1987-88: Who Should Have Won the Hart Trophy?

[The Panther]

As a kid, the 1987-88 season was the first one I followed closely from start to finish (I was old enough to stay up and watch the end of games about halfway through 1986-87), and I have really strong memories of it. Like, I remember details and plays from 1987-88 better than I do plays from last season. But anyway, it was an interesting season for several reasons, but let's focus on the Hart trophy.

Mario Lemieux won the Hart trophy, and it's easy to see why with his stunning 70 goals and 168 points. Given that he put up these superhuman totals and won the scoring title, it seems like a slam-dunk Hart winner, right? Well, yes and no. The stumbling block here is that the Penguins missed the playoffs, which, to me, is a big stumbling block in Hart voting. For the defense, the Pens improved 9 points from the previous season, and were in a tough division. For the prosecution, Lemieux in '88 is the only non-playoff team Hart-winner from 2019 back to about the 1940s. (We can look at such recent examples as McDavid last season for Art Ross winners who weren't even close to winning the Hart.) Can a guy whose team missed the playoffs (when it was a lot easier to qualify than today) be the most valuable to his team?

Grant Fuhr, bizarrely (to me), was 2nd in Hart voting. Fuhr was getting more and more hyped between the '85 and '87 playoffs, when indeed he was probably the co-best goalie, in my opinion. After the Canada Cup in Sept. '87 (at which he was average, I thought) he seemed to get yet more hyped, and through playing in a then-record 75 games during 1987-88 -- and with Gretzky missing games to injury --, Fuhr suddenly became a sexy choice, getting 25 second-place hart votes (and four first-place votes, which boggles my mind!). For many Oiler fans who followed the team, however, the 1987-88 season wasn't even one of his best, (I believe, in March, he had the worst GAA in the NHL), and his won/lost record was his second worst of the Gretzky-era.

Wayne Gretzky did everything about the same as the previous season, when he won the Art Ross by the largest percentage margin in history... but he fell to third in Hart voting. This is largely due to his missing 16 games to two different injuries, which cost him the scoring title. The fact that a guy scoring at a 188-point pace, after Coffey was gone -- on a team that was over a 100-point pace with him on it -- fell to third in Hart voting kind of shows how the standards Gretzky was judged by were his own past ones. Unless he was going to win the scoring title with around 200 points, he wasn't winning the Hart.

The rest of the Hart candidates, in voting result order:
Steve Yzerman -- missed the same number of games as Gretzky, but put up 50 goals and 102 points (was pacing for 63 goals). It was the Red Wings' best regular season since Gordie Howe was playing.

Denis Savard -- career high 131 points (led his team by 42 points), lots of highlight-reel goals that season. The Hawks, however, were sagging and had a miserable 69-point season.

Tom Barrasso -- The Sabres had rebounded from the previous disaster season (1987), and Barrasso had the 5th-best save percentage in the League, and the very best 'GSAA' (if you're into that stat).

Dale Hawerchuk -- 121 points (like Savard, led his team by 42), but the Jets had a middling season.

Ray Bourque -- 81 points and a +34 on a strong, 2nd-place Boston team (nobody knew at the time, of course, that they'd go on to win the Conference and play for the Cup). Led the Bruins in scoring. For this, he unbelievably got one lousy third-place vote. (Say what??)

Sean Burke (!) -- Rookie, playing in only 13 games. But his 10-1 record (helping the Devils into the playoffs for the first time) was enough to get him 1 third-place vote, which is funny.

Kirk Muller -- random third-place vote.

Gary Suter -- random third-place vote.

********

So, yeah, it's an odd year for Hart voting. Like, where is Patrick Roy? The Habs were second overall (better than Edmonton, which had no less than two top-3 Hart candidates!), and Roy had a great won/lost record, the best save-percentage in the NHL, the second-best GSAA, won the Jennings, and was a 2nd-team All Star. And somebody thought Gary Suter was more valuable...?? And what about the Calgary Flames? Shouldn't the 1st-overall team have an MVP candidate? But then who?


So, in retrospect, how would you rank, say, the top-3 candidates of League MVP for this season? Even if you agree with Mario as the winner, who is your 2nd and 3rd?

I struggle with this, but I think I would have voted like this (my winner being a guy who didn't get a single vote!):
1) Patrick Roy
2) Mario Lemieux
3) Wayne Gretzky
4) Ray Bourque
5) Steve Yzerman

I'm fine with Mario out-"voting" Wayne, since he played the full season and single-handedly (well, with Coffey) elevated Pittsburgh in the standings. But I have difficulty with a non-playoff guy winning the Hart. So, in retrospect I'd like to have seen Patrick Roy win it that season. And Ray Bourque should have been way closer than he was -- like, seriously, how did he get one third-place vote? Yzerman was already at peak form that season, too, but, like Wayne, he missed just enough games to rule him off the top.

What do ya think?

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

It's a good question. Gretzky was very likely still the best player but he missed 20% of the season and had good support on his team, Lemieux was the best player who played a full season though his team missed the playoffs, Yzerman missed 20% of the season but was an electrifying player, Bourque doesn't really have a flaw in his season but he was heavily outscored by some players, Savard also doesn't really have a flaw in his season outside of Lemieux/Gretzky handily outscoring him.

I think that I would still give it to Lemieux. Best player who played essentially a full season and pretty terrible support outside of half a season of Coffey. I'm not a fan of the idea that a player has to play on a team that makes the playoffs to have been the most valuable. Second I would go with Savard, and I wouldn't really complain about him winning the award. Third Bourque. Fourth Gretzky, though I would likely give him the Pearson. Fifth Yzerman, but had he played a full season I would probably have favoured him to win the award. Admittedly Yzerman is my favourite player so I am biased in that regard. very interesting Hart year overall. The case for Roy also isn't so bad.

 

[Ishdul]

Roy didn't play a lot that season with 45 GP, and the drop from him to Hayward (39 GP) wasn't all that much (Roy with .900 save percentage to .896 for Hayward and with actually a higher GAA than Hayward). Roy finished 8th in Vezina voting (which is probably too harsh), so hard to see him winning the Hart.

I'm not really sure that anyone on Calgary warrants mention. Loob was on the first team All-Stars but is 10th in scoring, barely ahead of Mike Bullard on his own team. Suter was their best chance, probably why he got the 3rd place vote, having lead defensemen in scoring but splits a lot of votes for the Norris with McCrimmon and finished well back in 3rd and was never going to fare much better for the Hart. The Flames are actually 1st in goals (they actually scored a fair bit more than the Oilers did the previous year with a healthy Gretzky and Coffey) but middle of the pack defensively (12th in GA, actually gave up 20 more than the Oilers that year). They're the best team in the league but not by a lot, and it's a pretty clear case where they just have a lot of stars and a lot of depth rather than having anyone you could consider the league's best player.

I'd stick with Lemieux.

 

[The Panther]

It's a good question. Gretzky was very likely still the best player but he missed 20% of the season and had good support on his team, Lemieux was the best player who played a full season though his team missed the playoffs, Yzerman missed 20% of the season but was an electrifying player, Bourque doesn't really have a flaw in his season but he was heavily outscored by some players, Savard also doesn't really have a flaw in his season outside of Lemieux/Gretzky handily outscoring him.

Agree with all that, but does it really matter that Bourque was outscored...?

I'm not a fan of the idea that a player has to play on a team that makes the playoffs to have been the most valuable.

I'm not a stickler for that either, and it's clearly not an actual thing. But since the precedent is (other than 1988) that it hasn't happened since the 1940s, I guess the question is, how good does a guy have to be, individually, to win the Hart when his team isn't anything special? Thinking about it, though, maybe Lemieux did deserve the Hart more than anyone -- the Pens did have a winning season (just), so it's not like they were really bad or anything.

Second I would go with Savard, and I wouldn't really complain about him winning the award. Third Bourque. Fourth Gretzky, though I would likely give him the Pearson.

You lost me here, though. Savard over Gretzky...? For leading a 69-point team...?

 

[The Panther]

Roy didn't play a lot that season with 45 GP, and the drop from him to Hayward (39 GP) wasn't all that much (Roy with .900 save percentage to .896 for Hayward and with actually a higher GAA than Hayward). Roy finished 8th in Vezina voting (which is probably too harsh), so hard to see him winning the Hart.

Yeah, I guess Roy's 45 games doesn't look that impressive compared to Fuhr's sexier 75. But in those days a top goalie playing 45-50 games was the standard. (I wouldn't put too much emphasis on Hayward's and Roy's records looking similar. I am guessing Hayward started a lot against weaker teams.)

I'm not really sure that anyone on Calgary warrants mention. Loob was on the first team All-Stars but is 10th in scoring, barely ahead of Mike Bullard on his own team. Suter was their best chance, probably why he got the 3rd place vote, having lead defensemen in scoring but splits a lot of votes for the Norris with McCrimmon and finished well back in 3rd and was never going to fare much better for the Hart.

I agree, the Flames were just stacked at forward and defense with quality depth. They never offered up an League-MVP candidate despite being near the top of the NHL from 1984 to 1995!

 

[c9777666]

Grant Fuhr, bizarrely (to me), was 2nd in Hart voting. Fuhr was getting more and more hyped between the '85 and '87 playoffs, when indeed he was probably the co-best goalie, in my opinion. After the Canada Cup in Sept. '87 (at which he was average, I thought) he seemed to get yet more hyped, and through playing in a then-record 75 games during 1987-88 -- and with Gretzky missing games to injury --, Fuhr suddenly became a sexy choice, getting 25 second-place hart votes (and four first-place votes, which boggles my mind!). For many Oiler fans who followed the team, however, the 1987-88 season wasn't even one of his best, (I believe, in March, he had the worst GAA in the NHL), and his won/lost record was his second worst of the Gretzky-era

Win lost record second worst of the Gretzky era? I could have sworn that he had a career high 40 wins in 1988 (only his 2nd 30+ win season in EDM) and this was when 40 win seasons for goalies were rare

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

@The Panther Im surprised you arent onboard the Fuhr bandwagon. Is it just 1988, or his career in general?

 

[The Panther]

I could have sworn that he had a career high 40 wins in 1988

It helps when you play 75 games.

He had 24 losses, too.

 

[The Panther]

@The Panther Im surprised you arent onboard the Fuhr bandwagon. Is it just 1988, or his career in general?

No, I love Fuhr. I just don't think he was anything special in 1987-88.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Mario Lemieux won the Hart trophy, and it's easy to see why with his stunning 70 goals and 168 points. Given that he put up these superhuman totals and won the scoring title, it seems like a slam-dunk Hart winner, right? Well, yes and no. The stumbling block here is that the Penguins missed the playoffs, which, to me, is a big stumbling block in Hart voting...Lemieux in '88 is the only non-playoff team Hart-winner from 2019 back to about the 1940s...Can a guy whose team missed the playoffs (when it was a lot easier to qualify than today) be the most valuable to his team?

Lot of layers to peel back, here. First, let's start with this "if you don't make The Playoffs, how should you get Hart consideration?" thought-- which seems to be so entrenched that, these days, it takes something like an historic-freak crazy-productive season from the likes of a Lemieux to break through that pre-condition. [Two years ago, McDavid won the Lindsay & the Ross and wasn't even a Hart finalist.]

It was not always so. The list of non-playoff Hart winners are numerable. There was Tom Anderson in 1940-41, as I suspect you knew when you said it was in the 40s when something like this happened. Then, there was The Curious Case of Al Rollins in 1953-54. Now, that's a Hockey History Detective project that's been the match of our sub-forum's Sherlock Holmes equivalents. The two-phrase summary to describe what came to pass there was that it was as if the voters felt as though he deserved half-a-Hart for what we went through in 1952-53, and half-a-Hart for what he went through in 1953-54-- and so gave him a whole one that second year. Nothing like that could EVER happen, these days. Finally, there was Andy Bathgate in 1958-59, who toiled for the non-competitive Rangers.

So- to address the central issue: Can one be called most valuable to one's team while the team in question is missing The Playoffs? I'd say "if much of the rest of one's team sucks Homophobic Slur, yes!"

But even that doesn't exhaust the weird state of affairs in the 1987-88 season. That year, Pittsburgh missed The Playoffs by three points. But... if one looks at the other Division in the Wales conference, we see that an inferior Hartford squad advanced via positional/geographical fortune. But there's still more, if we turn our eyes West and look at the then-feeble Clarence Campbell Shitference. There, a full six sub-.500 teams made it to The Playoffs. [Pittsburgh was one game over .500- and had the twelfth-best record in the 21 team league.]

To me, the real controversy isn't that Lemieux pulled down the Hart in 1987-88; it's that he didn't get it the following year- when first-year-in-LA Gretzky took it instead. Lemieux was first-team All-Star and Pearson laureate, as well as the Art Ross winner. I think History will judge that Gretzky got that one for non-Hockey reasons- but I suppose that's a conversation for another thread.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Lemieux. He missed the playoffs by one point while scoring 168 points. The best player in the regular season when you factor in Gretzky playing on a stacked dynasty and Lemieux having nobody sans coffey for half a season. Like someone else mentioned though the 89 hart remains the biggest robbery in hockey history.

 

[Voight]

Lemieux. He missed the playoffs by one point while scoring 168 points. The best player in the regular season when you factor in Gretzky playing on a stacked dynasty and Lemieux having nobody sans coffey for half a season. Like someone else mentioned though the 89 hart remains the biggest robbery in hockey history.

No it doesn't. There was a very good case for Gretzky to win.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

No it doesn't. There was a very good case for Gretzky to win.

All the cases for Gretzky do win had to do with off ice. Lemieux was simply the much better player and was robbed

 

[MXD]

It's safe to say Roy AND Bourque got underappreciated here. However, Roy didn't play that many games, and was hurt, in a way, by Brian Hayward also playing good hockey.

I personally have a big issue with giving the Hart to a player whose team is missing the playoffs, mostly because you aren't really valuable if your team isn't good enough to make the playoffs (when 16 teams out of 21 make it); however, here... The Penguins were in a "tougher" setting to make it, and they were better than 6 teams that made the playoffs. So I'd make an exception here. The Penguins were basically a league-average team, and would've made the playoffs rather easily in any other other division. There's also no reason to believe the Penguins would've reached 60 points without Lemieux.

Lemieux
Bourque
Roy

 

[The Macho King]

1990 should have gone to Bourque.

 

[bobholly39]

No it doesn't. There was a very good case for Gretzky to win.

My way of looking at hart is always a mix of "best" and "most valuable". When a player is the "best" by enough - the value to team success matters less. When no one stands out as the "best" by a big enough margin - most valuable counts a lot

So i think Lemieux should have won in 89 because of how good he was.

If season ended today i think Kucherov should win (hes arguably been very valuable on top of the best though) - similar idea.

I think Lemieux had a much better case in 89 than 88 tbh.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Being a Bruins fan and watching Bourque play every game, I would consider him a legit Hart candidate almost every year, especially if its interpreted as most valuable to his team.

That season 19 year-old Glenn Wesley was his primary partner. Bourque was a +34, Wesley was 2nd among defensemen with +21.
Bourque led the team in scoring and he played massive minutes all season. Yes, he probably should have at least been in the Top 3.

 

[The Panther]

There was Tom Anderson in 1940-41, as I suspect you knew when you said it was in the 40s when something like this happened. Then, there was The Curious Case of Al Rollins in 1953-54...Finally, there was Andy Bathgate in 1958-59

Thanks for correcting me that it had most recently happened in the 50s! (I mis-remembered.)

There, a full six sub-.500 teams made it to The Playoffs. [Pittsburgh was one game over .500- and had the twelfth-best record in the 21 team league.]

Yes, 1987-88 was, I think, the season that really got the ball rolling in terms of playoff realignment (though it took a while to happen). The most ridiculous thing that season was the Leafs making the playoffs with a .325 record, while the Rangers and Pens missed with +.500 records. Of those six teams you refer to, four were in the good-old Norris division, the doormat of the 80s.

To me, the real controversy isn't that Lemieux pulled down the Hart in 1987-88; it's that he didn't get it the following year

Let's try to keep it focused on 1987-88 only!

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Anyone know the pens record prior to getting coffey that season?

 

[The Panther]

My way of looking at hart is always a mix of "best" and "most valuable". When a player is the "best" by enough - the value to team success matters less. When no one stands out as the "best" by a big enough margin - most valuable counts a lot

So i think Lemieux should have won in 89 because of how good he was.

I'm starting to think you're probably right. His team was good-ish, which is good enough! And also, Roy did play only 45 games and, as someone mentioned, wasn't that much better than Hayward (yet).

Bourque was way under-represented, but I can't see him winning it against prime Wayne/Mario in their good seasons. And was he more important than Yzerman to the Wings? Maybe not, but he played a full season, which I guess gives him the edge.

Okay, so I revise my retrospective voting to this:
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Wayne Gretzky
3. Ray Bourque
4. Steve Yzerman
5. Patrick Roy

 

[JackSlater]

Agree with all that, but does it really matter that Bourque was outscored...?

Yes, since if Bourque wasn't outscored I'd have him comfortably as the Hart winner. In the case of Lemieux for instance, Bourque was outscored by 87 points. That's a massive amount and Bourque's superior defensive contributions (and whatever else he may have contributed outside of offence) don't amount too the value of Lemieux's superior offence.

You lost me here, though. Savard over Gretzky...? For leading a 69-point team...?

Mainly due to Gretzky missing 20% of the season and having a lot more support on his team. Gretzky was the better player but the gap wasn't high enough for me. He only outscored Savard by 18 points, probably contributed around the same level of defence (maybe a bit better from Gretzky) but Savard's team had 16 more games from him and needed him a lot more.

 

[Voight]

All the cases for Gretzky do win had to do with off ice. Lemieux was simply the much better player and was robbed

My way of looking at hart is always a mix of "best" and "most valuable". When a player is the "best" by enough - the value to team success matters less. When no one stands out as the "best" by a big enough margin - most valuable counts a lot

So i think Lemieux should have won in 89 because of how good he was.

If season ended today i think Kucherov should win (hes arguably been very valuable on top of the best though) - similar idea.

I think Lemieux had a much better case in 89 than 88 tbh.

Gretzky's new team improved by 23 points, solely due to him. He was also instrumental in Nicholls having a career year, one of the highest scoring seasons in history.

If Gretzky hadn't missed 16 games in 88, he would have won the Hart and beat Lemieux for the Art Ross.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Gretzky's new team improved by 23 points, solely due to him. He was also instrumental in Nicholls having a career year, one of the highest scoring seasons in history.

If Gretzky hadn't missed 16 games in 88, he would have won the Hart and beat Lemieux for the Art Ross.

And Mario got the penguins into the playoffs for the first time in his career. The fact that an 168 point season couldn’t do it shows you the kind of situation he was in. It took 199 damn points to secure a spot and an nhl record 57.4% of teams goals scored or assisted on. He was robbed. Just like Gretzky was robbed in 91. Though not as badly

 

[MXD]

And Mario got the penguins into the playoffs for the first time in his career. The fact that an 168 point season couldn’t do it shows you the kind of situation he was in. It took 199 damn points to secure a spot and an nhl record 57.4% of teams goals scored or assisted on. He was robbed. Just like Gretzky was robbed in 91. Though not as badly

To be honest, 1988 was mostly because the Penguins were in the wrong division.

 

[bobholly39]

Anyone know the pens record prior to getting coffey that season?

Coffey's first game was November 25th 1988

The Penguins record on Nov 25th was 24 points in 22 games - 8th in point percentages for the league at the time.