What is Mario Lemieux's best season

[slapKing]

Out of these 3 seasons by Mario, which one do you think is the best?

Click to read more...

 

[bobholly39]

1992-1993 pretty easily.

It's nice that he did it for a full season in 1989, but to me what he accomplished in 1992-1993 is much more memorable, and I have it in consideration for the greatest season ever, by any player.

1995-1996 is great also, and a testament to how great and talented he was and what he might have accomplished even later in his career had he not had all those health issues (and, retired early) - but despite that, to me it's clearly #3 here.

 

[Cup or Bust]

1992-93 was pretty amazing. I believe if he was able to play the whole season he would have broken the goal and point record that year.

 

[DrDangles]

92-93 is the most impressive season in all of pro sports considering the circumstances surrounding it.

 

[McFlash97]

160 in 60

its up there as one of the greatest shortened seasons in pro sports.

 

[bobholly39]

1992-93 was pretty amazing. I believe if he was able to play the whole season he would have broken the goal and point record that year.

He might have.

For what it's worth though:

First 40 games he had 39 goals and 104 points - so pace of 218 points in 84 games and 82 goals. Gretzky's record is 215 (80 games) and 92 goals .

After he came back, in remaining 20 games he had 30 goals and 56 points. Pace of 126 goals (lol) in 84 games and 230 points.

He was clearly extra motivated upon his return and producing at a higher clip. If he hadn't had the cancer and hadn't missed any games to health/injuries - could he have found that extra gear to pace closer to those records? It's possible - this is Mario Lemieux after all - but not a guarantee.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

89 was probably lemieux at his physical peak and the only time he was ever fully healthy. 93 was a combination of that physical peak with the veteran experience. Plus the cancer and he was also a much more dominant ev scorer 96 in 60 compared to 102 in 76. Close but 92-93 for most impressive. But 89 is probably his best season. Can't say no to 199

 

[Hockey Outsider]

1992-1993 pretty easily.

It's nice that he did it for a full season in 1989, but to me what he accomplished in 1992-1993 is much more memorable, and I have it in consideration for the greatest season ever, by any player.

1995-1996 is great also, and a testament to how great and talented he was and what he might have accomplished even later in his career had he not had all those health issues (and, retired early) - but despite that, to me it's clearly #3 here.

Maybe it's semantics, but I've always viewed his 1993 season as his most impressive and most memorable. Coming back to win the Hart and Art Ross after missing a quarter of the season for radiation treatment? It's unimaginable. You couldn't write a movie about it, because nobody would consider it believable.

But the best season? I'd have to go with 1989. He scored 16 more goals and 23 more assists (39 more points). He did that on a much weaker team. And it was harder in 1989 for players to reach big point totals (there were 21 players with 100 points in 1993 and only 9 in 1989).

Obviously Lemieux scored more in 1989 because he didn't miss a quarter of the season. But if the question is which season was better (rather than most impressive/unique)? I think you have to go with the one where he played more games, scored 39 more points, on a weaker team, in a tougher scoring environment.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

89 - physical peak
93 - slightly less physical ability but more experience
96 - relying mostly on experience as he'd clearly lost a step

He was the better overall player in 92-93 imo and the circumstances were memorable to say the least. Purely best regular season though probably 88-89. Better player 93, better season 89.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I firmly believe that an 89 lemieux would outscore any incarnation of gretzky given similar teams.

 

[bobbyking]

if you prorate Gretzky's best ppg season he will still best Mario's best ppg season. 80s was very high scoring.

 

[centipede2233]

if you prorate Gretzky's best ppg season he will still best Mario's best ppg season. 80s was very high scoring.

Your wrong. Lemieux has 3 of the highest 4 adjusted ppg seasons in nhl history.

NHL era adjusted stats

This analysis uses Hockey Reference's adjusted Statistics, which allows us to more fairly compare players from different scoring eras. We're also going to limit our analysis to post WW2 (actually I included Maurice Richard too, who started in 1943). Why exclude season's prior to 1945? Because...

observablehq.com

its the second graph as you scroll down

 

[BLNY]

1992-93 pretty easily for me.

Battles lymphoma and puts up a 80 game pace of 92 goals and 213 points.

 

[Staniowski]

I think '96 was the weakest of the three....his game declined significantly by then because of his injuries....but of course he could still score in his sleep.

You could argue for either '89 or '93....he was healthy, more agile, etc. in '89, but a little savvier in '93.

We didn't see Lemieux at his best, though....there were big expectations for him heading into the '90s, but he was never the same after '89, due to his back injuries.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Lemieux got completely and utterly robbed of the Hart trophy in 1988-89.

1st in goals (85)
1st in assists (114)
1st in points (199)

31 points more than 2nd place (Wayne Gretzky) while playing two fewer games.

B...b...but Gretzky helped improve LA's point totals! They made the playoffs because of him!

Congrats? Lemieux helped the Penguins' point totals as well, the only difference is that since he was on the Penguins the previous season, they didn't shoot up massively in the standings like LA did.

The fact that Mario only has three Hart trophies is a complete joke.

 

[authentic]

Lemieux got completely and utterly robbed of the Hart trophy in 1988-89.

1st in goals (85)
1st in assists (114)
1st in points (199)

31 points more than 2nd place (Wayne Gretzky) while playing two fewer games.

B...b...but Gretzky helped improve LA's point totals! They made the playoffs because of him!

Congrats? Lemieux helped the Penguins' point totals as well, the only difference is that since he was on the Penguins the previous season, they didn't shoot up massively in the standings like LA did.

The fact that Mario only has three Hart trophies is a complete joke.

This is why it’s not great to judge the ability of players based on trophy cases

 

[Video Nasty]

Lemieux got completely and utterly robbed of the Hart trophy in 1988-89.

1st in goals (85)
1st in assists (114)
1st in points (199)

31 points more than 2nd place (Wayne Gretzky) while playing two fewer games.

B...b...but Gretzky helped improve LA's point totals! They made the playoffs because of him!

Congrats? Lemieux helped the Penguins' point totals as well, the only difference is that since he was on the Penguins the previous season, they didn't shoot up massively in the standings like LA did.

The fact that Mario only has three Hart trophies is a complete joke.

Gretzky took a Kings squad that had finished 18th place in a 21 team league who got outscored by 41 goals into a 4th place team (3rd in Wins) that outscored opponents by 41 goals. That’s a whole goal per game swing.

You may not like it, but the Penguins only improved by 6 points. Mario just won the Hart in the previous season despite not leading the Penguins to a playoff spot in a league where 16 out of 21 teams got in.

It’s not the robbery you think it is. How can you cry foul when Mario had just won it when traditionally you had to make the playoffs to get recognized?

There’s no question that narrative played a role, as it always does, but Gretzky made an immediate impact that was tangible.

Even the players thought Yzerman had a better year than Mario (he was given the Pearson) and depending on when it suits someone’s argument, that’s often taken as gospel around here.

Personally, either Gretzky or Lemieux were deserving winners so either choice is fine with me, but acting like it was a screw job is ridiculous when the case was clearly there.

As for the poll, I have to go with 1992-1993. He had the numbers, he had the narrative, and it is still a staggering accomplishment that remains forever in hockey lore.

 

[MakeTheGoalsLarger]

I'd say 89 because the team wasn't stacked yet.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Gretzky took a Kings squad that had finished 18th place in a 21 team league who got outscored by 41 goals into a 4th place team (3rd in Wins) that outscored opponents by 41 goals. That’s a whole goal per game swing.

You may not like it, but the Penguins only improved by 6 points. Mario just won the Hart in the previous season despite not leading the Penguins to a playoff spot in a league where 16 out of 21 teams got in.

It’s not the robbery you think it is. How can you cry foul when Mario had just won it when traditionally you had to make the playoffs to get recognized?

There’s no question that narrative played a role, as it always does, but Gretzky made an immediate impact that was tangible.

Even the players thought Yzerman had a better year than Mario (he was given the Pearson) and depending on when it suits someone’s argument, that’s often taken as gospel around here.

Personally, either Gretzky or Lemieux were deserving winners so either choice is fine with me, but acting like it was a screw job is ridiculous when the case was clearly there.

As for the poll, I have to go with 1992-1993. He had the numbers, he had the narrative, and it is still a staggering accomplishment that remains forever in hockey lore.

The 1987-88 Penguins' top scorers were: Dan Quinn, Randy Cunningworth, Paul Coffey, Doug Bodger, Rob Brown and Dave Hunter. That team would be in the dumpster without Lemieux.

He won the Hart that season because he scored more than double the amount of points as the second-place player on his team and decisively won the Art Ross over Gretzky.

If you remove Lemiuex from the 1987-88 Penguins, they would've finished significantly lower in the standings.

Then adding Lemieux the next season would've improved the team by a lot more than just 6 points.

So the argument that Gretzky improved LA's point totals should not be used against Lemieux because they are completely different situations.

If Gretzky had improved Edmonton's point totals by an insane amount, then that would be a similar comparison.

 

[Regal]

Gretzky took a Kings squad that had finished 18th place in a 21 team league who got outscored by 41 goals into a 4th place team (3rd in Wins) that outscored opponents by 41 goals. That’s a whole goal per game swing.

You may not like it, but the Penguins only improved by 6 points. Mario just won the Hart in the previous season despite not leading the Penguins to a playoff spot in a league where 16 out of 21 teams got in.

It’s not the robbery you think it is. How can you cry foul when Mario had just won it when traditionally you had to make the playoffs to get recognized?

There’s no question that narrative played a role, as it always does, but Gretzky made an immediate impact that was tangible.

Even the players thought Yzerman had a better year than Mario (he was given the Pearson) and depending on when it suits someone’s argument, that’s often taken as gospel around here.

Personally, either Gretzky or Lemieux were deserving winners so either choice is fine with me, but acting like it was a screw job is ridiculous when the case was clearly there.

As for the poll, I have to go with 1992-1993. He had the numbers, he had the narrative, and it is still a staggering accomplishment that remains forever in hockey lore.

His entire point is that the narrative of improving the team one year to the next is stupid. Like kindergarten logic stupid. The Pens “only improved 6 points” because Lemieux was on the damn team the year before. If Lemieux wasn’t on the Pens the previous year and it was Gretzky’s second year the Kings, the Pens would have improved more, but it still wouldn’t have changed a single thing about their value to their teams within that season.

 

[Video Nasty]

The 1987-88 Penguins' top scorers were: Dan Quinn, Randy Cunningworth, Paul Coffey, Doug Bodger, Rob Brown and Dave Hunter. That team would be in the dumpster without Lemieux.

He won the Hart that season because he scored more than double the amount of points as the second-place player on his team and decisively won the Art Ross over Gretzky.

If you remove Lemiuex from the 1987-88 Penguins, they would've finished significantly lower in the standings.

Then adding Lemieux the next season would've improved the team by a lot more than just 6 points.

So the argument that Gretzky improved LA's point totals should not be used against Mario.

Right or wrong, I think part of the narrative was that we already watched Gretzky average more than 200 points per season for 5 consecutive years. For the first 2/3rds of the season, Mario was actually threatening to break 215. Ending up with 199 had to have felt a little anticlimactic.

I think we all know the Hart has a heavy narrative element built into it. I don’t blame people for giving credit to Gretzky for going to the Kings and transforming them into a top 4 regular season team after they were bottom 4 the year prior.

Maybe Mario would have taken the award if he played the 4 games he missed, finishes a little closer to Gretzky’s 92 goals and 215 points, and the Penguins finish just a little further up the standings.

Another component had to have been the poor finish for the Pens in the final 3rd of the season. They were 31-18-5 at one point and finished 9-15-2. Mario had 54 points in the 24 games (2.25 ppg) he played during that final stretch. So he had 145 in his first 52 (2.79 ppg) which means he was pacing for far more than what he ended up.

Too many elements that point to how Mario wasn’t really robbed and it makes sense he finished as the runner up.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Lemieux fans love to bitch about him getting "robbed" of the hart in 1989, but what about the absolute joke of a pearson/lindsay he won in 1986? Gretzky tore him a new hole in pts (215-141, a 74pt gap) but I never see any Lemieux fan complaining about that. It's always this fantasy world where only he was injured, only he was robbed, etc.

 

[Regal]

Lemieux fans love to bitch about him getting "robbed" of the hart in 1989, but what about the absolute joke of a pearson/lindsay he won in 1986? Gretzky tore him a new hole in pts (215-141, a 74pt gap) but I never see any Lemieux fan complaining about that. It's always this fantasy world where only he was injured, only he was robbed, etc.

I think a lot of people question poor Pearson choices in the 70s and 80s. Liut and Yzerman were also questionable.

 

[Neonmile]

Went with 92-93 but it`s very close with.... 95-96. Lower scoring rates kind of hide how great that season was. Once you take those into account, (6.28 goal per game in 96, vs 7.25 in 93 and 7.48 in 89), it`s almost tied with 1993, and slightly ahead of 1989. The presence of peak Jagr in 95-96 is what sway me to 92-93, with 88-89 in third.

 

[Samsquanch]

Lemieux got completely and utterly robbed of the Hart trophy in 1988-89.

1st in goals (85)
1st in assists (114)
1st in points (199)

31 points more than 2nd place (Wayne Gretzky) while playing two fewer games.

B...b...but Gretzky helped improve LA's point totals! They made the playoffs because of him!

Congrats? Lemieux helped the Penguins' point totals as well, the only difference is that since he was on the Penguins the previous season, they didn't shoot up massively in the standings like LA did.

The fact that Mario only has three Hart trophies is a complete joke.

Its the biggest robbery in the history of the Hart. Nothing else comes even close.

The Penguins first made the playoffs in 88-89 entirely on the back of Mario... The Kings had made the playoffs two prior years to Gretz arriving, and it had Robataille and a like a half dozen crazy mofos from Sudbury like Dave Taylor and Ron Dugay. They were solid AF.

Total joke and slap in Mario the magnificents face.