Not sure about assuredly beating anyting. It's a possibility though. I think the way I'd say it is:
If Lemieux had full health, and was able to play mostly full, healthy seasons after 89, so including 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 - he has a fantastic chance at breaking either Gretzky's single season goal or point record. But that's all it is - a good chance, but definitely not a certainty, since it's an extremely high bar.
Well I did say
almost assured
. Perhaps that's a bit too confident, but the probability of it was greater than 50%.
1992-1993 is just one season, and as it is it's already an unusual one for him. Because he did miss time, significant time for a very serious reason, which impacted him. It impacted him negatively from a performance standpoint maybe, but also positively by fueling him with some extra motivation upon his return. If 1992-1993 was fully healthy instead, it probably plays out in a completely different way...
Of course, I naturally agree that things wouldn't unfold exactly as they did. However, the notion that he was accumulating points at a
significantly higher rate than usual upon his return is simply not correct. Lemieux amassed 104 points in 39 games before his cancer sabbatical(he left after the first period of his final game due to a reoccurrence of back pain). That's a points per game rate of 2.67 or 2.60 for those who insist on using that one-period game. After his return, he scored 56 points in 20 games, equating to a PPG rate of 2.80 This represents a statistically insignificant difference of just 5% or 7%. What saw an elevation beyond the norm was his goal-scoring rate. However, the true greats accumulate points through various means, whether by scoring themselves or by setting up others. A perfect example is Gretzky, who transitioned from scoring 92 goals to just 52, yet he scored points at the same rate. Another example is McDavid this year, who will likely score 30-something less goals than the year prior and yet his point totals are projected to decrease by only half that amount and that decrease can largely be contributed to an early-season team wide slump and possibly some kind of moderate injury, which he didn't have to deal with the year prior.
Perhaps even more importantly, and directly relevant to the focus of this discussion, Lemieux was forced to leave games on no less than
6 occasions that season due to back pain. It's abundantly clear that he wasn't operating at full capacity. I won't speculate on the exact percentage of his capabilities he was playing at, that would be mere conjecture, but what we can safely say is that is was something less than 100%. This fact further diminishes the likelihood of him scoring at a reduced rate under the assumption of not being impaired by the back condition.
maybe you guess at 180 points, or at 200 points, or 220+...but hard to say for sure.
We can safety dismiss the notion that a healthy Lemieux would only score 180 points that season. As previously mentioned, Lemieux tallied 104 points in 39 games, a per game rate of 2.67, in essentially what amounted to the first half of the season. For him to score only 180 points would imply that he managed just 76 more points over the remaining 45 games, a PPG of just 1.69, which represents a staggering scoring rate decline of
36.6%!
Here's a compelling statistic: Not a single player who has scored 130 or more points in a season has EVER experienced such a drastic decline in production during the second half of their season. Throughout NHL history, there have been fifty instances of players achieving 130-point seasons, and the highest scoring rate drop in any of those instances was 35% by Marcel Dionne in the 1979-1980 season. The reasons for which are abundantly clear - both of his line mates: Dave Taylor and Charlie Simmers, suffered injuries which cost them nearly a quarter of the season in the second half and the Kings of that time had a serious lack of players talented enough to fill their void, they are after all perhaps the most infamous one-line team of all-time. That's not to say Dionne would have maintained his impressive scoring pace throughout the entire season had they not gotten injured. But he certainly would not have experienced such a pronounced decline in scoring. Unlike Dionne, Lemieux was renowned for his ability to generate offense even without the support of top-tier linemates, as demonstrated by his performances with the talent-devoid Penguins teams of the 1980s. But in any csae, the potential absence of Lemieux's regular linemates, Stevens and Tocchet, due to injury would not have posed a significant issue for the Penguins in the 1992-1993 season. This is because the team was equipped with an abundance of top-tier talent capable of adequately filling any gaps in the lineup caused by injuries.
So, why would a peak, 27 year old Lemieux - considered by most to be the most physically gifted offensive player of all time - suffer the most significant decline in offensive production among top scorers in history? While 180 points can't be ruled out with
absolute certainty, the probability of that is akin to flipping a coin and having it land on heads 10 times in a row i.e. it's extremely unlikely to the point where it's not even a serious consideration.
Gretzky had ~5-6 shots at 200+ points, and he made the most of it. 200+ 4x, 196 once and 183 once.
Lemieux really onle had one shot at 200+ point, in 1989. And that's the biggest diference in their peaks. Because 1989 is when he really hit his full peak...and is also when injuries started piling up. Give Lemieux a fully healthy run of ~4-5 seasons after 1989, and who knows what he accomplishes.
I don't think you realize how marginal the differences in players' scoring rates have historically been from the 3/4 mark of the season to the final tally. Let's examine all seasons with over 160 points scored and compare the scoring rates from 20 games prior to the end of the season to their final totals:
Gretzky | Gm# | PTs 20gm left | PPG 20gm left | Final Pts | Final PPG | Divergence |
'81 | 60 | 114 | 1.90 | 164 | 2.05 | 7.9% |
'82 | 60 | 156 | 2.60 | 212 | 2.65 | 1.9% |
'83 | 60 | 147 | 2.45 | 196 | 2.45 | 0.0% |
'84 | 54 | 158 | 2.93 | 205 | 2.77 | -5.3% |
'85 | 60 | 167 | 2.78 | 208 | 2.60 | -6.6% |
'86 | 60 | 162 | 2.70 | 215 | 2.69 | -0.5% |
'87 | 59 | 147 | 2.49 | 183 | 2.32 | -7.0% |
'89 | 58 | 135 | 2.33 | 168 | 2.15 | -7.5% |
'91 | 58 | 113 | 1.95 | 163 | 2.09 | 7.3% |
Lemieux | | | | | | |
'88 | 57 | 121 | 2.12 | 168 | 2.18 | 2.8% |
'89 | 56 | 154 | 2.75 | 199 | 2.62 | -4.8% |
'96 | 50 | 120 | 2.40 | 161 | 2.30 | -4.2% |
The largest variance observed was between 7.9% and -7.5%. Lemieux's scoring rate would have had to plummet by
double the largest amount seen for him to end up with just 199 points on the season.
Additionally, Lemieux was not historically prone significant declines in scoring. Here's the numbers for all seasons of 59 or more games played during his prime:
| Gm# | Pt's 20gm left | PPG 20gm left | Final Pts | Final PPG | Divergence |
'85 | 53 | 74 | 1.40 | 100 | 1.37 | -1.9% |
'86 | 59 | 110 | 1.86 | 141 | 1.78 | -4.3% |
'87 | 43 | 76 | 1.77 | 107 | 1.70 | -3.9% |
'88 | 57 | 121 | 2.12 | 168 | 2.18 | 2.8% |
'89 | 56 | 154 | 2.75 | 199 | 2.62 | -4.8% |
'90 | 39 | 78 | 2.00 | 123 | 2.08 | 4.2% |
'92 | 44 | 83 | 1.89 | 131 | 2.05 | 8.5% |
'93 | 40 | 104 | 2.60 | 160 | 2.67 | 2.6% |
'96 | 50 | 120 | 2.40 | 161 | 2.30 | -4.2% |
'97 | 56 | 96 | 1.71 | 122 | 1.61 | -6.4% |
Hence, I pose the question once again: Why assume that he would suffer such a drastic decline, especially with the consideration of good health and at the peak of his abilities? Can I assert with absolute certainty that he would have surpassed the 200-point mark? No, certainly not(few things can be). However, the scenarios you are proposing, are amongst the less probable outcomes based on the balance of probabilities.
