Mario Lemieux's 1995-96 season Greatest season ever?

[Dangler99*]

But again, you seem to think that having cancer made Lemieux a better player than Gretzky. It didn't. It may have made a better story, more inspiring, etc. Maybe he had to overcome more to be as good as he was, but it doesn't somehow make him better than Gretzky. Gretzky had a serious back injury of his own; he developed arthritis in one shoulder that robbed him of his slapshot (one of his best offensive weapons), and he was "too small" to play in the NHL his whole career. I'm not saying he overcame more than Lemieux - he didn't. But he had plenty of obstacles of his own and overcame them to be great.

Maybe if Lemieux HADN'T had so much to overcome, he would have been better, but that's not how it happened. Missing more games and scoring less points doesn't make you better than someone who played more and scored more, especially when they outscored you in PPG as well.

Gretzky Back Problems were later in his career. Lemieux had way worse problems and all these problems in his PRIME. When he was at the height of his powers he could not even tie his skates he would be in tears on the bench. Cancer Back Operations from the condition he was born with. And Still scoring at 190-200 point paces. Lemieux kept up with Gretzky despite all this.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

But again, you seem to think that having cancer made Lemieux a better player than Gretzky. It didn't.

And here we see the trouble with such a vague term as "greatest". Some people intepret this Lemieux season as extra great because of what he had to overcome to do it. Others believe that that shouldn't enter into it, that only what happened on the ice should be considered.

Both positions have merit, and since there is no objective definition we'll never all agree.

 

[livewell68]

But again, you seem to think that having cancer made Lemieux a better player than Gretzky. It didn't. It may have made a better story, more inspiring, etc. Maybe he had to overcome more to be as good as he was, but it doesn't somehow make him better than Gretzky. Gretzky had a serious back injury of his own; he developed arthritis in one shoulder that robbed him of his slapshot (one of his best offensive weapons), and he was "too small" to play in the NHL his whole career. I'm not saying he overcame more than Lemieux - he didn't. But he had plenty of obstacles of his own and overcame them to be great.

Maybe if Lemieux HADN'T had so much to overcome, he would have been better, but that's not how it happened. Missing more games and scoring less points doesn't make you better than someone who played more and scored more, especially when they outscored you in PPG as well.

Gretzky played more in the 80's which helped his PPG. Lemieux played more in the 90's and his comeback during the "Dead Puck Era" is the main reason his PPG is lower than Gretzky's.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Gretzky played more in the 80's which helped his PPG. Lemieux played more in the 90's and his comeback during the "Dead Puck Era" is the main reason his PPG is lower than Gretzky's.

On the other hand, in Lemieux's big years he was far more reliant on power plays for his points. So it's not an easy answer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Gretzky Back Problems were later in his career. Lemieux had way worse problems and all these problems in his PRIME. When he was at the height of his powers he could not even tie his skates he would be in tears on the bench. Cancer Back Operations from the condition he was born with. And Still scoring at 190-200 point paces. Lemieux kept up with Gretzky despite all this.

And maybe if young Lemieux had taken training as seriously as young Gretzky, he wouldn't have had the back injuries in his prime. Can't have some "what ifs" while ignoring others.

 

[livewell68]

On the other hand, in Lemieux's big years he was far more reliant on power plays for his points. So it's not an easy answer.

He wasn't reliant on it, he was just that dominant and made opposing teams pay for taking a penalty.

Lemieux could dominate even strength, shorthanded or on the powerplay.

His sheer size, skill was unrivaled and only Beliveau, Jagr and Lindros could ever come close in terms of size, strength and skill combined.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He wasn't reliant on it, he was just that dominant and made opposing teams pay for taking a penalty.

Lemieux could dominate even strength, shorthanded or on the powerplay.

His sheer size, skill was unrivaled and only Beliveau, Jagr and Lindros could ever come close in terms of size, strength and skill combined.

Lemieux did score a higher percentage of points on the PP than almost any other superstar. It's not really a coincidence that he was so dominant in 95-96, which features more PPs than usual as the NHL had one o their attempted obstruction crackdowns.

 

[livewell68]

And maybe if young Lemieux had taken training as seriously as young Gretzky, he wouldn't have had the back injuries in his prime. Can't have some "what ifs" while ignoring others.

He had back disease, not sports related.

Gretzky never took training that seriously either. Back in the 80's training wasn't as important as it became in the 90's and beyond.

 

[livewell68]

Lemieux did score a higher percentage of points on the PP than almost any other superstar. It's not really a coincidence that he was so dominant in 95-96, which features more PPs than usual as the NHL had one o their attempted obstruction crackdowns.

If it's so easy to score on the powerplay then everyone else could have done that. The fact is Lemieux was the best at for a reason, he had the skill to dominate the powerplay.

He still also scored more goals shorthanded than Gretzky did and that requires skill as well.

Also Gretzky for most of the 80's (where he got a majority of his points) played with bonifide Hall of Famers.

Lemieux in the 80's was playing with scrubs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Blah blah blah. Nobody is discrediting Lemieux for being the best PP scorer ever. Jean Beliveau also scores a high percentage of his points on the PP. PP goals count just as much as ES goals.

But the obstruction crackdown of 95-96 absolutely did help Lemieux relative to other players.

 

[livewell68]

Blah blah blah. Nobody is discrediting Lemieux for being the best PP scorer ever. Jean Beliveau also scores a high percentage of his points on the PP. PP goals count just as much as ES goals.

But the obstruction crackdown of 95-96 absolutely did help Lemieux relative to other players.

You're entitled to your opinion but you never responded to the back problem claim.

Lemieux had back disease, it had nothing to do with sports and he played a huge majority of his prime with this condition and still won Art Ross trophies and Hart trophies in this time frame.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He still also scored more goals the Gretzky did

Gretzky scored 74 career SHGs and Lemieux had 49. What does this have to do with 95-96 again?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Nobody is discrediting Lemieux for being the best PP scorer ever.

Exactly. The reason PP scoring gets brought up is that it's demonstrably easier to score on the PP than at ES, and as such the amount of PP time a player receives can significantly affect his scoring totals. In 1988/89, Lemieux was on the ice for 110 of his team's 119 PP goals. It was 106 of 110 in 1987/88, and 102 of 109 in 1995/96, despite missing games in each of those years. Though looking at the numbers now, Gretzky had more PP time than I remembered. So it's probably not that big of a difference.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You're entitled to your opinion but you never responded to the back problem claim.

Lemieux had back disease, it had nothing to do with sports and he played a huge majority of his prime with this condition and still won Art Ross trophies and Hart trophies in this time frame.

Do you have proof that Lemieux's back problems were non-sports related? I remember that they were generally blamed on all the obstruction that was allowed to go on at the time.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

Mario Lemieux's 1995-1996 season is the best ajusted per-game season ever.

According to hockey-reference.com, he scored 156 ajusted points in 70 games which gives him 2.23 ajusted points per game. Gretzky's best season was 83-84, 163 ajusted points in 74 games for 2.20 ajusted PPG.

 

[livewell68]

Do you have proof that Lemieux's back problems were non-sports related? I remember that they were generally blamed on all the obstruction that was allowed to go on at the time.

he already had the condition and played through it in the early 90's but because obstruction became too much for him to handle, he retired.

The obstruction was only fuel to the fire or the final straw.

Do yo uknow what Hodgkin's is? That's what Lemieux had. Hockey did not cause the cancer, cancer caused the cancer.

If you have a bad back, I'm sure you couldn't even walk. The fact that he was able to play through the injury for as long as he is a testament to his heart.

After a while though he got fed and his already aching back (due to disease) caused him to stop playing.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Mario Lemieux's 1995-1996 season is the best ajusted per-game season ever.

According to hockey-reference.com, he scored 156 ajusted points in 70 games which gives him 2.23 ajusted points per game. Gretzky's best season was 83-84, 163 ajusted points in 74 games for 2.20 ajusted PPG.

H-R's adjusted stats favor superstars who played in the dead puck era, especially years with high PP scoring like 95-96.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

H-R's adjusted stats favor superstars who played in the dead puck era, especially years with high PP scoring like 95-96.

I'm not sure I understand why. Do you have links to other adjusted stats from other sites?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

he already had the condition and played through it in the early 90's but because obstruction became too much for him to handle, he retired.

The obstruction was only fuel to the fire or the final straw.

Do yo uknow what Hodgkin's is? That's what Lemieux had. Hockey did not cause the cancer, cancer caused the cancer.

If you have a bad back, I'm sure you couldn't even walk. The fact that he was able to play through the injury for as long as he is a testament to his heart.

After a while though he got fed and his already aching back (due to disease) caused him to stop playing.

I know what Hodgkin's Lymphoma is. Do you? Hint: it has nothing to do with the back.

 

[livewell68]

H-R's adjusted stats favor superstars who played in the dead puck era, especially years with high PP scoring like 95-96.

1995-96 is not part of the "Dead Puck Era". It has nothing to do with.

The "Dead Puck Era" is called that because of the lack of PP and obstruction calling.

1996-97 is the first official season of the "Dead Puck Era".

Adjusted doesn't favor anyone it simply gives you a stat to compare offensive output across eras and generations.

For instance what Jagr did in 1998-99 with 127 Pts is considered the 2nd best non- Gretzky or Lemieux season ever simply because of the lower scoring.

If I recall correctly, Gretzky used to score goals from the blue line on slapshots without anyone blocking the shots and goalies jumping up on the shot.

More than 50% of Gretzky's goals wouldn't even have been goals because they would have been blocked and butterfly style goalies would have stopped the shots.

 

[Long Duk Dong]

Mario Lemieux's 1995-1996 season is the best ajusted per-game season ever.

According to hockey-reference.com, he scored 156 ajusted points in 70 games which gives him 2.23 ajusted points per game. Gretzky's best season was 83-84, 163 ajusted points in 74 games for 2.20 ajusted PPG.

Pardon my ignorance, but what are these "adjusted stats"? I always read of them on here, but never understood what they were.

 

[livewell68]

I know what Hodgkin's Lymphoma is. Do you? Hint: it has nothing to do with the back.

Except his cancer was in the back. It can affect numerous areas and Lemieux' back needed surgery because of Hodgkins.

... but again you are entitled to your opinion and for you Gretzky is the greatest player and has the greatest seasons and people like that will never accept just how good Lemieux was.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

Pardon my ignorance, but what are these "adjusted stats"? I always read of them on here, but never understood what they were.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/about/adjusted_stats.html

In order to account for different schedule lengths, roster sizes, and scoring environments, some statistics have been adjusted. All statistics have been adjusted to an 82-game schedule with a maximum roster size of 18 skaters and league averages of 6 goals per game and 1.67 assists per goal.

So a 95 point season in 52-53 (adjusted: 131) is basically better than a 155 point season in 88-89 (adjusted: 128).

 

[overpass]

Mario Lemieux's 1995-1996 season is the best ajusted per-game season ever.

According to hockey-reference.com, he scored 156 ajusted points in 70 games which gives him 2.23 ajusted points per game. Gretzky's best season was 83-84, 163 ajusted points in 74 games for 2.20 ajusted PPG.

Lemieux payed in 40 home games and 30 road games that year. He sat out the road games where tthe travel schedule was tight, to save his strength. Nothing wrong with that, but it means his per-game stats were artificially high.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Looks like the quote function is broken again.

Adjusted stats are hockey-reference.com's crude attempt at scaling a player's stats to the scoring level of a certain year. But their fatal flaw is that they scale all players equally to leaguewide scoring. When in reality, scoring dropped among role players far more than among superstars in the 90s. In other words, superstars in the 90s scored a higher percentage of leaguewide goals than superstars in the 80s, so an adjusted stat based on team goals per game will overrate the 90s guys in relation to the 80s guys. Especially in years with exceptionally high numbers of PPs like 95/96.