What is Mario Lemieux's best season

[Lafleurs Guy]

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?

We don't.

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.

I don't think so.

 

[TheStatican]

Lemieux outscored Jagr by 7 goals and 12 points while playing in 12 LESS games.
McDavid outscored MacKinnon by 22 goals and 42 points while playing in 11 MORE games.

Prorated to 82 games Lemieux outscored Jagr by 19 goals and 40 points, with Jagr pacing to have 9 or10 more es points.
Granted I agree his missed games helped Lemieux maintain a higher per-game scoring rate, but I still have little doubt that he would have cleared Jagr by about 30 points had he played all 82.

Prorated to 82 games McDavid outscored MacKinnon by 15 goals and 25 points, with MacKinnon pacing to have 13 more es points.

It's entirely comparable; the gap between Lemieux and Jagr in 95-96 is virtually identical to the gap between McDavid and MacKinnon in 22-23. Which for the record I would say was not a huge gap in both cases when you consider ES performances.

 

[Video Nasty]

We don't.

I don't think so.

That’s not true. His missed time is a heavily romanticized aspect of his career.

Fair enough. I’m certainly fine with it being a 1-A and 1-B situation. They’re my two favorite players, but I like the one who did everything first, better, and faster a little more.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

That’s not true. His missed time is a heavily romanticized aspect of his career.

Fair enough. I’m certainly fine with it being a 1-A and 1-B situation. They’re my two favorite players, but I like the one who did everything first, better, and faster a little more.

He was healthier and he had better teams. Better? No. I'll take Lemieux.

 

[TheStatican]

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...

I take it this will come as a surprise to you, but people trend to accumulate more of something when given more opportunities to do so.

The focus here isn't on assessing overall value or contribution to a team; it's about pure performance in a given context. And there's absolutely zero doubt that these players, considering their quality, would have continued to excel had they been given more opportunities to do so.

 

[norrisnick]

I take it this will come as a surprise to you, but people trend to accumulate more of something when given more opportunities to do so.

The focus here isn't on assessing overall value or contribution to a team; it's about pure performance in a given context. And there's absolutely zero doubt that these players, considering their quality, would have continued to excel had they been given more opportunities to do so.

These opportunities aren't "given" they're earned through hard work.

 

[TheStatican]

These opportunities aren't "given" they're earned through hard work.

Fate must be a fickle bitch indeed to randomly injury MacKinnon and deprive him of those opportunities, but I guess it decided he just didn't earn the right to play in those games.

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?

In furtherance to this here's what an actual fair comparison looks like with doesn't require any extrapolation; The actual stats Jagr put up in Lemieux's 70 games;

​	Gm​	G​	A​	PTS​	ES PT​
Lemeiux​	70​	62​	91​	161​	73​
Jagr​	70​	52​	83​	135​	83​
				+26​	-10​

And the stats McDavid and Mackinnon put up during the parts of the season where both actively playing in 22-23;

​	Gm​	G​	A​	PTS​	ES PT​
McDavid​	71​	54​	75​	129​	65​
Mackinnon​	71​	42​	69​	111​	76​
				+18​	-11​

 

[Jets4Life]

1992-03, AINEC.

Lemieux was a head above just about everyone in the league that season. 27 years old at his prime, and in spite of the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, never missed a beat, and led the Pens to an NHL record 17 game winning streak to end the season with the Presidents Trophy.

1988-89 Lemieux was impressive, but the problem is that he started off on all cylinders, and levelled off a bit towards the end of the season, preventing him from ever reaching the 200 point mark. Pittsburgh made the playoffs for the first time since 1982, but he did not really shift gears in the playoffs, and were upset by the Flyers.

1995-96 Lemieux had an MVP season, but he was not the dominant player he was in 1992-03. Perhaps it would have been different if he had dominated and led the Pens to a Stanley Cup, but he was hampered by Florida's neural zone trap, and all the clutching and grabbing.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

1988-1989. That was probably better than Gretzky's best season considering who his linemates were.

 

[Midnight Judges]

In furtherance to this here's what an actual fair comparison looks like with doesn't require any extrapolation; The actual stats Jagr put up in Lemieux's 70 games;

​	Gm​	G​	A​	PTS​	ES PT​
Lemeiux​	70​	62​	91​	161​	73​
Jagr​	70​	52​	83​	135​	83​
				+26​	-10​

​

So since Lemieux wasn't durable enough to play all the games, you're going to punish Jagr by pretending he didn't contribute things that he actually contributed?

That is worse than an extrapolation.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

1992-03, AINEC.

Lemieux was a head above just about everyone in the league that season. 27 years old at his prime, and in spite of the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, never missed a beat, and led the Pens to an NHL record 17 game winning streak to end the season with the Presidents Trophy.

1988-89 Lemieux was impressive, but the problem is that he started off on all cylinders, and levelled off a bit towards the end of the season, preventing him from ever reaching the 200 point mark. Pittsburgh made the playoffs for the first time since 1982, but he did not really shift gears in the playoffs, and were upset by the Flyers.

1995-96 Lemieux had an MVP season, but he was not the dominant player he was in 1992-03. Perhaps it would have been different if he had dominated and led the Pens to a Stanley Cup, but he was hampered by Florida's neural zone trap, and all the clutching and grabbing.

In 88-89 he had to have someone tie his skates for him his back was so bad.

 

[TheStatican]

So since Lemieux wasn't durable enough to play all the games, you're going to punish Jagr by pretending he didn't contribute things that he actually contributed?

That is worse than an extrapolation.

So durability is entirely a time homed skill that is 100% fully in a players control and has nothing to do with innate factors like genetics, joint structure and muscle composition nor completely uncontrollable external factors like the quality of their medical support. Gotcha Dr Phil.

It funny though, how during the time when Jagr started to peak and challenge Lemieux for the title of the game's best (1995-1997), it was actually Jagr who missed more games and "contributed less"

 

[Midnight Judges]

So durability is entirely a time homed skill that is 100% fully in a players control and has nothing to do with innate factors like genetics, joint structure and muscle composition nor completely uncontrollable external factors like the quality of their medical support. Gotcha Dr Phil.

It funny though, how during the time when Jagr started to peak and challenge Lemieux for the title of the game's best (1995-1997), it was actually Jagr who missed more games and "contributed less"

Durability is a virtue in all professional sports.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

1992-03, AINEC.

Lemieux was a head above just about everyone in the league that season. 27 years old at his prime, and in spite of the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, never missed a beat, and led the Pens to an NHL record 17 game winning streak to end the season with the Presidents Trophy.

1988-89 Lemieux was impressive, but the problem is that he started off on all cylinders, and levelled off a bit towards the end of the season, preventing him from ever reaching the 200 point mark. Pittsburgh made the playoffs for the first time since 1982, but he did not really shift gears in the playoffs, and were upset by the Flyers.

1995-96 Lemieux had an MVP season, but he was not the dominant player he was in 1992-03. Perhaps it would have been different if he had dominated and led the Pens to a Stanley Cup, but he was hampered by Florida's neural zone trap, and all the clutching and grabbing.

Lemieux actually ended the season strong. Only reason he missed 200 was the 4 missed games

Lemieux actually ended the season strong. Only reason he missed 200 was the 4 missed games. There was slso a goal that was called a save where the puck was clearly in