The Panther
Registered User
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'.People are always so defensive about Gretzky.
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...?
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.People are always so defensive about Gretzky. Lemieux 100% should have won the Hart in 1989. What's so hard in admitting that?
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?
Does it? When did it automatically go to the "best player"?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"
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.