Teemu Selänne vs John Bucyk
- Thread starter Ziostilon
- Start date
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Is Paul Kariya a lock? Selanne basically had the same career as Paul Kariya prior to 2006-07. Having such a good regular season late in his career combined with finally winning the Cup (albeit as a support player in the playoffs) probably pushed Selanne over the edge. I don't know if I would call him a "lock" though.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Because you're taking career statistics out of context. Five years in Selanne's career were with a very serious leg injury that he didn't have corrected until 2005. Looking at his season-by-season numbers, there is a visible decline starting in 2000, and then a sudden jump back to elite levels after surgery. His career points-per-game isn't affected too badly because he played great hockey for many years, enough so that it outweighs his regular season play in 2000-2004.
His playoff points-per-game, however, does not see the same balance. 28 of his 105 playoff games were on his bad leg, when he wasn't the 1.063 points-per-game player that his career regular season numbers suggest. Looking exclusively at the 2001, 2003, and 2004 regular seasons (the years that led to those 28 playoff games), Selanne was posting 0.678 points-per-game.
More than that, Selanne played an additional 19 playoff games after the 2007 season, when he was a 37/38 year-old player who could no longer get a point-per-game average in the regular season. In those 19 playoff games (14 of which were against #1 seed San Jose and #2 seed Detroit in 2009), Selanne only had 0.526 points-per-game.
And assuming we agree not to expect his 35/36 year-old body to hold up after an entire season the way it did in his prime, there's another 37 of his 105 playoff games.
So, that's 84 of his 105 playoff games that were clearly out of his prime (1992-1999) that bring his points-per-game down severely. How could you expect his career playoff points-per-game to rival his career regular season points-per-game when he played only 20% of his playoff career before the age of 30, while he played just short of 50% of his regular season before the age of 30? It's all about context.
jepjepjoo
Registered User
- Dec 31, 2002
- 4,726
- 2,033
Top10 seasons points:
1.Selanne 136
2.Selanne 109
3.Selanne 108
3.Kariya 108
5.Selanne 107
6.Kariya 101
7.Kariya 99
8.Selanne 94
9.Selanne 90
10.Selanne 86
10.Kariya 86
top10 seasons goals:
1.Selanne 76
2.Selanne 52
3.Selanne 51
4.Kariya 50
5.Selanne 48
6.Selanne 47
7.Kariya 44
8. Kariya 42
9. Selanne 40
10. Selanne 40
top5 finishes in the league in goals:
Selanne 5 (1,1,1,2,3)
Kariya 1 (4)
top5 finishes in the league in points
Selanne 4 (2,2,5,5)
Kariya 3 (3,3,4)
Career:
Selanne 589g 635a 1224p
Kariya 388g 565a 953p
One of the players is a lock HHOF and the other is not.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Faulty logic there.
Before the 70's, scoring 60 points was like scoring 90 points in the modern era because the game was much more defensive than even the dead puck era, as well as them only playing 70 games a season holding the totals down.
As you might have noticed, Bucyk was a top scorer several times before Orr and Esposito hit town(yes, 55-66 points was indeed enough to get you into 7th-9th in scoring back then. Modern equivalents would be 90-100 points), despite the fact that the bruins were the worst team in the league(Much worse than anything Selanne ever had to play with)
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
It's a What If? argument, but if he had that surgery in 2000 instead of 2005, his career might have been in the discussion with theirs, just as his peak is. From 1992-1999 (his last healthy season), he had more goals than anyone and placed #2 in points between those same two players. Injuries are part of hockey, and Jagr and Sakic deserve to be rated higher than Selanne, but to paraphrase, we're talking about Teemu Selanne, not Pierre Turgeon or Mark Recchi here.
Dark Shadows said:
How would you rate Selanne's 1998 on the one-point-out-of-last Western Conference Mighty Ducks?
For the record, Bucyk's Bruins were substantially worse than those Mighty Ducks relative to the rest of the league, but their average offensive lineup were comparable to the Kariya-less Mighty Ducks in my opinion. Occasionally, they'd finish with a less than horrible GF total while still residing in the basement.
Last edited:
jepjepjoo
Registered User
- Dec 31, 2002
- 4,726
- 2,033
You might have noticed that Bucyk played in the original six era pre Esposito&Orr. It´s a bit easier to be in the top20 in scoring when the top 20 covers 21% of the leagues regular players as opposed to todays game where it covers 3,7% of the players.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
If you ignore the freak 92-93 season, which Kariya wasn't lucky enough to take part in, their finishes are very very similar.
Arselona
Registered User
- Nov 9, 2007
- 586
- 274
That would be sort of unfair considering it was one of Selanne's best seasons. Freak season or not, he still scored more goals than anyone else and was selected to 1st All Star team.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
More goals than anyone not named Mogilny
Selanne was tied for the league in goals and was 5th in points. That's what matters. I didn't mean to ignore the season entirely. But those 132 points and 76 goals really need to be taken with a grain of salt. It really wasn't a better year than some of Selanne or Kariya's late 90s seasons.
Arselona
Registered User
- Nov 9, 2007
- 586
- 274
Interesting. Can you name a player with similar career (taking in count SCs, individual awards, career numbers, All Star selections etc.) who hasn't been inducted despite being eligible. I'd think Luc Robitaille is a sort of comparable player, though somewhat less heralded during his playing career.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Pavel Bure is a better player who hasn't (yet) been inducted.
He lacks Selanne's Cup, but his 1994 playoff run was better than anything Selanne did in the playoffs.
Arselona
Registered User
- Nov 9, 2007
- 586
- 274
I disagree. Bure was better goal scorer but that's about it. Selanne's surprising longevity also has to weigh in when considering the "betterness".
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Yeah, Selanne's longevity is the one thing he has on Bure. Bure was as good or better than Selanne at everything while they played. But you're right, longevity does matter.
Honestly, I think Bure has more elite seasons than Selanne. Selanne has a lot of average seasons where he was hobbled but playing.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
What makes you rate Bure higher?
Goals - Selanne (1,1,1,2,3,10); Bure (1,1,1,3,5)
Assists - Selanne (4,7,9,9); Bure (No Top 10)
Points - Selanne (2,2,5,5,7,8); Bure (2,3,5,7)
All-Star - Selanne (1,1,2,2); Bure (1,2,2)
Does one deep playoff run in his prime (and the stats that come with it) outweigh 150 career goals, 300 career assists, 450 career points, and better statistical placements relative to their peers? It's not like Bure played defense like Bucyk...
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Playoffs, Hart voting record, watching them play.
Two of Selanne's "wins" in goals were really ties, whereas two of Bure's wins were by huge margins. Not all 1sts are created equally.
Anyway, I think there's a valid argument for either Selanne or Bure, depending on what you value. But if Bure isn't in yet, Selanne is not a lock. I think it's likely he'll get in very soon, as the HOF values (overvalues in my opinion) accumulative numbers and Stanley Cups, but Selanne is certainly no first ballot lock.
Adjusted points, for what it's worth (hockey-reference.com)
1998-99 Selänne 122
1998-99 Kariya 115
1996-97 Selänne 113
1992-93 Selänne 107
1970-71 Bucyk 106
1995-96 Kariya 104
1997-98 Bure 104
1995-96 Selänne 103
1996-97 Kariya 103
1999-00 Bure 103
2000-01 Bure 100
1997-98 Selänne 99
1993-94 Bure 98
2006-07 Selänne 96
1999-00 Kariya 94
1999-00 Selänne 92
2002-03 Kariya 90
1992-93 Bure 89
2005-06 Selänne 88
1972-73 Bucyk 86
1998-99 Selänne 122
1998-99 Kariya 115
1996-97 Selänne 113
1992-93 Selänne 107
1970-71 Bucyk 106
1995-96 Kariya 104
1997-98 Bure 104
1995-96 Selänne 103
1996-97 Kariya 103
1999-00 Bure 103
2000-01 Bure 100
1997-98 Selänne 99
1993-94 Bure 98
2006-07 Selänne 96
1999-00 Kariya 94
1999-00 Selänne 92
2002-03 Kariya 90
1992-93 Bure 89
2005-06 Selänne 88
1972-73 Bucyk 86
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Both of those large margin wins came after 1999, when Selanne's leg made him a 33 goal-scorer, and there were no other elite goal scorers to close the gap.
And if you want to take away credit for Selanne's "wins," remember that in his 2nd place finish in 1997, he finished one goal behind Tkachuk in three fewer games. In his 3rd place finish in 2007, the two players ahead of him won because of short-handed goals (the Ducks no longer needed Selanne on the penalty kill because they had the Pahlsson line). Bure's 3rd place finish in 1998 saw him play 9 more games than Selanne and still lose the race by a goal. His 5th place finish in 1993 had him trailing Selanne and Mogilny by 16 goals.
Not all 1st place finishes are equal, but the same goes for top 10 finishes in general.
As for the Hart voting record, Selanne's is significantly better. They each have a single nomination (3rd place). Bure had Hart votes in 1994 (12th), 2000 (3rd), and 2001 (9th). Selanne's had Hart votes in 1993 (6th), 1996 (21st), 1997 (5th), 1998 (3rd), 1999 (5th), 2006 (14th), and 2007 (9th). If you look exclusively top three, top five, or top ten, I don't see how you figure Bure rates higher in this category.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
I am, and have always been of the mind that great in the original 6 era is equal to being great in any era. I watched Bucyk be one of the best players in the Original 6 era, and be one of the best into his 40's well into post-Expansion era
We are not just talking about him being top 20 in scoring in the original 6. We are talking about him being top 7-9 in scoring, while playing on the absolute worst team in the league against the likes of Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau, Stan Mikita, Andy Bathgate, Frank Mahovlich, Henri Richard, etc etc
Or are you going to try to claim Gordie Howe's top 5 finishes are a result of a smaller league?
Dark Shadows
Registered User
And its not worth much, as Hockey-reference.com's method of adjusting stats is questionable.
Bucyk had several terrific top scoring finishes before the 70's, and their method does not pro-rate to 82 games seasons.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
So you're using Selanne's injury to try to downplay Bure's amazing goal scoring seasons to show Selanne is better? That's pretty circular don't you think?
The "Selanne didn't score as may goals because he didn't kill penalties" is equally as silly. Less time on the PK = more time at even strength = better opportunity to score goals.
Another point in Bure's favor - he never played with a teammate nearly as good as him (Mogilny during an off year is probably the closests). Whereas Selanne spent much of his prime playing give and go with Kariya. Now, I do think the teammate effect is overrated by some, but when you are primarily a goal scorer, you will put up more assists when you play with another elite goal scorer.
As for the Hart record, I forgot about Selanne's 3rd place finish. Looking at all their finishes, Selanne does come out ahead. I was wrong on this point. Though frankly, I think Bure would have been a valid choice for the Hart in 2000. Bure's 2000 was better than any of Selanne's seasons. The only advantage Selanne has on Bure is longevity.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Really? That's um, pretty useless then. Why even bother adjusting stats if you aren't going to adjust to length of the season?
Even good adjusted stats will make numbers from seasons like 92-93 seem better, when star players score more than usual compared to the goals per game average around the league.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Well, Adjusted stats were never meant to be taken at face value.
Most people around here understand that they are merely a "Bridge the gap" tool, to help explain things like why Gordie Howe only has one 100 point season to the kids coming in saying "OMG, Ovechkin is better, he has so many more 100 point seasons already!!!".
The people who try to force feed them as cement arguments are the one's devaluing the use of adjusted stats.
Umm, yes it does.
"Adjusted goals
We will use Gordie Howe's 1952-53 season as an example, a season in which Howe scored a career-high 49 goals.
The first step in this process is to calculate a schedule adjustment for each player. In order to do this, divide 82 by the number of scheduled games per team. In 1952-53 the NHL played a 70-game schedule, so the schedule adjustment is 82 / 70 = 1.17.
The roster size adjustment is computed by dividing the maximum roster size for the season in question by 18. Teams were allowed to carry a maximum of 16 skaters at home and 15 skaters on the road during the 1952-53 season, so the roster size adjustment is 15.5 / 18 = 0.86.
Next calculate the era adjustment, which we will do by dividing 6 by the league average goals per game without the player in question. In 1952-53 a total of 1006 goals were scored in 210 games. Without Howe this works out to (1006 - 49) / 210 = 4.56 goals per game, so our era adjustment is 6 / 4.56 = 1.32.
Finally, we put everything together. Take the player's actual goals and multiply by the adjustments we computed above. For Howe in 1952-53 this is 49 * 1.17 * 0.86 * 1.32 = 65 adjusted goals."
"Adjusted Assists
Once again we will use Howe's 1952-53 season, when Howe had 46 assists, as an example.
First compute the schedule and roster size adjustments as above. The era adjustment is found by dividing 10 (which is the product of 6 goals per game and 1.67 assists per goal) by the league average assists per game without the player in question. In 1952-53 a total of 1513 assists were awarded in 210 games. Without Howe this works out to (1513 - 46) / 210 = 6.99 assists per game, so our era adjustment is 10 / 6.99 = 1.43.
Adjusted assists are then computed by multiplying the player's actual assists by the three adjustments. For Howe we get 46 * 1.17 * 0.86 * 1.43 = 66 adjusted assists."
"Adjusted Points
Adjusted points are simply the sum of adjusted goals and adjusted assists."
What's questionable about that?
Last edited:
