How did Mark Messier win Con Smythe Trophy in 1984?

[DRW895]

I like "Moose", but can`t find enough arguments for this MVP choice. Can you help?

Click to read more...

 

[bobholly39]

Voter fatigue/ridiculous expectations for Wayne Gretzky.

If anybody not named "Wayne Gretzky" had put forth the performance Gretzky did that year, he 100% would have won the Conn Smythe over Messier.

Messier was really good - it's not like it's not a "smythe worthy" performance, it definitely is. He simply was bested by Gretzky though.
Remove Messier from the team - maybe they win, and maybe they don't. Remove Gretzky - they definitely don't win.

 

[67 others]

I like "Moose", but can`t find enough arguments for this MVP choice. Can you help?

Did Gretzky "deserve" more than 2 Conn Smythe trophies?

 

[The Panther]

Messier was seen as particularly important in Edmonton matching up against Trottier and Potvin, who were defensively sound and physically tough players (to say the least, in Potvin's case). Messier also scored a spectacular goal in game three which turned the series in Edmonton's favor. That said, Gretzky easily outscored him in the Finals.

The Gretzky voter-fatigue was a part of it, too, yes.

One thing I've never done is compared their raw stats in the four rounds. So, just for interest's sake:

Round One vs. Winnipeg (3-0 Edmonton):
Gretzky: 1G + 4A = 5PTS [3rd team] (+7)
Messier: 1G + 3A = 4PTS [5th team] (+2)

Round Two vs. Calgary (4-3 Edmonton):
Gretzky: 4G + 9A = 13PTS [1st team] (+2)
Messier: 3G + 8A = 11PTS [2nd team] (+1)

Round Three vs. Minnesota (4-0) Edmonton:
Gretzky: 4G + 6A = 10PTS [1st team] (+6)
Messier: 1G + 6A = 7PTS [3rd team] (+3)

Round Four vs. NY Islanders:
Gretzky: 4G + 3A = 7PTS [1st team] (+3)
Messier: 3G + 1A = 4PTS [3rd team] (+3)

Just based on those stats, it is kind of hard to make a case for Messier. There wasn't a single series where Mess had more goals, more points, or better ES results than Gretzky.

But, of course, compiled stats don't tell us everything...

While I'm very happy that Mess won his Conn Smythe and he certainly deserved it, I do think the narrative that he made the big difference in the Final series is a little overblown in light of the fact that Gretzky scored the opening goal in game four (and added another later) and scored the first two goals in game five, the clincher (as well as assisting on the Cup winning goal in the next period).

 

[JackSlater]

Narrative and voter fatigue help, as pointed out. The early 1980s was a bizarre time in terms of award voting between the Pearson, several Norris trophies, and a few Conn Smythe trophies. Realistically Gretzky should have won but Messier did have a very strong performance so it isn't overly egregious.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The early 1980s was a bizarre time in terms of award voting

This is an interesting topic in its own right. Early 80s voters clearly had a different approach to handing out hardware.

 

[jigglysquishy]

This is an interesting topic in its own right. Early 80s voters clearly had a different approach to handing out hardware.

I would extend the weirdness of Pearson voting from inception until early 90s. More hits than misses, whereas I think they do better now than Hart voters.

Liut over peak Gretzky is hard to reconcile.

On the topic of Messier in 84, there was a great write up somewhere on HoH on his defensive and physical play in the finals that made the result more understandable.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It was the narrative around Messier knocking down (a turning and therefore off balance) Potvin and somehow showing the Oilers that Potvin wasn't invincible or something.

Gretzky should have won the Conn Smythe most likely. Not to say Messier wasn't important because he did have the physicality to stand up to the Potvin and Trottier types that the Isles had.

 

[bobholly39]

I would extend the weirdness of Pearson voting from inception until early 90s. More hits than misses, whereas I think they do better now than Hart voters.

Liut over peak Gretzky is hard to reconcile.

On the topic of Messier in 84, there was a great write up somewhere on HoH on his defensive and physical play in the finals that made the result more understandable.

Lemieux (141 points) over Gretzky (215 points) in 1986 is the worst one of all imo. With a close second being Lemieux himself beaten by Gretzky (hart) and Yzerman (pearson) in 1989, despite 199 points.

 

[JackSlater]

This is an interesting topic in its own right. Early 80s voters clearly had a different approach to handing out hardware.

I'd be interested in theories. I can sort of see where they are coming from in individual cases, but it seems so strange that they all happened from basically 1981 to 1984.

Potvin loses the Norris to Carlyle? Well, Potvin was a bit of an arsehole and maybe they held him to the standard of his scoring in the 70s.

Potvin/Bossy lose the Conn Smythe to Goring? Goring has a nice narrative reason and perhaps they wanted to highlight a less heralded Islander who was still essential. Conn Smythe voting is often odd.

Langway Norris trophies and second in Hart? Screw you, offence only 1980s hockey. Also bonus points for being the most prominent player in Washington's resurgence (... or surge) even if it wasn't all him.

Liut over Gretzky for Pearson? Maybe the definition of the award was still vague. Also, f*** you for being young and scrawny and demolishing the scoring record, Wayne.

It's a tight little era with lots of weird results though. I'd also be interested in looking at some of the post-WW2 Hart results, particularly the years when they voted half way through and then again at the end. The changing informal criteria for the Selke trophy is also interesting to me since now voters openly talk about taking scoring into account for a trophy that does not feature offence as part of its criteria.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'd be interested in theories. I can sort of see where they are coming from in individual cases, but it seems so strange that they all happened from basically 1981 to 1984.

Potvin loses the Norris to Carlyle? Well, Potvin was a bit of an arsehole and maybe they held him to the standard of his scoring in the 70s.

Potvin/Bossy lose the Conn Smythe to Goring? Goring has a nice narrative reason and perhaps they wanted to highlight a less heralded Islander who was still essential. Conn Smythe voting is often odd.

Langway Norris trophies and second in Hart? Screw you, offence only 1980s hockey. Also bonus points for being the most prominent player in Washington's resurgence (... or surge) even if it wasn't all him.

Liut over Gretzky for Pearson? Maybe the definition of the award was still vague. Also, f*** you for being young and scrawny and demolishing the scoring record, Wayne.

It's a tight little era with lots of weird results though. I'd also be interested in looking at some of the post-WW2 Hart results, particularly the years when they voted half way through and then again at the end. The changing informal criteria for the Selke trophy is also interesting to me since now voters openly talk about taking scoring into account for a trophy that does not feature offence as part of its criteria.

My extremely loose theory would be that cultural winds blew in a direction that told the voters they were narrative-writers. Goring, Langway, Messier... those pretty clearly followed a narrative trend. Potvin losing the Norris, Gretzky losing the Pearson, Gretzky losing the Smythe, Coffey losing perhaps multiple Norrises... another narrative trend.

Today we treat this stuff like it's high science and the voters need to be watching every game and paying close attention to advanced analytics. Perhaps in the early 80s they were under some pressure to "define" the legacy of that time period rather than make objective rulings. And they didn't want to define the time period according to trends that they may have perceived as being against the increasingly-serious (relative to the goofy 70s) spirit of the game.

Anyway, it's a theory.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Messier and Goring had huge impacts on the games in the years they won the Smythe. Neither were seen as that controversial at the time. No advanced stats or even plus/minus at the time. Watch the games and place your votes.

 

[MS]

In 1984 Gretzky probably should have won but he was a victim of being compared to himself - he scored at 'only' a 147-point pace in the playoffs, down roughly 35% from his 221 point/80 GP pace in the regular season, with numbers that looked similar to what Barry Pederson and Rick Middleton put up the previous year. This opened the door for the award to be given to Messier and his clutch goals and physical play ... plus he scored a highlight-reel goal in the clinching game that would have happened just before the voting was to occur.

 

[MS]

Messier and Goring had huge impacts on the games in the years they won the Smythe. Neither were seen as that controversial at the time. No advanced stats or even plus/minus at the time. Watch the games and place your votes.

Goring having a huge impact with his 20 points is not mutually exclusive to Mike Bossy having an even bigger impact with his 35 points or Denis Potvin having an even bigger impact by scoring 25 points while being the league's top defensive defender.

In the case of both Goring and Messier, they had monster 1st Star games in the Cup clinching game and recency bias worked in their favour.

Edit : my bad, the monster Messier game was Game 3 of the Finals. But that was still the signature moment that led to his Conn Smythe.

 

[67 others]

My extremely loose theory would be that cultural winds blew in a direction that told the voters they were narrative-writers. Goring, Langway, Messier... those pretty clearly followed a narrative trend. Potvin losing the Norris, Gretzky losing the Pearson, Gretzky losing the Smythe, Coffey losing perhaps multiple Norrises... another narrative trend.

Today we treat this stuff like it's high science and the voters need to be watching every game and paying close attention to advanced analytics. Perhaps in the early 80s they were under some pressure to "define" the legacy of that time period rather than make objective rulings. And they didn't want to define the time period according to trends that they may have perceived as being against the increasingly-serious (relative to the goofy 70s) spirit of the game.

Anyway, it's a theory.

Some of the Norris choices in the 80's were bizarre. Mostly because they ignored the faults and glaring weaknesses of some defensemen in a way they stopped doing down the road.

When you rank the top 5 Norris finalists defensively in 80-81, Carlyle comes in dead last by a large gap
When you Rank the Langway's 2 Norris years offensively, he doesn't even register on the scale. His Hart votes were warranted, but the Norris? No, not with some very good defensive players like Howe, Potvin and Bourque just behind him. His defense wasn't so good it outshined the fact that those 3 could double his offense and run a killer powerplay while being just a bit below him defensively and also solid Penalty killers. To say nothing of Coffey scoring 4 times as many points as him while being significantly worse defensively.

 

[MS]

Some of the Norris choices in the 80's were bizarre. Mostly because they ignored the faults and glaring weaknesses of some defensemen in a way they stopped doing down the road.

When you rank the top 5 Norris finalists defensively in 80-81, Carlyle comes in dead last by a large gap
When you Rank the Langway's 2 Norris years offensively, he doesn't even register on the scale. His Hart votes were warranted, but the Norris? No, not with some very good defensive players like Howe, Potvin and Bourque just behind him. His defense wasn't so good it outshined the fact that those 3 could double his offense and run a killer powerplay while being just a bit below him defensively and also solid Penalty killers. To say nothing of Coffey scoring 4 times as many points as him while being significantly worse defensively.

Voters got bored after 8 years of Orr and then another 5 years of the Robinson/Potvin duel.

And then when some new guy led NHL defenders in scoring playing for team in Pittsburgh that had never had a guy win any sort of award before, they jumped on that train.

And then after giving it to young guys who piled up a bunch of points in Carlyle/Wilson in '81 and '82, they had a backlash against their own voting and overreacted with Langway votes against Paul Coffey to 'get back to what the award was about' instead of giving it to Mark Howe and Potvin who were the two best all-around defenders in the NHL.

Norris Trophy voting 1981-84 really should have gone :

1981 - Potvin
1982 - Wilson (weak year)
1983 - Howe
1984 - Bourque (or Coffey or Potvin)

Mark Howe getting robbed of the 1983 Norris is one of the more under-mentioned awards blunders in NHL history.

 

[The Macho King]

Half-baked theory - was Messier notably better in games played in New York than Gretzky was? Just wondering if he had some big moments in the eastern time zone that may explain it a bit.

Edit: Separate question that I never really considered - did any other teams that far West ever play that deep in the playoffs before? I'm scratching my memory of the 70s and most of the teams I come up with are at most in the Central time zone.

 

[67 others]

Voters got bored after 8 years of Orr and then another 5 years of the Robinson/Potvin duel.

And then when some new guy led NHL defenders in scoring playing for team in Pittsburgh that had never had a guy win any sort of award before, they jumped on that train.

And then after giving it to young guys who piled up a bunch of points in Carlyle/Wilson in '81 and '82, they had a backlash against their own voting and overreacted with Langway votes against Paul Coffey to 'get back to what the award was about' instead of giving it to Mark Howe and Potvin who were the two best all-around defenders in the NHL.

Norris Trophy voting 1981-84 really should have gone :

1981 - Potvin
1982 - Wilson (weak year)
1983 - Howe
1984 - Bourque (or Coffey or Potvin)

Mark Howe getting robbed of the 1983 Norris is one of the more under-mentioned awards blunders in NHL history.

Agree with all of that.

 

[Staniowski]

Most people who watched the 1984 playoffs believed that Messier was the Oilers' best player in those playoffs and that he deserved the Conn Smythe. He was excellent throughout the playoffs.

However, most people also assumed that the Conn Smythe voters would give it to Gretzky even if Messier was more deserving.

So it was kind of a surprise when Messier was announced as the winner. (If I remember correctly, it was announced by the broadcast crew near the end of the final game).

 

[Staniowski]

Messier and Goring had huge impacts on the games in the years they won the Smythe. Neither were seen as that controversial at the time. No advanced stats or even plus/minus at the time. Watch the games and place your votes.

Yes, people who watched the games thought Messier and Goring deserved to be the MVP. There was no controversy at all.

 

[MS]

Yes, people who watched the games thought Messier and Goring deserved to be the MVP. There was no controversy at all.

I mean, people who watched the games have made all kinds of bad award decisions since the dawn of time?

For Messier there is absolutely a fair debate and a strong case.

Goring? I simply don't believe that Butch Goring's 20 points + PK/defense in that playoffs could have been more valuable than what an at-his-absolute-peak Denis Potvin contributed in his biggest playoff run where he scored at a 110-point pace. Or more valuable than Mike Bossy absolutely the NHL single-season playoff scoring record. It's basically saying that peak Goring was > peak Bossy/Potvin, and that's a hard no for me.

 

[Staniowski]

I mean, people who watched the games have made all kinds of bad award decisions since the dawn of time?

For Messier there is absolutely a fair debate and a strong case.

Goring? I simply don't believe that Butch Goring's 20 points + PK/defense in that playoffs could have been more valuable than what an at-his-absolute-peak Denis Potvin contributed in his biggest playoff run where he scored at a 110-point pace. Or more valuable than Mike Bossy absolutely the NHL single-season playoff scoring record. It's basically saying that peak Goring was > peak Bossy/Potvin, and that's a hard no for me.

I think any one of those three - Goring, Potvin, Bossy - would've been fine as the Conn Smythe winner. You can also see how good these guys were a few months later at the Canada Cup, where they were 3 of Canada's most important players.

Goring was an excellent player, though. He was vital to the Islanders' success. A great, indefatigable skater who was very strong defensively and good offensively.

 

[The Macho King]

I think any one of those three - Goring, Potvin, Bossy - would've been fine as the Conn Smythe winner. You can also see how good these guys were a few months later at the Canada Cup, where they were 3 of Canada's most important players.

Goring was an excellent player, though. He was vital to the Islanders' success. A great, indefatigable skater who was very strong defensively and good offensively.

Yanni Gourde didn't win the Conn Smythe.

 

[MS]

I think any one of those three - Goring, Potvin, Bossy - would've been fine as the Conn Smythe winner. You can also see how good these guys were a few months later at the Canada Cup, where they were 3 of Canada's most important players.

Goring was an excellent player, though. He was vital to the Islanders' success. A great, indefatigable skater who was very strong defensively and good offensively.

This is not to criticize Goring in any way, who was a terrific two-way C who played some of the best hockey in his career in those playoffs and scored several very important goals. I just simply do not believe that Goring his best could have been more valuable to a team than two all-time greats like Potvin and Bossy who were at their absolute peak playing some of the most dominant hockey of their careers in that same playoffs - both scored at a rate in that playoffs that was higher than either ever managed in any other regular season or playoffs in their careers.

 

[Staniowski]

Yanni Gourde didn't win the Conn Smythe.

I agree that Gourde didn't win the Conn Smythe....