Lindsay/Pearson vs Hart

[steve141]

The Hart and the Linday/Pearson most often go to the same guy. Though they are different, they are most often interpreted as a trophy for being the best player in the league that year. One is voted on by the media, one by the players themselves.

For this reason it is interesting to look at the times when the trophies have gone to different players. Who do you think gets it right most of the times, the players or the media? Which is the best measurement of greatness?

The times they've been awarded to different players:

Year	Lindsay/Pearson	Hart
2018	McDavid	Hall
2013	Crosby	Ovechkin
2011	D. Sedin	Perry
2010	Ovechkin	H. Sedin
2006	Jagr	Thornton
2003	Naslund	Forsberg
2002	Iginla	Theodore
2000	Jagr	Pronger
1989	Yzerman	Gretzky
1986	Lemieux	Gretzky
1981	Liut	Gretzky
1980	Dionne	Gretzky
1979	Dionne	Trottier
1976	Lafleur	Clarke
1975	Orr	Clarke
1972	Ratelle	Orr
1971	Esposito	Orr

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

I'm just thankful that Mark Messier won the Pearson (now Lindsay) both times he won the Hart trophy (1990, 1992). It punctures the revisionist nonsense (largely by people not alive then) that he didn't deserve it.

In theory, the Pearson/Lindsay should be a better measurement of greatness, since (a) it's described as "best player", without team-value intangibles, and (b) it's voted on by the NHLPA, so there's no media narrative or stupid media voters who never actually watched the player play.

In reality, however, clearly the Pearson used to be influenced by the higher status of the Hart trophy, and by some novelty / player-narrative situations. The obvious examples of this are 1972, 1981, 1986, and 1989 -- I think it's clear that the award did not go to the best player in those seasons.

But, in general, since about 1990 I guess, I might be of the opinion that the Pearson/Lindsay is the better arbiter of greatness (although in 1991, was Brett Hull better than Gretzky?). Part of this is simply down to the Pearson/Lindsay developing a higher status in general in the millennial era. It used to be thought of as sort-of a secondary trophy, akin to the lowered status the NHLPA had back then. But today, it's a much higher-status trophy; hence, the NHLPA takes it more seriously and seems to vote more objectively now.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm just thankful that Mark Messier won the Pearson (now Lindsay) both times he won the Hart trophy (1990, 1992). It punctures the revisionist nonsense (largely by people not alive then) that he didn't deserve it.

In theory, the Pearson/Lindsay should be a better measurement of greatness, since (a) it's described as "best player", without team-value intangibles, and (b) it's voted on by the NHLPA, so there's no media narrative or stupid media voters who never actually watched the player play.

In reality, however, clearly the Pearson used to be influenced by the higher status of the Hart trophy, and by some novelty / player-narrative situations. The obvious examples of this are 1972, 1981, 1986, and 1989 -- I think it's clear that the award did not go to the best player in those seasons.

But, in general, since about 1990 I guess, I might be of the opinion that the Pearson/Lindsay is the better arbiter of greatness (although in 1991, was Brett Hull better than Gretzky?). Part of this is simply down to the Pearson/Lindsay developing a higher status in general in the millennial era. It used to be thought of as sort-of a secondary trophy, akin to the lowered status the NHLPA had back then. But today, it's a much higher-status trophy; hence, the NHLPA takes it more seriously and seems to vote more objectively now.

1981 really sticks out as an oddity in that it would make more sense the other way around. Luit may well have been more valuable to his team without being close to as good as Gretzky was.

Dion getting back-to-back Pearsons says a lot about how his fellow players viewed him.

 

[JackSlater]

Even if they are often interpreted as a trophy for the best player, that isn't actually the case. One trophy is for best player, one is for most valuable, and so sometimes they can have different winners but both be correct. The OP seems to be looking for which trophy selected the best (or better in some cases) player though, so...

2018: Pearson
2013: Pearson
2011: Hart
2010: Pearson
2006: Pearson (really could go either way)
2003: Hart
2002: Pearson
2000: Pearson
1989: Hart
1986: Hart
1981: Hart
1980: Hart
1979: Hart (could easily go either way)
1976: Hart
1975: Pearson
1972: Hart
1971: Hart

I think that the Pearson has had more obviously bad choices, particularly before 1990. In some years like 2000 or 2013 there were injuries that allowed the obvious best player to win the Pearson but credibly not win the Hart.

 

[The Panther]

1981 really sticks out as an oddity in that it would make more sense the other way around. Luit may well have been more valuable to his team without being close to as good as Gretzky was.

I know what you mean, but I think even that's a stretch. Remember, Edmonton was a 2nd-year 'expansion' team then, with a losing record. While still eligible for Junior hockey, Gretzky had the highest-scoring season in history, while no other Oiler scored more than 75 points (Gretzky was also +41, while only one other Oiler who wasn't his linemate was even +9).

St.Louis had a big year that season, and the media-narrative seemed to give all the credit to Liut -- who was 8th in save-percentage. Anyway, Gretzky took note, and scored 5 goals on Liut in one game late in the season.

Dion getting back-to-back Pearsons says a lot about how his fellow players viewed him.

Agree, we should remember that when the age-old "Dionne wasn't really that great" arguments come up.

 

[bobholly39]

1989 and 1986 are still beyond ridiculous to me to this day.

Pearson 1986 - Gretzky 100%
Pearson 1989 - Lemieux 100%

I also want to say Hart 1989 Lemieux 100% - but at least there's a semblance of a case for Gretzky. I still think the gap that year was enough in Lemieux's favor for performance that he should win it - but it bothers me less.

 

[The Panther]

1989 and 1986 are still beyond ridiculous to me to this day.

Pearson 1986 - Gretzky 100%
Pearson 1989 - Lemieux 100%

I also want to say Hart 1989 Lemieux 100% - but at least there's a semblance of a case for Gretzky. I still think the gap that year was enough in Lemieux's favor for performance that he should win it - but it bothers me less.

The craziest thing about the '89 Pearson is not only that Lemieux didn't win it... but that Gretzky didn't either.

But that's all a reflection of that era of player-driven narrative, for an award considered a bit 2nd-tier.