1988-1989 Hart Memorial Trophy

[The Panther]

People are always so defensive about Gretzky.

I don't think people are defensive about Gretzky so much as we're wary of what I'm henceforth calling the 'Maniacal Mario Apologists'.

You'll note that Gretzky-ists (another new term) don't repeatedly start or bump threads about "Why didn't Gretzky win the '88 Hart Trophy?', and 'Why didn't Gretzky win the '91 Hart Trophy", and 'Why didn't Gretzky win the '86 Pearson?', etc.

Lemieux fans do do this. So, who's defensive...?

People are always so defensive about Gretzky. Lemieux 100% should have won the Hart in 1989. What's so hard in admitting that?

It's probably hard in that it's not true. Speaking for myself, I've said several times that I personally would have voted for Lemieux in 1989 (how many more times do I have to say this?). However, it's simply false to say that Lemieux had a 100% case -- which should be rather obvious, since he didn't win. There are a plethora of reasons why Gretzky was a legitimate choice for the Hart in '89.

The real question, as I see it, is: Why is it so hard for Maniacal Mario-Apologists to admit that Gretzky had a legit case in '89?

People are always so defensive about Gretzky. 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"

Does it? When did it automatically go to the "best player"?

Is it not possible that, in several cases, the best player and most-valuable player are viewed as the same person, and in other cases, they're not?

Something that cold individual stats don't reveal is how the team's performance was viewed in context. This is VERY important in terms of Hart voting. As has been noted, it's exceedingly rare that a non-playoff team's player wins the Hart. It's also quite rare that a great player (even the 'best' player) on a losing team wins the Hart (Gretzky in '80 and '81 are exceptions, but quite justifiable ones).

This point is very important, because it goes some way to determining how voters distinguish between "best player" (cleary Lemieux in 1988-89 -- at least, if we're not talking about even strength), and "most valuable". That is, rarely is a player viewed as "most valuable" if his team is average or has declined from the previous season. By contrast, players whose teams have suddenly had a great, improved season often get special Hart-trophy attention.

So, to review (because Maniacals keep ignoring it): In spring '89, Wayne's 1st year on a new team had resulted in that team going directly from bottom of the League to top in one season. Meanwhile, after 4+ seasons on the Pens, Mario hadn't made the playoffs yet. Mario's team was improving by a few points, but nothing much. There's a point where voters start to think, "Okay, this guy can now produce Gretzky-like points, but how is it helping his team?" AND JUST THE PREVIOUS SEASON, every voter had rushed to vote for Mario, only to see his team miss the playoffs on the last night of the regular season. Frankly, I think some voters were embarrassed that they're gone in for the Mario-hype the year before, only to see the Pens choke at the end. They didn't want this to happen again, and, with the media hype over the Gretzky-trade, with the Kings' big improvement, etc., it made sense to many of them to vote for Gretzky.

Again -- and to repeat it yet once more -- I personally would have voted for Mario. But it is totally wrong to say that he had a 100% case.

It helps to have some understanding of the context of the times, because this is VERY important in understanding how voters viewed the Hart.

 

[The Panther]

Defence and goaltending was much better in the 90's then the early 80's.

What does this have to do with 1989? I suppose you're going to argue that goaltending was way better in 1989 than 1986 when Gretzky had his fourth 200+ point season? Or way better in 1989 than 1987 when Gretzky had largest margin of Art Ross victory? Or way better in 1991 than in 1987? I mean, seriously....

Gpg was in the high 7's and even reached 8 in Gretzkys prime.

GPG reached 8 exactly once (1982), and it wasn't even Gretzky's best or second-best per-game season.

Let's compare 1985, 1987, and 1989:
1985:
3.89 GPG / team
1987:
3.68 GPG / team
1989:
3.74 GPG / team

Wow, huge difference there. (And save-percentage was higher in 1987 than in 1989.)

In 1989, Mario's team had 491 power-play opportunities. In 1985, Gretzky's team had 293.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

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?

Not necessarily. A modern team has 20+ skaters, and each skater will generally share the ice with only 4 of those. Using an extreme example, if a team happens to have 5 good players and 15 horrid players (... kind of like the modern Oilers, sadly...), the team is still going to suck, but those players are going to have pretty good counting numbers regardless.

Heck, in 81-82, Gretzky didn't need a single great performance on his team to put up 212 points. He more than doubled the next closest player, Anderson in points (212 vs 105). Gretzky was +81 when the next closest on the Oilers was only +46 (Anderson and Lowe).

The 80's Nordiques seem to be a fine example of having extraordinary talent at the top getting them nowhere (at first, anyway... but by the time they were getting better, Stastny was already getting older).

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

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

I am sorry. Upon rereading what I wrote, I put words into your mouth, and that's not fair to you. I'll clarify what I was trying to say.

GOAT66's thesis is that Gretzky's numbers dropped because he went from the Oilers (a dynasty by 1988) to the lowly Kings. Reading between the lines, he believes that Gretzky is at least partially a product of playing with the then-powerhouse Oilers.

I disagree with this. I believe that if Gretzky was a few years younger in 88-89 (say 20 when he was traded to the Kings), his counting numbers wouldn't see any drop.

Age|Season|EVpts|PPpts|SHpts|PP opportunities|PP conversion
20|1981-82|147|57|8|341|16.7%
28|1988-89|100|53|15|407|13.0%

Gretzky was a much better player at 20 than at 28. At 28, Gretzky was already 2-3 years removed from his peak, which I define as the five straight years when Gretzky got more than 4 shots on goal per game (which also corresponds to his 212, 196, 205, 208, and 215-point seasons). And once you're past your peak, well there's only one general direction...

As an aside, it is weird that when he stopped following his own advice about "missing 100% of the shots you don't take", he started putting up worse counting numbers, even in Edmonton (the difference between 183 points and ~195 in 86-87 when he took only 3.65 SOG rather than 4.38 in 85-86, IMHO). I know he started focusing more on playmaking as of 85-86, but all I can say is:

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." - Wayne Gretzky

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Not necessarily. A modern team has 20+ skaters, and each skater will generally share the ice with only 4 of those. Using an extreme example, if a team happens to have 5 good players and 15 horrid players (... kind of like the modern Oilers, sadly...), the team is still going to suck, but those players are going to have pretty good counting numbers regardless.

Heck, in 81-82, Gretzky didn't need a single great performance on his team to put up 212 points. He more than doubled the next closest player, Anderson in points (212 vs 105). Gretzky was +81 when the next closest on the Oilers was only +46 (Anderson and Lowe).

The 80's Nordiques seem to be a fine example of having extraordinary talent at the top getting them nowhere (at first, anyway... but by the time they were getting better, Stastny was already getting older).



I am sorry. Upon rereading what I wrote, I put words into your mouth, and that's not fair to you. I'll clarify what I was trying to say.

GOAT66's thesis is that Gretzky's numbers dropped because he went from the Oilers (a dynasty by 1988) to the lowly Kings. Reading between the lines, he believes that Gretzky is at least partially a product of playing with the then-powerhouse Oilers.

I disagree with this. I believe that if Gretzky was a few years younger in 88-89 (say 20 when he was traded to the Kings), his counting numbers wouldn't see any drop.

Age|Season|EVpts|PPpts|SHpts|PP opportunities|PP conversion
20|1981-82|147|57|8|341|16.7%
28|1988-89|100|53|15|407|13.0%

Gretzky was a much better player at 20 than at 28. At 28, Gretzky was already 2-3 years removed from his peak, which I define as the five straight years when Gretzky got more than 4 shots on goal per game (which also corresponds to his 212, 196, 205, 208, and 215-point seasons). And once you're past your peak, well there's only one general direction...

As an aside, it is weird that when he stopped following his own advice about "missing 100% of the shots you don't take", he started putting up worse counting numbers, even in Edmonton (the difference between 183 points and ~195 in 86-87 when he took only 3.65 SOG rather than 4.38 in 85-86, IMHO). I know he started focusing more on playmaking as of 85-86, but all I can say is:

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." - Wayne Gretzky

Gretzky played 48 games out of 78 as a 27 year old in 88-89

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Gretzky played 48 games out of 78 as a 27 year old in 88-89

The "age" of a player during the season is defined by their age on February 1st of that year. If it makes any difference, Gretzky played more than half of most of his seasons as one "year" younger than listed on most reference sites.

He was still 2-3 years past his peak by 88-89. Dropping off a 186-point pace on the 87-88 Oilers to a 172-point pace on the 88-89 Kings (a 14 point drop) is notable... but a drop from 215 points in 85-86 to a 185-point pace in 86-87 (a 30-point drop) on the dynasty Oilers is kind of a sign that Gretzky was already declining. Sure, he was still in his prime, but he was definitely past his peak.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Gretzky was better that season. That article is purely hogwash.

That Canada Cup story is so laughably misinformed, and doesn't tell the whole story. (namely that Gretzky Assisted on a majority of Mario's goals, and lead the tournament in points). It was so obvious to EVERYONE that Gretzky MADE Mario a better player, not the other way around.

Not sure how hard that is to understand.

Gretzky Transformed Bernie Nicholls from a 32 goal scorer to a 70 Goal Scorer. He MADE his entire team BETTER.




Nobody would have batted an eye if Mario won that season based on stats alone, but Gretzky was simply a better player.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

The "age" of a player during the season is defined by their age on February 1st of that year. If it makes any difference, Gretzky played more than half of most of his seasons as one "year" younger than listed on most reference sites.

He was still 2-3 years past his peak by 88-89. Dropping off a 186-point pace on the 87-88 Oilers to a 172-point pace on the 88-89 Kings (a 14 point drop) is notable... but a drop from 215 points in 85-86 to a 185-point pace in 86-87 (a 30-point drop) on the dynasty Oilers is kind of a sign that Gretzky was already declining. Sure, he was still in his prime, but he was definitely past his peak.

The oilers in general scored less in general and gretzky scored 43 points in 19 games in the playoffs. Still clearly In his prime. He played 60% of his games at 27 in 88-89. I consider him 27 that season. Lemieux 23 vs gretzky 27.

 

[tazzy19]

The oilers in general scored less in general and gretzky scored 43 points in 19 games in the playoffs. Still clearly In his prime. He played 60% of his games at 27 in 88-89. I consider him 27 that season. Lemieux 23 vs gretzky 27.

What you aren't considering is that by the time Wayne was 27, he had already played more games than Lemiuex would end up playing in his entire CAREER, lol. Think about the 3 times he led the Canada Cup in scoring, plus the World Championships, which he also led in scoring. Think about the 5 times he went to the finals, which he led every time in scoring (do you have any idea how hard it is to go to the finals, let alone to lead them in scoring every single time? The energy and mileage it takes out of a human being is staggering). And also forget the mileage it took out of him to win the NHL scoring title by ridiculous margins for almost an entire decade. How much mileage do you think it took out of him to win 8 straight Hart Triphies? Lol. Let's not even go there. And let's not forget the year he spent in the WHA as a 17 year old. By the time Gretzky was 27, he was no where close to having the stamina he had when he was 23, as Mario was in 1988-89.

Yet still, despite all of this, you give Mario the same number of power play opportunities as Wayne had in 1988-89, and give Wayne a prime Paul Coffey instead of to Mario, and I can guarantee you it's Wayne who comes out with more points at the end of the year. This despite 12-14 years worth of games played that Wayne had to endure (that's about what it all probably added up to) vs Mario's 4 regular season's worth of games played (at the time). It should be pretty obvious why Wayne peaked early.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

What you aren't considering is that by the time Wayne was 27, he had already played more games than Lemiuex would end up playing in his entire CAREER, lol. Think about the 3 times he led the Canada Cup in scoring, plus the World Championships, which he also led in scoring. Think about the 5 times he went to the finals, which he led every time in scoring (do you have any idea how hard it is to go to the finals, let alone to lead them in scoring every single time? The energy and mileage it takes out of a human being is staggering). And also forget the mileage it took out of him to win the NHL scoring title by ridiculous margins for almost an entire decade. How much mileage do you think it took out of him to win 8 straight Hart Triphies? Lol. Let's not even go there. And let's not forget the year he spent in the WHA as a 17 year old. By the time Gretzky was 27, he was no where close to having the stamina he had when he was 23, as Mario was in 1988-89.

Yet still, despite all of this, you give Mario the same number of power play opportunities as Wayne had in 1988-89, and give Wayne a prime Paul Coffey instead of to Mario, and I can guarantee you it's Wayne who comes out with more points at the end of the year. This despite 12-14 years worth of games played that Wayne had to endure (that's about what it all probably added up to) vs Mario's 4 regular season's worth of games played (at the time). It should be pretty obvious why Wayne peaked early.

A 27 year old gretzky was still probably in better shape than a 23 year old eating McDonald's smoking a pack a day lemieux. Remember lemieux never touched a weight for a portion of his career. Gretzky probably had much better stamina. Lemieux was just so talented that everything came easy to him.

 

[tazzy19]

A 27 year old gretzky was still probably in better shape than a 23 year old eating McDonald's smoking a pack a day lemieux. Remember lemieux never touched a weight for a portion of his career. Gretzky probably had much better stamina. Lemieux was just so talented that everything came easy to him.

Ok, serious question: Did you read anything I wrote?

EDIT: I'll concede your point that a 27 year old Gretzky, despite all the milage, was probably in as good of shape as a 23 year old Lemieux, but really, this is beside the point. You can be in better shape at age 40 than you are when you were 25 if you're in the right work out regime, after all. Being in shape is one thing. Having years worth of games being piled up on your odometer is quite another. There is always burn out. Gretzky was not a typical 27 year old hockey player. He'd put on the miles of a 32 year old hockey player by that point. Imagine playing hockey to a level no had ever played the sport - and doing it peddle to the metal - while playing more games than anyone else (probably in history?) ever had up until that age. It's amazing he still had another 3 scoring titles in him (plus a playoff scoring title) honestly.

 

[Big Phil]

I can see why people complain about Mario not winning in 1989. To me, it is the best single season where a player didn't win the Hart in NHL history.

The thing here, is that it has a lot of Bourque/Messier overtones in 1990. In other words, Bourque could have easily won the Hart but Messier narrowly did and because of this people forget that Messier actually had a stellar year that was worthy in many other years to have won.

So I think we get this with the Gretzky/Mario 1989 debate. I think Gretzky is to "blame" a bit here for Mario not winning. Not just his 168 point season and taking a poor team to 4th best in the NHL, but rather a 200 point season had been "done" many times by 1989. Gretzky himself is on pace for 189 in 1988 if he plays a full year and he smashed the 200 point barrier for the 4th time just three years earlier. It wasn't so much a case of "Wow Mario almost hit 200 points we have to give it to him." It was more or less that we were all a little jaded and spoiled by that already.

I think we should just celebrate 1989 for what it was, a season where we saw some insane peak talent, including Yzerman. For my money, Lemieux was deserving of the Hart in 1989. He had 199 points, he led the next best by 31, he took his Pens into the postseason and he was in on a record(?) best 57% of his teams goals. That is just insanity. Patrick Kane was right around 50% just a couple of weeks ago this year and that still wasn't at Mario's level. For reasons like this he probably should have won the Hart. But the L.A. thing, the ability to lift a new team to great heights and a 168 point season in itself was pretty awesome too. So I don't know.

This never makes me scratch my head like the 1986 Pearson award does. I think Mario benefits because players were just sick of Gretzky winning it and maybe a little resentful of the Oilers. 1989 it almost seemed like the reverse. Gretzky is considered to be a victim of that trade and Mario is still in the eyes of the media a spoiled brat and a complainer. So I think that hurt him as well, unfair as it may have been.

 

[Ishdul]

A 27 year old gretzky was still probably in better shape than a 23 year old eating McDonald's smoking a pack a day lemieux. Remember lemieux never touched a weight for a portion of his career. Gretzky probably had much better stamina. Lemieux was just so talented that everything came easy to him.

People really exaggerate these kinds of things. Lemieux was one of the physically strongest players in the game in 89, he looked physically fit (that is, he wasn't pudgy like he was at times in the 90's) while playing at a high weight level, and weight training in 1989 would have been mandatory... Do you really think he never touched a weight?

In general, I think the idea that it was just natural talent for Lemieux is a crazy fantasy, like Lemieux just woke up one day at age 10 with maybe the best set of puck skills any player has ever had and just about every other skill that a hockey player could ever have.

 

[The Panther]

People really exaggerate these kinds of things. Lemieux was one of the physically strongest players in the game in 89, he looked physically fit (that is, he wasn't pudgy like he was at times in the 90's) while playing at a high weight level, and weight training in 1989 would have been mandatory... Do you really think he never touched a weight?

I don't think I've ever seen a picture of Lemieux with his shirt off. Was he ripped or more the Pillsbury Dough-boy?

 

[Killion]

I don't think I've ever seen a picture of Lemieux with his shirt off. Was he ripped or more the Pillsbury Dough-boy?

... like DeNiro in Cape Fear... Inked out... Passages from the Bible, Revelations... ya, Mario... total Badass TP.