1988-1989 Hart Memorial Trophy
- Thread starter KingGallagherXI
- Start date
When you see something over and over and over again, you begin to accept it is not luck. Gretzky's obscene number of secondary assists (he had over 50 in 1985-86) seem to be indicative of intentional offense to a rather absurd degree.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
One of the biggest turn around in NHL history. Gretz' first year in LA made the nhl relevant for the firs time in along time
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
Gretz' first year in LA took him from being great to being a hockey god and answered the question "Can one player make a difference"--that question has an answer
Pominville Knows
Registered User
To be fair, Lemieux provided the same answer. He couldn't win anything on his own either.
I apologize Dennis Bonvie. Some new evidence has come to the forefront. It should answer your (our) questions, but I will warn you: It seems as though our worst fears have come true....
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,831
- 5,401
Interesting article on the 88-89 hart trophy
http://www.lcshockey.com/content/062315hart.asp
It's a good read. Check it out
http://www.lcshockey.com/content/062315hart.asp
It's a good read. Check it out
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,792
- 3,729
Voight
#winning
Yea. I mean it was far and away Gretzky when you loo at just what he did to the Kings & Los Angeles as a whole.
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,831
- 5,401
It's interesting though. You have a 23 year old lemieux vs a 27 year old gretzky. Both in their prime and both on teams that are by no means stacked. Both teams haven't made the playoffs in years. And lemieux outscores him by 31 points? Is it a coincidence? That's the one season where both were fully healthy and in their prime and where the teams were a wash. Interesting
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,792
- 3,729
That part I agree with.
For example, Doug Gilmour was much more important to the 1993 Leafs than Mario Lemieux was to the stacked 1993 Penguins... but in that case they went with "best player".
The teams were not a wash.
For example, as in all of Lemieux's huge seasons, he had a ton of extra PP opportunities.. almost 100 more than Gretzky's Kings that year. And no it wasn't because of Lemieux drawing them as far as anyone can tell.
Not to mention Paul Coffey and the Pens completely wide open style of play where they traded chances and then tried to win on the PP.
Last edited:
Good post above.
Also not mentioned is Gretzky walked onto a team 4th worst in the NHL in a new city with a new coach and took them to 4th overall in 88-89 and then unceremoniously dethroned his own Oiler team in the playoffs.
Lemiuex had been with the same group of guys for 4 years and this was his 5th year.
Trying to convince the Mario apologists that they are insane in their belief their hero was better than Gretzky is akin to talking to a brick wall. They dont care.
They dont care that Mario never broke a single record of Gretzkys. Nor that Wayne had his number retired by the whole league, not just one team.
Im telling you, they dont care. They use 'Confirmation bias' to seek out caveats to spin the numbers to tell a tale that they want to believe.
Its a waste of time.
Also not mentioned is Gretzky walked onto a team 4th worst in the NHL in a new city with a new coach and took them to 4th overall in 88-89 and then unceremoniously dethroned his own Oiler team in the playoffs.
Lemiuex had been with the same group of guys for 4 years and this was his 5th year.
Trying to convince the Mario apologists that they are insane in their belief their hero was better than Gretzky is akin to talking to a brick wall. They dont care.
They dont care that Mario never broke a single record of Gretzkys. Nor that Wayne had his number retired by the whole league, not just one team.
Im telling you, they dont care. They use 'Confirmation bias' to seek out caveats to spin the numbers to tell a tale that they want to believe.
Its a waste of time.
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,831
- 5,401
In no way shape or form were the 89 pens a powerhouse though. It was lemieux and Coffey. That year was the closest lemieux and gretzky ever had to being on even terms in their primes
The Panther
Registered User
For f***'s sakes, not this thread again?
Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I personally would have voted for Mario in 1989, BUT Gretzky's winning is entirely legit and can't be argued with. Everyone saying otherwise wasn't there at the time and isn't looking at the contemporary context.
Penguins in 1988: 81 points (4th offense), 12th overall
Penguins in 1989: 87 points (3rd offense), 6th overall
Kings in 1988: 68 points (5th offense), 18th overall
Kings in 1989: 91 points (1st offense), 4th overall
Yes, the Pens made the playoffs (finally), but Mario had already put up Gretzky-like numbers the season before and they'd missed the playoffs... for the fourth year in a row with Mario. Voters weren't going to be hugely impressed by another similar season with marginal team improvement (6 points more on the season). The previous year, in their zest to de-throne Gretzky from Hart domination, voters jumped on Mario, and his team missed the playoffs on the last night of the regular season. While the Pens did noticeably improve in 1989, it wasn't by any great amount.
The Kings improved a remarkable 23 points in one season, with the same coach and team-captain as the year before... Hmm, wonder why? They finished ahead of Edmonton, the team Gretzky had just left.
Before flaming me for my Gretzky-bias, Mario-lovers, please re-read what I wrote above: "I personally would have voted for Mario"... but it's entirely reasonable that Gretzky won this. That's just all there is to it. Now, get over it.
Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I personally would have voted for Mario in 1989, BUT Gretzky's winning is entirely legit and can't be argued with. Everyone saying otherwise wasn't there at the time and isn't looking at the contemporary context.
Penguins in 1988: 81 points (4th offense), 12th overall
Penguins in 1989: 87 points (3rd offense), 6th overall
Kings in 1988: 68 points (5th offense), 18th overall
Kings in 1989: 91 points (1st offense), 4th overall
Yes, the Pens made the playoffs (finally), but Mario had already put up Gretzky-like numbers the season before and they'd missed the playoffs... for the fourth year in a row with Mario. Voters weren't going to be hugely impressed by another similar season with marginal team improvement (6 points more on the season). The previous year, in their zest to de-throne Gretzky from Hart domination, voters jumped on Mario, and his team missed the playoffs on the last night of the regular season. While the Pens did noticeably improve in 1989, it wasn't by any great amount.
The Kings improved a remarkable 23 points in one season, with the same coach and team-captain as the year before... Hmm, wonder why? They finished ahead of Edmonton, the team Gretzky had just left.
Before flaming me for my Gretzky-bias, Mario-lovers, please re-read what I wrote above: "I personally would have voted for Mario"... but it's entirely reasonable that Gretzky won this. That's just all there is to it. Now, get over it.
The Panther
Registered User
Can I just add one more thing? Everyone who wonders why Gretzky's raw point-totals began to (slightly) decline in L.A., and is arguing that "finally, Mario and Wayne had equal teammates" is deluding themselves.
(For one thing, the Pens in '89 had Paul Coffey on the P.P. and the 2nd-most 25-goal scorers in NHL history, but that's besides the point.)
The larger point here is: GRETZKY WAS TRADED. Do you understand how hard it is to leave a dynasty-team at 27 and join a bottom feeder? Never mind that, but just being traded in general... find me another 1st-year player on a team who scored more than 125 points (let alone 168)? You can't, because it's never happened in NHL history. Do you really think Mario would have scored 199 points if he'd been traded to Vancouver or New Jersey in summer, 1988?
Mario circa 1987 to 1996 was an unstoppable force, the 2nd-greatest offensive player in history. But Gretzky's Hart in 1989 is entirely deserved, even if Mario would have been just as deserving a winner.
(For one thing, the Pens in '89 had Paul Coffey on the P.P. and the 2nd-most 25-goal scorers in NHL history, but that's besides the point.)
The larger point here is: GRETZKY WAS TRADED. Do you understand how hard it is to leave a dynasty-team at 27 and join a bottom feeder? Never mind that, but just being traded in general... find me another 1st-year player on a team who scored more than 125 points (let alone 168)? You can't, because it's never happened in NHL history. Do you really think Mario would have scored 199 points if he'd been traded to Vancouver or New Jersey in summer, 1988?
Mario circa 1987 to 1996 was an unstoppable force, the 2nd-greatest offensive player in history. But Gretzky's Hart in 1989 is entirely deserved, even if Mario would have been just as deserving a winner.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
The teams were not really a wash, at least not at the top. One of them had Coffey.
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,831
- 5,401
Crosbyfan
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2003
- 12,671
- 2,493
No. He was BOUGHT.
How would much would 1988-89 Pens have improved from 1987-88 if they added a second Lemieux to their team for free? That would be a better comparison for improvement.
And do you really think Lemieux could not have topped 168 points that year after moving, for free, to the LA Kings instead of Gretzky?
Lemiux was the better player that year, plain and simple.
The Panther
Registered User
Irrelevant. The point is, he had to start anew on a totally new team -- a much weaker one, at that. (Did you really miss this point...?)
However falsely designed a 'trade' it was, the fact remains that the Kings lost their #1 center (Carson), whom Gretzky had to replace (and vice-versa). It wasn't like Wayne joined a team that had lost nothing.
See above -- the Kings lost their #1 center in the "trade".
Also, you do indeed seem to be missing the key point -- Gretzky went to a NEW team. New teammates. New coach (his first ever new coach in the NHL, and one he didn't get along with). New city. New fans, new expectations, new everything. You can't put two Mario Lemieuxs on the Penguins and say it's the same thing...
I don't know where you're getting this from, as I said nothing on this subject. But since you ask -- I doubt he would have been able to score much more than that, and possibly less. In addition to all the transitions to a new team, new coach, new system, etc., Lemieux would have had west-coast travel for the first time in his life. He also would have had 1 less power-play opportunity every game.
I agree, but that's only marginally relevant to this topic. The Hart Trophy is NOT for "best player".
Maybe it's just me, but I thought that article was horribly biased. Granted, I'm a Gretzky fan, so I'm biased myself. But ya... it wasn't even close to being fair or impartial.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,792
- 3,729
What?
In his first 200 point season Gretzky lead his team in scoring by 107 points.
In his highest scoring season (215) he lead his team by 77 and a young Mario Lemieux who was second in the league by 74.
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,831
- 5,401
Were taking about 1989. Not 82 or 86. Lemieux dominated his teams scoring race by 85 and gretzky only 18. Lemieux was in on 57% of his teams offence still an nhl record
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,792
- 3,729
Ok so what you are saying is that in Lemieux's best season he scored more than Gretzky in his 7th highest scoring season.. so what?
