The 1989 Hart Trophy

[Wrath]

According to what infallible authority?

Naslund over Forsberg
Yzerman over Gretzky/Lemieux
Lemieux over Gretzky (85-86)
Liut over Gretzky
Clarke over Orr
Esposito over Orr (in 70-71 and 72-73)
Ratelle over Orr


I don't see how any of those are justifiable. Especially since the description of the Lindsay/Pearson is: "most outstanding player"

 

[tazzy19]

Mario getting snubbed for the Pearson is the bigger issue then, since that award is strictly for the best player in the league.

Hart Trophy is for the most valuable player in the league, which usually defaults to the best player and/or art ross winner, but sometimes the voters decide to change it up a bit.

I do know that the Pearson/Lindsay is voted by the NHLPA about 3/4 way through the season, so maybe Yzerman was recently on a hot streak or something and Lemieux was slumping. But regardless I think there's no argument for anybody being the best player in the league except for Lemieux that year.

The biggest snub was when Mario won the Pearson in 1986: Gretzky more assists than anyone else has points (including Mario himself), and 215 points to Mario's 141 points. That's a 74 point lead! If Gretz had not scored a single one of his 52 goals that season, he still would have crushed Mario in scoring with an extra 22 points just with his assists alone. And the players vote for Mario, lol...

 

[Wrath]

The biggest snub was when Mario won the Pearson in 1986: Gretzky more assists than anyone else has points (including Mario himself), and 215 points to Mario's 141 points. That's a 74 point lead! If Gretz had not scored a single one of his 52 goals that season, he still would have crushed Mario in scoring with an extra 22 points just with his assists alone. And the players vote for Mario, lol...

Agreed.

The speculation around here is that people got tired of voting for Gretzky haha.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Well, it has more questionable winners. Orr won it only once. Mike Liut won it over Gretzky. Steve Yzerman won it over Lemieux.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Lindsay_Award#Winners

From the timeframe these two awards have been side by side, I think Hart has found it's way to the proper winner more often. I am fairly certain that I am not alone on this one.

Liut won it over Gretzky because he played out of his mind one season for a crap team. Ditto Yzerman.

Seems like they were pretty "outstanding" those years.

And again, where is the infallible authority that decides the "proper winner" for an award with subjective criteria?

Are we expecting both of these awards to really be "the best player in the league award?"

Because that is different then the most valuable to his team or most outstanding.

Naslund over Forsberg
Yzerman over Gretzky/Lemieux
Lemieux over Gretzky (85-86)
Liut over Gretzky
Clarke over Orr
Esposito over Orr (in 70-71 and 72-73)
Ratelle over Orr


I don't see how any of those are justifiable. Especially since the description of the Lindsay/Pearson is: "most outstanding player"

Both awards have subjective criteria.

As I said above.. neither of those awards are "the best player in the league" awards although many times the Hart seems to be voted on that way.

 

[The Panther]

Naslund over Forsberg
Clarke over Orr
Esposito over Orr (in...72-73)

I think these three (esp. Naslund) are completely justifiable. Naslund was winning the scoring race all season and led the Canucks to 1st-place (he lost to Forsberg in scoring only due to a late-season injury). All three are reasonable choices.

The others you listed... not so much.

I agree that the Hart usually gets it right, but let's not pretend these two awards are equal. The Hart is an official NHL award that gets written up about in international news and that the average fans remembers. By comparison, nobody cares about the Pearson, which is small-time by comparison. The players know this, too.

 

[Plural]

Liut won it over Gretzky because he played out of his mind one season for a crap team. Ditto Yzerman.

Seems like they were pretty "outstanding" those years.

And again, where is the infallible authority that decides the "proper winner" for an award with subjective criteria?

Are we expecting both of these awards to really be "the best player in the league award?"

Because that is different then the most valuable to his team or most outstanding.

I'm just saying that the Pearson/Lindsay award has just as much, probably more (in my mind definitely more) dubious winners as Hart has. Of course this is just a reflection of my perspective, but it seems to me that some of those winners are hard to justify in the spirit of that award.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Agreed.

The speculation around here is that people got tired of voting for Gretzky haha.

Seems to me that in the 70s and 80s, the players voted heavily for fresh faces... Or perhaps more accurately, for players who exceeded expectations, rather than simply the best player. Explains all the snubs of Or and Gretzky, then later Lemieux in 89 after Mario had established himself

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think these three (esp. Naslund) are completely justifiable. Naslund was winning the scoring race all season and led the Canucks to 1st-place (he lost to Forsberg in scoring only due to a late-season injury). All three are reasonable choices.

something lodged in his throat?

https://www.google.com/search?clien...lund+"we+choked"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=ssl

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

in the last 15-odd years, when there's been a discrepancy between hart and pearson/lindsay, it's usually because the pearson/lindsay went with the guy who was dominant all season while the hart tended to favour the guy who was best down the stretch. iginla vs. theodore, naslund vs. forsberg, jagr vs. thornton, ovechkin vs. henrik sedin, daniel sedin vs. perry, and crosby vs. ovechkin. the sole exception to this would be jagr vs. pronger in 2000. but before 2000 there hadn't been any discrepancies since '89.

so i went back to the scoring logs at the end of '89 to see if gretzky was particularly hot down the stretch, which he wasn't. nor did the kings look particularly amazing near the end of the season. i remember nothing about the end of that regular season but just from looking at the numbers and results, from march 1 to the end of the regular season the penguins were below .500 (7-8) while the kings were chugging along at their normal rate (slightly above, actually), and in that last month from march 1 to the end of the regular season wayne scored at only slightly behind mario's pace, whereas there were months in the first half of the season where mario absolutely blew him away. but still, it's not like wayne made any ground in the scoring race near the end, and he was still putting up points at basically his normal pace for that season. (yzerman seems to have been pretty consistent all year, but i don't think what he did or didn't do really is particularly important here.)

but does anybody actually remember how the end of the '89 regular season went, and what people were saying about gretzky, mario, and yzerman?

there's no way mario lost the hart because washington (11-4 in the last month, and 2-0 against pittsburgh during that stretch) overtook them for the division title, is there?

 

[Ogopogo*]

This one of the award results I have always wondered about, and I was too young at the time to really remember, but why did Wayne Gretzky win the Hart Trophy over Mario Lemeiux in 1989?

Mario's numbers from the 88-89 season:

Goals: 85 (lead the league by 15)
Assists: 114 (tied Greztky for league lead)
Points: 199 (led league by 31)

Lemiux's numbers all were far ahead of Gretzky's

The Penguins also made the playoffs for the first time since drafting Mario in this season, mostly due to the season he had.

Looking at the voting for the Hart that season, Gretzky won with 47% of the votes, and 40 1st place votes to Lemieux's 18.

The Hart is for the most VALUABLE player. Gretzky took a Kings team that was scraping bottom in 1988 and made them a contender immediately upon his arrival. That is the very definition of valuable and Gretzky clearly deserved the award. Lemieux got what he deserved - the Ross.

 

[K Fleur]

The Hart is for the most VALUABLE player. Gretzky took a Kings team that was scraping bottom in 1988 and made them a contender immediately upon his arrival. That is the very definition of valuable and Gretzky clearly deserved the award. Lemieux got what he deserved - the Ross.

I feel pretty confident when I say that the 88-89 penguins would not have so much as sniffed the playoffs without Lemieux.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I just think the "value" of Lemieux to the Penguins, and Gretzky to the Kings that season was not very far apart.

But hey just my opinion.

 

[Regal]

I feel pretty confident when I say that the 88-89 penguins would not have so much as sniffed the playoffs without Lemieux.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I just think the "value" of Lemieux to the Penguins, and Gretzky to the Kings that season was not very far apart.

But hey just my opinion.

Yup. You shouldn't be considered more valuable just because you changed teams in the offseason and the other guy didn't. Gretzky's value may have been more obvious, but that doesn't make it higher.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

I feel pretty confident when I say that the 88-89 penguins would not have so much as sniffed the playoffs without Lemieux.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I just think the "value" of Lemieux to the Penguins, and Gretzky to the Kings that season was not very far apart.

But hey just my opinion.

The difference is those Penguin teams would never have come close to the playoffs without Lemieux but the Oilers WON a CUP just 2 years after Gretzky left!

Lemieux is clearly more valuable to the Pens than Gretzky was to the Oilers. Plus Gretzky could never win a Cup for the Kings despite all the stars they surrounded him with like 70 goal man Bernie Nichols! Not even Crosby or Ovie could sniff 70 goals today!

 

[shazariahl]

The difference is those Penguin teams would never have come close to the playoffs without Lemieux but the Oilers WON a CUP just 2 years after Gretzky left!

Lemieux is clearly more valuable to the Pens than Gretzky was to the Oilers. Plus Gretzky could never win a Cup for the Kings despite all the stars they surrounded him with like 70 goal man Bernie Nichols! Not even Crosby or Ovie could sniff 70 goals today!

I was with you until you said the Kings surrounded Gretzky with 70 goal man Nichols... Nichols played for the Kings before Gretzky even got there and had never broken 50 goals or 110 pts in a season ever. Then he played the PP with Gretzky and shattered his career highs by massive amounts. If anything, most people use Nichols's freakish season as evidence that Gretzky turned the Kings around.

It would be far more accurate to say "Nichols never broke 50 goals in his whole career until they surrounded him with Wayne Gretzky" because that's actually how it happened.

Lemieux was probably more valuable to the Pens than Gretzky was to the Oilers, but the Pens had a lot less success than the Oilers did too.

 

[The Panther]

Er... it seems to me you guys are kind of missing the point here. The issue is not how important Gretzky was to the Oilers vs. Lemieux to the Pens. The issue is how important Gretzky was to the KINGS in 1988-89.

Yup. You shouldn't be considered more valuable just because you changed teams in the offseason and the other guy didn't.

Yes, you should. Gretzky was more valuable to the Kings in 1988-89 than he was to the Oilers in, say, 1987-88.

His move to the Kings meant his value to his team (the Kings) was higher than to his team the year before.

Similarly, if Lemieux had been traded in 1993 to the Senators, his value would be higher than with Pittsburgh the same year.

 

[K Fleur]

The difference is those Penguin teams would never have come close to the playoffs without Lemieux but the Oilers WON a CUP just 2 years after Gretzky left!

Lemieux is clearly more valuable to the Pens than Gretzky was to the Oilers. Plus Gretzky could never win a Cup for the Kings despite all the stars they surrounded him with like 70 goal man Bernie Nichols! Not even Crosby or Ovie could sniff 70 goals today!

Nichols was a good player who scored 70 goals once because he got to play with great one. Let's not make it out like he was some transcendent star the Kings got to play with Gretzky. He had one amazing season while playing with the great one. The rest of his career is pretty forgetable

 

[K Fleur]

Er... it seems to me you guys are kind of missing the point here. The issue is not how important Gretzky was to the Oilers vs. Lemieux to the Pens. The issue is how important Gretzky was to the KINGS in 1988-89.

Yes, you should. Gretzky was more valuable to the Kings in 1988-89 than he was to the Oilers in, say, 1987-88.

His move to the Kings meant his value to his team (the Kings) was higher than to his team the year before.

Similarly, if Lemieux had been traded in 1993 to the Senators, his value would be higher than with Pittsburgh the same year.

I hope I was clear that IMO the value of Lemieux and Greztky to their respective teams was close in 88-89. I'm not trying to compare any other seasons.

 

[The Panther]

He had one amazing season while playing with the great one. The rest of his career is pretty forgetable

Nicholls was certainly not a "transcendent star" as you put it, but he was a very, very skilled and high scoring offensive player long before Gretzky arrived in L.A. I do think this has become a popular revisionist thing -- that Nicholls only had that one good season, or whatever the party-line is (he didn't play on Gretzky's line in 1988-89, by the way, though he obviously benefited from being on with him and esp. on the power-play).

Just to be clear about it, here are some of Nicholls' achievements without Gretzky in sight:
- 32 points in 22 games as a rookie (1982)
- 95 points in '83-'84 (#1 on Kings, beating Dionne and Simmer); had a 7-point game against Cup champion Edmonton; 13th-highest scoring forward in NHL
- 100-point scorer in '84-'85 (Kings have a winning record); 10th in NHL goals; 12th-highest scoring forward (tied with Mario Lemieux)
- 97 points in '85-'86 (#1 on Kings, beating Dionne), 12th in NHL assists
- led NYR in playoff scoring, 1990
- 2nd in scoring (to B. Leetch) on NYR in 1990-91
- 19 points in 16 playoff games for Edmonton, 1992
- #1 in Chicago scoring in 1995; 12th-best in NHL (players he outscored in '95 include Fedorov and Gretzky)
- #1 in Chicago PPG in 1995-96


I mean, just glancing at that, he reads like a borderline Hall of Famer. So, can we put to bed this idea that Nicholls was nothing without Gretzky...?

 

[K Fleur]

Nicholls was certainly not a "transcendent star" as you put it, but he was a very, very skilled and high scoring offensive player long before Gretzky arrived in L.A. I do think this has become a popular revisionist thing -- that Nicholls only had that one good season, or whatever the party-line is (he didn't play on Gretzky's line in 1988-89, by the way, though he obviously benefited from being on with him and esp. on the power-play).

Just to be clear about it, here are some of Nicholls' achievements without Gretzky in sight:
- 32 points in 22 games as a rookie (1982)
- 95 points in '83-'84 (#1 on Kings, beating Dionne and Simmer); had a 7-point game against Cup champion Edmonton; 13th-highest scoring forward in NHL
- 100-point scorer in '84-'85 (Kings have a winning record); 10th in NHL goals; 12th-highest scoring forward (tied with Mario Lemieux)
- 97 points in '85-'86 (#1 on Kings, beating Dionne), 12th in NHL assists
- led NYR in playoff scoring, 1990
- 2nd in scoring (to B. Leetch) on NYR in 1990-91
- 19 points in 16 playoff games for Edmonton, 1992
- #1 in Chicago scoring in 1995; 12th-best in NHL (players he outscored in '95 include Fedorov and Gretzky)
- #1 in Chicago PPG in 1995-96


I mean, just glancing at that, he reads like a borderline Hall of Famer. So, can we put to bed this idea that Nicholls was nothing without Gretzky...?

You are correct, I was too harsh in my analysis of Nicholls. (although I do still think he had a very forgettable career)

I was mostly trying to convey that without Gretzky Nichols would not have scored 70 goals in any season ever. As well as that the poster i was responding too claiming Gretzky couldn't get it done on some supposed star studded Kings team is an absolute ridiculous notion

 

[whatname]

The difference is those Penguin teams would never have come close to the playoffs without Lemieux but the Oilers WON a CUP just 2 years after Gretzky left!

Lemieux is clearly more valuable to the Pens than Gretzky was to the Oilers. Plus Gretzky could never win a Cup for the Kings despite all the stars they surrounded him with like 70 goal man Bernie Nichols! Not even Crosby or Ovie could sniff 70 goals today!

Oilers won the cup two years after Gretzky left, what happened to them the season immediately following Gretzky's departure?

Pens didn't seem to have a problem making the playoffs the seasons Lemieux only played 20 something games in the early 90s.

If you want to compare team success of Gretzky vs Lemieux when both players from their late 20s onwards, then what do you have to say about Lemieux not winning any cups with the loaded Pens of the mid-90s, which included a far better Jagr compared to the one from the two cup winning years?

 

[Regal]

Yes, you should. Gretzky was more valuable to the Kings in 1988-89 than he was to the Oilers in, say, 1987-88.

His move to the Kings meant his value to his team (the Kings) was higher than to his team the year before.

Similarly, if Lemieux had been traded in 1993 to the Senators, his value would be higher than with Pittsburgh the same year.

Nope. It actually makes no logical sense to consider it that way. Gretzky may have been more valuable to the Kings than to the Oilers because the rest of the Kings weren't as good, but the trade isn't a factor. It had to do with how good Gretzky was in relation to his team. Lemieux though was at least similar in value in relation to the rest of his team. The fact that the Kings record increased shows how important he was, but simply because Lemieux's team didn't improve as much doesn't mean he wasn't more valuable. It only means that Lemieux was on the team both years.

 

[The Panther]

Gretzky may have been more valuable to the Kings than to the Oilers because the rest of the Kings weren't as good, but the trade isn't a factor. It had to do with how good Gretzky was in relation to his team. Lemieux though was at least similar in value in relation to the rest of his team. The fact that the Kings record increased shows how important he was, but simply because Lemieux's team didn't improve as much doesn't mean he wasn't more valuable. It only means that Lemieux was on the team both years.

Yeah... okay.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

Gretzky bombed in LA except for that one season when got blown out by the Habs. I even saw a Gretz interview where he really regretted not doing better in LA and not winning a Cup. By the time he got to St.Louis he was a shell of his former self.

With Hull at his side you would thing Gretz could've set up Hull for 90 goals but they never jelled and Gretzky admitted that himself!

As far as pure hockey talent goes Lemieux was better just like Orr said and Gretzky agreed!

 

[Thenameless]

Gretzky bombed in LA except for that one season when got blown out by the Habs. I even saw a Gretz interview where he really regretted not doing better in LA and not winning a Cup. By the time he got to St.Louis he was a shell of his former self.

With Hull at his side you would thing Gretz could've set up Hull for 90 goals but they never jelled and Gretzky admitted that himself!

As far as pure hockey talent goes Lemieux was better just like Orr said and Gretzky agreed!

I'm a Lemieux fan just like you, but we can't get carried away. Gretzky says stuff like this to be gracious and a gentleman. He really doesn't need to beat his own chest.

 

[shazariahl]

Gretzky bombed in LA except for that one season when got blown out by the Habs. I even saw a Gretz interview where he really regretted not doing better in LA and not winning a Cup. By the time he got to St.Louis he was a shell of his former self.

With Hull at his side you would thing Gretz could've set up Hull for 90 goals but they never jelled and Gretzky admitted that himself!

As far as pure hockey talent goes Lemieux was better just like Orr said and Gretzky agreed!

How did he "bomb" in LA? They were a team that had missed the playoffs 3 of the last 4 seasons and suddenly went from 4th worst to 4th best in the NHL in a single season. Kings jersey sales went from last in the NHL to #1 in all professional sports in north america. He won a Hart trophy and 3 more Art Ross trophies while playing there. He carried the team to a finals where they lost 3 games in OT (I guess that's your idea of getting blown out?).

Sure, he wasn't as good as he had been in Edmonton, no one was ever as good as Gretzky was in Edmonton, so that's hardly a surprise. But with a Hart and 3 Art Ross trophies, just his career AFTER Edmonton would have been a 1st ballot HOF career. Not sure how you can call that a bust.

And as far as physical attributes, I agree Lemieux was better. But Gretzky was definitely more talented IMO to accomplish what he did despite being 1/2 the size of Lemieux. If Lemieux was more talented than Gretzky, he would have beaten his records. He wasn't though, so he didn't.