Who needed to play a full season the most? Lemieux (92-93) or Crosby (10-11)

[TheGuiminator]

Who would have benefited the most playing a full season from a legacy perspective?
Which season would have made a bigger impact on their career?

Is the 92-93 season meant more for Lemieux’s career than Crosby’s 10-11 season? Or the other way around?

Lemieux	PTS	G	A	GP
1992-93	160	69	91	60
1992-93 (projected)	224	97	127	84

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Potential accomplishments:

• All time points leader in a season with 224, breaking Gretzky’s 215 points records in 85-86 with 224 points
• Art Ross win by 76 points, breaking Gretzky’s 75 points lead in 86-87.
• All time Goal leader in a season with 97 ( Rocket Richard trophy didn’t exist at the time). Breaking Gretzky’s 92 goals record in 81-82
• Add the Lester B. Pearson and Hart trophy he already had
• A possible 3rd consecutive Stanley Cup? It’s a long shot but a 100% healthy Lemieux in the spring of 93 might change everything. If so, add a 3rd Conn Smythe.

Crosby	PTS	G	A	GP
2010-11	66	32	34	41
2010-11 (projected)	132	64	68	82

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Potential accomplishments:
· Art Ross ( probably by +20 points)
· Hart
· Rocket Richard
· Ted Lindsay
· Who knows maybe a Stanley cup? It’s very unlikely cause the Penguins were an underachieving playoff team at the time from 10-15.

Conclusions we could get if they both play full season:

Lemieux is possibly remember as Gretzky’s equal or better (all time great)

Crosby reaches his full potential with a career year that really distance himself from the rest of the pack and becomes the undisputed best of his generation.

Which legacy change the most?​

Click to read more...

 

[Pominville Knows]

This ain't even close, especially since Crosby missed more unsubstantiated peak time after. The only thing talking against it is we can't really be sure exactly what he would have been. But we could certainly make an educated guess about it, so its not a pretty loss of games.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, Crosby. Pretty easily.

 

[wetcoast]

Agree Crosby pretty easily, if this was a poll it would be shut down very quickly 95+%......

 

[GMR]

If you're asking which player's all time ranking would be higher, I doubt either's would change that much. Crosby is already the top player of his generation and Lemieux is always going to be in the top 4. Maybe he passes Howe or Orr on some people's lists (who don't already have him higher) but not many.

However, it would benefit Lemieux in the discussion of greatest season ever. I've always wondered whether he'd crack 100 goals by finishing that season.

 

[bobholly39]

Crosby by a lot

The questions about Lemieux aren't about one season, it's more about, if he had been fully healthy between 89 and 96 (instead of having zero full seasons in that stretch) - can he give career Gretzky a run for his money? One single peak season more or less changes very little for Lemieux. 93 was already arguably one of the greatest/best seasons of all time (despite only 60 games played). Honestly the circumstances around his return probably help grow his legend a bit.

A single peak season does a lot more for Crosby.

 

[GMR]

I still don't see how Crosby's career would be viewed that much differently if he stayed healthy that season. Yeah, he'd score more points than anybody in a long time, but he's already regarded as the best offensive player since Jagr. What would it change? Does he pass Beliveau all time on most people's list?

 

[The Panther]

First of all, neither player would have put up the totals you're projecting in a full season.

Lemieux and the Pens went on a massive tear right at the end of the season (17 game winning streak?), which pushed Mario's totals up significantly. When Mario went down to injury (well, cancer scare), he had 104 points in 40 games, which projects to 208 in 80 (matching Gretzky's third-highest total in 80 games). So, if he maintained that pace, maybe he scores 218 or something in 84 games, but even then, I'm skeptical, as Lemieux tended to slow down late in the (few) full seasons he played. He just wasn't built for the wear and tear. (In the playoffs, he had 18 points in 11 games, which gives him 178 points in 71 games, though it's likely post-radiation was starting to catch up to him by then.) In Crosby's case, I think he would have had a huge year, though probably not 132 points, as 41 games is a ridiculously small sample size.

So, I think if Lemieux had managed to pass 215 points, he's the answer (though it would be one of those Roger Maris "asterisk" things, if he'd done it in more than 80 games). But as I don't think he would have, the answer is probably Crosby, who is still kind of missing a 'huge' season on his resume.

 

[MadLuke]

First felling is Crosby, because Lemieux winning the Ross the way he did in that taking a break because of a cancer season is quite hard to beat legacy wise.

Surely if he does that 224 points total, that would been even better legacy wise, but chance are good he does not and better have the what if than failing to do it ? Is big storyline that year compensate for the missed game at least.

Crosby, now by how much the second 40 game goes down from the first.

That year is On ice shoot percentage: 12.9%, was better than the previous 3 year a little bit (12, 11.3, 11.3) but smaller than the rest of is next 58 games (14.8%/13.7%) he played, he had a crazy PDO in 10-11, but kept it for the next 2 short season he played.

Is own shooting percentage would have come down from that 19.9%, but he had 17.1% the full season before and 13.9% is next full season, so he could have ended the year with a really high 17.5-18%

When Crosby stopped in 2010-2011, is career point average in the regular season was of 1.39 ppg

If he would have went back to is average for the rest of the year, that a 123 point season: 41*1.388+66

That top 5

Crosby: 123 pts
Sedin: 104 pts
St-Louis: 99
Perry: 99 pts
Sedin: 94 pts


With that better than 20% advance on everyone, would be massive for is resume, 3 art ross instead of 2 would be big (would have the most Ross of is generation and not the same amount has Malkin, 3 Hart would not have a contemporary Ovechkin with more Hart than him and so on).

3 rocket Richard trophy, that the same amount has Bure/Selanne/Brett Hull, would look quite good on a resume of a good playmaker center (regardless if some win were weak year for elite goalscorer)

 

[The Panther]

• Art Ross win by 76 points, breaking Gretzky’s 75 points lead in 86-87.

Just a small nitpick, but Gretzky's biggest Art Ross win was by 79 points in 1984 (83 over a non-teammate). He won the scoring title on January 7th.​

 

[Big Phil]

I don't know how much changes their legacies. I think it is recognized that both were the best players that year regardless. If anything, having cancer, doing radiation treatments and coming back and winning the scoring title by 12 points might even make his legacy better than just playing that season healthy on his own. Maybe he has a bit more energy in the playoffs and pushes the Pens to three Cups. Who knows? But if anything you have to think the legacy of Lemieux is almost bigger because of the missed time that season.

 

[Pominville Knows]

First felling is Crosby, because Lemieux winning the Ross the way he did in that taking a break because of a cancer season is quite hard to beat legacy wise.

Surely if he does that 224 points total, that would been even better legacy wise, but chance are good he does not and better have the what if than failing to do it ? Is big storyline that year compensate for the missed game at least.

Crosby, now by how much the second 40 game goes down from the first.

That year is On ice shoot percentage: 12.9%, was better than the previous 3 year a little bit (12, 11.3, 11.3) but smaller than the rest of is next 58 games (14.8%/13.7%) he played, he had a crazy PDO in 10-11, but kept it for the next 2 short season he played.

Is own shooting percentage would have come down from that 19.9%, but he had 17.1% the full season before and 13.9% is next full season, so he could have ended the year with a really high 17.5-18%

When Crosby stopped in 2010-2011, is career point average in the regular season was of 1.39 ppg

If he would have went back to is average for the rest of the year, that a 123 point season: 41*1.388+66

That top 5

Crosby: 123 pts
Sedin: 104 pts
St-Louis: 99
Perry: 99 pts
Sedin: 94 pts


With that better than 20% advance on everyone, would be massive for is resume, 3 art ross instead of 2 would be big (would have the most hart Ross of is generation and not the same amount has Malkin, 3 Hart would not have a contemporary Ovechkin with more Hart than him and so on).

3 rocket Richard trophy, that the same amount has Bure/Selanne/Brett Hull, would look quite good on a resume of a good playmaker center (regardless if some win were weak year for elite goalscorer)

I'm sorry buddy, i'm just not buying it. Crosby in 2010/11 until 2012/13 reeks of higher finishes than that. We can't know for sure though, that is true.
Starting a partial season like that is better than finishing it like that, and we are also left wondering what was the reason he seemed to transform his game to becoming more of a playmaker the longer we got in that window. Was it psychologically or even neurologically?
In any case we got a player that seem to lack a peak.

 

[MadLuke]

I'm sorry buddy, i'm just not buying it. Crosby in 2010/11 until 2012/13 reeks of higher finishes than that. We can't know for sure though, that is true.

Yes using is career average is a bit of a below mediocre case scenario and not necessarily most likely, just to show even with finishing like that how much good it would have made for is career, that big lead Ross+Rocket+Hart+ one more playoff.

Could easily been 127-128 points here instead.

 

[Eisen]

I don't know if it's Crosby. Taking a substantial record from Gretzky is something else.

 

[MadLuke]

I don't know if it's Crosby. Taking a substantial record from Gretzky is something else.

If Lemieux would have pulled it off almost 100 goal and most point in a season ever, that is true, people answering Lemieux are assuming both slow down in the played game missed I think.

 

[alko]

Lemieux is possibly remember as Gretzky’s equal or better (all time great)

There are a lot people, that think, he is Gretzky’s equal. But i dont want to start the never ending discussion. I will point to 92/93 Mario season. Just imagine the numbers - 224, 97, 127... Plus others.

With all respect to Crosby, is at least 2 levels bellow.

 

[Noldo]

I think Crosby would have more substantial effect because having one full season at that level not only add one such season to his resume but also change how we perceive his other partial seasons.

If Crosby has that one full season at level above the other players, the idea that he was at that level also during the other partial seasons becomes much more reasonable. Lemieux already has the seasons establishing him as Gretzky’s peer. Even if he would actually capture one of the records would not change the picture that much.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Crosby. Lemieux had already proved he can play at gretzky’s level. 199 point season, 91 and 92 playoffs.
The one knock against Crosby is that he doesn’t have that peak season. That a lot of the other greats have.

It is close though. 224 points with 97 goals would make Lemieux have the best season of all time.

 

[JackSlater]

I agree with most here. Certainly Crosby. The biggest hole in Crosby's resume is an all time great peak season, and 2011 could have possibly been that season. We don't really have any questions about Lemieux's peak, and besides that in 1993 he played basically 50% more than Crosby did in 2011. Lemieux's 1993 season already qualifies as an all time great season in my eyes, while Crosby's is an impressive "what if".

 

[MXD]

The player whose season was ultimately nothing super special, due to playing only half the season.

Especially considering full-season Lemieux is, well, cancer-free Lemieux. And part of what makes 92-93 legendary is that this aspect just vanishes.

... Not to mention, if you credit Lemieux 84 games... well, you kindof have to credit Gretzky with with an 84 games season as well. In 83-84, Gretzky scored 205 pts in 74 games. He also had 212 and 215 pts in 80 games.

Gretzky would have to actually underperform to not pass 224 pts.

 

[TheGuiminator]

The player whose season was ultimately nothing super special, due to playing only half the season.

Especially considering full-season Lemieux is, well, cancer-free Lemieux. And part of what makes 92-93 legendary is that this aspect just vanishes.

… Not to mention, if you credit Lemieux 84 games... well, you kindof have to credit Gretzky with with an 84 games season as well. In 83-84, Gretzky scored 205 pts in 74 games. He also had 212 and 215 pts in 80 games.

Gretzky would have to actually underperform to not pass 224 pts.

No, you have to respect the context of the season. In the 80's, seasons were 80 games, so i can't give Gretzky 4 extra games for the sake of it.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

The player whose season was ultimately nothing super special, due to playing only half the season.

Especially considering full-season Lemieux is, well, cancer-free Lemieux. And part of what makes 92-93 legendary is that this aspect just vanishes.

... Not to mention, if you credit Lemieux 84 games... well, you kindof have to credit Gretzky with with an 84 games season as well. In 83-84, Gretzky scored 205 pts in 74 games. He also had 212 and 215 pts in 80 games.

Gretzky would have to actually underperform to not pass 224 pts.

The level of hockey being played in 93 was a lot better than the early 80’s

 

[MXD]

The level of hockey being played in 93 was a lot better than the early 80’s

Probably (it was mid-80ies.... nitpicking).

 

[MXD]

No, you have to respect the context of the season. In the 80's, seasons were 80 games, so i can't give Gretzky 4 extra games for the sake of it.

In which case, the argument would be "Lemieux passed Gretzky due to playing more games".
I mean, you can't really avoid it. Besides, my argument was the cancer, because that is indeed a huge part of what makes that season legendary.

.... And that's also the crux of the issue here : Lemieux's 92-93 is already legendary. Crosby's 10-11 isn't.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Probably (it was mid-80ies.... nitpicking).

Lemieux was on a 92 goal 213 point pace in 80 games. So sliced right in between Wayne’s 212 and 215 point seasons. Lemieux in 93 was as good as Wayne in either year but goaltending had improved drastically which is why even Lemieuxs 95/96 season of 161 in 70 games ranks up there with Gretzky 200 point years in my eyes