How did Gretzky not win the Pearson in 1985-86

[Psycho Papa Joe]

NHL players have made some dubious selections in the past, most notably:

Orr only won one in his career
1972 - Ratelle over Orr or Esposito
1973 - Clarke over Esposito or Orr
1979 - Dionne over Trottier or Potvin
1981 - Liut over Gretzky
1986 - Lemieux over Gretzky
1989 - Yzerman over Lemieux
2003 - Naslund over Forsberg

I think sometimes they pick the guy most valuable to his team, rather than the outstanding player of the year, which is what the award is for.

 

[SidGenoMario]

The Pearson is a joke award that should be abolished. It's redundant, and the players don't actually follow hockey half as closely as the regular HF poster or Hart voter.

As ^this guy says, from season to season, the players randomly vote for who's the most valuable player. And from season to season, the writers sometimes randomly award the Hart to the best player. The 2 awards have inconsistent criteria, and they both add up the same thing. It's redundant having 2 awards like that. We should get rid of the one where the voters don't even watch the player's they're voting on.

 

[unknown33]

It's redundant, and the players don't actually follow hockey half as closely as the regular HF poster or Hart voter.

I'm sure following hockey like HF poster do gives you a better idea than actually playing against those players at least once a year.

 

[blogofmike]

NY Times says it was 137 to 107 for Lemieux, which is cool since you rarely see Pearson vote totals, even in the thread no one told Big Phil about. No commentary on why he won, or why Wayne didn't though.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/27/sports/sports-people-lemieux-wins-award.html

 

[SidGenoMario]

I'm sure following hockey like HF poster do gives you a better idea than actually playing against those players at least once a year.

You really believe that playing against a player once a year gives them better judgement than the average hf poster who watches players sometimes 20 times a season?

 

[reckoning]

You really believe that playing against a player once a year gives them better judgement than the average hf poster who watches players sometimes 20 times a season?

Yes. Sure there are some informed fans on here, but unfortunately most of the posters on the main board are fanboys who regularly use phrases like "Epic Fail!!!".

A player plays 82 games a season. How many does the average fan watch? Even if someone had no job, girlfriend, social life or other interests, they'd still be hard pressed to watch more than 150 complete regular season games. And I think actually playing in 82 games carries more weight than watching 150 on TV.

Yes, the players voting does seem a little off in some instances; and I don't doubt for a second that personal biases or sentiments may play a role in their selections. But is it really any worse than the writers who vote on the other awards? Bruce Garrioch? Damien Cox? Their hockey knowledge is lower than the "Epic Fail" crew on the main board. It seems like every year in the All-Star voting, some forward will get a vote at a position he doesn't play.

 

[reckoning]

NY Times says it was 137 to 107 for Lemieux, which is cool since you rarely see Pearson vote totals, even in the thread no one told Big Phil about. No commentary on why he won, or why Wayne didn't though.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/27/sports/sports-people-lemieux-wins-award.html

Cool find. Thanks for posting that.

The surprising thing about that is that there were over 600 players in the NHL at the time. Gretzky and Lemieux only accounted for 244 votes, and I doubt many other players would have gotten votes ahead of those two. Does this mean that over half the players didn't bother voting?

 

[Uncle Rotter]

NHL players have made some dubious selections in the past, most notably:

Orr only won one in his career
1972 - Ratelle over Orr or Esposito

Ratelle was one point behind Esposito when he broke his ankle.

 

[Passchendaele]

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.

Now come on.

I don't care how, sometimes, stats don't tell the whole story, but we're talking about a 74-point difference! Gretz averaged two assists per game and set the league record with 215 points.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Now come on.

I don't care how, sometimes, stats don't tell the whole story, but we're talking about a 74-point difference! Gretz averaged two assists per game and set the league record with 215 points.

I agree! I was saying the Pearson should be taken with a grain of salt, while I trust a player's poll of 'who is the best stickhandler' much more.

 

[Sens Rule]

You really believe that playing against a player once a year gives them better judgement than the average hf poster who watches players sometimes 20 times a season?

Of course it does.

Really the average HF poster vs an ACTUAL NHL PLAYER?!? Lol

 

[unknown33]

You really believe that playing against a player once a year gives them better judgement than the average hf poster who watches players sometimes 20 times a season?

I've seen posters saying that they would take Mike Ribeiro or Jason Spezza over Jonathan Toews.

So yeah ... easily.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Ratelle was one point behind Esposito when he broke his ankle.

But he ended up 24 back of Espo with 13 less games played. He'd have to increase his PPG in those missed games in order to beat Espo for the Art.

That said, I really don't know how Orr doesn't win the thing, even if Ratelle plays a full year and outpoints him. As I said earlier, how does Orr only win one Pearson in his career?

 

[Dangler99*]

But he ended up 24 back of Espo with 13 less games played. He'd have to increase his PPG in those missed games in order to beat Espo for the Art.

That said, I really don't know how Orr doesn't win the thing, even if Ratelle plays a full year and outpoints him. As I said earlier, how does Orr only win one Pearson in his career?

Also Gretzky and Lemieux "only" have 5 and 4 Most outstanding player awards.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Maybe they found it harder to play against Lemieux , mix that with the fact he was the new flavor now coming strong on his 2nd season , and Lemieux impressive 1 on 1 talent , players can regard those kind of things highly.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

But he ended up 24 back of Espo with 13 less games played. He'd have to increase his PPG in those missed games in order to beat Espo for the Art.

That said, I really don't know how Orr doesn't win the thing, even if Ratelle plays a full year and outpoints him. As I said earlier, how does Orr only win one Pearson in his career?

Vote splitting between Orr & Esposito. That Ratelle was even challenging for the scoring lead was a big surprise

 

[blogofmike]

But he ended up 24 back of Espo with 13 less games played. He'd have to increase his PPG in those missed games in order to beat Espo for the Art.

That said, I really don't know how Orr doesn't win the thing, even if Ratelle plays a full year and outpoints him. As I said earlier, how does Orr only win one Pearson in his career?

1970
MVP Orr missed out in 70 since there was no Pearson.

1971
Hart: Orr
Pearson: Espo
In 1971, Espo had 76 goals and 152 points, so he had records going for him, even if writers liked Orr a little better (155-127 according to http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=145895&page=5) This was a reasonable difference of opinion between players and writers.

1972
Hart: Orr
Pearson: Ratelle
In 1972, I would have voted for Orr over Ratelle, but the players went for Ratelle who finished 4th in the Hart voting.

1973
Both: Bobby Clarke
Assuming every Hart vote for Espo and Orr was combined, they would only edge out Clarke 159-158, which isn't enough to think vote splitting cost a Bruin the Hart. So I would think that both writers and the PA were impressed by Clarke that year.

1974
Both: Espo
Espo wins both awards, and the Hart by a clear, though not dominating margin. Orr finishes 3rd for the Hart, behind Espo and Bernie Parent.

1975
Hart: Bobby Clarke
Pearson: Bobby Orr
Orr finished 3rd in the Hart race, behind Clarke and Rogie Vachon. This was a Hart-Pearson split that makes sense, going by Hart = most valuable and Pearson = most outstanding.

It's perfectly reasonable for Orr to lose out in 1970, since there was no award.
Most of the other losses were reasonable as the winning player was also the Hart winner or in one case, a close runner up.
Orr did win in 1975, in a sensible Hart-Pearson split.

So basically, Orr could have won in 1972, but didn't, so he has 1 award instead of 2. He still has 3 Harts, and those count more.

 

[golfortennis]

There's a book called The Glory Barons by Douglas Hunter that goes through the Oilers' history(up until 1998 or so, when the book was written.) Obviously, there is a lot of the book dedicated to the 80s Oilers, etc.

What is funny is how the author uses this vote to help lay the groundwork for why Gretzky was traded. He goes on and on about Pocklington wanting to cash in his asset at its highest value, and how the Pearson vote was the one of the first signs of possible chinks in the armor of the "asset" losing some of its value.

From a pure business perspective, I can understand why he was traded, but losing the Pearson vote in 86 was not a catalyst for making a trade, yet the author goes back to it several times....

Back on topic, though, I always did wonder what a guy had to do to win an award after that season. Maybe just like several million today people claim they were at Woodstock, all the players thought they saw one of Gretzky's 3 pointless games and didn't think he was having such a good season.