Mike Bossy vs Pavel Bure who's the better goal scorer all time?

[Gorskyontario]

Based on what? Based on the fact Bossy won Stanley Cups and Bure didn't? That's due to the randomness of the draft and the way players are traded and has nothing to do with much else. Wasn't there a possibility that the Habs would get Dionne? Well they didn't and the rest is history. You can make all these different stories about how he didn't want it enough and that's why he didn't win it. You can make similar stories about how Jagr was dependent on Lemieux and how he couldn't lead himself or how McDavid doesn't have the heart but at the end of the day the league is set up in a way where it's randomness that decides whether you win or not.

Based on Bure playing zero defense and giving almost zero effort for more than half of his career.

Yes. Shame! SHAME ON PAVEL BURE for scoring 58 and 59 goals in the heart of the dead puck era!

Did you watch him in those florida years or just with the canucks? He was terrible even with those goal totals.

 

[MadLuke]

Did you watch him in those florida years or just with the canucks? He was terrible even with those goal totals.

Why and how did the Panthers jumped from 30 wins -18 team to a 43 wins +35 playoff teams if he was terrible ?

The only other big change is Jovanovski becoming Spacek and Burke-McLean becoming Vernom-Kidd.

Hart voter did seem to think the franchise turn around was on Bure.

 

[FinLurker]

Why and how did the Panthers jumped from 30 wins -18 team to a 43 wins +35 playoff teams if he was terrible ?

The only other big change is Jovanovski becoming Spacek and Burke-McLean becoming Vernom-Kidd.

Hart voter did seem to think the franchise turn around was on Bure.

How Bure's Florida seasons differ for example Selanne's 1997-98 season when he scored over 50 goals. Next best scorers were Rucchin, Mironov and Young. Arguably better season than Bure's since that team was worse than what Florida had. And by that logic Dennis Maruk and Jacques Richard should be also on the pedestal.

 

[MadLuke]

How Bure's Florida seasons differ for example Selanne's 1997-98 season when he scored over 50 goals.

I am not sure why it would differ ?

You are comparing him to one of the best player ever having one of his best season of his career.... Sure you can have a good season without good result, if your team loose Paul Kariya. A bit like with how much the Panthers got depleted in 2001, Bure regardless of his season would have seen a team success decline.

The point being made here, is that little changed in a good direction for the Panthers outside Bure vs not-Bure and the team jumped by nearly 50% its winning, making it hard for the claim that he was bad at winning hockey game despite his goals scoring, what explain the Panthers turnaround then, just a coincidence ?

And by that logic Dennis Maruk and Jacques Richard should be also on the pedestal.

How so, the caps were a 27 wins team in 1980, when Maruk score 60-136 points in 1982 they became a.... 26 wins team.

I mean -7 on that team was indeed really good, expected for someone achieving to score 76 even strenght points.

 

[jigglysquishy]

One day Denis Maruk is going to come on this forum and wonder why everyone shit talks him.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Why and how did the Panthers jumped from 30 wins -18 team to a 43 wins +35 playoff teams if he was terrible ?

The only other big change is Jovanovski becoming Spacek and Burke-McLean becoming Vernom-Kidd.

Hart voter did seem to think the franchise turn around was on Bure.

Why and how did they go from 43 wins to 20 wins the year after?

 

[MadLuke]

Why and how did they go from 43 wins to 20 wins the year after?

List of players with larges minutes in 2000 that did not had large minutes for the Panthers in 2001, mix of injury-trade often both:

Spacek, their biggest minutes D left.
Kozlov, injury
Withney, injury
Simpsons, injury
Mellanby
Parrish

If you look at that team time on ice by games, a lot of the names of the bottom half will have played 60 or less games that season.

Do you suggest, specially considering Bure was terrible and hurting the team, they went from 30 to 43 wins ? mostly puck luck? Mike Vernom > Burke

 

[sr edler]

Why and how did they go from 43 wins to 20 wins the year after?

Because I don't know, hockey's a team game and the overall team was infinitely worse. But if you watched it closely at the time, you would know more. From the overall character of your posts (exclusively one-sentence posts, which indicates phone use, which indicates someone young) it seems perhaps you didn't catch it up close at the time. But alas, I might be wrong here, perhaps you're an old wise owl, and if that's the case I apologise. But Bure came in cold during the 98–99 season, without training camp and with new teammates, and immediately scored at 1.40 clip, and the team rose briefly from the ashes. There was a memorable game during this stretch where Florida played Colorado, Bure had a hat-trick on Patrick Roy, they were up 5-1 after two rounds, but then he (Bure) stepped on a puck and missed the 3rd period and the Panthers completely collapsed and lost 5-7 after a 6 points by Forsberg. This was the turn-of-the-century Panthers in a nutshell. But yes, even with Bure they were still flawed (obviously).

 

[Gorskyontario]

Because I don't know, hockey's a team game and the overall team was infinitely worse. But if you watched it closely at the time, you would know more. From the overall character of your posts (exclusively one-sentence posts, which indicates phone use, which indicates someone young) it seems perhaps you didn't catch it up close at the time. But alas, I might be wrong here, perhaps you're an old wise owl, and if that's the case I apologise. But Bure came in cold during the 98–99 season, without training camp and with new teammates, and immediately scored at 1.40 clip, and the team rose briefly from the ashes. There was a memorable game during this stretch where Florida played Colorado, Bure had a hat-trick on Patrick Roy, they were up 5-1 after two rounds, but then he (Bure) stepped on a puck and missed the 3rd period and the Panthers completely collapsed and lost 5-7 after a 6 points by Forsberg. This was the turn-of-the-century Panthers in a nutshell. But yes, even with Bure they were still flawed (obviously).

Ok, none of that explains why Bure put in zero defensive effort during his time with the panthers.

List of players with larges minutes in 2000 that did not had large minutes for the Panthers in 2001, mix of injury-trade often both:

Spacek, their biggest minutes D left.
Kozlov, injury
Withney, injury
Simpsons, injury
Mellanby
Parrish

If you look at that team time on ice by games, a lot of the names of the bottom half will have played 60 or less games that season.

Do you suggest, specially considering Bure was terrible and hurting the team, they went from 30 to 43 wins ? mostly puck luck? Mike Vernom > Burke

Bure was part of the reason they were terrible. Regardless of his goal scoring ability, he was a net negative at that point in his career.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Bossy had an incredibly quick release with great accuracy and great hockey sense.

He was dangerous on the rush, a fast skater with hands and a shot. Better than Hull or Robitaille in that way. But when I think of a signature Bossy goal, one that he could score like nobody else, it's a goal off a pass from a teammate along the boards where he skates to open ice, receives the pass in stride, and puts it in the back of the net all in one motion.

While Bossy was always the #1 option for his team when he was on the ice, he didn't float around in the circle and wait for the pass. He worked in the corners and played like any other winger, but he had a great sense of timing for when to break for the scoring area to receive a pass. And he shot the puck immediately, mid-stride if needed, no gathering the puck or setting his feet.

Bossy went hard to the net as well, and took a lot of hits. It probably shortened his career.

For a great goal scorer, he didn't take anything off the table for his teammates either. Trottier, Brent Sutter, and John Tonelli all scored 40+ goals with Bossy and never scored over 35 without him. His impact on the team was huge. The Islanders went from an above average offensive team to a great offensive team in his rookie season. He immediately became the #1 option on the power play, and the Islanders set a league record for the most efficient power play in his rookie season.

Young Fraser Minten just put on a nice little demonstration that made me think of this post.

 

[MadLuke]

Bure was part of the reason they were terrible. Regardless of his goal scoring ability, he was a net negative at that point in his career.

Still not read any speculation of why they won so much more in 2000 ?

As from being terrible and hurting them that year, minus 2 with that much ice time on that team was probably above average, considering the team was -28 or something like that

 

[Overrated]

Based on Bure playing zero defense and giving almost zero effort for more than half of his career.

Ok I haven't seen that much of full Bure games (except for his playoff run and the Olympics) but it always seemed like he was out there playing physical, forechecking etc. to his ability of course as he wasn't a huge guy. Him playing absolutely 0 defense is not how I remember him at all....

Is there a way to quantify these claims without telling me I should watch a hundred more games of his? He is positive in +/- in all competitions career wide.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Ok I haven't seen that much of full Bure games (except for his playoff run and the Olympics) but it always seemed like he was out there playing physical, forechecking etc. to his ability of course as he wasn't a huge guy. Him playing absolutely 0 defense is not how I remember him at all....

For the first few years in Vancouver he didn't play like that. From 96/97ish onward he clearly didn't care. It was clear he didn't care because I saw how he played in the early 90s being a Jets fan.

I'm sure knee injuries played a part, but whenever I caught him on TV in the late 90s/early 00's he looked awful unless he was on a breakaway.

Still not read any speculation of why they won so much more in 2000 ?

Still not seen any explanation why they fell off so badly in 01/02 despite Bure still scoring.

 

[MadLuke]

Still not seen any explanation why they fell off so badly in 01/02 despite Bure still scoring.

Well yes I made a list of the injury issues, key (for them) player they did lose, that was (obviously ?) my explanation for it.

So what is yours ?

 

[Gorskyontario]

Well yes I made a list of the injury issues, key (for them) player they did lose, that was (obviously ?) my explanation for it.

So what is yours ?

I genuinely don't understand what you're attempting to ask me

 

[MadLuke]

I genuinely don't understand what you're attempting to ask me

It is very simple, why did the Panthers go from a 30 win team (would have been worst without Bure 11 games there, where they had an above .500 stretch) to a 43 win playoff team when Bure arrived ?

Coincidence, puck-luck, some other relevant change ?

I cannot believe you do not understand that question, for like 9 message in a row now.

 

[Gorskyontario]

It is very simple, why did the Panthers go from a 30 win team (would have been worst without Bure 11 games there, where they had an above .500 stretch) to a 43 win playoff team when Bure arrived ?

Coincidence, puck-luck, some other relevant change ?

I cannot believe you do not understand that question, for like 9 message in a row now.

Why is that relevant to his overall performance, especially since they were terrible the following years.

I'm genuinely perplexed as to what your point may be.

 

[MadLuke]

, especially since they were terrible the following years.

While loosing a lot of keys players games that following year, the forward with the most minutes after Bure the following year were Niedermayer, Nilson, Jokinen yet to be cook, Sillinger that played only 55 games.

The year before it was Kozlov, Niedermayer, Whitney-Mellanby-Parrish.

It is possible for a certain amount of missing player (FA, trade or injuries) for the team to fall down right after. And it is also possible for Bure to have a really good first year and a bad second one, when there was nothing to play for anymore, outside getting goals in.

Why is that relevant to his overall performance,

Because, a claim that the player scoring 60 goals while being +25, maybe was helping is hockey team win (i.e. being good at it) can easily be made, considering how much he turned the team around.

If not him, why did they win so much more ?

I'm genuinely perplexed as to what your point may be.

You are really perplexed ? I doubt that possible.

It is obviously counterintuitive for the single big change is a new player, a player that play the most minutes by, the team then win 50% more game, while he is apparently a negative to win hockey game.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'm genuinely perplexed as to what your point may be.

He's repeatedly answered you in good faith. Stop playing around.

 

[Gorskyontario]

While loosing a lot of keys players games that following year, the forward with the most minutes after Bure the following year were Niedermayer, Nilson, Jokinen yet to be cook, Sillinger that played only 55 games.

The year before it was Kozlov, Niedermayer, Whitney-Mellanby-Parrish.

It is possible for a certain amount of missing player (FA, trade or injuries) for the team to fall down right after. And it is also possible for Bure to have a really good first year and a bad second one, when there was nothing to play for anymore, outside getting goals in.


Because, a claim that the player scoring 60 goals while being +25, maybe was helping is hockey team win (i.e. being good at it) can easily be made, considering how much he turned the team around.

If not him, why did they win so much more ?


You are really perplexed ? I doubt that possible.

It is obviously counterintuitive for the single big change is a new player, a player that play the most minutes by, the team then win 50% more game, while he is apparently a negative to win hockey game.

Well, if the panthers were awful the years before and after, despite Bure having an identical performance in 00/01.


99/00 was a fluke.