Was there any debate about Mario Lemieux winning the Hart Trophy over Doug Gilmour in 1993?

[MadLuke]

Oates in the conversation for those years

For sure.

but I can't shake off the feeling that this is not the best season since 1996. Yeah, statistically, it is, but dynamically, as in "dominating the ice", I don't know. Mario was just so precise and so surgical that he could pull it off, and that's to his credit, and in the video he does physically dominate here and there, but this is not "big 4 level".

This is going way back, but if 1996 Mario was the best season from 1995 to 2020 when this was debated, how would we explain that the Penguins the year just before were a .635 team, with Lemieux in 1996 they were the same a .622 team.

Why gaining for nothing the best player having the best season seem to do change so little, Jagr-Francis did not really had a worst year, Robitaille gone but Nedved takae his place. They had the exact same goaltending.

Murphy ? But Zubov is there, why was he only +10.

Could be just something strange going on, shorter season the year before with the Pens overperforming, just incredible bad puck luck. Give peak Hasek for free to the 1996 Penguins instead of that version of Lemieux, do they really win significantly less than 49 games that year ? Could easily be the other way around imo.

 

[seventieslord]

There was no debate then and there shouldn't be any debate 20 years later.

What's debateable, however, is whether denaturing the Selke was worth it.

hate to break it to you man, but... it's been 30 years

 

[Michael Farkas]

Just because there was no debate about it at the time, doesn't mean the topic can't be re-examined years later with the broadened scope of hindsight

There was no debate when Fuhr won the Vezina in '88

Was there, in fact, no debate? I don't mean that as a "gotcha", but it seems like there probably was...six goalies received 1st place votes that year. That post reads like a very flimsy premise to push the somewhat flimsy premise of save percentage (and its gangland crony) being the God stat.

 

[Boxscore]

Line up every player's best season. Have them all happen head to head in the same year. Orr, Gretzky, etc. I think Lemieux in 93 has as good a chance as any of them to win the heart. His level of play is as good as anyone ever - but the story of his return just makes it that much more memorable.

I agree 100%. Mario scoring at Gretz' 215 point pace while battling Hodgkin's and returning to put the rest of the NHL through the shredder is the single greatest display of dominance by any player in the history of the four major sports. It's more impressive than Ruth hitting more HRs than entire teams (which is also insane).

To answer the OP: No, there was zero debate in 93. That Hart belonged to Mario. But Gilmour was absolutely amazing. And his season was worthy of the Hart in many other year's by comparison.

 

[TheStatican]

Pittsburgh's scoring leaders in '93:
Lemeiux 160
Stevens 111
Tocchet 109
Francis 100
Jagr 96
Murphy 85
Mullen 70

Toronto's scoring leaders in '93:
Gilmour 127
Borchevsky 74
Anderson 65
Todd Gill 43


Based on the definition of being "most valuable to their team", I think it could be argued the award should've gone to Gilmour

I'm sorry but that's a very cherry picked stat that provides only limited context while obfuscating the actual impact of each player.

The '93 Penguins were a very top heavy team, in fact the most top heavy team in the league with their top 8 scorers accounting for 85% of their offense(313 of 367 goals), the next highest being the Blues at 80%. The Leafs in contrast while not being a good offensive team overall, did have a lot of depth scoring with their top 8 scorers only providing just over half of their offense; 53%(154 of 288 goals).

But in truth it's more accurate to say the Penguins were actually a very 'Lemieux heavy' team. With Lemieux in the lineup the team scored an incredible 4.87 goals per game(292 goals), while without him the team only scored 3.13 goals per game (75 goals) - that would have given them a total of 262 on the year - which is actually 26 less than the Leaf's scored. Heck there's an argument that could be made that they might not have even made the playoffs without Lemieux going by their .500 team in the games he missed;

Without Mario the team was; 11-11-2 24pts .500
But with Mario the team went; 45-10-5 95pts .792 (+58%)


As for the Leafs, those stats conveniently ignores the fact that the Leafs also actually had a bonafide 50-goal near 100-point player on their rooster; Dave Andreychuk, just not for a full season. And that it was Andreychuk's arrival that really propelled the Leafs forward in the standings and boosted Gilmour stats;

Gilmour​	Gms​	G​	A​	Pts​	PPG​
Without/Andreychuk​	53​	19​	56​	75​	1.42​
With/Andreychuk​	30​	13​	39​	52​	1.73​
​	​	​	​	​	+22%​

Record before Andreychuk trade; 24-20-8 56pts .538 rec
Record after the Andreychuk trade; 20-9-3 43pts .672 (+25%)


Lemieux didn't deserve to win the Hart just because of his stats or the comeback story, he deserved it because of the monstrous effect he had on the teams play. As for Gilmore, would he even have been an MVP candidate without Andreychuk? I doubt it.

 

[Neutrinos]

The '93 Penguins were a very top heavy team, in fact the most top heavy team in the league with their top 8 scorers accounting for 85% of their offense(313 of 367 goals), the next highest being the Blues at 80%. The Leafs in contrast while not being a good offensive team overall, did have a lot of depth scoring with their top 8 scorers only providing just over half of their offense; 53%(154 of 288 goals).

So, those 8 Pens scored 25 more goals than the entire Leafs roster...

 

[MadLuke]

So, those 8 Pens scored 25 more goals than the entire Leafs roster...

Well Mario scoring 69 and turning Stevens-Tocchet from 35-40 goals scorer to 50+ goals scorer helped for that to happen.

did have a lot of depth scoring with their top 8 scorers only providing just over half of their offense; 53%(154 of 288 goals).

I think absolute goal scoring by the bottom players maybe a bit more relevant here, your bottom 6 does not get worst if the top 6 score a lot or better if they score less.

 

[Neutrinos]

Well Mario scoring 69 and turning Stevens-Tocchet from 35-40 goals scorer to 50+ goals scorer helped for that to happen.

Tochet was capable of scoring 50 goals without Lemieux...

45 goals in 66 games in '89 with Philly
40 goals in 70 games in '91 with Philly
48 goals in 80 games in '93 with Pittsburgh

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lemieux had a higher points...uhhh...gained...above replacement...

 

[MadLuke]

Tochet was capable of scoring 50 goals without Lemieux...

Peak yes, by then not so sure (well he never scored 50 in his career even with Lemieux, but healthy good luck season at his peak he would have)

48 goals in 80 games in '93 with Pittsburgh

Like in the message just after the high points of the Pens top scorer:

Tocchet
With Mario.: 57 games, 38G-48A-86pts, +29 (53 goals, 120pts in 80 games pace)
Without Ma: 23 games, 10G-13A-23pts, -1 (35 goals, 80pts in 80 games pace)

Without Lemieux the following season very similar 14 in 51 and with the Flyers in 92 13 in 42, in an indirect way you seem to be punishing Lemieux being probably the second most powerful offensive force ever and in a high PPO season like 1993 arguably the biggest, by pointing out how much goals his teammate scored as if that was in any way a bad reflection on his value for the team. How much they scored when he was not playing (24 games is not a nothing sample size to check) or at least when he was not on the ice would be a good point, if it was really high and that he was uneeded for that teams to be among the best offensive team.

But the 91 to 93 Pens without Mario are not that special of a team, they are a superb support cast for a supernova star for sure, but that not a team over .500 and scoring a special amount of goals when he is missing.

A player cannot have 2.66 pts a night and not have the top scorer of his team have a lot of points.... Oilers top players also have a lot of points during a McDavid big season.

 

[TheStatican]

So, those 8 Pens scored 25 more goals than the entire Leafs roster...

Yeah, thanks to Lemieux. The very next year we saw exactly what the impact of not have Mario was when the same roster scored 68 goals less goals and very close to the same number as the Leafs had in 92-93.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah, thanks to Lemieux. The very next year we saw exactly what the impact of not have Mario was when the same roster scored 68 goals less goals and very close to the same number as the Leafs had in 92-93.

Yeah it was just Lemieux.. and Stevens getting his face smashed in, Tocchet missing 30 games, trading the best coach ever for Eddie Johnson and several other things..

 

[BraveCanadian]

Lemieux didn't deserve to win the Hart just because of his stats or the comeback story, he deserved it because of the monstrous effect he had on the teams play. As for Gilmore, would he even have been an MVP candidate without Andreychuk? I doubt it.

lol

 

[TheStatican]

Yeah it was just Lemieux.. and Stevens getting his face smashed in, Tocchet missing 30 games,

And yet somehow Stevens scored 41 goals and 88 points that season, about what you'd expect from him without his numbers being inflated by Lemieux. Stevens decline wasn't directly the result of physical imparments from facial surgury, it was indirectly caused by it due to his abuse of pain killers and taking increasing amounts of illicit drugs. Not sure why your being purposfully obtuse about that when his story is well documented.

But sure, it was those 30 less games from Rick Tocchet that made all the difference.

trading the best coach ever for Eddie Johnson and several other things..

You mean the coach who, 'chose not to run the Penguins practices, delegating that responsibility to Johnson and purposfully kept a distance from the team' THAT coach? Sure, Bowman might be the greatest coach of all time, but it doesn't change the fact that he and the Pens weren't the greatest fit. Nor was he the main reason why the Pens were successful, or did you forget they won without him.

lol

Great chat

 

[Neutrinos]

Yeah, thanks to Lemieux. The very next year we saw exactly what the impact of not have Mario was when the same roster scored 68 goals less goals and very close to the same number as the Leafs had in 92-93.

Now envision what that '93 Leafs team would've looked like without Gilmour...

 

[Gorskyontario]

I don't recall any debate outside if Leafs fans but I don't want to speak for the entire hockey world. I also recall Leaf fans thinking Gilmour or Clark(his 46 goal year I believe) should win the Hart over Fedorov the next year in 93/94

 

[JianYang]

I don't recall any debate whatsoever. Not only was lemieux still overwhelmingly dominant, but he also had the sympathy of the hockey world for what he had to endure off the ice that season.

There's no way Mario wasn't going to win, and, he was fully deserving as well. This is probably one of the easier calls for the Hart trophy.