Pavel Bure's place among NHL's all-time greatest goal scorers

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Howe was a more complete player, not sure that he was one of the best goal scorers ever though. The 1st thing that comes to mind with him is the GH hat trick goal, assist and fight. and yes I know that he led the league in goals 5 times but Hull, rightly so, was the guy that most people think of as the Goal scorer in the NHL in the 60's.

Hull is the goal scorer of the 60s. Howe was the goal scorer of the 50s.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Howe was a more complete player, not sure that he was one of the best goal scorers ever though. The 1st thing that comes to mind with him is the GH hat trick goal, assist and fight. and yes I know that he led the league in goals 5 times but Hull, rightly so, was the guy that most people think of as the Goal scorer in the NHL in the 60's.

I would also rank Bure ahead of Espo from this list as Espo was a situational (ie. in a perfect storm in Boston) and not the pure goal scorer that Bure was.

Bure's peak as a goal scorer also came in a unique situation in Florida where the team was so devoid of talent they had him cherrypick the whole game.

I think Espo's skills of being a dominant player from the slot in could've been adapted to any team.

 

[MS]

to me, that's kind of a sportscenter/youtube memory of bure's career. we all remember his many dramatic breakaway goals, but obviously he didn't score all 400 goals on breakaways.

his shot was one of the quickest, hardest, and most accurate in the league. his wrist shot was a bit behind mogilny or sakic, but it was definitely a goal scorer's shot. his slap shot also was incredible, one of the hardest in the league among forwards and definitely more potent than a lot of the hard shooting guys.

it's true, he wasn't the kind of player to always find open areas and fire one-timers like brett hull, but the way he could score from the off-wing on the rush like gaborik or ovechkin today, or the way he could tee up a slapshot on the PP if you gave him an inch of room, those are sniper goals to me.

it's hard to say that a guy who not only led the league in goals three times, but also in shots four times isn't a sniper. he shot from a lot of different places and in a lot of different situations, and although he created his own space with his speed and shiftiness, without a world class shot, you're still just maxim afinogenov.

look at some of the goals in the second half of this video. yeah, there were a lot of breakaway goals, but look how tight he is in when he roofs it on potvin, or some of those shots from beyond the hash marks... they seem like sniper-type or goal scorer's goals to me:

Thank you. After reading some of the comments early in the thread, I was going to post pretty much exactly this.

If Bure skated like Ray Sheppard, he still would have pushed 40 goals/season.

The guy had the 2nd-best one-timer in the league after Brett Hull, and the only player to score more 'Hull-type' goals was Hull himself. Would consistently blow pucks by guys from 30 feet out on the PP. His shot was an absolute rocket.

And he did score all kinds of garbage goals. The guy was Maurice Richard-esque in the way his eyes lit up when he saw a loose puck anywhere near the goal in the offensive zone. Loved to score goals more than any player I've ever seen, and got all kinds of them by just being hard on the puck and being quicker to loose pucks in scrambles than the defenders around him. Had no issues with getting crunched to score a goal or playing in high-traffic areas, aside from maybe his weak 1996-97 season when he was coming back from major knee reconstruction.

He'd score 5 or 6 highlight-reel goals/season, but those are the only ones on youtube now so that's all we can see of him. The vast majority of his goals were not plays where he deked through the entire team to score.

___________

As for Bure's goalscoring dominance, I always come back to the one stat, that to me should guarantee his place in the HHOF :

Players with 5 50-goal seasons :

1) Bobby Hull
2) Phil Esposito
3) Guy Lafleur
4) Marcel Dionne
5) Mike Bossy
6) Wayne Gretzky
7) Mario Lemieux
8) Steve Yzerman
9) Brett Hull
10) Pavel Bure

That's the most exclusive club in the NHL, populated by an incredible list of all-time greats. And Bure. And Bure did it in one of the lowest-scoring eras, and did it despite only playing 5 full seasons.

When you look at that list, and then look at Dino Ciccarelli's career, it boggles the mind how Ciccarelli is in the HHOF and Bure is not.

As for goalscoring dominance, Bure is to me in the top 5 of the post-1967 era, alongside of Bossy, Gretzky, Hull, Lemieux. There are other guys who better all-around players, and were nearly as good as pure goalscorers, but when it comes down to pure scoring, Bure was incredible. If not for injury and holdouts, he probably would have led the league in goals on 5 or 6 occasions.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Thank you. After reading some of the comments early in the thread, I was going to post pretty much exactly this.

If Bure skated like Ray Sheppard, he still would have pushed 40 goals/season.

The guy had the 2nd-best one-timer in the league after Brett Hull, and the only player to score more 'Hull-type' goals was Hull himself. Would consistently blow pucks by guys from 30 feet out on the PP. His shot was an absolute rocket.

And he did score all kinds of garbage goals. The guy was Maurice Richard-esque in the way his eyes lit up when he saw a loose puck anywhere near the goal in the offensive zone. Loved to score goals more than any player I've ever seen, and got all kinds of them by just being hard on the puck and being quicker to loose pucks in scrambles than the defenders around him. Had no issues with getting crunched to score a goal or playing in high-traffic areas, aside from maybe his weak 1996-97 season when he was coming back from major knee reconstruction.

He'd score 5 or 6 highlight-reel goals/season, but those are the only ones on youtube now so that's all we can see of him. The vast majority of his goals were not plays where he deked through the entire team to score.

___________

As for Bure's goalscoring dominance, I always come back to the one stat, that to me should guarantee his place in the HHOF :

Players with 5 50-goal seasons :

1) Bobby Hull
2) Phil Esposito
3) Guy Lafleur
4) Marcel Dionne
5) Mike Bossy
6) Wayne Gretzky
7) Mario Lemieux
8) Steve Yzerman
9) Brett Hull
10) Pavel Bure

That's the most exclusive club in the NHL, populated by an incredible list of all-time greats. And Bure. And Bure did it in one of the lowest-scoring eras, and did it despite only playing 5 full seasons.

When you look at that list, and then look at Dino Ciccarelli's career, it boggles the mind how Ciccarelli is in the HHOF and Bure is not.

As for goalscoring dominance, Bure is to me in the top 5 of the post-1967 era, alongside of Bossy, Gretzky, Hull, Lemieux. There are other guys who better all-around players, and were nearly as good as pure goalscorers, but when it comes down to pure scoring, Bure was incredible. If not for injury and holdouts, he probably would have led the league in goals on 5 or 6 occasions.

Couldn't agree more with this post.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

For my money, since I started watching in 1968, these are the most exciting goal scorers that I have seen.

In no particular order: Bobby Hull, Mario, Bure, Bossy

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah, not a Bure fan but it's silly that he's not in the HHOF. Overall value aside, he was a dazzling and dominant goalscorer.

 

[Flames420]

As for Bure's goalscoring dominance, I always come back to the one stat, that to me should guarantee his place in the HHOF :

Players with 5 50-goal seasons :

1) Bobby Hull
2) Phil Esposito
3) Guy Lafleur
4) Marcel Dionne
5) Mike Bossy
6) Wayne Gretzky
7) Mario Lemieux
8) Steve Yzerman
9) Brett Hull
10) Pavel Bure

That's the most exclusive club in the NHL, populated by an incredible list of all-time greats. And Bure. And Bure did it in one of the lowest-scoring eras, and did it despite only playing 5 full seasons.

When you look at that list, and then look at Dino Ciccarelli's career, it boggles the mind how Ciccarelli is in the HHOF and Bure is not.

As for goalscoring dominance, Bure is to me in the top 5 of the post-1967 era, alongside of Bossy, Gretzky, Hull, Lemieux. There are other guys who better all-around players, and were nearly as good as pure goalscorers, but when it comes down to pure scoring, Bure was incredible. If not for injury and holdouts, he probably would have led the league in goals on 5 or 6 occasions.

I have to agree, especially being a Flames fan I saw him many many times the guy was born to score goals and make d-men look sluggish.

I look at it like this....try think of another player that could have scored 60 in the deadpuck era on a team of cans. I couldn't stand the guy he was a ***** but he's definitely in my top 10.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hull is the goal scorer of the 60s. Howe was the goal scorer of the 50s.

Howe did score the most goals in the 50's and the margin was higher than I expected when I looked it up, but he still comes to mind first as a complete player and Richard, although he trailed Howe by quite a bit in the 50's still carried the mantle for at least some of it as a pure goal scorer.

in the 50's top 3

Howe 399
Geoffrion 304
Richard 294

Richard was the guy in the 40's and still stayed on top in the 50's as he aged.

 

[Big Phil]

I look at it like this....try think of another player that could have scored 60 in the deadpuck era on a team of cans. I couldn't stand the guy he was a ***** but he's definitely in my top 10.

You mean all-time? Or just at that particular time? For the record Bure scored 58 and 59 goals with Florida in the dead puck era. At that time no one in the NHL could have done it. Jagr didn't. Selanne didn't. End of story.

All-time though is a different story. Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy would do it. Esposito might as well. Hull would have a shot. Guys that could carry the offensive load would be able to do it. Look at Crosby last year, he doesn't have any good wingers so he just decides to shoot more himself and gets 51.

While that's a nice stat about Bure the truth is this is all he did. The guy didn't even get assists. He's practically a 60 goal man yet ends up with 36 and 33 assists. The best he hit was 94 points. Other than Lanny McDonald's freak 1983 season, nobody flirted with 60 goals without getting 100 points. That bothers me, and if you don't focus on playmaking and only goalscoring then you are going to get goals. This is why I'm not sure even Lafleur would score 60 in the dead puck era. He had other weapons like playmaking. This is why Jagr only hit 60 once. Another great playmaker.

 

[Form and Substance]

You mean all-time? Or just at that particular time? For the record Bure scored 58 and 59 goals with Florida in the dead puck era. At that time no one in the NHL could have done it. Jagr didn't. Selanne didn't. End of story.

All-time though is a different story. Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy would do it. Esposito might as well. Hull would have a shot. Guys that could carry the offensive load would be able to do it. Look at Crosby last year, he doesn't have any good wingers so he just decides to shoot more himself and gets 51.

While that's a nice stat about Bure the truth is this is all he did. The guy didn't even get assists. He's practically a 60 goal man yet ends up with 36 and 33 assists. The best he hit was 94 points. Other than Lanny McDonald's freak 1983 season, nobody flirted with 60 goals without getting 100 points. That bothers me, and if you don't focus on playmaking and only goalscoring then you are going to get goals. This is why I'm not sure even Lafleur would score 60 in the dead puck era. He had other weapons like playmaking. This is why Jagr only hit 60 once. Another great playmaker.

To me, it seems like a matter of simply taking matters into your own hands. No one on those Florida teams could be considered top 6 caliber players (except Whitney who was injured) so who was he going to pass the puck to? It seems to me that, with competent linemates, he could easily get 45-50 assists as he did in his Vancouver days, and those are better totals than pure playmakers like Gomez would get. At any rate, you're right, he isn't a playmaker in the same caliber as Jagr or Lafleur, but I hardly think we should be worried about his assist totals. Even if goal scoring was the one thing he did super well, his ability to be a gamebreaker, cause fits to opposing defences, as well as the myriad ways teams try to shut him down only to see him break through the wall, in my mind, make him one of the true all-time greats and one of the most unique and awesome hockey talents.

 

[Big Phil]

To me, it seems like a matter of simply taking matters into your own hands. No one on those Florida teams could be considered top 6 caliber players (except Whitney who was injured) so who was he going to pass the puck to? It seems to me that, with competent linemates, he could easily get 45-50 assists as he did in his Vancouver days, and those are better totals than pure playmakers like Gomez would get. At any rate, you're right, he isn't a playmaker in the same caliber as Jagr or Lafleur, but I hardly think we should be worried about his assist totals. Even if goal scoring was the one thing he did super well, his ability to be a gamebreaker, cause fits to opposing defences, as well as the myriad ways teams try to shut him down only to see him break through the wall, in my mind, make him one of the true all-time greats and one of the most unique and awesome hockey talents.

Good point. And I won't deny his goal scoring exploits, nor should anyone. I'm not sure if he's an all-time great though. His injuries and holdout hurt him dearly I think. He has a total of 5 great seasons. This is where the meat of the debate starts, do 5 great seasons get you into the HHOF?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Good point. And I won't deny his goal scoring exploits, nor should anyone. I'm not sure if he's an all-time great though. His injuries and holdout hurt him dearly I think. He has a total of 5 great seasons. This is where the meat of the debate starts, do 5 great seasons get you into the HHOF?

It damn well should get him in. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Best Career Numbers.

Bure and Lindros were defining players of the dead puck era. In 40 years, people will be telling their grandchildren about them. Nobody is going to be telling stories about Dino Ciccarelli's exploits...

Was Bure one of the 10 greatest goal scorers of all time? Probably not. But he was up there. And he had one of the most unique and electrifying skillsets of all time.

 

[obsenssive*]

connections with russian gangters = no spot in the hall.

we're civilized in NA.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Good point. And I won't deny his goal scoring exploits, nor should anyone. I'm not sure if he's an all-time great though. His injuries and holdout hurt him dearly I think. He has a total of 5 great seasons. This is where the meat of the debate starts, do 5 great seasons get you into the HHOF?

I don't know, Lafleur had 6, and for the rest of his career he may as well have been injured.

 

[jepjepjoo]

You mean all-time? Or just at that particular time? For the record Bure scored 58 and 59 goals with Florida in the dead puck era. At that time no one in the NHL could have done it. Jagr didn't. Selanne didn't. End of story.

Selanne was on pace for 58 goals in 97-98 on a team as bad as the 00-01 Panthers (Bure 59g in 82gp). 97-98 also had lower scoring than 00-01 (5.28 vs 5.51).

Jagr was on pace for 62 goals in 96-97 on a good team. That year had only slightly higher scoring (5.83 vs 5.51).

You are right neither of them did it, but you did say no-one else could have done it(or did I read that wrong?) and I think both of these players had the ability to do it.

Selanne 73gp 52 goals (1st in the league)
Jagr 63gp 47 goals (6th in the league)

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't know, Lafleur had 6, and for the rest of his career he may as well have been injured.

i agree here although Lafleur had the Cups and 5 really good playoffs as well but the gap between these 2 guys is made out to be a lot greater than it really was.

Skill set wise Bure is one of the All time top 10 (maybe top 5) snipers period.

He had 35 goals in 44 games as a 19 yr old in Russia and is one of the most electrifying players that ever played IMO.

 

[sr edler]

here's good examples of his shot

 

[RECsGuy*]

here's good examples of his shot

The goal that gave him the hatty epitomized Bure as a scorer: reaches in front of, steals the puck from and subsequently makes a fool out of fellow future HHOFer Rob Blake, his uncanny body-net spatial awareness sees him make a tight 180-degree turn to immediately get himself into scoring position, settles the puck while Blake has his stick in Bure's left armpit (look at the video), and proceeds to thread the puck into the FAR SIDE OF THE NET at what seems to be a 10-degree angle relative to the goal line. There simply haven't been many guys that can score this type of goal. And that goal also debunks the great cherry-picking myth: while his detractors like to point to his outlet-pass goals, he could operate in tight spaces as well as anybody that ever played the game (see his work from 6:26-6:32 in the embedded video below for more evidence).

The guy willed pucks into the net. If you think Bure was a breakaway machine, you never saw him play. I can't think of a single spot on the ice that he wasn't a threat to score from.

There isn't a single offensive threat playing today that I'd rather have than Pavel Bure.

It's fitting that an injury brought on by his unparalleled skating style and not punishment endured by defenders ended his career. No one could stop Bure...except Bure.

Check out what he does to one of the top defensemen ever (1:40-1:56)...



I can't think of many, if any, who could pull off the moves you'll see from 4:33-4:47 in the above clip. Heck, the goal at 6:10-6:16 might be one of the best goals you will ever see.

The helpless reaction each goalie exudes after each score sums things up.

Here's Bure in his pre-NHL days scoring on Patrick Roy. Cool YT find...

 

[Ciao]

Nice player, but not more.

A fire hydrant (Blair MacDonald?) could get 50 goals playing next to Gretzky.

I never saw Bure make the players around him better. Rather, it was the opposite.

My most persistent memory of Pavel Bure is a single power play when his team mates feed him the puck at least four or five times coming out on a one-man rush at his own blue line, going to beat everyone else on the ice and bring it to the net to score. Failed every time.

A one-man show.

 

[RECsGuy*]

My most persistent memory of Pavel Bure is a single power play when his team mates feed him the puck at least four or five times coming out on a one-man rush at his own blue line, going to beat everyone else on the ice and bring it to the net to score. Failed every time.

472 goals in 766 games (!) says your one memory is the exception with Bure, not the rule.

A fire hydrant (Blair MacDonald?) could get 50 goals playing next to Gretzky.

I never saw Bure make the players around him better. Rather, it was the opposite.

Players who scored 50 goals while teammates with Gretzky, and the number of times they did so in parentheses...

Coffey (1)
Messier (1)
Kurri (4)
Anderson (2)
Nicholls (1)
Robitaille (2)

And you do realize that these guys were all very good to great even without Gretzky, right?

A one-man show.

Aren't all greats "one-man shows" to some extent? Isn't that what distinguishes them from everyone else on the ice? Hence the "one?"

Nice player, but not more.

And if the canucks don't hit the post in Game 7 of the '94 playoffs, then what? Still just a "nice player?"

There have been countless highly skilled players throughout the sport's history, but few followed through on their potential the way Bure did. The guy did stuff at full speed against NHLers that other big leaguers couldn't execute in practice against a bantam squad. He made the NHL's best look like clowns on a regular basis.

 

[sr edler]

Nice player, but not more.

A fire hydrant (Blair MacDonald?) could get 50 goals playing next to Gretzky.

I never saw Bure make the players around him better. Rather, it was the opposite.

My most persistent memory of Pavel Bure is a single power play when his team mates feed him the puck at least four or five times coming out on a one-man rush at his own blue line, going to beat everyone else on the ice and bring it to the net to score. Failed every time.

A one-man show.

what has gretzky to do with bure? bure never played with him

so you mean trevor linden and greg adams made bure score back to back 60 goals seasons in vancouver? viktor kozlov and ray whitney made him score back to back 58 and 59 goals on the panthers? ok ...

the only reason pavel bure was a one man show on the panthers was that absolutely no one else on the team could score! his 59 goal season there it was an awful team offensively

 

[Derick*]

I think one-dimensionality plays a role even when looking specifically at the dimension the player is good at, because skill in something doesn't necessarily equate to how much you do it. Bure scored a lot partially because he (justifiably or not) sacrificed defense and playmaking. An equally good goal scorer who choose to play more defense and playmaking is still as good at scoring goals even if he doesn't do it as much because of how he chooses to play. There's a difference between being good at different things and how much priority you put on them.

Not having talent around you is a two-way street. It means you don't get much help and the defenses shut down on you, but it also means a ton of ice time and that you're receiving all of your team's passes.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I think one-dimensionality plays a role even when looking specifically at the dimension the player is good at, because skill in something doesn't necessarily equate to how much you do it. Bure scored a lot partially because he (justifiably or not) sacrificed defense and playmaking. An equally good goal scorer who choose to play more defense and playmaking is still as good at scoring goals even if he doesn't do it as much because of how he chooses to play. There's a difference between being good at different things and how much priority you put on them.

Not having talent around you is a two-way street. It means you don't get much help and the defenses shut down on you, but it also means a ton of ice time and that you're receiving all of your team's passes.

There's almost a negligible difference between top players on stacked teams and on bottom team's in ice time. Pavel Bure was the best goalscorer of his era, especially based on ability alone.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There's almost a negligible difference between top players on stacked teams and on bottom team's in ice time. Pavel Bure was the best goalscorer of his era, especially based on ability alone.

Incorrect.

As has been posted up thread, Bure had 26:52 in ice time in 2000-01, 1st among forwards and 5th among all players. 2nd place among forwards was Alexei Kovalev at 23:34, 36th among all players.

One thing to consider is certainly his ice time he played 26:52 per game and got 5:48 pp time per game.

Normally a first liner plays about 20-22 minutes per game so 21 minutes per game adds up to 1722 minutes.

26:52 per game adds up to 2203 per season.

(2203-1722)/21+82=104.905 which basically means that Bure had the ice time worth of 105 games of a typical first line star.

In 1999-00, Bure also led forwards in ice time, but only with 2 seconds over 2nd place Kariya (who was also racking up tons of ice time on a bad team).

Cognition is absolutely right in that Bure was placed in a very unique position in Florida. Their whole strategy was "pass to Bure (who was probably cherrypicking) and see what happens."

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Incorrect.

As has been posted up thread, Bure had 26:52 in ice time in 2000-01, 1st among forwards and 5th among all players. 2nd place among forwards was Alexei Kovalev at 23:34, 36th among all players.



In 1999-00, Bure also led forwards in ice time, but only with 2 seconds over 2nd place Kariya (who was also racking up tons of ice time on a bad team).

Cognition is absolutely right in that Bure was placed in a very unique position in Florida. Their whole strategy was "pass to Bure (who was probably cherrypicking) and see what happens."

So twice he lead forwards in ice time, and once only by 2 seconds?

In the grand scheme of things that makes a negligible difference when judging his overall scoring ability throughout his prime and career. You can't tell me this makes more of a difference than had he played regularly with some better players, minus the supposed large advantage he had in ice time?