I don't understand why this is relevant. Howe should get credit for how much he separated himself from his peers, who also faced the same matchups, d-men and goalies. You make it sound like Howe, or any other 06 player, would be even better in today's game or that any non superstar d-man or goalie is a plug.
Top Ten goalscorers of all-time
- Thread starter daver
- Start date
I don't understand why this is relevant. Howe should get credit for how much he separated himself from his peers, who also faced the same matchups, d-men and goalies. You make it sound like Howe, or any other 06 player, would be even better in today's game or that any non superstar d-man or goalie is a plug.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Think longevity and repetition. The ability to repeat success over a long period of time while making the necessary adjustments. How long, consecutive seasons, was Howe Top 5?
Separation from peers is transient, a function of injuries to the players and his peers, composition of rosters.
Howe is a prime example of the latter if you look at his monster 1952-53 season. Howe played with the only sure fire HHOF goalie in his prime - Terry Sawchuk. He never faced Terry Sawchuk in his prime. The other five regular O6 goalies featured very solid goalies in Gerry McNeil,Jim Henry, Al Rollins,, Harry Lumley a future HHOF adjusting to a new team that lost its defensive leader in Ted Kennedy for 27 games, and a rookie Gump Worsley who had a Calder year but was sent down to the minors the next season on his way to a HHOF career.
Rest of the league faced Sawchuk, yet in three instances without the benefit of their #1 center. Toronto as stated missed Kennedy for 27 games, Montreal missed Lach for 17 games, while the last place Rangers were without Edgar Laprade for 59 games. Howe had the additional benefit of not facing the best defensive center on three teams for long stretches that year as well.
Suggest researching properly before making claims.
So you are saying Howe's 52/53 season was an anomaly? I thought you were doubting Howe not being in the Top 6 in your first post.
This doesn't answer my comment that you make it sound like Howe, or any other 06 player, would be even better in today's game or that any non superstar d-man or goalie is a plug.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Just explaining the 1952-53 season and your misconceptions based on an evident lack of research.
In today's game Howe would have similar advantages he did in 1952-53. Rarely having to play against a team with a quality demanding roster.
No longer the case for Howe as the O6 era progressed thru 1966-67.
If I get your gist, 52/53 Howe played against unusually weak competition and thrived while in other years, notably after that season, he played against unusually strong competition.
I don't see how you can logically pick Howe's 52/53 competition as being representative of today's league rather than any other season. Or that he faced harder competition than his peers when looking at his 13 -14 years as being the league's best/ co-best player.
I say the let the number speak for themselves.
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
Peruse the other thread for a great deal of analysis on the changes in Bure's game.
Hopefully you aren't being selective about the evidence that was presented. I think we have made very clear that his 2000-01 season was an anomaly. This is the season that you like to refer to in all of your posts about this subject. We have already established that he was a more complete player at other points in his career. In fact, I can say with lots of confidence that he was obsessively conscious about his defense in New York.
I also want to show you the differences on tape. I have complete game footage of one of the Rangers' late 2001-02 games and will be doing shift-by-shift videos for both the Panthers and Rangers eras soon. I am currently at work on footage from his rookie seasons and his 1993-94 season (noting the differences between having and not having Igor Larionov on his line).
For now, here's a quick GIF from the Rangers game I am working on that highlights my point.
5-4 NYR with 3 minutes remaining in the 3rd period, hustling from goal line to goal line to take the puck off of Bill Guerin (who scored 41 goals that season). The opponent: the 101-point Boston Bruins, ranked 2nd in the NHL standings with a 43-24-6-9 record. The Rangers scored an empty net goal minutes later to seal the victory 6-4.
The testimonial evidence is overwhelming. You keep trying to push this myth that Bure's style of game in Florida applied to his entire career. You are entirely wrong.
Google Groups (Usenet) posts from that time reveal the drastic difference between Bure in Florida and Bure in New York.
Why the ignorance as to all of this evidence?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/Tfs-_MKXn9s/YJW7uoXCDsMJ
---------------------------------------------
Larry Lee
27/03/2002
Don't get MSG, so this was one of the rare looks I got at the Rangers.
Bure is unreal. Forget all the negative quotes from Florida.. it's starting
to look more and more like he just gave up down there once he realized the
team sucked big time (Rangers do too, but he seems to like MSG). This guy
works his butt off and was the best Ranger all night. Can't believe he hit
the post twice on that one play, and Boucher made a great save on a cross
ice pass. Lindros had a goal but was largely invisible.. that was a big
negative in a big game against his former team.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/Tfs-_MKXn9s/VedEHefljWEJ
---------------------------------------------
dave b
27/03/2002
>
>Bure is unreal. Forget all the negative quotes from Florida.. it's starting
>to look more and more like he just gave up down there once he realized the
>team sucked big time (Rangers do too, but he seems to like MSG). This guy
>works his butt off and was the best Ranger all night.
Finally, the Rangers get a guy who's supposed to play well and he actually
does.
I also saw him dropping back to help out on d, regularly.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/Tfs-_MKXn9s/IIl8QrfHrSwJ
---------------------------------------------
Doug Patton
28/03/2002
none of the other Rangers players have been a factor.... at least Bure's
trying
Doug
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/a8Qm4CC92VM/yThaWS_9Jl0J
---------------------------------------------
MyRomanHoliday
29/11/2002
Because Bure is asked to be a solid two-way player, in the best tradition of
Niklas Sundstrom & Andrei Nikolishin. Scoring goals is no longer a priority.
When you *know* you'll have to get back to the D-zone to cover for super-sniper
Tom Poti, you don't venture into the O-zone. You shoot from the outside of the
blue line.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/QEvhcblVeHA/ZOR9QlewtX0J
---------------------------------------------
MarkNYR
21/11/2002
I have an idea, let Bure play defense and put Poti as wing, then let Bure
play up and let Poti cover for Bure, problem solved, next.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/QEvhcblVeHA/3OnPuFBGIhYJ
---------------------------------------------
MyRomanHoliday
21/11/2002
Excuse me? Bure was the one who set up Poti's goal in the first place. As for
Tom's point: don't you think something IS wrong when your best offensive player
has to constantly stay back to cover for one of your D man? I do. That's not
the way I was taught to play hockey.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/P62QMREc0xU/P5NLTzbY6D4J
---------------------------------------------
number6
27/10/2002
>From: "Larry Lee" [email protected]
>Pavel Bure plays hard, and I notice he backchecks quite a bit. He's a
>great, great player.
He does well back checking ... and covering for Poti all too much ... one of
the things that piss me off about Poti ... Our sniper covers on defense while
Poti has his Bobby Orr fantasies ...
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/P62QMREc0xU/IM6KWwm0zB8J
---------------------------------------------
MyRomanHoliday
26/10/2002
I am not happy. Bure's heroics create an illusion that while we are bad, we are
not horrible. Guess what? We are horrible. Take Bure out of the picture, and we
are fighting for the last place with the Thrashers... and the Maple Leafs.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/P62QMREc0xU/ja94bNx59TgJ
---------------------------------------------
[email protected]
26/10/2002
Bure is the best thing to happen to this team in a long time.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/P62QMREc0xU/OWKKb005j8QJ
---------------------------------------------
Hadrian Wall
26/10/2002
On 27 Oct 2002 03:02:59 GMT, [email protected] (GretzkyGrl) wrote:
>Bure is the best thing to happen to this team in a long time.
A future hall of famer in his prime, and the only 'star' on this team
that actually plays like he gives a damn.
He deserves better than this team. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and
say that the Rangers will ruin him. He'll get run at with no
retaliation and his career will be cut short.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/zXDXrbBrSo4/tZu3nF_HjA4J
---------------------------------------------
MarkNYR
18/11/2002
I just feel I have to be anti-something. Being anti-MEssier is old hat. I
could be anti-Lindros but there are already too many of those. I cant be
anti-Bure because he is a phenom. Yes, phenom. The only phenom we have.
Blackburn could be a phenom but he isnt one yet. Poti can only be a phenom
in his mind, not that it is all his fault, pairing him with Leetch is beyond
stupid. If you think its ok for Bure to be hanging back to cover Poti, then
you really think that Poti is the phenom and not Bure. Bure plays D alot
better than we all thought, he seems to hustle all over the ice, much more
than I thought he did. I would actually like him to be more offensive minded
and maybe even hang alittle bit, and stress to his linemates that THEIR job
is to play defense and to spring Bure loose on offense. We had a "Bure" type
player on my team one year, and thats exactly what we did. And we went all
the way to the finals. Dont ask what happened in the finals, thats not
important! Ok that enough of a ramble from me.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/tkvTUhTI5vM/KLBEVzbNscgJ
---------------------------------------------
MyRomanHoliday
30/10/2002
Bure has been our best offensive player.
He plays hard. He backchecks. He rarely takes a dumb penalty. He's made a
number of outstanding defensive plays, and has generally been much better
defensively than advertised. What else can he do? Scream & yell & tear up
occasionally? Well, it's not Bure's style. Besides, I prefer players to show
how much they care *on* the ice, not during press conferences.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/aG5bOmf7V2k/XpZ1-CwKLU4J
---------------------------------------------
bPstyles
28/07/2002
Beyond Bure, this is the worst set of wingers in the league. Line
combinations will become an issue all year, leading to defensive breakdowns
and offensive slumps.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/0WpvxefVcqg/WkG83Fix2FEJ
---------------------------------------------
Outer Mars
21/11/2002
I like Petrovicky as well. Poti could be much more effective ala Sergei
Zubov in Dallas if we had a coach with a system so he could be accountable
for his defensive gaffes. Bure could be more effective if we had a system
which allowed him to play more offensively instead of covering for Poti
gaffes.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/YVw6YNTEJMs/dVvd5-0bUkIJ
---------------------------------------------
MyRomanHoliday
14/11/2002
The win was nice.
But how frustrating was it watching them turtle into a 100% defensive mode for
the last 20 min? By the way, excellent defensive effort by Bure. I thougth we
were getting a Russian Rocket. Little did I know, we were getting an Ulanov
with a better defensive game. Was Lindros in the line-up tonight? Oh, yeah - he
was playing on the line with Holik.
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/Z0hdQV9TRJo/pxdj8Fi9LOgJ
---------------------------------------------
Tom & Linda
12/02/2003
For those without Metro..
They showed Leetch and Bure skating around in practice.
Leetch doesn't look too bad. He was skating and shooting. He's not
doing intense stops and starts, but he didn't look too bad.
But they showed a few seconds of Bure where his right knee just about
completely buckles. Sam says... "watch the right knee... watch the
right knee"... and he's just slowly doing a circle and OOOPS. He
doesn't fall over... but he sure loses it for a second. And he wasn't
stressing it or anything at the time. It looked like he just leaned on
it in a simple skating stride.
I know I've complained about the trade... but I had hip surgery when I
was young so I know what pain is like... I feel for Bure when I see
something like that. His knee doesn't look like it's sound. It didn't
look like simple post surgery pain (where the knee is sound, but just
hurts). That was the knee giving out under his weight. It didn't look
at all good to me.
And the defense pairings... BAD. We have nothing left on Defense after
the last few trades.
--Tom
---------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/OC31I_Wp0zc/hXZnoYtJ4fUJ
---------------------------------------------
Hadrian Wall
02/03/2003
No doubt. You can plainly see this guy isn't moving very well. In my
book, there are two Rangers who bring it every time they're on the
ice. Bure is one, Barnaby the other. I hope both of them stay
healthy.
--------------------------------------------
"For Bure is out there now essentially on one knee, barely a facsimile of himself, playing through pain and on little more than sheer guts in an effort to aid the Rangers in their quest to make the playoffs. Just take a look at how compromised Bure is on the ice; still barely able to turn, hardly able to accelerate."
- Larry Brooks, New York Post, March 2003.
"It would have been easy for Bure to have declared himself out for the season in the aftermath of the dual 'scopes he underwent in December and the ensuing difficult rehab work, to have concentrated on coming back as whole as possible for next season. But he never seriously considered that option. Instead, he pushed; he talked his way back into the lineup that is immeasurably better simply having him a part of it. And so now he plays, and on a right knee that's so wobbly he won't even discuss how bad it really is." - Larry Brooks, New York Post, March 2003.
"Go ahead. Take a look on the ice. Take a look at Bure. If you do, you'll be watching an athlete who cares about winning. Believe your eyes, not the label." - Larry Brooks, New York Post, March 2003.
It was the same way in Vancouver.
--------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.hockey/EiWfRwtqYX0/P4oAc_yiFrIJ
--------------------------------------------
T. TAYLOR
29/03/1994
If I am a man short, I want my best team on the ice. Bure is his best
player. He's feisty, and plays well defensively. Obviously managed to keep
the puck away from the Kings! Plays the point on power plays, and kills
penalties. Put him on the ice. If you put a lesser team on the ice, the
Kings may have gotten a goal past.
--------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/z_aqBylVfsE/iN1ao7PRLJMJ
--------------------------------------------
Doug Patton
08/04/2002
Fair point, and in Vancouver I saw Bure play with that mentality, and you
guys in NY saw it in the '94 finals (granted 8 years ago, but he does it
when it counts). I think next year we'll see a complete Bure, one who does
backcheck and take the body once and a while (God I hope I'm right) Guess
we've got all summer (and spring) to debate it
Doug
--------------------------------------------
He was right.
Last edited:
Neutrinos
Registered User
- Sep 23, 2016
- 8,610
- 3,610
My initial thought was 'that's a very good point!'
But I think defenders would've started playing him differently if they knew he was more likely to shoot
How it would've all balanced out is impossible to say
Last edited:
I would be interested to see some "importance-weighted goals" statistic. Usually what this talk about "the game played to win" comes to is someone tries to skew a discussion about 1000-games careers by telling a few anecdotes about a handful of games.
I can tell you about 5 goals Bure scored in an OG semifinal the first time NHL played in OG. Is this one game going to change how we compare full careers of Bure and Bossy?
Likewise, I welcome other ideas of how to compare goals/points across eras. VsX measure this forum often uses does almost the same thing % leads over 10th are doing (it benchmarks to #2 instead of #10).
You initially stated
Ask yourself: why would not today's coaches put a man on OV? Are they less knowledgeable about the game that the coaches of the 1950s?
A more logical thought would be that individual match-ups were abandoned because they proved to be less efficient than team defense.
For example, in soccer in the first half of the 20th century all players were taught to follow their man. England stuck to that till 1950s, but then they were beaten pretty badly by Hungary and realized that you cannot leave your zone open just to stand beside "your man".
Likewise, NBA outlawed zone defense in the past (and it still kind of does that by making standing in the paint illegal defense) and that was done to increase scoring. Every time I watched an international basketball game 20-30 years ago I was reminded that international basketball is low-scoring because zone defense is legal in international basketball.
Last edited:
I think it is even worse than extrapolating injury-shortened seasons. For the latter, at least we sort of have a counterfactual (how Bure/Lemieux/Forsberg/whoever played in a healthy season that was close in time).
How many goals would "Gretzky focused on scoring goals" have scored? Totally a mystery, one can say 10% more or 100% more, but how would you even attempt a proof?
There is some relevance to the premise that great overall offensive players should get some consideration. When I think of "pure" goalscorers, I think of players who scored more goals than assists:
Bobby Hull
OV
Richard
Brett Hull
Mike Bossy
Bobby Hull
OV
Richard
Brett Hull
Mike Bossy
Canadiens1958
Registered User
1952-53 NHL reflects what is common in the NHL the last 25-30 seasons. Injuries dictate and reflect scoring race results and team placements in the standings.
Look at the impact on the Art Ross results and margins of victory the years that Mario Lemieux was ill or away from the game. The injuries to Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Steve Stamkos, Connor McDavid's illness this season all impact the scoring race and standings. Leafs missing the playoffs in 1952-53 when Kennedy was injured no different than teams struggling this season due to injuries - see Anaheim and Edmonton.
Please stop misrepresenting my points. The point about Howe is not that he faced harder competition than his peers BUT it is that Howe faced stronger competition with greater frequency.
Prime example is Connor McDavid vs Erik Karlsson. The way the NHL schedule is now they would have to face each other 0ver 20 season to produce 40 head-to-head match-ups if each stays healthy. Howe vs Doug Harvey in the O6, 70 game schedule would require less than three regular seasons to face each other over 40 games.
So today you have a much smaller sample space of best vs best individual competition whereas years ago you had a much greater best vs best sample space which speaks more to players relative skills.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Peruse the other thread for a great deal of analysis on the changes in Bure's game.
Hopefully you aren't being selective about the evidence that was presented. I think we have made very clear that his 2000-01 season was an anomaly. This is the season that you like to refer to in all of your posts about this subject. We have already established that he was a more complete player at other points in his career. In fact, I can say with lots of confidence that he was obsessively conscious about his defense in New York.
I also want to show you the differences on tape. I have complete game footage of one of the Rangers' late 2001-02 games and will be doing shift-by-shift videos for both the Panthers and Rangers eras soon. I am currently at work on footage from his rookie seasons and his 1993-94 season (noting the differences between having and not having Igor Larionov on his line).
For now, here's a quick GIF from the Rangers game I am working on that highlights my point.
5-4 NYR with 3 minutes remaining in the 3rd period, hustling from goal line to goal line to take the puck off of Bill Guerin (who scored 41 goals that season). The opponent: the 101-point Boston Bruins, ranked 2nd in the NHL standings with a 43-24-6-9 record. The Rangers scored an empty net goal minutes later to seal the victory 6-4.
The testimonial evidence is overwhelming. You keep trying to push this myth that Bure's style of game in Florida applied to his entire career. You are entirely wrong.
Google Groups (Usenet) posts from that time reveal the drastic difference between Bure in Florida and Bure in New York.
Why the ignorance as to all of this evidence?
Really cannot believe you posted the GIF. Could not ask for better evidence to explain my position.
Watch the GIF carefully and you will see how bad Bure was defensively. He got caught out of position - between the boards and the attacking winger. A reasonable Pee Wee player has better defensive position.
Bure then looks energetic because Guerin was not a strong or fast skater nor did he know how to protect the puck when he had such an advantage. Bure with his straight line speed caught Geurin and covered his mistake. This does not make him a good defensive player. Just one able to fool those who do not know what to look for.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Or you could try doing something like breaking down goals, assists and points into two groups - scored in winning games and scored in losing games. For eras before the shootout add a third column for tied games.
Likewise you can look at scoring the first goal in a game and scoring the winning goal.
VsX and your efforts avoid these two key evaluations.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Asking the bolded shows a lack of knowledge about the O6 hockey. Also basketball you completely overlooked the impact of the 24 second clock.
O6 hockey successful coaches had long careers - Toe Blake coached the Canadiens for 13 seasons. In season O6, there was very little roster movement, so the coach knew his players and had the time to find the best match-ups. Plus in season he had 14 games against the same opponent to perfect his match-ups.
Toe Blake matched Henri Richard against Bobby Hull when Hull entered the league as a center. Until Hull signed with the WHA the Henri Richard line faced his line. Took Blake two seasons to find the ideal RW to go with Richard when Hull was moved to center.
Blake had the luxury of time to put in sophisticated defensive schemes with match-ups, changing on the fly if fatigued, etc.
He also had the advantage of 2 or 3 practice days each week.
Today, coaches have very short stays with a team. Name the last one who coached a team for 13 seasons? Rosters have great turnover between seasons and in season and there is not enough practice time to work on match-ups.
Team defensive systems are the easiest alternative, not the best, to modern circumstances.
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
@Zuluss,
Inspired by your Top 10 % lead model, I have used the same template to design a Top 15 model. I have noticed, looking at all of the goal-scoring leaderboards of the past 100 years, that goal totals among players tend to become much more similar and bunched together as the rankings fall towards the 15th-ranked player; for example, in 1979-80, the players ranked from 14th to 17th all scored 42 goals, while the players from 18 to 24 all scored 40 goals. In order to gauge where each player sits in terms of dominance against the field, I wanted to have a look at the % lead finishes of all of the aforementioned goal scorers against the 15th-ranked player (where the goal-scoring among players starts to even out in many cases).
In order to accurately compare data between eras, I likewise needed to determine a conversion number for players between the pre-1970, 1970-1997, and 1997-2017 eras. In the 1997-2017 era, the average % lead of the #1 ranked player compared to the #15 ranked player was 55.48386886806154% (we will use 55% as the baseline for an above-average lead by a player over the 15th-ranked player, just as the method of comparison to the 10th-ranked player used 44%). In the 1970-1997 era, the average % lead of the #1 ranked player compared to the #15 ranked player was 72.65128791812615%. Based on these two figures, I determined that the multiplier to convert 1970-1997 figures for comparison to 1997-2017 era figures is: 0.7637.
I have not yet collected the data from the pre-1970 era nor determined the conversion multiplier to compare that data with the 1997-2017 data yet, but will do so shortly in order for us to compare that era with the other two.
Based on the % lead vs the 15th-ranked goal scorer model, here are the results for a few notable players so far:
% Leads vs 15th-Ranked Player:
Highlighted in green are the finishes that were at or above the 55% baseline (the average % lead in the modern era of the #1 ranked player over the 15th ranked player):
Bure: 71-65-55-35-19-0
Ovechkin: 86-71-65-60-60-56-52-37-24-12-0-0
Brett Hull: 84-58-57-30-20-13-10-3-3-0
Bossy: 70-44-35-30-30-27-25-19-16
Gretzky: 86-83-53-44-42-21-17-16-14-0
*ongoing updates to this list with figures from more players:
Selanne: 68-45-32-31-30-5
Stamkos: 76-55-45-41-39-13
Lafleur: 53-44-39-34-33-15
Lemieux: 71-46-45-33-30-27-8-7-7-0
Kurri: 50-42-27-20-0-0
Marcel Dionne: 49-46-27-21-20-19-10-6-5-4
Iginla: 53-43-34-32-5-0
Jagr: 42-37-34-30-24-23-22-13-0-0
Bondra: 68-37-21-18-16-15
Yzerman: 39-36-19-16-10-10-3
Robitaille: 24-20-16-10-8-8-7-6-6-3-0
Of note, Mike Bossy has the fewest above-average seasons with just one. By comparing the players' finishes to the 15th-ranked player, it has been determined that he actually led the field by less than the others in this group.
Additionally, Wayne Gretzky actually had a higher % lead over the 15th-ranked player in his 87-goal season (((87 / 41) - 1) * 0.7637) than in his 92-goal season (((92 / 44) - 1) * 0.7637). This is the same result as one would find in his % leads over 10th, where the 77% represents 1983-84, and the 76% represents the 1981-82 season. His 87-goal season is tied with Alexander Ovechkin's 2007-08 season as the largest % lead over 15th of this group.
We can compare with the % Lead Over 10th data:
Many of the numbers relative to one another in this first group stay similar between the % Lead Over 10th and % Lead Over 15th models with the exception of some of the very high-end peaks.
Brett Hull's 86-goal season drops to become the third-most dominant season listed in the % lead over 15th model. Bossy's 69-goal season becomes the lowest peak season of the five players listed. Ovechkin and Gretzky both become tied for the top season in terms of % lead dominance.
In the second group, Lafleur falls beneath the above-average threshold in his % Lead Over 15th results. Kurri also falls below the threshold. Jarome Iginla sees an increase relative to these two players.
Mario Lemieux has the most significant drop in peak % lead (his 85-goal season in 1988-89); this is because the difference between 10th and 15th place that year was minuscule. The 10th-ranked goal scorer in 1988-89 had 46 goals, and the 15th-ranked player had 44 -- six players scored between 46 and 44 goals that season. Several scorers were bunched up at that total, whereas in other years there would be a sharper decline in scoring from 10th to 15th (for example, in 1983-84, the 10th-placed finisher had 47 goals while the 15th-placed finisher had 41 goals). Selanne's 76-goal season remains below-average relative to the threshold, as the 15th-placed finisher scored 48 goals that year. More players were recording large goal totals during those season; we have an understanding of the degree to which scoring was easier across the league from year to year. When Bossy scored 69 goals in 1978-79, the 15th-placed scorer had 36 goals -- in terms of raw numbers, a slightly lesser degree of dominance than Lemieux's 1988-89 season.
Last edited:
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
Bill Guerin won the Fastest Skater competition at the 2001 NHL All-Star Game with a 13.690 second finish. He was also a noted power forward at the height of his game in 2001-02.
Your observation is that a player was out-skated by one of the fastest players of all time.
Results (2001 Fastest Skater competition):
1. Bill Guerin 13.690 s
2. Simon Gagne 13.941 s
3. Sergei Fedorov 14.029 s
4. Tony Amonte 14.058 s
5. Sergei Samsonov 14.262 s
6. Marian Hossa 14.386 s
2001 NHL Skills Competition: final resuls
SLAM! Hockey
Arguing positioning is a futile effort, as positioning has become far more refined and technical over the years -- particularly in the post-2004 lockout era after the obstruction rules were overhauled.
One couldn't even begin to argue positioning in the pre-Dead Puck Era compared to today. The game was so wide-open precisely because of unrefined positioning in all of hockey. Before the systematic defense of the post-lockout era, there was clutch-and-grab -- the players' first means of countering such wide-open hockey and loose positioning. After obstruction was banned in 2005, the game opened up again and coaches finally had to devise sound positional strategies to reduce scoring, the product of which we see today.
You are presenting a straw man argument, because your allegation was that Bure was not interested in winning and showed no team focus. You have been proven wrong. Read the evidence -- it's all in there, some of it in big, large letters in case you need visual assistance.
Last edited:
My point is that every player in Howe's era faced the same competition with greater frequency therefore there is no reason to believe that Howe would stand apart from his peers any more than he did. It makes no sense to think that Howe in the current NHL does any better than he did as every player in the current league also would be playing in the same environment.
In your thinking, does every 06 player do better in the current league along with Howe?
This also assumes that only one player in the current league could be at Harvey's level. Maybe there are multiple defenseman close to, at, or better than Harvey in the current league because there are more teams in the league. It's not like it's the best D-man then a huge dropoff to pylons. It is silly to think that more teams = diluted talent.
As I said, let the numbers speak for themselves without getting into this hypothetical business.
Last edited:
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Fundamental hockey has not changed in ages. Bure turned to the boards/fans after the forecheck in the corner. Pee wee players know better. Turning to the inside he would have kept his positional advantage without having to scramble back against an average skater.
Players who habitually turn the wrong way - Kovalev being a prime example, do so because they lose focus and concentration on the ice.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Bolded is total nonsense. Check the results for players when traded from one team to another. A league O6 or modernNHL after a trade stays relatively constant with little ripple effect other than players changing jerseys. But a players results will vary greatly.
Suggest looking some of the O6 trades. Max Bentley to Toronto, Bert Olmstead from Detroit to Montreal, Bill Gadsby to New York, Allan Stanley to Toronto, Lou Fontinato to Montreal, Dick Duff to Montreal.
Compare to modern trades. Tyler Seguin to Dallas, Phil Kessel to Pittsburgh, Taylor Hall to New Jersy, Matt Moulson to Buffalo, Weber for Subban, Nash to the Rangers.
Competition stays the same but results vary greatly.
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 11,915
- 6,348
Bure captained Russia to 1 goal from Olympic gold, and was his team top scorer with a 16-game point streak in the playoffs when they were 1 goal away from the Stanley Cup. But yeah, he didn't care.... Everyone else cared though. Suuuuper much. Especially Ovi who hasn't been out of the second round of the playoffs in a gazillion attempts despite being on a team that has won 3 Presidents' Trophies. He also has gone nowhere with Russia in best-on-best tournaments.
Fantomas
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2012
- 13,307
- 6,641
It was just a joke.
Nick Hansen
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2017
- 3,122
- 2,652
So, do we have ten names?
Gretzky
Lemieux
Hull
Howe
Ovechkin
Richard
Hull junior
Bure
Esposito
Bossy
P.S Remember Blaine Stoughton? Neither do I. Won the Richard in 1980.
Gretzky
Lemieux
Hull
Howe
Ovechkin
Richard
Hull junior
Bure
Esposito
Bossy
P.S Remember Blaine Stoughton? Neither do I. Won the Richard in 1980.
Are you saying that all players from the O6 era face tougher competition than today's players or some players faced easier competition while some face harder competition based on the teams they played for and who was injured?
Last edited:
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,155
- 14,478
The way I see it, there are five players who have a legitimate argument for first (depending on what specific traits/accomplishments are valued). In chronological order these are Richard, Howe, Hull senior, Gretzky and Lemieux.
Next there are four players who have no argument for first, but clearly deserve to be in the top ten. Again in chronological order we have Esposito, Bossy, Hull junior and Ovechkin.
That leaves tenth place up for grabs. Personally I’d vote for Jagr but there are several players with good arguments for the tenth spot (including Conacher, Geoffrion, Bure and Selanne).
