Mario in the DPE

[daver]

We pretty saw what Jagr, Crosby and McDavid could do in seasons when scoring was high and when scoring was low and, IMIO, conclude they were as effective in both levels.

What about Mario though? Did we truly see how a drop in scoring would have affected his peak numbers?

In 96/97, he plays his most complete season since 88/89 and wins the Art Ross in a clear but not dominating fashion. The PPG gap between him and his competition has taken a significant drop from 95/96 as the DPE really kicked in for good. It was a similar level of dominance to peak Crosby, peak Jagr and peak McDavid. His PP points took a huge drop; more so than the league drop in PPO (from 5 to 4) would explain.

How much relevance do we place on this? He was 31 years, battling injuries for years and was contemplating retiring.

At age 35, In 00/01 and dominates as much, perhaps more so than in 96/97 , and not just on the PP.

How much relevance do we place on this? He plays a ton with a peak Jagr.

Click to read more...

 

[Hippasus]

I think you said it. He was past his prime by a slight amount and battling injuries. It's hard to say that the prominent dead puck era was the main reason for his decline in production. He went on dominating, with his limited games played, soon thereafter.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't really get the point here. I'm quite confident that Lemieux was very capable of playing very well in that era since a past his best Lemieux did so. Even in 2003 he was still the best offensive player in the NHL as almost a shell of his former self.

 

[VanIslander]

Lemieux would have THRIVED in such a non-physical ref'd era as today.

A friggin' 5'11 Lithuanian cleaned his clock repeatedly, getting Mario to ask the team to acquire him to not have to face him.

Plus, another less than 6 footer, Michael Peca, was often called 'Captain Crunch' as he put Lindros and other giants down with hits to the head when they had their heads down during the "Dead Puck Era".

 

[MadLuke]

What about Mario though? Did we truly see how a drop in scoring would have affected his peak numbers?

Almost certainly, the only possible reason how it could not if it would have been a situation were scoring was down despite powerplay having been up.


His peak numbers (say 89, 93 and 96 seasons) PPO were at 5.04, 5.28, 5.04, no DPE season went above 4.7, they were 4.1-4.64-4.03-4.59-4.13-4.42-4.24

At age 35, In 00/01 and dominates as much, perhaps more so than in 96/97 , and not just on the PP.

In 1997, Lemieux after playing 41 games had 29 goals-74 pts- +19, quite the ridiculous (1.8 ppg in an under 3.0 goal per game nhl) start:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

In the next 35 games he coold down to a 21 goals, 48 pts, +8 rate. (1.37ppg that just below Selanne-Kariya pace that year)

Would he have not played more games after that points in 1997, we would not be saying this, playing a full season was an issue for Mario at that point, he always slowed down, in 1996 after 41 games he had 45 goals and 109 pts lol, that maybe breaking all time single season records pace.

I do not think we can say for sure that peak Lemieux would not have on a strong powerplay and superbe-winger situation (like Jagr) would not have pushed over the 2.0ppg line in the dpe, lower PPO could make it hard to reach those 2.60+ he did

 

[daver]

I don't really get the point here. I'm quite confident that Lemieux was very capable of playing very well in that era since a past his best Lemieux did so. Even in 2003 he was still the best offensive player in the NHL as almost a shell of his former self.

But would be have had the same level of dominance or does the gap between him and the league close a bit in a tighter checking and/or less PP opportunities environment?

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

A prime Lemieux still wins the art ross comfortably every year in the dead puck era. At age 31 and 35 he was about on par with a prime Jagr. Age 23-27 Lemieux beats him out by 20-30 points easy.

 

[MadLuke]

But would be have had the same level of dominance or does the gap between him and the league close a bit in a tighter checking and/or less PP opportunities environment?

If he play a lot with a peak (and motivated) Jagr at even strength with how the Pens coaching and team building would have been in a world with peak Mario on it and not the Constantine direction, the gap between those 2 and the rest of the league would have been probably massive. Mario probably put above 160 pts in his best DPE year and almost double the 10 place like he did in 1989.

1989 Mario playing with peak Jagr..... or 1999 Mario without a Jagr could be a bit different, the Mario gap with the rest of the non Wayne league is bigger back in high PPO year (like 89-93-96) because he was probably the best powerplay player in league history.

 

[JackSlater]

But would be have had the same level of dominance or does the gap between him and the league close a bit in a tighter checking and/or less PP opportunities environment?

I'm open, I think more than most are, to arguments that some players are more suited to certain eras. It's obvious to me that not all players perform the same relative to each other depending on team or league circumstances. I don't see it here though. In 1997 Lemieux was clearly past his best at 31 and with consistent health issues for years, and he still comfortably led the NHL in scoring. Above an elite tandem near their peaks in Selanne and Kariya, above the paces of prime Jagr, Lindros, and Forsberg etc. Then by 2003 you have Lemieux, at that point due to physical issues the slowest skater in the NHL, still the best offensive player in the league, which was more apparent before Pittsburgh packed it in for the year. Even theoretically, at Lemieux's size and with his brain I don't see why he wouldn't be able to dominate. If he wanted to.

The only argument I see is that if Lemieux isn't all that motivated given style of play he can get frustrated or pack it in, basically like what happened at the end of that 1997 season. Or that he loses some relative dominance in a low powerplay environment since he's probably the best powerplay player ever. I think that Lemieux knew that Pittsburgh wasn't going near the Stanley Cup in 1997, plus he gave himself a strong defensive centre and an elite possession linemate, who both happen to be top level scorers, as linemates. I do not think it was a highly motivated Lemieux that year or a particularly physically fit Lemieux, but he did put himself in a great situation to score.

 

[VanIslander]

A prime Lemieux still wins the art ross comfortably every year in the dead puck era. At age 31 and 35 he was about on par with a prime Jagr. Age 23-27 Lemieux beats him out by 20-30 points easy.

Andyethedidnt.
Luigifanboy2024.
Goodonya!

 

[WarriorofTime]

1996-97 is not DPE. 2.92 goals per game with goalies at 2.80 GAA, it's a big step back and sign of what to come but not that low scoring of a season.

1997-98 - 2003-04 is DPE proper. 2.64, 2.63, 2.75, 2.76, 2.62, 2.65 and 2.57 during those 7 seasons.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

You have to get deep into Page 4 to find M. Lemieux because the reality is he didn't play much in the DPE due to a 3-year retirement followed by a bunch of partial seasons. 207 points in 144 games is still fantastic and top PPG for the period, but the sample size is really small to guess what he might have done in a larger sample as the most we have in a single season games played is 67 GP with a strong 91 points (8th in Art Ross).

Guessing what he does in a full season, and especially in his prime, is more speculative but we can presume it'd be elite.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

1996-97 is not DPE. 2.92 goals per game with goalies at 2.80 GAA, it's a big step back and sign of what to come but not that low scoring of a season.

1997-98 - 2003-04 is DPE proper. 2.64, 2.63, 2.75, 2.76, 2.62, 2.65 and 2.57 during those 7 seasons.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

You have to get deep into Page 4 to find M. Lemieux because the reality is he didn't play much in the DPE due to a 3-year retirement followed by a bunch of partial seasons. 207 points in 144 games is still fantastic and top PPG for the period, but the sample size is really small to guess what he might have done in a larger sample as the most we have in a single season games played is 67 GP with a strong 91 points (8th in Art Ross).

Guessing what he does in a full season, and especially in his prime, is more speculative but we can presume it'd be elite.

I think it's a given he'd be ultra elite in his prime during the DPE. Those small samples of him playing in the DPE are post-injury Mario in his mid-30's and beyond. His 76 points in 43 games in 2000-2001 is just a small insight of how dominant he could be....at age 35...

 

[MadLuke]

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Post Mario return in the 2000-2001 season

Jagr...: 33G-85 pts (1.87 ppg)
Lemieux: 35G-76 pts (1.77 ppg)
Sakic..: 34G-70 pts (1.52 ppg)
Bure...: 40G-62 pts (1.32 ppg)

Jagr-Sakic did keep up really well, ability to play all the games helping them, which was their peak version playing at their best, but I think it is also in hindsight on how (if they are both motivated and played together) just how much Jagr would have scored from 96 to 2001 with a young Mario, 1.8 pgg (around 145pts for a full season) from 96-01 Jagr if he play on a young 70+ game a year Mario would not surprise me, that would only be 0.25 ppg above what he actually did.

Lemieux did not had the mileage of certain star of that age but still, 35.5 years old, that 2022-2023 Crosby age

 

[Regal]

But would be have had the same level of dominance or does the gap between him and the league close a bit in a tighter checking and/or less PP opportunities environment?

PP goals made up pretty much the same percentage of goals for the DPE as for Lemieux’s prime. From 87-88 to 95-96, PP goals accounted for 27.7% of all goals and from 97-98 to 03-04, they accounted for 26.2% of all goals. I’m not sure if fewer opportunities overall should have affected his dominance.

 

[JianYang]

Lemieux would have THRIVED in such a non-physical ref'd era as today.

A friggin' 5'11 Lithuanian cleaned his clock repeatedly, getting Mario to ask the team to acquire him to not have to face him.

Plus, another less than 6 footer, Michael Peca, was often called 'Captain Crunch' as he put Lindros and other giants down with hits to the head when they had their heads down during the "Dead

Ulanov had a ton of battles with lindros too. Different times....

Wasn't peca the one that obliterated selanne in the playoffs one year? I vaguely remember but people didn't used to talk about headshots back then. They were just "hits".

 

[VanIslander]

To be clear: Mario & Lindros were NOT built for the DPE. They were built for juniors, for dominating with size, for heads down rushes in an era where heads up spidey sense was key; heck, Jagr had his clock cleans repeatedly.

Guys like Gretzky, Oates, Forsberg... dish off or pivot, not head down plow...

Ovechkin took off several heads early in his career.



I have always said - and say still - the better player between Ovechkin & Crosby is this multidensional guy:

Crosby without the puck was a nonfactor compared to OV:

 

[VanIslander]

The NHL today was built for figure skaters.

 

[Hippasus]

To be clear: Mario & Lindros were NOT built for the DPE. They were built for juniors, for dominating with size, for heads down rushes in an era where heads up spidey sense was key; heck, Jagr had his clock cleans repeatedly.

Guys like Gretzky, Oates, Forsberg... dish off or pivot, not head down plow...

Ovechkin took off several heads early in his career.



I have always said - and say still - the better player between Ovechkin & Crosby is this multidensional guy:

Crosby without the puck was a nonfactor compared to OV:

Lemieux complained about obstruction a lot, but on a per-game basis, he dominated offensively more than anyone in the DPE. Jagr and Forsberg were probably somewhat close in this regard.

 

[JackSlater]

To be clear: Mario & Lindros were NOT built for the DPE. They were built for juniors, for dominating with size, for heads down rushes in an era where heads up spidey sense was key; heck, Jagr had his clock cleans repeatedly.

Guys like Gretzky, Oates, Forsberg... dish off or pivot, not head down plow...

Ovechkin took off several heads early in his career.



I have always said - and say still - the better player between Ovechkin & Crosby is this multidensional guy:

Crosby without the puck was a nonfactor compared to OV:

Weird that you've always said that and yet you had Crosby clearly ahead of that multidimensional guy on the hfboards top 100 vote.

I do think that Ovechkin would be well suited to the late 90s early 2000s though.

 

[VanIslander]

skill & achievements = greatness.

Aaron Rogers is the best qb i've ever seen but that guy Belichick coached in New England is the greatest.

Gretzky is The Great One. No doubt.

OV had more skill; Crosby in the end, more greatness.

I am the last person pining Lindros as a top-100 player ever. Heck, he ain't top 200 in my books.

Hence, i have dared to kick Orr to at least 3rd all time (have said he next tier no better than 5th - but the vitriol was endless - the power of Don Cherry is real).

I have a hard time making a top 10 list that doesn't have Roy, Hasek, Messier.

It ain't ring counting. Henri Richard has 10 or 11 Stanley Cup victories and consistently goes 50th-ish in all-time great drafts, but i'll never draft him 'cuz he ain't in my top 100. Consider team vs. individual accomplishments, skill... give me an Andy Bathgate, an Adam Oates, a Glenn Hall,... the epitome of this latest point in that guy until his late career trade: Raymond Bourque!

 

[JackSlater]

skill & achievements = greatness.

Aaron Rogers is the best qb i've ever seen but that guy Belichick coached in New England is the greatest.

Gretzky is The Great One. No doubt.

OV had more skill; Crosby in the end, more greatness.

I am the last person pining Lindros as a top-100 player ever. Heck, he ain't top 200 in my books.

Hence, i have dared to kick Orr to at least 3rd all time (have said he next tier no better than 5th - but the vitriol was endless - the power of Don Cherry is real).

I have a hard time making a top 10 list that doesn't have Roy, Hasek, Messier.

It ain't ring counting. Henri Richard has 10 or 11 Stanley Cup victories and consistently goes 50th-ish in all-time great drafts, but i'll never draft him 'cuz he ain't in my top 100. Consider team vs. individual accomplishments, skill... give me an Andy Bathgate, an Adam Oates, a Glenn Hall,... the epitome of this latest point in that guy until his late career trade: Raymond Bourque!

Weird that you ranked Roy and Messier comfortably outside your top ten and had Lindros well within your top 100, almost top 50, better yet your top 200. Opinions can change I guess, not that these guys have played in the last five years, but at least you didn't claim that you have always said this.

 

[VanIslander]

Wa....? No way.
I have never listed Lindros top 100.
"JackSlater"... you are

 

[JackSlater]

Wa....? No way.
I have never listed Lindros top 100.
"JackSlater"... you are

Seems like you ranked him 58 before.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The votes of the top 100 project are all public.

So we can see things like

Orr at 2
Crosby at 10
Roy at 15
Bourque at 16
Messier at 22
Lidstrom at 32
Lindros at 58

Which doesn't indicate a high value of longevity.

 

[VanIslander]

Crazy