Has Selänne surpassed Kurri?

[jepjepjoo]

You (and others in here) have managed to completely overlook the fact that Selanne had Paul Kariya on his opposite wing. Not Gretzky, but not chopped liver either. In the late 90's, Kariya might have been the most explosive offensive player in the game not named Jagr. Selanne was of course right up there with them in that category.

Not that I hold having great linemates against a player, but those who for some reason do, should at least be balanced in their approach.

You act like Selanne and Kariya played their whole careers together... They played 280~ games together which is a pretty small part of Selanne's 1199 game(so far) career.

 

[vulture77]

Having just watched 3 classic Oilers games in succession I observed that:

- Kurri was more than capable in creating offense on his own. He had some great goals in those three games that were of his own making, not just by receiving the puck from Gretzky to the point for the one-timer. Especially I remember in a particularly tight game where Oilers were trailing, he took the puck in the neutral zone, challenged 3 defending players, skated right through them and drove the puck in the net with an accurate shot. Wow.
- He had more things going than just points, he was very calm in his own end at all times, made excellent defensive plays and transitioned the game from defense to offense very well, played shorthanded very well, had timely interceptions and takeaways in all his games while did not give the puck away much at all to opposition when he had it.
- Excellent shot (which is already known)
- Surprisingly good playmaker, he made very solid (although not especially fancy) and safe passes at all times, but when it came to Gretzky he could send tape to tape pass to him instantly no matter where he was. It was clear that while playing with Gretzky helped him, he was also helping Gretzky a great deal.
- Extremely poised at all times, but could also be incredibly dynamic when he had the puck in the offensive end

Overall it was evident that Gretzky and Kurri had something special going. Also I was impressed by how versatile player Kurri was, he could be the playmaker, backchecker or goalscorer.

While I am sure that playing with Gretzky helped him, I think Kurri's point totals are not that much affected by him. Watching him play I could easily see him as 100+ points scorer as a "regular" first liner, topping around 120 points, with high 40s to 60 goals in any given season.

Also if those playoff games portrayed him correctly, there was much, much more in his game than just points and it would be unfair to just look at the adjusted stats to determine his effectiveness overall.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

One of the hardest comparisons to decide.

Selänne has the edge on:
- Offensive play. The most talented offensive player from Finland. (
- Huge contribution after lockout/knee problems (from 35y old to..well who knows how long he might play). (Kurri´s last years were..well, not so good)
- Played on a pathetic team in his prime-> no playoff succress. (Kurri played on the greatest dynasty NHL has ever witnessed)
- Zero supporting cast aside from Kariya in his prime. (Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Tikkanen, Anderson, Lowe etc etc)
- Played his prime on deadpuck-era (96-02) and still managed to score impressive totals. (Kurri played in the highest scoring era of the hockey history)
- Longevity. Teemu has been a top winger in the NHL for almost two decades (92-00) now, and is presently scoring over p/game as a 40-year old (Kurri was a top winger in the 80s and early nineties, not so much after 93-94 season)

Kurri has the edge on:
-Two way play. (Amazing two-way play+offensive play.. Forsberg is the only European player who has been as complete as Jari was)
-Playoff success. (5 rings? or was it 4?.. Anyway, this is quite clear)
-Playoff totals. (Kurri was more suitable for playoff-games than Teemu, thats for sure. And he was way better also, not close actually..Teemu somewhat disappeared in the playoffs, altough he wasnt that bad.)


The international play should not be included when comparing NHL careers. Teemu had more opportunities in international games, and had amazing linemates. Kurri didnt have the chances, because he was busy winning Cups in the 80´s.

I must admit, that I grew up watching Teemu in the 90´s, so I´m a huge fan. Didnt see Kurri that much (aside from higlights, some classic games..of course I have red his biography book) but I think that I have fairly good knowledge on how special Jari was in the 80´s.

All in all, I cannot decide. It so close it isnt even funny.

2 disagreements:

1) Longevity. Selanne was not a top winger from 92-2010. There was a 5 year period in there, when he was anything but a star winger. As shown from "counting top 10 finishes" above, the amount of time that both men were top wingers is almost equal. Kurri's decline just came at the end of his career; Selanne's in the middle.

2) If you don't include international play, I really see no possible way to rank Selanne over Kurri unless you ascribe to the belief that regular season offense is the only thing that matters when rating forwards.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

2 disagreements:

1) Longevity. Selanne was not a top winger from 92-2010. There was a 5 year period in there, when he was anything but a star winger. As shown from "counting top 10 finishes" above, the amount of time that both men were top wingers is almost equal. Kurri's decline just came at the end of his career; Selanne's in the middle.

2) If you don't include international play, I really see no possible way to rank Selanne over Kurri unless you ascribe to the belief that regular season offense is the only thing that matters when rating forwards.

Even if you do include international play, all that does, AT MOST, is cancel out Kurri's playoff edge (personally I still think Kurri would have some edge, it would just be closer). So even if you are just looking at only the regular season you have Selanne being a slightly better offensive player, but Kurri being MUCH better defensively. Selanne was one of my favorite players, and I think if he would have had that knee surgery earlier he probably would not have had that long mid-career slump and he would probably be above Kurri and into the Top 100, but he didn't. It's also unfortunate he wasn't on better teams when he was healthy, but you can't give him credit for what-if's. As is, I just can't see a way to rank him over Kurri.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Basically as soon as you factor in something other than pure offense.. Kurri is better.

 

[VMBM]

As far as I can see, most Finns here favour Selänne already... and count me in too, even though I won't vote. Maybe an indication that Selänne indeed will soon be hailed as the best Finnish player ever by the Finns themselves (though hardly unanimously)?

If that starts to happen, is it as good an argument as "the Russians themselves think that Kharlamov is the greatest Russian player ever"?

 

[Starchild74]

One of the hardest comparisons to decide.

Selänne has the edge on:
- Offensive play. The most talented offensive player from Finland. (
- Huge contribution after lockout/knee problems (from 35y old to..well who knows how long he might play). (Kurri´s last years were..well, not so good)
- Played on a pathetic team in his prime-> no playoff succress. (Kurri played on the greatest dynasty NHL has ever witnessed)
- Zero supporting cast aside from Kariya in his prime. (Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Tikkanen, Anderson, Lowe etc etc)
- Played his prime on deadpuck-era (96-02) and still managed to score impressive totals. (Kurri played in the highest scoring era of the hockey history)
- Longevity. Teemu has been a top winger in the NHL for almost two decades (92-00) now, and is presently scoring over p/game as a 40-year old (Kurri was a top winger in the 80s and early nineties, not so much after 93-94 season)

Kurri has the edge on:
-Two way play. (Amazing two-way play+offensive play.. Forsberg is the only European player who has been as complete as Jari was)
-Playoff success. (5 rings? or was it 4?.. Anyway, this is quite clear)
-Playoff totals. (Kurri was more suitable for playoff-games than Teemu, thats for sure. And he was way better also, not close actually..Teemu somewhat disappeared in the playoffs, altough he wasnt that bad.)


The international play should not be included when comparing NHL careers. Teemu had more opportunities in international games, and had amazing linemates. Kurri didnt have the chances, because he was busy winning Cups in the 80´s.

I must admit, that I grew up watching Teemu in the 90´s, so I´m a huge fan. Didnt see Kurri that much (aside from higlights, some classic games..of course I have red his biography book) but I think that I have fairly good knowledge on how special Jari was in the 80´s.

All in all, I cannot decide. It so close it isnt even funny.

First of all when comparing the two and what Selanne has for edges is a little bit unfair isn't it

Giving Selanne the edge because he played on a weaker team. That is like saying that Guy Lafleur is not as great because he played for the Canadiens of the 70's

Yes Selanne played in a more defensive era but it doesn't matter what era you play in. It is what you do when you play. There are alot of players that played in the 80's that never put up the numbers that Kurri did. Both are either number one or close to it when you compare them against other wingers that played when they did.


As for longevity here is the ultimate question. What is longevity. Playing the most years or playing until you are older or playing at a high level for a long period of time. Kurri was one of the top wingers in the NHL for 13 years. For many of them only Bossy was considered a better RW and there was an argument about it. Then of course later came Hull. When Selanne played and is playing even if he scored the most goals in the league he was not considered the best winger in the NHL.

What I mean is that in the 80's it was Bossy and Kurri those were the top 2

In the 90's when Selanne played it was arguably Jagr as the best then most people would put wingers like Bure Mogilny and even Hull ahead of Selanne

In the 2000's winger jagr was still considered one of the best and to some over Selanne. While other wingers like Iginla or Heatley and now Ovechkin are considered to be better however it is a little unfair as Selanne is up in age but it is the truth

THe thing with Selanne and the reason why some feel he is not given enough respect or under valued or under rated is that. If you take Selanne per year even when leading the lead in goals he was just not the best yet all the wingers that were considered better then him at one point either retired or got washed up earlier then him. When you look at his totals they are great numbers but while he was doing it it just wasn't as amazing as others or for whatever reason was not put in the same breath as the others. A lot of it has to do with not performing in the playoffs

In the end Kurri was a dominant winger for aproximately 13 years and then when he got older he couldn't do what he used to and his later years were not that great. However he went strong 13 years and was considered by many in his peak to be the best

Selanne was a great winger but never was the number one guy in the league. He quietly just did his thing and will end up with more goals and points then alot of the greats that played in the same generation as him. It is not just the numbers a player puts up it is how he does it every year. Kurri was clutch and performed big when needed. Selanne didn't that is just the facts

 

[VMBM]

Selanne was a great winger but never was the number one guy in the league. He quietly just did his thing and will end up with more goals and points then alot of the greats that played in the same generation as him. It is not just the numbers a player puts up it is how he does it every year. Kurri was clutch and performed big when needed. Selanne didn't that is just the facts

Neither was Kurri; certainly not the greatest player and not even the greatest winger - well, probably was for a while after Bossy disappeared from the scene. But how many truly great wingers there were in the NHL at the time? Makarov and Krutov (of whom I rate Makarov definitely higher and Krutov* on about the same level) were playing behind the Iron Curtain.

Selänne doing things quietly, what? His rookie season, for instance? And it's hard to be 'clutch' when you don't even get the chance.

* at his peak, not career-wise

 

[jepjepjoo]

For many of them only Bossy was considered a better RW and there was an argument about it. Then of course later came Hull. When Selanne played and is playing even if he scored the most goals in the league he was not considered the best winger in the NHL.

92-00 The only better winger in the league was Jagr. Hard to be considered the best winger while you are competing against one of the best all time. Selanne still managed 2x1st all star and 2x2nd allstar on RW Which was clearly the better wing 92-00.

Only Jagr had more points during that time period and no-one had more goals.

564gp 346g 383a 729pts
3x1st in goals, once 2nd(1 goal behind)
2nd to Lemieux in points, 2nd to Jagr in points, 2x 5th, 7th, 9th
4th,7th and 2x9th in assists
over PPG every season (92-00 PPG 1.29)

Selanne was a great winger but never was the number one guy in the league. He quietly just did his thing and will end up with more goals and points then alot of the greats that played in the same generation as him. It is not just the numbers a player puts up it is how he does it every year. Kurri was clutch and performed big when needed. Selanne didn't that is just the facts

Queitly doing his thing? That's just bullspit.

See the cover on the lower left corner

In the 90's when Selanne played it was arguably Jagr as the best then most people would put wingers like Bure Mogilny and even Hull ahead of Selanne

Only Vancouver fans would put Bure and Mogilny ahead of Selanne 92-00. Brett Hull wasn't better than Selanne during that time period either and I don't think you would find many people who would consider him better(92-00)

 

[Starchild74]

Neither was Kurri; certainly not the greatest player and not even the greatest winger - well, probably was a while after Bossy disappeared from the scene. But how many truly great wingers there were in the NHL at the time? Makarov and Krutov (of whom I rate Makarov definitely higher and Krutov* on about the same level) were playing behind the Iron Curtain.

Selänne doing things quietly, what? His rookie season, for instance? And it's hard to be 'clutch' when you don't even get the change.

* at his peak, not career-wise

When the Oilers were winning the Stanley Cups Kurri was considered the best winger in the game by many and the argument was always who would you prefer. Bossy probably the best pure scorer or Kurri who had a great shot as well and could score but was more of a two way winger. Now who was better that is up for debate I think it was Bossy but many considered Kurri to be that guy

In the NHL in the 80's there were some good if not great goal scorers in the NHl that some years had better numbers then Kurri. How many great wingers were their in the NHL at the time. Oh let's see back then their were players by the name of Michel Goulet who was putting up great numbers in Quebec. Mike Gartner was one of the most consistent goal scoring wingers in the game. Dave Taylor for the Kings might not have had the offensive numbers but he was great. Joe Mullen was coming into his own etc... their were great wingers in the 80's

Yes he had an amazing rookie year and then the next 2 years he did nothing. Then he had a string of 5 years or so where he was good again but then he had injury problems and was no longer himself. Then later on he put up some great numbers again and now he is doing well considereing his age. Sorry to offend you but Selanne did not have the flash every year that some others had. It might not be fair but it is true. Guys that he has more points or goals then in their careers and in the end better careers like Bure or Mogilny etc... were considered better then him at one point. THat is what I mean. If you go back to every year that Selanne played is really good years anyway. The talk in the NHL was about other wingers. In his rookie year Selanne was amazing and talked about alot but then his next two years were not that good. When Selanne started putting up some really good numbers and leading the league in goals or tying for the lead anyway. Others were mentioned ahead of him. in 1998 I think it was when he tied Bondra for the lead in goals. Most of the people were talking about Bondra as one of the best wingers. More so then Selanne. Of course we know that Selanne was better then Bondra at least I felt that way but Selanne just was not talked about in the same breath as others. That is what I mean by quiet. Maybe he didn't get the respect he deserved. I don't know


Now does this mean he is less of a player for this no. It is just that when it comes to best players in an era or at least at their position. In the 80's you mention Bossy or Kurri. In the 90's you mention Jagr or Hull. In the 2000's it could be argued that it is Ovechkin and Iginla. All I know is that Selanne has great of a career he had it can't touch Kurri. Kurri is the great Finnish hockey player in NHL history. In Finland it might be viewed differently because Selanne has become the face of the Finnish team and done well in international play. That is one thing but NHL wise Kurri's career is better then Selanne

The problem is that when Selanne had the chance he wasn't very clutch. When his teams needed him to make the playoffs he couldn't. When his team needed a big goal in the playoffs he couldn't provide it. Now later on his career maybe because he wasn't the go to guy so to speak he was able to do better but when he was in his prime when the competition was at it's highest unfortunately Selanne was not there or did not perform. It is not about numbers it is how he played in the playoffs.

 

[jepjepjoo]

The problem is that when Selanne had the chance he wasn't very clutch. When his teams needed him to make the playoffs he couldn't. When his team needed a big goal in the playoffs he couldn't provide it. Now later on his career maybe because he wasn't the go to guy so to speak he was able to do better but when he was in his prime when the competition was at it's highest unfortunately Selanne was not there or did not perform. It is not about numbers it is how he played in the playoffs.

His olympic record says otherwise. This thread was about who is the best finnish player of all time not the best NHL player. I would say Selanne in both categories. Selanne in his prime delivered in the playoffs 13g in 21gp is not that bad... Actually only Lemieux and Neely had better playoff GPG in the 90's.

Kurri didn't have the chance to prove himself in the olympics? Well, tough luck. Right?

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

One of the worst playoff performers ever vs one of the best...

 

[Triffy]

The problem is that when Selanne had the chance he wasn't very clutch. When his teams needed him to make the playoffs he couldn't. When his team needed a big goal in the playoffs he couldn't provide it. Now later on his career maybe because he wasn't the go to guy so to speak he was able to do better but when he was in his prime when the competition was at it's highest unfortunately Selanne was not there or did not perform. It is not about numbers it is how he played in the playoffs.

I think this is a good example of differences between hockey cultures in Canada and Finland(/Europe). As I see it, Canadians in general value playoffs much more than Europeans. And in contrast to Europeans, Canadians value international hockey less. Because this is the case, it's only natural that there are quite significant differences in how people evaluate certain players, and these two great Finns are a good example of that.

However, due to the effects of internet and the dominant language position of English, the NHL centred view is becoming more and more dominant among hockey fans, at least in Finland. (Russians probably fight back as hard as they can.) As a consequence, more and more people start valuing playoffs more and international hockey less. That is probably equalizing the standards by which players are evaluated, but the direction can't be said to be more 'right'. We all should accept the differences between the cultures and start recognizing how this affects how people approach these evaluations. Sometimes people have uneducated opinions, but I feel that quite often when international hockey accomplishments are in discussion, a great share of conflicting opinions result simply from the cultural differences which, by the way, should continue existing.

 

[Seanconn*]

I think he has no shot, but perhaps he should (have a shot, not necessarily make it). I'll dig up how close he was to making the 2008 version.

Edit: Selanne was 117th in the aggregate list from 2008: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=539903

That's honestly a lot closer than I thought he would be. I don't see him realistically making the Top 100, though, especially when Pronger, Crosby, Ovechkin, and Iginla are also going to be in serious contention to make it.

you would seriously consider Iginla for the top 100 but not Selanne???

seriosuly what makes you think you're such an authority on hockey stats...

 

[BraveCanadian]

you would seriously consider Iginla for the top 100 but not Selanne???

seriosuly what makes you think you're such an authority on hockey stats...

Iginla brings more to the table than just his scoring. Selanne does not.

Also, TDMM is one of the more reasonable regulars around here.

 

[seventieslord]

you would seriously consider Iginla for the top 100 but not Selanne???

seriosuly what makes you think you're such an authority on hockey stats...

I don't recall him saying he was an authority on anything, least of all stats.

Iginla's a three-time Hart finalist. He did more things on the ice to help his team than Selanne did. I realize they're both pretty close as far as all-time value goes but why is it so laughable that Iginla could be better? Because Selanne has more career goals?

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is a close call but in the end I have to go with Kurri by a nose. Here's the evidence:

top 10 pts
kurri 6
selanne 6

top 10 goals
kurri 4
selanne 6

top 10 assists
kurri 3
selanne 4

50+ goal seasons
kurri 4
selanne 3

100+ seasons
kurri 6
selanne 4

40+ goal seasons
kurri 7
selanne 7

playoffs goals per game career
kurri .53
selanne .333

1st or 2nd team all-star
kurri 5
selanne 4

For your stats you are only using raw stats, look at the adjusted stats to give a clearer picture on how they stack up offensively.

Even if you don't trust adjusted stats 100% they give a better comparison between different seasons between 2 players.

Here are Kurri's top 6 adjusted seasons

57-51-108
53-49-102
46-46-92
41-49-90
36-48-84
36-48-84

Selanne

54-68-122
53-60-113
62-45-107
38-65-103
60-39-99
50-46-96

Also, it must be taken into consideration the line mates both players had during their careers as well.

Also Selanne has played at 5 Olympics to Kurri's 2.

Yes I know that Kurri wasn't eligible to play at all that he could have went to, but Selanne couldn't pick his line mates or teams for the playoffs so it is what it is.

The point here is that Selanne has a better international career and both had a large amount of international and Finnish games to compare.

Kurri does have a much better playoff record but to give him too much credit for the Oilers success would not be fair to Selanne or Kurri for that matter.

Remember Blair MacDonald has a 46-48-94 line playing with Gretzky in 80.

 

[Seanconn*]

I don't recall him saying he was an authority on anything, least of all stats.

Iginla's a three-time Hart finalist. He did more things on the ice to help his team than Selanne did. I realize they're both pretty close as far as all-time value goes but why is it so laughable that Iginla could be better? Because Selanne has more career goals?

right because scoring goals doesn't count as helping your team. Selanne isn't horrible on the defensive side of the game either by any means.

I don't find it laughable, but to say Selanne isn't a top 100 HOH player but Iginla could be just does not make sense in my mind at all. 15th and rising on the career goals stat is definitely a VERY good reason for someone to be in the top 100.

you guys don't give him the credit he deserves at all.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't find it laughable, but to say Selanne isn't a top 100 HOH player but Iginla could be just does not make sense in my mind at all. 15th and rising on the career goals stat is definitely a VERY good reason for someone to be in the top 100.

you guys don't give him the credit he deserves at all.

Career stats are pretty much automatically in favour of more recent players who have had 80 game seasons their whole career.

So that really isn't a VERY good reason to be in the top 100. Only a possible reason.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

you would seriously consider Iginla for the top 100 but not Selanne???

1. I didn't say I would consider Iginla and not Selanne. I said Iginla is in contention to make it, in other words; he's extra competition for Selanne. Learn how to read.

2. Iginla's career value is probably pretty close to Selanne's. I could see a valid argument for either one now. Learn how to get over your fanboyism.

seriosuly what makes you think you're such an authority on hockey stats...

The point of hockey is to actually win games, not accumulate fancy regular season statistics. And in terms of value added to a winning team, one can certainly prefer Iginla or Selanne (I think when all is said and done both barely miss the Top 100).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

For your stats you are only using raw stats, look at the adjusted stats to give a clearer picture on how they stack up offensively.

Even if you don't trust adjusted stats 100% they give a better comparison between different seasons between 2 players..

I'm sure I'm not the only one whose eyes glaze over when I see someone use standard adjusted stats to compare a player from the 80s with a player from the dead puck era, after it's been shown time and time again that they overrate star players from the dead puck era (or underrate stars from the 80s, however you want to look at it).

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

* * * * *

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'm sure I'm not the only one whose eyes glaze over when I see someone use standard adjusted stats to compare a player from the 80s with a player from the dead puck era, after it's been shown time and time again that they overrate star players from the dead puck era (or underrate stars from the 80s, however you want to look at it).

You're definitely not. I think everyone in here is knowlegable enough to understand that a 50-goal season in 1985 was a little different than one in 1998. That's as far is it needs to go. Presenting the adjusted numbers themselves is inaccurate and a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

 

[greatgazoo]

For your stats you are only using raw stats, look at the adjusted stats to give a clearer picture on how they stack up offensively.

Even if you don't trust adjusted stats 100% they give a better comparison between different seasons between 2 players.

Here are Kurri's top 6 adjusted seasons

57-51-108
53-49-102
46-46-92
41-49-90
36-48-84
36-48-84

Selanne

54-68-122
53-60-113
62-45-107
38-65-103
60-39-99
50-46-96

Also, it must be taken into consideration the line mates both players had during their careers as well.

Also Selanne has played at 5 Olympics to Kurri's 2.

Yes I know that Kurri wasn't eligible to play at all that he could have went to, but Selanne couldn't pick his line mates or teams for the playoffs so it is what it is.

The point here is that Selanne has a better international career and both had a large amount of international and Finnish games to compare.

Kurri does have a much better playoff record but to give him too much credit for the Oilers success would not be fair to Selanne or Kurri for that matter.

Remember Blair MacDonald has a 46-48-94 line playing with Gretzky in 80.

Thanks for bringing BJ MacDonald up because his defensive game was about as poor as Teemu's.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yes he had an amazing rookie year and then the next 2 years he did nothing.

He tore his Achilles Tendon. Does that count as something?

When Selanne started putting up some really good numbers and leading the league in goals or tying for the lead anyway. Others were mentioned ahead of him. in 1998 I think it was when he tied Bondra for the lead in goals. Most of the people were talking about Bondra as one of the best wingers. More so then Selanne.

Selanne was nominated for the Hart Trophy despite being on the second-worst team in the conference. He nearly took the 1st Team All-Star spot over Jagr despite trailing him by 16 points. He got noticed.

The problem is that when Selanne had the chance he wasn't very clutch. When his teams needed him to make the playoffs he couldn't.

He scored 36 points in his first 28 games with Anaheim and nearly pushed them over his old team, Winnipeg, for the 8th seed. They were 16-9-3 with him. Prorated for 82 games, that would've been good enough for 103 points- third in the league behind Detroit and Colorado.

When his team needed a big goal in the playoffs he couldn't provide it.

He lit up Vancouver for a hat trick in Game 3 of his first series- Winnipeg's first home game. He scored the OT winner in Game 5. That's 2 GWG in his first series- the only two wins for the Jets- in his only series up until 1997. He handled his business against Phoenix in 1997 (3 Goals, 2 Assists in the first two games; 2 Goals, 1 Assist to close out the series after Khabibulin nearly stole it), then played 8 games against Detroit in the middle of their 9-series winning streak. And then his injuries took over in 2000, he left Anaheim, and posters like you and Nalyd Psycho re-wrote history because he was stubborn enough to have played bad hockey on a bad leg for five seasons.

Then he scored the most important goal in franchise history against Detroit as an overachieving powerplay specializing 37-year-old after setting up the tying goal in the final minute, but that's neither here nor there, eh?