Pavel Bure vs. Alex Ovechkin (prime years)

[sr edler]

So we're just going to ignore that in 1999-00, all of the Hart winners from the surrounding years (1995-2004) missed 19 games minimum - but excuse Pavel Bure for not winning the scoring race because he missed 8 games even though both the previous year's Hart winner and following year's Hart winner out-paced him in 1999-00 too?

Do tell us: why do we need to factor in that Bure played 74/82 when talking about how Alex Ovechkin won the Art Ross in 2008 and Pavel Bure did not in 2000 when Bure loses to someone who plays 63/82?

Bure wasn’t better than Jagr but he was better than Graves.

Also, Ovechkin’s Hart in the lockout season is relatively weak. Bure’s 93–94 and 99–00 are better.

 

[sr edler]

I've never heard anyone argue that Bure peaked higher than his peers Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, Lindros or even Fedorov. Yet, people on here are going to make a case that his peak is above Ovechkin's?

This is not what the thread is about.

 

[Laineux]

Bure wasn’t better than Jagr but he was better than Graves.

Also, Ovechkin’s Hart in the lockout season is relatively weak. Bure’s 93–94 and 99–00 are better.

It's not by any metric unless you want to argue that 12-13 is worth less because it was a shortened season. 99-00 is debatable.

 

[canucks4ever]

This is not what the thread is about.

It seems like this thread is about romanticizing 90s players and cheery picking to make them look better than they really were. If someone is making a case for Bure peaking higher than Ovechkin, essentially they are saying he peaked higher than Crosby and Malkin too, which is laughable.

 

[sr edler]

and you could make an argument that Ovechkin's resume is still more impressive than Bure's.

Only if your in love with non-contextual regular season award counting.

 

[sr edler]

It seems like this thread is about romanticizing 90s players and cheery picking to make them look better than they really were. If someone is making a case for Bure peaking higher than Ovechkin, essentially they are saying he peaked higher than Crosby and Malkin too, which is laughable.

Who is saying that though? I haven’t really seen it, but I also haven’t read all posts that close. Some of them are really long.

 

[canucks4ever]

Who is saying that though? I haven’t really seen it, but I also haven’t read all posts that close. Some of them are really long.

There are people making cases for Bure, they just use numbers and ignore that Bure benefited from the fact that his best regular season took place when most of the elite competition was injured, so I take the numbers with a grain of salt. I just find it funny that people arguing for Bure leave out the fact that he was getting 25-27 minutes of ice time in Florida, scored alot of empty net goals and essentially turned into a cherry picker. He never even saw his own zone in 2000.

Regardless if we did a thread about the 50 best peaks of all time, and your only allowed to use 1 player each. Ovechkin would finish between 10th to 20th on the list, Bure wouldn't even make a top 50. Regardless of the criteria, whether its best 1 year, 3 year or 5 year peak. Bure's peak would never crack a top 30 list. 90s romanticism is very strong.

 

[Laineux]

Only if your in love with non-contextual regular season award counting.

Comparison of their points, points per game and goal finishes with Ovetskin's best three years removed is fairly close and you could make arguments for both. Of course it's when you add one of the better 3-year stretches of all time that it becomes quite one-sided.

 

[sr edler]

It's not by any metric unless you want to argue that 12-13 is worth less because it was a shortened season. 99-00 is debatable.

By any metric? Ovechkin in 12–13 was outscored by St. Louis and Stamkos, had a dramatically worse PPG than Crosby, had 1 more point than Kane, 3 more points than Eric Staal. If you go deeper and look on team context he had 11th best +|– rating on his own team. 10th best if we’re kind enough and remove Orlov who only played 5 games. It’s a very good bounce back season, as a re-modified Brett Hull-type player with slightly more speed and flash, but it’s also a glorified Zhamnov-in-94–95 season. But I don’t know, perhaps you rate Zhamnov in 94–95 higher than Bure too?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Bure wasn’t better than Jagr but he was better than Graves.

Also, Ovechkin’s Hart in the lockout season is relatively weak. Bure’s 93–94 and 99–00 are better.

I gotta say, I don't get your fascination with mentioning Adam Graves. All it does is serve as a reminder that Pavel Bure was so far removed from being the best player in the league in 1993-94 that someone with limited support (8 voting points on 54 ballots) still placed higher in Hart balloting. But yeah, keep comparing it to Ovechkin's... sixth-best season?

Though I eagerly await the post where someone claims 1993-94 Pavel Bure would have won the scoring title in the lockout-shortened 2013 season - even if he only plays 76 games.

 

[sr edler]

I gotta say, I don't get your fascination with mentioning Adam Graves. All it does is serve as a reminder that Pavel Bure was so far removed from being the best player in the league in 1993-94 that someone with limited support (8 voting points on 54 ballots) still placed higher in Hart balloting. But yeah, keep comparing it to Ovechkin's... sixth-best season?

Though I eagerly await the post where someone claims 1993-94 Pavel Bure would have won the scoring title in the lockout-shortened 2013 season - even if he only plays 76 games.

Graves is an internal joke, like Myllys and ”NHL goalie”. No, what it does is serve as a reminder that Hart voting is subjective and not a perfect measurement, especially not between different seasons. No one is saying Bure was the best player in the league in 93–94. He wasn’t in the RS (Fedorov) or in the POs (Leetch). But he was up there with the rest of the bunch.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Bure wasn’t better than Jagr but he was better than Graves.

Also, Ovechkin’s Hart in the lockout season is relatively weak. Bure’s 93–94 and 99–00 are better.

The only way this is close is if you remove Ovechkin's best three years from the picture completely and you could make an argument that Ovechkin's resume is still more impressive than Bure's.

Based on the analytical method that Zuluss has designed, I can not justify Bure's 1993-94 season being better than Ovechkin's peak. I think to try to make such a justification would be to lose focus of Bure's peak, which I believe is clearly defined as 1997-98 to 2000-01.

In order for Bure's % lead to have been the same in 1993-94 as it was in 1999-00, Bure would have needed to score 76 goals (76/46 = 61%).

The problem with "some of" is you could stretch certain point-scoring streaks or goal-scoring streaks from any season and make an argument about what that streak would have looked like. What we're dealing with are full, measurable seasons. If Teemu had a full season on par with Gretzky, then it might be worth comparing. Bure had 35 goals in 28 games in 2000-01; stretched over an 82-game season, that's a 102-goal season in the Dead Puck Era. It never happened; the streak can only be taken into consideration for what it represents -- part of a season.

Circumstances would have to be that much better for him to have had a 76-goal season, and even that would only have matched his 1999-00 season in terms of goal-scoring dominance. He already has a 61% lead season and a few other seasons in the 44%+ category, so let's talk about those. His 1997-98 season was, by all accounts, his second-best season -- he was a Lester B. Pearson Award finalist.

Scoring was higher in the early 1990s than it was in the late 1990s. Using those metrics, one can see that Teemu Selanne's 1997-98 season was worlds ahead of his 1992-93 season where the 10th-placed goal-scoring finish was 54 goals.

One, similarly, would have to stretch the imagination to consider Bure the better point scorer than Ovechkin. Even though Bure played on a much lesser team, the difference between the two in terms of points at their peak is significant enough that we would have to debate whether Bure could match Ovechkin's peak point total with better circumstances before we could even dare talk about whether he could surpass those totals. Ovechkin achieved those numbers, so Ovechkin should receive the right of consideration as the better point scorer.

The only argument one could make about Bure's peak is that he was the better goal scorer at his peak compared to Ovechkin. The metrics provide a sound argument that he was the best goal scorer of his generation -- a three-year period of elite dominance over his peers, and a higher peak than Selanne, Jagr, and other high-end players of his generation. His peak period, in terms of goal-scoring % leads, is very similar to Ovechkin's -- close enough that one could argue that circumstantial evidence could have significant implications. The raw numbers show are very similar.

Ovechkin: 63-61-52-52-50-44-43-30-15-6
Bure: 61-55-48-27-10

One could, thus, very reasonably argue based on circumstances that his peak ability as a goal scorer was higher than Ovechkin.

However, that is the only argument that one can make that could rule in Bure's favor.

 

[sr edler]

It's not by any metric unless you want to argue that 12-13 is worth less because it was a shortened season.

My theory is that some voters got fooled and thought the old Ovi was back, the dominant one from 07–10, after two disappointing seasons post-Olympics. They didn't realize old Ovi would have outscored St. Louis by at least 5 points, probably 10. They also didn't realize Ovi went into the lab in Moscow during the first phase of the lockout season and transformed himself into Brett Hull's better skating heir. Probably because many voters aren't even that knowledgeable, and some are biased and not overly professional in their work.

 

[Canucks1096]

I am going to make another case for Bure.

1. He was a better "big game player" than Ovechkin. As in "no contest."
2. Bure would, in fact, benefit from playing with someone like Backstrom or like Housley. He just learned to rely on himself only, because of the teams he was on. The only time he played with an elite center was his first year in Vancouver (Larionov). Messier was way past his prime, and Bure was often injured.
3. People don't seem to realize that Bure actually could be versatile if he wanted. His short closing stint with NYR showed him being a great two-way player.

Intensity-wise, at their peaks, the two players are actually close. But Bure was far, far smarter than Ovechkin, who is far, far more powerful.

So when talking "peak only," I think it's VERY close.

1992 playoffs Canucks played 4 elimination games. Game 5 to 7 vs Jets and game 5 and 6 vs Oilers

1994 Playoffs 6 elimination games. Game 5 to 7 vs Flames and Rangers. Bure has 17 points in those elimination games.

Bure has 6 points in 4 career Playoff game 7 Ovechkin has 6 points in 10 careerPlayoff game 7

With Bure style he might not even need a better center at even strength because he can create his own chances but on pp with a better center. Bure would had more ppg. Usually with big time goal scorer they usually have a lot of ppg. Bure just had 2 seasons with more than 19 ppg

Quinn Bure to shadow some stars as well. Also four different coaches put Bure on first PK unit Quinn Ley Renny Keenan.

Career and overall player yes Ovechkin is a better player. But just talking about Peak I agree it's very close. If we include RS and playoffs Bure 94 season might of been better than any of Ovechkin seasons.

Fyi Bure higher gpg than Ovechkin at the same age. First 702 games has more goals than Ovechkin

 

[Canucks1096]

If you look at Regular season and playoffs. Bure had a better Peak. Ovechkin never had a playoff/regular season like Bure 1994 season. Bure Led regular season and playoffs in goals.

If you just look at Regular season Ovechkin is a little bit better