What is Mario Lemieux's best season

[Toby91ca]

Rob Brown with 115pts in 88-89 has got to be one of the funniest statistical outliers in league history. He broke 60 in only one other season and played 15 years.

Tough question, I've never loved pace arguments for hockey seasons but in a player of Mario's caliber it's a little different. Went with 89 because that was a great year for hockey

The same year, Nicholls had a career year by 24 goals and 50pts, compared to Brown's career year by 16 goals and 35pts. I think Brown just looks like it's crazy simply because of the rest of his career vs. some guys that were really goo and put up good stats, but still had a huge outlier like Nicholls that year. 92/93 had some as well like Lafontaine, 43pts more than any other year in his career.

 

[Toby91ca]

So answer me this question? Was it close between mack n mc during the 2022-23 season? If your answer is no....then you have no basis to be saying it was close between mario n jagr during the 1996 season

How so. You don't think it's closer between Mario and Jagr in 1996 where Lemieux outscored him by 7 goals and 12pts while scoring 22 less points at EV compared to McDavid and MacKinnon in 2023 where McDavid outscored him by 22 goals and 42pts while scoring 2 less points at EV?

What am I missing?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Maybe, but there were 4 guys that scored 150+ points that year, which is why I went with 92/93....the only hesitation in going with that year is him missing 20 games vs. playing a full season, otherwise, it would have been a simple question.

That’s a little disengenious, the same 4 were also all above 115+ as they were 150+
Between 115-149 there is also only 1, at 115, the minimum.
Whereas 92/93 has 10

I’m saying 88/89

 

[Toby91ca]

That’s a little disengenious, the same 4 were also all above 115+ as they were 150+
Between 115-149 there is also only 1, at 115, the minimum.
Whereas 92/93 has 10

I’m saying 88/89

I'm not sure what you mean by the same 4 were also all above 115+ as they were 150+.

Anyway, I also look at Mario with 2.67PPG in 92/93 with #2 coming in at 1.76. Compare that to 88/89 with Lemieux at 2.62PPG and 3 other guys above 1.90.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I'm not sure what you mean by the same 4 were also all above 115+ as they were 150+.

pretty straightforward there were no players between 116-150
In 88/89.
Whereas in 92/93 there were 9-10 in that range.
@Hockeyoutsider already laid all this out, and I agree.

Anyway, I also look at Mario with 2.67PPG in 92/93 with #2 coming in at 1.76. Compare that to 88/89 with Lemieux at 2.62PPG and 3 other guys above 1.90.

Mario had much more help in 92/93 on his team, than 92/93.
88/89 is more impressive, looking at his line mates.

 

[Toby91ca]

pretty straightforward there were no players between 116-150
In 88/89.
Whereas in 92/93 there were 9-10 in that range.
@Hockeyoutsider already laid all this out, and I agree.

Mario had much more help in 92/93 on his team, than 92/93.
88/89 is more impressive, looking at his line mates.

Ok...I wasn't sure what was meant by same 4....but yeah, I get that a lot of guys scored a lot of points in 92/93.....I just found that Mario's separation from the pack was much more significant in 92/93 vs. 88/89. I must say, I was never the biggest Mario fan, so didn't pay close enough attention to him to dissect too deep.

 

[jigglysquishy]

If you compare the top 50 scorers between the two seasons I think it's pretty clear that 1992-93 is the overall higher scoring year, even if the top end is higher in 1988-89.

 

[Stealth JD]

‘02-‘03 when he was crippled, old and back from retirement

 

[Rorschach]

None of the above. 1991 Playoffs season.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

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

Unfortunately he wasn’t fully healthy in 89. If he was he’d have broken the goals and points record.

 

[Video Nasty]

Unfortunately he wasn’t fully healthy in 89. If he was he’d have broken the goals and points record.

And if Gretzky was fully healthy in 1983-1984, the goals and points record would be even higher and 1988-1989 Lemieux still wouldn’t have broken them.

See how pointless this is?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

And if Gretzky was fully healthy in 1983-1984, the goals and points record would be even higher and 1988-1989 Lemieux still wouldn’t have broken them.

See how pointless this is?

Not the same thing. Lemieux played the 2nd half of the season with a bad back. By the end of December Lemieux was on pace for a 231 point season. 96 goals to go with it. That is an insane pace.

By the time spring rolled around, he had to have somebody tie his skates for him.

And not for nothing... he did it on a team of scrubs.

 

[boredmale]

I go with 88-89. Just doing the comparison to 92-93, they basically were equal in PPG and GPG with 92/3 being just a smidgen higher. The difference is in 88-89 actually played 76 games so we have less to speculate how many points he would have ended up if he played a full season

 

[Video Nasty]

Not the same thing. Lemieux played the 2nd half of the season with a bad back. By the end of December Lemieux was on pace for a 231 point season. 96 goals to go with it. That is an insane pace.

By the time spring rolled around, he had to have somebody tie his skates for him.

And not for nothing... he did it on a team of scrubs.

Lol, it’s never the same, is it? Because even Gretzky can be projected out higher, as uncomfortable as that is to consider.

Gretzky was on pace for 240 points through the end of January in 1983-1984 after playing with an injured shoulder for a week leading up to 51 game point streak being snapped, and then being sidelined for six games.

You’re talking about pacing for 96 goals and 231 points through 36 games. I’m talking about pacing for 96 goals and 240 points through 51 games.

In the end, the real world results tell us everything we need to know. Gretzky crossed 200 four times and had 9 seasons of 160+ points versus 0 and 4 for Lemieux.

 

[KevinRedkey]

How impressive something is, has zero bearing on it being better than something else. Something can be both better and more impressive - bit it's not always the case.

I'll take 88-89 as it's the best season he had. Having him on the ice for a number of meaningful games far outweighs the statistical per-game advantage the other 2 seasons offer.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Lol, it’s never the same, is it? Because even Gretzky can be projected out higher, as uncomfortable as that is to consider.

Gretzky was on pace for 240 points through the end of January in 1983-1984 after playing with an injured shoulder for a week leading up to 51 game point streak being snapped, and then being sidelined for six games.

You’re talking about pacing for 96 goals and 231 points through 36 games. I’m talking about pacing for 96 goals and 240 points through 51 games.

In the end, the real world results tell us everything we need to know. Gretzky crossed 200 four times and had 9 seasons of 160+ points versus 0 and 4 for Lemieux.

Gretzky was healthier. Gretzky played on far better teams. Those are the facts and they are indispituable. I'd also add that Gretzky had the better career (I think most would agree for this to be a fact as well.)

That does not mean he was the better player. That is a completely different question.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Not the same thing. Lemieux played the 2nd half of the season with a bad back. By the end of December Lemieux was on pace for a 231 point season. 96 goals to go with it. That is an insane pace.

By the time spring rolled around, he had to have somebody tie his skates for him.

And not for nothing... he did it on a team of scrubs.

Gretzky 1983-84. December 31 was on pace for 232 points (86 goals).

When he got hurt he was on just a torrid pace.

After 51 games on pace for

96 goals 144 assists 240 points

Gretzky's shoulder never really got back up to 100% afterwards.

 

[Video Nasty]

Gretzky was healthier. Gretzky played on far better teams. Those are the facts and they are indispituable. I'd also add that Gretzky had the better career (I think most would agree for this to be a fact as well.)

That does not mean he was the better player. That is a completely different question.

1. Why does Gretzky get a negative strike because Lemieux refused to stretch or commit to a conditioning regimen?

2. You’re caught up in what the Oilers became, due to having Gretzky mold and lead them. His first two seasons and what he was able to do proves he was always a step above Lemieux.

 

[Coffees]

1. Why does Gretzky get a negative strike because Lemieux refused to stretch or commit to a conditioning regimen?

2. You’re caught up in what the Oilers became, due to having Gretzky mold and lead them. His first two seasons and what he was able to do proves he was always a step above Lemieux.

Hey! You're the guy @Empoleon8771 warned us about

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

1. Why does Gretzky get a negative strike because Lemieux refused to stretch or commit to a conditioning regimen?

2. You’re caught up in what the Oilers became, due to having Gretzky mold and lead them. His first two seasons and what he was able to do proves he was always a step above Lemieux.

1. He doesn’t.

2. Sure, I think Gretz deserves some credit. But it was a better team. He didn’t magically turn Paul Coffey into the best skater in the league. Mark Messier is one of the best power forwards ever. He had a lot to work with. The Penguins started with scratch when they drafted Lemieux. Completely different situation.

 

[TheStatican]

How so. You don't think it's closer between Mario and Jagr in 1996 where Lemieux outscored him by 7 goals and 12pts while scoring 22 less points at EV compared to McDavid and MacKinnon in 2023 where McDavid outscored him by 22 goals and 42pts while scoring 2 less points at EV?

What am I missing?

A thing called GAMES PLAYED.

 

[Video Nasty]

Hey! You're the guy @Empoleon8771 warned us about

 

[Video Nasty]

1. He doesn’t.

2. Sure, I think Gretz deserves some credit. But it was a better team. He didn’t magically turn Paul Coffey into the best skater in the league. Mark Messier is one of the best power forwards ever. He had a lot to work with. The Penguins started with scratch when they drafted Lemieux. Completely different situation.

So if we’re not giving Gretzky credit for being healthy (for awhile), why do we have to romanticize Lemieux’s injuries, some of which were very much preventable or able to be mitigated?

There’s zero reason to believe that Gretzky wouldn’t have gotten more out of the Penguins than Lemieux did. He was a better player.

 

[SomeDude]

It's pretty crazy that his 00-01 season after 3.5 years off and coming back to globe trot the league while almost scoring a goal per game isn't a real contender. What a player.

 

[norrisnick]

A thing called GAMES PLAYED.

It's always so jarring to see lower games played being tossed around as if it's a positive in a debate between players. It's telling that it's seemingly inconceivable to some that a player can provide value in a game without scoring...