1988-1989 Hart Memorial Trophy

[reckoning]

FWIW, Brown had 8 points (4-G, 4-A) in the 4 games that Lemieux missed that season.

The following season gives a larger sample:

With Lemieux: GP-59, G-26, A-37, PTS- 63, PPG- 1.07

Without Lemieux: GP-21, G-7, A-10, PTS-17, PPG- 0.81

A dropoff, but not as much as one would expect.



Hart Voting: Wayne Gretzky, LA 267 (40-22-1); Mario Lemieux, Pit 187 (18-27-16);

All-Star Team Voting for Centre: Mario Lemieux, Pit 277 (48-11-4); Wayne Gretzky, LA 201 (10-49-4);

Since both of those were voted on by the same people, it's clear they believed that Gretzky was the player more valuable to his team, but Lemieux was the better player.

 

[Hobnobs]

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.

He elevated an already offesively gifted player.. Oh my!

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

this is actually about the '89 pearson, not the hart.

i have always had a few suspicions, none of which i can verify.

1. i have no idea how pearson votes work, but if it's first place, second place, third place, then isn't it possible that gretzky and lemieux split the first place votes, allowing yzerman to take by virtue of second place votes. not likely, but maybe.

2. guys obviously knew lemieux was going to get the art ross anyway. judging by the margin of gretzky's hart win that year, we can reasonably surmise that him winning the hart could also have been expected, though it looks nuts in retrospect. so if mario already had the ross all but clinched and gretzky likely already had the hart, then seems like the pearson was throwing a bone to yzerman for his own amazing season, not that anyone honestly thought he was the most outstanding player in the league that year.

3. but that would maybe indicate a lack of respect for lemieux among his peers. i know this is post-'87 canada cup, but i had the sense that until he won those cups and smythes, the other players on the ice still felt he was an entitled whiner, me-first player, not a leader, inflated his stats by running up scores against bad teams, etc.

 

[reckoning]

3. but that would maybe indicate a lack of respect for lemieux among his peers. i know this is post-'87 canada cup, but i had the sense that until he won those cups and smythes, the other players on the ice still felt he was an entitled whiner, me-first player, not a leader, inflated his stats by running up scores against bad teams, etc.

Lemieux had already won the Pearson in '86 and '88, so I don't think the players had anything against him.

I'm inclined to agree with your second point. Yzerman had an incredible year which probably would've won MVP and the scoring title in most other seasons; but since everyone knew he wasn't getting either of those, giving him the Pearson may have been a way to acknowledge his play that year.

 

[tazzy19]

Lemieux had already won the Pearson in '86 and '88, so I don't think the players had anything against him.

I'm inclined to agree with your second point. Yzerman had an incredible year which probably would've won MVP and the scoring title in most other seasons; but since everyone knew he wasn't getting either of those, giving him the Pearson may have been a way to acknowledge his play that year.

Gretzky didn't win the Pearson in 1986 when he completely anialated the competition with his highest point and assist totals ever -- 215 points when 2nd place (Lemieux) had 141. Gretzky beat him by 74 points, lol. And they gave the Pearson to Lemieux. Now that is true grand theft.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think the players in the 80s were often using the Pearson as an award for a player they felt exceeded expectations. Mike Liut over Gretzky is another one

 

[alanschu]

Actually that probably makes some sense. For the players Gretzky putting up 170+ points wasn't "outstanding" or even noteworthy. It was just what he did.

 

[blogofmike]

For anyone who thinks Paul Coffey, Rob Brown and 491 powerplays gives Lemieux a disadvantage, what would players at the time think of Yzerman's supporting cast?

 

[kmad]

I agree with nik jr's assessment. In sports, players tend to be given extra credit for a great season if it coincides with their first season with a new team.

I'm guilty of using this argument to talk up Rod Langway.

 

[redbull]

Maruk also scored 60 goals that year.

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

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.

over a 10 year period, gretzky outscored the "next best superstars" by almost 1000 points. same era.

800 games is enough of a sample size to adjust for freak seasons (like maruk, nilsson, others) and shows the gigantic gap between gretzky and other superstars of that era.

it was laughable in its absurdity.

from 1991 - 2001, there were only TWO players to break 1000 pts, Jagr and Sakic but the totals from 1-10 are extremely close to the top ten in the 80s (omitting 99).

This is clearly a player who transcends eras - period.

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.

sure it's out there.

in 1980, nobody would have thought 200pts was remotely plausible, not in any era, certainly not by that skinny kid.

let's not suggest that the era impacts the outlier more than the outlier impacting the era.

 

[Fred Taylor]

For anyone who thinks Paul Coffey, Rob Brown and 491 powerplays gives Lemieux a disadvantage, what would players at the time think of Yzerman's supporting cast?

Exactly. I don't understand how people think he wasn't at anything but an advantage for racking up points. I do however believe he should have won the Hart trophy this season.

 

[Hobnobs]

For anyone who thinks Paul Coffey, Rob Brown and 491 powerplays gives Lemieux a disadvantage, what would players at the time think of Yzerman's supporting cast?

You mean Gallant and Chiasson?

Edit: sorry I misread...

 

[Merya]

Because the Hart is given to the most valuable player to his team. Not necessarily the best or most productive player.

 

[toob]

The most likely reason why Yzerman won the Pearson in 89 is because the voting takes place before the end of the season and in March Yzerman was a much stronger candidate. He was on pace for over 70 goals and over 160 points and the team was still having a good record but then they skidded and finished at .500 and Yzerman's goal scoring dropped.

See this excerpt from an Yzerman biography:

For whatever reason team performance was a big deal that year (and apparently the next too see this video from the 1990 all star game naming the Hart candidates up to that point as Lafontaine, Bourque, Messier although the three best players in the league are named as Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman who were all playing on teams with piss poor records).

2. guys obviously knew lemieux was going to get the art ross anyway. judging by the margin of gretzky's hart win that year, we can reasonably surmise that him winning the hart could also have been expected, though it looks nuts in retrospect. so if mario already had the ross all but clinched and gretzky likely already had the hart, then seems like the pearson was throwing a bone to yzerman for his own amazing season, not that anyone honestly thought he was the most outstanding player in the league that year.

It doesnt seem like Gretzky's Hart was expected though (see above). Here is The Hockey News issue of that year discussing the Hart candidates. Again team performance seems to be the thing hurting Yzerman the most. The case for Yzerman essentially boiled down to less help, carrying a team in a terrible situation, defense, and coming back from injury.





Lastly in the fan vote for player of the year which Yzerman won the 5 candidates were Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Nicholls, Coffey so that prolly hammered home the help point with Gretzky and Lemieux having a top 5 teammate that year.

For anyone who thinks Paul Coffey, Rob Brown and 491 powerplays gives Lemieux a disadvantage, what would players at the time think of Yzerman's supporting cast?

Lemieux had 102 even strength points, Yzerman 101 (league leading 45 goals), Gretzky 100. Also Detroit had the 2nd least powerplay chances in the league with 352 whereas as you mentioned Pittsburgh had 491 (Los Angeles had 395 close to the league average of 403. Ofc Mario also outdid everyone in shorthanded points by but Pittsbugh also had the most powerplays against with 482 though Detroit was closer this time with 426.

 

[billybudd]

Sorry if this is a necro, but I found an interesting article on the topic and didn't want to start another Gretzky Lemieux thread

http://www.lcshockey.com/content/062315hart.asp

Craziest takeaway for me actually had nothing to do with the 89 Hart

The NHL has a proud tradition of tarnishing the Hart Trophy and its other post-season awards through Canadian jingoism, blatant favoritism, and downright stupidity. In 1954, Chicago goaltender Al Rollins won the Hart for posting a 12-47-7 record with the lowly Blackhawks. One year later, in 1955, Teeder Kennedy won the Hart as a glorified career achievement award while scoring a whopping 10 goals for a mediocre 24-24-22 Toronto squad. Mark Messier claimed the 1990 Hart Trophy thanks to 10 western hockey writers banding together and leaving Ray Bourque off their ballots. Had just three of those pitiful protesters tossed Bourque a third-place vote, the Boston Bruins would have two Hart-winning defensemen.

I knew Bourque was close, but I didn't know he lost for that reason.


Also makes an interesting point about Hawerchuk and "Adjudged to be most valuable to his team" in 1985.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

in a world where charles barkley and karl malone won MVPs over michael jordan, i don't lose too much sleep over the 1989 hart.

 

[The Panther]

http://www.lcshockey.com/content/062315hart.asp

Craziest takeaway for me actually had nothing to do with the 89 Hart



I knew Bourque was close, but I didn't know he lost for that reason.

That's utter nonsense. Unless a reliable source is supplied to prove this baseless accusation, which it never has been. Poppycock.

 

[Voight]

A good portion of the reasoning was him becoming the new face of the LA Kings.

 

[overg]

Sorry if this is a necro, but I found an interesting article on the topic and didn't want to start another Gretzky Lemieux thread

http://www.lcshockey.com/content/062315hart.asp

Craziest takeaway for me actually had nothing to do with the 89 Hart



I knew Bourque was close, but I didn't know he lost for that reason.


Also makes an interesting point about Hawerchuk and "Adjudged to be most valuable to his team" in 1985.

I love me some lcshockey, (I still use "blah, blah, blah, unicorn, blah" nearly two decades after reading it at lcs), but it's not exactly a source I would chose to cite to for anything other than a funny quip. They were always quite up front about their biases (anything Penguins, or anything not-the-Wings), and didn't ever really even pretend to be an objective source of anything.

Edit: and the unicorn blah article is still out there! Scary that the article is closer in time to the '89 season than the current one. I'm getting old.

http://www.lcshockey.com/issues/103/103defe.asp

 

[Rebuilt]

A good portion of the reasoning was him becoming the new face of the LA Kings.

I remember this quite well and the real reason is Gretzky took a floundering Kings franchise to finish 4th overall in his first season there.

That to me is far greater an achievement than Lemieux or Yzermans .

 

[Chukcha]

Could someone explain to me why Gretzky won the Hart with 54 goals 114 assists and 168 points against Lemieux who scored 85 goals 114 assists and 199 points?

Lemieux had more game winning goals and, well, more everything.

Sorry if this has already been asked.

definitely Master of magic's Aura of majesty spell

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

That's utter nonsense. Unless a reliable source is supplied to prove this baseless accusation, which it never has been. Poppycock.

Ten writers? Is that a conspiracy or is that just a sizable contigent of voters thinking Bourque wasn't the best candidate? And how'd these writers know what the voting results were going to look like in order to know how many votes to short Bourque anyway? I doubt Messier's own mother wanted him to win enough to go through the contortions implied by that absurd article. And what happened to the old idea that it was ONE Edmonton beat writer that screwed Bourque? That was the story that was traditionally tossed around. I guess some myths grow with the re-telling.

 

[The Panther]

Ten writers? Is that a conspiracy or is that just a sizable contigent of voters thinking Bourque wasn't the best candidate? And how'd these writers know what the voting results were going to look like in order to know how many votes to short Bourque anyway? I doubt Messier's own mother wanted him to win enough to go through the contortions implied by that absurd article. And what happened to the old idea that it was ONE Edmonton beat writer that screwed Bourque? That was the story that was traditionally tossed around. I guess some myths grow with the re-telling.

No kidding. I think I'm gonna have to start the 'Messier appreciation thread' since the poor guy just can't win on here lately. Also, is it really logical that writers in Calgary and Vancouver (cities that hated him and where he beat locals players up) would intentionally leave the likable Bourque off the ballot to vote for Messier, enemy #1? Nonsense.

People who didn't watch him play that season won't get it, but I followed him and the Oilers every single game during 1989-90. He was unbelievably great. I watched Gretzky and Lemieux in their prime -- they were obviously better players than Messier, but I have never seen one guy elevate a team the way Messier did the Oilers' in 1989-90. They weren't expected to go anywhere, but he willed them to victory and then to the Stanley Cup.

Bourque was also one of my favorite players, and there wasn't much to choose between them that season. In the end, they met in the Finals, and Messier won out. So, fair play that he go the Hart Trophy. 1989-90 was by far his best season in the NHL.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's not hard to fact check articles about awards voting

1989-90
HART: Mark Messier 227 (29-24-10); Ray Bourque 225 (29-26-2); Brett Hull 80 (4-9-33); Wayne Gretzky 16 (1-2-5); Pat LaFontaine 8 (0-1-5); Patrick Roy 8 (0-1-5); Steve Yzerman 3 (0-0-3)

63 ballots. Messier on all 63. Bourque on 57. So 6 writers left Bourque off their ballots - none of them for another defenseman.

Seems to me the more likely scenario is that 6/63 writers didn't want to vote for a defenseman, rather than there was some conspiracy to award the Hart to Messier.

Oh and I doubt 6/63 (almost 10%) of voters were Edmonton-based in an era of 21 teams.

 

[Voight]

Didn't a bunch of French-Canadain writers leave Iggy off their Hart ballots completely in 2002? IIRC he wouldn't of won anyway, but it hurt his chances.