Round 2, Vote 6 (HOH Top Wingers)

[Hawkey Town 18]

IMPORTANT NOTE: Post 2 of every voting thread will contain instructions as to who to send your votes to. If you send your votes to the wrong person, we can't guarantee that they will be counted.

MOD: This is a strictly on-topic thread. Posts that don't focus on the wingers listed in Post 2 will be deleted or moved at the discretion of the moderators. This will be strictly enforced in every Round 2 voting thread, regardless of who the OP is - TDMM

Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2

• The top 8-12 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of at least five (5) days. Administrators may extend the discussion period if it remains active
• Final voting will occur for two (2) days, via PM. Everyone ranks their top 8 players.
• Top 4 players will be added to the list
• Final results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 4 places with remaining players until a list of 60 wingers is obtained
• If there are major breaks in the Round 2 voting totals, we may add more or less than the targeted 4 players in certain rounds
• The number of players available for discussion at once will increase from 8 as we move down the list, based on natural breaks in the aggregate list put together in Round 1

These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines we'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:

• Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
• Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" "sophistry" etc. when debating.
• Please treat other debaters with respect
• Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
• Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

Eliglible Voters (23):
Andros , Art of Sedinery , BillyShoe1721 , Dennis Bonvie , Hawkey Town 18 , intylerwetrust , kmad , MadArcand , reckoning , Rob Scuderi , ted1971 , TheDevilMadeMe , the edler , tony d , Ursaguy , bigbuffalo313 , Canadiens1958 , Darth Yoda , Hardyvan123 , MXD , tarheelhockey , unknown33 , seventieslord , Johnny Engine

All posters are encouraged to participate in the debates and discussions, but only those listed above will be eligible for the final votes.

Click to read more...

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Vote 5 will begin now and debates are scheduled to run through Monday November 10th at 9 PM EST. You may PM votes to Hawkey Town 18 starting on Sunday, Nov 9th.

We will be sending out confirmations when we receive ballots from the voters. Any voter who does not get a confirmation within 24 hours of submitting a ballot should assume we never received it and should resubmit it and post in this thread saying they did so.

There are 11 eligible candidates for Vote 6 because of the natural breaks of Round 1 point totals. You will still only rank your Top 8 when voting.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:

Doug Bentley
Toe Blake
Johnny Bucyk
Pavel Bure
Anatoli Firsov
Brett Hull
Jarome Iginla
Busher Jackson
Jari Kurri
Tommy Phillips
Martin St. Louis

 

[sr edler]

I can say so much that I like some of the new players.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Top 10 finishes in the NHL

When looking at top 10 finishes, please note that it is probably more difficult to repeat as a top 10 finisher in a larger league with more (European?) competition (which is what inspired the proliferation of Vs2, then VsX).

Top 5 finishes are bolded.

*Finish during 1944 and 1945 years that were heavily depleted by WW2. (1942, 1943, and 1946 were slightly depleted but much less so).

Top 10 Points

St Louis: 1, 1, 2, 5, 6
Bentley: 1, 2*, 2, 3, 3, 6, 7
Jackson: 1, 2, 5, 5, 7
Kurri: 2, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9
Blake: 1, 3, 3*, 6, 7, 9
Iginla: 1, 3, 6, 8
Bure: 2, 3, 5, 7
Hull: 2, 4, 5
Bucyk: 3, 7, 7, 8, 9, 9

Top 10 Goals

Hull: 1, 1, 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10
Bure: 1, 1, 1, 3, 5
Iginla: 1, 1, 3, 3
Kurri: 1, 2, 3, 5
Jackson: 2, 3, 3, 4, 6
Bentley: 1, 1*, 6
Blake: 2, 3, 3*, 8, 10
Bucyk: 2, 6, 9, 9, 9
St. Louis: 4, 5

Top 10 Assists

St Louis: 1, 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 9
Bentley: 1, 1, 4, 5, 5, 9, 9*
Blake: 3*, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10
Bucyk: 3, 7, 8, 9, 10
Jackson: 3, 9, 10
Kurri: 9, 9, 10
Iginla: 10
Hull: NONE
Bure: NONE

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

7 Year weighted Vs-X scores 1927 to 2014

A formula for determining the quality of a player's point production in his best 7 regular seasons, compared to a typical #2 scorer in the league those years.

Details here and here

War years players - I am now listing the "war year fudge" first with the raw VsX in parenthesis, since I think the war year fudge is a much better estimate of offensive value.

Rank|Player|Score
1 | Gordie Howe | 126
2 | Jaromir Jagr | 114.6
3 | Bobby Hull | 107.1
4 | Guy Lafleur | 104.9
5 | Ted Lindsay | 104.8
6 | Maurice Richard | 102.5(105.7)
7 | Andy Bathgate | 101.2
8 | Alex Ovechkin | 97.5
9 | Charlie Conacher | 97.1
10 | Bill Cook# | 96.6
11 | Mike Bossy | 94.4
12 | Teemu Selanne | 92.9
13 | Martin St. Louis | 92.9
14 | Sweeney Schriner | 91.9
15 | Bernie Geoffrion | 90.2
16 | Busher Jackson | 90
17 | Mark Recchi | 88.6
18 | Brett Hull | 88.2
19 | Jari Kurri | 88.1
20 | Gordie Drillon | 88.1
21 | Doug Bentley | 87.2(96.2)
22 | Jarome Iginla | 87
23 | Dickie Moore | 86
24 | Pavel Bure | 86
25 | Frank Mahovlich | 85.5
26 | Paul Kariya | 85.4
27 | Roy Conacher | 85.4(88.8)
28 | Toe Blake | 85.3(92.6)
39 | John Bucyk | 85.3
30 | Bryan Hextall | 84.5
31 | Luc Robitaille | 84.4
32 | Syd Howe | 84.3(87.9)
33 | Ilya Kovalchuk | 84.3

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The five post-expansion NHLers

Johnny Bucyk's career is split between eras, so I am not including him. This is the same 4 players as last time, plus Bure.

Note that I am putting an asterix next to years Hull spent with Oates and Kurri spent with Gretzky. It's up to you if and how much you think it affected them.

Top 20 points finishes

For post-expansion players, 11th-20th place finishes are very meaningful.

St Louis: 1, 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 16, 18
Iginla: 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 16

Hull: 2*, 4*, 5*, 11, 14, 17, 17, 19
Kurri: 2*, 2*, 4*, 7*, 8, 9*, 13, 19

Bure: 2, 3, 5, 7, 13

Bure sees a big drop off after his 5 great seasons.

Top 20 goals finishes

Hull: 1*, 1*, 1*, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 14, 19, 19
Iginla: 1, 1, 3, 3, 11, 14, 16, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19
Bure: 1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 15
Kurri: 1*, 2*, 3*, 5*, 14, 15*, 15*, 17*
St. Louis: 4, 5, 16, 20

Hull is a small step up from Iginla before considering linemates. Kurri is another small step down, and St. Louis a big step down.

Bure's goal scoring finishes drop off rapidly after his 5th year due to missing lots of games.

Top 20 assists finishes

St. Louis: 1, 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, 19
Kurri: 9*, 9*, 10*, 13*, 13*, 15, 17
Iginla: 10, 17, 18
Hull: 11, 19
Bure: NONE

St. Louis is tops easily, followed by Kurri (but Gretzky?), then Iginla very slightly over Hull.

I don't actually think Hull was a better playmaker than Bure - I think it's more that Hull just had so many more chances to get a decent number of assists in a season because he had so many more relevant seasons.

10 VsX weighted scores

10 years is the preferred method when comparing only post-expansion players, since post-expansion players usually have 10+ years as effective players. Any comparison involving pre-expansion players should use 7 year VsX, since pre-expansion players usually had shorter primes due to fewer roster spots and weaker medical care.

Remember, this is a weighted score that gives a player's best seasons more weight. (The weights matter more to the 10 year score than the 7 year one).

St. Louis 10 year VsX: 87.8
Hull 10 year VsX: 84.5
Iginla 10 year VsX: 82.5
Kurri 10 year VsX: 82.1
Bure 10 year VsX: 75.6

Bure's limited number of elite seasons really hurts him in a 10 year metric.

 

[sr edler]

What does a 5 year VsX look like between these guys?

 

[bobholly39]

Brett Hull =

1. Hands down highest peak on the list

2. Best overall career numbers #3goals all time.


Brett Hull should go #1 here.

 

[JA]

The five post-expansion NHLers

Johnny Bucyk's career is split between eras, so I am not including him. This is the same 4 players as last time, plus Bure.

Note that I am putting an asterix next to years Hull spent with Oates and Kurri spent with Gretzky. It's up to you if and how much you think it affected them.

Top 20 points finishes

For post-expansion players, 11th-20th place finishes are very meaningful.

St Louis: 1, 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 16, 18
Iginla: 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 16

Hull: 2*, 4*, 5*, 11, 14, 17, 17, 19
Kurri: 2*, 2*, 4*, 7*, 8, 9*, 13, 19

Bure: 2, 3, 5, 7, 13

Bure sees a big drop off after his 5 great seasons.

Top 20 goals finishes

Hull: 1*, 1*, 1*, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 14, 19, 19
Iginla: 1, 1, 3, 3, 11, 14, 16, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19
Bure: 1, 1, 1, 3, 5
Kurri: 1*, 2*, 3*, 5*, 14, 15*, 15*, 17*
St. Louis: 4, 5, 16, 20

Hull is a small step up from Iginla before considering linemates. Kurri is another small step down, and St. Louis a big step down.

Bure had 5 amazing (non-consecutive) years as a goal scorer and little else.

Top 20 assists finishes

St. Louis: 1, 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, 19
Kurri: 9*, 9*, 10*, 13*, 13*, 15, 17
Iginla: 10, 17, 18
Hull: 11, 19
Bure: NONE

St. Louis is tops easily, followed by Kurri (but Gretzky?), then Iginla very slightly over Hull.

I don't actually think Hull was a better playmaker than Bure - I think it's more that Hull just had so many more chances to get a decent number of assists in a season because he had so many more relevant seasons.

10 VsX weighted scores

10 years is the preferred method when comparing only post-expansion players, since post-expansion players usually have 10+ years as effective players. Any comparison involving pre-expansion players should use 7 year VsX, since pre-expansion players usually had shorter primes due to fewer roster spots and weaker medical care.

Remember, this is a weighted score that gives a player's best seasons more weight. (The weights matter more to the 10 year score than the 7 year one).

St. Louis 10 year VsX: 87.8
Hull 10 year VsX: 84.5
Iginla 10 year VsX: 82.5
Kurri 10 year VsX: 82.1
Bure 10 year VsX: 75.6

Bure's limited number of elite seasons really hurts him in a 10 year metric.

I understand your appreciation for statistics and numbers, TDMM, but Bure was nearly always an elite player when healthy. Injuries plagued him, but our evaluation of his ability when healthy shows that he was a better player than career numbers would have one believe.

We must also account for linemates, shouldn't we? After all, he achieved a 60-goal, 50-assist season and a 60-goal, 47-assist season despite lacking linemates who could adequately support him. Thus, we unfortunately don't have statistics that reflect his abilities.

We do, however, have testimonial evidence (and I have provided a lot of this over the past two years):

http://search.proquest.com/docview/267428111

The 'Roadrunner' impressed by Bure: [1* Edition]
Scott, Bob. The Province [Vancouver, B.C] 19 Mar 1992: B2.

...

"I've seen Bure play twice, including that 3-0 Vancouver win at the Forum," continued Cournoyer, "and I'm really impressed. He's intelligent . . . he's a playmaker. He doesn't think of himself.

"And, of course, he's proven that he's a goal scorer. He can play . . . he should do well in the league."

The Roadrunner (he earned the nickname from Sports Illustrated after he had "two or three break-aways" in a game in New York) loves to see speedy players such as Bure and Montreal's Russ Courtnall on the ice.

"They add an extra dimension to the game - everybody and everything seems that much faster when they're on the ice."

Cournoyer, in Vancouver to promote a booklet on hockey cards available through Sunlight soap, obviously feels the left-handed shot on right wing is an advantage.

"Being left-handed is tougher in your own zone," said Cournoyer, "but once you get over the blue line, it's easier, more natural."

...

Brett Hull =

1. Hands down highest peak on the list

2. Best overall career numbers #3goals all time.


Brett Hull should go #1 here.

One of our posters has provided evidence of Adam Oates' impact on Hull's numbers. I think it's safe to say that Oates elevated Brett Hull's numbers in each of the seasons in which he scored 60+ goals. In any other year, he scored >60 goals.

Bure won the goal-scoring title and scored 60 goals in 1994 playing with inferior linemates. He also scored more goals than Hull (60 vs 54) in 1993. In order to judge capabilities, we need to think about what their numbers would have looked like if their situations were reversed: Bure with Oates, Hull with Odjick and Adams/Craven.

Bure was the better player playing with lesser linemates. He was the more diverse player and the better goal scorer. If anything, I think Bure needs to be above Brett Hull here. The one-timer ability is something they both had; what Bure lacked was someone to tee him up on those many occasions.

Works Cited

Scott, Bob. "The 'Roadrunner' Impressed by Bure." The Province: 0. Mar 19 1992. ProQuest. Web. 31 Oct. 2014 .

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Preliminary thoughts on new candidates:

Firsov has a great shot at my #1. Most of my efforts this round will focus on him. The best player not in the NHL in the late 60s/into the early 70s where his prime overlapped with the ascension of Kharlamov and Mikhailov.

The other three new guys look like they will probably be pretty easy to be the three to leave off my ballot; all for different reasons:

I'm not surprised to see Phillips appear now. The original two-way speedster and one of the best players ever before World War I; he's the one really early player who is a no-brainer to add to our list. But I have trouble seeing him before guys like Kurri, Blake, and Bentley who starred as two-way players in more competitive eras.

Johnny Bucyk had an extremely long career as a very good player, but I wonder whether he was ever a "great" one. His only top 5 finish in scoring was a 3rd place finish behind two teammates (Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito). I just see his scoring resume in his 20s is probably a better indication of his actual ability than the spike his stats took in his mid 30s playing with the Bobby Orr Bruins. His ability to control the boards without taking penalties was very impressive, however, Orr or not.

Pavel Bure will likely be left off my ballot for the opposite reason as Bucyk - while Bure was elite when he was at his best, he just doesn't have enough elite seasons. Basically everything historically relevant that Bure did happened in 1992-93, 1993-94, 1997-98, 1999-00, and 2000-01. He also wasn't exactly a guy loaded with intangibles, though he did play hard early in his career.

Phillips, Bucyk, and Bure were all great players, and all no-brainers to have on our top 60 list. But right now, I don't think they stack up with the rest of the candidates.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Brett Hull =

1. Hands down highest peak on the list

2. Best overall career numbers #3goals all time.


Brett Hull should go #1 here.

I disagree with almost everything in this post.

Edit: By that, I mean, there is a case that Hull has the best peak and best overall numbers, but I don't think either is "hands down" when you consider era (and overall game for the former).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I understand your appreciation for statistics and numbers, TDW, but Bure was nearly always an elite player when healthy. Injuries plagued him, but our evaluation of his ability when healthy shows that he was a better player than career numbers would have one believe.

Yes, I think Bure was in a similar class to the 4 other "modern" NHLers this round when he was on the ice. Heck, I even agree with you that he was better at creating his own offense than Brett Hull. But due to a combination of injuries and contract disputes, he was on the ice a lot less often than they were. And that does matter.

Honestly, running the numbers this round, I really surprised myself to find that Bure only finished top 20 in goals 5 times (due to lack of enough healthy seasons, obviously, but still).

 

[unknown33]

Basically everything historically relevant that Bure did happened in 1992-93, 1993-94, 1997-98, 1999-00, and 2000-01.

It's not like other player have much more historically relevant seasons either. Unless you consider to be 15th - 20th in goal scoring to be historically relevant.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's not like other player have much more historically relevant seasons either. Unless you consider to be 15th - 20th in goal scoring to be historically relevant.

Iginla and Hull each finished top 20 in NHL goals 12 times each. Bure did so 5 times.

Yes, I consider that "relevant." (Just saw your quick edit).

 

[JA]

Pavel Bure will likely be left off my ballot for the opposite reason as Bucyk - while Bure was elite when he was at his best, he just doesn't have enough elite seasons. Basically everything historically relevant that Bure did happened in 1992-93, 1993-94, 1997-98, 1999-00, and 2000-01. He also wasn't exactly a guy loaded with intangibles, though he did play hard early in his career.

Phillips, Bucyk, and Bure were all great players, and all no-brainers to have on our top 60 list. But right now, I don't think they stack up with the rest of the candidates.

Yes, I think Bure was in a similar class to the 4 other "modern" NHLers this round when he was on the ice. Heck, I even agree with you that he was better at creating his own offense than Brett Hull. But due to a combination of injuries and contract disputes, he was on the ice a lot less often than they were. And that does matter.

Longevity seems to be what holds him back on a lot of these player rankings; career statistics ultimately mean giving more weight to one's career.

I think Bure was a better than Iginla, Hull, St. Louis, and even Kurri (a Gretzky + Bure combination seems more dangerous than a Gretzky + Kurri combination; it's too bad we never saw it despite their mutual interests in playing with one another). If he had a healthy career, he would probably be on a higher tier than all four.

I offered a post a little while ago that spoke about Bure's playoff success and ability to elevate his game when things mattered. I think his playoff numbers offer an insight into that, and his intensity is evident in not only his numbers but in his physicality. Bure, in playoff action, became a physical player. We saw this in 1994 as well as in the 1998 Nagano Olympics; in the 1998 Gold Medal game, he offered some explosive hits, particularly one that knocked Jaroslav Spacek off of his feet. In 1994, we have footage of hits on Jamie Macoun, Brian Leetch and others (Shane Churla too) where Bure took them out with a ton of force.

I think we can give Bure credit for having intangibles, especially with Pat Quinn very confident about putting Pavel on the ice at the end of playoff games to preserve a one-goal lead. The key, from what I've seen, is effort level. When Bure wanted to play at 100%, he could elevate his game and do anything to win. When he wanted the Stanley Cup, he always made that extra push in the playoffs; his defensive game improved in the playoffs (although it was still good in the regular season in those years -- the keys being effort level and a desire to play that way). The 1994 numbers in which he he had 13 goals, 17 points in 12 consecutive games (16 goals, 31 points over that entire campaign) is Conn Smythe worthy as well.

I think, due to the circumstances Bure played in (linemates, injuries), he has always been made to look worse than he is capable of compared to a lot of other elite NHL players in these rankings. An isolated look at his abilities certainly gives a different perspective, and subbing him into several of the other top players' situations hypothetically should almost always result in him doing better than those he subbed in for (Kurri, Hull, etc). In an isolated study of these players, I think he is better than a lot of his peers here. How would they fare in his situation, and he would he fare in theirs?

I think, for that reason, his abilities as a player are frequently underrated. His circumstances seem to kill his place in these rankings. Perhaps, if this board does a comparison of players' peaks, Bure would fare better. We would still need to somehow account for the differences in linemates, though. The vast difference in linemates makes a difference in these comparisons of assist and goal totals -- can the linemates finish and can they set up teammates?

Here are highlights from the January 10, 1997 game against Hartford. Sportsnet, during the 2012 NHL lockout, decided to pull highlights from a few random games out of their vault. There are undoubtedly crystal-clear highlights from several games lying around. It would be great if they would make these available at some point.

In this game, Bure makes two terrific saucer passes, assisting on two goals:



Bure's passing ability was good. He had a good stick, and his one-touch ability was terrific. The totals are much lower than they could have been because of linemates.

I'm glad you agree that Bure was a better playmaker than Hull. I think Bure was better than Hull both as a goal scorer and as a playmaker, especially considering the near unofficial 50-in-50 by himself in 1993-94 too (49 in 51). Hull's reputation as a player is elevated by those three Oates-influenced seasons, though.

 

[MXD]

Well, my Top-4 made it in the Top-4 last round...

And this round feels like a big drop off.

I like Firsov as a Top-8, and even possibly Top-4 candidate.

Brett Hull starts to look very good.

 

[Ursaguy]

MSL at number 1 feels like the easy choice here for me. Firsov but not Balderis coming up is weird but I can get behind that. Non-NHL players keep on dropping to me because everybody has all of this evidence for and against NHLers but doesn't mention the Russians. That said I'm liking Firsov in my top 5. Kurri will be there, too. Bure and Hull will probably end upright next to each other. Tommy Phillips has an interesting case.

 

[bobholly39]

I disagree with almost everything in this post.

Edit: By that, I mean, there is a case that Hull has the best peak and best overall numbers, but I don't think either is "hands down" when you consider era (and overall game for the former).

Best peak - hands down Hull. I stand by my comment. Who else comes close?



Career - also best numbers although i didnt say "hands down" this time. But i could? 3rd in goals all time.


What exactly about my post is untrue?

 

[MXD]

Best peak - hands down Hull. I stand by my comment. Who else comes close?

Career - also best numbers although i didnt say "hands down" this time. But i could? 3rd in goals all time.

What exactly about my post is untrue?

Define peak...

I mean, Hull is certainly arguable.
As are Bure, Blake, St-Louis.

If peak is defined by single best season, one would have to work reaaaallly hard, and probably fail along the way, to convince that me the author of the best season isn't St-Louis.

2 years? Bure and Blake.

Consecutive stretch of seasons with some combo of excellence and length?? Then it's Hull.

 

[JA]

Best peak - hands down Hull. I stand by my comment. Who else comes close?

Career - also best numbers although i didnt say "hands down" this time. But i could? 3rd in goals all time.

Hull has the better numbers, but they only partially reflect his abilities -- Adam Oates had a significant impact on Hull's peak numbers. Oates, if we recall, had a 97 assist, 142 point in 1992-93 with Boston the year after leaving St. Louis, a season in which Cam Neely only played 13 games. Oates was an outstanding playmaker.

Pavel Bure, meanwhile, achieved back-to-back 60-goal, 50-47 assist seasons between 1992-93 and 1993-94 playing with mediocre talent. He also achieved a streak of 49 goals in 51 games in 1994 playing with Odjick and Craven.

I think Bure's peak ability is greater than Hull's. Bure was also a more diverse player, and was the better playmaker. Head-to-head, Hull (with Janney and Brendan Shanahan) could not outscore Bure between 1992-93 and 1993-94.

Between Craig Janney's arrival in St. Louis/Adam Oates' departure (February 8, 1992) and the end of the 1993-94 season, Hull had 127 goals in 180 games. In that same stretch (180 games to the end of the 1993-94 season), Bure had 139 goals. Bure played with far lesser talent than Janney in that period.

1992-1994: Hull + Janney < Bure + Mediocre Talent

In 1993-94, Bure won the goal-scoring title with 60 goals in 76 games. Hull scored 57 goals in 81 games -- with five extra games, he could not outscore Bure.

Oates is responsible for Hull's numbers. With Janney instead (still a very good playmaker), Bure playing with Adams/Odjick/Craven/Semenov/Larionov/Carson outscored Hull by a dozen goals. In fact, even if we take away the 1991-92 totals, Bure scored 120 goals in 159 games playing with a bunch of mediocre talent, and scored in a greater variety of ways.

Bure with Oates in those years instead of the assortment of players he played with would have given him at least one 80-goal season, in my opinion. For lengthy stretches, he scored at a goal-per-game clip, including a streak of 49 in 51 (as mentioned before, almost an unofficial 50-in-50) in 1993-94. Better linemates might have meant more consistency and more overall production. He had a more diverse skill set than Hull, and an excellent one-timer as well.

Here are some comments made by his teammates during the 1994 Stanley Cup Playoffs:

http://search.proquest.com/docview/252025801

RELUCTANT ROCKET; Rising superstar Pavel Bure avoids spotlight like the plague; at the Stanley Cups Finals: [Final Edition]
Cole, Cam. Edmonton Journal [Edmonton, Alta] 31 May 1994: G1.

...

"He is the most talented player I have ever seen," says Trevor Linden, Bure's centre for the last 13 games. "He's the most exciting player the league has - I mean, just edge-of-your-seat, raw skill, pure talent, it's not close. He's scored 60 goals back to back seasons and he had, what, 23 at the all-star break this year? Awesome."

"I always thought Guy Lafleur was the one guy, in the last 20 years, who did everything the best at high speed," said Canucks assistant coach Ron Smith. "But Pavel is a cut above him. He is one of the three best offensive entertainers ever to play the game."

"He can make a nothing play into something," says winger Greg Adams. "He has little qualities of a lot of great players. He has the speed of Russ Courtnall, he handles the puck like Gretzky, and he can shoot it like Brett Hull."

...

http://search.proquest.com/docview/387322048

Bure wins over Vancouver fans PAVELMANIA " The Russian Rocket has become the Canucks' game- breaker
Kerr, Grant. The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 05 May 1992: C.12.

...

"The Russian has turned things around for Vancouver," Oilers coach Ted Green says. "His speed is very intimidating, making them a much better team."

Vancouver assistant coach Ron Wilson views Bure as a game-breaker who, like a magician, "can make something out of nothing.

"When he makes those big plays, it injects our team with a shot of adrenalin. It's something that good teams need to become winners."

...

http://search.proquest.com/docview/243384986

Pavelmania: Finally Vancouver has a superstar: PAVELMANIA: Soaring, sweeping rise to stardom: [1* Edition]
MacINTYRE, IAIN. The Vancouver Sun [Vancouver, B.C] 28 Mar 1992: A1.

...

When Bure plays, everyone - teammates, reporters, coaches, fans - waits for something to happen, something outrageous.

"If you're watching the game on TV, you wait to go to the bathroom when he's on the ice because you don't want to miss anything," Vancouver broadcaster Tom Larscheid says. "It could be the shift where he goes end-to-end."

...

"I've only done a couple of Canuck games this season, but I've seen half his goals because he's usually the opening on the highlight films," CBC hockey analyst and former Canuck coach Harry Neale says. "Everyone you talk to says he's worth the price of admission. He would win the rookie-of-the-year award fairly simply if he had played the whole season."

Even Bure's teammates fall under his spell when he picks up speed in the neutral zone.

During a January game in Winnipeg, Bure was leading checkers Troy Murray and Mario Marois on an absurd chase around the Jets' end when he made what has become his trademark move. Bure hesitated and pulled the puck into his skates, then in a flash kicked it back up to his stick and accelerated to warp speed. Murray and Marois didn't have a chance.

THE NEXT DAY at practice, all the Canucks were trying to copy the move.

...

"For him, every game, every day it's like a joy to play hockey," says Russian veteran Igor Larionov, a linemate of Bure's since December. "He's got lots of talent and ability to score so many goals. Maybe similar to Sergei Makarov when he was younger. It was different hockey 10 years ago; I think it's not polite to compare each other, but maybe Pavel takes something from Makarov and adds his own skill."

...

http://search.proquest.com/docview/254018181

Russian Rocket isn't soaring but he's still impressing people: [1* Edition]
McDonald, Archie. The Windsor Star [Windsor, Ont] 13 May 1992: D7.

EDMONTON - THE RUSSIAN Rocket did not lit up the skies over Edmonton but people who chart movements in the hockey heavens are predicting a starry future for Pavel Bure.

Kelly Buchberger shadowed the young man being hailed as the first super star to wear a Vancouver Canucks uniform. He says simply: "He has everything. I think he will become one of the great players in the league."

Edmonton goalie Bill Ranford, who outguessed Bure several times, notes: "He can do it all. He's going to be a great player."

...

He's a rookie, remember, a freshly turned 21 don't forget, and he produced magnificently in the latter stages of the Canucks' defeat of Winnipeg. In one stretch of 29 games he scored 27 goals.

Ex-Canuck coach turned television analyst Harry Neale thinks he's legitimate star material

...

"I like the effort he gives it when he doesn't have the puck. We all know what he can do when he thinks he can score, but he's killing penalties, he's checking, doing a lot of things.

...

Hull's best playoff numbers with Adam Oates (1989-1991) were also matched in 1994 by Bure (playing with Linden and Adams). Hull had 13 goals in 12 playoff games in 1989 with Oates. He had 11 goals in 13 games with Oates in 1990. Bure had a streak of 13 goals in 12 games in 1994, and finished with 16 goals. Even head-to-head in 1995, Bure outscored Hull in their 1995 playoff series: Bure had 7 goals, 5 assists, 12 points in 7 games; Hull had 6 goals, 2 assists, 8 points in 7 games.

Bure was the better playoff performer and outdid Hull's best while playing with lesser linemates. Oates > Linden is the case, I'm certain.

Works Cited

Cole, Cam. "RELUCTANT ROCKET; Rising Superstar Pavel Bure Avoids Spotlight Like the Plague; at the Stanley Cups Finals." Edmonton Journal: 0. May 31 1994. ProQuest. Web. 31 Oct. 2014 .

Kerr, Grant. "Bure Wins Over Vancouver Fans PAVELMANIA " the Russian Rocket has Become the Canucks' Game- Breaker." The Globe and Mail: 0. May 05 1992. ProQuest. Web. 31 Oct. 2014 .

MacINTYRE, IAIN. "Pavelmania: Finally Vancouver has a Superstar: PAVELMANIA: Soaring, Sweeping Rise to Stardom." The Vancouver Sun: 0. Mar 28 1992. ProQuest. Web. 1 Nov. 2014 .

McDonald, Archie. "Russian Rocket Isn't Soaring but He's Still Impressing People." The Windsor Star: 0. May 13 1992. ProQuest. Web. 1 Nov. 2014 .

 

[quoipourquoi]

Bure, in playoff action, became physical player. We saw this in 1994 as well as in the 1998 Nagano Olympics; in the 1998 Gold Medal game, he offered some explosive hits, particularly one that knocked Jaroslav Spacek off of his feet.

Probably good that he was throwing checks, because he wasn't scoring on the tournament's better goalies. All of his best-on-best goals in his career were scored against Vitali Yeremeyev (x2), Andrei Mezin (x1), Jarmo Myllys (x6), Jani Hurme (x1), and Sergei Shabanov (x1).

 

[JA]

Probably good that he was throwing checks, because he wasn't scoring on the tournament's better goalies. All of his best-on-best goals in his career were scored against Vitali Yeremeyev (x2), Andrei Mezin (x1), Jarmo Myllys (x6), Jani Hurme (x1), and Sergei Shabanov (x1).

You can watch the full game here. Bure is by far the most noticeable player on the ice. He generates many of Team Russia's best chances. The only two better players that game were Mikhail Shtalenkov (who stopped multiple breakaways to keep the Russians in the match), and Dominik Hasek.



The Russian broadcast has been uploaded in higher quality, although the commentary is not in English:



After 1996, we need to also consider injuries come into play when discussing Bure. According to the Florida Panthers' team doctor in 1999, Bure's repaired ACL was already stretching by the time he was traded from Vancouver; thus, he had a second operation in 1999. We can assume damage was being done while he was playing between 1996 and 1998. That said, his production was still quite good even with the torn knee. Would it have been better at 100%? His skating would have been better, that's for certain.

 

[Batis]

This is how Anatoli Firsov did internationally compared head to head with the 5 major soviet forwards of the 70´s Kharlamov, Mikhailov, Petrov, Maltsev and Yakushev. (The age is taken from the start of the tournament).

WHC 1967
Anatoli Firsov 7 gp, 11 g, 11 a, 22 pts (age 26)
Alexander Yakushev 2 gp, 1 g, 0 a, 1 pts (age 20)

WHC 1969
Anatoli Firsov 10 gp, 10 g, 4 a, 14 pts (age 28)
Boris Mikhailov 9 gp, 9 g, 5 a, 14 pts (age 24)
Valeri Kharlamov 10 gp, 6 g, 7 a, 13 pts (age 21)
Alexander Maltsev 10 gp, 5 g, 6 a, 11 pts (age 19)
Vladimir Petrov 10 gp, 6 g, 2 a, 8 pts (age 21)
Alexander Yakushev 6 gp, 1 g, 1 a, 2 pts (age 22)

WHC 1970
Alexander Maltsev 10 gp, 15 g, 6 a, 21 pts (age 20)
Anatoli Firsov 8 gp, 6 g, 10 a, 16 pts (age 29)
Valeri Kharlamov 9 gp, 7 g, 3 a, 10 pts (age 22)
Boris Mikhailov 10 gp, 7 g, 3 a, 10 pts (age 25)
Vladimir Petrov 10 gp, 5 g, 3 a, 8 pts (age 22)
Alexander Yakushev 6 gp, 3 g, 3 a, 6 pts (age 23)

WHC 1971
Anatoli Firsov 10 gp, 11 g, 8 a, 19 pts (age 30)
Valeri Kharlamov 10 gp, 5 g, 12 a, 17 pts (age 23)
Alexander Maltsev 10 gp, 10 g, 6 a, 16 pts (age 21)
Vladimir Petrov 9 gp, 8 g, 3 a, 11 pts (age 23)
Boris Mikhailov 9 gp, 7 g, 3 a, 10 pts (age 26)

Olympics 1972
Valeri Kharlamov 5 gp, 9 g, 6 a, 15 pts (age 24)
Alexander Maltsev 5 gp, 4 g, 3 a, 7 pts (age 22)
Anatoli Firsov 5 gp, 2 g, 5 a, 7 pts (age 31)
Alexander Yakushev 5 gp, 0 g, 3 a, 3 pts (age 25)
Boris Mikhailov 3 gp, 2 g, 0 a, 2 pts (age 27)
Vladimir Petrov 4 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts (age 24)

Between 1967 and 1971 Firsov made the team of the tournament for 5 straight tournaments and was named the best forward of the tournament 3 times. He also won the scoring title in 4 of the 5 tournaments played in that timeframe. How much should Firsov really be punished for not getting the chance to prove himself against the best players in North America considering how much he dominated the international hockey stage in the years leading up to the 1972 Summit Series?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Brett Hull =

1. Hands down highest peak on the list

2. Best overall career numbers #3goals all time.


Brett Hull should go #1 here.

I had Hull #1 last round, he basically got jobbed IMO, no doubt some will have him out of the top 4 once again eh(it would be nice to see some logical reasons why he has dropped this far his VsX should have ahd him in long ago he wasn't a total defensive sieve but some are treating him as such)?

His peak, prime, career goals scoring both in the regular season and playoffs is good enough for 3 or 4 rounds ago, why is he still here this round really?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Longevity seems to be what holds him back on a lot of these player rankings; career statistics ultimately mean giving more weight to one's career.

Eh, it's not really longevity; Bure's skills didn't fall off a cliff or anything. It was the fact that he was often injured during his prime. Never strung together more than 2 full seasons in a row as a top player.

I think Bure was a better than Iginla, Hull, St. Louis, and even Kurri (a Gretzky + Bure combination seems more dangerous than a Gretzky + Kurri combination; it's too bad we never saw it despite their mutual interests in playing with one another). If he had a healthy career, he would probably be on a higher tier than all four.

More dangerous to their own goaltender for sure!

I offered a post a little while ago that spoke about Bure's playoff success and ability to elevate his game when things mattered. I think his playoff numbers offer an insight into that, and his intensity is evident in not only his numbers but in his physicality. Bure, in playoff action, became physical player. We saw this in 1994 as well as in the 1998 Nagano Olympics; in the 1998 Gold Medal game, he offered some explosive hits, particularly one that knocked Jaroslav Spacek off of his feet. In 1994, we have footage of hits on Jamie Macoun, Brian Leetch and others (Shane Churla too) where Bure took them out with a ton of force.

Bure was great in the 1994 playoffs, that's for sure, and he did put up great numbers in the 1998 Olympics.

I think we can give Bure credit for having intangibles, especially with Pat Quinn very confident about putting Pavel on the ice at the end of playoff games to preserve a one-goal lead. The key, from what I've seen, is effort level. When Bure wanted to play at 100%, he could elevate his game and do anything to win. When he wanted the Stanley Cup, he always made that extra push in the playoffs; his defensive game improved in the playoffs (although it was still good in the regular season in those years -- the keys being effort level and a desire to play that way). The 1994 numbers in which he he had 13 goals, 17 points in 12 consecutive games (16 goals, 31 points over that entire campaign) is Conn Smythe worthy as well.

So basically if Bure felt like it, he would have had great intangibles?

Bure was often put out to preserve one-goal leads because he had a knack for getting ENGs. Somewhat relatedly, Ken Hitchcock in Dallas gave the Lehtinen-Modano-Hull line the heaviest defensive assignments on the team - Hull wasn't there for his D - he was there as a counterattack threat, while Lehtinen and Modano played excellent D.

I mean, your previous posts have done a good job of highlighting that Bure at least showed up at both ends of the rink early in his career, but he's a guy who was one of the biggest cherrypickers in NHL history during 3 of his statistically great seasons (1997-98 playing for a contract bonus, 1999-00, 2000-01). I mean, I can't even blame him that much for playing that way in Florida - it's not like that team had many other scoring options, but I don't see his play without the puck being a positive in any way when compared to most of these other candidates.