For how long does Lemieux play without the early 2006 heart condition?

[Passchendaele]

He was doing OK before he was forced to retire (though you could argue the condition slowed him down until it was detected).

Although it's somewhat unrealistic, it would have been cool to have him on the 2008 and 2009 rosters. Does Mario make the difference in the 2008 finals?

Chelios made it to 48. Jagr, 45, Selanne 43.

Click to read more...

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Youd think someone would end up playing a different position out of necessity when your centre lineup looks like some variation of

Crosby
Lemieux
Malkin
Staal

 

[seventieslord]

He wasn't really doing ok. He was really slow, not great at even strength and surrendering a lot of goals against. He was basically Jason Allison but on Pittsburgh.

 

[VanIslander]

Your constitution is not an option.

It is like asking if a short player had been tall. Imagine a 6'4 Tootoo.

It is not like injuries, accidents or other realistic counterfactuals.

 

[Albatros]

He was done, retirement was already overdue at that point anyway.

 

[JianYang]

He could still play and contribute in a more specialized role.

The tricky part would have been not getting in the way of developing the future of the team. A guy like Mario has always been the go to guy in his career, so I'm not sure he would be able to adapt into being a niche player

 

[seventieslord]

Lemieux was scoring on the PP at a rate that would have seen him finish 9th in the NHL in PPP over a full season.

At even strength... he was scoring 1.31 ESP/60, and typically advanced stats guys in the 2008-2012 range would say that 2.00 is the benchmark a passable top-6 forward should reach.

He was also allowing 5.33 ESG/60 in those 60 games (this includes all non-PP goals scored against him; I don't know how may were SHGA - each of those would drop this number by about 0.2 but it's an awful number regardless).

 

[scott clam]

He finishes the season, and that's it.

 

[Passchendaele]

Your constitution is not an option.

It is like asking if a short player had been tall. Imagine a 6'4 Tootoo.

It is not like injuries, accidents or other realistic counterfactuals.

A heart condition is not exactly something all players develop.

 

[BenchBrawl]

He wasn't really doing ok. He was really slow, not great at even strength and surrendering a lot of goals against. He was basically Jason Allison but on Pittsburgh.

wow! Accurate.

 

[Stephen]

He was only hanging around to get Sidney Crosby started anyway.

 

[buffalowing88]

Lemieux was scoring on the PP at a rate that would have seen him finish 9th in the NHL in PPP over a full season.

At even strength... he was scoring 1.31 ESP/60, and typically advanced stats guys in the 2008-2012 range would say that 2.00 is the benchmark a passable top-6 forward should reach.

He was also allowing 5.33 ESG/60 in those 60 games (this includes all non-PP goals scored against him; I don't know how may were SHGA - each of those would drop this number by about 0.2 but it's an awful number regardless).

Yeah,there was a huge difference in his game by this point. Guy could have put up another 80+ point season in 07-08, but it would have been a black hole.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Let's be honest, Lemieux didn't age well relative to his skillset.

Soft skills are the last thing you lose, so he never really lost them, and his amazing come back 2001 is a testament to just how good those skills were. But already by 1996 he had transitioned from being a physically dominant player to a chess player. He was 30 years old. Not sure about 1994 and 1995 since he played so little (a grand total of 28 games including playoffs).

So his age 27 season in 1993 is the last time we saw him as a physically dominant force. That's kindda young.

My point is that his soft skills were so good that he could keep on dominating the score sheet when he lost a step (or two, or three). But relative to himself, he didn't age well.

Furthermore, his game never "matured". He kept being a strict offensive player. We're far from the current maturation process we're seeing from Sidney Crosby, who is becoming a Selke contender while maintaining a solid offensive production. The same was true of Jean Béliveau.

Another example of this phenomenon is Alexander Ovechkin, who aged very badly very early. He kept his shot and his size, neither of which you ever really lose. Relative to himself, Ovechkin aged really poorly, yet people would sing the praise of his Rocket trophies as proof that he aged really well.

None of this takes away from what they contributed after they lost a step (or two, or three), but it does put things in perspective. I don't see post-1993 Lemieux as a guy I'd want to build around, despite his two subsequent Art Ross trophies. Same with Ovechkin and his gazillion Maurice Richard trophies. They became luxurious complementary pieces. You need a driver as your #1 player IMO. They became great wagons but they weren't locomotives any longer. In contrast, I still see Crosby as a driver, and a great one at that.

 

[seventieslord]

wow! Accurate.

For the record, that season Allison got 1.59 ESP/60 which was terrible for a player of his stature and expectation. He was on pace for 7th in the NHL in PPP over 82 games. His GA/60 at ES was 3.64 (minus any SHGA which would drop that number by 0.07 apiece). Of course, it's impossible to have as bad a defensive record as Lemieux had in 26 games over a nearly full season, but those are comparably bad especially since the Leafs were average and the Pens awful.

I think the comparison is pretty apt. Lemieux at 40 was probably just a little worse than Allison at 30.

 

[iamjs]

He finishes the season, and that's it.

At best, he signs on for another season with the intention of playing lower minutes.

Although his TOI declined each year by about a minute per season since his '00 comeback, he was still playing 19:22 a game during his final 40 year old season.

 

[shadow1]

Youd think someone would end up playing a different position out of necessity when your centre lineup looks like some variation of

Crosby
Lemieux
Malkin
Staal

IIRC he actually finished that season/his career playing RW on a line with Palffy and Crosby, with Ryan Malone/Erik Christensen manning the 2C hole (even though Malone mostly played LW in his career).

 

[buffalowing88]

Let's be honest, Lemieux didn't age well relative to his skillset.

Soft skills are the last thing you lose, so he never really lost them, and his amazing come back 2001 is a testament to just how good those skills were. But already by 1996 he had transitioned from being a physically dominant player to a chess player. He was 30 years old. Not sure about 1994 and 1995 since he played so little (a grand total of 28 games including playoffs).

So his age 27 season in 1993 is the last time we saw him as a physically dominant force. That's kindda young.

My point is that his soft skills were so good that he could keep on dominating the score sheet when he lost a step (or two, or three). But relative to himself, he didn't age well.

Furthermore, his game never "matured". He kept being a strict offensive player. We're far from the current maturation process we're seeing from Sidney Crosby, who is becoming a Selke contender while maintaining a solid offensive production. The same was true of Jean Béliveau.

Another example of this phenomenon is Alexander Ovechkin, who aged very badly very early. He kept his shot and his size, neither of which you ever really lose. Relative to himself, Ovechkin aged really poorly, yet people would sing the praise of his Rocket trophies as proof that he aged really well.

None of this takes away from what they contributed after they lost a step (or two, or three), but it does put things in perspective. I don't see post-1993 Lemieux as a guy I'd want to build around, despite his two subsequent Art Ross trophies. Same with Ovechkin and his gazillion Maurice Richard trophies. They became luxurious complementary pieces. You need a driver as your #1 player IMO. They became great wagons but they weren't locomotives any longer. In contrast, I still see Crosby as a driver, and a great one at that.

I really, really like this analysis. Two questions, though. Do you think Gretzky's game matured well, as compared to Mario? There's a lot of similarities in that neither really became "drivers" in that regard. Also, unrelated but would you thus consider Kane to be a complementary piece on the recent Chicago dynasty? He hasn't adjusted his game much and has relied a lot on his "soft skills", but I do think he's shown a greater willingness to carry the team in the last few years from all aspects of the game and he is certainly not afraid of the grittier aspects.

 

[scott clam]

At best, he signs on for another season with the intention of playing lower minutes.

Although his TOI declined each year by about a minute per season since his '00 comeback, he was still playing 19:22 a game during his final 40 year old season.

With Lemieux, you just figure that with his history, that if it isn't one thing it'll be something else. And he's already 40 years old at this point.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I really, really like this analysis. Two questions, though. Do you think Gretzky's game matured well, as compared to Mario? There's a lot of similarities in that neither really became "drivers" in that regard. Also, unrelated but would you thus consider Kane to be a complementary piece on the recent Chicago dynasty? He hasn't adjusted his game much and has relied a lot on his "soft skills", but I do think he's shown a greater willingness to carry the team in the last few years from all aspects of the game and he is certainly not afraid of the grittier aspects.

Gretzky's game never matured. As for "ageing", Gretzky's case is a little bit different because his game slowed down after a specific injury.

For Kane: I don't know, I'd have to think about it.

 

[Big Phil]

The last time we saw Mario be anything close to "Mario" was the 2004 World Cup. He played well, and he was still at that stage where you figured he was a constant threat for the Art Ross. Many thought he would have won the World Cup MVP. I think Lecavalier figures it should have been Mario. Either way, if you look at Lecavalier he has the most emotionless reaction I have ever seen from a person when he is accepting an MVP trophy.

Anyway, no, I think Mario was done by then. Foolishly Gretzky had him on the Olympic team as well as Yzerman before they both backed out and said "Woah, we don't belong on there anymore." Other than that, I think just by loyalty alone they'd have made it, which would have been a mistake. Even Mario slows down and has the game pass him by. By 2006 the game clearly passed him by. The year off didn't help guys in their 30s let alone someone who was 40. You can't just automatically come back like that. He was beginning to be too much of a liability 5-on-5.

 

[VanIslander]

How long does Theo Fleury play without being short?

 

[The Panther]

It's amazing to think that Lemieux could have won the Art Ross in 2002-03 at age 37. He was 0.05 PPG behind Forsberg (i.e., 4 total points over 82 games), whose team scored 63 more goals than Lemieux's.

However, that season, Lemieux fantastically slowed down as the season progressed:
First 28 games = 55 points (-4) 161-point pace
Last 39 games = 33 points (-21) 69-point pace

The question is: Did Lemieux have a massive slow-down because he was old, banged-up, and couldn't hack a full season anymore, or because the Pens were selling off players and beginning to ice an AHL line-up? No doubt it's a bit of both. Still, I have to think if Mario was on a good team at that point, and thus has the right motivation and support, he probably wins the Art Ross over 82 games.

I would guess his winning an Art Ross in 2004 is kind of stretching likelihood, but anyway he was able to summon his resources for the World Cup in a short tournament and looked fine.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Another example of this phenomenon is Alexander Ovechkin, who aged very badly very early. He kept his shot and his size, neither of which you ever really lose. Relative to himself, Ovechkin aged really poorly, yet people would sing the praise of his Rocket trophies as proof that he aged really well.

Sure, aside from the Hart, the Hart runner up, the Conn Smythe, the Stanley cup, the three other top 10 Hart seasons, and the 7 Rockets. Yes, he aged poorly.

Then again you also said you think Ryan Getzlaf is a superior player so there you have it.

 

[sr edler]

Guy could have put up another 80+ point season in 07-08, but it would have been a black hole.

Points are all that matters anyways, especially goals who are worth more than assists. And Gary Roberts should have one of Messier's Hart Trophies, despite Calgary allegedly missing the playoffs. And what is a black hole anyways, hardly a scientifically proven thing. This is ridiculous.

 

[JianYang]

The last time we saw Mario be anything close to "Mario" was the 2004 World Cup. He played well, and he was still at that stage where you figured he was a constant threat for the Art Ross. Many thought he would have won the World Cup MVP. I think Lecavalier figures it should have been Mario. Either way, if you look at Lecavalier he has the most emotionless reaction I have ever seen from a person when he is accepting an MVP trophy.

Anyway, no, I think Mario was done by then. Foolishly Gretzky had him on the Olympic team as well as Yzerman before they both backed out and said "Woah, we don't belong on there anymore." Other than that, I think just by loyalty alone they'd have made it, which would have been a mistake. Even Mario slows down and has the game pass him by. By 2006 the game clearly passed him by. The year off didn't help guys in their 30s let alone someone who was 40. You can't just automatically come back like that. He was beginning to be too much of a liability 5-on-5.

What struck me about Mario in the 04 world cup was when I saw him willingly block shots for the team.

So I saw some unmario things actually.