What are the details around Gretzky not being classified a rookie in 1979? And why hasn't it been righted?

[McGuillicuddy]

We all know that Gretzky's rookie season, despite i) it was his first NHL season and ii) he was only 18 years old at its start, was not actually classified as a rookie season as per the NHL record books. It completely defies logic since the season before his rookie year Gretzky was only 17 years old and therefore ineligible to play in the NHL even if the WHA never existed. It is bizarre at best to think that one can burn rookie eligibility as a minor. As far as I can tell this was just a matter of revenge-taking by a bunch of old men who wanted to punish players coming from the WHA. But was there any farcical pseudo-logical reason given to attempt to justify this punishment? Did anybody care? Or did people just accept that the NHL was run by a bunch of angry insular old fossils and forget about it?

And secondly, why has this historical wrong not been corrected? I'm not suggesting the Calder should be revisited, but Gretzky should by all rights hold the records for most assists and points by a rookie. Not that he needs more records, but it is disingenous at best to consider Stastny/Juneau and Selanne the holders of these two records, respectively. I would suspect they themselves consider there to be asterisks on these records (not that I think they give them any thought at all). This feels like something that should be quietly corrected in the NHL record book.

The icing on the cake of course is that exactly a decade later a 31 year-old Sergei Makarov who had already played many games against NHL competition is accepted by mostly that same group of fossils as a legitimate rookie and Calder winner. I guess the difference is that the Soviets never impacted NHL owners wallets (and maybe even helped), while the WHA did. Maybe that the root cause of all of this?

Click to read more...

 

[MadLuke]

It can be seen both ways, putting every WHA player that never played in the nhl as rookie (they were no age limit I think back then) could be portrayed as diminishing that league and I sign of respect not one of punishment too.

Once you consider the WHA a pro league that remove your Rookie right, do you make an exception for the Gretzky's that could not have been a nhl rookie the year before (seem clean cut enough that they should imo), you could but it require extra steps.

I do remember people responding to it, but having read both ways, did Selanne played less pro with adults hockey before its nhl debut than Gretzky did ? My feeling was more not less and it make the Gretzky not a rookie look worst, that after that season so many older player with semi/pro-league experience were eligible.

At least Makarov the fake amateur aura around soviet hockey can feel stronger, even if obviously what it is relevant here is the ability to be an adult fully dedicated to the sport and not have side regular jobs or not.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

I can understand the point that there could be some unfairness in classifying players with hundreds of WHA games under their belt as NHL rookies. Surely a combination games played/age restriction would have been a fair result rather than a blanket ban. But again I can't help but feel there was some undercurrent of sour grapes at play. NHL owners of the day were certainly not known as being magnanimous people (Harold Ballard/Bill Wirtz anyone?); WHA players had to be punished for daring to defy them.

You will never convince me that Makarov has a more fair/legitimate case for rookie classification than an 18-year-old Wayne Gretzky.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hell, forget Makarov in that unbalanced league where only two teams were champions for its final 16 seasons...I'm still skeptical that the early to mid 60's AHL/WHL were worse than the WHA...

To your point, it's an unjust blanket punishment on all players that were WHAers...and they threw the baby out with the bath water here...

 

[Moose Head]

The Calder criteria always should have been aged based, not the league you were in prior to your NHL debut. Dumb criteria makes for dumb results.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

We all know that Gretzky's rookie season, despite i) it was his first NHL season and ii) he was only 18 years old at its start, was not actually classified as a rookie season as per the NHL record books. It completely defies logic since the season before his rookie year Gretzky was only 17 years old and therefore ineligible to play in the NHL even if the WHA never existed. It is bizarre at best to think that one can burn rookie eligibility as a minor. As far as I can tell this was just a matter of revenge-taking by a bunch of old men who wanted to punish players coming from the WHA. But was there any farcical pseudo-logical reason given to attempt to justify this punishment? Did anybody care? Or did people just accept that the NHL was run by a bunch of angry insular old fossils and forget about it?

And secondly, why has this historical wrong not been corrected? I'm not suggesting the Calder should be revisited, but Gretzky should by all rights hold the records for most assists and points by a rookie. Not that he needs more records, but it is disingenous at best to consider Stastny/Juneau and Selanne the holders of these two records, respectively. I would suspect they themselves consider there to be asterisks on these records (not that I think they give them any thought at all). This feels like something that should be quietly corrected in the NHL record book.

The icing on the cake of course is that exactly a decade later a 31 year-old Sergei Makarov who had already played many games against NHL competition is accepted by mostly that same group of fossils as a legitimate rookie and Calder winner. I guess the difference is that the Soviets never impacted NHL owners wallets (and maybe even helped), while the WHA did. Maybe that the root cause of all of this?

The NHL rookie award, imo, has become meaningless. To put Makarov in the same boat as 18 year olds is patently ridiculous.
Not sure about the WHA thing, but the end of the day you're probably right. Not enough people care.

 

[reckoning]

The rule barring WHA players from winning the Calder was put in place prior to the 78-79 season when Anders Hedberg and Ulf Nilsson signed with the New York Rangers. The feeling was that it would be unfair for guys in their mid-20s who had been playing pro hockey for years to be competing against 20 year olds just out of junior. Makes sense, but it should have been age based. Stastny and Makarov being allowed to win it was ridiculous.

An odd note about Gretzkys first NHL season. Mike Gartner was in the same boat, as he played in the WHA the year before and was therefore ineligible for the Calder. But somebody voted for him anyway, and he is listed among the vote getters

 

[WarriorofTime]

It can be seen both ways, putting every WHA player that never played in the nhl as rookie (they were no age limit I think back then) could be portrayed as diminishing that league and I sign of respect not one of punishment too.

There was absolutely no “respect” for the WHA. The NHL viewed the absorption as a re-conquering of an outlaw contingent of NA pro hockey, not a merger like the NFL-AFL or even NBA-ABA.

 

[MadLuke]

By respect I meant their best player being too experienced in serious pro-hockey to be considered rookie in the nhl, something they do not extend to some euro pro league they considered to be even lesser then.

Not that they were close to be an equal league to the nhl.

 

[Crosby2010]

It is one of those things that doesn't really make any waves anymore because for starters, Gretzky won the Hart that year, and then 7 straight after that. So not winning the Calder? Meh. You've got the Hart. Secondly, the guy who won it was very good and he was a 1st team all-star on defense that year as well. It was Ray Bourque. That softens the blow a little bit I think.

But the good thing with Makarov is that after 1990 they changed the rule so that 26 was the maximum age. So they realized it then. But yes this was just a way to punish those in the WHA. I honestly think it took them so long to induct a guy like Mark Howe into the HHOF simply because of the grudge they had on the committee over the WHA. To this day J-C Tremblay - probably the best player outside of the HHOF - is not in for this very reason, even though his NHL career should be enough.

 

[kaiser matias]

The rule barring WHA players from winning the Calder was put in place prior to the 78-79 season when Anders Hedberg and Ulf Nilsson signed with the New York Rangers. The feeling was that it would be unfair for guys in their mid-20s who had been playing pro hockey for years to be competing against 20 year olds just out of junior. Makes sense, but it should have been age based. Stastny and Makarov being allowed to win it was ridiculous.

An odd note about Gretzkys first NHL season. Mike Gartner was in the same boat, as he played in the WHA the year before and was therefore ineligible for the Calder. But somebody voted for him anyway, and he is listed among the vote getters

It also would have meant someone like Mark Howe, who had 426 WHA games played (and 504 points) before he joined the NHL, would also have been Calder-eligible.

A blanket ban probably wasn't the best choice though, but the NHL really didn't like the WHA.

 

[carjackmalone]

Was Mark Howe an NHL rookie in 79-80?

 

[Ishdul]

He wasn't a rookie, he had already won a rookie of the year award in the WHA and I don't think it's a big deal that he doesn't specifically have the Calder.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The rule barring WHA players from winning the Calder was put in place prior to the 78-79 season when Anders Hedberg and Ulf Nilsson signed with the New York Rangers. The feeling was that it would be unfair for guys in their mid-20s who had been playing pro hockey for years to be competing against 20 year olds just out of junior. Makes sense, but it should have been age based. Stastny and Makarov being allowed to win it was ridiculous.

An odd note about Gretzkys first NHL season. Mike Gartner was in the same boat, as he played in the WHA the year before and was therefore ineligible for the Calder. But somebody voted for him anyway, and he is listed among the vote getters

funnily enough i remember finding that at one point so i went to hockey-ref to verify and gartner’s calder votes aren’t there anymore

Mike Gartner Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Salary, Title | Hockey-Reference.com

Checkout the latest stats of Mike Gartner. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, trade, draft, salary and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

1979-80 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

 

[McGuillicuddy]

He wasn't a rookie, he had already won a rookie of the year award in the WHA and I don't think it's a big deal that he doesn't specifically have the Calder.

Yes he was a rookie in all but name. He was literally not eligible to play in the NHL prior to 79-80 so the idea that he could have burned his rookie eligibility is preposterous. It is only because (as far as I can tell) of an arbitrary rule which was not about fairness to existing NHL players but more about punishing players who had defied the NHL owners. And I specifically addressed the Calder and how I was not suggesting it be revisited. But I think to continue to not officially recognize Gretzky's rookie season is silly. Or probably just lazy. Like I suggested, it could be quietly corrected in the NHL record book. I assume this is just something that nobody has gotten around to but if it became a conversation it would be hard to argue against it.

 

[Albatros]

Eh, Gretzky played as a pro for the Oilers already the season before, but should have remained a rookie just because the team switched leagues?

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Eh, Gretzky played as a pro for the Oilers already the season before, but should have remained a rookie just because the team switched leagues?

One is a rookie with respect to the league, not the team. Many players at the time played pro hockey in other leagues prior to their rookie season in the NHL. The only difference is NHL owners didn't see these other leagues as a threat so they did not strip them of rookie status. The notion that Gretzky burned his rookie eligibility playing in another league while he was ineligible to play in the NHL even if he wanted to is a bit ridiculous. Again, he was 17 years old at the start of that season.

 

[Albatros]

One is a rookie with respect to the league, not the team. Many players at the time played pro hockey in other leagues prior to their rookie season in the NHL. The only difference is NHL owners didn't see these other leagues as a threat so they did not strip them of rookie status. The notion that Gretzky burned his rookie eligibility playing in another league while he was ineligible to play in the NHL even if he wanted to is a bit ridiculous. Again, he was 17 years old at the start of that season.

He also could have stayed in junior hockey and joined major pros a year later. And it's not just Gretzky, the year before Anders Hedberg would have been the top-scoring rookie at 27 after four consecutive 100-point seasons in the WHA if players from there were eligible.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Selanne played years of pro hockey before joining the NHL but he won the Calder at age 22 in his fourth year of NHL eligibility.

Ovechkin played two seasons of pro hockey before joining the NHL and he won the Calder.

Matthews made $400,000 playing pro in the Swiss league and won the Calder.

Slafkovsky was just drafted out of the Finnish league.

The NHL record book counts Bill Cook as a rookie in 1926-27.

The rookie rule was used exclusively for the WHA.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

He also could have stayed in junior hockey and joined major pros a year later. And it's not just Gretzky, the year before Anders Hedberg would have been the top-scoring rookie at 27 after four consecutive 100-point seasons in the WHA if players from there were eligible.

This was addressed above, which I guess you didn't read? Nobody is suggesting that all WHA players should have been NHL rookie eligible. But obviously some age-based rule would have made complete sense. And interestingly enough, if they had implemented an age threshold for rookie status at this point we would have avoided the Sergei Makarov fiasco 10 years later.

 

[Albatros]

Selanne played years of pro hockey before joining the NHL but he won the Calder at age 22 in his fourth year of NHL eligibility.

Ovechkin played two seasons of pro hockey before joining the NHL and he won the Calder.

Matthews made $400,000 playing pro in the Swiss league and won the Calder.

Slafkovsky was just drafted out of the Finnish league.

The NHL record book counts Bill Cook as a rookie in 1926-27.

The rookie rule was used exclusively for the WHA.

"Major pros" whereas the Finnish league etc. were "amateurs". Even today some here use that classification.

 

[Albatros]

This was addressed above, which I guess you didn't read? Nobody is suggesting that all WHA players should have been NHL rookie eligible. But obviously some age-based rule would have made complete sense. And interestingly enough, if they had implemented an age threshold for rookie status at this point we would have avoided the Sergei Makarov fiasco 10 years later.

Maybe, but there was no such rule and implementing one retroactively would only complicate things further. The same goes for Makarov, he won according to the rules that existed at the time and there's no reason to change that after the fact.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Technically since the NHL absorbed the WHA that would mean Gretzky had already played a season in the new combined league and isnt a rookie

Selanne played years of pro hockey before joining the NHL but he won the Calder at age 22 in his fourth year of NHL eligibility.

Ovechkin played two seasons of pro hockey before joining the NHL and he won the Calder.

Matthews made $400,000 playing pro in the Swiss league and won the Calder.

Slafkovsky was just drafted out of the Finnish league.

The NHL record book counts Bill Cook as a rookie in 1926-27.

The rookie rule was used exclusively for the WHA.

The WHA is the only one of those leagues that the NHL absorbed. Gretzky didn't leave one league for another like your examples did

 

[jigglysquishy]

"Major pros" whereas the Finnish league etc. were "amateurs". Even today some here use that classification.

The distinction isn't clean or laid out.

In his WHA year, Gretzky made $100,000 CAD ($310,000 2023 USD).
Matthews in his Swiss league year made $400,000 USD ($510,000 2023 USD)
Selanne's last year in the Finnish league he made 1,300,000 markka ($260,000 2023 USD)

When Ovechkin was drafted out of the RSL, it was the clear cut second best hockey league in the world. Mitchkov will be eligible when he joins the NHL, and is making as much in the KHL as he is in the NHL under an ELC.

The AHL in the 60s was the second best league in the world and comparable in quality (if not higher) than the WHA in 1978-79. But AHL players were eligible for the Calder. Crozier won the Calder coming from the AHL. Kent Douglas too. Most of the Calder winners in the 50s and 60s were coming out of strong professional leagues.

The rule has functionally only existed for two seasons (1978-79 and 1979-80) and exclusively to punish WHA players (in this same, Hedberg and Gretzky). It never applied to the WHL or AHL when those leagues were deep. Or the Soviet or Russian leagues. Or any other league.

Václav Nedomanský was eligible in 1977-78, despite coming from the WHA.

Technically since the NHL absorbed the WHA that would mean Gretzky had already played a season in the new combined league and isnt a rookie



The WHA is the only one of those leagues that the NHL absorbed. Gretzky didn't leave one league for another like your examples did

The NHL absorbed the WHL in 1926 and all the WHL stars were considered rookies in 1926-27.

The WHA still existed in 1978-79, but Hedberg wasn't eligible for the Calder.

 

[The Panther]

Yes, the ruling by the NHL made no sense and was amazingly stupid, but the league was run by nonsensical fossils who were amazingly stupid, so what should we expect?

That said, I'm not into retroactively changing awards, or whatever. That's a slippery slope. It is what it is.