HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Pavel Bure vs Mats Sundin

View Poll Results: Bure vs Sundin in their Prime
Pavel Bure 98 77.17%
Mats Sundin 29 22.83%
Voters: 127. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2013, 02:15 AM
  #51
Evincar
Your Final Judgement
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well looking at those 6 playoff seasons here is the great top 3 in goals and points for thsoe Leafs in those 6 years


99 Sundin 83 (31) Thomas 73 (28) Berezan 59 (37)
00 Sundin 73 (32) Thomas 63 (29) Hoglund 56 (29)
01 Sundin 74 (28) Roberts 53 (29) Perreault 52 (24)
02 sundin 80 (41) Tucker 59 (24) Mogilny 57 (24)
03 Mogilny 79 (33G) sundin 72 (37 G) Antropov (16)
04 Sundin 75 (31) McCabe 53 (16) Nieuwendyk 50 (22) RobertsG (28)


So even in their best years he leads the team in scoring 5 times by 10,10,21,21 and 22 points.

He only leds the team in goals 4 years though, comes in 2nd the 2 other years.

I guess we could do an entire list but that's the support he got in those 6 playoff years.

From 95-98 it was worse.
I still fail to see how that proves Bure's Canucks were just "plain better" than Sundin's Leafs when the Leafs were one of the best teams in the league for 6 straight years.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 03:23 AM
  #52
Regal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,277
vCash: 500
For a nine season period from 92-93 to 2000-01, you could make the argument that Bure was better in six of them, and out of the other three, he only played 15 games in one, was recovering from ACL surgery in one, and he scored 42% of Sundin's goals in only 11 games in the other. During that time he also had the best playoffs of either player, and an Olympics as good as any Sundin international tournament. Sundin's consistency was great, but let's not act like Bure was inconsistent. He wasn't a Mogilny or a Kovalev. The only thing holding him back was recurring knee injuries, and he was the better player. Sundin had the better career.

Regal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 05:51 AM
  #53
ot92s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
Hardyfan 123 is correct though I have a lot of respect for Bure.Sometimes people on this over hype or under-hype a player.We say a particular player was a drinker or a smoker and ignore other players to fit their arguement
Or they take a player who had contentious contract negotiations and try to label him as a heartless, malingering, malcontent.

ot92s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 05:26 PM
  #54
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
I hope people who vote Sundin would also pick Gartner over Lindros.
Oh didn't know that Mike Gartner was a center with larger defensive responsibilities and international success too now?

Complete apples and oranges case.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 05:27 PM
  #55
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ot92s View Post
Or they take a player who had contentious contract negotiations and try to label him as a heartless, malingering, malcontent.
Just to be clear you are talking about people in general right?

I never referred to him that way and my thoughts on Bure are pretty clear.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 05:57 PM
  #56
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Oh didn't know that Mike Gartner was a center with larger defensive responsibilities and international success too now?

Complete apples and oranges case.
No, he was consistently good but very pedestrian player as opposed to a far superior, injury-riddled player.

BTW Sundin was hardly some kind of two-way forward.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 06:46 PM
  #57
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,331
vCash: 500
re: Sundin vs. Bure being like Gartner vs. Lindros:

The point being made, obviously, is that the longevity edge that Sundin and Gartner have is easily outweighed by the fact that Bure and Lindros have much better peaks.

The problem is, while this is obviously true in the Gartner/Lindros example, it is not obviously true in the Sundin/Bure example.

From a point production standpoint, Bure didn't really distinguish himself from Sundin that drastically to pass this off as a simple "obvious peak over obvious longevity" case.

Best 8 seasons, percentage system:

Lindros: 100 100 87 87 81 80 78 63
Gartner: 81 76 72 71 70 68 67 64

Bure: 100 99 96 96 77 77 61 56
Sundin: 95 89 86 81 80 78 78 77

Sundin overtakes Bure by the time we're looking at 5th best seasons, and Bure is only 11% ahead based on 4 best seasons.

In the Lindros/Gartner example, Gartner finally overtakes Lindros in his 8th best season, and Lindros was 21% ahead in their best 7 seasons.

apples and oranges.

In the Sundin example, it's quite easily arguable Sundin comes out ahead after considering longevity. (even his 16th best season is a 67%, that is incredible)

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:56 PM
  #58
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
I still fail to see how that proves Bure's Canucks were just "plain better" than Sundin's Leafs when the Leafs were one of the best teams in the league for 6 straight years.
Dont know if Bures teams were better but Leafs werent great. They had a good defensive system, Joseph and Sundin. I remember being amazed when they got to the conference finals. Never thought they would manage being a top-4 team. East was pretty weak tho apart from the Devils.

Hobnobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:30 PM
  #59
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
I still fail to see how that proves Bure's Canucks were just "plain better" than Sundin's Leafs when the Leafs were one of the best teams in the league for 6 straight years.
I also said more balanced and used the words most as well.

toronto was better 99 onward because of 3 main reasons or differences from before.

1) better secondary scoring which was a direct benefit from

2) Quinn who was a players coach and liked to use all of his players in most situations.

3) goal tending, Joseph arrived and was a golaie who could wins games.

Also you seem to want to focus on those 6 years,m where Sundin was heads and shoulders more important to the Leafs than any position player, when he also has another prime the previous 4 years with the Leafs, with even less support and very much the same kind of production as well as his huge year with the Nords at such a young age.

If consistency and a consecutive years[/B] in a players prime is used Sundin wins hands down here, if one is only counting top seasons and not succession and 5 years instead of 7 (5-7 seems to be the range for prime) then it's still pretty close because one then can take Sundins Nord year and his most productive years with the least amount of support in a direct comparison.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:45 PM
  #60
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnobs View Post
Dont know if Bures teams were better but Leafs werent great. They had a good defensive system, Joseph and Sundin. I remember being amazed when they got to the conference finals. Never thought they would manage being a top-4 team. East was pretty weak tho apart from the Devils.
I wouldn't say their defensive system was great. They basically rode Sundin and Joseph.

Also Hardy, for the most part, the secondary scoring was not great. If you weren't playing on Sundin's line you weren't scoring.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 11:21 PM
  #61
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I wouldn't say their defensive system was great. They basically rode Sundin and Joseph.

Also Hardy, for the most part, the secondary scoring was not great. If you weren't playing on Sundin's line you weren't scoring.
I agree the secondary scoring wasn't great, that ws pretty obvious in my listing of top 3 scorers in points and goals from those 6 playoff years.

The secondary scoring was better under Quinn than before was what I was getting at.

The Canucks secondary scoring was better IMO during Bure's time there.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 02:51 AM
  #62
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
re: Sundin vs. Bure being like Gartner vs. Lindros:

The point being made, obviously, is that the longevity edge that Sundin and Gartner have is easily outweighed by the fact that Bure and Lindros have much better peaks.

The problem is, while this is obviously true in the Gartner/Lindros example, it is not obviously true in the Sundin/Bure example.

From a point production standpoint, Bure didn't really distinguish himself from Sundin that drastically to pass this off as a simple "obvious peak over obvious longevity" case.

Best 8 seasons, percentage system:

Lindros: 100 100 87 87 81 80 78 63
Gartner: 81 76 72 71 70 68 67 64

Bure: 100 99 96 96 77 77 61 56
Sundin: 95 89 86 81 80 78 78 77

Sundin overtakes Bure by the time we're looking at 5th best seasons, and Bure is only 11% ahead based on 4 best seasons.

In the Lindros/Gartner example, Gartner finally overtakes Lindros in his 8th best season, and Lindros was 21% ahead in their best 7 seasons.

apples and oranges.

In the Sundin example, it's quite easily arguable Sundin comes out ahead after considering longevity. (even his 16th best season is a 67%, that is incredible)
obviously it's not as night and day as lindros vs. gartner, but wouldn't it be fair to say that bure had four seasons in the ballpark of sundin's best season? i mean, that's pretty drastic, and that's being very kind to sundin to count his best adjusted season as in the same conversation as bure's three rocket richard years.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 03:58 AM
  #63
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
obviously it's not as night and day as lindros vs. gartner, but wouldn't it be fair to say that bure had four seasons in the ballpark of sundin's best season? i mean, that's pretty drastic, and that's being very kind to sundin to count his best adjusted season as in the same conversation as bure's three rocket richard years.
That's a good way to look at it. I'm one of those "give me a big talented and consistent defensively capable centre over a winger" guys, but if I'm choosing between the absolute best of both players it's hard not to choose Bure.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 04:11 AM
  #64
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
obviously it's not as night and day as lindros vs. gartner, but wouldn't it be fair to say that bure had four seasons in the ballpark of sundin's best season? i mean, that's pretty drastic, and that's being very kind to sundin to count his best adjusted season as in the same conversation as bure's three rocket richard years.
I have Bure's best 4 at ~100.3 adjusted point avg., while Sundin's are ~93.7, for a difference of ~7%.

Bure was the bigger threat offensively at his peak, but not sure how to evaluate primes when Bure's was interrupted by injuries. His ES data is pretty weak in Vancouver. He was good in the playoffs though.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:00 AM
  #65
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
obviously it's not as night and day as lindros vs. gartner, but wouldn't it be fair to say that bure had four seasons in the ballpark of sundin's best season? i mean, that's pretty drastic, and that's being very kind to sundin to count his best adjusted season as in the same conversation as bure's three rocket richard years.
Yeah, and that's my point. The peak gap is definitely there but it's at least arguable that longevity takes it in the end. With Gartner, there is no such argument.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:39 AM
  #66
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Yeah, and that's my point. The peak gap is definitely there but it's at least arguable that longevity takes it in the end. With Gartner, there is no such argument.
gotcha. fair point, then.


i still go with TDDM's point upthread though: better to have four excellent years, even non-consecutive ones, by a true game breaker, than 15+ very good years by a guy who's probably not going to win you a cup if he's your best guy. to me, sundin is just below that line. if it's bure vs. modano (similar but superior player), i'd honestly not know who to go with.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:39 AM
  #67
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,598
vCash: 500
It's not like Gartner had no longevity himself.

How about Gartner vs. Neely?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:48 AM
  #68
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
It's not like Gartner had no longevity himself.

How about Gartner vs. Neely?
longevity as what though? A guy who could score 60% as many points as the best players?

Easily Neely.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 12:08 PM
  #69
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
longevity as what though? A guy who could score 60% as many points as the best players?

Easily Neely.
A guy who could consistently pot 30+ goals. How do his goalscoring percentages alone compare to the league leaders?

Besides, how about Neely's points and goals percentages? I wouldn't be surprised if it was much closer to the Bure vs. Sundin situation now (using Lindros might've been aiming too high).

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 01:26 PM
  #70
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
A guy who could consistently pot 30+ goals. How do his goalscoring percentages alone compare to the league leaders?

Besides, how about Neely's points and goals percentages? I wouldn't be surprised if it was much closer to the Bure vs. Sundin situation now (using Lindros might've been aiming too high).
I don't care about goals percentages so I don't track them. Points are so much more important than goals.

You're right that Neely would be closer to Gartner, but there is much more to that comparison:

- Neely did literally everything else better (besides skate)
- Neely had some epic playoff production, Gartner's was horrible
- On a per-game basis Neely was clearly a better producer even if raw seasonal totals don't always show it (and yes, it does matter who was actually better when on the ice)
- Neely impacted the game in a bigger way, Gartner did not

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:38 PM
  #71
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This is pure revisionism, the trade with St. Louis really was the start of the turnaround for the Canucks, Bure had a great start in Vancouver and was an electrifying player but there is some crap going on here in his description and impact on a team.

Linden was the true leader and inspiration on that team and lead the Canucks in scoring in 92 followed by Ronning and with good contributions, especially in the playoffs, by Courtnall and Momessio.

Lumme was also a very good addition and captain Kirk found his stride in 92 as well.

Little kids and uniformed people would look to the bright shiny new object Bure, and man he was very electrifying to say the least, but this attempt at a rewrite of his impact on the team is just plain revisionism to say the least.
hey, hockey is a team game, we all know and get that, but the 1992–1994 canucks weren't close to being a great team or anything like that, it was a pretty solid team with some really good heart and soul players, but it was also at the same time a team very much built on a bunch of rejects from st louis who coattailed a great player

the edler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 01:03 PM
  #72
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
hey, hockey is a team game, we all know and get that, but the 1992–1994 canucks weren't close to being a great team or anything like that, it was a pretty solid team with some really good heart and soul players, but it was also at the same time a team very much built on a bunch of rejects from st louis who coattailed a great player
Not a great team, but far from a bad team I'd say.

I show these estimated ES GF/GA ratios from '92-'98 without Bure on the ice:

1.18
1.35
0.95
1.04
1.03
1.06
0.72

When a team is about even or significantly above average ('92 & '93) without its star on the ice, they should be a pretty good team. Their special teams were a bit weak in '93 though.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:43 AM
  #73
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,481
vCash: 500
bure has better hair, but sundin has a better grin....


the edler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:47 AM
  #74
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,406
vCash: 500
^


young sundin:




old sundin:




and yet somehow pavel has fallen further.


Last edited by vadim sharifijanov: 01-08-2013 at 03:20 PM. Reason: swapped out broken link for working picture
vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 01:10 PM
  #75
JetsAlternate
Registered User
 
JetsAlternate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This is pure revisionism, the trade with St. Louis really was the start of the turnaround for the Canucks, Bure had a great start in Vancouver and was an electrifying player but there is some crap going on here in his description and impact on a team.
I promised you and others I would have evidence Pavel was a primary contributor to the Canucks' defense and was vital to their success, especially in the 1994 playoffs. I honestly believe those who claim he was "not reliable defensively" have revised history based on the last few years of his career.

This is a 35-minute reel centered around three games between 1992 and 1994:

April 30, 1992 vs the Winnipeg Jets
March 27, 1994 vs the Los Angeles Kings
May 24, 1994 vs the Toronto Maple Leafs



I've provided a lengthy analysis in the video's discussion thread. I don't think copying and pasting here would do any good, as I hope to generate discussion on the main board:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1320293

JetsAlternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.