If Lemieux in his prime played on a great team with Paul Coffey, he would also be scoring 200 points. But I still think Gretzky would just edge him out (see the 1987 Canada Cup). Lemieux would however score 100 goals (and 230 points) on a line with Gretzky, and Gretzky would have 190 assists (and 250 points).
1988-1989 Hart Memorial Trophy
- Thread starter KingGallagherXI
- Start date
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
He was completely jobbed. The argument that Gretzky brought his team from 4th worst to 4th best is so ridiculously stupid it hurts my brain. Basically it punishes Lemieux for not being traded in the offseason and rewards Gretzky for being involved in a lopsided trade. The Pens weren't much worse than the Kings that year, finishing 6th in league standings, only 4 points behind them (with a worse supporting cast) Sure, they only improved on their point total by 6 points from the previous year (though they gained 6 places in the standings and made the playoffs for the first time in 7 seasons), but that was because they had freakin' Mario Lemieux on the team the year before (the Art Ross and Hart Trophy winner). If the Pens had a Jimmy Carson clone instead of Lemieux in '88 like the Kings did instead of Gretzky, they probably would have finished below the Kings that season, and Lemieux would have been the unanimous MVP in '89.
Fleuryoutside29
Registered User
- Nov 3, 2009
- 583
- 0
I understand Gretzky had a huge impact on the Kings, but this was Lemeiux playing without Jagr. Also, Lemeiux came close to helping the pens make the conference finals. The Kings however got swept in the same round of the playoffs. I just think if it was a ten point margin in between the players it would be a different story. However it was close to 30 points
KingGallagherXI
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2009
- 3,890
- 19
Sure, the Kings improved from 4th worst to 4th best, but that doesn't automatically mean Gretzky had a bigger impact than Lemieux.
Like some people already mentioned, Lemieux participated in 57% of his team's offense and scored almost 25% of his team's goals. To put that in perspective, when Gretzky scored 92 goals, he participated in 51% of his teams offense and scored 22% of his team's goals.
In 1988-1989, Gretzky participated in 45% of his team's offense and scored 14% of his team's goals.
Because Lemieux bore a greater share of his team's offense, he was most valuable to his team. Eliminate Lemieux and Gretzky, and the Pens would have lost a greater % of their offense than the Kings.
Like some people already mentioned, Lemieux participated in 57% of his team's offense and scored almost 25% of his team's goals. To put that in perspective, when Gretzky scored 92 goals, he participated in 51% of his teams offense and scored 22% of his team's goals.
In 1988-1989, Gretzky participated in 45% of his team's offense and scored 14% of his team's goals.
Because Lemieux bore a greater share of his team's offense, he was most valuable to his team. Eliminate Lemieux and Gretzky, and the Pens would have lost a greater % of their offense than the Kings.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
I understand all of that, but it's just another example of certain stats not always providing the clearest route to the best answer. It's not like this is a situation where an argument CAN be made for one guy and CAN'T be made for another. I'm sure it was enough for voters at the time that the Kings traded their top goal scorer from the year before (Carson) AND their '88 7th overall draft pick prospect (Gelinas) and STILL gained 24 points in the standings, while Mario, as good as his individual performance(s) was(/were), only managed to push the Pens 6 points further up in the standings.
Can't say they were "wrong" choosing that way, especially in the atmosphere at the time of Gretzky being widely heralded as single-handedly rejuvenating hockey in a market it "had no business in", but I'll admit that there's certainly plenty of room to disagree, hence the discussion in this thread.
KingGallagherXI
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2009
- 3,890
- 19
That argument is fallacious: the year before, the Pens had Lemieux but the Kings didn't have Gretzky. Only if Lemieux had also changed teams could you compare their impacts in such a way. Obviously if Lemieux hadn't been there the year before the Pens would have gained much more than 6 points.
The large difference in % of team's offense is by itself a solid indication that Lemieux contributed more to his team's offensive performance than Gretzky. You can't just dismiss that stat.
I understand your point, but keep in mind that Lemieux was automatically the go to guy by default, given the fact that, as you say, he had hardly any supporting cast. If he hadn't been there, other players would have had to fill the role, just as when Gretzky wasn't on the Kings a year prior. If Gretzky had been traded to the Peguins for Lemieux in 88, perhaps it would have been Gretzky with 57% of the team's offense. Your argument goes both ways.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
Exactly. So I can imagine the voters simplifying the whole "analysis" down to:
1) What changes were made to personnel on each nominee's team?
2) How did each team do, and what was the magnitude of any improvement?
3) Who most likely played the biggest part in that?
And then remember that Gretzky still had the reputation as the "best" player in the league, and any drop in production was likely attributed to his change of scenery/moving, joining a completely different team with a different style and different linemates that he would have to develop chemistry with over time, etc... you know, all the things that normally affect mortal men.
I'm not saying that Gretzky should have won it, I'm saying that it's hard to conclusively say he shouldn't have... if that makes sense.
I agree with that. And I'd like to add that I don't think any player in the history of the game have had as much pressure to perform than Gretzky did that year. Remember that this is just after what is still known to this day as THE TRADE, and all eyes were looking to see what he could do away from Edmonton. The way he delivered probably gave him the edge for the vote, and the fact that the Kings finished ahead of both the Oilers and the Penguins helped too I guess.
Reporters tend to vote based on storylines and Gretzky taking the Kings from the bottom to the top after joining the team was more compelling than Lemieux's almost 200 point season. John Hollinger had a nice article on ESPN that explored this about NBA MVP voting over the years and similar principles probably apply here.
reckoning
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2005
- 7,020
- 1,264
Wayne Gretzky, LA 267 (40-22-1)
Mario Lemieux, Pit 187 (18-27-16)
Steve Yzerman, Det 109 (5-14-42)
Patrick Roy, Mtl 2 (0-0-2)
Joe Mullen, Cgy 1 (0-0-1)
Chris Chelios, Mtl 1 (0-0-1)
With 63 voters, and only 61 votes for Lemieux, that means two voters left him off their top three in favour of either Roy, Mullen or Chelios. I'd love to know who they were.
Gretzky benefited because the trade magnified his impact, similar to the Hart wins by Messier in '92 or Thornton in '06. Another factor was Edmonton finishing below L.A. in the standings, as everyone in the media were predicting before the season that Edmonton would still be the league's best team without him.
Lemieux should've won it, but the comparisons to Gretzky's 200 point years in the 80s aren't valid. No other MVP contender put up a season in those years like Gretzky and Yzerman did in '89.
Mario Lemieux, Pit 187 (18-27-16)
Steve Yzerman, Det 109 (5-14-42)
Patrick Roy, Mtl 2 (0-0-2)
Joe Mullen, Cgy 1 (0-0-1)
Chris Chelios, Mtl 1 (0-0-1)
With 63 voters, and only 61 votes for Lemieux, that means two voters left him off their top three in favour of either Roy, Mullen or Chelios. I'd love to know who they were.
Gretzky benefited because the trade magnified his impact, similar to the Hart wins by Messier in '92 or Thornton in '06. Another factor was Edmonton finishing below L.A. in the standings, as everyone in the media were predicting before the season that Edmonton would still be the league's best team without him.
Lemieux should've won it, but the comparisons to Gretzky's 200 point years in the 80s aren't valid. No other MVP contender put up a season in those years like Gretzky and Yzerman did in '89.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,779
- 16,224
KingGallagherXI
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2009
- 3,890
- 19
I highly doubt that because Lemieux's linemates weren't as good. I don't think Gretzky could have scored 31 more points with them.
With Luc Robitaille Lemieux might have topped 200.
That kind of discredits the Hart trophy in my eyes.
You are just futher supporting my view that Lemieux could score more than Gretzky without great players, but couldn't score quite as much as Gretzky with great players (and no, Luc Robitaille isn't in the same league as Paul Coffey in his prime). Put both Gretzky and Lemieux on the 80s Oilers, and Gretzky will edge out Lemieux in points 9 times out of 10. Put them both on the 80s Penguins (without Paul Coffey or Jagr, etc), and Lemieux might beat Gretzky...but even then I'm not so sure (a 1985 Gretzky was just as scary, if not scarier, than a 1989 Lemieux).
Last edited:
Even in 1989, Gretzky was still amazing. His decline from 200 points can be attributed to new linemates (also losing Paul Coffey a couple years earlier), a new life, and selling the game in LA (and all the pressures that came from being the best in the world under that scenerio). Take a look at these 1989 highlights...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Wv3Fy2TzY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Wv3Fy2TzY
These are both good points. The media loves a good storyline, and Gretzky going to LA and turning the Kings around is one of the best ever, especially from a simplified media point of view.
Also, like you mentioned, in Gretzky's 200+ point seasons he was beating everyone in the league by 70+ points. One year by 79 points. A few of those years he had more assists than anyone else had points. No one was even close. In Lemieux's season, both Gretzky and Yzerman put up impressive totals.
But don't forget, Nichols also scored 150 points himself that year, and much of the credit for his success was given to Gretzky. Also, guys like Tonelli, who were considered old and washed up, were suddenly breaking out with huge comeback seasons as well. It wasn't JUST that Gretzky scored a bunch of points himself - the entire success of the Kings team that year was credited to Gretzky. Its almost like every point scored by guys like Nichols were added to Gretzky's point totals by the media.
Again, I'm in the camp that says Lemieux deserved the award. But I'm just saying, that the media loved Gretzky. They loved the story of "the trade" and how it saved the kings. They loved stories like old players near retirement falling in love with the game again, and being just glad to play with someone like Gretzky. They loved guys like Bernie Nichols having career seasons and scoring 70 goals. Really, when you look at it, its not surprising they gave it to Gretzky. The media were probably begging for a story to sell the season and the NHL in general to the people of LA and the USA in general. Gretzky just gave them the chance.
WingsFan95
Registered User
One of many reasons I don't drool at people mentioning Gretzky's award totals.
The Pearson and Hart was Lemieux's that season and I know most casual NHL fans who hear or know of Lemieux's 199 season all assume he won every award that year, which he deserved.
What is most mind-boggling is how Lemieux won the Hart in 88, you'd think as the reigning Hart holder someone else would have to make a STRONG case to overthrow him, and no such case was made.
Lemieux also deserved the Hart in 92 over Messier.
So you have the following misleads in the history books:
Lemieux deserved +2 Harts and +2 Pearsons (Lindsays)
That would make a more appropriate career tally of:
5 Harts
6 Pearsons
All considering his career cut short, how is he not the better player between him and Gretzky?
The Pearson and Hart was Lemieux's that season and I know most casual NHL fans who hear or know of Lemieux's 199 season all assume he won every award that year, which he deserved.
What is most mind-boggling is how Lemieux won the Hart in 88, you'd think as the reigning Hart holder someone else would have to make a STRONG case to overthrow him, and no such case was made.
Lemieux also deserved the Hart in 92 over Messier.
So you have the following misleads in the history books:
Lemieux deserved +2 Harts and +2 Pearsons (Lindsays)
That would make a more appropriate career tally of:
5 Harts
6 Pearsons
All considering his career cut short, how is he not the better player between him and Gretzky?
But if we take that one away from Gretzky, should we also give him the Hart in 91? He beat Hull by 32 points, which is basically the same margin Lemieux beat Gretzky by. So Gretzky would still hold strong with 9 Harts and 10 Art Rosses. And the Pearson is a joke - Gretzky was winning scoring titles by 70+ points and only won 5 Pearsons? Don't even get me started.
Regardless, without turning this into a Gretzky vs Lemieux debate my opinion is simple - Lemieux showed the potential to be better, but he never had any season where he was clearly better. His 199 point was beaten by Gretzky 4 times. His best PPG season of 2.67 was beaten by Gretzky's 2.77 PPG, and Gretzky did that over more games. Lemieux's career PPG average is lower, despite Gretzky playing the equivalent of 7 extra seasons. Even when they played together in the Canada Cup, Gretzky was slightly better, and won the tournament MVP.
Lemieux's best year for goals was 85 - Gretzky had 92 and 87 (and he missed 6 games that year). Hull had 86, leaving Lemieux 4th best. Lemieux's best for assists was 114 - Gretzky beat that 7 different times, and tied it another. That leaves Lemieux in 8th, and tied for that. Lemieux had only 1 season where he broke 180 points (though obviously he would have done it more if he'd been healthy), but Gretzky AVERAGED 180 pts/year for 10 straight years. He had 163 assists one year - think about that; no other player except Lemieux has even scored 163 POINTS in a year, and Gretzky had that many assists. Plus another 52 goals on top of that.
I'm not trying to trash Lemieux - he is one of the greatest players of all time. And there are circumstances beyond the numbers - he had health issues. He spent more years in a lower scoring era. He didn't have as good a team for as long. He was still young and coming on when they played together in 87. But after a while they all just start to sound like excuses. On the one hand I have a player who might have been better, but we never really got to see it because of health and injuries and a myriad of other factors. On the other, we have a player who set 61 NHL records, 60 of which are still standing 12 years after he retired (and 20+ years after many of them were set). This player doesn't have a lot of question marks - he did it all, he shattered every record, won more awards, won more championships, etc.
Maybe some of that's not fair to Lemieux, but like I said - when I have to choose between two great players, but one is injured a lot, and the other is not just healthier, but also scored more, assisted more, and had higher PPG in his career AND his best seasons, I really can't justify taking the player who was injured more and scored less.
WingsFan95
Registered User
I think the other factor with Gretzky is the protection policy by the league, which is just glossed over by most fans who didn't grow up during Gretzky's run or understood what it meant.
I'd like some people to put up the PP numbers when Gretzky was on the ice. But that seems next to impossible.
Also the notion that Gretzky was a diver is somewhat evident in the many games I've seen.
And I don't think anything can rival that 80s Oilers team. It was smashed on talent that I don't think has been seen since or anywhere near.
Compare the mid 80s Oilers teams to the early 90s Penguins or late 90s Wings. Oil beat em both head on.
And as has been said time and again, Lemieux was notorious on his work ethic, the guy was flat-out the most skilled offensive weapon in NHL history up there with Bobby Hull.
And I would never take Gretzky over those two if I wanted my team to score a goal.
One stat I would like to see that may be done is to look at those 3 big seasons by Lemieux and see how many points he scored in games after his team was up 3 goals or more.
I'd like some people to put up the PP numbers when Gretzky was on the ice. But that seems next to impossible.
Also the notion that Gretzky was a diver is somewhat evident in the many games I've seen.
And I don't think anything can rival that 80s Oilers team. It was smashed on talent that I don't think has been seen since or anywhere near.
Compare the mid 80s Oilers teams to the early 90s Penguins or late 90s Wings. Oil beat em both head on.
And as has been said time and again, Lemieux was notorious on his work ethic, the guy was flat-out the most skilled offensive weapon in NHL history up there with Bobby Hull.
And I would never take Gretzky over those two if I wanted my team to score a goal.
One stat I would like to see that may be done is to look at those 3 big seasons by Lemieux and see how many points he scored in games after his team was up 3 goals or more.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Mario Lemieux's Penguins received far more PPs relative to the league than Gretzky's Oilers. This has been proven.
Try again.
Try again.
WingsFan95
Registered User
Doesn't turn the fact those Oilers teams were immensely stacked in comparison to the Pens.
Take the 90-91 Penguins for instance:
Recchi
Cullen
Coffey
Stevens
Jagr
and Lemieux
We all know Stevens was a leach his entire career and Zarley Zalapski is an average at best defense-man while Coffey was a score first d-man who had gone past his prime.
Ron Francis wasn't at his A-game in the 91-92 seasons and was secondary, but even if you count him as helping Lemieux you got 4 Hall of Famers.
Now take a look at the 87 Oilers:
Kurri
Messier
Anderson
Coffey
Lowe
and Gretzky
with a slew of higher end role players, a Hall of Fame goaltender and a great coach. So five Hall of Famers, and not to mention that guys like Messier, Kurri and prime Coffey beat what the Pens had.
A young Jagr doesn't make the Pens a powerhouse, they never were, Lemieux was the power.
KingGallagherXI
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2009
- 3,890
- 19
shazariahl said:
I agree with both of you but let's not turn this in a Lemieux vs Gretzky thread, can we just agree that Lemieux deserved the Hart in 1989?
