MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,700
- 5,307
You serious with this? Jagr won the art ross by 20 points. Lemieux won by 12 while playing 24 less games than the second leading scorer. Also put up the 2nd N third highest goal and ppg ratio in history.
Well like I said he is a clean case of the best per game.
But winning the Art Ross by 20 points in a very low scoring environment on that penguins team can have an serious argument over winning an art ross by 12 in one of the highest scoring season in history for stars (if not the cleanly the highest) on that 92-93 Pens team, not have being a better or has good of an hockey player obviously, but missing a single game instead of 24 compensate.
I am not wed to the idea, they are virtually nill to me, specially that the 92-93 Penguins 60 games with Mario were much better (in winning and so on) than without, for him to have an argument for sure. But that peak Jagr would have won the Art Ross in 70 games and would have lead is team in scoring after 53 games that year.
Jagr beat peak Selanne playing with Kariya by 18.6%, Lemieux beat peak Lafontaine playing with Mogilny (that about the equivalent competition imo) by 8%, doing it with only 60 games make him obviously the much better hockey player, which is not a debate here, but that not how I understood the question that asked to take into account missed game and talked in lenght about the missed game in the opening post.
Seems that the 1992-1993 season was the most impressive in terms of individual performance
Selanne (98-99 and 96-97) > 92-93 imo, 92-93 had the benefit of being around the all time talent peak (or at least a peak) with Euros being more open and Russia getting in, top Canadian, USA being strong, etc... but the big numbers are a structural result of PP, expansion teams, ads break, etc...
Last edited: