But if we only use Gretzky's first 60 games that season to be fair.
Gretzky 175 points in 60 games 2.92 ppg
Lemieux 160 points in 60 games 2.66 ppg.
Less close.
The 1989 Hart Trophy
- Thread starter K Fleur
- Start date
- Status
But if we only use Gretzky's first 60 games that season to be fair.
Gretzky 175 points in 60 games 2.92 ppg
Lemieux 160 points in 60 games 2.66 ppg.
Less close.
Yes, the difference being of course that Gretzky's second best PPG season is still better than Lemieux's best - and that Gretzky owns 7 of the top 10 PPG seasons ever:
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/records/most-points-per-game-in-one-season-by-nhl-players.html
Touché
I completely forgot about that! It's amazing that Gretzky beats Lemieux's 60 game PPG average over an 80 game span (considering it's much harder to maintain a high PPG over more games).
The Panther
Registered User
To further put Lemieux's highest PPG season in context, I do not believe for a second that he would have maintained the 2.66 PPG for 80+ games (just as Gretzky did not maintain 3.0 PPG after the 51-game mark).
Pittsburgh finished 1992-93 with a 17-game winning streak (and a tie in the last game), which obviously would have been a high-PPG period for Mario (for example, he scored 5 goals against NYR on April 9th, 1993). But that would not continue for 24 more games (indeed, after 17 wins a row, they went 3-4-1 in the next 8 to be eliminated).
Had he played 84 games, I expect Lemieux would have ended up around 2.5 PPG. However, even if he had stayed at 2.66 (and he wouldn't have), he still rests at 3rd-best, and that in the easiest season ever to score big points.
Pittsburgh finished 1992-93 with a 17-game winning streak (and a tie in the last game), which obviously would have been a high-PPG period for Mario (for example, he scored 5 goals against NYR on April 9th, 1993). But that would not continue for 24 more games (indeed, after 17 wins a row, they went 3-4-1 in the next 8 to be eliminated).
Had he played 84 games, I expect Lemieux would have ended up around 2.5 PPG. However, even if he had stayed at 2.66 (and he wouldn't have), he still rests at 3rd-best, and that in the easiest season ever to score big points.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said here, but getting back to Gretzky's 3.0 PPG average over 51 games: I truly believe that his shoulder injury (that forced him to sit out 6 games) did in fact halt his momentum. He was simply unstoppable up until that point. He probably wouldn't have maintained the 3.0 PPG for the entire 80 games, but I would be be shocked if he didn't finish with a higher PPG average than his actual 2.77 PPG. My guess is he would have had his best season by far -- somewhere in the neighborhood of 220-230 points. (Had he finished with a 2.8 PPG average with the advantage of momentum -- which is quite conservative given his performance over 51 games -- it translates to 224 points over 80 games.)
Last edited:
The Panther
Registered User
I completely agree. Gretzky for the first 51 games of 1983-84 is by far the most dominant individual on any team in any season of the post-1920s NHL (the team was also on pace for 127 points when he was injured -- that would be about 140 today. They won only 1 of 6 games without him).
As it was, Gretz scored 31 more goals than the 2nd-best goal scorer that year, despite missing 6 games and losing momentum. He won the scoring title by 79 points, but if he'd not missed those 6 you'd have to assume he would have scored at least 15 more points (=220, a scoring title win by 94 points).
And even if we assume he would have slowed down anyway (even without the injury), his 2.77 PPG still translate to 221 points over 80 games. That's why I truly believe had he not lost momentum (nor games), he would have finished with about 230 points -- as I just don't see an injury free Gretzky slowing down too much. As it was, he was on pace for 240 points before the injury, but I'm taking off 10 points to compensate (for the obvious difficulty of maintaining a high PPG over more games). But if he can maintain 3 PPG over a 51 game point scoring streak….it gets quite interesting if he doesn't miss those games. Would have been amazing to see. Let's just say I don't think there would be any question as to who had the greatest season of all time -- not even for Orr die hards & Lemieux apologists.
Love
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 15,208
- 12,695
The 1988/1989 Hart Trophy... The biggest snub ever?
Mario Lemieux: 76gp 85g 114a 199pts
Wayne Gretzky: 78gp 54g 114a 168pts
Both teams were relatively equal, LA won 2 more games than PIT that year.
Guess who won the Hart? Wayne Gretzky.
This is old news, yes. But anyway, is this the biggest "snub" in the history of not just hockey, but professional sports for a major award?
Mario Lemieux: 76gp 85g 114a 199pts
Wayne Gretzky: 78gp 54g 114a 168pts
Both teams were relatively equal, LA won 2 more games than PIT that year.
Guess who won the Hart? Wayne Gretzky.
This is old news, yes. But anyway, is this the biggest "snub" in the history of not just hockey, but professional sports for a major award?
Cursed Lemon
Registered Bruiser
Wayne Gretzky was doing something for the league that year that still resonates in the game today.
Maybe the Hart back then was actually for "the player judged most valuable to his team" rather than the Art Ross winner, which it has become today.
Can't be that much of a snub considering the players voted Yzerman the best player (Lester B. Pearson/Ted Lindsay award) that year.
1985/1986 season:
Wayne Gretzky: 80gp 52g 163a 215pts
Mario Lemieux: 79gp 48g 93a 141pts
Lemieux got the Lester B Pearson award.
Wayne Gretzky: 80gp 52g 163a 215pts
Mario Lemieux: 79gp 48g 93a 141pts
Lemieux got the Lester B Pearson award.
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
Lemieux also set the record of scoring or assisting on 57% of Pittsburgh's goals, and that record still stands today. He was mvp by every definition, but he wasn't as media savvy or as popular as Wayne, and was somewhat aloof in nature. Definitely one of the biggest snubs. It's one if the reasons I don't really consider the Hart very prestigious, it's just a popularity contest. The media just pumps it up as the most prestigious because they vote on it.
Sidney the Kidney
One last time
- Jun 29, 2009
- 56,937
- 49,666
It's crazy how bad the players were at picking winners for the Pearson/Lindsay back then.
The Hart, I could see the rationale behind Gretzky winning it. I don't necessarily agree, but there's an argument based on the whole vague "most valuable to his team" thing.
The Pearson/Lindsay, however, is pretty cut and dried. I don't know how guys who basically torched the competition weren't the Most Outstanding Player that year.
Plural
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2011
- 33,880
- 5,092
I'm not saying awards are the only way of judging players careers. But out of all trophies Hart correlates best with career value.
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
Everything being relatively equal then that would tip it in Gretzkys favor. But everything wasn't relatively equal. Mario was far and away the best player in the league by this point.
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
I would say art ross. Highest percentage of hhof players of any trophy. Jose Theodore won the hart..
Plural
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2011
- 33,880
- 5,092
I agree, Mario was better than Gretzky was that season. But Mario was not far and away ahead of Gretzky at that time. The gap became more evident in few years. But the best player on planet title was still more strongly on Gretzky than Lemieux.
The stats for seasons 88-91
Gretzky: 229 GP 473 Pts.
Lemieux: 161 GP 367 Pts.
Lemieux was playing better on game-by-game basis but Gretzky actually played almost one season worth of games more.
But the argument for Lemieux over Gretzky for that one season is a real argument. But considering the nature of Hart trophy and Pearson award the fact that Yzerman won the Pearson was a lot bigger snub than Gretzky winning the Hart. But Lemieux won one Pearson over Gretzky he definitely should have not. So it evens out.
Plural
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2011
- 33,880
- 5,092
From forwards, probably. But due to it being (almost) exclusively forward trophy it can't be used outside of forwards.
Love
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 15,208
- 12,695
TheHockeyRant
Registered User
So you are saying...that the players who actually play the sport are stupid.
Plural
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2011
- 33,880
- 5,092
No. What he is saying is that the players are not actually that good judges of talent. The Pearson/Lindsay award has more dubious winners than the Hart.
Rorschach
Who the f*** is Trevor Moore?
Actually the biggest snub for that award was the 2011-2012 Hart where the actual MVP wasn't even nominated. So they gave him the playoff MVP instead even though he wasn't the most valuable player in the playoffs.
Love
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 15,208
- 12,695
You have a point here. Malkin was obviously outstanding that year as well, but damn at least give Quick nomination
- Status
