Teemu Selänne vs John Bucyk

[canucks4ever]

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.

Bure's 2000 season was better than any of bucyk's seasons, hell bure in 2000 was better than both of Malkin's seasons too. I dont let awards cloud my judgement. If jagr was around during the malkin/ovy days, he would rob them of all thier hardware too.

 

[Dark Shadows]

So Getzlaf with 17p, Perry with 15p and Penner with 8p were elite, but Selanne with 15p was somehow just pure crap?

The bigger issue was that Selanne's PPG dropped from a team leading 48 goal, 94 points and 0.59 goals per game, 1.15 points per game player to a secondary scorer caliber player. 0.23 goals per game and 0.71 points per game in the playoffs was a huge drop. He was expected to lead the team, but like always, faltered in the playoffs, becoming a passenger on that cup winning team. He has a history of such disappearances.

Out of the 21 games they played in those playoffs the year he won the cup, Selanne had 2, maybe 3 great, superstars caliber games in which he was playing like a winner(Game 4 and 5 against Detroit would be my picks).

Linemate Andy MacDonald was MUCH more of a game breaker, and Getslaf and Perry emerged as the forward leaders, playing the chippy styles required in the playoffs. Pahlsson was indispensable, and nobody would have taken Selanne over him in the playoffs that year. Both Pronger and Niedermayer were well above him in playoff value, as was Giguere. These were the key players.

Travis Moen and Rob Niedermayer were both valuable PKers and also played better two way games 5 on 5 and both scored very well considering they were not getting team Leading forward PP time Selanne was eating up(The same applies to Beauchemin). All great roleplayers, and arguably better than Selanne, but this is where he ranks among the team players that year in the postseason.

Selanne was a passenger, on that cup team. Not a key component.

 

[seventieslord]

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.

But in both cases, the NHL contained the top 0.00whatever% of the world's best hockey players, give or take a few.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

But how well do you remember Selanne's 1998 though if you forgot about it entirely earlier? Hockey writers at the time credited the Mighty Ducks' lack of a playoff berth to him not winning the Hart.

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.

That would certainly bridge the gap in assists (1998 is proof), but there's still the other 150 goals/points by which Bure trails Selanne. Of course, if you take away Kariya, Selanne's Hart voting record would have improved and his trophy case wouldn't have been any lighter.

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?

Considering Selanne went from placing at or immediately near the top of the list until his injury knocked him back down to Earth relative to not only Bure but the rest of the league, I'd say it's a fair point. Not to mention Jagr, who along with Sakic was Bure's main competition in 2001, missed 11 more games than Bure in 2000. Suppose he doesn't miss those games: Bure's lead may end up dropping to 8 (Jagr's pace) instead of 14. Then we can look at the effect that the Thrashers and Lightning had in Florida's division (313 and 310 GA respectively; third place was 275) with Bure's 10 goals in 10 games against them and really break this bad boy down. Another day, another thread, perhaps?


EDIT:

The bigger issue was that Selanne's PPG dropped from a team leading 48 goal, 94 points and 0.59 goals per game, 1.15 points per game player to a secondary scorer caliber player. 0.23 goals per game and 0.71 points per game in the playoffs was a huge drop.

It was more of a case of teams having the book on the Anaheim powerplay. 25 of Selanne's goals that year were on the powerplay, because as slow as he was, he still had a good shot. Every team approached their series against the Ducks knowing they had to leave a man on Selanne in the left circle. He was held without a powerplay goal all playoff long.

 

[Dark Shadows]

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?

Well, there is the problem then. They are adjusting down player totals by Roster size, which is a nice idea, but over exaggerates the amount of points chopped. Ignoring the very earliest days of Hockey(Which is what these Roster size adjustments were meant for, back when guys played the entire game without sitting), In the original 6 The top players logged near the same amount of icetime irrespective of the size of the Rosters. Chopping 15% off their totals just because the roster is smaller is a less useful addition to adjusted stats.

Bucyk was 7th overall in scoring in 1962-63, and they adjust him to 72 points, yet while being 7th overall in scoring in 72-73, they adjust him to 86. That is almost a 20% difference.

It is uses like this that are why you are never supposed to take Adjusted statistics at face value.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But how well do you remember Selanne's 1998 though if you forgot about it entirely earlier? Hockey writers at the time credited the Mighty Ducks' lack of a playoff berth to him not winning the Hart.

"Hockey writers?" What hockey writers? Hasek and Jagr were clearly the class of the league that year.

What Selanne did without Kariya for most of the year was impressive... but not enough. And no, I don't have all the third place finishes for the Hart memorized, especially when they are a long distance behind the first two. I did err in just assuming that Selanne was never a finalist without checking first, though. That was lazy of me.

That would certainly bridge the gap in assists (1998 is proof), but there's still the other 150 goals/points by which Bure trails Selanne. Of course, if you take away Kariya, Selanne's Hart voting record would have improved and his trophy case wouldn't have been any lighter.

Again, the gap is due to Selanne's longevity, the only advantage Selanne has over Bure. (Playing at a high level in high scoring 92-93, before Bure emerged didn't hurt either).

Considering Selanne went from placing at or immediately near the top of the list until his injury knocked him back down to Earth relative to not only Bure but the rest of the league, I'd say it's a fair point. Not to mention Jagr, who along with Sakic was Bure's main competition in 2001, missed 11 more games than Bure in 2000. Suppose he doesn't miss those games: Bure's lead may end up dropping to 8 (Jagr's pace) instead of 14. Then we can look at the effect that the Thrashers and Lightning had in Florida's division (313 and 310 GA respectively; third place was 275) with Bure's 10 goals in 10 games against them and really break this bad boy down. Another day, another thread, perhaps?

And then break it down more and try to calculate how many more goals Bure would have had if he actually had a good playmaker on his team.

EDIT:



It was more of a case of teams having the book on the Anaheim powerplay. 25 of Selanne's goals that year were on the powerplay, because as slow as he was, he still had a good shot. Every team approached their series against the Ducks knowing they had to leave a man on Selanne in the left circle. He was held without a powerplay goal all playoff long.

interesting.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Interesting that Selanne is winning this in a landslide, when Bucyk is the guy who is going to end up on the Top 100 list.

 

[Dark Shadows]

It was more of a case of teams having the book on the Anaheim powerplay. 25 of Selanne's goals that year were on the powerplay, because as slow as he was, he still had a good shot. Every team approached their series against the Ducks knowing they had to leave a man on Selanne in the left circle. He was held without a powerplay goal all playoff long.

All this says is that Selanne was predictable and was a guy who could be shut down easily for not adapting. If you can do it in the regular season, you should be able to find a way to do it when the checking gets tougher. Selanne was still getting the shots on goal. he was 2nd on his team in shots on goal.

Selanne was not a key player in the Anaheim cup win. He was a passenger.

How often are we going to hear things like "They were covering him fiercely. He had no chance", when it comes to playoff flops? Obviously they were covering Peter Forsberg when he was on the ice too, but he managed to put up the points.

 

[Chased By Trolls]

Well, there is the problem then. They are adjusting down player totals by Roster size, which is a nice idea, but over exaggerates the amount of points chopped. Ignoring the very earliest days of Hockey(Which is what these Roster size adjustments were meant for, back when guys played the entire game without sitting), In the original 6 The top players logged near the same amount of icetime irrespective of the size of the Rosters. Chopping 15% off their totals just because the roster is smaller is a less useful addition to adjusted stats.

Bucyk was 7th overall in scoring in 1962-63, and they adjust him to 72 points, yet while being 7th overall in scoring in 72-73, they adjust him to 86. That is almost a 20% difference.

It is uses like this that are why you are never supposed to take Adjusted statistics at face value.

I'm not sure I agree that they shouldn't adjust for roster size, but let's say for argument's sake that they shouldn't.

In that case his adjusted points in the sixties would look like this (quick math, rounded up):

1960-61 48
1961-62 75
1962-63 84
1963-64 74
1964-65 73
1965-66 69
1966-67 60
1967-68 88
1968-69 75
1969-70 82

As you can see, this still brings him nowhere near Selänne's numbers. (In 1971 they changed the rule to allow 17 skaters so this becomes a lesser issue after that)

You could of course come to a similar conclusion just by comparing their finishes in the scoring (and goal scoring) races, which would show Selänne was much more dominant relative to his peers than Bucyk.

I do of course agree with you that the adjusted numbers should not be taken at face value. The difference in these two players' numbers however is very big even after the "re-adjusting" and that should tell us something.

 

[quoipourquoi]

"Hockey writers?" What hockey writers? Hasek and Jagr were clearly the class of the league that year.

Selanne actually had one more 1st place Hart vote than Jagr and almost stole the 1st Team All-Star selection. The difference was that he was left off of 12 Hart ballots entirely because he didn't make the playoffs and scattered 3-5 on the rest. A lot of people were impressed by his 11 game goal scoring streak.

As far as individual writers, the Detroit Free Press for sure, which I know because that's the one that comes to my house. My official yearbooks are packed away, but if someone has access to theirs and can post excerpts about Selanne's 1998, it could be of some use here, because I believe they said something to the same effect.

What Selanne did without Kariya for most of the year was impressive... but not enough.

For what reasons? 52 goals in 73 games isn't much different than 58 goals in 74 games in a weaker conference and division. Bure had a noticeable jump in goals in Florida from what he was capable of producing in Vancouver in 1998 (who shared a division with Anaheim), but any difference that is not covered by the division can be attributed to increased defensive apathy that allowed for more chances:

"A distant third in the Hart balloting should be the Panthers' Bure, who won the Rocket Richard Trophy as the NHL's leading scorer... But as dynamic as Bure was for Florida, he plays a largely one-dimensional game. He led the league in breakaways mostly due to his blazing speed, but partly because he seldom went deep defensively, instead choosing to hang around the blueline and neutral zone and look for breakout passes." - THN April 1998

Again, the gap is due to Selanne's longevity, the only advantage Selanne has over Bure. (Playing at a high level in high scoring 92-93, before Bure emerged didn't hurt either).

If you're going to argue that Bure didn't emerge, you could say that Selanne had yet to emerge as well since everyone acknowledges that his 1997-1999 were better than his 1993.

And then break it down more and try to calculate how many more goals Bure would have had if he actually had a good playmaker on his team.

Selanne didn't have one in 1998 either, and that's the year of his that is in question.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I'm not sure I agree that they shouldn't adjust for roster size, but let's say for argument's sake that they shouldn't.

In that case his adjusted points in the sixties would look like this (quick math, rounded up):

1960-61 48
1961-62 75
1962-63 84
1963-64 74
1964-65 73
1965-66 69
1966-67 60
1967-68 88
1968-69 75
1969-70 82

As you can see, this still brings him nowhere near Selänne's numbers. (In 1971 they changed the rule to allow 17 skaters so this becomes a lesser issue after that)

You could of course come to a similar conclusion just by comparing their finishes in the scoring (and goal scoring) races, which would show Selänne was much more dominant relative to his peers than Bucyk.

I do of course agree with you that the adjusted numbers should not be taken at face value. The difference in these two players' numbers however is very big even after the "re-adjusting" and that should tell us something.

My reasoning for bringing up adjusted stats was not to debate why or why not they should be used, but simply to stall out the silly "Omg, before 71, Bucyk's career high was 69 points", like a 7th place finish means nothing.

Adjusted or not, I think his top 10 scoring finishes would have been equal to today's. In the 90 point range.

 

[quoipourquoi]

All this says is that Selanne was predictable and was a guy who could be shut down easily for not adapting.

He did adapt. He started passing more on the powerplay and became their leading powerplay assist man in the playoffs (he finished fourth in the regular season). In overall assists, he finished second on the team in the playoffs (fourth in the regular season in that category as well).

He and McDonald pretty much just switched roles on the team.

 

[BostonAJ]

This thread has gotten WAY too stat heavy. If anyone out there got to see Bucyk play and can describe his game in comparison to Selanne's...much appreciated.

I find this method much more effective to simply running a career stats check. We can all do that on Wikipedia. You have to watch a player to know their strengths and weaknesses.

My dad was a Bucyk fan and claims he was one of the best left wings ever. He was overshadowed in his career playing with Orr and Espo, but he still swears this is the case. He says he was truly a complete player.

Selanne is outstanding, but he is certainly more one dimensional. At least according to pops. I never really saw him play.

 

[Dark Shadows]

He did adapt. He started passing more on the powerplay and became their leading powerplay assist man in the playoffs (he finished fourth in the regular season). In overall assists, he finished second on the team in the playoffs (fourth in the regular season in that category as well).

He and McDonald pretty much just switched roles on the team.

And yet, his point totals still suffered because he was incapable of playing at the same level as he did in the regular season. Imagine that.

 

[MXD]

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.

I obviously don't oppose this statement.

Jagr and Sakic were shoo-ins, were can't... mwhatever you call it.

Selanne will get in.

That's the difference.

 

[MXD]

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.

Richard Martin is pretty much Selanne who had his career cut short by a freak injury.

 

[jepjepjoo]

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.

Selanne didn´t have more ice time than Heatley or Lecavalier

Selanne 17:42
Heatley 21:02
Lecavalier 22:36

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

So you're saying Selanne is no use as a non-marquee player...because he's a marquee player?

And presumably you'd rather have Bucyk...because he's not as good?

I'd rather have Bucyk because he delivered whatever was needed of him. Selanne is a goal scorer who won't score when the going gets tough. (And for all the people that want to bring up the Olympics, go build your team around Robert Reichel.) Where as Bucyk is always reliable. Plus, he does a better job bringing out the talents of others. I wouldn't want Selanne as a go to guy because he can't handle the job. I couldn't have Selanne as a second line option because that isn't feasible. I wouldn't want Selanne as a complementary guy because he doesn't complement well.

 

[jepjepjoo]

I'd rather have Bucyk because he delivered whatever was needed of him. Selanne is a goal scorer who won't score when the going gets tough. (And for all the people that want to bring up the Olympics, go build your team around Robert Reichel.) Where as Bucyk is always reliable. Plus, he does a better job bringing out the talents of others. I wouldn't want Selanne as a go to guy because he can't handle the job. I wouldn't want Selanne as a complementary guy because he doesn't complement well.

So you are saying Reichel´s 10gp 4g 0a 4p are somehow comparable to Selanne´s 25gp 20g 15a 35p in the olympics??? I don´t get it

I couldn't have Selanne as a second line option because that isn't feasible. I wouldn't want Selanne as a complementary guy because he doesn't complement well.

Uhm ok... Selanne has been on the second line the past 2 years and has been great at it. This season as 39 year old 2nd liner he´s on pace for 44 goals.

Plus, he does a better job bringing out the talents of others

Example: Kunitz had a career high of 6 points and McDonald 30 points before playing with Selanne. Kunitz(27 yo) had 60 with Selanne and McDonald(28yo) had 85.

 

[RorschachWJK]

As a frequent reader of the history section, I've come to respect Nalyd's views on all things hockey. However, this rather intense dislike of Selänne is a bit strange

 

[jepjepjoo]

I'd rather have Bucyk because he delivered whatever was needed of him.

some playoffs:

55-56: 10gp 1g 1a
56-57: 5gp 0g 1a
57-58: 12gp 0g 4a
67-68: 3gp 0g 2a
72-73: 5gp 0g 3a
74-75: 3gp 1g 0a
76-77: 5gp 0g 0a

His playoff stats without Esposit & Orr:

51gp 5g 17a 22p 0.43ppg 0.098gpg

With Espo & Orr:

73gp 36g 45a 81p 1.11ppg 0.49gpg

Difference: 0.68ppg 0.39 gpg

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Hmmm...

I may have to rethink my point...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Quite

some playoffs:

55-56: 10gp 1g 1a
56-57: 5gp 0g 1a
57-58: 12gp 0g 4a
67-68: 3gp 0g 2a
72-73: 5gp 0g 3a
74-75: 3gp 1g 0a
76-77: 5gp 0g 0a

His playoff stats without Esposit & Orr:

51gp 5g 17a 22p 0.43ppg 0.098gpg

With Espo & Orr:

73gp 36g 45a 81p 1.11ppg 0.49gpg

Difference: 0.68ppg 0.39 gpg

Your without/with Esposito and Orr numbers simply are not accurate. Bolded were with Esposito and Orr playoffs.

 

[jepjepjoo]

Your without/with Esposito and Orr numbers simply are not accurate. Bolded were with Esposito and Orr playoffs.

Those seasons are not the ones without Esposito and Orr as you would see if you did a little math. They were just examples of crappy playoffs.

Stats with and without Orr&Esposito are accurate.

edit. In case you can´t do simple math here are the totals of the listed playoffs: 43gp 2g 11a 13p

 

[jepjepjoo]

Again, the gap is due to Selanne's longevity, the only advantage Selanne has over Bure. (Playing at a high level in high scoring 92-93, before Bure emerged didn't hurt either).

Bure was in his 2nd season 92-93 and had 60g 50a and finished 5th in goals? Please explain how he hadn´t emerged