Lemieux's 1995-96 powerplay stats and figures

[TheStatican]

This thread is an addendum to this post;

Was Lemieux still in his peak in 1995-96?

Beliveau-Geoffrion were yet to be factor during Howe 53 season, Richard was over 30 by that point. So for Howe peak competition during Howe peak season he could have a point, if we include Ricahrd to Beliveau prime, Howe 95 points and 49 goals look great still obviously...

forums.hfboards.com

Using his TOI stats from 00-01 will help to figure out Lemieux's 95-96 powerplay TOI. Here's an analysis of the Penguins powerplay for each season. I went through the logs (like this one) and tallied how the teams powerplay performed with and without Lemieux in each season.

PPO means "Power play opportunities" and PGF means "Power play goals for" it's the number of powerplay goals the team scored while Mario was on the ice during the powerplay.

2000-01​	Games​	Goals​	PPO​	PP %​	PP G's/Gm​	​ PPO/Gm​	​ PGF​	​ on ice for​
With Lemieux​	43​	45​	199​	22.61%​	1.05​	4.63​	40​	88.9%​
Without Lemieux​	39​	31​	176​	17.61%​	0.79​	4.51​	na​	0.0%​
Penguins Overall​	82​	76​	375​	20.27%​	0.93​	4.57​	​	​
League Averages​	82​	62​	376​	16.64%​	0.76​	4.59​	​	​
Best % Devils​	82​	71​	310​	22.90%​	0.87​	3.78​	​	​
Most Goals Wings​	82​	85​	384​	22.14%​	1.04​	4.68​	​	​

Now lets take a look at 95-96;

1995-96​	Games​	Goals​	PPO​	PP %​	PP G's/gm​	​ PPO/Gm​	PGF​	one ice for​
With Lemieux​	70​	102​	359​	28.41%​	1.46​	5.13​	102​	100.0%​
Without Lemieux​	12​	7​	61​	11.48%​	0.58​	5.08​	na​	0.0%​
Penguins Overall​	82​	109​	420​	25.95%​	1.33​	5.12​	​	​
League Averages​	82​	74​	413​	17.93%​	0.90​	5.04​	​	​
2nd Best Colorado​	82​	97​	455​	21.32%​	1.18​	5.55​	​	​

In 00-01 the Penguins averaged slightly more powerplay opportunities(PPO's) with him in the lineup; 4.51 vs 4.63(+2.6%) and very close to the overall league average of 4.57(+1.3%) Lemieux was on the ice for 89% of the Pen's powerplay goals that season. He was not on the ice for just 5 of the 45 pp goals the team scored in the games he played. It's impossible to know for sure why he missed those 5 goals, either he was on the ice at the start of these powerplays but left at some point before they scored on them or he skip some powerplay opportunities altogether, which at the Pen's success rate without him would equate to 28 powerplay opportunities. If he actually skipped 28 PPO's then teams true powerplay rate with him on it was 23.4%(40 goals in 171 PPO's). In essence Lemieux turned a slightly better than average powerplay into the the league's best.

Meanwhile 95-96 the Penguins likewise also averaged slightly more PPO's with him than without 5.08 vs 5.13(+1.0%). And their number of PPO's was slightly more than league average of 5.04(+1.7%). But his effect on the powerplay was astronomical. The team went from basically the worst powerplay in the league to not just the best, but one the greatest of all-time. To be fair though I don't believe a team as talented as the Penguins would have actually finished last in powerplay % that season without him, they likely would have been around the middle of the pack had he not played as previous seasons had shown;

Season (games_played)​	Gm​	G​	PPO​	Rank out of 26​	PP %​	Avg PP %​	Difference​	PPO/Gm​	League PPO/Gm​
1992-93 (60 of 84)​	84​	105​	440​	2nd​	23.9%​	19.6%​	121.9%​	5.24​	5.28​
1993-94 (22 of 84)​	84​	76​	404​	14th​	18.8%​	18.6%​	100.9%​	4.81​	4.85​
1994-95 (0 of 48)​	48​	42​	221​	10th​	19.0%​	17.7%​	107.2%​	4.60​	4.36​
1995-96 (70 of 82)​	82​	109​	420​	1st​	26.0%​	17.9%​	144.7%​	5.12​	5.04​
1996-97 (76 of 82)​	82​	74​	339​	2nd​	21.8%​	16.3%​	134.2%​	4.13​	4.10​
1997-98 (0 of 82)​	82​	67​	407​	11th​	16.5%​	15.1%​	109.2%​	4.96​	4.64​

But as you may have noticed in 95-96 chart something incredible happened in 1995-96. That seasons the Penguins scored 109 total powerplay goals, during the 12 games Lemieux missed they scored 7 while in the 70 games he played they scored 102. Check out his Plus/minus PGF in 1995-96; it's 102. Meaning Lemieux was on the ice for Every. Single. One. of those powerplay goals. This is something he had come close to accomplishing before but never succeed until that season. In 87-88 he was on the ice for 106 of 109 team pp goals, in 88-89 it was 110 of 115 and in 92-93 the number was 82 of 85.

As noted before they were terrible without him, operating at only an 11.5% efficiency in the games he didn't play, though to be fair they had a penalty kill of 91.2% in those games as well. meaning it would take them 9 powerplay opportunities to score a goal without him vs less than 4 on average to score one with him. This season the team started off the year potting 28 pp goals in the teams first 13 games and operating at a 40% efficiency. Mario played in 11 of those games and the team nearly outscored the opposition by just their powerplay goals alone 27 to 32, their record would've been 4-6-1 without a single even strength goal. In actuality they had 72 goals and a record of 8-2-3. Mario himself was averaging 2 powerplay points a game and had a point involved in 22 of those 27 pp goals.

Furthermore there is significant evidence to indict that he was out there the maximum amount possible *edit* that being the LOK limit(see below). Take a look at the time into the powerplay when these goals were scored; 1:47, 1:56, 1:47, 3:16, 1:47, 1:46, 1:50, 1:45, 1:55, 1:52, 1:42, 1:55, 1:50, 1:47 and even some extending beyond the initial powerplay time; 2:05, 2:11, 2:07, 2:03, 2:38, 2:26, 3:08, 3:01. That's 22 of 102 pp goals. On the flip side, 20 goals happen within the first 30 seconds of the start of a powerplay. So now all I need to do is figure out how many total seconds of powerplay time the team as a whole had that season in the games he played. Luckily for anyone I did precisely that by going through the teams game logs one by one and calculating the time in seconds they had for all of their powerplays. Yeah I'm a bit crazy... for statistics!

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

>​

​

Per gm​

​ >​

total pp​

​

Lemieux​

>​

>​

>​

Date​

​

Opp​

​

​ Game #​

PP Goals​

PPO​

Goals​

PPO​

PP%​

PPG​

PPO​

time in sec​

Individual PP's in sec​

PP Pts in gm​

Totals​

per game​

% involvement​

1995-10-07​

​

TOR​

W​

1​

4​

7​

4​

7​

57.1%​

4.00​

7.0​

486​

54g 82, 120>0g 120, 39g 71g​

4​

4​

4.00​

100.0%​

1995-10-09​

@​

COL​

T​

2​

4​

8​

8​

15​

53.3%​

4.00​

7.5​

596​

116, 86g 52g(5on3) 55g 120, 15g 32, 120​

3​

7​

3.50​

87.5%​

1995-10-12​

@​

CHI​

L​

3​

​

5​

8​

20​

40.0%​

2.67​

6.7​

555​

120, 75, 120, 120, 120​

​

7​

2.33​

87.5%​

1995-10-14​

​

MDA​

W​

4​

2​

4​

10​

24​

41.7%​

2.50​

6.0​

332​

120, 120, 28g 64g​

2​

9​

2.25​

90.0%​

1995-10-20​

@​

HAR​

T​

5​

1​

4​

11​

28​

39.3%​

2.20​

5.4​

384​

37, 120, 120, 107g​

1​

10​

2.00​

90.9%​

1995-10-21​

​

LAK​

L​

6​

​

4​

11​

32​

34.4%​

2.20​

5.2​

480​

120, 120, 120, 120​

DNP​

10​

2.00​

90.9%​

1995-10-26​

@​

NYI​

W​

7​

2​

4​

13​

36​

36.1%​

2.17​

5.0​

384​

120, 188g 76g​

1​

11​

1.83​

84.6%​

1995-10-28​

@​

NJD​

W​

8​

2​

3​

15​

39​

38.5%​

2.14​

4.8​

193​

120, 42g 31g​

2​

13​

1.86​

86.7%​

1995-11-01​

​

TBL​

W​

9​

5​

7​

20​

46​

43.5%​

2.50​

5.0​

432​

13g 116g 32g(5on3) 17g 14g 120, 120​

5​

18​

2.25​

90.0%​

1995-11-03​

@​

BUF​

T​

10​

1​

3​

21​

49​

42.9%​

2.50​

4.8​

263​

23g 120, 120​

DNP​

18​

2.25​

90.0%​

1995-11-04​

​

PHI​

W​

11​

2​

6​

23​

55​

41.8%​

2.44​

4.9​

479​

107g 54, 9, 120, 69g 120​

1​

19​

2.11​

86.4%​

1995-11-08​

@​

OTT​

W​

12​

3​

8​

26​

62​

41.9%​

2.50​

5.2​

722​

88, 88g 22g(4on3) 120, 120, 120, 196g​

1​

20​

2.00​

80.0%​

1995-11-10​

@​

SJS​

W​

13​

2​

6​

28​

68​

41.2%​

2.45​

5.2​

548​

81, 61g(5on3) 59, 107g 120, 120​

2​

22​

2.00​

81.5%​

1995-11-11​

@​

LAK​

L​

14​

​

4​

28​

72​

38.9%​

2.45​

5.1​

422​

120, 62, 120, 120​

DNP​

22​

2.00​

81.5%​

1995-11-14​

​

DAL​

W​

15​

2​

3​

30​

75​

40.0%​

2.42​

5.0​

261​

42g 99g 120​

1​

23​

1.92​

79.3%​

1995-11-17​

@​

WSH​

W​

16​

​

4​

30​

79​

38.0%​

2.42​

4.9​

480​

120, 120, 120, 120​

DNP​

23​

1.92​

79.3%​

1995-11-18​

​

WSH​

W​

17​

1​

3​

31​

82​

37.8%​

2.31​

4.8​

227​

22, 120, 85g​

1​

24​

1.85​

80.0%​

1995-11-21​

@​

NYR​

L​

18​

1​

6​

32​

88​

36.4%​

2.21​

4.9​

734​

105, 120, 63, 340, 106g​

1​

25​

1.79​

80.6%​

1995-11-22​

​

NYR​

L​

19​

2​

8​

34​

96​

35.4%​

2.20​

5.1​

786​

120, 120, 78, 120, 53g 120, 55g 120​

2​

27​

1.80​

81.8%​

1995-11-25​

​

BUF​

W​

20​

​

3​

34​

99​

34.3%​

2.06​

5.0​

360​

120, 120, 120​

​

27​

1.69​

81.8%​

1995-11-28​

​

OTT​

W​

21​

1​

5​

35​

104​

33.7%​

2.00​

4.9​

446​

42g 120, 240, 44​

1​

28​

1.65​

82.4%​

1995-11-30​

@​

BOS​

W​

22​

3​

5​

38​

109​

34.9%​

2.06​

4.9​

449​

110g 120, 120, 71g 28g​

2​

30​

1.67​

81.1%​

1995-12-01​

​

FLA​

W​

23​

1​

3​

39​

112​

34.8%​

2.00​

4.8​

266​

120, 120, 26g​

1​

31​

1.63​

81.6%​

1995-12-03​

@​

TBL​

W​

24​

1​

3​

40​

116​

34.5%​

1.95​

4.8​

303​

120, 63g 120​

1​

32​

1.60​

82.1%​

1995-12-05​

@​

NYI​

W​

25​

2​

5​

42​

121​

34.7%​

1.95​

4.8​

459​

120, 83g 120, 120, 16g​

2​

34​

1.62​

82.9%​

1995-12-07​

​

MTL​

W​

26​

​

5​

42​

126​

33.3%​

1.86​

4.8​

600​

120, 120, 120, 120, 120​

​

34​

1.55​

82.9%​

1995-12-09​

​

HAR​

W​

27​

2​

7​

44​

133​

33.1%​

1.87​

4.9​

663​

120, 158g 120, 25g 120, 120​

2​

36​

1.57​

83.7%​

1995-12-13​

@​

MDA​

L​

28​

2​

8​

46​

141​

32.6%​

1.88​

5.0​

848​

120, 120, 120, 120, 51, 90g 120, 105g​

2​

38​

1.58​

84.4%​

1995-12-15​

@​

DAL​

W​

29​

2​

8​

48​

149​

32.2%​

1.88​

5.1​

691​

120, 207, 59g 58g 62, 185​

1​

39​

1.56​

83.0%​

1995-12-17​

@​

PHI​

L​

30​

2​

6​

50​

155​

32.3%​

1.88​

5.1​

537​

115g(5on3) 56, 120, 120, 6g 120​

1​

40​

1.54​

81.6%​

1995-12-19​

​

CGY​

W​

31​

2​

4​

52​

159​

32.7%​

1.89​

5.1​

401​

88g 73g 120 120​

2​

42​

1.56​

82.4%​

1995-12-22​

​

MTL​

L​

32​

1​

5​

53​

164​

32.3%​

1.86​

5.1​

479​

163, 120, 74g 120​

1​

43​

1.54​

82.7%​

1995-12-23​

@​

MTL​

L​

33​

​

3​

53​

167​

31.7%​

1.79​

5.0​

356​

16, 120, 120​

​

43​

1.48​

82.7%​

1995-12-26​

​

BUF​

W​

34​

2​

5​

55​

172​

32.0%​

1.80​

5.0​

345​

146g 71g 120, 8​

1​

44​

1.47​

81.5%​

1995-12-28​

​

HAR​

W​

35​

3​

5​

58​

177​

32.8%​

1.84​

5.0​

431​

120, 59g(5 on 3) 67g 65g 120​

2​

46​

1.48​

80.7%​

1995-12-30​

​

FLA​

W​

36​

1​

6​

59​

183​

32.2%​

1.81​

5.0​

513​

125g 28, 120, 240​

1​

47​

1.47​

81.0%​

1996-01-01​

@​

WSH​

L​

37​

1​

5​

60​

188​

31.9%​

1.81​

5.0​

519​

58, 120, 120, 101g 120​

DNP​

47​

1.47​

81.0%​

1996-01-03​

​

OTT​

W​

38​

​

3​

60​

191​

31.4%​

1.76​

5.0​

261​

120, 21, 120 4v4 not PPO's​

​

47​

1.42​

81.0%​

1996-01-05​

​

DET​

W​

39​

1​

5​

61​

196​

31.1%​

1.74​

5.0​

571​

120, 91g 120, 120, 120​

1​

48​

1.41​

81.4%​

1996-01-06​

@​

STL​

L​

40​

1​

9​

62​

205​

30.2%​

1.74​

5.1​

853​

119, 120, 25, 120, 120g(5on3), 0, 120, 120, 109​

DNP​

48​

1.41​

81.4%​

1996-01-08​

​

VAN​

W​

41​

1​

7​

63​

212​

29.7%​

1.71​

5.1​

797​

120, 120, 240, 120, 120, 77g​

1​

49​

1.40​

81.7%​

1996-01-12​

​

MTL​

L​

42​

2​

4​

65​

216​

30.1%​

1.72​

5.1​

323​

120, 119, 34g 50g​

2​

51​

1.42​

82.3%​

1996-01-13​

​

SJS​

L​

43​

1​

2​

66​

218​

30.3%​

1.70​

5.0​

201​

120, 81g 4v4's not PPO's​

1​

52​

1.41​

82.5%​

1996-01-16​

​

COL​

L​

44​

​

5​

66​

223​

29.6%​

1.66​

5.0​

627​

97, 110, 180, 120, 120​

​

52​

1.37​

82.5%​

1996-01-17​

@​

BUF​

W​

45​

​

7​

66​

230​

28.6%​

1.66​

5.1​

900​

120, 111+9, 120, 300, 120, 120​

DNP​

52​

1.37​

82.5%​

1996-01-22​

​

BOS​

W​

46​

2​

6​

68​

236​

28.8%​

1.67​

5.1​

549​

19g 120, 58, 120, 112g 120​

1​

53​

1.36​

81.5%​

1996-01-24​

@​

OTT​

W​

47​

1​

5​

69​

241​

28.6%​

1.65​

5.1​

489​

120, 120, 120, 120, 9g​

1​

54​

1.35​

81.8%​

1996-01-27​

​

PHI​

W​

48​

2​

3​

71​

244​

29.1%​

1.66​

5.0​

236​

94g(5on3) 22g 120​

2​

56​

1.37​

82.4%​

1996-01-29​

@​

FLA​

L​

49​

1​

4​

72​

248​

29.0%​

1.64​

5.0​

400​

96, 120, 120, 64g​

​

56​

1.33​

81.2%​

1996-01-31​

@​

TBL​

L​

50​

1​

6​

73​

254​

28.7%​

1.63​

5.0​

475​

120, 11g 104, 120, 120(5on3)​

1​

57​

1.33​

81.4%​

1996-02-03​

@​

DET​

L​

51​

​

3​

73​

257​

28.4%​

1.59​

5.0​

311​

71, 120, 120​

​

57​

1.30​

81.4%​

1996-02-06​

​

BOS​

W​

52​

1​

4​

74​

261​

28.4%​

1.58​

5.0​

398​

120, 120, 120, 38g​

1​

58​

1.29​

81.7%​

1996-02-07​

@​

NJD​

T​

53​

​

3​

74​

264​

28.0%​

1.58​

4.9​

360​

120, 120, 120​

DNP​

58​

1.29​

81.7%​

1996-02-10​

​

CHI​

W​

54​

1​

4​

75​

268​

28.0%​

1.57​

4.9​

422​

120, 120, 65, 117g?​

​

58​

1.26​

80.6%​

1996-02-12​

@​

TOR​

L​

55​

1​

9​

76​

277​

27.4%​

1.55​

5.0​

1036​

120, 120, 120, 76g+120(5 min major), 120, 120, 120, 120​

​

58​

1.23​

79.5%​

1996-02-16​

@​

WIN​

W​

56​

​

5​

76​

282​

27.0%​

1.55​

5.0​

581​

120, 120, 120, 101, 120​

DNP​

58​

1.23​

79.5%​

1996-02-18​

​

NYR​

W​

57​

1​

8​

77​

290​

26.6%​

1.54​

5.0​

679​

120, 102, 120, 120, 9, 20g 68, 120​

​

58​

1.21​

78.4%​

1996-02-21​

@​

BUF​

L​

58​

​

6​

77​

296​

26.0%​

1.51​

5.1​

860​

300, 120, 120, 80, 120, 120​

​

58​

1.18​

78.4%​

1996-02-23​

​

HAR​

W​

59​

4​

9​

81​

305​

26.6%​

1.56​

5.1​

734​

53g 120, 39, 96g 120, 23, 68g 92g 123​

2​

60​

1.20​

76.9%​

1996-02-24​

@​

MTL​

L​

60​

2​

7​

83​

312​

26.6%​

1.57​

5.2​

560​

120, 120, 63, unk time 0?g (erronous;70g) 127g 120​

2​

62​

1.22​

77.5%​

1996-02-27​

@​

VAN​

W​

61​

1​

3​

84​

315​

26.7%​

1.56​

5.1​

280​

56g 120, 104​

1​

63​

1.21​

77.8%​

1996-02-29​

@​

CGY​

L​

62​

2​

7​

86​

322​

26.8%​

1.57​

5.2​

742​

240, 120, 120, 102g(5on3)+51, 109g​

1​

64​

1.21​

77.1%​

1996-03-01​

@​

EDM​

W​

63​

1​

5​

87​

327​

26.6%​

1.57​

5.2​

479​

120, 86, 33g 120, 120​

DNP​

64​

1.21​

77.1%​

1996-03-05​

​

WIN​

W​

64​

2​

6​

89​

333​

26.7%​

1.57​

5.2​

413​

120, 40g 25g 120, 79, 29​

2​

66​

1.22​

77.6%​

1996-03-07​

​

OTT​

W​

65​

​

4​

89​

337​

26.4%​

1.55​

5.2​

424​

120, 120, 64, 120​

​

66​

1.20​

77.6%​

1996-03-09​

​

NJD​

L​

66​

1​

5​

90​

342​

26.3%​

1.54​

5.2​

529​

49g 120, 120, 120, 120​

​

66​

1.18​

76.7%​

1996-03-13​

@​

HAR​

L​

67​

1​

4​

91​

346​

26.3%​

1.53​

5.1​

438​

120, 97g 120, 101​

1​

67​

1.18​

77.0%​

1996-03-14​

@​

BOS​

L​

68​

​

3​

91​

349​

26.1%​

1.50​

5.1​

254​

120+14, 120 4v4's not PPO's​

​

67​

1.16​

77.0%​

1996-03-16​

​

NYI​

W​

69​

1​

5​

92​

354​

26.0%​

1.49​

5.1​

496​

120, 120, 120, 120, 16g​

1​

68​

1.15​

77.3%​

1996-03-21​

​

EDM​

W​

70​

​

3​

92​

357​

25.6%​

1.47​

5.1​

306​

120, 120, 66​

​

68​

1.13​

77.3%​

1996-03-23​

​

BUF​

L​

71​

​

5​

92​

362​

25.4%​

1.44​

5.1​

600​

120, 120, 120, 120, 120​

​

68​

1.11​

77.3%​

1996-03-24​

@​

NYR​

W​

72​

3​

7​

95​

369​

25.8%​

1.44​

5.1​

518​

76g, 58g, 56, 19g 120, 120, 69​

DNP​

68​

1.11​

77.3%​

1996-03-26​

​

STL​

W​

73​

4​

9​

99​

378​

26.3%​

1.48​

5.2​

690​

23, 181g 8g 123g 120, 120, 115g​

3​

71​

1.15​

77.2%​

1996-03-28​

@​

FLA​

W​

74​

2​

4​

101​

382​

26.5%​

1.49​

5.1​

231​

75, 22, 110g 24g​

2​

73​

1.16​

77.7%​

1996-03-30​

​

NJD​

W​

75​

​

5​

101​

387​

26.1%​

1.47​

5.1​

600​

120, 240, 120, 120​

​

73​

1.14​

77.7%​

1996-03-31​

@​

PHI​

L​

76​

​

5​

101​

392​

25.8%​

1.47​

5.1​

565​

120, 205, 120, 120​

DNP​

73​

1.14​

77.7%​

1996-04-04​

​

WSH​

W​

77​

1​

4​

102​

396​

25.8%​

1.46​

5.1​

369​

120, 107g 120, 22​

​

73​

1.12​

76.8%​

1996-04-06​

​

TBL​

W​

78​

​

3​

102​

399​

25.6%​

1.44​

5.1​

360​

120, 120, 120​

​

73​

1.11​

76.8%​

1996-04-08​

@​

HAR​

L​

79​

1​

3​

103​

402​

25.6%​

1.43​

5.1​

305​

111, 120, 74g​

1​

74​

1.10​

77.1%​

1996-04-10​

​

NYI​

L​

80​

1​

7​

104​

409​

25.4%​

1.43​

5.1​

661​

120, 120, 120, 57g 120, 120, 4​

1​

75​

1.10​

77.3%​

1996-04-11​

@​

OTT​

W​

81​

2​

5​

106​

414​

25.6%​

1.43​

5.1​

506​

120, 120, 120, 0(not considered a PPO), 98g 48g​

1​

76​

1.10​

76.8%​

1996-04-14​

@​

BOS​

L​

82​

3​

6​

109​

420​

26.0%​

1.46​

5.1​

407​

23g 120, 33g 120 43g 68​

3​

79​

1.13​

77.5%​

​

​

​

​

Totals;​

109​

420​

​

​

​

​

​

40226​

​

​

​

​

​

There seems to be quite a few discrepancies in the games logs. Here are those instances as well as a few other notes;
Game 1 vs TOR - two offsetting minor penalties were miscounted as PPO's in Espn's box score. The league's number however do correctly show them as having just 7 PPO's in this game, not 9. PPO time listed as 0 for their 4th PPO this game as the Pen's scored exactly when the first penalty expired(120 seconds into it) but the goal counts towards the second penalty.
Game 12 vs OTT - 5 min major incorrectly counted as just one PPO instead of two
Game 24 vs TBL - The Lighting's 4th penalty @8:00 of the 2nd was counted as a PPO even though it was completely overlapped by two separate Pen's penalties before and after it, the exact same scenario happens in gm 81 where it was not counted as a PPO
The above two cancel each other out(undercount by 1 + overcount by 1)
Game 40 vs STL - PPO time listed as 0 for their 6th PPO this game because they scored exactly when the first penalty expired(120 seconds into it) but the goal counts towards the second penalty.
Game 44 vs COL - Avalanche 5 major at same time as Pens minor = 3 min of pp time which is considered only 1PPO
Game 54 vs CHI - Error in the game logs. Chicago minor penalty was taken at 13:00 of the third while the Pens are listed as scoring a PP goal at 15:43. Either the penalty was over or the goal/penalty time is wrong. Considering Francis and the Penguins are noted as having a powerplay goal in this game the time for either the penalty or goal must be wrong.
Game 57 vs NYR - Time error in the game logs. Rangers overtime penalty listed as being taken at 18:04 which is impossible since regular season overtimes are only 5 minutes long and count up from 0:00 Considering Lemieux scored the OT winner just over 2 minutes into overtime and it was a non-PP goal the Penalty most likely actually happened at 0:04
Game 60 - MTL - Error in the game logs. The time must be wrong for the Pens 1st PP goal in the 2nd as both teams had a man in the box at the time or the penalty times are not correct
Game 80 vs NYI - Pens had a 4 second long powerplay which was considered a PPO, shortest Pen's powerplay of the year aside from the '0' second occasions noted above
Game 81 vs OTT - Senator's 4th penalty was correctly not counted as a PPO as it was completely offset by two separate Pen's penalties, contradicting game 24 where it was counted as a PPO under the exact same scenario

Eliminating the 12 games in which he did not play in the team amassed a cumulative total of 33806 seconds of powerplay time (40226 minus 6420). That equals 483 seconds or rather 8:03 minutes per game with an average powerplay length of 94.2 seconds. Interestingly enough the team averaged nearly a minute more powerplay time per game without him at 535 seconds/8:55 per game with an average powerplay length of 108.8 seconds - this is quite bad, anything approaching 120 is as it means powerplays rarely ended early... i.e. with a goal. This was entirely due to the loss of Lemieux's scoring prowess, remember the number of PPO's the team had were less when he didn't play. They went from scoring a goal every 330 powerplay seconds to one every 917 pp seconds.

​	Games​	PP Time(in seconds)​	PP mins per game​	Avg length​	PPO's/Game​	PP Goals​	PP Goals/Game​	Seconds/PP Goal​
With​	70​	33806​	8:03​	94.2​	5.13​	102​	1.46​	331.4​
Without​	12​	6420​	8:55​	108.8​	5.08​	7​	0.58​	917.1​
Ratio​	-​	-​	-​		-​	-​	2.5​	2.8​

Now let's back to figuring out Lemieux's ice time.

It's hard to fathom a player playing every single second of a team's powerplay over the course of entire season so I think it would be fair to subtract 9 two-min powerplays from his pp TOI; that's the expected number of powerplay opportunities it would take for the team to score a powerplay goal when he wasn't on the ice. That gives us 1080 total seconds, which is actually higher than the teams actual time needed to score a pp goal without him at 917 but I'm playing it safe. Over the course of 70 games equals about 15 seconds per game. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that if he sat out more time than this in the games he played then the team would likely have scored a pp goal while he wasn't on the ice, which they didn't. So we know the team played 33649 seconds of powerplay time in his 70 games, subtracting 1080 seconds from that = 32569 seconds. That is equals 7:45 minutes per game and that is my estimate for Lemieux's powerplay TOI in 1995-96.

On face value that sounds extremely high doesn't it? Though for the record that figure would not actually be the record for PP TOI(since tracking started). But if all the facts and figures used above hasn't convinced you yet lets consider some comparables for whom we actually do have TOI figures for. The closest two seasons would be his own 2000-01 season and the record-holder season.

Here his actual TOI figures from 2000-01;

00-01​	Total​	EV​	PP​	SH​
TOI​	23:59​	16:20​	06:23​	01:15​
Points​	76​	43​	32​	1​
PPG​	1.77​	1.00​	0.74​	0.02​
Points Per 60​	4.42​	3.67​	6.98​	1.12​
League Averages​	2.76​	1.89​	0.76​	0.11​

League averages are per game figures not per 60

Lemieux's overall playing time in 00-01 was already incredibly high; 8th all-time in per-game TOI and the 11th highest all-time in powerplay time(since 1997-98 onward) and 6 of the 10 seasons ahead of him came during 2006-07's record year for powerplay opportunities. Lemieux played 6:23 minutes of powerplay ice time per game that year, that's with the team averaging 4.61 opportunities per game with him playing. In 1995-96 that number was 11% higher at 5.13 per game. Additionally his involvement powerplay goals(during games he played) was higher 89% vs 100% in 95-96(12.4% higher). If you factor in these two figures; 6:23/4.61x5.13 =7:12 x1.124 that gives you 7:59 which almost perfectly lines up with what his maximum powerplay time could have been; 8:01 per game.

For the record, the all-time record is 8:10(since tracking started in 1997-98) which was set by Ilya Kovalchuk during the 2005-06 season,. The Thrashers averaged 6.42 PPO that year which is 39% more opportunities than the 00-01 Penguins and 25% more than the 95-96 Pens. Kovalchuk only had 30.5% more PP ice time per game than Mario in 00-01 despite having 39% more opportunities, meaning Mario was spending more time on each powerplay already in 00-01 than Kovalchuk did in his record setting season and we know that Mario was not on the ice for every Pen's powerplay goal in 00-01, but he was in 95-96.

Here are Kovalchuk complete ice times and point production in 2005-06;

​	Total​	EV​	PP​	SH​
TOI​	22:11​	13:51​	08:10​	00:09​
Points​	98​	41​	56​	1​
PPG​	1.26​	0.53​	0.72​	0.01​
Points Per 60​	3.40​	2.28​	5.27​	5.15​
League Avg​	3.025​	1.86​	1.03​	0.13​

Kovalchuk's team numbers verses Lemieux's;

​	Games​	Goals​	PPO​	PP %​	PP G's/Gm​	PPO/Gm​	​ PGF​	​ on ice for​	PP Pt's​	PT %​	PP TOI​
Thrashers Overall	82​	100​	527​	18.98%​	1.22​	6.43​
Kovalchuk 05-06​	78​	91​	493​	18.46%​	1.17​	6.32​	82​	90.1%​	56​	61.5%​	8:10​
Lemieux 95-96​	70​	102​	359​	28.41%​	1.46​	5.13​	102​	100.0%​	79​	77.5%​	7:45est​
Lemieux 00-01​	43​	45​	199​	22.61%​	1.05​	4.63​	40​	88.9%​	32​	71.1%​	6:23​

Running Lemieux's numbers against Kovalchuk's... higher PPO's opportunities; 8:10/6.32x5.13 = 6:38 but lower % of on-ice powerplay goals for 100.0/90.1=1.11 so 6:38x1.11 equals an estimate of 7:30. One could say this is a lower bound for Lemieux's PP TOI in 1995-96. And considering 8:01 is the highest possible figure, a final estimate of 7:45 of PP TOI neatly ties it all together.

It would be difficult for me to believe even before I took a deep dive into the numbers that a 30-year old Lemieux would have been playing less overall minutes than the 35-year old version of himself and I think given that 95-96 was one of the highest seasons of all time for PP opportunities I was already quite confident that Mario's PP TOI that year would have easily surpassed his 00-01 total and perhaps even challenged the record. As we can see from all the above date, it does fall short of Kovalchuk's record, but with an estimate of 7:45 and a range of 8:01 to 7:30, it would be the second highest total ever recorded. Which is very believable considering Lemieux recorded the highest powerplay points per game ever in 1995-96 at 1.13

The aforementioned conclusion(7:45 per game) was drawn based on a methodology that exhibits inherent flaws and relies on a significantly restricted subset of data. A far more comprehensive and precise analysis of Lemieux's powerplay ice time for the season was conducted here:

Accuracy of using a players powerplay goal on ice totals to determine powerplay ice time

This thread extends the concepts previously explored here but with a specific and more in-depth focus on powerplay time exclusively. It is reasonable to assume that a player's powerplay goals on ice closely correlates with their actual powerplay Time On Ice (TOI). However the crucial question...

forums.hfboards.com

That analysis resulted in a statistically significant finding with a probability exceeding 50%, estimating the duration of his powerplay ice time per game during the 1995-96 season at 6:48, with a margin of error of only ±2 seconds per game, which is almost a minute less than my original estimate.

TOI estimates Original*

	Total	EV	PP	SH
	25:24	14:24	7:45	3:15
Points	161	73	79	9
Points per 60	5.34	4.35	8.74	2.37

TOI estimates Revised

	Total	EV	PP	SH
TOI	24:27	14:24	6:48	3:15
Points	161	73	79	9
Points per 60	5.64	4.35	9.96	2.37

Click to read more...