How did Gretzky not win the Pearson in 1985-86

[Dangler99*]

Lemieux had an incredible sophomore campaign
with 48 goals and 93 assists in 79 games but.

Gretzky set the NHL record for points and assists in a season with 52 goals and 163 assists.

were the players just tired of him winning everything?

Click to read more...

 

[JumboThornton92]

Must have been

 

[shazariahl]

Lemieux had an incredible sophomore campaign
with 48 goals and 93 assists in 79 games but.

Gretzky set the NHL record for points and assists in a season with 52 goals and 163 assists.

were the players just tired of him winning everything?

Ya, its hard to look at a season like that when he had more assists than anyone else had points, set NHL records for both assists and points, and didn't win the Pearson and consider it anything other than just bias by then. Like you said, I think everyone was just tired of him winning.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Just more evidence that awards that are voted on should be taken with a grain of salt.

Although generally I would count on the players opinions over most this result mystifies me.. all I can say is yeah.. they wanted someone else to win.

 

[JackSlater]

Just more evidence that awards that are voted on should be taken with a grain of salt.

Although generally I would count on the players opinions over most this result mystifies me.. all I can say is yeah.. they wanted someone else to win.

The Pearson has had several results that are very strange, especially in the first half of the award's history. Orr and Gretzky probably should have had an extra seven or so Pearsons between themselves.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Players are not analysts. When they tire of one guy winning all the time they give it to another. That is why the Pearson is a second tier award, IMO.

 

[Dangler99*]

A lot of the time it's a popularity contest.

 

[reckoning]

The timing of the voting could've been a factor, as the Pearson is usually voted on with about a month left to go in the season. While the scoring race was never in serious doubt, Gretzky (as usual) really turned it on in the last month of the year; but that wouldn't be a factor if the votes had already been cast. Lemieux had 21 points in his last 16 games, Gretzky had 42.

Very often when the Hart winner is different than the Pearson winner, it turns out that the Hart winner had a much better performance over the last month of the season: Orr in '72, Clarke in '75, Gretzky in '81, Theodore in '02, Thornton in '06, etc.

 

[lextune]

A lot of the time it's a popularity contest.

Mario was not a very popular guy his first few years.

Just more evidence that awards that are voted on should be taken with a grain of salt.

Although generally I would count on the players opinions over most this result mystifies me.. all I can say is yeah.. they wanted someone else to win.

Don't under estimate the "wow" factor.

As I talked about at length in the "Crosby's first 5 years vs Mario's first 5 years" thread; by his second season Mario was on a stratospheric level. A level Crosby has not approached, (not to drag that debate into this thread or anything).

Everyone knew Gretzky's game by then and as amazing as it obviously was, Mario was something new, and nearly as great. Couple those factors together and I don't see the award as overly surprising.

 

[Dangler99*]

Mario was not a very popular guy his first few years.



Don't under estimate the "wow" factor.

As I talked about at length in the "Crosby's first 5 years vs Mario's first 5 years" thread; by his second season Mario was on a stratospheric level. A level Crosby has not approached, (not to drag that debate into this thread or anything).

Everyone knew Gretzky's game by then and as amazing as it obviously was, Mario was something new, and nearly as great. Couple those factors together and I don't see the award as overly surprising.

Crosby 2nd season is very comparable to Lemieux's.

 

[Passchendaele]

by his second season Mario was on a stratospheric level. A level Crosby has not approached

I disagree. Crosby scored 120 points in 79 games at age 19 and scoring was way lower than in '85-'86. Lemieux was a year older and didn't become truly dominant until 1987-88.

 

[blogofmike]

The timing of the voting could've been a factor, as the Pearson is usually voted on with about a month left to go in the season. While the scoring race was never in serious doubt, Gretzky (as usual) really turned it on in the last month of the year; but that wouldn't be a factor if the votes had already been cast. Lemieux had 21 points in his last 16 games, Gretzky had 42.

Very often when the Hart winner is different than the Pearson winner, it turns out that the Hart winner had a much better performance over the last month of the season: Orr in '72, Clarke in '75, Gretzky in '81, Theodore in '02, Thornton in '06, etc.

Yeah, I'd vote for Gretz with the 74 point lead, but that 53 point lead was pathetic.

 

[lextune]

Crosby 2nd season is very comparable to Lemieux's.

Only to people that didn't see Mario's.

 

[Dangler99*]

Only to people that didn't see Mario's.

1985-86 was a much higher scoring season that 2006-07.


Lemieux was 20 and scored 48 goals and 93 assists in 79 games

.Over 82 games thats 50 goal goals and 97 assists. With a Pearson.

Crosby at 19 scored 36 goals 84 assists in 79 games. Thats 38 goals and 87 assists over 82 games. With an Art Ross Hart Pearson 1st team all star.

I didn't even mention all the records he set.

 

[Passchendaele]

36 goals and 84 assists in 2006-07 (79 games) = 49 goals and 113 assists in 1985-86.

 

[Dangler99*]

36 goals and 84 assists in 2006-07 (79 games) = 49 goals and 113 assists in 1985-86.

Where did you go to find that out.

 

[Passchendaele]

Where did you go to find that out.

GPG in 1985-86: 7.94
GPG in 2006-07: 5.89

So there were about 34-35% more goals scored. To be fair, '85-'86 was one of the highest scoring seasons ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Players are not analysts. When they tire of one guy winning all the time they give it to another. That is why the Pearson is a second tier award, IMO.

I strongly disagree with some of your posts, but agree 100% with this one.

To add to this, many players publicly say that they don't actually watch hockey games they are not involved in themselves.

 

[Big Phil]

Everyone knew Gretzky's game by then and as amazing as it obviously was, Mario was something new, and nearly as great. Couple those factors together and I don't see the award as overly surprising.

I wouldn't say "nearly" as great in 1986. Lemieux didn't start to become in the same stratosphere as Gretzky until 1988, coincidentally immediately after the 1987 Canada Cup. By 1986 people were tired of him winning everything. It happened in 1984 as well even with the writers (Conn Smythe to Messier.........questionable).

But the players admit themselves to not reading the papers and stuff. You are focused on your team, you are not an analyst. It is similar at a different level to this season when there were a minority of people who thought Stamkos was better than Crosby simply because he is newer. This should never cloud a person's judgement, yet it does. Gretzky even in 1986 was so far the superior player in the entire NHL that is wasn't even funny. How that terrible award choice doesn't get brought up more often is beyond me. I think it's equally as bad as Rollins for the Hart in 1954.

Also, let's look at the Pearson. Did Ratelle really have a more outstanding year than Orr and Esposito? No, but I'm sure the players got sick of seeing that Bruins duo annihilate them time after time so someone new comes along and scores a bunch and voila, you have a winner. Not to take anything away from Mr. Ratelle's great season of course. But the Pearson was won by Orr once in his career (started in 1971) and that happened in 1975 when he was 3rd in Hart voting. The players didn't feel Orr was the most spectacular player in 1971 or 1972? Weird. I am sure he'd have been a lock in 1970 had the award been there, but still.

 

[Chased By Trolls]

The timing of the voting could've been a factor, as the Pearson is usually voted on with about a month left to go in the season. While the scoring race was never in serious doubt, Gretzky (as usual) really turned it on in the last month of the year; but that wouldn't be a factor if the votes had already been cast. Lemieux had 21 points in his last 16 games, Gretzky had 42.

If your numbers are correct Gretzky actually had less points per game in his last 16 games than in his first 64 games, 2.70 -> 2.63.

Your point is still good though as Lemieux's PPG went down a lot more.

 

[nik jr]

Players are not analysts. When they tire of one guy winning all the time they give it to another. That is why the Pearson is a second tier award, IMO.

i agree with this.

i think that is also why yzerman won in '89, liut won in '81, naslund won in '03.

I wouldn't say "nearly" as great in 1986. Lemieux didn't start to become in the same stratosphere as Gretzky until 1988, coincidentally immediately after the 1987 Canada Cup. By 1986 people were tired of him winning everything. It happened in 1984 as well even with the writers (Conn Smythe to Messier.........questionable).

But the players admit themselves to not reading the papers and stuff. You are focused on your team, you are not an analyst. It is similar at a different level to this season when there were a minority of people who thought Stamkos was better than Crosby simply because he is newer. This should never cloud a person's judgement, yet it does. Gretzky even in 1986 was so far the superior player in the entire NHL that is wasn't even funny. How that terrible award choice doesn't get brought up more often is beyond me. I think it's equally as bad as Rollins for the Hart in 1954.

Also, let's look at the Pearson. Did Ratelle really have a more outstanding year than Orr and Esposito? No, but I'm sure the players got sick of seeing that Bruins duo annihilate them time after time so someone new comes along and scores a bunch and voila, you have a winner. Not to take anything away from Mr. Ratelle's great season of course. But the Pearson was won by Orr once in his career (started in 1971) and that happened in 1975 when he was 3rd in Hart voting. The players didn't feel Orr was the most spectacular player in 1971 or 1972? Weird. I am sure he'd have been a lock in 1970 had the award been there, but still.

as reckoning said, pearson/lindsay voting is done before the season ends.

ratelle was in competition for the art ross until late in the season, when he broke his ankle.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I trust players' polls more than I do the Pearson/Lindsay.
IMO, players have a good sense of how good someone is, but do not necessarily keep up with games/stats/performances of other players game by game on a per season basis.

 

[shazariahl]

Players are not analysts. When they tire of one guy winning all the time they give it to another. That is why the Pearson is a second tier award, IMO.

This is the heart of it right here, IMO. To add to this, remember that players don't really get to see everyone else play a lot of the time. A team from the east may only play Gretzky a couple games all year. Players aren't usually studying everyone else's stats either, and usually won't get to watch someone else's games much. In all, it seems to make them poor judges.

 

[Dangler99*]

Voting for the Pearson probably goes like this.

Step 1. go to NHL.com
Step.2 Look at the scoring leaders.
Step. 3 Decide on your vote.

They probably don't take into consideration the players situation. Linemates,team, ETC.

 

[jkrx]

Voting for the Pearson probably goes like this.

Step 1. go to NHL.com
Step.2 Look at the scoring leaders.
Step. 3 Decide on your vote.

They probably don't take into consideration the players situation. Linemates,team, ETC.

Please elaborate this as the thread is about how Gratzky lost his Pearson.