judge missed a goal or whatever.

Mario's production in 92/93 was as good as 88/89 while the Pens were #14 in PPOs. He won the Ross that year on the strength of his ES scoring. Not sure the narrative that Mario relied on the PP is true.

Never said he did. Just said that if you want to break scoring records, lots of PPs is what you want.

 

[MadLuke]

If I'm not mistaken, the 89 cup won by the flames became the first and only time that the cup was presented to the road team at the Forum.

It is almost true, it is against the Canadians not at the forum.

At first it sound crazy because 31 stanley cup (or was it 32, 1935 is not listed on wikipedia) were played in the Montreal Forum, but with Montreal winning 24 of those, Maroon 1 or 2 depending on 35, a mtl team did not lose many finals, they are like 26-6 before the Forum closed.

The 1928 Rangers won the cup in the Forum, against the Maroon.

 

[The Panther]

 

[The Panther]

Funny Bernie:

 

[TheStatican]

Lemieux 60 GA out of 111 Penguins GA = 54% of his team's total (in 76/80 GP)
Sakic 21 GA out of 61 Avalanche GA = 33% of his team's total (in 73/82 GP)

Here we come to a fork. Was Lemieux on the ice for so many GA because he was actually better at it than everyone else the Penguins had/could trade for/could claim on waivers? This would suggest he was actually on the ice for far more than 54% of his team's SH TOI. After all, being "the same as everyone else" isn't a good enough reason to deploy your record chasing superstar on the offense sapping PK.

Yes! THANK YOU for using intuitive and logical thinking.

There are some on this board who insist that Lemieux's high powerplay goal against numbers indicate that he was a horrible PK'er. When in actuality that number alone doesn't corroborate or prove anything of the sort by itself. A number which possibly could is the teams average PK efficiency verses the league average. But even IF those numbers indicate that to be the case that's relative to the league average. That doesn't matter when it comes to his ice time because all the team and the coach care about is if he's a better PK'er than his own teammates.

I'm very happy that you can use logical thinking and realize that the only way it makes any sense at all to deploy Lemieux so much on the PK - while he was scoring at peak Gretzky rates in other game time situations - is if he actually was one of the teams better PKer's. Fortunately we don't just have logic to go by there are numbers which corroborate all this.

Doing the math shows that if Lemieux was equal to exactly the team average PK'er he would've had around 5:46 of SH ice time and I estimated his powerplay ice time to be at around 8:41. I can show you exactly how I came to those figures but I'd rather not derail this thread with numbers, but I will if you request it. But those numbers were essentially derived from the number of PPO's and PPOA's the team had in Lemieux's games (455 and 456 each respectively), the number of PP goals for and PP goals against he was on the ice for relative to the team's totals and the teams PP and PK efficiency rates.

Yup that powerplay ice time is huge, but so is that SH ice time.

Or maybe it is. Not only does the NHL establishment turn a blind eye to his exploits, his own coach and GM also thought protecting The Great One's records was more important than their own jobs.

First off, Lemieux was playing in basically ALL of the teams powerplay opportunities. So no, his 'own coach' and 'own GM' weren't holding him back from scoring in the most advantageous situations. As with the point I was making about Sakic - It's his even strength ice time that was reduced by his increased shorthanded ice time and Lemieux scored at rates FAR higher at even strength than short handed.

Now what do YOU think is more conducive from the teams perspective?

A - Skip over using Lemieux in penalty killing situations even though he is rested enough to go out there and play, just so that he can play more at even strength where you hope he scores to get back whatever goals you give up on the PK without him. But your mainly doing it just so that he can have more opportunities to pursue an individual points record.

B - Or, use one of your best available penalty killers when he is in fact available right now to go out on the ice and be of help to prevent goals being scored against your team while your shorthanded.

Hockey is a team sport after all, Lemieux may have been quite keen on going after scoring records and titles but I'm pretty sure he didn't forget that fundamental fact. Just as the Penguins had an extremely high number of powerplay situations they also had an extremely high number of penalty killing situations that they had to deal with that season as well. Lemieux was obviously more than willing to play in a large number of those situations when he was available for them for the benefit of the team.

Maybe the owner wised up that he had double agents in his front office turfed them in December of '89. Because remember, that's what this is about. The cards being stacked against Lemieux by a hostile world and him valiantly rising to the resist just to be struck down at the finish line because a goal judge missed a goal or whatever.

Lol, seriously?

My point was mostly about the lackadaisical quality of NHL officials at the time and the leagues general disinterest towards a player in pursuit of one of the greatest NHL records - not that there was some grand conspiracy against him like you are suggesting. It just strikes me as a very bizarre contrast compared to the way other leagues approached such matters. The least they could have done is have their best official's out there and make damn sure that they don't miss any obvious calls. But then again as I've noted in other threads I wasn't following hockey at the time so perhaps all of this is just par for the course for the way the NHL conducted itself in the '80. I mean one their officials even made up a blatantly false story of being physically assaulted by a coach, that's some real integrity right there.