1988-1989 Hart Memorial Trophy

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

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?

I'm talking about the 1989 HART trophy

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm talking about the 1989 HART trophy

It's been done.

 

[Crosbyfan]

It's been done.

What exactly were you expecting when you clicked on the "1988-1989 Hart Memorial Trophy" thread?

 

[Voight]

At the top lemieux led his team by 85 points while gretzky only 18.

Because Gretzky elevated his teammate to a level where the gap was so thin. Lemieux wasnt capable of that.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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

If by coincidence, you mean a comparison of one player's highest point total to another player's 7th highest point total, then yes, it's a super spooky coincidence that Lemieux outscored him.


As a reminder from 4 years ago when reckoning brought it up:

Hart Trophy Wayne Gretzky, 40/63 votes
1st Team All-Star Mario Lemieux, 48/63 votes

Lemieux was considered the better player by the same people who considered Gretzky to be more valuable. And since it usually comes up, in these conversations, the loss to Steve Yzerman in Pearson voting can likely be explained by players not adjusting to the fluctuating definition of the Pearson Trophy in the 1980s.

 

[K Fleur]

Because Gretzky elevated his teammate to a level where the gap was so thin. Lemieux wasnt capable of that.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous notions put forth in this thread, right up there with the super pro Lemieux article that was posted. Especially absurd when it has been pointed out that Gretzky routinely outscored his teammates by 70-100 points in Edmonton while elevating there play.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If by coincidence, you mean a comparison of one player's highest point total to another player's 7th highest point total, then yes, it's a super spooky coincidence that Lemieux outscored him.


As a reminder from 4 years ago when reckoning brought it up:

Hart Trophy Wayne Gretzky, 40/63 votes
1st Team All-Star Mario Lemieux, 48/63 votes

Lemieux was considered the better player by the same people who considered Gretzky to be more valuable. And since it usually comes up, in these conversations, the loss to Steve Yzerman in Pearson voting can likely be explained by players not adjusting to the fluctuating definition of the Pearson Trophy in the 1980s.

Or is it a coincidence that Gretzkys numbers dropped his first year off the oilers. He was a 180+ point player when he was traded.

 

[The Panther]

Or is it a coincidence that Gretzkys numbers dropped his first year off the oilers. He was a 180+ point player when he was traded.

Seriously....?

A guy goes directly from Stanley Cup champ to the 18th place (of 21) team and he's not going to lose any scoring pace?

Gretzky's point total in 1989 is similar to his total in 1981 on the sub.-500% Oilers (slightly higher). The difference is that in 1980-81, the team started getting really good in the 2nd-half of the season, whereas in 1988-89 the Kings were better in the first half and slowed down in mid-season.

Players' point-totals generally correspond to team performance. For example, in 1993 Lemieux scored 2.67 PPG (incomplete season, but nevertheless), and then scored 2.05 PPG his next almost-full season. Why? Probably because Pittsburgh was great in 1993 and just very-good in 1996. Then, when they fell down to just about .500% the next year, Lemieux falls to 1.61 PPG.

Gretzky's best season in L.A. was 1990-91, when he scored 163 points in 78 games. (For the "Adjusted Points" crowd, this is only 10 'adjusted' points less than he got in 1981-82, when he scored 212.) Why? Because L.A. was really good that year, in 1st place (102 points) in the division. If they'd had 120 points, Gretzky would have probably scored 185 points. He won the scoring title by 32 points, and his 122 assists is more than he got in several seasons in Edmonton. Didn't win the Hart, though. Do Gretzky fans endlessly complain about this? Nope.

In this regard, Lemieux's most impressive season remains 1988-89. Pittsburgh was a good-ish team (1st in division), but hardly overwhelming. Yet Lemieux was able to score 199 points. It's not that Pittsburgh wasn't good offensively (they were good), but it's impressive in the sense that they didn't win a huge number of games.

Anyway, as has been demonstrated (a few times now) on this thread, however, the hockey voters in 1988-89 clearly differentiated "best player" from "most valuable player" (as they should).

You also continue to ignore the factor of a player's going to a new team directly from a Cup champion, itself an enormous difficulty. As I've mentioned, nobody has ever scored more than 125 points (Thornton in '06) in the situation of being traded right before or during the season.

I don't know why Lemieux apologists continue to beat this to death. Gretzky should have won the Hart in 1987-88, and Lemieux could have won in 1988-89. So it's all fair anyway.

 

[billybudd]

Someone mentioned to me recently an absolute bonkers bit of trivia that of the 10 highest scoring seasons in NHL history, Paul Coffey was playing the blueline in 9 of them. I should have figured, but when you say it out loud like that, it's just crazy.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Players' point-totals generally correspond to team performance. For example, in 1993 Lemieux scored 2.67 PPG (incomplete season, but nevertheless), and then scored 2.05 PPG his next almost-full season. Why? Probably because Pittsburgh was great in 1993 and just very-good in 1996. Then, when they fell down to just about .500% the next year, Lemieux falls to 1.61 PPG.

Gretzky's best season in L.A. was 1990-91, when he scored 163 points in 78 games. (For the "Adjusted Points" crowd, this is only 10 'adjusted' points less than he got in 1981-82, when he scored 212.) Why? Because L.A. was really good that year, in 1st place (102 points) in the division. If they'd had 120 points, Gretzky would have probably scored 185 points. He won the scoring title by 32 points, and his 122 assists is more than he got in several seasons in Edmonton.

This is basically the "Gretzky had better linemates" argument, and it doesn't work, as you basically point out later with Lemieux's 199-point season. Team performance is very much about depth (even with the likes of Gretzky and/or Lemieux on a team... see Game 3 of the 1987 Canada Cup Finals). Neither Gretzky nor Lemieux can play on every line.

Imagine if the Oilers were in turmoil in the 80's like Lemieux's early years with the Penguins rather than the Oiler dynasty we know. According to your hypothesis, Gretzky's transcendent prime can be seen as the product of the dynasty's dominant regular-season performance. I think you're actually agreeing with GOAT66 without realizing it.

EDIT: People talk about Gretzky's drop from 2.33 points per game to 2.15 points per game in L.A, but forget that Gretzky also dropped from 2.69 to 2.32 while still playing in Edmonton. Coffey played only part of the 2.32 season, but didn't play at all in the 2.33 season, so that's not really the primary factor. My personal guess? Gretzky was getting older.

 

[The Panther]

This is basically the "Gretzky had better linemates" argument, and it doesn't work, as you basically point out later with Lemieux's 199-point season.

What I'm saying is, players in general -- even Gretzky/Lemieux-level talents -- produce higher numbers on teams that win a lot. Isn't this sort of obvious?

Gretzky and Lemieux are the only players since WWII who are talented/driven enough to score 160+ points, period. They were each capable of scoring 2+ points-per-game, over a full season, on mediocre or losing teams (Gretzky in '81 for example -- Lemieux in fact never did score that high on a losing team, but he scored 141 on a terrible one and 168 on a non-playoff team, while Gretzky in addition to '81 scored just about 2.0 per game on a losing team in 1990 and won the scoring title on a disaster team in 1994).

But naturally, both players -- like all players -- generally produced higher on better teams. Gretzky's jump from 164 to 212 points occurred when Edmonton became a great (RS) team in 1981-82. Lemieux's jump from 141 points to 168 points occurred when Pittsburgh became more competitive, and in his 199 point year they were 1st in their division. In the 90s, his production rose or fell according to the Pens' fortunes in the win/loss column. This is all sort of obvious.

Team performance is very much about depth (even with the likes of Gretzky and/or Lemieux on a team... see Game 3 of the 1987 Canada Cup Finals). Neither Gretzky nor Lemieux can play on every line.

Of course. Does this in any way contradict anything I said, above?

Again, all I'm saying is that high-scoring players tend to score more on good teams.

Imagine if the Oilers were in turmoil in the 80's like Lemieux's early years with the Penguins

They were. In 1979-80, the Oilers had 4 NHL players to start a season with, plus WHA cast-offs and teenagers. The second year they were still 12 games below .500 after 69 games, and missing the playoffs, until an end-of-season surge.

...rather than the Oiler dynasty we know.

Why is it Lemieux apologists always believe Gretzky entered the NHL on a dynasty team?

According to your hypothesis, Gretzky's transcendent prime can be seen as the product of the dynasty's dominant regular-season performance. I think you're actually agreeing with GOAT66 without realizing it.

Thanks for telling me what I agree with -- I appreciate it.

Nothing whatsoever in my previous post suggests what you're saying.

 

[Tweed]

Seriously....?

A guy goes directly from Stanley Cup champ to the 18th place (of 21) team and he's not going to lose any scoring pace?

Good point!

Now ya got me wondering what kind of ungodly point totals Mario would have put up as an almighty Oiler. :O

 

[The Panther]

Now ya got me wondering what kind of ungodly point totals Mario would have put up as an almighty Oiler. :O

Well, he did play for the "almighty" Penguins in the early 90s -- who had more Hall of Famers than the Oilers -- and he was still a day late, and a dollar short.

 

[Tweed]

Well, he did play for the "almighty" Penguins in the early 90s -- who had more Hall of Famers than the Oilers -- and he was still a day late, and a dollar short.

I don't understand. What's that got to do with 88-89?

Edit: I'm slow. You've obviously take exception to my use of the word "almighty". Not sure why though. They were like, friggin' awesome in the 80s. Won a ton of Cups.

Edit edit: i don't understand what you mean by Mario being a day late and dollar short. Explain please.

 

[The Panther]

I don't understand. What's that got to do with 88-89?

Edit: I'm slow. You've obviously take exception to my use of the word "almighty". Not sure why though. They were like, friggin' awesome in the 80s. Won a ton of Cups.

Edit edit: i don't understand what you mean by Mario being a day late and dollar short. Explain please.

Sorry, I thought you were one of the Maniacal-Mario Apologists... I must be getting sensitive.

 

[bobholly39]

People are always so defensive about Gretzky.


Lemieux 100% should have won the Hart in 1989. What's so hard in admitting that?


And as a few other posters have said - I agree that it's frustrating how the Hart trophy fluctuates between "best player" to "most valuable player"

 

[Fantomas]

'Most valuable' does not mean anything.

 

[Brewsky]

Gretzky had the intangibles.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Someone mentioned to me recently an absolute bonkers bit of trivia that of the 10 highest scoring seasons in NHL history, Paul Coffey was playing the blueline in 9 of them. I should have figured, but when you say it out loud like that, it's just crazy.

Coincidentally, I think the only season of the top 10 of all time that Paul Coffey was not on the blueline for was Gretzky's 1988-89 season with the Kings.

(he was helping Mario to 199. No player has scored a season of more than 168 points without Paul Coffey )

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Coincidentally, I think the only season of the top 10 of all time that Paul Coffey was not on the blueline for was Gretzky's 1988-89 season with the Kings.

(he was helping Mario to 199. No player has scored a season of more than 168 points without Paul Coffey )

Coffey sure help mario to his 160 in 60

 

[Voight]

Or is it a coincidence that Gretzkys numbers dropped his first year off the oilers. He was a 180+ point player when he was traded.

Also scored 168 & 163 as a King & won 3 more Art Ross trophies.

Good point!

Now ya got me wondering what kind of ungodly point totals Mario would have put up as an almighty Oiler. :O

He played on the 1990-1996 Penguins who were just as good if not better, but they could only put it together for two championships.

 

[suitup]

Gretzky was the deserving winner of the Hart that year. The Hart is supposed to go to the most valuable player which Gretzky was. Both on and off the ice he changed the Kings franchise

That is why he won.

The Hart can at years be the toughest trophy to pick a winner on. Because it can be tough to truly evaluate who is more valuable then another player especially in some years.

It can be argued that Lemoeux season is more impressive and better than Gretzky but that isn't what the Hart is about

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Also scored 168 & 163 as a King & won 3 more Art Ross trophies.



He played on the 1990-1996 Penguins who were just as good if not better, but they could only put it together for two championships.

Defence and goaltending was much better in the 90's then the early 80's. Gpg was in the high 7's and even reached 8 in Gretzkys prime.

Lemieux out up 161 points in 70 games which is 189 in 82 games in a 6.29 gpg league. The 80's oilers were more stacked

 

[tazzy19]

Defence and goaltending was much better in the 90's then the early 80's. Gpg was in the high 7's and even reached 8 in Gretzkys prime.

Lemieux out up 161 points in 70 games which is 189 in 82 games in a 6.29 gpg league. The 80's oilers were more stacked

And what would have happened if Lemieux had his power play opportunities reduced down to the same number of power play opportunities as Gretzky had? Even if you just took 1988-89 (the year that this thread is about) as an example, and gave Lemieux the same number of power play opportunities as Gretzky had that year....guess who comes out on top? And while we're at it, let's give Paul Coffey to Gretzky instead of Mario that year as well

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Defence and goaltending was much better in the 90's then the early 80's. Gpg was in the high 7's and even reached 8 in Gretzkys prime.

Lemieux out up 161 points in 70 games which is 189 in 82 games in a 6.29 gpg league. The 80's oilers were more stacked

You mean in 95-96 when he purposely took off the 2nd game of back to backs to stay well rested? Great season, but if there was ever a year to assume a player wouldn't have maintained his per-game rate in games he missed, that was the one.

Anyway, let's try to stick to 88-89