1988-1989 Hart Memorial Trophy

billybudd

Registered User
Feb 1, 2012
22,049
2,249
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.

Seemed too crazy to be true. Thanks. Guess that website gets un-bookmarked.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
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.

This is the myth that won't die. While there is truth to Bourque being left off ballots in 1990 (though I think the most likely reason is because he was a defenseman and writers don't like voting defensemen for the Hart), this one is a complete falsehood.

2001-02
HART: Jose Theodore, Mtl 434 (26-16-9-5-2); Jarome Iginla, Cgy 434 (23-18-12-5-3);
Patrick Roy, Col 283 (8-15-12-11-5); Sean Burke, Phx 172 (2-5-16-10-7); Markus Naslund, Van 64 (0-0-4-10-14); Ron Francis, Car 48 (1-2-3-2-3); Joe Sakic, Col 41 (2-1-2-1-1); Mats Sundin, Tor 35 (0-2-0-5-6); Brendan Shanahan, Det 24 (0-2-1-1-2); Michael Peca, NYI 11 (0-1-0-1-1)

62 voters. 58 had Theodore on their ballot; 61 had Iginla on their ballot.

So when someone claims that a writer (singular) left Iginla off his ballot in 2002, it is true. But it's still a misleading statement as 4 writers left Theodore off their ballots.
 

billybudd

Registered User
Feb 1, 2012
22,049
2,249
So when someone claims that a writer (singular) left Iginla off his ballot in 2002, it is true. But it's still a misleading statement as 4 writers left Theodore off their ballots.

Seems like the NHLPA could benefit from hiring Theokritos to throw the joke ballots in the recycle bin.
 

Randomtask68

Registered User
Jul 19, 2010
612
1
Burlington, MA
Hartless: How the 1989 Hart Voting Rewrote History

I saw this on Reddit and thought I'd share it here. It's a fairly in-depth article examining the 1989 Hart voting and how Wayne Gretzky won in a landslide over Mario Lemieux despite Lemieux outscoring Gretzky by 31 points that season.

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

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

In 1988-89, there were 21 teams in the NHL, and three awards ballots went to each city's members of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association. The 63 voters named their top three choices for each award, with a first-place vote being worth five points, a second-place vote being worth three points, and a third-place vote worth one point. Gretzky won the Hart with 267 points, receiving 40 of the 63 first-place votes and lapping Lemieux by 80 points.
 

Moose Head

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
4,957
2,101
Toronto
Visit site
Mario should have won in 89. That said, Gretzky should have won in 1988. In 88 Gretzky had a better ppg and Mario didn't get his team into the playoffs.
 

tjcurrie

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
3,930
143
Gibbons, Alberta
I wonder how different some finishes would have turned out had the points system been different.

I know in 1999-00 Mike Modano led in 1st place votes for 1st All-Star Team center, but Yzerman crushed in 2nd place votes so he edged Mike out by a hair.

Would be interesting.
 

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
116
Mario should have won in 89. That said, Gretzky should have won in 1988. In 88 Gretzky had a better ppg and Mario didn't get his team into the playoffs.
Yes, and Gretzky should have won in 1991, when he almost won another Art Ross with his assists alone, had more assists (122) than anyone else in history (without the Oilers this time), and beat Hull by 32 points to lap the NHL once again. And his Kings were 1st in the Conference as I remember. That was easily Gretzky's Hart, as he best exemplified, "being the most valuable to his team," that season.

If he had won in 1988, that would have given him
10 straight Harts the following year. Scary.
 

billybudd

Registered User
Feb 1, 2012
22,049
2,249
I linked this before not to discuss the Hart voting in 89, but to get clarification on this

Mark Messier claimed the 1990 Hart Trophy thanks to 10 western hockey writers banding together and leaving Ray Bourque off their ballots.

If memory serves, somebody double-checked the votes and it ended up being apocryphal.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Since we are just talking about the same things, I merged with the old thread.

I linked this before not to discuss the Hart voting in 89, but to get clarification on this



If memory serves, somebody double-checked the votes and it ended up being apocryphal.

Yup. Guess it shouldn't be surprising that an article that reads like an angry rant has at least one factual error in it.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,986
If memory serves, somebody double-checked the votes and it ended up being apocryphal.

There were 63 voters in 1990 (three per team).

Messier had 227 voting points and Bourque was a close second with 225 voting points. (Brett Hull was a very distant third with 80 voting points).

Messier received votes (ie, placed in the top three) from all 63 writers. Bourque only received votes from 57 writers.

They had the same number of first place votes (29-29) and Bourque had more second place votes (26-24) but Messier took the Hart due to having significantly more third place votes (10-2).

It's true that Bourque would have won the Hart with at least one second-place vote or at least three third-place votes. However, even if we assume that all three NYR voters intentionally excluded Bourque, there are still three other writers who excluded him too.

It's very difficult for defensemen to receive significant votes for the Hart trophy. From 1990 to 2015 the only defensemen who placed in the top five are Bourque (1990, 1991), Coffey (1995), Pronger (2000) and Lidstrom (2008). I think that what cost Bourque the Hart is the long-standing discrimination against defensemen in Hart voting, rather than a conspiracy by NYR journalists.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Somebody already linked this article weeks ago. (And yes, this topic has been beaten to death on here.)

The article is basically nonsense. We need to understand the context of the times. In 1987-88, the hockey world was desperate for Gretzky to be dethroned, and his injury + Mario's great season finally gave them their chance. So, despite Gretzky's significantly higher rate of point production, and despite Gretzky's team doing far better than the Pens in the standings (the Oilers played .500 hockey when Gretzky was injured), the hockey writers could justify voting for Mario because he won the scoring title (only because of Wayne's injury). The Pens had a decent season, and were in contention for a playoff spot. On the last night of the season, probably after most Hart votes had been cast, the Pens lost in overtime and were eliminated from playoff contention (4 full years into his career, and Mario had yet to make the playoffs). Meanwhile, over in the Smythe, the L.A. Kings finished in 18th place (out of 21 teams).

Anyway, Mario got his Hart trophy.

A year later, and Mario and the Pens were again struggling (in the tough Patrick) to make the playoffs, despite super-Mario's most dominant season ever. They were only 5 points better in '89 than in '88, and while they did make the playoffs, they had to struggle down the stretch again. As late as March 24th (when they had 79 points with 5 games left), it appeared unlikely they'd make the playoffs. Meanwhile, after seven straight seasons of futility, the lowly Kings had improved to become the 4th-best team in the whole NHL.

So, that was the context as voters readied their pens in early spring 1989.


Here's how I view the Hart results vis-à-vis Gretzky/Lemieux:
1980 -- 1987: Gretzky won correctly
1988: Lemieux won, but I personally would have voted Gretzky. The Oilers had lost Coffey -- one of the most talented players in history -- and yet Wayne's point production per-game was actually slightly higher than the previous season. He clearly would have won the scoring title if not for injury, and the Oilers were on a 104-point-pace with Gretzky in the line-up. I would rate this season 60-40 in Gretzky's Hart favor, but with Mario playing the full season and voter-fatigue towards Gretzky, everyone (including Gretzky) knew Mario would win, and I don't really have a problem with it, except I don't like the Hart winner being on a non-playoff team.
1989: I personally would have voted for Lemieux, but I have no issue with Gretzky winning it. (Consider the context above.) I would rate this season 60-40 in Mario's favor, but I can (and could, at the time) certainly see the case for Gretzky.
1990: Neither Wayne nor Mario deserved to win (Wayne was great, but slumped along with his team after Nicholls was traded, and the Kings tanked in the standings; Mario missed far too many games and the Pens missed the playoffs for the 5th time in his 6 seasons).
1991: Gretzky was 2nd because of voter-fatigue + Hull's goal totals. While it is hard to argue with an 86-goal season, the fact remains that Hull was probably the 2nd-best offensive player on his team! Gretzky's Kings had their best-ever season and won the Smythe, and Gretzky had his best season in L.A. Not counting his own seasons, Gretzky beat every season in NHL history for scoring totals except two (Mario's 1988 and 1989). He won the scoring title by 32 points, and really should have won another Hart.
1993 and 1996: Lemieux deservedly won.
 

Crosbyfan

Registered User
Nov 27, 2003
12,633
2,442
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.

Most valuable commodity. Plus, as good as Lemieux played, it was uncanny how Gretzky outplayed the 15 million dollars sitting in Bruce Mcnally's bank account the year before by much more than Lemieux improved that season. He really turned LA around.
 

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
116
Somebody already linked this article weeks ago. (And yes, this topic has been beaten to death on here.)

The article is basically nonsense. We need to understand the context of the times. In 1987-88, the hockey world was desperate for Gretzky to be dethroned, and his injury + Mario's great season finally gave them their chance. So, despite Gretzky's significantly higher rate of point production, and despite Gretzky's team doing far better than the Pens in the standings (the Oilers played .500 hockey when Gretzky was injured), the hockey writers could justify voting for Mario because he won the scoring title (only because of Wayne's injury). The Pens had a decent season, and were in contention for a playoff spot. On the last night of the season, probably after most Hart votes had been cast, the Pens lost in overtime and were eliminated from playoff contention (4 full years into his career, and Mario had yet to make the playoffs). Meanwhile, over in the Smythe, the L.A. Kings finished in 18th place (out of 21 teams).

Anyway, Mario got his Hart trophy.

A year later, and Mario and the Pens were again struggling (in the tough Patrick) to make the playoffs, despite super-Mario's most dominant season ever. They were only 5 points better in '89 than in '88, and while they did make the playoffs, they had to struggle down the stretch again. As late as March 24th (when they had 79 points with 5 games left), it appeared unlikely they'd make the playoffs. Meanwhile, after seven straight seasons of futility, the lowly Kings had improved to become the 4th-best team in the whole NHL.

So, that was the context as voters readied their pens in early spring 1989.


Here's how I view the Hart results vis-à-vis Gretzky/Lemieux:
1980 -- 1987: Gretzky won correctly
1988: Lemieux won, but I personally would have voted Gretzky. The Oilers had lost Coffey -- one of the most talented players in history -- and yet Wayne's point production per-game was actually slightly higher than the previous season. He clearly would have won the scoring title if not for injury, and the Oilers were on a 104-point-pace with Gretzky in the line-up. I would rate this season 60-40 in Gretzky's Hart favor, but with Mario playing the full season and voter-fatigue towards Gretzky, everyone (including Gretzky) knew Mario would win, and I don't really have a problem with it, except I don't like the Hart winner being on a non-playoff team.
1989: I personally would have voted for Lemieux, but I have no issue with Gretzky winning it. (Consider the context above.) I would rate this season 60-40 in Mario's favor, but I can (and could, at the time) certainly see the case for Gretzky.
1990: Neither Wayne nor Mario deserved to win (Wayne was great, but slumped along with his team after Nicholls was traded, and the Kings tanked in the standings; Mario missed far too many games and the Pens missed the playoffs for the 5th time in his 6 seasons).
1991: Gretzky was 2nd because of voter-fatigue + Hull's goal totals. While it is hard to argue with an 86-goal season, the fact remains that Hull was probably the 2nd-best offensive player on his team! Gretzky's Kings had their best-ever season and won the Smythe, and Gretzky had his best season in L.A. Not counting his own seasons, Gretzky beat every season in NHL history for scoring totals except two (Mario's 1988 and 1989). He won the scoring title by 32 points, and really should have won another Hart.
1993 and 1996: Lemieux deservedly won.
Regarding 1991: And let's not forget that Gretzky scored more assists (122) than any other player had ever scored--and this without the Edmonton Oilers--and almost won the Art Ross with his assists alone (again, without the Oilers). This was the last vintage "Gretzky" season we saw before the Suter hit and subsequent herniated disc injury.

This begs the (off topic) question: Why was Gretzky a 160-170 point player on the Kings, but a 180-190 point player on the Oilers just a couple years earlier? And were it not for Paul Coffey, was Gretzky "merely" a 180ish point player, not a 200ish point player? By the mid 80s onward, did Gretzky need his Oilers teammates for 200 point seasons? Was he naturally a 180 point player who had inflated stats in his 20s? And a 160-170 point player in his late 20s/early 30s? Cue the Gretzky detractors....
 
Last edited:

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
There were 63 voters in 1990 (three per team).

Messier had 227 voting points and Bourque was a close second with 225 voting points. (Brett Hull was a very distant third with 80 voting points).

Messier received votes (ie, placed in the top three) from all 63 writers. Bourque only received votes from 57 writers.

They had the same number of first place votes (29-29) and Bourque had more second place votes (26-24) but Messier took the Hart due to having significantly more third place votes (10-2).

It's true that Bourque would have won the Hart with at least one second-place vote or at least three third-place votes. However, even if we assume that all three NYR voters intentionally excluded Bourque, there are still three other writers who excluded him too.

It's very difficult for defensemen to receive significant votes for the Hart trophy. From 1990 to 2015 the only defensemen who placed in the top five are Bourque (1990, 1991), Coffey (1995), Pronger (2000) and Lidstrom (2008). I think that what cost Bourque the Hart is the long-standing discrimination against defensemen in Hart voting, rather than a conspiracy by NYR journalists.

Should also be noted that Messier was the darling of the Canadian media at that time, probably 2nd only to Gretzky.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Regarding 1991: And let's not forget that Gretzky scored more assists (122) than any other player had ever scored--and this without the Edmonton Oilers--and almost won the Art Ross with his assists alone (again, without the Oilers). This was the last vintage "Gretzky" season we saw before the Suter hit and subsequent herniated disc injury.

This begs the (off topic) question: Why was Gretzky a 160-170 point player on the Kings, but a 180-190 point player on the Oilers just a couple years earlier? And were it not for Paul Coffey, was Gretzky "merely" a 180ish point player, not a 200ish point player? By the mid 80s onward, did Gretzky need his Oilers teammates for 200 point seasons? Was he naturally a 180 point player who had inflated stats in his 20s? And a 160-170 point player in his late 20s/early 30s? Cue the Gretzky detractors....

Age. That's it. He played 100 games a year basically since he was 17 years old. After a decade he slowed down some. He was declining once he got to LA.

Nothing to do with teammates or Coffey really.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Age. That's it. He played 100 games a year basically since he was 17 years old. After a decade he slowed down some. He was declining once he got to LA.

Nothing to do with teammates or Coffey really.
Of course Coffey helped, but as I mentioned (above) Gretzky's PPG in 1987-88 (Edmonton, without Coffey) actually increased slightly from 1986-87 (with Coffey). So, while he never had a 200+ point season without Coffey, he did have 180+ (or would have, but for those missed 16 games) without him.

I do think age is a factor, and the other obvious one is that L.A. wasn't as good as Edmonton. Gretzky scored a lot of points -- esp. goals -- in the third period, in Edmonton. It's much harder to score in the third period when you're trailing as opposed to being ahead. Wayne's 6 highest scoring seasons were all when Edmonton had 106 or more points in the standings. The Kings never matched that, but had 102 points in 1991, which was also Gretzky's best season (in terms of League dominance) with them.

About the age thing: at 27, it would seem like age wasn't a factor when he was traded. But actually it was. First of all, 27 in 1988 was like 31 now, so it was generally thought that a player at that age had probably seen his best years (Blair Macdonald was traded from Edmonton in 1981, largely because he was 'too old' at 27). But what has to be remembered in Gretzky's case is that he at 27 is probably like Messier at 32. Gretzky had endured year after year after year -- since he was 17 in pro, and in the Canadian media since he was 10 -- of being the go-to guy for media and fan-scrutiny. Every win, every loss, every record set, every public appearance -- it was Gretzky that everyone lined up to see. This must have been very exhausting, and no doubt was a factor in his wanting to play somewhere like L.A., where he could drive in public and not be bothered. Then, when you add in all the long playoff runs from 1983-1988, All-Star games, the Canada Cups, World Championships, etc., he was playing 110+ games per season under the most intense media scrutiny imaginable. And meeting that challenge head-on, never losing his cool or class, and rarely if ever disappointing anyone.
 

Ishdul

Registered User
Jan 20, 2007
3,989
144
Scoring also dipped a bit when you're talking about the 90's numbers, enough that it's going to make the difference at those high ends.
 

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
Another reason why Gretzkys numbers dropped is because of the gretzky rule that was implemented in 86-87.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Gretzky was 27 when he started in LA.

Yeah... An old 27. He had played about 1000 best on best, regular season and playoff games vs men at that point. He might be godlike on the ice but he is just a human like anyone else.

Who played more high level hockey games from 78-79 to 87-88? I am guessing not a single player. Who played more minutes? Maybe some defenceman... But even that is doubtful. Every year deep in the playoffs. Early on the World Chanpionships, 3 Canada Cups. He barely ever had injuries he missed time for. He probably played through a lot of little ones. How many games in that time period did he not play 20 minutes? A handful. He probably averaged 25 minutes a game. For around a thousandish games.

27,28,29 year old Gretzky was old. He was still great... But not quite what he was. Take Howe... He also declined at a similar age. He was not as great after the early/middle 50's. Because he is human and you just can't maintain peak play forever. It is inevitable that Gretzky and every player declines at some point. Crosby, Ovechkin and Malkin are not that old. All are just not quite as good as they used to be. Because time.
 

feffan

Registered User
Sep 9, 2010
1,949
146
Malmö
Gretzky was 27 when he started in LA.

Age 27 was also, for example, the last time Trottier was on an All Star Team. After that he got one vote during the rest off his career, wich lasted 10 more years. Like Trottier, Gretzky and many others from dynastys it´s not the years, it´s the miles.

This begs the (off topic) question: Why was Gretzky a 160-170 point player on the Kings, but a 180-190 point player on the Oilers just a couple years earlier? And were it not for Paul Coffey, was Gretzky "merely" a 180ish point player, not a 200ish point player? By the mid 80s onward, did Gretzky need his Oilers teammates for 200 point seasons? Was he naturally a 180 point player who had inflated stats in his 20s? And a 160-170 point player in his late 20s/early 30s? Cue the Gretzky detractors....

If the detractors would arrive, I would just point at the 81-82 season I guess. Gretzky reached those 212 points without really any help. None of the others, well maybe Anderson, had really reached their prime or peak by then.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Age 27 was also, for example, the last time Trottier was on an All Star Team. After that he got one vote during the rest off his career, wich lasted 10 more years. Like Trottier, Gretzky and many others from dynastys it´s not the years, it´s the miles.



If the detractors would arrive, I would just point at the 81-82 season I guess. Gretzky reached those 212 points without really any help. None of the others, well maybe Anderson, had really reached their prime or peak by then.

I would guess Gretzky was at his physical peak 82/83/84/85 He kept getting smarter all through his career and that mitigated the fact he declined slowly and gradually physically until the Suter hit. Last truly dominant Great Gretzky was the 93 playoffs. Even 1994 season when he won the Art Ross he was not the same force. He was physically a literal shadow of his old self after LA and still was one of the top playmakers in the league and near the top scorers.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->