What is the greatest individual season of all-time?

[Kin]

So the other day I was listening to Joe Posnanski's podcast where he and Michael Schur picked the greatest individual seasons an athlete ever had. The lone hockey season they mentioned was Gretzky's record setting 92 goal, 212 point season from 81-82. I found that problematic as A) I don't consider it the greatest hockey season of all time and especially B) I don't think it's Wayne Gretzky's greatest season of all time.

Anyways, with the absence of actual hockey to talk about I thought this might make for a fun topic to kick around. I've chosen the six seasons I think should be in the conversation and will make the case for and against each. Feel free to agree/disagree with any of them or add your own choice to the topic. Word of note, I'm only considering the individual level of play, not any team accomplishments.

Wayne Gretzky 1983-1984
The Case For: I like this better than the 81-82 season for a number of reasons. The numbers at a glance are less impressive but he still scored 87 goals and 205 points, the second and fourth highest totals in those categories respectively. Also, he did that in six fewer games. Over a 80 game span those numbers project to 94 goals and 225 points. Additionally, he had twice as many shorthanded goals in 83-84, scoring a pretty remarkable 12 on the PK, and won the scoring title by a higher margin, 79 points compared to 65. He won the Art Ross, Hart and Pearson and scored 35 points in 19 playoff games.

The Case Against: Obviously with seasons this great any case against is going to be nitpicking but I'm a little uncomfortable with calling any offensive season pre-Patrick Roy the greatest ever. I was only two during this season but a lot of the goals I see Gretzky scoring in highlight films are...not what we would consider good goals today. Also Gretzky, while clearly pretty effective on the PK, can't really be considered a great all-around player.

Bobby Orr 69-70
The Case For: Scored 33 goals and 120 points, shattering the records for a defenseman in both cases and becoming the first Defenseman to win the Art Ross. Also won the Hart, Norris and Conn Smythe after scoring 20 points in 14 playoff games. Also put up 125 PIM while playing what is largely acknowledged to be some of the best individual defense ever seen.

The Case Against: Might not be Bobby Orr's best season as he bettered those 120 points in 71-72 and 74-75. I prefer 69-70 because he didn't win the Art Ross in '72 and didn't win the Hart in '75(although that strikes me as insane). Also has the Gretzky issue of facing a different calibre of goalie. Took an astonishing number of shots.

Mario Lemieux 92-93:
The Case For: The first post-Roy season on the list, Lemieux scored 69 goals and 160 points even though he had to shoot at legit goalies like Roy and Belfour and Cujo and the rest. Won the Hart, Art Ross and Pearson. Accomplished all of this in 60 games. Over the 84 game season that projects out to 97 goals, 224 points. Scored 18 points in 11 playoff games. I remember being genuinely surprised that season when he didn't score on a shift.

The Case Against: Well, he did miss those 24 games, I guess. Like Gretzky, he wasn't going to win the Selke any time soon. I think he still had that terrible mullet.

Gordie Howe 52-53:
The Case For: Led the league in goals with 49 and assists with 46. Led the league in scoring by 24 points and led anybody not playing on his line by 34. By all accounts was a terrific defensive player and very well might have won the Selke if they'd handed it out back then. Scored 7 points in 6 playoff games.

The Case Against: Did all of this in a 6 team league against goalies who weren't wearing masks, smoked and probably worked construction in the off-season.

Sergei Fedorov 93-94:
The Case For: Probably the most idiosyncratic choice on the list, Fedorov in 93-94 probably had the single greatest offensive season by any Selke Winner in history, finishing with 56 goals, 120 points and only 10 points behind Wayne Gretzky for the Art Ross. Won the Hart, Pearson and Selke trophies. Was a +48, only one behind his other Selke winning season for the best +/- for a Selke Winner in history.

The Case Against: In news sure to delight Don Cherry fans, he didn't have a great post-season with one goal and eight points in seven games. Probably would have only won the Selke if Lemieux had been healthy.

Dominik Hasek 97-98
The Case For: Almost certainly the greatest individual season a goalie has ever had. Posted a SV% of .932 while leading the league in games played and shots faced. Posted a 2.09 GAA and a record of 33-18-10. Had 13 shutouts. Did all this with a pretty awful team. The Buffalo defense was Alexei Zhitnik, Jason Wooley, Jay McKee, Richard Smehlik, Bob Boughner and Mike Wilson. Their leading scorer was Miro Satan with 46 points. Won the Vezina, Pearson and Hart trophies. Had a .938 SV% in 15 playoff games.

Quick Addendum: I'm guessing it's just because I've repressed the painful memory of it but you can't mention Hasek in '98 and leave out the Olympics. Take your Giguere winning the Conn Smythe or Roy in '93, for my money Hasek in Nagano is the best goaltending the game has ever seen, bar none.

The Case Against: Was in the middle of the clutch and grab era. Might have even been better the year after.

Anyways, in conclusion, it's a tough call. I like the Fedorov season, and I think it's a shoe-in for most underappreciated season ever, but I think when all is said and done I have to go with Mario Lemieux in 92-93. I don't know if I can think of a comparable season not just in hockey but in all of sports where a singularly important cumulative stat was led by a guy who missed almost a third of the season. He produced at a rate similar to Gretzky at his best against better competition, in particularly better goalies, and was bigger, stronger, more handsome and way, way more French.

Anyways, feel free to vote, weigh in or just mull over.

 

[maplesyrup]

I went with Orr. In that year, he won the Hart, Norris and Art Ross trophy and in doing so, redefined his position and the game itself forever for that matter. Winning the Conn Smythe kind of iced that cake too. I don't know how that can be topped.

 

[caver]

Great post, Nik! This topic has fueled bar-room debates for years. IMHO there is no real need to qualify the performance by the era it was accomplished in. They are great performances made against the best in the world. Jesse Owens will always be a great athlete, Citizen Kane will always be a great movie, and the Ferrari 250 GTO will always be a great sports car. I think the major criteria should be how dominant the performance was. I remember watching Mario Lemieux have that crazy point-per-game season and thinking that hockey had never seen anything that good. 

 

[armche123]

Great post. I went with Mario.

However.. here is another I can't resist mentioning..

Patrick Roy's OT Heroics in 1993 would be up there too. His regular season stats were one of the worst of his career though..

It ended with my goalie idol winning, the Kings losing (who had just stolen the series from the Leafs), and a Canadian team winning the Cup in the end...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EkEQk-z0eU

 

[Kin]

Great post, Nik! This topic has fueled bar-room debates for years. IMHO there is no real need to qualify the performance by the era it was accomplished in. They are great performances made against the best in the world.

Thanks. But while I agree with you to a large extent I do think some allowances need to be made to put these numbers into a proper context so that they give the best sense of the accomplishment.

Probably the best example of that might be if you look at Bobby Orr in, say, '72 or '75. Those are great, great seasons, probably crack the top 10 seasons for any defenseman ever but you do have to acknowledge the conditions of the time. You mention these performances coming against the best in the world but the reality for Bobby Orr in those years is that a lot of the best hockey players in the world weren't playing in the NHL. That doesn't discount it but it should affect how we see it.

 

[Champ Kind]

I concur with the others, Nik.  Great job.

I find it hard to argue against Gretzky's performances early in his career.  I think the 'good goal' argument is sort of irrelevant.  Given his stature and physical attributes, the fact that he scored nearly 100 goals is mind boggling.  Remember, this wasn't an inherent physical beast like Lemieux, have a shot like Hull, or skate like Bossy.  For me, Wayne dominated the game at the cerebral level, could see the ice and anticipate like no other.  In the early 80's, he was the best player ever playing at his best (said with due respect to Orr and Lemieux).

 

[Rebel_1812]

It is an easy decision to vote for the season of 69 as the greatest ;-)

 

[Kin]

I concur with the others, Nik.  Great job.

I find it hard to argue against Gretzky's performances early in his career.  I think the 'good goal' argument is sort of irrelevant.  Given his stature and physical attributes, the fact that he scored nearly 100 goals is mind boggling. 

Thanks. Two things:

1. Like I said, I do think that these things need to be put into some sort of a neutral context so that they're as much a reflection of the individual as possible.

My point about the goalies may be perfectly reflected by Gretzky's career and the way it almost neatly divides in two. In the first half, as you say, he's just a monster of a goal scorer. The best the game had ever seen. In the second half, he's still a terrific player, wins the Art Ross, but he's scoring a lot fewer goals. Once Roy was in the league Gretzky only scored 50 goals twice in his career and never after Roy won his first Vezina. That can't really be explained by the decline of age either as Gretzky was only 25 during Roy's rookie year and just 29 when he won the Vezina.

Whether that's a reflection of the better goalies or Gretzky leaving Edmonton for LA, I still think it says Gretzky's numbers are slightly inflated.

2. One of the more interesting things about Gretzky, probably the best statistical measurement of his greatness was when I was looking at this, of all of these players, Gretzky's greatest season was the hardest to pin down. Like I said, I like 83-84 but a strong argument can be made for 81-82 with the 92 goals or his 84-85 season with 73 goals, 208 points and then 17 goals and 47 points in only 18 playoff games. So those are three seasons down and you still haven't mentioned the year he actually set the single season record for points or the year he scored 71 and 196 or the year he beat Marcel Dionne and Guy Lafleur for the Art Ross as a 19 year old and on and on.

Like I said, I'm not convinced his peak is the highest of these guys but he probably had the most years where he was at or near that peak. That probably cements the argument for him as the greatest player of all time.

 

[Kin]

A quick addendum that I added to the original post and wanted to mention here because I'm a little surprised nobody has voted for Hasek but it was dumb of me to mention Hasek in '98 and not talk about the Olympics. For me? Greatest stretch of goaltending I've ever seen, including Roy in '93 and whatever else. You couldn't have gotten the puck past him if you fired it from a rocket launcher.

 

[caver]

any interest in posting a topic of best individual season by a Maple Leaf?

 

[Bender]

Great post, Nik! This topic has fueled bar-room debates for years. IMHO there is no real need to qualify the performance by the era it was accomplished in. They are great performances made against the best in the world.

Thanks. But while I agree with you to a large extent I do think some allowances need to be made to put these numbers into a proper context so that they give the best sense of the accomplishment.

Probably the best example of that might be if you look at Bobby Orr in, say, '72 or '75. Those are great, great seasons, probably crack the top 10 seasons for any defenseman ever but you do have to acknowledge the conditions of the time. You mention these performances coming against the best in the world but the reality for Bobby Orr in those years is that a lot of the best hockey players in the world weren't playing in the NHL. That doesn't discount it but it should affect how we see it.

Couldn't an argument be made, though, that if you're looking at the conditions you also have to concede that many of the great playersof the 60s and 70s wouldn't be considered great today, in large part due to the evolution of the sport and fitness? It's hard to rank them because the contexts are all so different. 50 years from now I bet we'll see even better athlete pushing and pulling against each other that will make what we consider great as obsolete.

 

[drummond]

Mario?s numbers in just 60 games are just unbelievable considering overall improved goaltending. Hasek and Bobby Orr runner ups.

 

[Kin]

Couldn't an argument be made, though, that if you're looking at the conditions you also have to concede that many of the great playersof the 60s and 70s wouldn't be considered great today, in large part due to the evolution of the sport and fitness? It's hard to rank them because the contexts are all so different. 50 years from now I bet we'll see even better athlete pushing and pulling against each other that will make what we consider great as obsolete.

Well, the idea is to try and put everyone in a neutral context, right? So while a player shouldn't unduly benefit from conditions that portray him in a more positive light(great teammates, lousy goalies, not having to play against Europeans) they also shouldn't be penalized for the conditions that hurt them(the training standards of the time, lousy teammates, clutch and grab).

 

[Kin]

any interest in posting a topic of best individual season by a Maple Leaf?

Me personally? I've never come across anything in my time as a Leafs fan that would lead me to say it should be anyone other than Gilmour in 92-93 and by a pretty considerable distance.

 

[maplesyrup]

any interest in posting a topic of best individual season by a Maple Leaf?

Me personally? I've never come across anything in my time as a Leafs fan that would lead me to say it should be anyone other than Gilmour in 92-93 and by a pretty considerable distance.

Yeah, I can't think one remotely close either.

 

[Bullfrog]

Just considering Nik's picks for greatest seasons, I'm having a very difficult time picking between Gretzky's and Lemieux's. They both had strong supporting teammates, both played at a very high level in terms of thinking the game. For Lemieux, he did so in spite of the injuries. What would his seasons have been like if he was consistently healthy? On the hand, maybe Gretzky should be credited with his durability.

Not sure I can decide. I'm leaning towards Lemieux, but I'm perhaps biased because I saw him play a lot whereas I mostly saw Gretzky in his LA years.

 

[Bullfrog]

Though there should be some consideration for Lemieux's 131 points in 64 games in 91/92. This of course mostly for his famous deke making Bourque look like a fool.

 

[caver]

It was quite a time to be a hockey fan when you could watch 2 players average more than 2 1/2 points per game. Incredible!!

 

[hap_leaf]

Not that it touches about 3 of your choices that are better, I think Brett Hull 90-91 deserves to be remembered as one hulluva season.

86 goals and 19 pts in 13 playoff games and the Hart and Pearson.

What an incredible laser he had.  Not a terrific defensive game but lots of sandpaper and actually no worse in the defensive end than other pure snipers of his day.

 

[Kin]

Not that it touches about 3 of your choices that are better, I think Brett Hull 90-91 deserves to be remembered as one hulluva season.

86 goals and 19 pts in 13 playoff games and the Hart and Pearson.

I thought about it but I sort of thought about it the way I did Paul Coffey's 48 goal, 138 point season. I don't think you can make an argument for Coffey's season as being as good as any of Orr's and, likewise with Hull, I don't think you can put it as an offensive season with Gretzky or Lemieux's better seasons.