Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by begbeee, Jun 14, 2011.
Who was better? (only NHL career)
This is a tough one. Good choice of players begbee.
Bondra was consistant but NÃ¤slund have the higher peak. Bondra was better in the playoffs though. So my guess is that it will be a matter of choice of what you value the most.
Peak (not saying NÃ¤slund wasn't consistant but I think Bondra was better in that regard) vs. consistency/playoffs.
As far as career value goes it's pretty close but I'll give the edge to Naslund, being a top 5 player in the NHL for a two year stretch is way more than Bondra will have ever accomplished.
I'm just waiting for TDMM to come in and roast up Bondra.
Naslund peak seems to be more impressive, but closer look on circumstance would tell you more. Being a leading goal scorer twice means at least something. I.e. Naslund didnt lead NHL in anything ever. Naslund never passed the second round, Bondra had at least one decent run. Naslund's stats are worse compared to Bondra. And honestly, Bondra was awful playmaker.
Naslund was a more well rounded offensive threat, I never ever saw Bondra as truly elite (at his best he was probably a tier above the prime Nedveds, Reichels of the world). Bondra may have been a better playoff performer but not by much. It's close Id say but it's Naslund for me.
I say Naslund, and I don't think it is close. can you believe, both times when Bondra led the NHL in goals he was just 4th in voting for the all-star spot at RW? He was 6th in hart voting in 1998 but received no consideration in 1995. Four other times, top-8 in goals... no recognition for awards at all. There is a reason for that.
You're asking me to choose between two one-dimensional scoring wingers. One placed 2nd, 2nd, and 4th in league scoring in his best three seasons. The other 12th, 19th, and 24th. The choice is easy.
Naslund clearly has the better peak. For a 3-4 year stretch, he was one of the best players in the world. As 70s said, Bondra was never a top 10 scorer, never voted a top 3 RW.
Is Bondra's greater consistency enough to overcome the gap? Naslund scored 869 career points. Bondra had 892, despite playin several years back when the league was higher scoring.
Playoffs? They both disappointed. Sure Bondra made the Finals in 98. But anyone who actually watched remebers that the team was carried by Kolzig and the defense. Bondra, by the way, was 5th on his own team in scoring. Naslund had one absolutely horrendous playoff in his prime, but did lead the Canucks in playoff scoring a couple of times. Swap Kolzig and Cloutier, and it's Naslund who makes the finals.
hard to get a good read on bondra for me. i didn't see the caps that much, and they usually flew under the radar anyway. but his breakout year was one a half season due to the first lockout. at the time, i think most assumed (like with zhamnov) that he would have fallen to the pack for the rest of the year. but the next five seasons proved otherwise. does he get penalized for playing in a higher scoring era (mostly pre-prime years), or does he get extra points for having his career year interrupted by a lockout? i'd call they cancel each other out.
i voted bondra. my gut told me that. but now that i'm reading arguments and seeing the similarity in stats, i think it's probably naslund. looking at the numbers now, bondra's consistency and longevity aren't quite as strong as i had thought (but he flew under the radar and i just assumed he was up there with 45-50 goals every year). for what bondra did accomplish in terms of longevity and all-star but not post-season all-star play, naslund's peak probably outweighs that.
and it's not like naslund didn't have his share of middle of the road 55-75 point seasons too, though bondra gets some extra points for consistently scoring more goals.
Would love to vote Naslund, who at his peak was a much better player, but, thinking about it, I'd bet Bondra's more likely to make it into the Hall of Fame someday (I'm not saying he'll make it, but it wouldn’t be totally outlandish if he did—he was arguably better than Ciccarelli, at least in the regular season).
Between the two lockouts, Bondra scored more goals than anyone not named Jagr (he had more than Selanne, Sakic, Shanahan, and Sundin during that span, and in fewer games to boot). And I'd love to know how many non-HOFers have 6 top-ten finishes in goals… doubt there are too many. His assist totals were low, but realistically, who was there to pass to on those Caps teams back in the late '90s? There was Bondra, then Oates or Pivonka at center and… the legendary Steve Konowalchuk?
Naslund had a few years where he was a middling first-liner on a miserable team, then four truly elite years (2000-'04) then four sad post-lockout years as a liability who got way too much ice time and wouldn't play defense or venture anywhere near high-traffic areas. I've always been a Naslund fan, but I'm not sure that's enough to outweigh nearly a decade of elite play from Bondra.
Tough one here. You have one player who hit an amazing peak where he rivaled Forsberg as the best player in the game and the other beats him in consistency and longevity.
I think at the end of the day you have to go with Bondra. He was a legit sniper in his time. He did lead the NHL in goals twice and I know he was a one trick pony (which ties into his brutal Hart voting) but he was a strong scorer for almost a decade. Naslund was a late bloomer and then flamed out when he was, 31-32 years old? He was almost the NHL's poster boy and then he was a mere afterthought after the lockout.
For almost all of the 1990s Bondra was a feared sniper. He also hit the 500 goals category in almost exclusively the dead puck era. I know he did little else but honestly, what did Naslund do outside of those three great seasons?
As for the playoffs, well, neither player is one you would brag about. However, Bondra played in more games and went to one final in 1998. He didn't carry the offensive load for the Caps that you'd have hoped for, but it still is a better run than anything Naslund did.
Bonzai Bondra all day...Peter was the modern day Mike Bossy. He just had a knack for scoring goals.
bondra was NEVER an elite player. That's why this question is interesting. It's 4 years of elite play from Naslund vs 10 years of very good play from Bondra
Seasons over 60 points:
Bondra was not a consistent player at all. He was erratic as hell and had seasons of 38 and 43 points dead in the prime years of his career.
People always seem to forget Naslunds excellence from 1998-2001, when he led bad Vancouver teams in scoring all 3 years and was an excellent first line player. I'd argue his 2000-01 season should also be considered elite as he was in with a shot for 50 goals before breaking his leg late in the season.
Bondra's slight edge in goalscoring is nullified by Naslund's massive edge in all-around offensive play.
Playoffs are a wash - Bondra had a longer run in '98 but really wasn't very good that year.
Seems that Bondra is really hurt by his low points production/playmaking. To be honest, what he should do there, when he was the only truly elite sniper in the pack? Capitals system was "pass it to Bondra" and that's it - he did what he was supposed to do. He utilized his skills right way.
He had deadly shots (both wrist and slap) and was fastest skater back then, he defeated even Bure in skills competition, if it means something to you.
TDMM have said he was never an elite. What the game of hockey is about? Scoring goals. Let me ask you something: how many pure goal scorers is out there now? Three, maybe five... Kovalchuk, Gaborik (obvious: if healthy), Ovechkin and maybe Heatley. How many playmakers is there: twenty? Thirty? To be an elite in goal scoring is much harder than racking up points. i never hear anybody to penalize Oates or Thornton for their goal scoring. Everybody does what he is good at and to be good - elite - in scoring goals is harder than collecting second assists on power play.
Naslund was much more PP-reliant (scored nearly 40% of his points on PP, while Bondra scored just 31% of his).
Bondra led his team in goals 8 times, and 5 times in points (and twice more he finished 2nd by 1 point). Nalsund led his team in goals 6 times and in points 7 times. No edge there whatsoever.
Using arbitrary 60-point cutoff (which happens to be one of those that favor Naslund) is hilarious.
100+ - Naslund 1 Bondra 0
90+ - Naslund 2 Bondra 0
80+ - Naslund 3 Bondra 3
70+ - Naslund 5 Bondra 6
60+ - Naslund 8 Bondra 6
50+ - Naslund 10 Bondra 9
40+ - Naslund 12 Bondra 12
30+ - Naslund 13 Bondra 14
Bondra has adjusted PPG of 0.96, Naslund of 0.94. Better offense my ass.
Bondra has superior adjusted +/-, played much more on PK, and wasn't a creampuff like Naslund. He was better at everything but playmaking.
As for playoffs, Bondra has a run, Naslund doesn't. Bondra had four PPG playoffs, Naslund 1.
People are too keen here to look at an aberration, a perfect storm in a teacup for Naslund and declare it a superior peak, and then somehow use this argument to declare Naslund as superior. Hogwash.
hmm, i may have flip-flopped again. this is a really thought-provoking poll. on the one hand, bondra had a bunch of "average" 55-75 point years in his prime. naslund had those too outside of his peak. but bondra was still putting up 30 goals in those years, where naslund off-peak was usually around 25.
on the other hand, if the question is really a three or four year peak vs. a lengthy prime and the 500 goal club, shouldn't that three or four year peak have been historically good, which naslund's peak wasn't? for example, most of us would put ovechkin's first four years above bondra's entire career. we'd take bure's injury interrupted career over bondra's entire career. but where do you draw the line? where would milan hejduk be relative to these two? patrik elias?
Naslund, even if that peak was a few short years he was unquestionably one of the top three players in the league. Something that Bondra can never attribute to. Furthermore Bondra's playmaking was minimal (34g 9a in '95) , his defensive play was cringeworthy at best,l and he just wasn't consistent.
This is a fairly good poll, and closer than they're 3 best scoring finishes would make it look. Playmaking was certainly not what Bondra excelled in, but at the same time he played with people who really couldn't score. Also, I never knew he beat Bure in a skills competition, doesn't surprise me though because based on pure skill, specifically skating, stickhandling, shot, he looked about as good as it gets. He was like a bigger, stronger, poor man's Bure IMO. That said, edge has to go to Naslund for me. Naslund really was one of the best skilled players I've seen as well in his prime, and his overall career including his prime was better than Bondra's.
This close? Come on, they aren't that far apart in career value - produced around the same amount of points - and NÃ¤slund got a much better prime. Playoffs are basically a wash. I'm voting for Markus.
I see Naslund is now winning, but I take back what I said about it not being close... it is close.
Separate names with a comma.