The 1989 Hart Trophy

[tazzy19]

The biggest joke of all was Gretzky beating Lemieux by 74 points (including setting the new points and assists record with a ridiculous 163 assists), and STILL losing the Pearson to Lemieux. That one takes the cake.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

On a team that had a -81 overall, Mario was a team high +41.

The Kings were a +171, Gretzky a +15 (Behind 7 teammates).

Lemieux also scored 13 short-handed goals, the single season record.

Mario got screwed.

Yeah this was one of those cases that went past hockey. Because at that point it was clear Lemieux was the superior player and had surpassed Gretzky. That season he also figured in on 57% of his team's goals, another NHL record and pretty much the definition of MVP. There's almost no hockey definition of why Gretzky deserved the Hart over Lemieux.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Kurri getting 135 came close. Why, what is the point?

What I was just trying to point out was that Nicholls was still a good player there. 150 points is still awe inspiring. He was 18 points behind Gretzky and I realize that gap didn't reflect the actual much larger gap between their skills, but when you look at Mario being 85 points better than his next best teammate, all I can say is that if that doesn't scream MVP..............

I'm on your side, Phil.

What I meant was that Gretzky played with some pretty good players in his career but nobody else ever scored 150 points. Bernie had a remarkable year and that also played into LA's big improvement. With Bernie scoring 70 goals & being a +30 to Gretzky's +15, you could even argue Nicholls had a better year than The Great One.

 

[Pegi90*]

we could create literally a similar thread from every trophy ever given.

80% of them would go differently in our eyes that it went with the voting committee's eyes.

opinions, opinions everywhere.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

80% of them would go differently in our eyes that it went with the voting committee's eyes.

80%? Maybe in your eyes.

Most people agree with most of the voting results. You've said previously that you have an axe to grind with opinion-based awards, so I'm not surprised that you are relatively unique here.

If you'd like to defend the 80% claim, why not start with a list of Hart Trophies that you feel were erroneously awarded?

 

[blogofmike]

Gretzky usually one-ups Lemieux, but he even has a better 2nd place Hart year where he was "robbed" of the MVP.

In 1991, Gretzky had a 32-point advantage in the scoring race, which was 24% ahead of second place in a lower scoring year. (Lemieux had 31 points and 18% in 1989.)

In 1991 Brett Hull played with the best possible linemates at ES, which is why he played with Oates. In 1989, Robbie Ftorek rarely played Gretzky with the next best Kings at ES, (Robitaille and Nicholls) and may as well have had lesser Kings play musical chairs to see if they wanted to play with Wayne.

In a lower scoring year, 91 Gretzky won the ES points race by a huge margin (even scoring more ES points than 89 Lemieux did in the higher scoring 88-89 season) and he did it without the obscene PPO numbers that the Pens had, to show it wasn't just PP points that padded his total.

How obscene was Lemieux's PP time? Not only did he get a higher share of PP time, but in Gretzky's highest scoring THREE year span, Edmonton had 901 PPO and often finished at or near the bottom of the league. Lemieux's Pens in 1988 and 1989 had 991 PPO in only TWO years and were easily #1 both times.

 

[Pegi90*]

80%? Maybe in your eyes.

Most people agree with most of the voting results. You've said previously that you have an axe to grind with opinion-based awards, so I'm not surprised that you are relatively unique here.

If you'd like to defend the 80% claim, why not start with a list of Hart Trophies that you feel were erroneously awarded?

well maybe 80% is over-exagettaring(however you spell it) but alot of trophies and their results would be different if this community for example "re-wrote" them.

there were just more of gretzky's fans during this 1989 vote, that's how opinion works.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

well maybe 80% is over-exagettaring(however you spell it) but alot of trophies and their results would be different if this community for example "re-wrote" them.

there were just more of gretzky's fans during this 1989 vote, that's how opinion works.

So which Hart Trophies do you feel were erroneously awarded?

 

[Cruor]

How obscene was Lemieux's PP time? Not only did he get a higher share of PP time, but in Gretzky's highest scoring THREE year span, Edmonton had 901 PPO and often finished at or near the bottom of the league. Lemieux's Pens in 1988 and 1989 had 991 PPO in only TWO years and were easily #1 both times.

I've seen the rebuttal to this argument that Lemieux "drew" the penalties, and as such deserved the opportunity given to score points. If so that should be borne out in the number of PPO in games Lemieux sat out or missed, have you ever had a look at that? I don't think that #66 being a great PP producer takes anything away from him vis-a-vis Gretzky, but rather that all things being equal Gretzky would better him even more than he did (which is a scary thought in itself).

 

[Pegi90*]

So which Hart Trophies do you feel were erroneously awarded?

it ain't just the hart trophies, all trophies overall.

and it ain't just hockey, it's sports overall.

 

[MS]

Lemieux was obviously the better player and had the better season.

But this wasn't a normal year. Gretzky turned around a franchise and changed the sport. He turned a perennial laughing stock with an empty building into the 4th-place team in the NHL with Hollywood stars watching every night. He hosted Saturday Night Live.

Long-term, there are a pile of NHL players born in California now in the NHL because of the impact that Gretzky had in that season. There are two other new franchises in California because of the impact that Gretzky had in that season.

Gretzky and the turnaround of hockey in California was *THE* story of the 1988-89 season. Again, it was a weird year, and voters took the meaning of 'valuable' to mean what happened outside of just a 200x80 sheet of ice.

 

[DrJenniferHanson]

it ain't just the hart trophies, all trophies overall.

and it ain't just hockey, it's sports overall.

... are you implying that voters forge alliances when voting? I think that's far-fetched.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

it ain't just the hart trophies, all trophies overall.

and it ain't just hockey, it's sports overall.

I understand. Let's start with the Hart Trophy. Which ones do you feel were erroneously awarded?

 

[Killion]

... are you implying that voters forge alliances when voting? I think that's far-fetched.

Quite impossible. Players voting, even media, wouldnt be engaging in such. Theyve nothing to gain from doing so..... the only coincidence Im readin here JH? You were Cursed By a Gypsy, I myself kissed one night in the woods by a Witch............................ ok ok I wasnt. Total liar... Jethro Tull lyric.

 

[blogofmike]

I've seen the rebuttal to this argument that Lemieux "drew" the penalties, and as such deserved the opportunity given to score points. If so that should be borne out in the number of PPO in games Lemieux sat out or missed, have you ever had a look at that? I don't think that #66 being a great PP producer takes anything away from him vis-a-vis Gretzky, but rather that all things being equal Gretzky would better him even more than he did (which is a scary thought in itself).

You can look at seasons where his GP varied, I never looked within a season. But it seems that the Pens drew tons of penalties even without Mario. Since the Caps and Devils usually did too, (and the 81, 82 and 83 Pens) it's probably a divisional thing. Since the 1998 Pens drew more penalties than the 1997 team, and the 1991 team fits in with the years Mario played full(ish) years, the idea of Lemieux drawing 500 penalties is probably a poorly though out rationalization to make people feel better about Mario's PP reliance.

As for being a great PP producer, there's little to suggest he beat Gretzky in PP points for any other reason but PPO. Lemieux's teams were very good (albeit downright horrible at the beginning), but not anything special next to Gretzky's teams, which had 8 top 5 finishes (3 1st, 3 2nd, 2 5th) to the Pens 9 top 10 finishes (including 1991, where Lemieux barely played, yet the Pens still got a good number of PPO and improved their PP%).

While Gretzky's years on the stacked Oilers look better than Lemieux's on the stacked Pens, if you exclude the years where their teams were powerhouses Gretzky begins to separate from Lemieux. Gretzky further distances himself with the sharper decline in his team's performance when he leaves a team.

Year | Oilers | Rank | Pens | Rank | NHL avg | Oilers PPO | Pens PPO | Avg PPO | Oiler Rk | Pens Rk | Gretzky GP | Mario GP
79-80 | 21.63 | 10 | 19.85 | 14 | 21.86 | 282 | 262 | 280 | 10 | 18 | 79 | 0
80-81 | 22.19 | 12 | 23.00 | 11 | 22.53 | 347 | 400 | 340 | 8 | 2 | 80 | 0
81-82 | 25.22 | 5 | 24.50 | 8 | 22.85 | 341 | 404 | 320 | 6 | 2 | 80 | 0
82-83 | 29.25 | 1 | 22.63 | 9 | 22.92 | 294 | 358 | 310 | 15 | 2 | 80 | 0
83-84 | 25.47 | 2 | 20.59 | 16 | 21.91 | 318 | 340 | 336 | 15 | 10 | 74 | 0
84-85 | 25.26 | 2 | 17.08 | 21 | 22.20 | 293 | 363 | 321 | 19 | 2 | 80 | 73
85-86 | 26.44 | 1 | 21.88 | 12 | 22.08 | 295 | 425 | 370 | 21 | 1 | 80 | 79
86-87 | 22.01 | 7 | 19.58 | 14 | 20.98 | 318 | 378 | 344 | 19 | 3 | 79 | 63
87-88 | 21.89 | 7 | 22.00 | 6 | 20.29 | 437 | 500 | 402 | 16 | 1 | 64 | 77
88-89 | 19.81 | 16 | 24.24 | 3 | 20.99 | 419 | 491 | 403 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 76
89-90 | 20.64 | 12 | 21.34 | 10 | 20.77 | 407 | 403 | 367 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 59

Year | Kings | Rank | Pens | Rank | NHL avg | Kings PPO | Pens PPO | Avg PPO | Kings Rk | Pens Rk | Gretzky GP | Mario GP
87-88 | 21.73 | 8 | 22.00 | 6 | 20.29 | 474 | 500 | 402 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 77
88-89 | 20.76 | 11 | 24.24 | 3 | 20.99 | 395 | 491 | 403 | 11 | 1 | 78 | 76
89-90 | 22.16 | 8 | 21.34 | 10 | 20.77 | 343 | 403 | 367 | 17 | 4 | 73 | 59
90-91 | 20.46 | 6 | 22.94 | 3 | 19.44 | 391 | 388 | 366 | 5 | 7 | 78 | 26
91-92 | 19.22 | 10 | 21.75 | 4 | 19.24 | 411 | 423 | 402 | 11 | 6 | 74 | 64
92-93 | 20.12 | 11 | 23.86 | 2 | 19.57 | 507 | 440 | 443 | 2 | 14 | 45 | 60
93-94 | 20.72 | 7 | 18.81 | 14 | 18.64 | 444 | 404 | 407 | 2 | 16 | 81 | 22
94-95 | 17.50 | 13 | 19.00 | 10 | 17.73 | 200 | 221 | 209 | 19 | 7 | 48 | 0
95-96 | 17.96 | 14 | 25.95 | 1 | 17.93 | 401 | 420 | 413 | 18 | 11 | 62 | 70
96-97 | 13.61 | 25 | 21.83 | 2 | 16.27 | 338 | 339 | 336 | 12 | 11 | 0 | 76

Year | NYR | Rank | Pens | Rank | NHL avg | NYR PPO | Pens PPO | Avg PPO | NYR Rk | Pens Rk | Gretzky GP | Mario GP
96-97 | 21.95 | 1 | 21.83 | 2 | 16.27 | 287 | 339 | 336 | 26 | 11 | 82 | 76
97-98 | 17.66 | 5 | 16.46 | 11 | 15.08 | 351 | 407 | 380 | 24 | 4 | 82 | 0
98-99 | 20.40 | 2 | 17.91 | 7 | 15.81 | 348 | 363 | 359 | 17 | 14 | 70 | 0
99-00 | 16.92 | 10 | 15.61 | 20 | 16.15 | 325 | 346 | 331 | 18 | 7 | 0 | 0
00-01 | 17.91 | 11 | 20.27 | 5 | 16.64 | 363 | 375 | 376 | 21 | 15 | 0 | 43
01-02 | 14.72 | 21 | 14.03 | 25 | 15.77 | 326 | 335 | 338 | 22 | 19 | 0 | 24
02-03 | x | x | 18.33 | 7 | 16.43 | x | 360 | 363 | x | 16 | 0 | 67
03-04 | x | x | 18.06 | 7 | 16.46 | x | 360 | 348 | x | 10 | 0 | 10
05-06 | x | x | 18.99 | 6 | 17.68 | x | 495 | 480 | x | 11 | 0 | 26
06-07 | x | x | 20.30 | 5 | 17.58 | x | 463 | 398 | x | 1 | 0 | 0

 

[Rhiessan71]

No, Gretzky simply wasn't as good as Mario at producing on the PP.
I mean you can talk about PP opps all you want but Mario had over 85PP points in just 60 gp the one year where Gretzky produced far more points at even strength. I mean the ratio for each player is not even close.

 

[BraveCanadian]

You can look at seasons where his GP varied, I never looked within a season. But it seems that the Pens drew tons of penalties even without Mario. Since the Caps and Devils usually did too, (and the 81, 82 and 83 Pens) it's probably a divisional thing. Since the 1998 Pens drew more penalties than the 1997 team, and the 1991 team fits in with the years Mario played full(ish) years, the idea of Lemieux drawing 500 penalties is probably a poorly though out rationalization to make people feel better about Mario's PP reliance.

I'm sure Mario drew his fair share but I also never bought into the idea that he somehow made up that drastic difference in PPO by himself.

Mostly because surely Gretzky must have drawn his fair share too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm sure Mario drew his fair share but I also never bought into the idea that he somehow made up that drastic difference in PPO by himself.

Mostly because surely Gretzky must have drawn his fair share too.

Gretzky's style of brilliantly avoiding getting touched isn't one to draw penalties though.

 

[blogofmike]

No, Gretzky simply wasn't as good as Mario at producing on the PP.
I mean you can talk about PP opps all you want but Mario had over 85PP points in just 60 gp the one year where Gretzky produced far more points at even strength. I mean the ratio for each player is not even close.

I don't see those numbers anywhere, but you can look up the actual numbers here. If you don't agree that A) Gretzky routinely murdered Mario at ES scoring and B) There is a clear correlation between PP points and PPO, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Season | Age | Tm | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | PIM | EVG | EVA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | SHG | SHA | SHP | | Team PP % | Rank | Team PPO | Team Rk
1979-80 | 19 | EDM | 79 | 51 | 86 | 137 | 15 | 21 | 37 | 62 | 99 | 13 | 23 | 36 | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 21.63 | 10 | 282 | 10
1980-81 | 20 | EDM | 80 | 55 | 109 | 164 | 41 | 28 | 36 | 69 | 105 | 15 | 37 | 52 | 4 | 3 | 7 | | 22.19 | 12 | 347 | 8
1981-82 | 21 | EDM | 80 | 92 | 120 | 212 | 81 | 26 | 68 | 79 | 147 | 18 | 39 | 57 | 6 | 2 | 8 | | 25.22 | 5 | 341 | 6
1982-83 | 22 | EDM | 80 | 71 | 125 | 196 | 60 | 59 | 47 | 85 | 132 | 18 | 36 | 54 | 6 | 4 | 10 | | 29.25 | 1 | 294 | 15
1983-84 | 23 | EDM | 74 | 87 | 118 | 205 | 76 | 39 | 55 | 82 | 137 | 20 | 25 | 45 | 12 | 11 | 23 | | 25.47 | 2 | 318 | 15
1984-85 | 24 | EDM | 80 | 73 | 135 | 208 | 98 | 52 | 54 | 93 | 147 | 8 | 35 | 43 | 11 | 7 | 18 | | 25.26 | 2 | 293 | 19
1985-86 | 25 | EDM | 80 | 52 | 163 | 215 | 71 | 46 | 38 | 106 | 144 | 11 | 42 | 53 | 3 | 15 | 18 | | 26.44 | 1 | 295 | 21
1986-87 | 26 | EDM | 79 | 62 | 121 | 183 | 70 | 28 | 42 | 82 | 124 | 13 | 33 | 46 | 7 | 6 | 13 | | 22.01 | 7 | 318 | 19
1987-88 | 27 | EDM | 64 | 40 | 109 | 149 | 39 | 24 | 26 | 65 | 91 | 9 | 40 | 49 | 5 | 4 | 9 | | 21.89 | 7 | 437 | 16
1988-89 | 28 | LAK | 78 | 54 | 114 | 168 | 15 | 26 | 38 | 62 | 100 | 11 | 42 | 53 | 5 | 10 | 15 | | 20.76 | 11 | 395 | 11
1989-90 | 29 | LAK | 73 | 40 | 102 | 142 | 8 | 42 | 26 | 70 | 96 | 10 | 30 | 40 | 4 | 2 | 6 | | 22.16 | 8 | 343 | 17
1990-91 | 30 | LAK | 78 | 41 | 122 | 163 | 30 | 16 | 33 | 70 | 103 | 8 | 51 | 59 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 20.46 | 6 | 391 | 5
1991-92 | 31 | LAK | 74 | 31 | 90 | 121 | -12 | 34 | 17 | 46 | 63 | 12 | 42 | 54 | 2 | 2 | 4 | | 19.22 | 10 | 411 | 11
1992-93 | 32 | LAK | 45 | 16 | 49 | 65 | 6 | 6 | 14 | 24 | 38 | 0 | 24 | 24 | 2 | 1 | 3 | | 20.12 | 11 | 507 | 2
1993-94 | 33 | LAK | 81 | 38 | 92 | 130 | -25 | 20 | 20 | 42 | 62 | 14 | 47 | 61 | 4 | 3 | 7 | | 20.72 | 7 | 444 | 2
1994-95 | 34 | LAK | 48 | 11 | 37 | 48 | -20 | 6 | 8 | 15 | 23 | 3 | 19 | 22 | 0 | 3 | 3 | | 17.50 | 13 | 200 | 19
1995-96 | 35 | TOT | 80 | 23 | 79 | 102 | -13 | 34 | 16 | 38 | 54 | 6 | 41 | 47 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | # | # | # | #
1996-97 | 36 | NYR | 82 | 25 | 72 | 97 | 12 | 28 | 19 | 46 | 65 | 6 | 25 | 31 | 0 | 1 | 1 | | 21.95 | 1 | 287 | 26
1997-98 | 37 | NYR | 82 | 23 | 67 | 90 | -11 | 28 | 17 | 43 | 60 | 6 | 24 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 17.66 | 5 | 351 | 24
1998-99 | 38 | NYR | 70 | 9 | 53 | 62 | -23 | 14 | 6 | 26 | 32 | 3 | 27 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 20.40 | 2 | 348 | 17
Career | | | 1487 | 894 | 1963 | 2857 | 518 | 577 | 617 | 1205 | 1822 | 204 | 682 | 886 | 73 | 76 | 149 | | | | |
82gm Avg | | | 82 | 49.3 | 108.2 | 157.5 | 28.6 | 31.8 | 34.0 | 66.4 | 100.5 | 11.2 | 37.6 | 48.9 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 8.2 | Team Averages: | 22.12 | 6.4 | 347.5 | 13.8

Season | Age | Tm | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | PIM | EV | EV | ESP | PP | PP | PPP | SH | SH | SHP | Pens | Rank | Pens PPO | Pens Rk
1984-85 | 19 | PIT | 73 | 43 | 57 | 100 | -35 | 54 | 32 | 36 | 68 | 11 | 21 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17.08 | 21 | 363 | 2
1985-86 | 20 | PIT | 79 | 48 | 93 | 141 | -6 | 43 | 31 | 45 | 76 | 17 | 48 | 65 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21.88 | 12 | 425 | 1
1986-87 | 21 | PIT | 63 | 54 | 53 | 107 | 13 | 57 | 35 | 34 | 69 | 19 | 19 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19.58 | 14 | 378 | 3
1987-88 | 22 | PIT | 77 | 70 | 98 | 168 | 23 | 92 | 38 | 36 | 74 | 22 | 58 | 80 | 10 | 4 | 14 | 22 | 6 | 500 | 1
1988-89 | 23 | PIT | 76 | 85 | 114 | 199 | 41 | 100 | 41 | 61 | 102 | 31 | 48 | 79 | 13 | 5 | 18 | 24.24 | 3 | 491 | 1
1989-90 | 24 | PIT | 59 | 45 | 78 | 123 | -18 | 78 | 28 | 43 | 71 | 14 | 35 | 49 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 21.34 | 10 | 403 | 4
1990-91 | 25 | PIT | 26 | 19 | 26 | 45 | 8 | 30 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 22.94 | 3 | 388 | 7
1991-92 | 26 | PIT | 64 | 44 | 87 | 131 | 27 | 94 | 28 | 46 | 74 | 12 | 35 | 47 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 21.75 | 4 | 423 | 6
1992-93 | 27 | PIT | 60 | 69 | 91 | 160 | 55 | 38 | 47 | 49 | 96 | 16 | 39 | 55 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 23.86 | 2 | 440 | 14
1993-94 | 28 | PIT | 22 | 17 | 20 | 37 | -2 | 32 | 10 | 12 | 22 | 7 | 8 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.81 | 14 | 404 | 16
1995-96 | 30 | PIT | 70 | 69 | 92 | 161 | 10 | 54 | 30 | 43 | 73 | 31 | 48 | 79 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 25.95 | 1 | 420 | 11
1996-97 | 31 | PIT | 76 | 50 | 72 | 122 | 27 | 65 | 32 | 47 | 79 | 15 | 22 | 37 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 21.83 | 2 | 339 | 11
2000-01 | 35 | PIT | 43 | 35 | 41 | 76 | 15 | 18 | 18 | 25 | 43 | 16 | 16 | 32 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 20.27 | 5 | 375 | 15
201-02 | 36 | PIT | 24 | 6 | 25 | 31 | 0 | 14 | 4 | 13 | 17 | 2 | 12 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14.03 | 25 | 335 | 19
2002-03 | 37 | PIT | 67 | 28 | 63 | 91 | -25 | 43 | 14 | 32 | 46 | 14 | 31 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.33 | 7 | 360 | 16
2003-04 | 38 | PIT | 10 | 1 | 8 | 9 | -2 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.06 | 7 | 360 | 10
2005-06 | 40 | PIT | 26 | 7 | 15 | 22 | -16 | 16 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.99 | 6 | 495 | 11
Career | | | 915 | 690 | 1033 | 1723 | 115 | 834 | 405 | 548 | 953 | 236 | 463 | 699 | 49 | 22 | 71 |
82gm avg | | | | 61.8 | 92.6 | 154.4 | 10.3 | 74.7 | 36.3 | 49.1 | 85.4 | 21.1 | 41.5 | 62.6 | 4.4 | 2.0 | 6.4 | 20.64 | 8.4 | 405.8 | 8.7

Gretzky's ES assist peak was higher than Mario's ES point peak. Gretzky's 5 year average at his peak was 141.4 points. Lemieux's 1-year peak was 102.

It makes sense that more PPO = more PP points. That's why the one year Gretzky played on a highh PPO team, he set a career high in PP points, even though 1994 is a mediocre year compared to the Oilers years. I mean, wouldn't 1984 Gretzky torch 1994 Gretzky if given the same number of PPO?

Also, everyone should disregard the career average for team PP%. It's an average of averages, not PPG/PPO. I was just too lazy to figure it out, and am still too lazy to remove it.

 

[Regal]

Of course one thing to keep in mind is that increased power play opportunities decreases even strength time during a game. Wayne's even strength numbers would naturally go down if his teams had more PPOs simply due to less even strength time. It would be interesting to know what their TOI splits were. I know there was some work done on figuring out an estimate for the average time on ice for players in years before the data was kept, but has anything been done regarding their PP/EV splits?

 

[blogofmike]

It's possible that Mario spent so much time playing powerplays that he played fewer ES minutes. That being said, PP goals are much more frequent than ES goals on a per minute basis, and Mario's overall numbers clearly get a boost. Evening out the ES/PP time helps his ES point total a little, but will hurt his PP and overall totals a lot. That 31 point lead easily gets cut in half, because as great as he was at ES scoring, Lemieux was nowhere near Gretzky in ES efficiency.

As for PP efficiency, I'm looking for proof Mario Lemieux was the better PP player, but I'm not seeing it.

If he wasn't getting as much of a share of PP ice time because of the sheer number of PPO, that may be an excuse. But Mario was definitely put on the ice for most of Pittsburgh's PP chances, and got a proportionately larger slice of PP ice-time pie than Gretzky. Mario had marginally higher PP usage. He was on for 92.4% of PPG despite missing 4 games. 1986 Gretzky was on for 89.6%.

Mario didn't produce more points when he was on the ice either. For PPGF, 85-86 Gretzky produced points on 76.8% of them. 88-89 Lemieux produced points on 71.8% of his PPGF. If he had been more productive and had a significant lead in PPP/PPGF, perhaps it could be argued he was better at the PP when he was on the ice, or had to carry more of the load, and as such, Lemieux took fuller advantage of his chances. But that's not the case.

I see no reason why we can't say that Mario Lemieux's superior PP point production over Wayne Gretzky isn't solely the result of the massive PPO advantage. Had 1986 Gretzky also gotten 491-500 PPO (he had 53 PP points off 295 team chances) he projects to a 88-90 PP point pace.

 

[Boom Boom Bear]

Gretzky - Hart
Lemieux - 1st Team All-Star
Yzerman - Pearson

pretty fair & balanced overall, i'd say, given the impact the three had that season.

oh, indeed, i concur

 

[Big Phil]

The biggest joke of all was Gretzky beating Lemieux by 74 points (including setting the new points and assists record with a ridiculous 163 assists), and STILL losing the Pearson to Lemieux. That one takes the cake.

I've never understood that one in a million years. That is, by all rights, the worst award selection in NHL history. No doubt. And believe me, I've tried to take myself back to that moment, I've tried to look back in hindsight for any sort of sign or glimmer of hope that could make things more justifiable for Lemieux. I can't. It is simply just impossible to do. This has nothing to do with being valuable in the landscape of your team. The Pearson is all about who is the most "outstanding" player. Gretzky had 22 more............assists than Lemieux had points. Think about that. Gretzky had "only" 52 goals that year and he still had more than Lemieux. Gretzky obliterated the assist record (his own record) and the players picked the guy who still had a reputation of being a complainer in his 2nd season? Why oh why?

You might say, well, Lemieux got close to him in points, closer than anyone else in that time. Even if that is true, it still can't explain the 74 point gap. Besides, Bossy had 147 in 1982 to Gretzky's 212 and Gretzky took home the Pearson.

1986 is a strange year for that. What were the players thinking? Honestly. You can be sick of Gretzky winning everything all you want, but there are times when it just isn't possible NOT to pick him. This is one of those years. I think the Pearson has the worst selections over the years over any other award. For starters, Bobby Orr never won this award until 1975. Yes, it started in 1971, one year after Orr's big 1970 season which I am sure he'd have won, but come on.

There are some of them I can "get" even if I can't agree with them. Ratelle winning in 1972. Okay, you don't want to pick the usuals in Orr or Esposito. Ratelle had a fine year, he was well liked and he had 109 points in 63 games. He misses time. I guess I can sort of see that. Liut in 1981 wins it over Gretzky smashing records. The Blues got into the postseason with 107 points while Gretzky was struggling to get the Oilers into the elite. Maybe the whole "well why can't he help his team win?" idea was put forth. Fine. But 1986? Everything points to Gretzky. I mean, in his wildest imagination did Lemieux even dream he would have won it in 1986? How did this happen? Wow.

The next worst one was 1989. It isn't as bad as 1986 because at least Yzerman had himself a pretty ridiculous year with little support on the Red Wings. 44 points is still not 74 points difference like in 1986 but it is just crazy that a guy can beat the other one so clearly in one of the greatest NHL seasons known to man and the players didn't vote on him. I will agree there was an anti-Mario bias in 1989. But then how do you explain him winning in 1986 when it made even LESS sense?

I'm on your side, Phil.

What I meant was that Gretzky played with some pretty good players in his career but nobody else ever scored 150 points. Bernie had a remarkable year and that also played into LA's big improvement. With Bernie scoring 70 goals & being a +30 to Gretzky's +15, you could even argue Nicholls had a better year than The Great One.

I think Gretzky wins this very comfortably against Nicholls because it is clear he would have had the toughest assignment to play against, which left Nicholls with an easier match up. Nicholls never had a spike like that again, and I think that explains why. Gretzky just simply opened things up for everyone.

However....................150 points is still 150 points. He was doing more of the damage without Gretzky on his line than with him (PP time for example). So I think picking Gretzky based on the most "valuable" should have still gone to Lemieux. Being in on 57% of your team's goals is phenomenal. So it is clear to me the 180 that L.A. took because of Gretzky was what made this happen. Which is fine, because it is a rare occasion, but still.

 

[The Panther]

In regards to the 1985-86 season in particular, it bears remembering how dominant Wayne and the Oilers were by the summer of '85 (entering that season). As Kevin Lowe said once, in the early years they were "Canada's team"; they were "Gretzky and the Oilers", and everyone loved to see them win (in 1981 over Montreal, during the 1983 run, in 1984 and maybe 1985). But around this time, it started to change and people were getting tired of their domination.

The team was coming off three straight trips to the Finals, four straight 1st place seasons, and they had the top center, right-winger, and defenceman in the League. Gretzky had won 5 straight scoring titles with ridiculous ease, and 6 straight Hart Trophies. A peak-level Mark Messier was their 2nd-line center! With 2 Cups in the bag, ALL their main players were 23-24 years old. (Fuhr was 22.) There was no end in sight to it. Everyone thought they'd win a 3rd-straight Cup, with no real challengers on the horizon.

Jealousy and an anti-Gretzky mood crept in. (As a comparison, look at all the anti-Crosby fury that his relatively lesser success engenders today... and he's only won about three major trophies. At the same age, Gretzky had won about 30.) The Flames' Cliff Fletcher, in cahoots with other anti-entertainment GMs (i.e., idiots), conspired in the off-season to do away with 4-on-4 hockey for coincidental minor penalties, thinking this would slow down Edmonton. (It failed, as the Flames went down in the standings, and the Oilers 10 points up.) Fans were getting tired of it, too. There was even a game in Edmonton, against Mario and the Pens (I think it was the game on Jan.22nd, 1986) in which several Edmonton fans were heard booing Gretzky from the stands -- Lemieux outplayed him on this night, and the Pens won the game. Players, too. The players were tired of Sather smirking behind the bench and Gretzky winning everything.

So, looking for any chance to take Gretzky down a peg, the players association gave Mario the Pearson Award.

Twelve games into 1986-87, Wayne was off to the usual fine start with 30 points in 12 games. But Lemieux had 29. (Gretzky soon pulled away from Mario when the Oilers heated-up in the 2nd half, and Mario missed some games to injury to boot.) When it came time for fan voting for Rendezvous '87, Lemieux was in 1st-place in voting for starting center despite Wayne easily leading the scoring race and the Oilers being at the top of the League. Hilariously, Gretzky was in 3rd-place in voting.

Of this period (1986-1987), Terry Jones writes:

That fans were beginning to overdose on Gretzky's greatness was the diagnosis by many. And Gretzky didn't disagree.

"I've won it too many times," he said of the scoring race. "When I came into the League, I came under a lot of heat and fire for my early success. It seemed they wanted to protect the players who held the old records and nobody wanted to see a new guy take over. They would say I didn't play on a good team, and, 'Sure, but he hasn't won a Stanley Cup'. Now it seems like they want somebody else to take over."

Gretzky said he knew the way it was.

"Let's say I ended up with 160 points. Would I get the Hart Trophy? Definitely not. Nobody else has ever managed to get more than 160 but that's the way it would be," said Gretzky.


(The Gretzky quotes here are from January 1987.)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The biggest joke of all was Gretzky beating Lemieux by 74 points (including setting the new points and assists record with a ridiculous 163 assists), and STILL losing the Pearson to Lemieux. That one takes the cake.

Look at the history of the Pearson/Lindsay award and try to make sense of it. I can't.

Though Gretzky has 9 Hart wins and Mario only 3, in Pearson awards its only 5-4. Considering 2 of those are before Lemieux is in the league, the NHLPA actual felt Mario was the most outstanding player more often.

How about Esposito having 2 Pearson's and Orr only one?

Marcel Dionne has 2, but Bobby Clarke has only one.