Which of the following scenarios would’ve been the best for Mario Lemieux’s legacy?

[Staniowski]

15 is far fetched, but why would it be impossible? From 1988- the early 00's no one really came close to him offensively. Even as an old man in the DPE he had the best ppg in the league.

Of course this logic could also apply to Gretzky, who lost some scoring titles due to injury(1988 especially) as well as the Suter hit. Lemieux being the main beneficiary when healthy of course.

It's not far-fetched at all. Without back pain, there's a very good chance Lemieux wins 15 scoring titles, or more. Nobody was close to him as a scorer, even when he wasn't close to healthy. Only father time, or injuries, would beat him.

Yes, Gretzky might have done it too with better health, but only excluding Lemieux.

The difference is a healthy Lemieux would always outscore Gretzky in the '90s (and beyond), whether Gretzky was healthy or not.

 

[Video Nasty]

A relatively healthy Lemieux probably wins 15 consecutive scoring titles.

It's not far-fetched at all. Without back pain, there's a very good chance Lemieux wins 15 scoring titles, or more. Nobody was close to him as a scorer, even when he wasn't close to healthy. Only father time, or injuries, would beat him.

Yes, Gretzky might have done it too with better health, but only excluding Lemieux.

The difference is a healthy Lemieux would always outscore Gretzky in the '90s (and beyond), whether Gretzky was healthy or not.

Of course it’s far-fetched. The most consistent and dominant scorer ever won 7 scoring races in a row (led in points 8 seasons in a row and lost due to the goals tie-breaker as a rookie), and you’re acting like it would have been no big deal for Lemieux to double that real life occurrence.

It’s far-fetched by nature because it requires him to run the table from age 23 to 37 to merely get to 15 in a row (he loses 1987-1988 if Gretzky doesn’t suffer the knee injury).

It’s also worth noting that we don’t know what a post-1990 healthy Gretzky looks like. The one we got sustained a lower back injury toward the end of the 1989-1990 season, got Sutered before the 1991-1992 season and saw his production fall off a cliff, began experiencing pain in his ribs toward the end of that season, and had it start up again before the 1992-1993 season where he was found to have what was feared to be a career threatening herniated disc injury. While being just 4 months away from turning 31 when he got Sutered and already having 1,075 games of NHL hockey in just 12 seasons under his belt.

Your last sentence just doesn’t have the power you think it does.

 

[MadLuke]

It’s far-fetched by nature because it requires him to run the table from age 23 to 37 to merely get to 15 in a row (he loses 1987-1988 if Gretzky doesn’t suffer the knee injury).

Considering he won the 1988 Art Ross... this is a thought experiment If Lemieux is healthy all else being equal, not if Lemieux and Gretzky are healthy. better reserved for the last sentence and for 90s and beyond.

I do not disagree about it being far fetched, an ultra dominant, so dominant that he has 90% of winning the art ross would have 20% chance of winning 15 in a row I think. To go over 50% we are speaking 96% chance of winning yearly and keeping that after you turn 30....

 

[Video Nasty]

Considering he won the 1988 Art Ross... this is a thought experiment If Lemieux is healthy all else being equal, not if Lemieux and Gretzky are healthy. better reserved for the last sentence and for 90s and beyond.

Are you agreeing with @Staniowski ?

15 in a row or more?

Do you believe that at minimum, Lemieux would have won every single Art Ross from 1987-1988 through 2001-2002, and then piled on at least another one (or more) while ages 37, 38, and 40, and not only that, but it was likely, probably, a very good chance, and all the ways he described it?

How is that not far-fetched? Not only is he being given extreme basically perfect health, but he is also immune to the normal aging of every other athlete ever? Come on.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I mean. 15 is clearly unreasonably. But he would win many more. If you give him "normal superstar health" he wins 90,91,94,95. That's 10. But after 1997, with ~250 more games played of wear and tear plus all the associated playoff games plus 1991 Canada Cup and the 1996 World Cup, he's going to lose a notable step. Aging hits everyone, doubly so with all the extra games played. Losing the back injury and cancer obviously helps a ton, but it's largely counteracted with ~300 games of getting checked.

The big x factor is Jagr. Are they still playing together? Does Jagr leave?

Maybe he wins 1998. Maybe even 1999. But I think getting to 500 games played extra will hurt anyone's health. Especially if they end up with deep and rough playoff runs.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

if it’s the late 90s and mario has been steadily playing 70+ game seasons for more than a decade plus deep playoff runs and i also have peak jagr, there is definitely going to be at least one year where i rest mario enough in the rs for jagr to steal an art ross

 

[MadLuke]

How is that not far-fetched? Not only is he being given extreme basically perfect health, but he is also immune to the normal aging of every other athlete ever? Come on.

Like I said:
I do not disagree about it being far fetched, an ultra dominant, so dominant that he has 90% of winning the art ross would have 20% chance of winning 15 in a row I think. To go over 50% we are speaking 96% chance of winning yearly and keeping that after you turn 30....

Beating Jagr in the late 90s-early 2000s, for an old Lemieux (healthy but much more hockey mileage, in the body and the mental) is far from certain and way under 50% change to happen 6 years in a row to me.

My statement that the thought experiment was obviously without an fully healthy Gretzky in 88, an everything else equal scenario.

One way to look at it, healthy Gretzky in a world without Mario, him it is easier to believe in (easier to imagine Mario letting one go).

Gretzky had the best ppg in the nhl from 1980 to 1992 including if we remove Mario. That 13 years, he did it again in 1994 and won the Ross again.

Healthy Gretzky winning 15 Ross in a row if there is no Mario Lemieux or he does not find his 1987 second gear is quite easy to believe, he almost did it (but maybe Mario challenging his numbers added an extra motivation..).

 

[Reindl87]

Well in a perfect world a healthy career, obviously. But that is just too much of a what if.
Therefore, it is threepeating in 93, which was absolutely realistic. Those Penguins would have a very streng case for the greaest team in history. This would have been a huge boost for Marios legacy.
Now for the comeback Option. After the 2001 season his comeback was pretty rough (outside of Team Canada succes) with all the tanking and his injury issues.
However, people forgett that it all could have endet in the perfect cinderella ending.
Despite being 40 years old before the 05 06 season things actually suddenly locker bright for Mario again.
The NHL had changed its rules and many people thought that Mario would benefit the most of these changes, helping to extend his career.
Furthermore, the Pens had aquired Fleury, Crosby and Malkin, so everybody knew that things finally will turn around.
Mario announced that he wanted to play three more years until 2008.
Well, we all know that things did not turn out Well for Mario.
However, the Pens did reach the finals in 2008.
So just imagine, if Mario just had had a little more left in the tank and no serious health issuess. Malkin already coming over in 05 would have helped, too.
It really could have been three good years for Mario with the perfect ending in 08.
It looks far fetched at first glance, but actually it wasn't.

 

[Staniowski]

Are you agreeing with @Staniowski ?

15 in a row or more?

Do you believe that at minimum, Lemieux would have won every single Art Ross from 1987-1988 through 2001-2002, and then piled on at least another one (or more) while ages 37, 38, and 40, and not only that, but it was likely, probably, a very good chance, and all the ways he described it?

How is that not far-fetched? Not only is he being given extreme basically perfect health, but he is also immune to the normal aging of every other athlete ever? Come on.

15 scoring titles for a relatively healthy Lemieux is actually a conservative estimate. He likely wins more than that.

These are the points-per-game leaders for '01 to '03 seasons (which goes beyond the 15 years), combined:

Lemieux - 1.48
Forsberg - 1.32
Jagr - 1.23
Sakic - 1.15

This is a run-down Lemieux who can hardly move. A relatively healthy Lemieux would blow these guys away, even in his late 30s. It doesn't have to be perfect health, just average health.

 

[The Panther]

And now we've gone completely off the deep end... 15 scoring titles in a row is a "conservative estimate"...

To win 15 scoring titles in a row -- for a guy who never won more than two in a row -- is utterly impossible, in any pie-in-the-sky scenario.

After 7 years in the NHL, Mario had 2 scoring titles (one due to a Gretzky injury).His seasons 6 and 7 involved his first serious injuries, and some of you are assuming he would have won both, uncontested. Why? Gretzky was still in his late-prime in 1989-90 and 1990-91. In reality, Gretzky outscored Lemieux on a per-game basis those two seasons, so there's no way to assume Mario wins both. He probably wins 1 of those two.

So, after 7 years of NHL wear and tear, Lemieux now needs at least 12 more scoring titles to make a "conservative estimate" of 15. Uh-huh.

Lemieux, still in his prime and on a talented Penguins team, almost certainly wins the scoring titles in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 (though I think there is some doubt about this one), and 1996.

At this point, being optimistic, he has 8 scoring titles. And he is now leaving his prime years. (He was also being out-scored at even strength at this stage by not only Jagr, but also Peter Nedved... while Lemieux was sitting out back to back games.). At a "conservative estimate", at least 7 more scoring titles to go!

In 1996-97, Lemieux -- who declared he was in perfect health to start the season for the first time since 1989 or something -- was in a relative slump the first half of the year, dropped 50 points in scoring pace, and was matched in per-game scoring by Eric Lindros. Does he win this scoring title if we add on the wear and tear of the preceding 13 years of non-stop hockey and playoff runs against younger, hungrier players like Lindros, and after the physically punishing World Cup of autumn 1996? Maybe, but I have doubts.

At this point, Lemieux has 8 or 9 scoring titles (could easily be 7 , too), is clearly past his prime. has been surpassed in ES production by Jagr, and we're entering the physically grinding Dead Puck Era, prior to which Lemieux (in reality), literally quit the NHL because it was too tough for him. And he needs to win 6 or 7 (could be 8) more scoring titles... which is more than anybody in history ever won (except yon-know-who). And he now faces peak Jagr as competition.

This concept is utterly ludicrous.

 

[The Panther]

Besides my year by year analysis (above), the much more important factor is mental fortitude. It's hard enough to play 15 seasons as a top player in the NHL, let alone to have the ＃1 mental fortitude to be the best scorer every year for that long. It's simply not possible.

 

[MadLuke]

This part fromt he very possible premise that he had won 10 art ross in row in the summer of 1997 (already hard enough to win 5 at any point but specially at that age....), obviously if you do not start from this very possible premise it make it de facto impossible.

He cannot win 15 art ross in a row if he only won 1 of tyhem in 90 and 91 season, you could have stopped there, the streak is already over.

let alone to have the ＃1 mental fortitude to be the best scorer every year for that long. It's simply not possible.

Do you think healthy Wayne in a world without Lemieux could not have done it ? feel like it could have been close. Won big advantage start winning the ross before turning 20... need to stop winning at "only" 33 a season where he did indeed win the Art Ross.

 

[The Panther]

Do you think healthy Wayne in a world without Lemieux could not have done it ? feel like it could have been close.

Absolutely not. For Gretzky to have done so would require both Dionne and Lemieux not to exist, and the 1990 and 1991 back injuries not to have occurred.

 

[bobholly39]

I mean. 15 is clearly unreasonably. But he would win many more. If you give him "normal superstar health" he wins 90,91,94,95. That's 10. But after 1997, with ~250 more games played of wear and tear plus all the associated playoff games plus 1991 Canada Cup and the 1996 World Cup, he's going to lose a notable step. Aging hits everyone, doubly so with all the extra games played. Losing the back injury and cancer obviously helps a ton, but it's largely counteracted with ~300 games of getting checked.

The big x factor is Jagr. Are they still playing together? Does Jagr leave?

Maybe he wins 1998. Maybe even 1999. But I think getting to 500 games played extra will hurt anyone's health. Especially if they end up with deep and rough playoff runs.

That's kind of how I view it

With no major injuries (doesn't mean perfect health, just no major injuries/health issues) - Lemieux definitely wins 10 Rosses in a row from 88 to 97. No one can keep up with him.

Assuming he doesn't retire - he'd be the favorite and/or a top contender for a few more years. Younger peaking Jagr probably surpasses older/slowing down Lemieux to Ross eventually....whether that happens in 98, or 99, or later who knows.

I'd say Lemieux probably could have won ~2-4 more Rosses after 97 if healthy, but it's really a guessing game. Better health helps tremendously, but more games and mileage on his body eventually slow him down too

 

[MadLuke]

Absolutely not. For Gretzky to have done so would require both Dionne and Lemieux not to exist, and the 1990 and 1991 back injuries not to have occurred.

Well yes , (for the Lemieux not existing which was part of the question) and the not missing so many games in 93 because of the 90-91 back injuries.... that was also part of the question.

Many word in the short question seem like they were skipped:

Do you think healthy Wayne in a world without Lemieux could not have done it ? feel like it could have been close.

and Gretzky was 1 points away to win it in 1980, saying it would have been impossible to do so would be strange, it was obviously possible for Gretzky to win the 1980 Art Ross.

 

[The Panther]

Right, my bad. Okay, so in a non-Mario world, a healthy Gretzky -- if we tweak the Art Ross rules to allow multiple winners -- could have won the Art Ross / scoring title in:
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989*
1990
1991*
1992*
1993*
1994

That's 15. I admit, it's at least remotely possible. But... would he really have won all of 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993 if we're giving good health to everyone else??

In 1989, Yzerman (and Nicholls) was pacing Gretzky most of the season. If he'd been that close, mightn't Stevie have pushed harder, gotten a bit more PP time, etc., to try to catch Wayne?

In 1991, if Adam Oates played all the games (next to Hart winner, 86-goal Hull) he would have been close to Gretzky in scoring. Maybe at this point in his career, Gretzky doesn't have the push/drive to win yet another scoring title. He might have slipped up, and allowed Oates to catch him.

In 1992, Gretzky surely outscores Kevin Stevens (this is a non-Mario world), but does he outscore a healthy Pat Lafontaine, who had a higher PPG than Gretzky in reality? In a non-Sutered Gretzky world, the answer is probably 'yes', but again mental fatigue might be a factor at this point.

In his short 1992-93 season, Gretzky didn't score particularly well, not even top-5 when he was in the line-up. Now, a healthy Gretzky playing that higher-scoring first half of that season probably is up there near/at the top, but certainly no guarantees for this season.

In 1993-94, Gretzky won the Art Ross in reality, but with good health in this imaginary scenario, does he still have the competitiive drive without accumulated fatigue to win a 15th in a row?
_______

I guess I just don't think it's humanly possible for anyone to do this.

 

[MadLuke]

That's 15. I admit, it's at least remotely possible. But... would he really have won all of 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993 if we're giving good health to everyone else??

It cannot be more than a remote chance (maybe even a 0% chance of happening and impossible to know) but I feel certainly possible for someone like Gretzky with perfect health and luck to do it, if there is not a Mario popping up (something Mario was lucky to not have happened to him).

In reality, what would happen mentally after winning 13-14 in a row.... (and goon angry trying to hurt you running around), the mental aspect of always being chased, team built to stop you.

But in that regard it feels like a Gretzky is more likely to continue to go at it than a Mario (could be unfair as a view, but to me feel fair considering how much Gretzky did it year after year and Lemieux quitting the league)

I guess I just don't think it's humanly possible for anyone to do this.

How many people would have said this in 1980 about winning 8 Hart in a row (2 more Harts than Howe of all people and all in a row...), in some ways that can feel harder to do, voters fatigue meaning you need to have a margin and leave no place to a conversation about it, your competition pool is larger (defencemen, goaltenders, 2 way forwards, not just high scoring forward)

Who would have thought that Usain Bolt was possible before doing it, a 6 foot 5 sprinter really ?
2008: 100-200
2012: 100-200
2016: 100-200

3 Olympics in a row without a single fault ? Winning gold at all the world in between. Going 9 years with the same athlete winning 100% of the major sprint race (100m-200m) in the world outside of 1 false start dq.

Or if someone proposed that we would see in modern baseball a player with an argument to be the best pitcher in the game and best power hitter at the same time, while really good at fielding when he do...

If someone could have, would have been Gretzky, 0% chance, or at best near 0%, but possible imo.

 

[GMR]

Is the playoff loss in 1993 considered detrimental to Lemieux’s legacy? I’ve never considered that before.

 

[WalterLundy]

It's not far-fetched at all. Without back pain, there's a very good chance Lemieux wins 15 scoring titles, or more. Nobody was close to him as a scorer, even when he wasn't close to healthy. Only father time, or injuries, would beat him.

Yes, Gretzky might have done it too with better health, but only excluding Lemieux.

The difference is a healthy Lemieux would always outscore Gretzky in the '90s (and beyond), whether Gretzky was healthy or not.

Gretzky doing 15 in a row only excluding Lemieux is essentially the path that Lemieux himself sort of has here. By the time Lemieux had his 199 point season Gretzky only had two seasons of back end prime left before he was turned into a shadow of his former self. That version wouldn’t be a threat to an art Ross for a healthy prime Lemieux because circumstances are so vastly different. That essentially “excludes” Gretzky and clears the path for Lemieux. Lemieux is actually lucky to come in to the league after Gretzky did for this reason otherwise he may never have won an art Ross if they started playing the same time.

Years side by side:

Gretzky: 137
Lemieux: 100

Gretzky: 164
Lemieux: 141

Gretzky: 212
Lemieux: 107

Gretzky: 196
Lemieux: 168

Gretzky: 205
Lemieux: 199

Gretzky: 208
Lemieux: 123

Gretzky: 215
Lemieux: 45

Gretzky: 183
Lemieux: 131

Gretzky: 149
Lemieux: 160

Gretzky: 168
Lemieux: 37

Gretzky: 142
Lemieux: 161

Gretzky: 163
Lemieux: 122

If you match up their first 12 seasons (Lemieux played 12 at his initial 1997 retirement) Lemieux is outscored 10/12 times and most by earth shattering margins. If they start in 1980 theoretically Lemieux likely never wins a Ross. If you bring Gretzky in at the 6th year of Lemieux’s career (what happened in real life to Gretzky with Lemieux’s debut) Mario never wins a scoring title from that point onward.

 

[JianYang]

Winning a 3rd cup in 93 certainly adds to the legacy, but losing that cup hasn't done much to take away from his legacy either.... if that makes sense.

What I mean is that you generally don't hear people blaming Mario for that upset defeat.

 

[MadLuke]

Is the playoff loss in 1993 considered detrimental to Lemieux’s legacy? I’ve never considered that before.

Winning a 3rd cup in 93 certainly adds to the legacy, but losing that cup hasn't done much to take away from his legacy either....

Yes, would be how I see it, big opportunity cost, but neutral, he get a pass having just won 2 and returning from the cancer thing. While obviously, would he have scored again 35+ points, 3 smythe in a row and won the cup, the 93 teams legacy and talk about the best ever and the season rank among the best ever would be worth a lot.

 

[GMR]

Yes, would be how I see it, big opportunity cost, but neutral, he get a pass having just won 2 and returning from the cancer thing. While obviously, would he have scored again 35+ points, 3 smythe in a row and won the cup, the 93 teams legacy and talk about the best ever and the season rank among the best ever would be worth a lot.

His playoff numbers in 1993 were good for anyone else besides Mario Lemieux. But I always figured he got a pass that playoff because of everything else.

Winning a 3rd cup in 93 certainly adds to the legacy, but losing that cup hasn't done much to take away from his legacy either.... if that makes sense.

What I mean is that you generally don't hear people blaming Mario for that upset defeat.

No, you don't. I've always blamed David Volek and Ray Ferraro.

 

[Michael Farkas]

His playoff numbers in 1993 were good for anyone else besides Mario Lemieux.

In a 25 game playoff, he's on pace for another ~40-point playoff. It was would have been the 4th highest total of all time.

Now, that would require two more seven game series. So, maybe 12 or 13 more - but at 13 more, it's still a 40-point pace.

 

[MadLuke]

In a 25 game playoff, he's on pace for another ~40-point playoff. It was would have been the 4th highest total of all time.

Now, that would require two more seven game series. So, maybe 12 or 13 more - but at 13 more, it's still a 40-point pace.

Scoring almost always goes down as playoff goes and it was extremely high scoring era, he was 4th in the league:

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

Only +2

Tie with Ray Ferraro, which is not a Mario like place to be.

The year before, he had more points (19) after 8 games, it would have been the best playoff run of almost everyone, but not specially high for early 90s Mario playoff seem fair to say.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Maybe...maybe for human players.

Lemieux had 27 in 11 in 1991 and 15 in 7 in 1992 in the CF and SCF. Ferraro shooting at like 40% because Barrasso and Beaupre both stink notwithstanding.