Alright then. Given the atypical scoring league-wide in 1992-93 I am inclined to go with the 88-89 season.
I know you're trying to prove a point but I just don't like it because in this particular case, Mario Lemieux led the league with 160 freaking points despite missing 20 games.
By contrast, Crosby's 66 points in 41 games just doesn't have the same kind of gravitas, even accounting for era. The difference here is that even though Lemieux didn't play a "whole season" it doesn't matter because of the insane number of points he scored. On the other hand, Crosby's 2010-11 is a case of what if.
I'm actually surprised you replied. Either way, I'm not comparing Lemieux's season to Crosby's... so that's moot. But, you've just made my case, even in selecting the wrong Mario season, by virtue of giving him a pass for only having played 60 games. In other words... not a "whole season"... which is the point of contention everybody here seems to be trying to cram down my throat (despite OP not setting those parameters, nor "full season" being the boundaries of what defines "peak", as I'm demonstrating).
You then qualified that by saying because "led the league... despite missing 20 games". So what you've done is compared him to the rest of the field. Then you've contrasted what Crosby did citing it's not as impressive (because ?)... and you're right, it's not as "impressive". But that's because Sid also wasn't playing at the same level Mario was either, regardless of the field... whatever Pat Lafontaine did in 92-93, or Ovechkin did in 07-08.
Apart from that, and I know you said you weren't watching back then, but anybody who did watch, will tell you that 92-93 Mario was better than 88-89 Mario. So you kind of either had to pick 88-89 and be wrong on purpose (because I hand fed you Mario's best season by showing you his points-per-game)... or not reply at all. There was nothing you could say, that wouldn't solidify my point that "peak" doesn't mean "best performance in a full season"... and I think that's the
real reason you don't like the point I'm trying to prove. You saw it coming a mile away.
Fact remains, Mario's peak was a shortened season. Crosby's situation was not a case of "what if". He went out there and performed at the level he did, for 41 games. "What if" would be "the stuff that might have happened in the 41 games he missed". There's nothing to indicate that he would have crapped the bed or fell off, for the last 41 games, nor does it matter. People who follow Sid will tell you, if anything, he's a slow starter, and only gets better as the year goes on. But it's a digression from the point. Sid's peak, lasted 41 games in 2010-11. Period. The guy I originally quoted acknowledged that. The fact that he got hurt, doesn't change the fact that was his peak, nor does it diminish it.
You'd be a fool to select Crosby over Ovechkin that year for your roster, knowing that Sid would only play half a season. And I'm pretty sure that's what the guy I quoted, was thinking. He picked the guy he would take on his roster, with a Magic 8-ball. But that's contrary to OPs question, and contrary to his own response of who had the higher peak.
Anyway check this out man. Mario's statsline that season was:
40GP-39G-65A-104P
misses 24 games
20GP-30G-25-56P
And anybody who was watching Mario that year, will tell you Mario was playing even better in his last 20 games, than he did in his first 40 games. That means, in his first 40 games, he was NOT playing at his peak. This is why we differentiate post-cancer-treatment Mario from pre-cancer-treatment Mario, when we talk about 92-93 Mario.
The difference? A "nominal" 0.20 PPG. Yet it was a night and day difference.