Has Anyone Not Named Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr ever dominated a year like Sakic?

[Plural]

What does Gretzky 215 point season have to do with Lemieux he won his first in 1988 had 70 goals 98 assists 168 points was a plus 23 he deserved to win compare the players they played with you will ignore that fact though Gretzky that year had 40 goals 109 assists 149 points Lemieux was the deserving Hart Trophy winner

Lemieux won his first Pearson award back in 85-86 season. The same season when Wayne set the record for points and assists in a season. Lemieux scored 141 points and Gretzky scored 215 points. Are you not aware of this?

Lemieux could have and in my mind should have won the Hart and Pearson awards the season he scored 199 points. But my point was that Gretzky winning the Hart trophy was somewhat understandable. Yzerman winning the Pearson over Lemieux was more difficult to understand. But I agree, Lemieux was the best player that season and he probably should have won the Hart and Art Ross.

Doesn't change the fact that you are using ridiculous double standards. It's OK for your guy to win the award in dubious ways. But not OK when someone else does it to your guy.

 

[FRUSTRATEDPENFAN*]

You agree with it?

A poster who forms every single argument with trophy counting and scoring finishes/PPG.

You are probably the most trophy loving poster in this site.

Hope your not suggesting I am which that quote because I honestly don't give a rats ass who wins what award [MOD]

 

[Plural]

Hope your not suggesting I am which that quote because I honestly don't give a rats ass who wins what award [MOD ]

[MOD] I was pointing it towards Ageless. Who usually has arguments based on trophy counting.

 

[Plural]

Truth is they can give the awards to you or myself and I wouldn't be surprised if they want and they just might seeing how stupid the media seems to be when it time to vote

I don't get this? What are you saying?

 

[FRUSTRATEDPENFAN*]

Lemieux won his first Pearson award back in 85-86 season. The same season when Wayne set the record for points and assists in a season. Lemieux scored 141 points and Gretzky scored 215 points. Are you not aware of this?

Lemieux could have and in my mind should have won the Hart and Pearson awards the season he scored 199 points. But my point was that Gretzky winning the Hart trophy was somewhat understandable. Yzerman winning the Pearson over Lemieux was more difficult to understand. But I agree, Lemieux was the best player that season and he probably should have won the Hart and Art Ross.

Doesn't change the fact that you are using ridiculous double standards. It's OK for your guy to win the award in dubious ways. But not OK when someone else does it to your guy.

Well Lemieux shouldn't have won the Pearson in 1986 then that's obvious its just proves even more the voters are stupid

 

[FRUSTRATEDPENFAN*]

I don't get this? What are you saying?

Im saying the voters will give the award to anyone if they deserve it or not

 

[Plural]

Well Lemieux shouldn't have won the Pearson in 1986 then that's obvious its just proves even more the voters are stupid

Pearson is voted by NHL players. Hart by media. Ovechkin won the Art Ross back in 07-08. (You said in another thread that he never did)

So, did you really watch NHL when Lemieux scored 199 and decided then that the awards are bogus? Or did you hear it from somewhere just a little while a go and decided to take offense cause you are a Pens fan?

I mean, if you are a fan from almost three decades a go, you know surprisingly little about NHL and the history of it.

 

[Plural]

Im saying the voters will give the award to anyone if they deserve it or not

Yeah, it's not a perfect system.

But Hart trophy does correlate well with success. It might not be a perfect award, but it is the most prestigious and most accurately represents all-time greats. Art Ross is another one. Of course Pearson/Lindsay is too, but out of the two (Hart and Pearson/Lindsay) Hart has less dubious winners.

 

[FRUSTRATEDPENFAN*]

Yeah, it's not a perfect system.

But Hart trophy does correlate well with success. It might not be a perfect award, but it is the most prestigious and most accurately represents all-time greats. Art Ross is another one. Of course Pearson/Lindsay is too, but out of the two (Hart and Pearson/Lindsay) Hart has less dubious winners.

True I suppose

 

[FRUSTRATEDPENFAN*]

Pearson is voted by NHL players. Hart by media. Ovechkin won the Art Ross back in 07-08. (You said in another thread that he never did)

So, did you really watch NHL when Lemieux scored 199 and decided then that the awards are bogus? Or did you hear it from somewhere just a little while a go and decided to take offense cause you are a Pens fan?

I mean, if you are a fan from almost three decades a go, you know surprisingly little about NHL and the history of it.

Ive been watching for over 30 years and yes that year Lemieux didn't win is the year I stopped caring about the awards . I actually know more than it seems it just doesn't come across or show in a form like this

 

[Slimmy]

Just for the sake of argument, Forsberg missed the entire regular season the very next year, so perhaps more like that.

Right, and when Sakic missed a good chunk of the season in 02-03 Forsberg had his best season. 75 games 106 pts and +52.

 

[FRUSTRATEDPENFAN*]

Pearson is voted by NHL players. Hart by media. Ovechkin won the Art Ross back in 07-08. (You said in another thread that he never did)

So, did you really watch NHL when Lemieux scored 199 and decided then that the awards are bogus? Or did you hear it from somewhere just a little while a go and decided to take offense cause you are a Pens fan?

I mean, if you are a fan from almost three decades a go, you know surprisingly little about NHL and the history of it.

Im more of a Habs fan than any other team if I had to pick another team its Pittsburgh because of Lemieux

 

[Plural]

Im more of a Habs fan than any other team if I had to pick another team its Pittsburgh because of Lemieux

Sorry to jump on you like that. It does not matter how long you watched hockey. Who am I to question your motives of watching hockey. Didn't mean to come off as so big jerk.

But you are most definitely a Pens fan. Judging by your posting history.

 

[FRUSTRATEDPENFAN*]

No worries and yeah sure im a pens fan to some extent and like how certain players play more than others. Sometimes I go overboard defending them though I know it lol

 

[AvsGuy]

[mod] It was dominant, not because he was 2nd in points and goals, but because he carried his team all the way. His point totals had even dipped leading up to that year, and if anyone was supposed to challenge Jagr for the Art Ross, it was Forsberg. Not Sakic, who from out of nowhere blew past 50 goals and 100 points and led his team all the way to the Stanley Cup, which correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Jagr nor Bure did do.

 

[StoneHands]

Bobby Clarke
1975-1976
Won the Hart trophy with 246 votes which was 52% of all votes. Second was Denis Potvin with 75 votes which was 16% of all votes.
2nd in points, 6 behind Guy Lafleur.
1st in point per game, ahead of Lafleur.
1st in assists with 89, the next highest was Pete Mahovlich with 71.
1st in +/- with a +83.
The Selke didn't exist yet but if it did, he would have easily won it. He was on the ice for an incredible 19 ES goals against this entire season and was 6th with 4 SH goals.

 

[Scrub*]

[mod] It was dominant, not because he was 2nd in points and goals, but because he carried his team all the way. His point totals had even dipped leading up to that year, and if anyone was supposed to challenge Jagr for the Art Ross, it was Forsberg. Not Sakic, who from out of nowhere blew past 50 goals and 100 points and led his team all the way to the Stanley Cup, which correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Jagr nor Bure did do.

How can you say Sakic carried the team when they had Forsberg, Bourque, Blake, Roy , Foote? [mod] Cup winning teams don't do it with one player.

 

[TT1]

A better question would be if anyone dominated like Hasek did from 1993 to 1999.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I don't think you can finish second in points and goals and command a thread title like this.

My thoughts exactly.

I do think Sakic was the best forward in the league during that time though. 2000-2002 was Sakic time. That olympic performance was special.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

How can you say Sakic carried the team when they had Forsberg, Bourque, Blake, Roy , Foote? [mod] Cup winning teams don't do it with one player.

Count out Forsberg in 01. Your point still stands though.

 

[StoneHands]

[mod] It was dominant, not because he was 2nd in points and goals, but because he carried his team all the way. His point totals had even dipped leading up to that year, and if anyone was supposed to challenge Jagr for the Art Ross, it was Forsberg. Not Sakic, who from out of nowhere blew past 50 goals and 100 points and led his team all the way to the Stanley Cup, which correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Jagr nor Bure did do.

Nobody is saying that Sakic wasn't dominant that season but when someone starts a thread asking if Sakic dominated a season more than anyone besides Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr, and then goes on to say that he was second in points, the clear answer is yes, others have dominated on that level before.

Just as recently as 2008-2009, the Penguins cup season Malkin won the Cup, the Art Ross, and the Conn Smythe. he was 2nd in Hart voting. 1st in points, 1st in assists, 1st in playoff points, 1st in playoff assists, 2nd in playoff goals. He even got a few Selke votes.

 

[livewell68]

Nobody is saying that Sakic wasn't dominant that season but when someone starts a thread asking if Sakic dominated a season more than anyone besides Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr, and then goes on to say that he was second in points, the clear answer is yes, others have dominated on that level before.

Just as recently as 2008-2009, the Penguins cup season Malkin won the Cup, the Art Ross, and the Conn Smythe. he was 2nd in Hart voting. 1st in points, 1st in assists, 1st in playoff points, 1st in playoff assists, 2nd in playoff goals. He even got a few Selke votes.

I think he was asking who dominated more in all-around game perspective.

Fedorov, Forsberg, Trottier, Messier, Clarke, Gilmour, Datsyuk, Bourque, Stevens, Potvin all had seasons like that. Dare I also include Ovechkin for his play this year?

 

[livewell68]

A better question would be if anyone dominated like Hasek did from 1993 to 1999.

Yes, Jagr from 1995 to 2001.

 

[Plural]

Yes, Jagr from 1995 to 2001.

Really similar in terms of domination. Not sure which I would rank higher. Maybe Hasek, but it's close. Hard to judge a scoring winger against an unorthodox goalie.

 

[Silver Tuna]

The original post sure had a lot of "behind jagr" throughout. Doesn't exactly scream dominating to me.