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

[Iain Fyffe]

In any event, as long as we've established that they're all heavily team-dependent awards

We haven't, of course, and that's the point (since "heavily" is a vague term which can be defined as you wish). You're denying there's any difference in the degree of team-dependence.

The Smythe absolutely requires you to play on one of the two teams that play in the final. If you're not on one of these two teams, you have zero chance of winning the award.

Most other awards are aided significantly by being on a playoff team, but it's not absolutely necessary, and being on a low-ranked team doesn't automatically exclude you from consideration.

 

[Dangler99*]

Gretzky's 83-84 season was his best in my opinion.

- Stanley Cup Championship
- Hart Trophy (MVP)
- Art Ross Trophy (Leading Scorer)
- Lester B. Pearson Award (Most outstanding Player)
- Led NHL in Goals
- NHL First All Star Team
- Stanley Cup Playoff Leading Scorer
- Canada Cup Gold Medal
- Canada Cup Leading Scorer
- Canada Cup All Star team

Great Season really.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

- Canada Cup Gold Medal
- Canada Cup Leading Scorer
- Canada Cup All Star team

Great Season really.

Great season indeed. But if there's anything I've learned in discussions about Roberto Luongo, it's that international play doesn't count.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

We haven't, of course, and that's the point (since "heavily" is a vague term which can be defined as you wish). You're denying there's any difference in the degree of team-dependence.

The Selke absolutely requires you to play on one of the two teams that play in the final. If you're not on one of these two teams, you have zero chance of winning the award.

Most other awards are aided significantly by being on a playoff team, but it's not absolutely necessary, and being on a low-ranked team doesn't automatically exclude you from consideration.

Okay, how about this: when the evidence that suggests otherwise is so minimal that it appears to be the exception, not the "rule". Try to mask the degree of separation between the two with words like "significant", but you're coming up with between 0 and 4 cases out of 30-70 examples. Just let the Conn Smythe reflect positively on some grander scope of how great an individual's season was if he won it, and let it contribute to a comparison between individual players' seasons... like everyone else does.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Okay, how about this: when the evidence that suggests otherwise is so minimal that it appears to be the exception, not the "rule".

You did see the Selke stuff above, right? That's not minimal, especially when compared to the "must be top two" for the Smythe. It's not between "0 and 4" cases, because you're conflating two standards. If we restricted the other awards to the top two teams, there'd be a lot more than four of each example.

... like everyone else does.

Bleat.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

You did see the Selke stuff above, right? That's not minimal, especially when compared to the "must be top two" for the Smythe. It's not between "0 and 4" cases, because you're conflating two standards. If we restricted the other awards to the top two teams, there'd be a lot more than four of each example.


Bleat.

Sigh. I'm pretty much done dude. Especially now that you're trying to inflate the significance of playing on a playoff team versus playing on a team that makes the finals, when individual awards (or collections thereof) are legitimate criteria for comparing the "greatness" of a player's season, and we've established that it's the rule (much more so than the exception) that you have to play on a playoff team to have a chance at any of them. Which is to say that we've already consdiered the contribution of the team "adequately", and the awards speak for themselves in terms of the individual's contribution/merit.

All other things being "equal" (or close enough to warrant comparing and contrasting), the guy who also had a Conn Smythe that year probably gets heavy consideration as having a better season as an individual than the guy who didn't in the most intense and extensive attempts at a comparison of the sort, I expect... and for good reason imo. It's not automatic, but when everything else seems to favour one guy, AND you add that element... come on dude. You're trying too hard for a losing cause.

The trophy case DOES suggest that Gretzky's '84/85 was "greater" than Mario's '95/96, and instead of bleeding semantic arguments out of me, now that the above has been established, how about you re-focus your attention on exactly what it is we should be considering that makes the opposite (Lemieux's '95/96 being greater than Gretzky's '84/85) even seem like a possibility? What do you possibly have up your sleeve that doesn't make the trophy case comparison a quick, easy, and sufficiently comprehensive/reliable way to compare the two seasons?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

It's not automatic, but when everything else seems to favour one guy, AND you add that element...

If everything else favours that one guy, adding that element changes nothing, of course. He's still favoured.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

If everything else favours that one guy, adding that element changes nothing, of course. He's still favoured.

I submit, of course, that it DOES change something, since it DOES create further separation in the comparison, even in the context/"narrower scope" of an individual's contribution/performance/greatness. And since you seem to be the only person around here arguing to the contrary, I'm content in believing that I'm onto something.

 

[shazariahl]

I submit, of course, that it DOES change something, since it DOES create further separation in the comparison, even in the context/"narrower scope" of an individual's contribution/performance/greatness. And since you seem to be the only person around here arguing to the contrary, I'm content in believing that I'm onto something.

Agreed. If I win the scoring race by 70 points, that's more impressive than winning by 7 points. And winning by 7 is more impressive than winning by 1. Degree of separation from one's peers is always relevant. Players can win the Art Ross, but still not win the Con Smythe, even on a playoff team. Even on a team good enough to make the finals. Hell, Gretzky led the NHL in playoff scoring and regular season scoring and still lost a Smythe to Messier.

Winning more creates a larger separation, and thus a larger degree of dominance. And if you're talking "greatest season ever", I'd favor someone who won everything he could almost vs someone who didn't.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The Selke absolutely requires you to play on one of the two teams that play in the final. If you're not on one of these two teams, you have zero chance of winning the award.

Huh? Did I miss something?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Huh? Did I miss something?

Yes. A typo! I'll fix it.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Agreed. If I win the scoring race by 70 points, that's more impressive than winning by 7 points. And winning by 7 is more impressive than winning by 1. Degree of separation from one's peers is always relevant.

If this is true, though, why are we looking at individual awards at all? You get an Art Ross trophy regardless of whether you win the scoring race by one point or 70. You get the Norris regardless of whether it's unanimous or you win by a single vote.

And if you're talking "greatest season ever", I'd favor someone who won everything he could almost vs someone who didn't.

And that's fine, just remember that not everyone will agree that team achievements play too much into determining the greatest season by an individual.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Logical Coherence

If this is true, though, why are we looking at individual awards at all? You get an Art Ross trophy regardless of whether you win the scoring race by one point or 70. You get the Norris regardless of whether it's unanimous or you win by a single vote.


And that's fine, just remember that not everyone will agree that team achievements play too much into determining the greatest season by an individual.

Then logical coherence dictates the same consideration for team achievements Finishing first during the regular season by one or twenty points should be viewed as the same. Winning the SC final in a seven game series lasting into overtime should be viewed as the same as winning in a four game sweep with a minimal three goal margin each game.

However that is not how sports work.

Rarely if ever is the second place finisher remembered or given more than the minimum 15 minutes of fame.Without research it is extremely doubtful that a significant number of followers could name the silver medal winners behind Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics.

The meritocracy of sports is challenged whenever there is a close result or reversal of form. Be it at the individual level or team level, the closer the result the louder the bleatings of the fanboy element about officiating, luck, that on a total vs wins basis their team was vastly superior(1960 WS Pirates outscored 54-27 in runs by the Yankees but win 4 - 3 in games).

Reality is that the margins matter, providing context and separation.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Then logical coherence dictates the same consideration for team achievements Finishing first during the regular season by one or twenty points should be viewed as the same. Winning the SC final in a seven game series lasting into overtime should be viewed as the same as winning in a four game sweep with a minimal three goal margin each game.

However that is not how sports work.

It's not? I thought only the winners were really remembered, regardless of how they won.

Rarely if ever is the second place finisher remembered or given more than the minimum 15 minutes of fame.

Isn't this the opposite of what you just said? If only the winner is remembered, regardless of how they won, then isn't your first paragraph exactly how sports works?

Reality is that the margins matter, providing context and separation.

Indeed, which is one reason relying on individual awards is problematic, as stated in my post.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oh well........

It's not? I thought only the winners were really remembered, regardless of how they won.


Isn't this the opposite of what you just said? If only the winner is remembered, regardless of how they won, then isn't your first paragraph exactly how sports works?


Indeed, which is one reason relying on individual awards is problematic, as stated in my post.

Appreciate the difference between rarely and really.

Using a neutral sport analogy - baseball, the 1960 WS losing Yankees saw their shortstop immortalized by the media for the pebble play.

How sports work and how its is perceived or analyzed are parallel issues that rarely intersect.

Relying on individual awards is as problematic as people want it to be. Given that people tend to the paradoxical(being politically correct here) this is not surprising. Example. Individual awards were introduced and individual statistics were expanded long after hockey, received its impetus with the donation of the Stanley Cup.

The Stanley Cup was awarded in the 1890's yet All-Star teams and individual awards came much later, formally recognized in the 1920's Hart, Vezina, fine tuned along the way Ross, - 1940's, Norris-1950's, Smythe in the 1960's etc. Today we see the following phenomena. Those who are amongst the first to bleat that hockey is a "team sport" are also amongst the most active participnats in determining "Retro" versions of Norris, Selke, Smythe or other award and honours. Fun exercise but recognize the simple duality that this represents.

Similarly those who bleat "team sport" often encourage individual comparisons while trying to disect the team factor.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=920380

and praising the nobility of the individual within a perceived weak collective:

"In researching these men over the years, I've always found myself partial to Bowie. It's not because McGee had the shorter career; that's pretty typical for players of this era. I think it might be because McGee had the good fortune of playing on a stacked team that was able to compete for the Stanley Cup every year, while Bowie was really a one-man show with the Vics."

and

"while Bowie was really a one-man show with the Vics."

Mr. Pot. please meet Mr. Kettle.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

"while Bowie was really a one-man show with the Vics."

Mr. Pot. please meet Mr. Kettle.

Would you care to point out where I argued Bowie was better than McGee in that thread, rather than just saying I'm more partial to him?

Part of being a sports fan is having subjective favourites. "Favourite" does not mean "best" or "greatest", just "favourite". Brian Skrudland and Mike McPhee will always be among my favourite players, and they're nowhere near anyone's definition of greatest player.

Your "gotcha" attempts are getting tiresome.

Oh, and if you have something to say about Bowie or McGee, contributing to that thread would be appreciated. The only thing it's gotten so far is pointing out a typo.

 

[seventieslord]

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 remember 1992-93 quite well and it was definitely more impressive.

1989, I can't say for sure, I was alive, and mesmerized by the point totals, but there are warts on it... the team was brutal defensively and he didn't "lift" them anywhere. I know people like that gaudy 199 number, but I think his 160 (in 60 games) in 1993 tops it.

Okay, how about this: when the evidence that suggests otherwise is so minimal that it appears to be the exception, not the "rule". Try to mask the degree of separation between the two with words like "significant", but you're coming up with between 0 and 4 cases out of 30-70 examples. Just let the Conn Smythe reflect positively on some grander scope of how great an individual's season was if he won it, and let it contribute to a comparison between individual players' seasons... like everyone else does.

One problem with looking at the Smythe trophy as some automatic beacon of greatness, other than what has alrady been touched on, is that it's an extremely binary award. For example, we can look at Maurice Richard's scoring record and conclude that it is unimpressive because "he never even won an art ross" but if we dig a little further we can see he was a 5-time runner up and further digging reveals he was in the top-5 three additional times. Step back further and you see the bigger picture. Another example: Syl Apps' Hart voting. The guy never won one, but he was a three-time runner-up and twice 3rd.

If we had voting results available for the Smythe similar to what we have for other awards, what a wealth of info they could be. Similarly, if all we knew about every award in history was the binary, "this guy won it, and everyone else didn't", record that we have for the Smythe, how awfully boring that would be.

Of course, all of the above ignores that the Smythe is subjectively voted on like anything else, so, like the proverbial lamppost, we can use it for illumination, and not necessarily support. I would subjectively argue in the absence of voting records, that Chris Pronger is a legitimate three-time Smythe runner-up.

Your "gotcha" attempts are getting tiresome.

O RLY?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I remember 1992-93 quite well and it was definitely more impressive.

1989, I can't say for sure, I was alive, and mesmerized by the point totals, but there are warts on it... the team was brutal defensively and he didn't "lift" them anywhere. I know people like that gaudy 199 number, but I think his 160 (in 60 games) in 1993 tops it.

To me 92-93 was "impressive" because of how amazingly he played under the health circumstances. It really was kind of superhuman.

I don't think it had anything to do with lifting his team. He missed 1/4 of the schedule and the Pens were stacked at the time. I mean of course they are even better with him than without but they did have a second legitimate first line hall of fame center on their team.

Furthermore, the Pens lost one of the biggest mismatches of all time to the Isles.

I still think Lemieux should have won the LBP (like he did) and Gilmour should have won the Hart (I know most disagree). Gilmour was certainly more valuable to his team over a full schedule on a much weaker Leafs team than Lemieux was over 3/4 of the schedule on a stacked Pens team. (Yes I really liked Gilmour but I do think it is true)

Unfortunately that was one of the years that the Hart was the "best player award" instead of the "most valuable to his team" award.

I still rate the 95-96 season the lowest of the three though.. it is probably the quietest 160 point season ever.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Game Over

Would you care to point out where I argued Bowie was better than McGee in that thread, rather than just saying I'm more partial to him?

Part of being a sports fan is having subjective favourites. "Favourite" does not mean "best" or "greatest", just "favourite". Brian Skrudland and Mike McPhee will always be among my favourite players, and they're nowhere near anyone's definition of greatest player.

Your "gotcha" attempts are getting tiresome.

Oh, and if you have something to say about Bowie or McGee, contributing to that thread would be appreciated. The only thing it's gotten so far is pointing out a typo.

What is getting tiresome are your transparent efforts at being provocative so that you can generate articles that will be copyrightable and moniable elsewhere.

Good luck.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

What is getting tiresome are your transparent efforts at being provocative so that you can generate articles that will be copyrightable and moniable elsewhere.

Dude, I've been writing this stuff on the interwebs for a decade now, and you might be surprised at how little I've made doing so. How nice for you to have found a new way to question my motives, though.

Do you think if I were planning on writing articles on this stuff that I would be giving it away here? If I was writing on Bowie and McGee, I'd have done so already. I don't need other people's opinions to do that.