How good was Mats Sundin?

[BenchBrawl]

Let's remember that Doug Gilmour in like 3 years left a much deeper mark in the Toronto fanbase's subconscious than Sundin did in 15 years.

Sundin was a legit #1 center, but he was a bit of a compiler too.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Mats Sundin finished Top 10 in NHL scoring TWICE. That's not a lot. .

It doesn't look great on paper, but he finished in the 11th to 15th range a bunch of times and in the top 20 eight times.

In '93 he was 11th in scoring.
In '98 he was 15th in scoring, five points out of tenth. This was on a team where the second-leading scorer was Mike Johnson (who had 47 points).
In '99 he was 12th in scoring (six points out of tenth) and second in the NHL (behind only Jagr) in ES scoring.
In '04 he was 13th in scoring, four points out of ninth.

With better linemate support, maybe he finishes in the top ten in scoring five or six times (not like he needed that many more points in some seasons).

He was also a premiere ES scorer between 1997 and 2001 but didn't do as much damage on the PP as some other stars did on the PP during that period. His ES scoring ranking was higher than his overall scoring ranking during every season of that stretch of time (he has ES scoring finishes of 2nd, T-4th and T-10th).

 

[BenchBrawl]

It doesn't look great on paper, but he finished in the 11th to 15th range a bunch of times and in the top 20 eight times.

In '93 he was 11th in scoring.
In '98 he was 15th in scoring, five points out of tenth. This was on a team where the second-leading scorer was Mike Johnson (who had 47 points).
In '99 he was 12th in scoring (six points out of tenth) and second in the NHL (behind only Jagr) in ES scoring.
In '04 he was 13th in scoring, four points out of ninth.

With better linemate support, maybe he finishes in the top ten in scoring five or six times (not like he needed that many more points in some seasons).

He was also a premiere ES scorer between 1997 and 2001 but didn't do as much damage on the PP as some other stars did on the PP during that period. His ES scoring ranking was higher than his overall scoring ranking during every season of that stretch of time (he has ES scoring finishes of 2nd, T-4th and T-10th).

Good points, I should have used Top 20 but I was too lazy.

Why not just use VsX:

Sundin: 82.1
Apps: 92.4

Enormous edge to Apps.

 

[GlitchMarner]

BB, for a guy who is so high on Lecavalier and his career, I don't know why you're so critical of Sundin. They had the same number of top ten scoring finishes, but Sundin was a top 15 and top 20 scorer much more often. Sure, Lecavalier won a Cup, but that was with Brad Richards leading the team in scoring and winning the Conn Smythe and St. Louis in peak form in the season and playoffs.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Good points, I should have used Top 20 but I was too lazy.

Why not just use VsX:

Sundin: 82.1
Apps: 92.4

Enormous edge to Apps.

I don't think he was better than Apps, but just saying, "he was only a top ten scorer twice" is kind of misleading (not to suggest you did that intentionally) because he was close to the top ten a number of times and he had a deeper pool of talent to compete with than 1940s players.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't think he was better than Apps, but just saying, "he was only a top ten scorer twice" is kind of misleading (not to suggest you did that intentionally) because he was close to the top ten a number of times and he had a deeper pool of talent to compete with than 1940s players.

Yeah it's misleading, you're right. OTOH, the statement (Sundin over Apps) is so over the top, that I didn't want to put a lot of effort to it. All of this is supposed to be well-known to this section for years, but it's my shortcoming for assuming this and not deploying the effort to elevate the discourse.

 

[BenchBrawl]

BB, for a guy who is so high on Lecavalier and his career, I don't know why you're so critical of Sundin. They had the same number of top ten scoring finishes, but Sundin was a top 15 and top 20 scorer much more often. Sure, Lecavalier won a Cup, but that was with Brad Richards leading the team in scoring and winning the Conn Smythe and St. Louis in peak form in the season and playoffs.

Lecavalier a much better player than Sundin at his peak IMO, and contributed to a championship. That said, I don't think I'm that high on Lecavalier. More like I'm very low on Thornton.

I have nothing against Sundin. I just prefer many other Leafs, because they were better.

 

[beachcomber]

Couldn’t win anything in the NHL.

 

[The Panther]

Let's remember that Doug Gilmour in like 3 years left a much deeper mark in the Toronto fanbase's subconscious than Sundin did in 15 years.

Well, we're talking about the same fanbase/era when Leafs fans thought Larry Murphy wasn't good enough for them.

As for Gilmour & Sundin, they played (most of) three seasons together in Toronto, and Sundin was way better in every season.

Sundin was a legit #1 center, but he was a bit of a compiler too.

This is the first time I've heard that being your team's top scorer and best player and captain makes you a 'compiler'. Interesting perspective.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

He was also a premiere ES scorer between 1997 and 2001 but didn't do as much damage on the PP as some other stars did on the PP during that period. His ES scoring ranking was higher than his overall scoring ranking during every season of that stretch of time (he has ES scoring finishes of 2nd, T-4th and T-10th).

Definitely some truth to that. Over the course of the DPE (1995 to 2004), Sundin was actually 2nd in the NHL in ES scoring - behind Jagr, but ahead of Sakic, Selanne, LeClair, Forsberg, etc. He was only tied for 18th in powerplay scoring though.

The interesting thing is, the Leafs were pretty much average in PP opportunities and PP percentage over that period. Sundin personally ranked 11th among forwards in PP ice time (versus 17th in ES ice time). So it's not like the Leafs weren't giving him a chance with the man advantage, and it's not like they had a terrible powerplay. Maybe, for whatever reason, he was just better suited to generating chances at even strength?

 

[scott clam]

Sundin may have been better than Gilmour when he arrived, but as we all know Gilmour fell off a cliff from the previous year. Bone spurs compounded by a herniated disk will do that to you. Still bounced back pretty nicely over the next two years, but of course he was no longer the dominant force he once was.

I don't think you can call Sundin a compiler, save for maybe that last year where he refused to be traded, even though it was clear his team wasn't going anywhere. Signing with the Canucks around trade deadline, after taking almost a year off didn't exactly help his image.

 

[82Ninety42011]

He was very good a 1C for sure but he didn't have much support and didn't take over as one would have expected. Who knows what he could have done with a better supporting cast. He was as consistent as they come though.

 

[VictorLustig]

Still one of my favorite goals:

 

[sr edler]

A compiler could be slightly different things but I think mainly it's a player who hangs around post-prime to collect or climb on all time points lists to end with "superficial" gaudy goals/assists/points/ numbers in relation to other players or players who played in a less high scoring era or in an era when you just played less games. Mats Sundin in his three last full seasons with the Leafs, aged 34–36, was a PPG+ player in all of them. And he did that in a non-Messier fashion as he still cared about the team he played on. In his two last SC playoff appearances (aged 32 and 37) he had 17 points in 17 games. I don't know how that's a compiler.

Even his last season with Vancouver he came in without a camp mid-season aged 37 and after a very rusty start he was brilliant in the given context. He also had a Jagr type of influence on one of his line-mates as that line-mate took off himself offensively after the fact.

 

[scott clam]

Definitely some truth to that. Over the course of the DPE (1995 to 2004), Sundin was actually 2nd in the NHL in ES scoring - behind Jagr, but ahead of Sakic, Selanne, LeClair, Forsberg, etc. He was only tied for 18th in powerplay scoring though.

The interesting thing is, the Leafs were pretty much average in PP opportunities and PP percentage over that period. Sundin personally ranked 11th among forwards in PP ice time (versus 17th in ES ice time). So it's not like the Leafs weren't giving him a chance with the man advantage, and it's not like they had a terrible powerplay. Maybe, for whatever reason, he was just better suited to generating chances at even strength?

I don't think it should be that surprising that a 1C as big as Sundin would be well suited for even strength. Maybe he was even overworked on even strength?

 

[Goleafsgo95]

Let's remember that Doug Gilmour in like 3 years left a much deeper mark in the Toronto fanbase's subconscious than Sundin did in 15 years.

Sundin was a legit #1 center, but he was a bit of a compiler too.

Leafs fans like good old Canadian boys like Doug Gilmour and Wendel Clark. Doug Gilmour's great peak happened before I was born but there's no question he is thought of fondly by Leafs fans because of it. Mats was traded for Wendel and came in overshadowed by what Gilmour had done in the years prior. You also had Don Cherry running his mouth and degrading Swedes. There's Leafs fans that prefer Clark to Sundin as well but that doesn't take away from Sundin's greatness as a player. There's no question that Gilmour is highly respected for what he did, but Mats is highly respected as well, particularly by my generation of fans.

The compiler comment is way off.

Mats played 18 seasons which is definitely a good run but many Hall of Famers played 20+. Of those 18 seasons there were only 3 in which he didn't score 70+ points: his 59 point rookie season, the 94-95 lockout-shortened season in which he scored 47 points in 47 games, and his final season which he jumped in at the half-way mark and still managed 28 points in 41 games as a 37 year old. He produced at a high rate all those years and barely missed any games. That kind of consistency is remarkable. To say he was only a top 10 scorer twice in his career is leaving out a huge party of the story because as others have pointed out, he was consistently just outside of the top 10.

However, I don't think looking at points is the best way to judge Mats. Those who watched him play know how important he was to the Leafs; without him the Leafs wouldn't have been making the playoffs as often as they did, nevermind going on any deep runs. He certainly would have piled up more points being surrounded by more talent.

I feel goals are a much more effective way of assessing his impact considering he likely would have far more assists had he been surrounded with more finishers.

Mats is 8th all-time in goals among centers
Mats was 5th in goals among centers during the first half of his career (1990-91 to 1998-99)
Mats was 2nd in goals among centers during the last half of his career (1998-99 to 2008-2009)
Mats was 1st among centers in goals during his Leafs tenure (1994-95 to 2007-08)

Sundin's offensive ranks among all skaters during his 13 year Leafs tenure (1994-95 to 2007-08):
Goals: 5th
Assists: 6th
Points: 3rd (behind only Jagr and Sakic)
Even Strength Goals: 3rd
Even Strength Points: 3rd
Power Play Goals: 8th
Power Play Points: 10th
Shorthanded Goals: 6th
Shorthanded Points: 7th
Game Winning Goals: 3rd

I get that he may not have the incredible peak season with eye-popping numbers like many Hall of Famers do but his consistency adds up to high-rankings over a longer stretch of time. Check out his International resume if you want to see his peak numbers and the accolades to go along with it.

I do think the conversation around Mats would be very different had he won and/or been surrounded by more talent. But what he managed to do under the circumstances he was placed in playing in a market as difficult as Toronto was incredible. Maybe he didn't win the cup, but the value of a franchise center who doesn't have down years and rarely gets hurt has towards winning shouldn't be understated. It was a matter of surrounding him with the right players, but Mats did his part in bringing a winning ingredient to the table each and every year.

 

[scott clam]

Leafs fans like good old Canadian boys like Doug Gilmour and Wendel Clark. Doug Gilmour's great peak happened before I was born but there's no question he is thought of fondly by Leafs fans because of it. Mats was traded for Wendel and came in overshadowed by what Gilmour had done in the years prior. You also had Don Cherry running his mouth and degrading Swedes. There's Leafs fans that prefer Clark to Sundin as well but that doesn't take away from Sundin's greatness as a player. There's no question that Gilmour is highly respected for what he did, but Mats is highly respected as well, particularly by my generation of fans.

The compiler comment is way off.

Mats played 18 seasons which is definitely a good run but many Hall of Famers played 20+. Of those 18 seasons there were only 3 in which he didn't score 70+ points: his 59 point rookie season, the 94-95 lockout-shortened season in which he scored 47 points in 47 games, and his final season which he jumped in at the half-way mark and still managed 28 points in 41 games as a 37 year old. He produced at a high rate all those years and barely missed any games. That kind of consistency is remarkable. To say he was only a top 10 scorer twice in his career is leaving out a huge party of the story because as others have pointed out, he was consistently just outside of the top 10.

However, I don't think looking at points is the best way to judge Mats. Those who watched him play know how important he was to the Leafs; without him the Leafs wouldn't have been making the playoffs as often as they did, nevermind going on any deep runs. He certainly would have piled up more points being surrounded by more talent.

I feel goals are a much more effective way of assessing his impact considering he likely would have far more assists had he been surrounded with more finishers.

Mats is 8th all-time in goals among centers
Mats was 5th in goals among centers during the first half of his career (1990-91 to 1998-99)
Mats was 2nd in goals among centers during the last half of his career (1998-99 to 2008-2009)
Mats was 1st among centers in goals during his Leafs tenure (1994-95 to 2007-08)

Sundin's offensive ranks among all skaters during his 13 year Leafs tenure (1994-95 to 2007-08):
Goals: 5th
Assists: 6th
Points: 3rd (behind only Jagr and Sakic)
Even Strength Goals: 3rd
Even Strength Points: 3rd
Power Play Goals: 8th
Power Play Points: 10th
Shorthanded Goals: 6th
Shorthanded Points: 7th
Game Winning Goals: 3rd

I get that he may not have the incredible peak season with eye-popping numbers like many Hall of Famers do but his consistency adds up to high-rankings over a longer stretch of time. Check out his International resume if you want to see his peak numbers and the accolades to go along with it.

I do think the conversation around Mats would be very different had he won and/or been surrounded by more talent. But what he managed to do under the circumstances he was placed in playing in a market as difficult as Toronto was incredible. Maybe he didn't win the cup, but the value of a franchise center who doesn't have down years and rarely gets hurt has towards winning shouldn't be understated. It was a matter of surrounding him with the right players, but Mats did his part in bringing a winning ingredient to the table each and every year.

Mats was never the best player in the league, but I really don't think you could ask more from a player of his ilk. I believe only Gretzky has more seasons leading his team in scoring than Sundin. I realize one of those seasons is with the Nordiques, but the point is the same.

 

[Gubbhornet]

I think Foppas PPG advantage vis-a-vis Sundin in tournaments played together (OG, WC, WHC) comes out as something like 1.2 PPG v.s. 1.18 PPG. Which is flip a coin territory. But you said that you never saw Sundin take over games like Foppa did, that is simply not true. Ask anyone who watched Sweden play during those years. Sundin in 1996 or 2003 was every bit as good as Forsberg on Tre Kronor, and probably even better.

Well, we have different opinions but let's not make the thread about that. Probably the combined duo benefitted alot from each other.

In a parallel universe in which Sundin had stayed in Quebec the would have been on the same team. That would have been interesting to see.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Well... I think its safe to say that if the Nordiques would have made another choice Sundin would have two cups right now. A least.
Think about it, Forsberg in 96 and 01. How could they lose those years with Sundin instead? Not sure about all the other years though when Forsberg often dominated but to no avail.
Also interesting not only the much better teammates, but perhaps he even does not bulk up as much there and keep more of his youthful speed that might have contributed to that 92-93 season, although he did have 47 PP points that special season too.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

A compiler could be slightly different things but I think mainly it's a player who hangs around post-prime to collect or climb on all time points lists to end with "superficial" gaudy goals/assists/points/ numbers in relation to other players or players who played in a less high scoring era or in an era when you just played less games.

my definition is a guy who consistently puts up very good but not great seasons. like gartner’s many 40 goal/80 pt seasons in the 80s/early 90s or eric staal’s many 35 goal/75 pt seasons. sundin steadily had a lot of 80 pt years, but rarely finished high in scoring.

Even his last season with Vancouver he came in without a camp mid-season aged 37 and after a very rusty start he was brilliant in the given context. He also had a Jagr type of influence on one of his line-mates as that line-mate took off himself offensively after the fact.

absolutely. bieksa and keslerbjust talked about ut on their podcast, how he had a transformative effect on the whole core: kesler, the sedins, and luongo.

 

[The Panther]

my definition is a guy who consistently puts up very good but not great seasons. like gartner’s many 40 goal/80 pt seasons in the 80s/early 90s or eric staal’s many 35 goal/75 pt seasons. sundin steadily had a lot of 80 pt years, but rarely finished high in scoring.

What? No. A compiler is not a guy in his prime who leads his team in scoring. Everyone knows that -- as senior edler said -- a compiler is a post-prime player (usually 35-ish or older) who hangs around for years, with greatly diminished stats, and thus eventually sees his career totals rise.

A good example is Dave Andreychuk 1997-98 to 2005-06.

According to your definition, every high-scoring player in history who wasn't top-10 was a compiler.

 

[Stephen]

A compiler could be slightly different things but I think mainly it's a player who hangs around post-prime to collect or climb on all time points lists to end with "superficial" gaudy goals/assists/points/ numbers in relation to other players or players who played in a less high scoring era or in an era when you just played less games. Mats Sundin in his three last full seasons with the Leafs, aged 34–36, was a PPG+ player in all of them. And he did that in a non-Messier fashion as he still cared about the team he played on. In his two last SC playoff appearances (aged 32 and 37) he had 17 points in 17 games. I don't know how that's a compiler.

Even his last season with Vancouver he came in without a camp mid-season aged 37 and after a very rusty start he was brilliant in the given context. He also had a Jagr type of influence on one of his line-mates as that line-mate took off himself offensively after the fact.

Sundin was definitely the antithesis of a statistical compiler. His stats line wasn't especially glamorous year to year but it was consistently at a high level.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Yeah, I agree with Panther here. If you're calling a guy who constantly finishes in the top 30 (with a bunch of top 15 finishes) in League scoring in a League consisting of 21 or more teams a compiler, the term doesn't mean much. People have their own definitions (much like with the term "generational"), but if you're considering Sundin a compiler, there are a lot of compilers.

I guess Fedorov would be certainly be a compiler (but with elite defense) in that case.

 

[Stephen]

my definition is a guy who consistently puts up very good but not great seasons. like gartner’s many 40 goal/80 pt seasons in the 80s/early 90s or eric staal’s many 35 goal/75 pt seasons. sundin steadily had a lot of 80 pt years, but rarely finished high in scoring.

I feel like a statistical compiler is a guy who always accumulates/compiles points at a rate which often surpasses his shift to shift impact.

Jason Allison's 2005-06 season would be a good example of that phenomenon, Mark Recchi during the height of the dead puck era would be another. Like Panther said, Dave Andreychuk would be another good example. Ray Sheppard. Ray Whitney's career totals. That's compiling.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Sundin was definitely the antithesis of a statistical compiler. His stats line wasn't especially glamorous year to year but it was consistently at a high level.

It really depends on what we call a "high enough" level, I guess. If it's top ten in scoring, I think that's a very stringent standard. There are numerous very talented players who have only finished in the top ten in scoring twice: Turgeon, Roenick, E. Staal, Spezza, Lecavalier, Tavares, Fedorov, Mogilny etc.

Sundin was a top 40 scorer in every season but his rookie season and final season (only played 41 games). If he was finishing in that 30-40 range in scoring all the time, I could buy the argument that he was a compiler, though I still wouldn't necessarily subscribe to it. But like I outlined, he had seasons where he was only a handful of points outside of the top ten. Having eight seasons in the top 20 and 12 in the top 30 (to go along with two in the top ten and some others that aren't that far off from getting you into the top ten) really doesn't scream "compiler" to me.

That said, I do think his lack of very high-end seasons hurts his perception and it obviously doesn't help his Hart record. If he had the same career stats but had a couple of seasons where he really went off and challenged for the Ross (and maybe grabbed a Perry or Hall type of MVP award), his Hart record would look a lot better. Still, he was a better player than his Hart record.