Why did Gretzky win the Hart in 1989 with 31 fewer goals/points than Lemieux?

[pappyline]

Clear as mud.

and your theory where you state "Basically, the media, most people, did not like Mario. He wasn't as gracious and as much of an ambassador then Wayne was, and still is. I truly think that is why he got robbed a few times in his career." is hogwash since if it was true, Lemieux wouldn't have won in 1988. There were valid reasons why Gretzky won in 1989 and it had nothing to do with your theory.

Not my theory. Never said such a thing. BTW, I give up as you not only attribute some else's commeent to me but simply can't grasp my point

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Not my theory. Never said such a thing. BTW, I give up as you not only attribute some else's commeent to me but simply can't grasp my point

My mistake. Sorry. Later.

 

[LogiquePaR4dOcKs]

The Hart trophy is usually awarded to the 'player of the year' irregardless of the definition. The argument above about points is proof of that.

Even if the Hart does get awarded for wrong reasons(ie. for just having a huge scoring year or for being the marquee player on a turnaround team, case by case of course) on occasion, how does that correlate with the Pearson somehow being the players' choice for MVP?

 

[Chili]

Even if the Hart does get awarded for wrong reasons(ie. for just having a huge scoring year or for being the marquee player on a turnaround team, case by case of course) on occasion, how does that correlate with the Pearson somehow being the players' choice for MVP?

The players only vote for one trophy. How much of a distinction do you believe they make between player of the year and MVP?

 

[LogiquePaR4dOcKs]

The players only vote for one trophy. How much of a distinction do you believe they make between player of the year and MVP?

Well, I can't say that but they should, considering there's a difference between the definitions of the trophies.

You implied the definitions are reversed by the people who vote for them(Hart=''player of the year'', Pearson= players' choice for MVP), and I still don't really understand that. Yes, they probably go to the same player too often, but it's not like the definitions have actually been turned around. And it happens very often that the player who's most valuable to his team is also most deserving of the Pearson for being ''outstanding''.

 

[Cawz]

I have a feeling this is a case of better exposure for Gretzky than Lemieux. If I remember that season correctly, the Penguins were hardly on national television that year on the other hand the Kings were on several times. In fact almost every double header on Hockey Night In Canada featured the Kings in the late game. Granted double headers were done less those days, but still. There was no internet to see video highlights, so if the player wasn't on TV and wasn't seen often in your home team's arena, you couldn't vote for him as easily. Like the old adage says a picture spells 1000 words. You can write all you want on paper about Lemieux, but sight unseen you don't have the same magnitude,

Ha,I was going to call you on the double header bit, since that was before double headers were the norm, but you are correct.

"After Wayne Gretzky was traded to the Los Angeles Kings in 1988, the network began showing occasional double-headers when Canadian teams visited Los Angeles, in order to give the game's greatest star network exposure in Canada. These games were often joined in progress, as the regular start time for HNIC was still 8:00 Eastern Time and the Kings home games began at 7:30 Pacific Time (10:30 Eastern). Beginning in the 1995 season, weekly double-headers became the norm."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_Night_in_Canada

I seriously dont remember this. Does anyone remember how many games were shown? It seems like it was only when a Canadian team visited LA on a saturday night, so it couldnt have been too many games.

 

[Chili]

You implied the definitions are reversed by the people who vote for them(Hart=''player of the year'', Pearson= players' choice for MVP), and I still don't really understand that. .

I implied no such thing and since you twist words, there is no point in even replying further.

Believe what you wish on how the consenus votes, that's your right.

 

[LogiquePaR4dOcKs]

I implied no such thing and since you twist words, there is no point in even replying further.

Believe what you wish on how the consenus votes, that's your right.

Then what are these:

This is a good example of why I respect the players's choice of mvp (aka the Lester B Pearson award) each year more than the writer's choice.

The Hart trophy is usually awarded to the 'player of the year' irregardless of the definition. The argument above about points is proof of that.

And nonetheless, such things as misunderstandings exist; no need to take offense.

 

[Shootmaster_44]

Ha,I was going to call you on the double header bit, since that was before double headers were the norm, but you are correct.

"After Wayne Gretzky was traded to the Los Angeles Kings in 1988, the network began showing occasional double-headers when Canadian teams visited Los Angeles, in order to give the game's greatest star network exposure in Canada. These games were often joined in progress, as the regular start time for HNIC was still 8:00 Eastern Time and the Kings home games began at 7:30 Pacific Time (10:30 Eastern). Beginning in the 1995 season, weekly double-headers became the norm."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_Night_in_Canada

I seriously dont remember this. Does anyone remember how many games were shown? It seems like it was only when a Canadian team visited LA on a saturday night, so it couldnt have been too many games.

From what I remember is that during the regular season it was mainly Canadian opponents that were shown. In fact I don't remember too many games that had the Kings playing a Wales Conference team, usually it was the Oilers or Flames that were shown. Also, many times the doubleheader was an afternoon Kings game and then the Habs or Leafs at night. The games in '88 were fewer and far between than the games in the early '90s, but at least back then the CBC realized who brought in the viewers and weren't the Leafs network only.

The playoffs were generally a different story. The Kings series were always shown in their entirety. Though I guess from 1988 until 1998, the Kings always played a Canadian team in their playoff series. 1998 saw the Kings play St. Louis in the opening round, but by then Gretz was gone.

I wonder if that 1992-93 run the Kings had is the last time (and perhaps the only time) a team has faced four different Canadian teams (Flames, Canucks, Leafs and Habs) in the playoffs?

 

[Mortimer]

Meh, payback for Lemieux stealing the 1988 MVP. Gretzky led his team to the Cup, had a better PPG, whereas Lemieux couldn't even get his team to the playoffs.

IMO Gretzky should have won in 88 and Lemieux in 89.

That is a sensible take.

Obviously, with time comes hindsight, and I'd argue Gretzky wasn't as valuable in '88, since the Oilers were still a powerhouse without him - winning the cup sans the Great One in '90. Mario, on the other hand, managed a 168 point season while playing with what could be best described as sentient garbage cans.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

An observation: this thread has activity for the first time in almost 17 years. That's almost as long as the gap between the season in question, and when this thread was created (1989 vs 2007 = 18 years).

 

[The Panther]

Good Lord, this has been discussed in about 18,000 threads and someone chose to resurrent one from 17 years ago...?

 

[MadLuke]

That's almost as long as the gap between the season in question, and when this thread was created (1989 vs 2007 = 18 years).

In term of making feel us old.

The gap between Richard scoring 50 in 50 (march 1945) and Gretzky beating his record (last day of 1981), is now much smaller than the gap between Gretzky doing it and today.... 36 years versus 42...

Good Lord, this has been discussed in about 18,000 threads and someone chose to resurrent one from 17 years ago...?

An argument can be made that better than starting a new thread when one already exist or talking about that in a conversation that had nothing with that subject.

 

[FissionFire]

how to lie with statistics

the day the Hart is handed out to the player with the most points is the day it no longer represents the idea of being about which player was the MVP to his team's success

Gretzky, in his first season in L.A., simply was more valuable to the Kings season than Lemieux in his fifth season in Pittsburgh did

'nuf said

Yzerman won the Lester B. as a young captain leading his team to the divisional title. You want to second guess the voting of the NHL players? I personally hold the Pearson in higher regard than the Hart. Mario has 4 Pearsons. Well deserved. Yzerman has only one and no Harts surprising enough.

Not so surprising when you consider Yzerman’s main competition for the Hart/Pearson in his prime would be prime Gretzky and Lemieux. He also never had the supporting cast those players did. If anything it’s rather remarkable that he managed to even win a Pearson against those two. From 1981-82 until Yzerman’s win Gretzky or Lemieux had won 7 straight. They won 10 straight Harts from 1979-80 through 1988-89 as well.

 

[blundluntman]

In term of making feel us old.

The gap between Richard scoring 50 in 50 (march 1945) and Gretzky beating is record (last day of 1981), is now much smaller than the gap between Gretzky doing it and today.... 36 years versus 42...


An argument can be made that better than starting a new thread when one already exist or talking about that in a conversation that had nothing with that subject.

Another crazy fact: There was a 36 year gap between Richard scoring 50 in 50 in 1945 and Bossy scoring 50 in 50 in 1981. It has now been 32 years since a player officially scored 50 in 50 when Brett Hull did it in 1992. I guess Matthews could still break it if he scores 10 in his next 4 games but that doesn't seem likely.

 

[The Panther]

An argument can be made that better than starting a new thread when one already exist or talking about that in a conversation that had nothing with that subject.

 

[FerrisRox]

The fact that it was Gretzky's first season with the Kings and Mario's fifth season with the Penguins has absolutely nothing to do with voting. At least, it shouldn't.

Of course it does.

It's an enormously important factor and the answer to your question, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

Gretzky joined the Los Angeles Kings and the team won 12 more gams than the previous year for an enormous improvement. Gretzky was an enormous difference maker for his new club and the turnaround came in just one season.

As someone who was actively following the league at the time, Gretzky winning the Hart wasn't wildly controversial nor was it terribly surprising and the context of his trade to Los Angeles and the team's huge improvement was the primary factor.

 

[MadLuke]

team's huge improvement was the primary factor.

I feel absolutely 100% of people think this, they disagree with it.

The Pens won 16 games in 1984, who turned them around to be a 87 points playoff team in 1989 ?

Outside Lemieux line no forward were a + on the 1989 Penguins, Lemieux-Errey were +40.

In the question of who was more valuable to his hockey club, being the first season can make it easier to see for sure, but does not mean it should be relevant (it could but there is no of course here, if you just saying of course it will influence and create a bias among voter, yes no one disagree with you).

The 87/88-88/89 Penguins without Lemieux won 2 games on 7 I think.

The 89-90 penguins when Mario missed game and did not had nearly as good season when he played were out of the playoff (something voter did not know yet obviously).

It is very possible that the Pens sans Mario are significantly worse than the Kings sans Gretzky that season and that Mario had a bigger impact on them... And if it is true, should it matter if it is year 1, 2 or 5 ?

But a player of that caliber, presence is more than his play on the ice, from the coach to the equipment staff to the AHL prospect, to the Kings regular players, someone like Gretzky coming could have changed their summer, camp and attitude all around, a bit like when Peyton Manning-Brady-LeBron arrived somewhere.

 

[FerrisRox]

I feel absolutely 100% of people think this, they disagree with it.

The Pens won 16 games in 1984, who turned them around to be a 87 points playoff team in 1989 ?

Outside Lemieux line no forward were a + on the 1989 Penguins, Lemieux-Errey were +40.

In the question of who was more valuable to his hockey club, being the first season can make it easier to see for sure, but does not mean it should be relevant (it could but there is no of course here, if you just saying of course it will influence and create a bias among voter, yes no one disagree with you).

The 87/88-88/89 Penguins without Lemieux won 2 games on 7 I think.

The 89-90 penguins when Mario missed game and did not had nearly as good season when he played were out of the playoff (something voter did not know yet obviously).

It is very possible that the Pens sans Mario are significantly worse than the Kings sans Gretzky that season and that Mario had a bigger impact on them... And if it is true, should it matter if it is year 1, 2 or 5 ?

But a player of that caliber, presence is more than his play on the ice, from the coach to the equipment staff to the AHL prospect, to the Kings regular players, someone like Gretzky coming could have changed their summer, camp and attitude all around, a bit like when Peyton Manning-Brady-LeBron arrived somewhere.

The Hart Trophy is for one year. I can't fathom why you think an improvement over a five year period would have anything to do with this conversation.

It only matters what happened in the previous season. I'm kind of astonished this needs to be explained. Surely you already know this.

 

[MadLuke]

It only matters what happened in the previous season. I'm kind of astonished this needs to be explained. Surely you already know this.

Why if the hart trophy is for one year anything that ever happened in the past should matter at all ? You can of see the tension right there.

If Gretzky would have played in 1988 for the Kings and made the playoff and had the exact same season on the exact same Kings in 89, should he have received less the Hart ? If so why ?

 

[DRW895]

Payback for 1988

 

[daver]

Why if the hart trophy is for one year anything that ever happened in the past should matter at all ? You can of see the tension right there.

If Gretzky would have played in 1988 for the Kings and made the playoff and had the exact same season on the exact same Kings in 89, should he have received less the Hart ? If so why ?

Mario was robbed in '89. If it was the scenario you indicated, he may still get robbed.

 

[Voight]

I understand people being frustrated that a guy scored 199 points, nearly becoming the 2nd player in history to score 200 points, but Gretzky winning is not some travesty.

Yes, a guy scoring that many points is certainly worthy of being the "most valuable" ... but so is someone who transformed an entire team, leading them to the 2nd best record in their conference (4th best in the entire NHL) and a 31 point improvement. Both things can be true.

Voting wasn't even particularly close FWIW.

 

[MadLuke]

and a 31 point improvement.

while loosing a 50 goal - 100 pts scorer, not too remove anything from McSorley.

 

[WingsFan95]

I agree with the OP without question. It's funny as I recall this being one of my earliest debates about hockey awards, why Lemieux lost in 89 to Gretz and it was always about how Gretz lifted the Kings from the basement the previous year. Of course failing to mention all the other changes with the team. Also funny is I often remember people assuming Lemieux's Penguins missed the playoffs and that was the justification.

For sports MVPs in general you may also be interested to know arguably the absolute worst regular season MVP going to Bill Russell in the same season Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50PPG and Oscar Robertson averaged his triple double. Of course the thought process being the two split the vote allowing Russell to sneak in but the other aspect was Russell was head of the player's association I think or generally revered while Wilt was maligned at that time due to his flashiness. In the NFL it's arguably Elway over Rice in his 22 TD season, Montana over Cunningham in 90 and one of Manning's mid-range seasons arguably 2008 where he was like 6th in TDs and 8th in Yards while Warner got the Cardinals into the playoffs for the first time in 10 seasons and was leading candidate. The overall voting is the stuff of legend where Peyton got 32 of 50 votes and Warner ended up with 1 while Chad Pennington was the Runner-Up. In Warner's case it basically came down to 1 really lousy game that could have cost the Cardinals the playoffs and he was blamed for that and all of a sudden "exposed" as being the product of his receivers. It's completely asinine looking back because Peyton goes on to lose in the first round and Warner gives the Cardinals a late lead in the Super Bowl.


Apologies if I went off the rails. I think it was largely off the ice impact of Gretz going to the West coast and what his success meant for the NHL moving forward there and other markets.