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

[Iain Fyffe]

Since your point is based on a false premise .........

Your criticism is based on a false reading of my post. By "entitled", I obviously mean that every team is given the same number of regular-season games to play. When discussing players like Mario and Wayne, there's no question that they are good enough to play prime minutes in the NHL. But not every player has the same chance to play deep into the playoffs. He can obviously affect this chance himself, but there's only so much one man can do. Even in Gretzky's prime, with a good cast of teammates, he did not win the Cup every year, or even make it out of the preminary round every year (see 1982).

So unless you're saying that Mario Lemieux was not good enough to merit playing time in the NHL, take it elsewhere please.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Your Post

Your criticism is based on a false reading of my post. By "entitled", I obviously mean that every team is given the same number of regular-season games to play. When discussing players like Mario and Wayne, there's no question that they are good enough to play prime minutes in the NHL. But not every player has the same chance to play deep into the playoffs. He can obviously affect this chance himself, but there's only so much one man can do. Even in Gretzky's prime, with a good cast of teammates, he did not win the Cup every year, or even make it out of the preminary round every year (see 1982).

So unless you're saying that Mario Lemieux was not good enough to merit playing time in the NHL, take it elsewhere please.

Your post as quoted stands on its own. Every player is every player not the singular specific that you may have intended.Clarity is a virtue. Try it.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Your criticism is based on a false reading of my post. By "entitled", I obviously mean that every team is given the same number of regular-season games to play. When discussing players like Mario and Wayne, there's no question that they are good enough to play prime minutes in the NHL. But not every player has the same chance to play deep into the playoffs. He can obviously affect this chance himself, but there's only so much one man can do. Even in Gretzky's prime, with a good cast of teammates, he did not win the Cup every year, or even make it out of the preminary round every year (see 1982).

So unless you're saying that Mario Lemieux was not good enough to merit playing time in the NHL, take it elsewhere please.

Right, and on an individual basis, some DID more than others whether measured in raw totals, or in terms of exceeding others by X% in whatever recorded metric you choose, etc. For example, Gretzky in '81/82, '83/84 and '84/85 (with elements varying between the seasons).

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Clarity is a virtue. Try it.

I think you might need to take your own advice. I haven't a clue what this is supposed to mean:

Every player is every player not the singular specific that you may have intended.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Right, and on an individual basis, some DID more than others whether measured in raw totals, or in terms of exceeding others by X% in whatever recorded metric you choose, etc. For example, Gretzky in '81/82, '83/84 and '84/85 (with elements varying between the seasons).

Sure, and there's no reason to not give Gretzky credit for his playoff performance. I'm talking specifically about the Conn Smythe award and the Stanley Cup, not what Gretzky himself did in the playoffs.

You can do a whole lot in the playoffs and still have zero chance for the Conn Smythe or the Stanley Cup, depending on how well your team performs.

In 1982 Gretzky scored 2.40 points per game in the playoffs, nearly the level he scored in 1985 (2.61). However, his teammates did not play as well, they allowed over 5 goals per game, and the Oilers lost in the preliminary round to a team they had beaten by 48 points in the regular season. Unsurprisingly, Gretzky did not win the Conn Smythe award that year.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Sure, and there's no reason to not give Gretzky credit for his playoff performance. I'm talking specifically about the Conn Smythe award and the Stanley Cup, not what Gretzky himself did in the playoffs.

You can do a whole lot in the playoffs and still have zero chance for the Conn Smythe or the Stanley Cup, depending on how well your team performs.

In 1982 Gretzky scored 2.40 points per game in the playoffs, nearly the level he scored in 1985 (2.61). However, his teammates did not play as well, they allowed over 5 goals per game, and the Oilers lost in the preliminary round to a team they had beaten by 48 points in the regular season. Unsurprisingly, Gretzky did not win the Conn Smythe award that year.

Dude, you can't do ANYTHING in hockey WITHOUT your team. So when you, individually, set a playoff record for points (which aren't shared... but I assume you knew that) by scoring a staggering number of points on the way to your team winning the Cup, that's something you can claim as an individual just as much as any of Lemieux's Art Rosses that contributed to his Pearsons which contributed to his Harts. Setting individual records at the most important time of the year is great. Winning individual awards is great. Winning the Cup is also great. And that's why Gretzky's '84/85 was great, and largely demonstrably greater than any one season Lemieux has on the books.

Just, seriously, move on from your definition of "impressive" (or whatever your motivation for insisting we treat these guys in a vacuum to this extent) and please at least partially absorb how great a single season is if you accomplish a list of things that no one (or in the case of the trophy collection, only Lafleur and Orr) has ever done before - or since for that matter - resulting in single season resume/"historical record" that, including winning the Conn Smythe and the Stanley Cup, could very well be the greatest season that any one player has ever had (hm to Orr, of course).

So what if Mario (or whomever else) never had an "equal opportunity"? Without an opportunity, you can't accomplish something, and thus you can't be allowed credit for having done it, and "fair" or not, it can't contribute to your "greatness" (or that of your season) by virtue of some woulda/coulda/shoulda.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Dude, you can't do ANYTHING in hockey WITHOUT your team.

No kidding. But the degree to which you depend on your team for different things is not constant.

Everything in hockey is team-dependant to a degree. But to pretend that winning the Stanley Cup is no more team-dependant than scoring x number of points is nutty.

I'm saying that the Stanley Cup and the Conn Smythe are far more team-dependant than, say, the Art Ross. So much so that calling them individual achievements is dubious.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Back to the main topic, is there anyone who actually saw and remembers all of Mario's career who actually thinks his 95-96 year was more impressive than his 88-89 or 92-93?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

No kidding. But the degree to which you depend on your team for different things is not constant.

Everything in hockey is team-dependant to a degree. But to pretend that winning the Stanley Cup is no more team-dependant than scoring x number of points is nutty.

I'm saying that the Stanley Cup and the Conn Smythe are far more team-dependant than, say, the Art Ross. So much so that calling them individual achievements is dubious.

How many names get engraved on the Conn Smythe's plate each year? That's right... one. Individual. And in no way, shape, or form is it meaningfully more team-dependent than the Art Ross, Hart, or Pearson... or Norris, or Selke for that matter, which are also awarded to individuals and are near impossible to win without good linemates/partners.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Back to the main topic, is there anyone who actually saw and remembers all of Mario's career who actually thinks his 95-96 year was more impressive than his 88-89 or 92-93?

Yes, and no I don't.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Back to the main topic, is there anyone who actually saw and remembers all of Mario's career who actually thinks his 95-96 year was more impressive than his 88-89 or 92-93?

I saw them all and 95-96 is the least impressive of the three in my opinion.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

How many names get engraved on the Conn Smythe's plate each year? That's right... one. Individual.

That's what you've got? Really?

Pedantic readings of "individual" aren't helpful.

And in no way, shape, or form is it meaningfully more team-dependent than the Art Ross, Hart, or Pearson... or Norris, or Selke for that matter, which are also awarded to individuals and are near impossible to win without good linemates/partners.

Really? Because the Conn Smythe not only requires some good teammates, it also requires a deep playoff run, something that is far from a given even if you have good linemates. You can have great linemates but crappy goaltending, and thus not get a shot at the Smythe.

You can win the Ross, Hart, Pearson, Norris or Selke without a deep playoff run. The Smythe requires a deep playoff run, on top of whatever else an individual award might require. Ergo, it's more team dependant.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Back to the main topic, is there anyone who actually saw and remembers all of Mario's career who actually thinks his 95-96 year was more impressive than his 88-89 or 92-93?

1988/89 stands out to me, in terms of impressiveness.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I started following hockey around 92-93, but the impression I got from everyone was that Mario's two really impressive seasons were the 88-89 and 92-93. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy for not remembering people talking about 95-96 as if it was on that level.

Hockey-reference comes out with a new formula, and suddenly it is being used to re-write history.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Hockey-reference comes out with a new formula, and suddenly it is being used to re-write history.

Using their PS figures, on a per-game basis 95/96 is behind both 88/89 and 92/93. I don't necessarily put much faith in the PS numbers, but there you go.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Context

Back to the main topic, is there anyone who actually saw and remembers all of Mario's career who actually thinks his 95-96 year was more impressive than his 88-89 or 92-93?

Saw Mario Lemieux play from youth hockey onwards.

Impressive requires context as does greatest. So far the context has been avoided.

Not mentioned to date or seriously analyzed here or elsewhere is the effect of the short 1994-95 season due to the NHL work stoppage.

The 1992-93 season is impressive from the standpoint that it illustrates what Mario Lemieux could do, offensively and defensively, as a complete hockey player playing for an elite coach

The 1988-89 and 1995-96 seasons illustrate what Mario Lemieux could do when circumstances allowed him to focus mainly on his offensive skills.

 

[ssh]

Saw Mario Lemieux play from youth hockey onwards.

Impressive requires context as does greatest. So far the context has been avoided.

Not mentioned to date or seriously analyzed here or elsewhere is the effect of the short 1994-95 season due to the NHL work stoppage.

The 1992-93 season is impressive from the standpoint that it illustrates what Mario Lemieux could do, offensively and defensively, as a complete hockey player playing for an elite coach

The 1988-89 and 1995-96 seasons illustrate what Mario Lemieux could do when circumstances allowed him to focus mainly on his offensive skills.

Who were Mario's linemates during these three seasons? I vaguely remember him playing with Naslund, Sandstrom and Smolinski on ES in 95-96 while Jagr, Francis and Nedved were on the other scoring line.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

That's what you've got? Really?

Pedantic readings of "individual" aren't helpful.


Really? Because the Conn Smythe not only requires some good teammates, it also requires a deep playoff run, something that is far from a given even if you have good linemates. You can have great linemates but crappy goaltending, and thus not get a shot at the Smythe.

You can win the Ross, Hart, Pearson, Norris or Selke without a deep playoff run. The Smythe requires a deep playoff run, on top of whatever else an individual award might require. Ergo, it's more team dependant.

Come back to me with a list of Art Ross, Hart, Pearson, Norris, and Selke winners who DIDN'T win those awards while playing on a playoff team, and we can continue playing the strength of correlation game then.

You've got an opinion, which is fine, but hopefully you'll slowly start realizing how misguided it is in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Come back to me with a list of Art Ross, Hart, Pearson, Norris, and Selke winners who DIDN'T win those awards while playing on a playoff team, and we can continue playing the strength of correlation game then.

On a playoff team? That's a pretty easy criteria to meet, considering how many years we had 4 of 6, or 16 of 21 teams making the playoffs.

But all right, the very first Art Ross trophy was awarded in 1948 to Elmer Lach of the Montreal Canadiens, who did not make the playoffs.

Now, get back to me with a list of Conn Smythe winners who did not play in the finals. This isn't just making the playoffs, this is reaching the finals. If you want a hint, it's a very short list, because no one has ever won the award whose team did not reach the finals. Indeed the vast majority of winners are from the Cup-winning team.

So do you want to pretend these are equivalent: pretty much need to make the playoffs to win an individual award, though you don't need to be among the very best teams, and absolutely must play in the finals, and preferably play for the winning team, to win an individual award?

 

[Rita12]

coming from a person that is from Edmonton and has watched plenty of both wayne gretzky and mario lemieux, I have to admit lemieux's play mesmerized me while gretzky although extremely good just wan't on the same talent level. If you also consider the linemates gretzky had compared to lemieux and all of the adversity lemieux faced there is no doubt in my mind that not only is he more talented but also he would have exceded gretzky's point totals. His point per game ratio compared to gretzky, with lesser linemates throughout his career proves this. Coming back at his age to see him dominate a Toronto team was unbelievable. His imagination like letting the puck go through his legs in the olympics just shows you that he is on a different level than anyone else including gretzky no matter how great gretzky was

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I went ahead and did the Selke as well. There's a definite trend towards the top teams, but it's not nearly as dramatic as the effect of regular-season rank on winning the Cup, for instance.

1st - 7
2nd - 7
3rd - 5
4th - 3
5th - 2
6th - 1
7th - 1
8th - 3
9th - 1
10th - 1
20th - 1

That last one is Rod Brind'Amour in 2007, whose Hurricanes finished 20th overall and missed the playoffs. So the Selke also has an example of being awarded to a player who missed the playoffs entirely.

Interesting results; I wrote an article years ago on how the Selke seemed to about attention as much as ability, but this bears a little closer look, as there may be some team-based bias as well, especially since other than Brind'Amour, the trend in the Selke as the years have gone on has been more and more towards the top teams.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I have to admit lemieux's play mesmerized me while gretzky although extremely good just wan't on the same talent level.

I wouldn't say that; it's more that their talents were very different. Lemieux's were probably more obvious, physical ones.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

For the Norris, there's more of a trend toward team success than for the Selke, but we still have Rob Blake in 1998 (team was 11th overall), Al MacInnis in 1999 (12th overall), Doug Wilson in 1982 (15th overall) and Randy Carlyle in 1981 (15th overall).

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

On a playoff team? That's a pretty easy criteria to meet, considering how many years we had 4 of 6, or 16 of 21 teams making the playoffs.

But all right, the very first Art Ross trophy was awarded in 1948 to Elmer Lach of the Montreal Canadiens, who did not make the playoffs.

Now, get back to me with a list of Conn Smythe winners who did not play in the finals. This isn't just making the playoffs, this is reaching the finals. If you want a hint, it's a very short list, because no one has ever won the award whose team did not reach the finals. Indeed the vast majority of winners are from the Cup-winning team.

So do you want to pretend these are equivalent: pretty much need to make the playoffs to win an individual award, though you don't need to be among the very best teams, and absolutely must play in the finals, and preferably play for the winning team, to win an individual award?

Man, don't hurt yourself too bad bending over backwards and twisting around trying to support your opinion. You most likely won't win the Hart without leading your team to the playoffs, and you almost certainly won't win the Conn Smythe without leading your team to at least the finals. And since you apparently only found 1 Art Ross winner on a non-playoff team, and had to go back to original 6 days to do it, I feel content that we've established that you need the opportunity to play on a playoff team to have a chance at that one, too (or conversely, individual contributions like that propel teams to the playoffs/finals, and deserve individual recognition within the same context of a team sport as the rest of the awards).

In any event, as long as we've established that they're all heavily team-dependent awards, we can step back and give the individual credit that is due to the players that win them; which then extends naturally to strong support that someone who wins more of these awards in one season can logically be considered to have had a "greater" season than someone who didn't win quite as many. And if, on top of that, you set records along the way, that only strengthens the case. Glad we finally established all that after I don't know how many thousands of characters of typing it took.

In summary, whether you agree now or not, it makes the most sense to hold Gretzky's '84/85 above Lemieux's '95/96, which is where we all began in the first place.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

For the Norris, there's more of a trend toward team success than for the Selke, but we still have Rob Blake in 1998 (team was 11th overall), Al MacInnis in 1999 (12th overall), Doug Wilson in 1982 (15th overall) and Randy Carlyle in 1981 (15th overall).

I'm curious how the Hart breaks down with team ranking. You do see a lot of "best player on the best team" but also a fair amount of "would not have made the playoffs if not for him".