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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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
