HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   Will Stamkos shatter Pavel Bures goal stats? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1403723)

Puckgenius* 04-14-2013 09:46 AM

Will Stamkos shatter Pavel Bures goal stats?
 
Bure, back to back 60g seasons (with Len Barrie as his center), two 55+ goal seasons, one 50+ goal season. The rest of Bures seasons we never got to see the most cause of injuries, but was impressive when he put up 12 goals in his first 12 games as a Ranger. Will Stamkos become a better goal scorer than Bure?

Big Phil 04-14-2013 10:19 AM

Just for clarification, he had those two 60 goal seasons in Vancouver and then a 58 and 59 goal year in Florida. Viktor Kozlov was his center, although he missed a lot of time in the one year.

I don't know if Stamkos will ever be considered as good of a goal scorer as Bure. We do know that Bure led the NHL in goals three times. Stamkos has done it twice so far, and as it stands has lost his grip to Ovechkin this year. So to lead the NHL in goals three times is incredible. If it stands the way it is now, Ovechkin will have his third title before Stamkos.

But as good as Stamkos is does he have the same explosiveness as Bure? Sometimes Bure looked like he was being shot out of a cannon. Stamkos is fast but doesn't stick handle the way Bure did. In many ways he looks like Brett Hull out there with his quick and hard shot and ability to get into the open area. Being a great goal scorer isn't all about stats, but also just how dangerous you are out there. It would be hard to imagine Stamkos instilling fear into goalies the way Bure did.

Darth Yoda 04-14-2013 11:01 AM

I believe that Ovechkin and Stamkos are both in Bures class in terms of goal scoring production. Those two battling for the Richard will make it harder for both when it comes to titles. This year it's far from over, as Stamkos just as Ovechkin all of a sudden can go on a goal scoring burst that Corey Perry only can dream of having again.

newfy 04-14-2013 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil (Post 63930685)
Just for clarification, he had those two 60 goal seasons in Vancouver and then a 58 and 59 goal year in Florida. Viktor Kozlov was his center, although he missed a lot of time in the one year.

I don't know if Stamkos will ever be considered as good of a goal scorer as Bure. We do know that Bure led the NHL in goals three times. Stamkos has done it twice so far, and as it stands has lost his grip to Ovechkin this year. So to lead the NHL in goals three times is incredible. If it stands the way it is now, Ovechkin will have his third title before Stamkos.

But as good as Stamkos is does he have the same explosiveness as Bure? Sometimes Bure looked like he was being shot out of a cannon. Stamkos is fast but doesn't stick handle the way Bure did. In many ways he looks like Brett Hull out there with his quick and hard shot and ability to get into the open area. Being a great goal scorer isn't all about stats, but also just how dangerous you are out there. It would be hard to imagine Stamkos instilling fear into goalies the way Bure did.

The Stamkos to Hull comparison is unfair. Stamkos may not be Bure but hes above average fast in the league and can dangle pretty well. The only comparison is that Stamkos probably has the best one timer in the NHL and so did Hull.

I dont think being explosive plays into this at all really. Stamkos scores goals every way imaginable. His big shot, he'll dangle, he'll put in a few garbage ones. When youre scoring 60 goals in a season it doesnt matter if the other guy was more explosive, youre obviously doing something that is going to scare a goalie out there

Sentinel 04-14-2013 11:19 AM

Uhm... Bure's goals were in the Dead Puck Era. Stamkos' aren't. Stamkos has better teammates too. Bure >>> Stamkos. I even rank Bure over Ovechkin, although that margin is slipping away quickly.

Big Phil 04-14-2013 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfy (Post 63932185)
The Stamkos to Hull comparison is unfair. Stamkos may not be Bure but hes above average fast in the league and can dangle pretty well. The only comparison is that Stamkos probably has the best one timer in the NHL and so did Hull.

I dont think being explosive plays into this at all really. Stamkos scores goals every way imaginable. His big shot, he'll dangle, he'll put in a few garbage ones. When youre scoring 60 goals in a season it doesnt matter if the other guy was more explosive, youre obviously doing something that is going to scare a goalie out there

Oh I agree, 60 goals is 60 goals no matter how you slice it. However, in 1982 when Denis Maruk got 60 and Mike Bossy had 64 I think we can assume who goalies feared more. Now, before you ask, I am not saying Stamkos is Maruk. He is obviously better. But that is also just an example of how numbers are part of the equation, not the whole equation. Stamkos is dangerous on the ice and is arguably the most dangerous player out there. But in thinking about Bure's career you worried about him every single second he was out on the ice. He would skate like a tiger to get to a loose puck. He did cherry pick, but that also meant he was even more dangerous because he could snap the puck up behind you at your own blue line.

On a breakaway I don't think Stamkos is feared more than Bure. In fact, I know he isn't. Nothing wrong with that, because Bure was damn near automatic on breakaways, it seemed. I would tend to believe Bure would have a far better shootout record than Stamkos does. Also, we know Bure could dangle with speed as good as anyone, but his shot was also lethal too. Yeah, right now Stamkos has a little ways to go in order for me to say he was a more dangerous goal scorer than Bure.

Sentinel 04-14-2013 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil (Post 63932917)
Oh I agree, 60 goals is 60 goals no matter how you slice it. However, in 1982 when Denis Maruk got 60 and Mike Bossy had 64 I think we can assume who goalies feared more. Now, before you ask, I am not saying Stamkos is Maruk. He is obviously better. But that is also just an example of how numbers are part of the equation, not the whole equation. Stamkos is dangerous on the ice and is arguably the most dangerous player out there. But in thinking about Bure's career you worried about him every single second he was out on the ice. He would skate like a tiger to get to a loose puck. He did cherry pick, but that also meant he was even more dangerous because he could snap the puck up behind you at your own blue line.

On a breakaway I don't think Stamkos is feared more than Bure. In fact, I know he isn't. Nothing wrong with that, because Bure was damn near automatic on breakaways, it seemed. I would tend to believe Bure would have a far better shootout record than Stamkos does. Also, we know Bure could dangle with speed as good as anyone, but his shot was also lethal too. Yeah, right now Stamkos has a little ways to go in order for me to say he was a more dangerous goal scorer than Bure.

Except the era matters greatly. 60 goals today, while still impressive, is nowhere near the feat that it was in Bure's time. In fact, the fact that there are so few 60 goal scorers now demonstrates that the level of star players have dropped since 80s-90s, although the overall quality of average players has risen. I agree with everything else you said though.

TheDevilMadeMe 04-14-2013 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 63933479)
Except the era matters greatly. 60 goals today, while still impressive, is nowhere near the feat that it was in Bure's time. In fact, the fact that there are so few 60 goal scorers now demonstrates that the level of star players have dropped since 80s-90s, although the overall quality of average players has risen. I agree with everything else you said though.

Goals were quite a but easier to come by when Bure scored 60 in Vancouver than they are today

Darth Yoda 04-14-2013 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 63932663)
Stamkos has better teammates too.

Yes you are probably correct, Bures many nagging injuries does him unjustice in terms of goal scoring titles as well. I BELIEVE that Stamkos can be revered like Bure though, and Ovechkin really is up in the air if you ask me, although Bure certainly was more clutch.

newfy 04-14-2013 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 63932663)
Uhm... Bure's goals were in the Dead Puck Era. Stamkos' aren't. Stamkos has better teammates too. Bure >>> Stamkos. I even rank Bure over Ovechkin, although that margin is slipping away quickly.

Look up the scoring levels in seasons for Bure. Some people seem to think this is some super high scoring league right now
Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil (Post 63932917)
Oh I agree, 60 goals is 60 goals no matter how you slice it. However, in 1982 when Denis Maruk got 60 and Mike Bossy had 64 I think we can assume who goalies feared more. Now, before you ask, I am not saying Stamkos is Maruk. He is obviously better. But that is also just an example of how numbers are part of the equation, not the whole equation. Stamkos is dangerous on the ice and is arguably the most dangerous player out there. But in thinking about Bure's career you worried about him every single second he was out on the ice. He would skate like a tiger to get to a loose puck. He did cherry pick, but that also meant he was even more dangerous because he could snap the puck up behind you at your own blue line.

On a breakaway I don't think Stamkos is feared more than Bure. In fact, I know he isn't. Nothing wrong with that, because Bure was damn near automatic on breakaways, it seemed. I would tend to believe Bure would have a far better shootout record than Stamkos does. Also, we know Bure could dangle with speed as good as anyone, but his shot was also lethal too. Yeah, right now Stamkos has a little ways to go in order for me to say he was a more dangerous goal scorer than Bure.

Yeah thats definitely true on the Bossy part but like you said we're comparing Maruk who had 2 good goal scoring seasons to a guys who is 23 and already has 2 Richard trophies.

Bure didnt win his until he was around 30. I think that some people (not saying you) just in general get caught up in the flash of some guys. Sure Bure was super fast and could dangle at high speed but theres stuff that Stamkos is doing out there that gets him set up to score as much as Bure ever did and he does it while not hurting his team defensively with the cherry picking

revolverjgw 04-14-2013 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 63932663)
Uhm... Bure's goals were in the Dead Puck Era. Stamkos' aren't. Stamkos has better teammates too. Bure >>> Stamkos. I even rank Bure over Ovechkin, although that margin is slipping away quickly.

Fun fact- scoring is lower the last two years than when Bure scored 58 and 59 in Florida. And of course waaaaayy lower than when he scored 60.

AD1066 04-14-2013 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 63933479)
Except the era matters greatly. 60 goals today, while still impressive, is nowhere near the feat that it was in Bure's time. In fact, the fact that there are so few 60 goal scorers now demonstrates that the level of star players have dropped since 80s-90s, although the overall quality of average players has risen. I agree with everything else you said though.

Would you say that the drop in star power is correlated with the increasing quality of the average player? I would argue that other than Gretzky and Lemieux, who are transcendental, we're selling the current crop of guys short by claiming that there's less star players today. Maybe it's just more difficult to separate yourself from the pack.

And about whether 60 goals was more or less impressive in Bure's day, I checked the scoring distributions of his 60, 60, 59, and 58 goal seasons and here's what I found:

In 1992-93, when Bure first scored 60, there were: two 70 goals scorers, three 60 goal scorers, nine 50 goal scorers, and eleven 40 goal scorers.

In 1993-94, Bure scored 60 again, and there were: one 60 goal scorer (Bure), eight 50 goal scorers, and fourteen 40 goal scorers.

When he scored 59 in 1998-1999, there were: one 50 goal scorer (Bure) and six 40 goal scorers.

And in 1999-2000, he scored 59, there were: three 50 goal scorers and ten 40 goal scorers.

2011-12: one 60 goal scorer, one 50 goal scorer, and two 40 goal scorers.
2010-11: one 50 goal scorer, four 40 goal scorers.

So between 92 and 94, it seems as if goals were slightly easier to come by. And between 98 and 00, it seems pretty comparable to today, if not still easier to score.

So were goals more difficult to come by back then and stars were just better, or is reaching 60 goals just as difficult today?

(Long-time lurker of the History Section, but I was intrigued by this one. Hope I've done all my homework :).)

Evincar 04-14-2013 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfy (Post 63934149)
Bure didnt win his until he was around 30. I think that some people (not saying you) just in general get caught up in the flash of some guys. Sure Bure was super fast and could dangle at high speed but theres stuff that Stamkos is doing out there that gets him set up to score as much as Bure ever did and he does it while not hurting his team defensively with the cherry picking

Bure lead the league in goals in 1993-94.

Sentinel 04-14-2013 01:54 PM

If you watch any of the 90s highlights (starting around 94-95 or so), you will be amazed how much hooking, holding, clutching, and grabbing there was. Much more than now. The fact that the scoring is down to me indicates the drop in the top-end level talent. Aside from Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Sedin, and Datsyuk there is nobody who can stand up to the endless list of the 90s heroes, when virtually every team had a superstar. I believe it's easier to score 60 goals now than then, but you need talent to actually do it.:D

AD1066 04-14-2013 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 63940239)
If you watch any of the 90s highlights (starting around 94-95 or so), you will be amazed how much hooking, holding, clutching, and grabbing there was. Much more than now. The fact that the scoring is down to me indicates the drop in the top-end level talent.

There was also more space to evade the clutching and grabbing, because player are larger and better skaters on average now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 63940239)
Aside from Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Sedin, and Datsyuk there is nobody who can stand up to the endless list of the 90s heroes, when virtually every team had a superstar. I believe it's easier to score 60 goals now than then, but you need talent to actually do it.:D

Perhaps the disparity between 1st liners and bottom-sixers was greater back then, leading to the illusion of more star power?

The distribution of goal scoring doesn't support it being easier to score nowadays, and I'm not inclined to trust memory as proof that stars were better. Too much has changed.

revolverjgw 04-14-2013 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 63940239)
If you watch any of the 90s highlights (starting around 94-95 or so), you will be amazed how much hooking, holding, clutching, and grabbing there was. Much more than now. The fact that the scoring is down to me indicates the drop in the top-end level talent. Aside from Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Sedin, and Datsyuk there is nobody who can stand up to the endless list of the 90s heroes, when virtually every team had a superstar. I believe it's easier to score 60 goals now than then, but you need talent to actually do it.:D

Rose tinted nostalgia. There was more clutching but that's mitigated by bigger, slower d-men and smaller goalies with worse save percentages. More goals were being scored than today. There's just as much talent now, if not more. Allison, Elias, Kovalev and Straka made the top 5 in 2001 when Bure had his final big season. Recchi, Nolan and Amonte made the top 6 the year before. All good players, but nothing special compared to the top players now. Probably worse, to be honest. Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin would be good enough to outscore everybody but Jagr during those seasons, including Bure. And Stamkos is better and more skilled than guys like Recchi and Elias, who finished 3rd in back to back years.

Hardyvan123 04-14-2013 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 63932663)
Uhm... Bure's goals were in the Dead Puck Era. Stamkos' aren't. Stamkos has better teammates too. Bure >>> Stamkos. I even rank Bure over Ovechkin, although that margin is slipping away quickly.

what you say makes sense career wise as far as goal scoring goes but stmakos should if healthy pass Bure, same for AO

Big Phil 04-14-2013 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfy (Post 63934149)
Yeah thats definitely true on the Bossy part but like you said we're comparing Maruk who had 2 good goal scoring seasons to a guys who is 23 and already has 2 Richard trophies.

Bure didnt win his until he was around 30. I think that some people (not saying you) just in general get caught up in the flash of some guys. Sure Bure was super fast and could dangle at high speed but theres stuff that Stamkos is doing out there that gets him set up to score as much as Bure ever did and he does it while not hurting his team defensively with the cherry picking

Well it was already said, but Bure led the NHL in goals when he was 22.

But since the question was posed on just their goal scoring alone, I still take Bure. Stamkos is the better all around player I think. But in terms of goal scoring and who scared you more I still say Bure and not just based on the highlight reels but just because there are so few players who were a threat on every shift. He's young though, Stamkos, and right now I'll say he is definitely ahead of where Bure was at the same age. But he'll need more seasons, obviously.

Evincar 04-14-2013 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolverjgw (Post 63941633)
Rose tinted nostalgia. There was more clutching but that's mitigated by bigger, slower d-men and smaller goalies with worse save percentages. More goals were being scored than today. There's just as much talent now, if not more. Allison, Elias, Kovalev and Straka made the top 5 in 2001 when Bure had his final big season. Recchi, Nolan and Amonte made the top 6 the year before. All good players, but nothing special compared to the top players now. Probably worse, to be honest. Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin would be good enough to outscore everybody but Jagr during those seasons, including Bure. And Stamkos is better and more skilled than guys like Recchi and Elias, who finished 3rd in back to back years.

Outside of Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, and Stamkos its about even. There just happened to be a lot of injuries to star players in the DPE. I would definitely take Recchi and Elias over a guy like Phil Kessel.

newfy 04-14-2013 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil (Post 63943239)
Well it was already said, but Bure led the NHL in goals when he was 22.

But since the question was posed on just their goal scoring alone, I still take Bure. Stamkos is the better all around player I think. But in terms of goal scoring and who scared you more I still say Bure and not just based on the highlight reels but just because there are so few players who were a threat on every shift. He's young though, Stamkos, and right now I'll say he is definitely ahead of where Bure was at the same age. But he'll need more seasons, obviously.

I can agree with that. I think one more big season though and he takes it for me. I already see him as the better all around player

ozzie 04-14-2013 06:08 PM

Stamkos will come close to Bure's scoring and provide a better all around game then Bure ever did.

In Florida the team strategy was - Bure floats at the Red line or the other teams blue line, looking for the stretch pass, break out or 2 on 1. That was their game plan and he potted almost 60 goals twice there.

Stamkos is not allowed to float like that, hardly anyone in the NHL is anymore.

Bure was a floater even in Vancouver, but not to the degree of his time in Florida.

However Bure was pretty unmatched at being able to perform high skill moves at full throttle, which most players can't do.

If Stamkos or any of the highly skilled players were allowed to float like Bure, who knows how many goals they would score? It is just not as common practice in the NHL today as it was 10 to 15 years ago. Yes players do float still and push it a bit and test the limits of their coach. But Bure had almost an open pass.

I don't mean to say Bure wasn't amazing, because he was, but his situation and skill set was much different then Stamkos.

Stamkos is a training freak now and about to hit the prime of his career. If he can avoid injuries I would think he will win a few more Rocket trophies.

Bure's true greatness can be seen in his play when suiting up for Russia. He became a much better player, back checked and more of a team guy. He had the skill, speed, strength to play a more complete game, of course surrounded by talent. He had a lot of heart at times. Don't get me wrong, one of my Fav Russian players. He played so well for Russia on 1 knee and still was the fastest guy out there. His NHL and International careers are so different in terms of his overall game, which was product of the NHL and not him.

Sentinel 04-14-2013 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzie (Post 63952153)
Bure was a floater even in Vancouver.

He was anything but.

Quote:

Stamkos is a training freak
So was Bure. Nobody in Vancouver worked harder than him.

Quote:

Bure's true greatness can be seen in his play when suiting up for Russia. He became a much better player, back checked and more of a team guy. He had the skill, speed, strength to play a more complete game, of course surrounded by talent. He had a lot of heart at times. Don't get me wrong, one of my Fav Russian players. He played so well for Russia on 1 knee and still was the fastest guy out there. His NHL and International careers are so different in terms of his overall game, which was product of the NHL and not him.
In SLC he wasn't anything special. In St. Petersburg he was a disaster (everybody was).

Dreakmur 04-14-2013 08:26 PM

Bure finshed his career with 5 top-5s in goals. 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, and 5th.

Stamkos is currently 2nd, and if he stays there, he'll have 4 top-5s. 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd.

Right now, Bure is ahead, but Stamkos has a long time to catch up.

the edler 04-16-2013 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfy (Post 63934149)
Sure Bure was super fast and could dangle at high speed but theres stuff that Stamkos is doing out there that gets him set up to score as much as Bure ever did and he does it while not hurting his team defensively with the cherry picking

But somehow Tampa is hurting defensively. Why is that?. Yeah, I know, bad goalies, bad defense :blah:

Good team defense starts with your number one centre forward.

jumptheshark 04-17-2013 07:08 PM

Barrrie wasn't Bure's prime center and they barely played together

Mike Bossey had a btter GPGA then Bure did


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.