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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

Quote function works again. Hodgkins lymphoma is a blood cancer, not a back cancer. A 30 second google search could confirm this.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

The Flaws of he's adjusted stats have been talked about on the HOH board quite a bit over the last 6 months. Basically, they assume that only scoring per game and not distribution of scoring have changed over the years.

Unfortunately, the search function is still broken

 

[livewell68]

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.

Scoring in terms of parity was always equal.

A role player scored 85 Pts in the 80's while in the 90's they scored 50 Pts.

Still the difference between role players and superstars is similar throughout.

A superstar player in the 80's scored about 140 Pts while in the 90's they scored about 100-110 points.

Still it was a similar ratio.

Also you had hegemonic scoring champs in the 80's (Lemieux- Gretzky) just like in the 90's (Jagr- Lemieux).

 

[livewell68]

Quote function works again. Hodgkins lymphoma is a blood cancer, not a back cancer. A 30 second google search could confirm this.

Read this.

While going in for a routine medical checkup related to his recurring back problems in 1993, Lemieux pointed out a growth on his neck to his doctor. A biopsy showed that

Mario Lemieux

cancer had invaded the node and Lemieux received a diagnosis of nodular lymphocytic Hodgkin's Disease. He immediately began radiation treatment to fight the illness and was eventually declared cancer-free; however, the treatment left him too lethargic to return to his ice for the 1994-95 season.

Read more: Mario Lemieux - Diagnosed With Hodgkin's Disease - Johnson, Hockey, Penguins, Team, Cancer, and Trophy http://sports.jrank.org/pages/2761/Lemieux-Mario-Diagnosed-with-Hodgkin-s-Disease.html#ixzz1NxY5mEFo

http://sports.jrank.org/pages/2761/Lemieux-Mario-Diagnosed-with-Hodgkin-s-Disease.html

 

[BraveCanadian]

Scoring in terms of parity was always equal.

A role player scored 85 Pts in the 80's while in the 90's they scored 50 Pts.

Still the difference between role players and superstars is similar throughout.

A superstar player in the 80's scored about 140 Pts while in the 90's they scored about 100-110 points.

Still it was a similar ratio.

Also you had hegemonic scoring champs in the 80's (Lemieux- Gretzky) just like in the 90's (Jagr- Lemieux).

Wrong on so many points.

1) Role players did not score 85 points in the 80s. Stars did.

2) Superstars in the 80s did not score 140 points. They scored in the 100-130 point range for the most part just like they have, with some exceptions, since the 70s.

There have been 24 seasons in NHL history where a player scored 140 points or more in a season. 16 of those seasons were Lemieux or Gretzky.

Of the remaining 8 seasons:

2 were in the 70s (Espo)
1 was in 81-82 (Bossy)
2 were in 88-89 (Yzerman, Nicholls)
3 were in the early-mid 90s (Lafontaine, Oates, Jagr)

Each decade from the 70s to the 90s has almost the same number of monstrous seasons by anyone not named Lemieux / Gretzky.


3) The ratio of front line players to depth as far as scoring is concerned did change as TDMM pointed out. Therefore straight adjustment by league average goals per game (which is shoddy at best but an ok rough check) does favour dead puck era players over their 80s counterparts in many cases.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I think it's slightly overstated how much adjusted stats favour dead puck era players, it may be a difference of 5% at most compared to 80's players. I also believe that since it got harder to score in general, not just the improvement of goaltenders and team defense, but the roles of players in a more defensive league, especially the checkers, would easily explain the checking lines scoring a lower percentage of the points. So should the scorers of the dead puck era be penalized for this? I think it's debatable.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think it's slightly overstated how much adjusted stats favour dead puck era players, it may be a difference of 5% at most compared to 80's players. I also believe that since it got harder to score in general, not just the improvement of goaltenders and team defense, but the roles of players in a more defensive league, especially the checkers, would easily explain the checking lines scoring a lower percentage of the points. So should the scorers of the dead puck era be penalized for this? d I think it's debatable.

It is not up for debate if you are using an adjustment based on a league wide stat and that stat does not apply equally to all the individual players in the league.

If you did discount that it doesn't apply equally, you would be saying it is ok to add or subtract from the total offense in the league for any given year - your total goals from a year would not adjust to the same amount as the addition of the individual goal totals generated by the adjustment, for example.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think it's slightly overstated how much adjusted stats favour dead puck era players, it may be a difference of 5% at most compared to 80's players. I also believe that since it got harder to score in general, not just the improvement of goaltenders and team defense, but the roles of players in a more defensive league, especially the checkers, would easily explain the checking lines scoring a lower percentage of the points. So should the scorers of the dead puck era be penalized for this? I think it's debatable.

There is no "penalizing" dead puck era stars. The point is to put everyone on an even playing field and to the extent that adjusted stats fail to do that, they aren't worth the bandwidth used in reciting them.

Also, to the extent that anyone is being "penalized," it is stars who played in the 1980s who have their actual stats discounted by the adjusted ones. Rightfully so, to some extent, but I find it bizarre to act like hockey reference's adjusted stats are real numbers and that diverging from them is "penalizing players."

 

[RabbinsDuck]

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.

Those adjusted stats favor Lemieux, we've been over it here numerous times.

But anyways, so what? A 0.02 difference in adjusted PPG? You realize that amounts to 1 extra point over 82 games?

So we are now crediting Lemieux with not only extra points in the games he did play, but also credit for games he never stepped out on the ice for? And using that as evidence he had the best season ever, and from there that he was the best player ever?

IE. Using every trick in the book in favor of Lemieux and absolutely none for Gretzky, Lemieux comes away with 1 extra point in 1 season.

I swear, I think Lemieux supporters can be like religious fanatics when it comes to thes debates.

 

[Dangler99*]

Lemieux was born with a spine condition that was very severe. He also had cancer ok cancer... The numbers he put up are staggering. How to you take a whole season off because of radiation treatment and a 2nd back operation and come back and score 69 goals,92 assists,161 points in 70 games. To win MVP Art Ross and Pearson? Best of all time.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Lemieux was born with a spine condition that was very severe. He also had cancer ok cancer... The numbers he put up are staggering. How to you take a whole season off because of radiation treatment and a 2nd back operation and come back and score 69 goals,92 assists,161 points in 70 games. To win MVP Art Ross and Pearson? Best of all time.

Awfully subjective - I could just as easily bring up Gordie Howe, after countless injuries over his career, scored 41 pts in the NHL at the age of 51.
The next closest is Mark Messier scoring 43 pts at the age of 43.

Does that remarkable feat, which no one has even come close to, make Howe's the best ever?

I don't think so - it deserves recognition and huge props for overcoming incredible obstacles, but in a sport where actual results are tantamount, it falls short of Gretzky putting up 210+ pts or Orr winning the Art Ross as a defenseman.

Likewise, while I think Yzerman's 2002 playoff accomplishment deserves recognition, the fact he was playing on essentially one leg does not make his 22 points better than Gretzky or Lemieux scoring over 40 pts in playoff runs.

Maybe you can call it 'most amazing' but certainly not 'best'.

 

[Dangler99*]

Awfully subjective - I could just as easily bring up Gordie Howe, after countless injuries over his career, scored 41 pts in the NHL at the age of 51.
The next closest is Mark Messier scoring 43 pts at the age of 43.

Does that remarkable feat, which no one has even come close to, make Howe's the best ever?

I don't think so - it deserves recognition and huge props for overcoming incredible obstacles, but in a sport where actual results are tantamount, it falls short of Gretzky putting up 210+ pts or Orr winning the Art Ross as a defenseman.

Likewise, while I think Yzerman's 2002 playoff accomplishment deserves recognition, the fact he was playing on essentially one leg does not make his 22 points better than Gretzky or Lemieux scoring over 40 pts in playoff runs.

Maybe you can call it 'most amazing' but certainly not 'best'.

It's not subjective at all. These are facts and have been stated by Lemieux. Sorry Lemieux scoring 69 goals and 161 points in 70 games which is 189 points over 82 games is 1000 times more impressive than Yzermans playoff.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

It's not subjective at all. These are facts and have been stated by Lemieux. Sorry Lemieux scoring 69 goals and 161 points in 70 games which is 189 points over 82 games is 1000 times more impressive than Yzermans playoff.

It is subjective that somehow 160 pts is better than 200 pts.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Awfully subjective - I could just as easily bring up Gordie Howe, after countless injuries over his career, scored 41 pts in the NHL at the age of 51.
The next closest is Mark Messier scoring 43 pts at the age of 43.

Does that remarkable feat, which no one has even come close to, make Howe's the best ever?

I don't think so - it deserves recognition and huge props for overcoming incredible obstacles, but in a sport where actual results are tantamount, it falls short of Gretzky putting up 210+ pts or Orr winning the Art Ross as a defenseman.

Likewise, while I think Yzerman's 2002 playoff accomplishment deserves recognition, the fact he was playing on essentially one leg does not make his 22 points better than Gretzky or Lemieux scoring over 40 pts in playoff runs.

Maybe you can call it 'most amazing' but certainly not 'best'.

Speaking of Howe, he was almost crippled in the 1950 playoffs and came back better than ever.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Speaking of Howe, he was almost crippled in the 1950 playoffs and came back better than ever.

And came back to score more goals, assists and points than anyone else in the NHL the very next year, setting the NHL record for most points in a season.

Howe's skull was fractured so severely surgeons had to drill holes into his skull in order to save his life and relieve pressure against his brain.

Amazing - like Lemieux - but not "best ever".

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

It's not. I'm just saying that his playoff performance doesn't really add to his existing impressiveness, because he already had that degree of impressiveness, if you follow me.


The specific things I'm discussing certainly did. My first response was in regards to the Conn Smythe, apparently wanting to give credit to Gretzky for that while Lemieux didn't have the opportunity for that award in that year, since it requires team playoff success.


I'm quite aware of that. Playoff performance is on par with regular-season performance. Which is to say, they should be considered together, in aggregate, not the playoffs as a subset being considered equal to the regular season as a subset, since there are so few playoff games compared to the regular season.

That's not it at all. People are pointing to all the awards that Lemieux won that year as possible/partial corrollary for that season being the "greatest ever", and all I'm saying is that Gretzky did all that too one year... AND won the Conn Smythe, establishing an individual scoring record - that still stands - on the way, AND winning the Cup, making THAT season more impressive/"greater" to me than Mario's '95/96 (or perhaps any season deemed to be Mario's "best").

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.

Don't know what you consider "training", but Gretzky has the reputation for having practiced harder and longer than most players of the era; first guy on the ice, last guy off type of player. I consider that "training", even if it didn't involve a lot of pushing weights up and down while lying on a bench.

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.

Um... how is holding the opinion that something Gretzky did was "better" than something Mario did equal to "not accepting how good Lemieux was"? Pretty sure everyone recognizes/accepts exactly how good he was and rank him among the very top, single digit placings, of all-time players. I'm really sick of hearing things like that from the Lemieux fans side, since accusations of "not accepting how good Gretzky/Orr/Howe was" never get thrown back in the opposite direction.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

all I'm saying is that Gretzky did all that too one year... AND won the Conn Smythe, establishing an individual scoring record - that still stands - on the way, AND winning the Cup, making THAT season more impressive/"greater" to me than Mario's '95/96 (or perhaps any season deemed to be Mario's "best").

How is this not giving Gretzky credit for team accomplishments? Gretzky did not win the Cup, the Oilers did.

 

[85highlander]

If this is truly a question of single season greatness, then this answer is simple.

Not to diminish the unbelievable single (and career) accomplishments of Gretz or Mario -- and the phenomenal courage and inspiration of playing through cancer, etc...

Only ONE player in the history of the league touched all these trophies in a single season AND scored the winning goal of the Stanley Cup in freakin OT!!!

Hart Memorial Trophy as MVP -- check
Art Ross as scoring champion -- check
Norris Trophy as best defenceman -- check
Conn Smythe as playoff MVP -- check
Stanley Cup winning goal flying through the air coolest photo -- check

Lady Byng -- uncheck -- he was too busy kicking ass

Bobby Orr in 1969-70 did something no other player has duplicated -- he won all four of the major trophies for skaters, plus potted the winning Stanley Cup goal to give Boston its first Cup in forever. This was the greatest season ever, bar none.

 

[Dangler99*]

If this is truly a question of single season greatness, then this answer is simple.

Not to diminish the unbelievable single (and career) accomplishments of Gretz or Mario -- and the phenomenal courage and inspiration of playing through cancer, etc...

Only ONE player in the history of the league touched all these trophies in a single season AND scored the winning goal of the Stanley Cup in freakin OT!!!

Hart Memorial Trophy as MVP -- check
Art Ross as scoring champion -- check
Norris Trophy as best defenceman -- check
Conn Smythe as playoff MVP -- check
Stanley Cup winning goal flying through the air coolest photo -- check

Lady Byng -- uncheck -- he was too busy kicking ass

Bobby Orr in 1969-70 did something no other player has duplicated -- he won all four of the major trophies for skaters, plus potted the winning Stanley Cup goal to give Boston its first Cup in forever. This was the greatest season ever, bar none.

Orr scored the goal than Jumped in the air. Everyone always he scored it while flying lol.

 

[shazariahl]

Those adjusted stats favor Lemieux, we've been over it here numerous times.

But anyways, so what? A 0.02 difference in adjusted PPG? You realize that amounts to 1 extra point over 82 games?

So we are now crediting Lemieux with not only extra points in the games he did play, but also credit for games he never stepped out on the ice for? And using that as evidence he had the best season ever, and from there that he was the best player ever?

IE. Using every trick in the book in favor of Lemieux and absolutely none for Gretzky, Lemieux comes away with 1 extra point in 1 season.

I swear, I think Lemieux supporters can be like religious fanatics when it comes to thes debates.

Well said. Regardless, adjusted points are good for a rough estimate - nothing more. There are problems with them, which have been documented on these boards time and time again. Clinging to a 0.02 difference in adjusted stats and saying that proves anything is rather silly.

And came back to score more goals, assists and points than anyone else in the NHL the very next year, setting the NHL record for most points in a season.

Howe's skull was fractured so severely surgeons had to drill holes into his skull in order to save his life and relieve pressure against his brain.

Amazing - like Lemieux - but not "best ever".

I was going to mention this as well. Drilling holes into your skull to relieve the pressure on your brain and then coming back the next season to set a new record for points scored is more impressive to me than mearly winning the Art Ross. Yes, Lemieux coming back from cancer was amazing. Better than Howe? Not in my opinion, at least.

How is this not giving Gretzky credit for team accomplishments? Gretzky did not win the Cup, the Oilers did.

Gretzky scored 47 points in 18 games. Its not like he was "just some guy on the team" or something. When you score 47 points in 18 playoff games... it's not a team win. You basically broke in and stole the cup singlehandedly, then were kind enough to share it with the rest of your team.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Gretzky scored 47 points in 18 games. Its not like he was "just some guy on the team" or something. When you score 47 points in 18 playoff games... it's not a team win. You basically broke in and stole the cup singlehandedly, then were kind enough to share it with the rest of your team.

Like I said before, 47 points in 18 games is exactly the pace he scored at in the regular season, when the team was second overall to the Flyers, who they beat in the Finals. They cut 0.60 off their GAA in the playoffs - did Gretzky do that by scoring at exactly the same rate as he did in the regular season?

And actually, Gretzky recorded a point on a lower percentage of the goals the Oilers scored in the playoffs than in the regular season. Paul Coffey scored two points per game as a defenceman. Kurri scored over a goal per game. Charlie Huddy scored a point per game (!).

To suggest the Oilers were a one-man team is silly. No one-man team wins the Cup; otherwise Lemieux would have had several more championships than he did.

Stanley Cup wins are team achievements.

 

[shazariahl]

Like I said before, 47 points in 18 games is exactly the pace he scored at in the regular season, when the team was second overall to the Flyers, who they beat in the Finals. They cut 0.60 off their GAA in the playoffs - did Gretzky do that by scoring at exactly the same rate as he did in the regular season?

And actually, Gretzky recorded a point on a lower percentage of the goals the Oilers scored in the playoffs than in the regular season. Paul Coffey scored two points per game as a defenceman. Kurri scored over a goal per game. Charlie Huddy scored a point per game (!).

To suggest the Oilers were a one-man team is silly. No one-man team wins the Cup; otherwise Lemieux would have had several more championships than he did.

Stanley Cup wins are team achievements.

Well, ignoring the fact that I was being rather facitious, you are correct that winning the cup is a team accomplishment. However, setting a record for points scored in the playoffs, assists scored in the playoffs, points in a SC finals, assists in a SC finals, and winning the Con Smythe are all individual accomplishments. Yes, they are influenced by the team - but so is any accomplishment in a team sport. I personally would say a season in which a player wins basically every award possible AND sets multiple records that still stand to this day is better than someone who has a great regular season, but nothing else.

Many consider post season success just as important (or more) than regular season accomplishments. Lemieux had a great season, that translated into nothing more than a statistical anomaly. Gretzky had a great season where he won just as much, but also left a lasting legacy (in the form of multiple scoring records) PLUS led his team to a championship (both in the sense that he was the team captain, and in the sense he won the Con Smythe trophy).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A superstar maintaining his regular season pace in the playoffs (when average opponents are better and teams play more
Conservatively) is unusual. Doing it over a the entire playoffs, when that average is over 2 points per game is amazing!

Seriously, Gretzky's Smythes are no more team accomplishments than Lemieux's Smythes

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

How is this not giving Gretzky credit for team accomplishments? Gretzky did not win the Cup, the Oilers did.

Better question: why are you totally downplaying setting the record for most points by an individual player in the playoffs and tangentially prattling on about how Cup wins are a team effort? Lots of players have played with teammates in the playoffs before , lol, and no one has ever accomplished individually what Gretzky did that year. Within the context of this discussion, it's almost like saying that Lemieux scored 160 points without any teammates on the ice, 1-on-5, while Gretzky needed 20 people working with him to get those 47.

And again (how many times is it now?), it's not THE reason I consider that season to be better than Lemieux's. But considering that I feel his season was better than Lemieux's even without it, something like that just serves to distance the gap. I mean, do you realize that only two other players over the concurrence of these awards (Lafleur '76/77 and Orr '69/70) have had a single season resume as strong/extensive as Gretzky's that year?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Gordie Howe Injured 1950 Playoffs

Speaking of Howe, he was almost crippled in the 1950 playoffs and came back better than ever.

One post game article with conflicting versions and few details about the extent of the injury suffered by Gordie Howe.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAAIBAJ&pg=7149,3517434&dq=gordie-howe&hl=en