Pavel Bure vs Joe Sakic (Better player at their peak)

[Huck Cheever]

Who was the better player at their peak.

Their best year...

Bure

83

60

50

110

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Sakic

82

51

69

120

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Click to read more...

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

That isn't close to either players best year.

Bure wasn't even top 20 in hart voting that year or on the AST. He was 5th in goals and missed the top 10 in pts. His 93/94, 99/00 and 00/01 were easily better years.

Sakic won the Hart+lindsay while finishing 2nd in goals/pts/Selke in 00/01. Easily his best season.

Based on their actual best seasons it's tough. Based on the seasons given in the OP it's easily Sakic.

 

[Huck Cheever]

That isn't close to either players best year.

Bure wasn't even top 20 in hart voting that year or on the AST. He was 5th in goals and missed the top 10 in pts. His 93/94, 99/00 and 00/01 were easily better years.

Sakic won the Hart+lindsay while finishing 2nd in goals/pts/Selke in 00/01. Easily his best season.

Based on their actual best seasons it's tough. Based on the seasons given in the OP it's easily Sakic.

I posted their top seasons statistically to compass some context. The poll is about who was a better player at their best.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Sakic had 118 points in '01, which is more than Bure ever scored in a season. That was in a lower scoring season than either season in which Bure scored 100+ points.

He had more offensive support that season than Bure had in his best seasons with FLA, but he also better defensively. Bure missed eight games in 2000.

If you're asking about who was better in his best season, I'd lean toward Sakic. If you're asking who was better over X number of games at his best, who knows...

Bure was more electrifying, though.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Bure was one of my favourite players growing up but this is Sakic and its not even that close for me. Bure didn't elevate his teammates or play defense.

 

[Burnt Biscuits]

How is this poll so close? Easily Sakic just a far more complete player and made those around him better, I remember Bure best for just generating a lot of breakaways and being absolutely deadly on them. Bure had a phenomenal talent package, but he didn't have the attention to detail or the defensive game to make near the same contribution to his team winning hockey games.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Comes down to preference/need imo.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

Honestly I don't understand how its so close.

 

[Scholarships]

Sakic but I love Bure with all my heart

 

[koyvoo]

Honestly I don't understand how its so close.

Many people voting who didn’t watch their careers play out and Bure being a sexier highlight reel.

At that time, at their best there’s not one NHL executive or coach that would take Bure over Sakic.

 

[Ivan13]

Voting for Bure is quintessential flash over substance vote. It's Sakic and it's not close.

 

[amnesiac]

Who was the better player at their peak.

Their best year...

Bure

83

60

50

110

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Sakic

82

51

69

120

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PLayoffs dont count apparently?

Sakic won the Hart AND Cup in 2000-01. This shouldnt be that close.

 

[bathdog]

Sakic no matter criteria.

I posted their top seasons statistically to compass some context.

What does this even mean?

 

[Huck Cheever]

Sakic no matter criteria.



What does this even mean?

I posted that to give some uneducated posters some context about their careers. A compass is used to help people find their way.

 

[talitintti]

I posted that to give some uneducated posters some context about their careers. A compass is used to help people find their way.

Those seasons happened in completely different scoring comtexts though

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sakic, not close.

Sakic was the best player in the league in 2000-01 by a wide margin. Bure was never the best player in the league in any year.

 

[Wrath]

I posted their top seasons statistically to compass some context. The poll is about who was a better player at their best.

Don't you think you should adjust for leaguewide scoring when deciding and presenting "top seasons statistically"?

 

[tony d]

Went with Sakic.

 

[authentic]

Surprised anyone is actually voting for Bure. He was better in the early 90s and that's it.

 

[psycat]

Sakic, not close.

Sakic was the best player in the league in 2000-01 by a wide margin. Bure was never the best player in the league in any year.

I would also vote Sakic but the question is if Bure at his best was better than sakic in 2000-01 not if he ever was the best player in the game.

 

[Randy Randerson]

voted Bure, probably more feelings based that objective but he was so hard to contain on his own. Sakic had a better supporting cast and was probably more effective

 

[Huck Cheever]

Don't you think you should adjust for leaguewide scoring when deciding and presenting "top seasons statistically"?

Sorry i didn't simulate their converted seasons or go back in time and bring them together in one year

 

[CHGoalie27]

Bure. Before the knee injuries, his defensive play was horribly overlooked. And he did it without a Forsberg or anyone else.

 

[tfong]

Better: Sakic
More entertaining: Bure

 

[Mickey Marner]

Sakic peaked as the best player in the league, Bure did not.