Lemieux's 92-93 season - GOAT season by any player

[daver]

I appreciate the well thought out post. And I will certainly agree that the 92-93 season was high scoring.

But if the crux of your argument is that in Lemieux's 92-93 season it was easier to score in (versus the 80's), thats simply not true. The goals per game average is the most telling stat, in my opinion.

This stat includes all players, not Mario's immediate peers (elite offensive forwards), why wouldn't you look as the stats of the top 20 to 50 scorers at the most telling stat?

It is clear that the scoring level by that group took a marked jump in 92/93 from the year before

# of PPG players in the Top 50

90/91 - 33
01/92 - 34
92/93- 48
93/9 4- 37
94/95 - 27

It is clear 92/93 was an anomaly that saw a similar # of PPG scorers in the Top 50 as there were in the early '80s. The argument that there were more elite offensive forwards in the league in 92/93 vs. the seasons that Wayne peaked doesn't hold water as the two seasons before and after 92/93 had significantly less PPG players. It is also clear that PP points were the main reason for the jump in PPG players in 92/93.

Actually, 92/93 could be argued as being easier than two or three of Wayne's 200 point seasons where the # of PPG players was 40 or so from 84 to 86.

The general opinion that point totals and PPGs from 92/93 should be compared straight up with seasons from the early '80s onwards makes complete sense.

 

[The Panther]

It may interfere with the ability to stay alive, which seems pretty necessary to make any use of hockey skills. Any way you slice it, Mario was not healthy. He played 40 games at a 104 point pace -- and here we go -- with cancer, which, at any stage, represents the opposite of being healthy.

I didn't say he was healthy. I said, a lump on your neck doesn't interfere with hockey ability. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the early/middle stages of Hodgkin's disease are generally not even noticed by those who have it (hence, Lemieux didn't know he had it). The fact that he could perform at such a high level with it kind of underscores the fact that it interferes with athletic performance about as much as a hangnail.

 

[The Panther]

We need to stop acting like he had stage 4 brain cancer. It was known from the get-go it wouldn't be fatal.

I think you are wrong about that. As I recall, there was certainly a chance that it could have been fatal.

Of course, Lemieux's being a professional athlete in his mid-20s gave him better than average odds, provided the cancer was caught at an early enough stage.

 

[streitz]

24 fewer games than his

Wait.... So you're saying Lemieux would of scored less points if he played all 84 games? Interesting.



Someone call Lafontaine and tell him he got robbed.

 

[streitz]

The brainfart against NYI and everyone and their mothers padding their stats against the Sharks, Senators and Lightning takes plenty of shine off of Lemieux's '92-'93

Lemieux only played 3 or less games against each of those teams since none were in the Patrick.

 

[bobholly39]

This stat includes all players, not Mario's immediate peers (elite offensive forwards), why wouldn't you look as the stats of the top 20 to 50 scorers at the most telling stat?

It is clear that the scoring level by that group took a marked jump in 92/93 from the year before

# of PPG players in the Top 50

90/91 - 33
01/92 - 34
92/93- 48
93/9 4- 37
94/95 - 27

It is clear 92/93 was an anomaly that saw a similar # of PPG scorers in the Top 50 as there were in the early '80s. The argument that there were more elite offensive forwards in the league in 92/93 vs. the seasons that Wayne peaked doesn't hold water as the two seasons before and after 92/93 had significantly less PPG players. It is also clear that PP points were the main reason for the jump in PPG players in 92/93.

Actually, 92/93 could be argued as being easier than two or three of Wayne's 200 point seasons where the # of PPG players was 40 or so from 84 to 86.

The general opinion that point totals and PPGs from 92/93 should be compared straight up with seasons from the early '80s onwards makes complete sense.

Weren't goalies generally better in 92-93 than they were in the early/mid 80s though? Doesn't that cancel out the fact that there were more PP opportunities?

As for your last sentence - if you're saying that all factors benefiting one year vs another tend to cancel each other out, and so comparing "raw totals" from 92-93 to some of the seasons in the 80s makes sense - i'd tend to agree.

 

[bobholly39]

I think if Lemieux had won a 3rd smythe and cup - and had a playoff as dominating as his last 2 (if not more) along the way - this season would be held as the standard when it comes to the greatest season in hockey (sports?) history. It is a bit underwhelming that they fell short - especially since they were such huge favorites (has any team in any season since 1992-1993 been as strong a stanley cup favorite as the Pens of that year??)

I agree with some of the posts in the first page - differentiating between "best" and "greatest" and "impressive". If we're talking about strictly the "best" season ever - both Gretzky and Orr (and maybe Lemieux himself in 89) have better arguments. The missed games really take a toll here. Similar ppg over 60 games vs 80 games, you gotta give the edge to more games. And Orr himself has some pretty spectacular ones if you look past Gretzky.

In terms of telling a story, or being a "great" season or moment, or being very impressive - sure you could maybe argue it at #1. Doesn't mean it's the best though

 

[Troubadour]

I didn't say he was healthy. I said, a lump on your neck doesn't interfere with hockey ability. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the early/middle stages of Hodgkin's disease are generally not even noticed by those who have it (hence, Lemieux didn't know he had it). The fact that he could perform at such a high level with it kind of underscores the fact that it interferes with athletic performance about as much as a hangnail.

Apparently, so does radiation. How else would you explain Lemieux playing so well right after it -- right.

 

[Asheville]

I think you are wrong about that. As I recall, there was certainly a chance that it could have been fatal.

Of course, Lemieux's being a professional athlete in his mid-20s gave him better than average odds, provided the cancer was caught at an early enough stage.

At the famous press conference announcing his Parkinson, he and his doctors clearly stated it was not a fatal condition.

 

[Asheville]

Wait.... So you're saying Lemieux would of scored less points if he played all 84 games? Interesting.



Someone call Lafontaine and tell him he got robbed.

Never said that. It supplied him with ample rest, keeping him at his best for each of those 60 games.....until he hit the wall. Maybe his Pens threepeat if he played even fewer games, ala 90-91

 

[Asheville]

Lemieux only played 3 or less games against each of those teams since none were in the Patrick.

Pens played those three teams 8 times, averaging 5.5 goals in each. Dilution, sir, with 44 goals worth of stat-padding

 

[JackSlater]

But as far as the 1992-93 season goes, I mean, a lump on your neck doesn't interfere with hockey ability.

A reasonable person would have to think that being told "you have cancer" just might interfere with your hockey ability.

 

[The Panther]

A reasonable person would have to think that being told "you have cancer" just might interfere with your hockey ability.

I am referring to the 40 games he played prior to diagnosis.

 

[daver]

Weren't goalies generally better in 92-93 than they were in the early/mid 80s though? Doesn't that cancel out the fact that there were more PP opportunities?

As for your last sentence - if you're saying that all factors benefiting one year vs another tend to cancel each other out, and so comparing "raw totals" from 92-93 to some of the seasons in the 80s makes sense - i'd tend to agree.

I think this a moot point.

 

[authentic]

I appreciate the well thought out post. And I will certainly agree that the 92-93 season was high scoring.

But if the crux of your argument is that in Lemieux's 92-93 season it was easier to score in (versus the 80's), thats simply not true. The goals per game average is the most telling stat, in my opinion.

I saw the high flying 80's that featured Gretzky blowing pucks past standup goalies with slapshots from 40ft out the front of the net (and no traffic in front).

You will never be able to statistically account for the fact that goaltending rapidly improved from the 80's and into the 90's as the butterfly style became popular, and equipment (specifically the pads) became more and more bloated. Goals were scored in 92-93 at a high rate mostly because the talent level in the league was insane at that point.

As the talent levels rose, the goaltending improvements mostly balanced it out. But it was still much harder to score a goal in the 90's versus the 80's from a technical/skill standpoint imo.

I agree that any of those players you listed could have been art ross winners back in the 80's if not for Gretzky. They were all mostly future HHOF bound, or at the very least incredible players that have made lasting legacies in the league and for their teams.

Lemieux played and dominated in a far more talented era of players than Gretzky did. Which adds to his legacy in my mind, and to how special that season was in reality.

This is why I feel Lemieux was technically better. The league improved from the early-mid 80s to the mid 90s more so than any other 10-15 year period in history. Lemieux in my opinion was a bigger, more skilled, but far less healthier Gretzky. I think his brain operated at roughly the same level but his physical skills were clearly more suited to dominate a better league with more advanced goaltending and players overall. I do not see how Gretzky would've ever scored 35 goals in half a season in 2001 at any age, let alone at 35 after not playing a game for 3.5 years.

 

[daver]

This is why I feel Lemieux was technically better. The league improved from the early-mid 80s to the mid 90s more so than any other 10-15 year period in history. Lemieux in my opinion was a bigger, more skilled, but far less healthier Gretzky. I think his brain operated at roughly the same level but his physical skills were clearly more suited to dominate a better league with more advanced goaltending and players overall. I do not see how Gretzky would've ever scored 35 goals in half a season in 2001 at any age, let alone at 35 after not playing a game for 3.5 years.

So why didn't Mario chew up the significantly inferior mid-80s? This doesn't pass the eye test at all.

 

[authentic]

So why didn't Mario chew up the significantly inferior mid-80s? This doesn't pass the eye test at all.

He wasn't as good then and his team was flipping horrible from top to bottom.

 

[daver]

He wasn't as good then and his team was flipping horrible from top to bottom.

That is too easy an out. You are saying a 20, 21 year old Mario was half as good as a peak Mario. If Mario was as good as you say, he would have been closer to 200 point seasons in the mid '80s.

You are making a baseless claim.

 

[Michael Farkas]

This thread features some very interesting places for one to put one's foot in the ground, I'll give it that...

 

[Samsquanch]

So why didn't Mario chew up the significantly inferior mid-80s? This doesn't pass the eye test at all.

This makes little to no sense. Mario's 1st season was in 85....so that's mid the eighties.

And besides that, he had his way with 80's, with seasons of 141pts, 168pts, and 199pts (his best ever), And another with 123pts in 59gp. All in the 80's.

What is your point again?

 

[daver]

This makes little to no sense. Mario's 1st season was in 85....so that's mid the eighties.

And besides that, he had his way with 80's, with seasons of 141pts, 168pts, and 199pts (his best ever), And another with 123pts in 59gp. All in the 80's.

What is your point again?

He should have been putting up more 200 point seasons or better in the '80 if he put up a 200 point pace season in the "much harder" 92/93 season.

There is nothing about Mario's gradual rise in points/PPG from his rookie season to 92/93 that points to the mid-80s being significantly inferior to 92/93. It is baseless speculation.

 

[Samsquanch]

He should have been putting up more 200 point seasons or better in the '80 if he put up a 200 point pace season in the "much harder" 92/93 season.

There is nothing about Mario's gradual rise in points/PPG from his rookie season to 92/93 that points to the mid-80s being significantly inferior to 92/93. It is baseless speculation.

?

1988-89

Pittsburgh Penguins

NHL

76

85

114

199

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

=214.7 point pace for the season.

Nice try though.

 

[daver]

?

1988-89

Pittsburgh Penguins

NHL

76

85

114

199

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

=214.7 point pace for the season.

Nice try though.

Nice try at what? Why didn't he put more seasons like that before 1989 if the league was clearly inferior?

For example, his 141 points in 1986 would be the equivalent of what point total in 92/93? 100, 110?

 

[ted2019]

Lemieux's overcoming cancer is indeed a great event, deservedly celebrated. But as far as the 1992-93 season goes, I mean, a lump on your neck doesn't interfere with hockey ability.

I agree with the idea (above) that Lemieux, and his teammates, likely got a big psychological lift when Mario came back. Maybe they were peaking anyway, and then Lemieux's comeback pushed everyone to new levels.

I wonder, though, if Mario's radiation treatments didn't fatigue him once the big high of overcoming the cancer wore off. He seemed to slow down as the playoffs went on, then barely played for two years.

As far as the greatest season ever goes... his team choked in the playoffs and he missed 24 games. The competition is pretty stiff when it comes to the single greatest season ever.

As someone who has had several "lumps on his neck", your statement is really insulting. Hopefully you will never go through that. I had 6 1/2 months on Chemo every other week for 2 1/2 a session. Chemo is A LOT worse then Radiation, but it's still draining energy-wise. My energy level at best, is 20% of what it use to be on a good day.

 

[Samsquanch]

Nice try at what? Why didn't he put more seasons like that before 1989 if the league was clearly inferior?

For example, his 141 points in 1986 would be the equivalent of what point total in 92/93? 100, 110?

Because he was a friggin teenager dude, on a terrible team.... thats why.

Here are his next closest teammates (he was alone on an island).

87-88

Mario Lemieux

F

77

70

98

168

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Dan Quinn

C

70

40

39

79

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Randy Cunneyworth

L

71

35

39

74

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

86-87

Mario Lemieux

F

63

54

53

107

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Dan Quinn 1

C

64

28

43

71

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Randy Cunneyworth

L

79

26

27

53

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

85-86

Mario Lemieux

F

79

48

93

141

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Mike Bullard

F

77

41

42

83

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Moe Mantha

D

78

15

52

67

[TBODY] [/TBODY]