1988-1989 Hart Memorial Trophy

[Irato99]

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.

You say Lemieux was the power but he only played 26 games that season, still Recchi, Cullen, Coffey and Stevens all had 80+ pts seasons.

Coffey was more productive in 90-91 with the Penguins than in 86-87 with the Oilers.

In 86-87, Glenn Anderson only had 73 pts in 80 games, certainly not his A-game.

About Hall of Famers, there are 3 more you forgot to mention with the 90-91 Penguins.

 

[shazariahl]

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?

Ya, sorry. My bad. Its just hard to discuss Gretzky and Lemieux with someone named "99wasnotthebest" without it coming up at least a little.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

And Lemieux wasn't a diver?

Lemieux was notorious on his work ethic? Don't understand this. You mean notorious for not having one?

 

[WingsFan95]

And Lemieux wasn't a diver?

Lemieux was notorious on his work ethic? Don't understand this. You mean notorious for not having one?

1. Lemieux wasn't a diver no.

2. Yes, which makes his achievements that much more remarkable. The guy was a best and the best built NHL player ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And Lemieux wasn't a diver?

Lemieux was notorious on his work ethic? Don't understand this. You mean notorious for not having one?

Haha. Seriously. I was wondering when "99isnotthebest" would stop pretending to be a serious poster and go back to his old schtick

 

[canucks4ever]

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?

One of the reasons why I dont take Gretzky's accomplishments at face value is because he did it during the circus era of hockey, 1980-1993. Gordie Howe on the other hand played the vast majority of his career in a low scoring environment against the best goalies.

Gordie Howe also clearly has the longevity advantage over gretzky. At age 35 he won the hart trophy, gretzky was not even a top 10 scorer at that age. At the age of 40 he scored 103 points, gretzky was no longer in the league. He also has a clear edge in physicality and defensive play.

On my opinion, I would have given the hart to gretzky 8 times. 1981-87 and 1991. He didn't deserve it in 1980 and 1989.

The Problem with Mario Lemieux is that he got injured too often. If he scored 189 points in 1996, and 144 points in 2001, that would have been more impressive than almost all of gretzky's seasons.

Lemieux put up 199 with rob brown as his winger, gretzky had kurri and a better version of paul coffey, messier was also playing on his wing in the early to mid 80's.

 

[tazzy19]

One of the reasons why I dont take Gretzky's accomplishments at face value is because he did it during the circus era of hockey, 1980-1993. Gordie Howe on the other hand played the vast majority of his career in a low scoring environment against the best goalies.

Gordie Howe also clearly has the longevity advantage over gretzky. At age 35 he won the hart trophy, gretzky was not even a top 10 scorer at that age. At the age of 40 he scored 103 points, gretzky was no longer in the league. He also has a clear edge in physicality and defensive play.

On my opinion, I would have given the hart to gretzky 8 times. 1981-87 and 1991. He didn't deserve it in 1980 and 1989.

The Problem with Mario Lemieux is that he got injured too often. If he scored 189 points in 1996, and 144 points in 2001, that would have been more impressive than almost all of gretzky's seasons.

Lemieux put up 199 with rob brown as his winger, gretzky had kurri and a better version of paul coffey, messier was also playing on his wing in the early to mid 80's.

Bold 1)

Then why didn't Lemieux, Bossy, Stastny, Kurri, Messier, Yzerman, Hawerchuk, Dionne, Savard, Goulet, Doug Gilmour, (or anyone else for that matter) ever come close to Gretzky's "circus infalated" stats during the 80s? Was there room for only one clown? I could see merit in your argument, if there were other clowns or freaks of nature in this so called circus filled era, but, to use a warrented cliche, it wasn't even close.

Bold 2)

Why don't you use Gretzky's seasons at age 36 & 37 when he was top 5 in scoring at an age when it is harder to score, playing for one of the worst teams in the NHL with next to no offensive help, while playing with a bad back and getting ready to retire?

Bold 3)

Are you sure about any of that? Maybe a little research is in order...

 

[Jumptheshark]

the hart trophy is about value to a team

LA had a huge turn around with Gretz and the pens numbers were not that different

look at the coaching award

say team A missed the playoffs one year and has say 70pts
team B makes the playoffs and has 100pts

team A sacks their coach

The next year Team A makes the playoffs and gets 100pts
team B gets 102 pts

Which coach is more likely to get named coach of the year?

The coach that lead the team to a 30 pts gain would

LA had a rather huge jump in pts

 

[shazariahl]

One of the reasons why I dont take Gretzky's accomplishments at face value is because he did it during the circus era of hockey, 1980-1993. Gordie Howe on the other hand played the vast majority of his career in a low scoring environment against the best goalies.

Gordie Howe also clearly has the longevity advantage over gretzky. At age 35 he won the hart trophy, gretzky was not even a top 10 scorer at that age. At the age of 40 he scored 103 points, gretzky was no longer in the league. He also has a clear edge in physicality and defensive play.

On my opinion, I would have given the hart to gretzky 8 times. 1981-87 and 1991. He didn't deserve it in 1980 and 1989.

The Problem with Mario Lemieux is that he got injured too often. If he scored 189 points in 1996, and 144 points in 2001, that would have been more impressive than almost all of gretzky's seasons.

Lemieux put up 199 with rob brown as his winger, gretzky had kurri and a better version of paul coffey, messier was also playing on his wing in the early to mid 80's.

Saying Gretzky didn't have longevity and then comparing him to Howe is pretty misleading. Gretzky had tons of longevity (when he retired he was 15th all time for most games played in an NHL career). But comparing anyone to Howe's longevity is just rediculous - Howe is the king of longevity and one of the most consistant players of all time - maybe THE most consistant. That's why he's almost universally ranked in the top 4, and many even have him ahead of Lemieux.

However, his margins of victory were not as impressive as Gretzky's. And you can't say HE didn't have a stacked team - they were to ONLY team in history to win 7 straight President's Trophies, and took home 4 cups in those 7 years. He had a comparable number of HOF teammates to Gretzky too.

Regardles, since Howe is one of the players I respect most in NHL history, I'd really rather not get into a debate regarding him vs Gretzky.

 

[canucks4ever]

Bold 1)

Then why didn't Lemieux, Bossy, Stastny, Kurri, Messier, Yzerman, Hawerchuk, Dionne, Savard, Goulet, Doug Gilmour, (or anyone else for that matter) ever come close to Gretzky's "circus infalated" stats during the 80s? Was there room for only one clown? I could see merit in your argument, if there were other clowns or freaks of nature in this so called circus filled era, but, to use a warrented cliche, it wasn't even close.

Bold 2)

Why don't you use Gretzky's seasons at age 36 & 37 when he was top 5 in scoring at an age when it is harder to score, playing for one of the worst teams in the NHL with next to no offensive help, while playing with a bad back and getting ready to retire?

Bold 3)

Are you sure about any of that? Maybe a little research is in order...

Mario Lemieux never put up big totals? Bossy and Yzerman didnt have inflated circus totals? Nicholls never scored 150 points? It was a circus era.

The original 6 was real hockey, real competition.

 

[tazzy19]

Mario Lemieux never put up big totals? Bossy and Yzerman didnt have inflated circus totals? Nicholls never scored 150 points? It was a circus era.

The original 6 was real hockey, real competition.

Did Lemieux ever more than once score more than 180 points (Which Gretzky AVERAGED for 10 straight seasons)? Did anyone else besides Lemieux EVER score more than 180 points? Did Bossy? Did Yzerman? Did Dionne? Did Statsny? Did Kurri? Did anyone come even remotely close to a 2.77 PPG average over an entire season during the "circus 80s"? Did anyone else EVER win the scoring title by 70 points even once during the "circus 80s", forget about routinely (which Gretzky did throuout the "circus 80s")? While we're pondering those questions, is 150 points (Nicholls) even close to 205, 208, 212, and 215? (Hint: 215 points is SIXTY more points than Yzerman's 155). As for Nicholl's 150 points, let's ask ourselves why he scored those 150 points playing with Gretzky, and never reached those totals before or after playing with him...

 

[canucks4ever]

Did Lemieux ever more than once score more than 180 points (Which Gretzky AVERAGED for 10 straight seasons)? Did anyone else besides Lemieux EVER score more than 180 points? Did Bossy? Did Yzerman? Did Dionne? Did Statsny? Did Kurri? Did anyone come even remotely close to a 2.77 PPG average over an entire season during the "circus 80s"? Did anyone else EVER win the scoring title by 70 points even once during the "circus 80s", forget about routinely (which Gretzky did throuout the "circus 80s")? While we're pondering those questions, is 150 points (Nicholls) even close to 205, 208, 212, and 215? (Hint: 215 points is SIXTY more points than Yzerman's 155). As for Nicholl's 150 points, let's ask ourselves why he scored those 150 points playing with Gretzky, and never reached those totals before or after playing with him...

Gretzky scored at a 180 point pace 7 times. Lemieux's supporting cast for his 89 season was much weaker than gretzky's. Gordie Howe won scoring titles by over 20% and had a strong overall game. Oh wait that doesn't seem to matter to you, you only want to judge them based on offense because you know gretzky can't hold Howe's jock when it comes to being a complete player. If gretzky played in a lower scoring environment like the 1950's, he wouldnt be putting up those totals, only a fool would think otherwise. Its alot easier to rack up those point totals when the league is averaging 8 goals per game instead of 5.3.

Was wayne gretzky competing against prime bobby hull, stan mikita or beliveau and the rocket. Oh yeah i forgot, his competition was much easier and when lemieux came along and started playing with coffey, he got replaced as the best player.

Gordie Howe won 4 cups in the montreal dynasty era, gretzky won his cups in a diluted league.

 

[tazzy19]

Gretzky scored at a 180 point pace 7 times. Lemieux's supporting cast for his 89 season was much weaker than gretzky's. Gordie Howe won scoring titles by over 20% and had a strong overall game. Oh wait that doesn't seem to matter to you, you only want to judge them based on offense because you know gretzky can't hold Howe's jock when it comes to being a complete player. If gretzky played in a lower scoring environment like the 1950's, he wouldnt be putting up those totals, only a fool would think otherwise. Its alot easier to rack up those point totals when the league is averaging 8 goals per game instead of 5.3.

Was wayne gretzky competing against prime bobby hull, stan mikita or beliveau and the rocket. Oh yeah i forgot, his competition was much easier and when lemieux came along and started playing with coffey, he got replaced as the best player.

Gordie Howe won 4 cups in the montreal dynasty era, gretzky won his cups in a diluted league.

Gretzky averaged a 180 points per season his first 10 years. Besides Lemieux, no one else even scored more than a 155 points (Yzerman) for the entire 80s.

 

[canucks4ever]

Gretzky averaged a 180 points per season his first 10 years. Besides Lemieux, no one else even scored more than a 155 points (Yzerman) for the entire 80s.

Average stars like kent nilsson and denis maruk would score 130 points in the 80's. In Gordie Howe's era, 55 points was a superstar season.

Also, in Howe's era, defenseman weren't constantly rushing the puck up the ice and neglecting defense.

 

[Ogopogo*]

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.

.

Right there your credibility hit zero.

 

[shazariahl]

Gretzky scored at a 180 point pace 7 times. Lemieux's supporting cast for his 89 season was much weaker than gretzky's. Gordie Howe won scoring titles by over 20% and had a strong overall game. Oh wait that doesn't seem to matter to you, you only want to judge them based on offense because you know gretzky can't hold Howe's jock when it comes to being a complete player. If gretzky played in a lower scoring environment like the 1950's, he wouldnt be putting up those totals, only a fool would think otherwise. Its alot easier to rack up those point totals when the league is averaging 8 goals per game instead of 5.3.

Was wayne gretzky competing against prime bobby hull, stan mikita or beliveau and the rocket. Oh yeah i forgot, his competition was much easier and when lemieux came along and started playing with coffey, he got replaced as the best player.

Gordie Howe won 4 cups in the montreal dynasty era, gretzky won his cups in a diluted league.

Howe won his in the Wings dynasty era. 4 in 7 years along with 7 straight president's trophies is a dynasty, IMO. As for the diluted league, I won't argue with that one, because you're right. That being said, the Oilers were an expansion team themselves. That's usually not an advantage.

I don't think anyone is saying that Gretzky would score 215 pts in the 50's or 60's - as you say, they were a lower scoring era. But there is little doubt in my mind that Gretzky would have been sensational back then, just like he was in the 80's. And for that matter, Howe would be sensation today, if he were playing in the league right now. Great players are just great players - I firmly believe they would adapt to any changes in the game. We already saw Howe play through multiple decades, and he was still great. Gretzky played into the dead puck era, and was still great despite the back and a ruined shoulder.

The greatest players would have been the greatest players in any era.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Average stars like kent nilsson and denis maruk would score 130 points in the 80's. In Gordie Howe's era, 55 points was a superstar season.

Also, in Howe's era, defenseman weren't constantly rushing the puck up the ice and neglecting defense.

Maruk also scored 60 goals that year.

Dennis Maruk, 60 goals. Doesn't seem right.

 

[Violent By Design]

88-89 Hart

I was hoping somebody could shed some light on this for me, seeing as this season was before my time.

Was Wayne's Hart justifiable, despite playing two more game than Mario and still losing the scoring race by 31 points? (All of which being goals) I understand this was the turnaround season for the Kings, but it doesn't seem like Mario had much more to work with than Wayne. Both were obviously very integral parts to their team's success, but was Wayne's contribution so vast that it overshadowed Mario's amazing 85 goal, 199 point season?

I can really only base this off numbers, so some context from someone that actually witnessed this season would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

 

[revolverjgw]

I usually see the justification being that the Kings had a historic turnaround as a team, mostly because of Wayne. That's somewhat reasonable depending on how you view the trophy, I guess, but I still think it should have been Lemieux's. Not his fault he wasn't in a situation where he could have affected such a turnaround.

I can't wrap my head around Yzerman's Pearson.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I usually see the justification being that the Kings had a historic turnaround as a team, mostly because of Wayne. That's somewhat reasonable depending on how you view the trophy, I guess, but I still think it should have been Lemieux's. Not his fault he wasn't in a situation where he could have affected such a turnaround.

I can't wrap my head around Yzerman's Pearson.

This was a few years before Lemieux began a better relationship with the media. At this stage in his career, he was still shy, probably struggling with English and perceived as aloof if my memory recall is correct. Not that the voters were anti-Lemieux, but he was not engaging or charming like 99 or 19. I agree though. As good as Yzerman was that year, and he was great, Lemieux's season was out of this world.

 

[Hobnobs]

I do not see what Brown's accomplishments as a drafted junior player have to do with anything. When Brown got to play with Lemieux he put up big numbers, and then he faded from the NHL without him. That Lemieux had his highest point total with Brown is very likely a coincidence. Lemieux's age, health, playing with Coffey and the high scoring nature of that season had much more to do with it.

What? 42pts in 44 games with Hartford. He was pretty good during Chicagos playoff run. He faded away because of his work ethics and defensive liabillities not because he was some chump.

 

[tazzy19]

Well, if it's any consolation to Lemieux fans, one could argue that Gretzky was robbed of the Hart in 1991 when he beat Brett Hull for the scoring title by 32 points (even more than what Lemieux beat Gretzky by in 1989). In fact, Gretzky had an even better case in 1991 when you consider how well the Kings did as a team that year (1st in the conference as I remember) vs Lemieux's 1989 Pens who were dreadful.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Brown had a season of 212 pts in 63 games in the WHL, his NHL career may have been a failure but he was far from being a dummy. The fact is Mario had his most productive season playing with him.

Brown is one guy that sure get downgraded on how his career ended on these boards.

He wasn't a great overall player to be sure and his game didn't jive with the clutch and grab 90's defense 1st mentality that was gaining steam but he quite simply was an extremely gifted offensive player with a great pair of hands.

Paul Coffey was the biggest outside influence on the stats of both men over the course of their careers IMO

Coffey's offensive game sure did help both guys reach their scoring peaks there is no denying that.

I do not see what Brown's accomplishments as a drafted junior player have to do with anything. When Brown got to play with Lemieux he put up big numbers, and then he faded from the NHL without him. That Lemieux had his highest point total with Brown is very likely a coincidence. Lemieux's age, health, playing with Coffey and the high scoring nature of that season had much more to do with it.

Sure Coffey had more to do with it but Rob Brown was closer to Mario in skill than bob Errey as well.

Had Brown played in the 80's we would have been talking about one of the top 10 scorers of that decade.

He simply lost favor of his coach and didn't have the complete game either and his career got derailed after that and he was happy enough to play and scored video game numbers in the IHL for the 90's.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Howe won his in the Wings dynasty era. 4 in 7 years along with 7 straight president's trophies is a dynasty, IMO. As for the diluted league, I won't argue with that one, because you're right. That being said, the Oilers were an expansion team themselves. That's usually not an advantage.

I don't think anyone is saying that Gretzky would score 215 pts in the 50's or 60's - as you say, they were a lower scoring era. But there is little doubt in my mind that Gretzky would have been sensational back then, just like he was in the 80's. And for that matter, Howe would be sensation today, if he were playing in the league right now. Great players are just great players - I firmly believe they would adapt to any changes in the game. We already saw Howe play through multiple decades, and he was still great. Gretzky played into the dead puck era, and was still great despite the back and a ruined shoulder.

The greatest players would have been the greatest players in any era.

It's funny because there is a considerable amount of people here that think that both Wayne and Mario would do pretty close to what they did at their peaks. not saying that I agree with that thought but it's out there.

As to the OP there is way too much significance given to actual winners of trophies like the Hart and Conn Smythe IMO.

For the hart trophy we have easily 20-30 years where the winner would have been different depending on what sort of criteria was being used in the voting as it has changed over time and is often not consistent.

See Bobby Clarke's 3 Hart trophies for instance where Phil won it one year leads the league in scoring the next and doesn't finish in the top 10 of voting- go figure.

IMO instead of just focusing on the actual winners of any award we should always put it in context with the times and other players who might have been considered.

It would also be useful to have a standard set of criteria for all of the awards but that's impossible given the human factor.

 

[tony d]

Lemieux was robbed of the Hart Trophy that year. Look at what he did with Rob Brown that year as reason why he should have won the Hart.