Pavel Bure 2 important wins away from guranteed HHOF?

[connellc]

I was looking back at Bure's resume, and I was thinking how people would view him differently had he won two crucial games. The first is 1994 against the Rangers during game seventh Stanley cup finals. If he wins the game, he becomes the first, sole Russian born player to get his name on the cup leading his team back from 2 series down 1-3, and being the leading scorer to boot. That's quite an accomplishment, but it doesn't end there.

Additionally, if he wins the 1998 gold medal, he captains the Russians to another medal. Both of his performances in the tournaments were both SPECTACULAR, and certainly played a crucial role in both of these tournaments. He'd also have a gold medal, and have the distinction of being "the man" in 1994.

Would people look at him differently had he won those games? I understand the argument that he didn't "step it up" when the chips were down; however, he still had clutch goals throughout both tournaments. I certainly think he'd be in the Hall now if he had won those two games.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[begbeee]

There will be different picture of him for sure. He was definetly no choker.
Maybe his picture is bad after situation in last year of his Canucks career.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Gold medal would be irrelevant to the members of the HHOF committee in my opinion.

Having a "Stanley Cup" to check off on his resume would be huge though, especially for a Canadian team.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's kinda sad if you think about it this way.

 

[Briere Up There*]

It's pathetic he gets left out in the cold with Lindros while Ciccarelli gets in.

And that's before you even consider Gilmour and Oates. Why are those two not in?

 

[JackSlater]

I haven't really noticed any impact yet from Olympic participation, but the Olympic gold following a tournament MVP type performance would clearly not hurt his case. The Stanley Cup however would be very big. Unfortunately I do think that if those two loses were wins instead, even if Bure played to exactly the same level in both games, his HOF waiting period would be much shorter.

 

[Big Phil]

He'd have the image as a champion for sure, which is something he doesn't have. Either way he was a strong playoff performer early in his career.

I guess you can argue that Kirk McLean would have won the Conn Smythe had the Canucks won, but you wouldn't burn the building down if Bure won it either.

That being said even with the Cup alone this is what his resume looks like:
5 50+ goal seasons
1 Cup
1 Conn Smythe
3 years of leading the NHL in goals
1 first team all-star
2 2nd team all-stars
Throw in a Gold Medal
437 goals

Would you keep a guy out of the HHOF with this resume? Pretty hard to say no to him

 

[connellc]

He'd have the image as a champion for sure, which is something he doesn't have. Either way he was a strong playoff performer early in his career.

I guess you can argue that Kirk McLean would have won the Conn Smythe had the Canucks won, but you wouldn't burn the building down if Bure won it either.

That being said even with the Cup alone this is what his resume looks like:
5 50+ goal seasons
1 Cup
1 Conn Smythe
3 years of leading the NHL in goals
1 first team all-star
2 2nd team all-stars
Throw in a Gold Medal
437 goals

Would you keep a guy out of the HHOF with this resume? Pretty hard to say no to him

You can't forget the sexiest "accomplishment" though: To unequivocally be the first Russian born player to get his name on the Stanley cup. It just boggles my mind to think how two measly wins can change a players career. Especially if the player was one was electrifying as Bure and is certainly on the bubble to make it without those couple of wins.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's pathetic he gets left out in the cold with Lindros while Ciccarelli gets in.

And that's before you even consider Gilmour and Oates. Why are those two not in?

Totally agree here.

All 4 of those guys are in my Hall (Bure not Ciccarelli)

 

[RECsGuy*]

You can't forget the sexiest "accomplishment" though: To unequivocally be the first Russian born player to get his name on the Stanley cup. It just boggles my mind to think how two measly wins can change a players career. Especially if the player was one was electrifying as Bure and is certainly on the bubble to make it without those couple of wins.

Those two games don't change the legacy of a player who I still consider a first ballot Hall Of Famer. One of the most influential players to ever play the sport. I'd be willing to bet a pretty penny that if you polled every current NHLer under the age of 30, they'd have The Russian Rocket in their Top-3 among players they grew up watching whom they pattern their games after/idolize.

He is one of the very few players whom the cliche, "Worth the price of admission," was true of.

The fact that clowns like Gartner and Ciccarelli are in, while generational talents like Bure and Lindros continue to wait goes to show you that the Hall is about rewarding health and the compiling it facilitates. I'd take 5 years of Pavel over 40 years of Mr. Consistent Gartner.

Greatness, even in short spurts, is so under-appreciated in th hockey community. When folks "debate" Forsberg's HHOF worthiness, it cracks me up.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Those two games don't change the legacy of a player who I still consider a first ballot Hall Of Famer. One of the most influential players to ever play the sport. I'd be willing to bet a pretty penny that if you polled every current NHLer under the age of 30, they'd have The Russian Rocket in their Top-3 among players they grew up watching whom they pattern their games after/idolize.

He is one of the very few players whom the cliche, "Worth the price of admission," was true of.

The fact that clowns like Gartner and Ciccarelli are in, while generational talents like Bure and Lindros continue to wait goes to show you that the Hall is about rewarding health and the compiling it facilitates. I'd take 5 years of Pavel over 40 years of Mr. Consistent Gartner.

Greatness, even in short spurts, is so under-appreciated in th hockey community. When folks "debate" Forsberg's HHOF worthiness, it cracks me up.

Can't argue anything in this thread some very good points and more to the point how some, like the HHOF, seems to favor Compilers and Cup counting over the absolute best in some cases.

 

[canucksfan]

Bure was a non factor in the Calgary series until game seven. In fact he also wasn't great in the Rangers series either. His best series was against Dallas. McLean would have been the guy to win the Conn Smythe.

This being said Bure should be in the HHOF.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Bure was a non factor in the Calgary series until game seven. In fact he also wasn't great in the Rangers series either. His best series was against Dallas. McLean would have been the guy to win the Conn Smythe.

agreed: if the canucks scored two more goals in game 7 of the finals and bure had nothing to do with either of them, mclean would almost certainly have walked off with the conn smythe. and linden would probably have been remembered as the more important forward that year.

it still is kind of crazy to think though that bure would probably have a much better chance at HHOF induction through no cause of his own, if only lafayette hadn't hit the post and somebody else on the canucks had then scored a go-head goal. interesting thread idea.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Olympic gold only counts with the commitee if you win one for Canada

 

[RabbinsDuck]

agreed: if the canucks scored two more goals in game 7 of the finals and bure had nothing to do with either of them, mclean would almost certainly have walked off with the conn smythe. and linden would probably have been remembered as the more important forward that year.

it still is kind of crazy to think though that bure would probably have a much better chance at HHOF induction through no cause of his own, if only lafayette hadn't hit the post and somebody else on the canucks had then scored a go-head goal. interesting thread idea.

Osgood as like that - I bet he would be a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame if the Wings score two more goals in Game 7 versus the Penguins in '09. As it is, he will be an afterthought.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Olympic gold only counts with the commitee if you win one for Canada

Sad but probably true.

As someone, the Devilmademe I believe, pointed out his age 17 season with 32-17-9 line was truly outstanding and an excellent indication that he would have excelled as an 18 yr old in the NHL.

Quite simply one of the most electrifying players I have ever seen.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I think what hurts Bure is that the canucks more or less admitted that Bure threatened not to play in a playoff game if they did not give him his new contract. Bure has done a song and dance on several occasions when asked about it--I think this hurts him greatly

 

[Big Phil]

The fact that clowns like Gartner and Ciccarelli are in, while generational talents like Bure and Lindros continue to wait goes to show you that the Hall is about rewarding health and the compiling it facilitates. I'd take 5 years of Pavel over 40 years of Mr. Consistent Gartner.

Greatness, even in short spurts, is so under-appreciated in th hockey community. When folks "debate" Forsberg's HHOF worthiness, it cracks me up.

Let's not get too nuts here. First of all, you cannot reward a guy for sitting in the press box. You can't reward a guy for being retired following knee injuries. You can however reward a guy for a couple of statistical thresholds that seem near impossible to ignore.

Gartner scored 708 goals. In the best league in the world he did this. He didn't hang around too long either (ahem Andreychuk) and he is remembered more for his consistency than "compiling". Think about this, he scored 30+ goals in 15 straight seasons. Only Jagr has tied this mark. The only reason Gartner's streak ended was because of the 1994 lockout shortened season where he was on pace to hit around 30 goals again. The two years following it he hit over 30. Only in his last NHL season (and the lockout shortened one) did he NOT hit 30 goals.

Actually to make it sound even better, in that streak of 15 straight seasons he never did any worse than 33 goals. Put it this way, if you were coaching Gartner you knew the guy was good for 35 goals minimum, season after season. He scored 50 once. He scored 40+ 9 times. He played for Canada in the 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups. He was cut in the 1981 Canada Cup. He was the fastest skater at the All-Star game, which still stands to this day. He is also remembered for his blazing speed.

Say what you want, but the more you look at Gartner's career the more you realize how hard it would be to have kept him out of the HHOF. I agree Bure is due to get in, even if there is a lot against him, but playing in the best league in the world at a very good level for almost two decades should never be underestimated.

 

[Theokritos]

his age 17 season with 32-17-9 line was truly outstanding and an excellent indication that he would have excelled as an 18 yr old in the NHL.

Indeed. Compare his stats with those of the other wingers at CSKA, especially Kamensky and Khomutov:

...the 1988-1989 data (according to hockeydb.com):

Krutov/Larionov/Makarov: In total 56 goals.
Krutov - 20 goals, 21 assists, 41 points (in 35 games). PPG: 1,17
Larionov - 15 goals, 12 assists, 27 points (in 31 games). PPG: 0,87
Makarov - 21 goals, 33 assists, 54 points (in 44 games). PPG: 1,23

Kamensky/Bykov/Khomutov: In total 53 goals.
Kamensky - 18 goals, 10 assists, 28 points (in 40 games). PPG: 0,70
Bykov - 16 goals, 20 assists, 36 points (in 40 games). PPG: 0,90
Khomutov - 19 goals, 16 assists, 35 games (in 44 games). PPG: 0,80

Bure/Fyodorov/Mogilny: In total 37 goals.
Bure - 17 goals, 9 assists, 26 points (in 32 games). PPG: 0,81
Fyodorov - 9 goals, 8 assists, 17 points (in 44 games). PPG: 0,39
Mogilny - 11 goals, 11 assists, 22 points (in 31 games). PPG: 0,71

 

[Hardyvan123]

Let's not get too nuts here. First of all, you cannot reward a guy for sitting in the press box. You can't reward a guy for being retired following knee injuries. You can however reward a guy for a couple of statistical thresholds that seem near impossible to ignore.

Gartner scored 708 goals. In the best league in the world he did this. He didn't hang around too long either (ahem Andreychuk) and he is remembered more for his consistency than "compiling". Think about this, he scored 30+ goals in 15 straight seasons. Only Jagr has tied this mark. The only reason Gartner's streak ended was because of the 1994 lockout shortened season where he was on pace to hit around 30 goals again. The two years following it he hit over 30. Only in his last NHL season (and the lockout shortened one) did he NOT hit 30 goals.

Actually to make it sound even better, in that streak of 15 straight seasons he never did any worse than 33 goals. Put it this way, if you were coaching Gartner you knew the guy was good for 35 goals minimum, season after season. He scored 50 once. He scored 40+ 9 times. He played for Canada in the 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups. He was cut in the 1981 Canada Cup. He was the fastest skater at the All-Star game, which still stands to this day. He is also remembered for his blazing speed.

Say what you want, but the more you look at Gartner's career the more you realize how hard it would be to have kept him out of the HHOF. I agree Bure is due to get in, even if there is a lot against him, but playing in the best league in the world at a very good level for almost two decades should never be underestimated.

The biggest problem with Mike Gartner was his complete lack of dominance at any time in his career.

His best goal scoring season of 50 was only the 115th best goal scoring season during the time he played 80-98.

His best points season of 102 was the 43rd best.

These are his best seasons.

Sorry to say but his longevity and playing at a good level in the highest scoring times in the NHL should put him in the hall of the very good not the HHOF IMO.

If he had ever been considered a top 10 player in the NHL even for a short stretch then I can see the argument but was he ever even in the top 20?

 

[Drake1588]

First off, I would have Pavel Bure in the HoF. His body of work warrants his inclusion.

That said, it boggles the mind that in a thread about Bure of all people, there are shots taken at Gartner and Ciccarelli for being predominantly goal scorers.

Scoring a large number of goals over a full career, and not just in a smaller set of white-hot seasons, is exceptionally difficult. Bure, for one, couldn't do it. Not enough credit is given for playing at a high level for more than 15 years, I believe. Stars who avoid injury get credit for that. Peak is important, but so is quality longevity. If it was easy to score 600 or 700 goals, everyone would be doing it. These weren't the only guys who played in the 1980s and early 1990s. Why doesn't everyone else have 600 or 700 goals from that era?

 

[Hardyvan123]

First off, I would have Pavel Bure in the HoF. His body of work warrants his inclusion.

That said, it boggles the mind that in a thread about Bure of all people, there are shots taken at Gartner and Ciccarelli for being predominantly goal scorers.

Scoring a large number of goals over a full career, and not just in a smaller set of white-hot seasons, is exceptionally difficult. Bure, for one, couldn't do it. Not enough credit is given for playing at a high level for more than 15 years, I believe. Stars who avoid injury get credit for that. Peak is important, but so is quality longevity. If it was easy to score 600 or 700 goals, everyone would be doing it. These weren't the only guys who played in the 1980s and early 1990s. Why doesn't everyone else have 600 or 700 goals from that era?

While I agree in principle with what you are saying its the quality part that I have a problem with here.

Gartners level of play was good to very good but never excellent or elite iMO.

The thing is that during the 18 years Gartner played 12 players scored over 500 goals and 27 had over 400 goals.

He stayed healthy and played in all 18 seasons and had 2nd place sandwiched between Wayne and Mario but it's really hard to argue that there are not least 20-30 guys that played during Gartner's time that were better players and that's were the problem lies.

To crack the top 10 in points only once and have a so-so playoff record in terms of scoring points but never getting any team success keeps him down as well.

He is simply the best compiler that ever racked up the points in the NHL IMO but that is not a Hall of Famer.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Hardyvan123 with two great posts, and Big Phil and his nearly 10K posts are nowhere to be found. Convenient.

 

[heutZe]

Not to take anything away from Pavel, but if the Canucks won game 7 in 94, the Conn Smythe would easily have gone to McLean. Pavel would've needed to score a hat-trick or something in game 7. I would say that McLean solidified himself as the Canucks frontrunner for MVP after game 1 of the finals. Anyone else who wanted too challenge him would need a spectacular final to be considered, and Bure did not. Tikkanen pretty much held him in check most of the series.

Kind of off-topic, but the only thing I would criticize the 94 finals for was that the star forwards for both team was kind of ineffective the entire series. Bure and Linden for the Canucks and Messier and Graves for the Rangers were mostly held off the scoreboard. Leetch and Richter won the series for the Rangers, and if the Canucks had won it, it would be because of McLean and that we got production from our defensemen in the final games.

 

[lazerbullet]

Bure should be in. People became hockey fans because of him. Kids wanted to play like him. That's the reasons why he should be in the hall of fame.

Oh... people actually watched Florida Panthers.