The 1989 Hart Trophy
- Thread starter K Fleur
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
- Status
The Panther
Registered User
And in spring 1984 Gretzky had far better numbers than Messier, but Messier won the Conn Smythe. And Fuhr had one more win than Hextall in '87, but Hextall won the Conn Smythe. And NHL players supposedly considered Mike Liut the most outstanding player in 1981, while Gretzky was breaking the all-time assists and points records.
It happens. Sometimes the nature of "most valuable player" is confusing to voters. Mario had put up 70 goals and 160+ points the year before, but the Pens had missed the playoffs for the 4th time in his 4 seasons. I think voters were not as impressed by a huge individual season that resulted in team-mediocrity anymore. The 'Gretzky-to-L.A.' story was the biggest of the '88-'89 season, and the Kings had gone from 68 points to 94 points in one year, whilst the Pens had gone from 81 to 87.
I do think, however, that Mario should have won the award in 1989. But I also think Gretzky could have won in 1991, not Brett Hull. Again, it's one of those things where 'Gretzky-gets-160+ points-and-team-finishes-in-1st-place' isn't enough to excite people anymore due to the player's history. It's a bit like Bobby Orr winning 3 Harts, but he probably should have won more.
It happens. Sometimes the nature of "most valuable player" is confusing to voters. Mario had put up 70 goals and 160+ points the year before, but the Pens had missed the playoffs for the 4th time in his 4 seasons. I think voters were not as impressed by a huge individual season that resulted in team-mediocrity anymore. The 'Gretzky-to-L.A.' story was the biggest of the '88-'89 season, and the Kings had gone from 68 points to 94 points in one year, whilst the Pens had gone from 81 to 87.
I do think, however, that Mario should have won the award in 1989. But I also think Gretzky could have won in 1991, not Brett Hull. Again, it's one of those things where 'Gretzky-gets-160+ points-and-team-finishes-in-1st-place' isn't enough to excite people anymore due to the player's history. It's a bit like Bobby Orr winning 3 Harts, but he probably should have won more.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Keep in mind that Lemieux won the 1st Team All-Star selection rather convincingly, so it's a question of Gretzky's impact on his new team. 32-40-8 in 1988 to 42-31-7 in 1989 with a higher finish than the Oilers.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,157
It is one of those weird situations isn't it? A lot of it has to do with the fact that Gretzky carried the Kings from 18th place to 4th overnight in one season. 31 points behind Mario sounds like a lot, but in reality when you are hovering at 168 points, is it really as much as it sounds when you score that many points?
That being said, Mario himself fit all the requirements of a Hart winner. Statistical domination, leading the NHL in every category, leading his team into the postseason, being "valuable" to his team since Coffey and Brown were some 85 points back of him. He fit all of those requirements. However, the L.A. story had some appeal, and Gretzky didn't drop a whole lot from his usual 180-200 perch in Edmonton.
I still would have picked Mario though. To add insult to injury, Yzerman wins the Pearson. I mean, come on. That one I have a bigger issue with than anything. Nothing to take away from Yzerman's 155 point campaign, but how can the players honestly think that a guy who had 44 less points had a more "outstanding" year? It just goes to show you that not everyone was adoring Mario - the person - at this time, if some can remember.
That being said, Mario himself fit all the requirements of a Hart winner. Statistical domination, leading the NHL in every category, leading his team into the postseason, being "valuable" to his team since Coffey and Brown were some 85 points back of him. He fit all of those requirements. However, the L.A. story had some appeal, and Gretzky didn't drop a whole lot from his usual 180-200 perch in Edmonton.
I still would have picked Mario though. To add insult to injury, Yzerman wins the Pearson. I mean, come on. That one I have a bigger issue with than anything. Nothing to take away from Yzerman's 155 point campaign, but how can the players honestly think that a guy who had 44 less points had a more "outstanding" year? It just goes to show you that not everyone was adoring Mario - the person - at this time, if some can remember.
Trottier
Very Random
That's it, in my opinion. From the second that #99 was dealt to LA in early August '88, all eyes were on him and his team the entire season. His "value" (beyond the massive surge in the Kings' attendance numbers) was demonstrated in great part by their surge in the standings.
I love Mario, and would have voted for him that season, but I fully understand the logic behind those who chose #99. And frankly, it's great when an MVP of a league is determined by more than simply personal G/A/TP stats.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
BM67
Registered User
Mario built most of his scoring lead in the early part of the season as well as LA did much better down the stretch than Pittsburgh did.
Post all-star game: Mario 58 pts to Gretzky 51.
On Feb. 1 LA had 58 pts in 52 games, while Pit had 60 pts in 50 games. At the end of the season LA had 91 pts and Pit had 87.
Post all-star game: Mario 58 pts to Gretzky 51.
On Feb. 1 LA had 58 pts in 52 games, while Pit had 60 pts in 50 games. At the end of the season LA had 91 pts and Pit had 87.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
I don't know that I would go that far. It's just another example of the voters drawing a distinction between "best" and "most valuable." The idea of the Hart winner being someone other than the 1st Team All-Star was nothing new in 1989. It's happened before, and it's happened since.
Mario was in the mix but it's easy to see why Wayne got the Hart that year with the impact he had in LA which transcended points.
As for the Pearson, got no problem there either Yzerman actually outscored Mario at ES and he had Chiasson and Norwood on the PP with 11 and 14 PPA as opposed to Coffey and his 11-53 PP line.
Pegi90*
Registered User
it's common with these voting based trophies, not just in hockey but sports overally.
mario won that 1989 hart, doesn't matter if gretzky got the trophy.
mario won that 1989 hart, doesn't matter if gretzky got the trophy.
Bear of Bad News
"The Worst Guy on the Site" - user feedback
- Sep 27, 2005
- 14,164
- 29,271
I think a lot of people suspect that Gretzky was traded to LA to popularize the game south of the border
So it may not be a coincidence that Gretzky won the Hart in his first year with the Kings, despite the fact Lemieux had the superior season
So it may not be a coincidence that Gretzky won the Hart in his first year with the Kings, despite the fact Lemieux had the superior season
Not really though. Wayne's apparent advantage in value stems solely from the fact that he was traded to the team in the off season, which is ridiculous. If the Pens had Carson instead of Mario the season before, they would have taken a big leap in the standings too.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,157
No, the Hart I can see, but Mario definitely had the more "outstanding" season. Find me a time where someone scored 44 more points than the forward who actually won the Pearson. Even strength or power play or not (and it matters little to me), that is where the voting really screwed Mario.
PhillyBluesFan
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2012
- 1,696
- 2
Meh. If Paul Coffey was playing for the Kings and not the Pens Gretzky would of had 199 points and Mario would of had 168.
The Panther
Registered User
Back in 1980, when Gretzky was denied the Calder Trophy because he had played in the WHA (despite the NHL's officially not considering the WHA an official League prior to that moment), he handled the snub with good grace and class.
He also was denied the Pearson in 1981 on another snub by his fellow players. He again handled with with class and good humor.
Gretzky was so unimaginably dominant in the first half of the 80s (at a level nobody had approached before and nobody has approached since) that when Mario came along, a lot of players and media were (over-)anxious to see Mario challenge Gretzky for all-star superiority. So, Gretzky was again snubbed for the 1986 Pearson award -- Gretzky outscored Lemieux by 74 points and his team finished 1st overall while Lemieux's missed the playoffs, but the players in their wisdom decided Lemieux had the better season. Of course, nobody actually thought Lemieux had a better season, it's just that people were tired of Gretzky's endless domination of the scoring and individual awards.
In these three cases -- all rather more obviously an unfair and illogical snub than Lemieux's non-Hart in 1989 -- Gretzky handled the situation with total class.
(I would also add that, while I don't disagree with Mario's Hart Trophy in 1988, you would have to look pretty darn hard to find an MVP from a team that missed the playoffs.)
Sadly, Gretzky's example of class contrasts sharply with Lemieux's bitter whining when he didn't win the 1989 Hart. I remember his comments to the media that "Every year the player with the most points wins", and "Nothing in this League makes sense."
So, to add to what Big Phil said, I suppose that the above is sort-of the reason why Lemieux ultimately didn't win the 1989 Hart. He wasn't very mature or P.R.-savvy, and everyone knew it. I suspect this, in conjunction with the bizarre situation of Gretzky's being traded at age 27 to a crappy team, is what combined to hand the Hart to Gretzky (who was a very deserving winner, in any case).
He also was denied the Pearson in 1981 on another snub by his fellow players. He again handled with with class and good humor.
Gretzky was so unimaginably dominant in the first half of the 80s (at a level nobody had approached before and nobody has approached since) that when Mario came along, a lot of players and media were (over-)anxious to see Mario challenge Gretzky for all-star superiority. So, Gretzky was again snubbed for the 1986 Pearson award -- Gretzky outscored Lemieux by 74 points and his team finished 1st overall while Lemieux's missed the playoffs, but the players in their wisdom decided Lemieux had the better season. Of course, nobody actually thought Lemieux had a better season, it's just that people were tired of Gretzky's endless domination of the scoring and individual awards.
In these three cases -- all rather more obviously an unfair and illogical snub than Lemieux's non-Hart in 1989 -- Gretzky handled the situation with total class.
(I would also add that, while I don't disagree with Mario's Hart Trophy in 1988, you would have to look pretty darn hard to find an MVP from a team that missed the playoffs.)
Sadly, Gretzky's example of class contrasts sharply with Lemieux's bitter whining when he didn't win the 1989 Hart. I remember his comments to the media that "Every year the player with the most points wins", and "Nothing in this League makes sense."
So, to add to what Big Phil said, I suppose that the above is sort-of the reason why Lemieux ultimately didn't win the 1989 Hart. He wasn't very mature or P.R.-savvy, and everyone knew it. I suspect this, in conjunction with the bizarre situation of Gretzky's being traded at age 27 to a crappy team, is what combined to hand the Hart to Gretzky (who was a very deserving winner, in any case).
lucaseider
Registered User
I have no problem with the pearson voting ever, no one knows better than the players themselves. 44 points is alot, but yzerman had no one even close to coffey on the wings, that obviously helped him.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,157
Yes, he wins the Hart fair and square in 1988. Gretzky missed 16 games, that factored in. But a Hart winner hasn't missed the playoffs since. Even when Iginla nearly won it in 2002 in a weak year he was 15 points out of a playoff spot. This is why I scoff at the people who think Iginla got snubbed. He didn't. Theodore was the MVP that year fair and square. This was a weak year too. Mario had 168 points in 1988 and missed the playoffs by one point, that's it. Big difference from Iginla. But you are right, it almost never happens. I'm pretty sure Bathgate's 1959 win was the previous time a Hart winner missed the postseason.
Pegi90*
Registered User
the only fact there being that gretzky won it because of the legacy, yes you're right.
Boom Boom Bear
Registered User
Gretzky - Hart
Lemieux - 1st Team All-Star
Yzerman - Pearson
pretty fair & balanced overall, i'd say, given the impact the three had that season.
Lemieux - 1st Team All-Star
Yzerman - Pearson
pretty fair & balanced overall, i'd say, given the impact the three had that season.
The Panther
Registered User
K Fleur
Sacrifice
- Mar 28, 2014
- 15,831
- 26,744
The Panther said:
He was 23 years old, and had just statistically dominated the league, outscored, by a large margin ,the greatest player ever, the player people had been waiting anxiously for him to challenge/beat, and yet he still was unable to walk away with a single trophy that year? Yeah if it was me I might not have the nicest, or classiest of things to say to the media either.
Not saying Lemieux was right in those statements, but if the awards that are supposed to be about what a player does on the ice are going to be denied because a player isn't media savvy, that to me shows just how much of a joke those awards are.
(And historically the Hart has gone to the leading scorer quite often)
The Panther
Registered User
To clarify, I'm not saying that Mario didn't deserve the Hart in 1989. I personally would have voted for him. I am saying that his classless comments reveal an aspect of his personality in the 80s that probably contributed to (not entirely caused) his not winning.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
If you think the awards are a joke, you're perfectly welcome to take them less seriously. The same 63 people who gave Gretzky the Hart by a 40 to 18 vote said that Lemieux was a better player by a 48 to 10 vote (Yzerman received 5 votes in each category). There's not some great mystery; the impact Wayne Gretzky had in Los Angeles is immeasurable. No point margin was going to make anyone more valuable to their team than Wayne Gretzky was to his that year, so you're not going to find your answer in the statistics on the back of a hockey card.
You said that you're too young to remember, so hopefully this clip will suffice.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Which would have made Lemieux a better option for Hart voting than he was. It's value to the respective team - not universal value. The latter is just a fancy way of saying better.
The voters have drawn the distinction by electing 10 Hart winners throughout history that did not make the 1st All-Star Team: 1934, 1948, 1950, 1954, 1955, 1964, 1973, 1980, 1989, 2002 - and that's just the ones who were bettered at their own position. And if you look at Tavares' voting record in 2013 (38/179 1st Place Hart votes; 13/179 1st Team All-Star votes), you know that there is still a difference in the minds of the voters.
So yes, if Mario Lemieux was new to the Penguins, or if there was an unusual circumstance surrounding the season (like injuries to teammates), he would have an advantage. A less pronounced version than the Jack Adams effect has always existed in Hart voting.
- Status
