I'm surprised by all the pushback to the notion that Lemieux was the best player in 2001. Maybe you had to be there? I can see an argument for Sakic. But nobody who was actively following the NHL in 2001 could have possibly concluded that Jagr was the better player. It's stat watching 20 years down the road that leads to that conclusion.
What evidence do I have, aside from my own recollections?
- Here's a media article from Marc 12th, 2001: "Lemieux has gone from mere boss of the Penguins to undisputed king of the NHL". One quote: "Lemieux was supposed to have passed the torch, not quietly set fire to the reputation of an entire generation with it". Another: "Lemieux is like the math whiz who aces every test and trashes the grading curve". And another: "Everybody in the league is trying to have that star so fans can identify with him, and then you get a guy like Lemieux back and you see what a true star is."
- The Penguins season turned around after Lemieux returned. They allowed essentially the same number of goals against before and after (makes sense since he didn't play defense at this stage in his career). But Pittsburgh scored way more after Lemieux returned (3.87 GPG - highest in the league vs 2.86 before his comeback). And they were 7th in points after Lemieux's return vs 16th before. This supports the notion that Lemieux was the catalyst for their success.
- It's more than just stats. Here's an article that speaks to Lemieux's impact: "no one has benefited more from Lemieux's comeback than linemate Jaromir Jagr".
- Everyone is so focused on regular season scoring totals. Lemieux was clearly better in the playoffs. (Granted, both of them were disappointing, but Lemieux far less so).
- Jagr has done a lot to rehabilitate his image. He was considered a whiner and a complainer around 2001. It was widely speculated (but never proven) that he lost millions of dollars gambling. He was quoted as saying "I'm dying alive". Before Lemieux came back, Jagr had asked for a trade twice. Another article describes Jagr as "brooding". He was considered a malcontent. That detracts from the value he brought to his team.
- Also, consider Hart voting. Lemieux finished head of Jagr for the Hart trophy in terms of first place votes (8 vs 0) and in terms of total voting points (272 vs 210). But supposedly we know better today because we can read a spreadsheet (which the voters, at the time, also had access to)?
This is strange for me because usually I'm arguing
against Lemieux (when people compare him to Gretzky or Howe). And, like I said, there's a valid argument for Sakic in 2001. But there was no argument for Jagr at all (in terms of who's the better player). Nobody, at the time, held that opinion. Let's not look at the scoring race 20+ years later and think that we know better than the people who actually followed this season.
