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

Who's the better goal scorer all time Mike Bossy or Pavel Bure?

  • Mike Bossy

    Votes: 88 81.5%
  • Pavel Bure

    Votes: 20 18.5%

  • Total voters
    108

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
31,530
20,603
Bossy gets overrated due to playing entirely in the high scoring era. Most of his 50 goals seasons are more like 40-something goal seasons in an average NHL scoring environment with approximately 3 GPG per team.

When you review the preponderance of the data, it's pretty obvious that Bossy doesn't belong in the conversations he's routinely put into.
His goal finishes are excellent

1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 7th.

That's great stuff, all in a consecutive nine-year period. League was at 18-21 teams, so a player wasn't guaranteed a high finish by default if they were playing first line.

The raw numbers may be popped up by era, but the finishes transcend time. That's the kind of consistency I'm most interested in as opposed to a pretty sounding round number.
 

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
14,418
11,365
His goal finishes are excellent

1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 7th.

That's great stuff, all in a consecutive nine-year period. League was at 18-21 teams, so a player wasn't guaranteed a high finish by default if they were playing first line.

The raw numbers may be popped up by era, but the finishes transcend time. That's the kind of consistency I'm most interested in as opposed to a pretty sounding round number.

Indeed they are excellent, and clearly not top tier.

Ovie:

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,3,3,4,4,5,9

In other words, Ovie has as many Rockets as Bossy has finishes in the top 10, and then 6 more top 10 finishes after that. Bossy was playing against a significantly smaller talent pool.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, for Bobby Hull:

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,5,6

Although Bobby Hull was playing against a smaller talent pool than Bossy was.

Gretzky also exceeds Bossy by this metric:

1,1,1,1,1,4,4,5,6.

Same era obviously.

So I think while Bossy was obviously a great goal scorer, he is objectively not in contention for the greatest or best ever.
 

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
31,530
20,603
Indeed they are excellent, and clearly not top tier.

Ovie:

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,3,3,4,4,5,9

In other words, Ovie has as many Rockets as Bossy has finishes in the top 10, and then 6 more top 10 finishes after that. Bossy was playing against a significantly smaller talent pool.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, for Bobby Hull:

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,5,6

Although Bobby Hull was playing against a smaller talent pool than Bossy was.

Gretzky also exceeds Bossy by this metric:

1,1,1,1,1,4,4,5,6.

Same era obviously.

So I think while Bossy was obviously a great goal scorer, he is objectively not in contention for the greatest or best ever.
I think the history guys around this sub forum care a lot about consistency within prime. Like above all else. And less on longevity. So I think there’s a bit of a natural bias towards the Bossy career archetype.
 

Gorskyontario

Registered User
Feb 18, 2024
617
468
Indeed they are excellent, and clearly not top tier.

Ovie:

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,3,3,4,4,5,9

In other words, Ovie has as many Rockets as Bossy has finishes in the top 10, and then 6 more top 10 finishes after that. Bossy was playing against a significantly smaller talent pool.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, for Bobby Hull:

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,5,6

Although Bobby Hull was playing against a smaller talent pool than Bossy was.

Gretzky also exceeds Bossy by this metric:

1,1,1,1,1,4,4,5,6.

Same era obviously.

So I think while Bossy was obviously a great goal scorer, he is objectively not in contention for the greatest or best ever.

Bossy also played defense and never had 20 assist seasons.
 

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
14,418
11,365
But okay let's discuss.

Goal finishes of 1,1,2,2,2,3,5,7 are better than 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,3,3,4,4,5,9 because ___________.

Truly, I have not experienced a rationale that bridges a gap that wide.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
12,140
6,626
putting up with Bure's style

Esteemed coaches like Tikhonov and Pat Quinn "put up" with his "style" (whatever that's supposed to mean). Supposed hard-ass coach Keenan loved Bure. Bure was trained from his youth by his Olympic swimming dad who was also hard-ass.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,921
10,367
NYC
www.youtube.com
You don't have a point.
Right. This is your point. I'm just re-stating it to you.

And I'm not saying this like Gretzky or Ovechkin or whatever ISN'T a thing you're saying or that those goal finishes or whatever DIDN'T happen. No one is trying to do anything like that. But it's very reasonable to say that Bossy was a better goal scorer than Gretzky because of the game played on the ice. Is it absolutely true? I don't know. It might be, feels right. But the idea that it can just be dismissed out of hand because of a string of 1's and 2's is just not enough...
 

Overrated

Registered User
Jan 16, 2018
1,476
652
If Bossy didn't retire early he likely would have around 900 goals. The NHL was high scoring until the mid 90s, Bossy would have played with Lafontaine as Trottier declined.


The islanders weren't petty like the habs with letting their star players go. There is a possibility Bossy ends up with someone like the Gretzky kings late in his career.
I am not denying that. All I am saying is that using GPG & PPG for players with careers cut short and then comparing them to the mean is dishonest.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
10,766
6,259
Ovechkin plays defense, and his career high for adjusted assists in a season is higher than Bossy's.

Bossy also played for a dynasty.
2006-2011 Ovechkin was solid Assists wise for sure, 313 in only 475 games.

0.66 assist per games, that about #15 in the nhl, like Sedin-Hemsky, just below Stlouis, Richards, Getzlaf, 313 is the 6th most.

Similar to Bossy 6 years stretch of 81 to 86, when he was 7th in assists total and in assist per games.

It is only after that, it get below mediocre for an all-timer, before that he was creating so much offense in generals by is play, the puck was going in a lot.

Next 6 years, #77th in the league in assist, #126th in assist per games among player with 200 games or mores, in a 30 team league, 90 top line forward, 30 #1D, that goes below that mark.

That PA Parenteau, Jordan Staal, assist level of production. And that where the dance of how to present things can do, as Ovechkin first 6 seasons is not that much shorter than Bossy career.

No one look good at their worst moment in a random game (and worst camera angle)

In the playoff:
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,921
10,367
NYC
www.youtube.com
My heavens, what is McDonagh thinking there...? He has 30 feet of ice and a player who committed to a shot block without taking any ice or angle from you. Brutal. Probably a situation where Rangers pointmen are just coached to grip and rip it, but ugh...yuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

BarnabyJones PI

I'd kindly settle for a tall glass of milk.
Esteemed coaches like Tikhonov and Pat Quinn "put up" with his "style" (whatever that's supposed to mean). Supposed hard-ass coach Keenan loved Bure. Bure was trained from his youth by his Olympic swimming dad who was also hard-ass.

I'd argue that "esteemed" coach Pat Quinn in combination with him being Vancouver's first superstar, (gradually) let Bure do too much of what he wanted to, over Bure's first few years there, which didn't bode well for him over time. He landed in a good spot, and they were a very good team starting around the time Ron Caron gifted them depth in a big trade in 1991; the year before Bure arrived.

How he performed playing for Tikhonov and the CSKA behind the Iron Curtain, is not the same as what he did in the NHL. Tikhonov certainly would have liked him, probably in part because of Bure's training, in conjunction with his game then.

Supposedly, Bure wanted Mike Keenan as his coach in Florida, which probably surprised a lot of people. Bure said this. Does that make any sense though? Florida hired Mike Keenan December 6th, 2001 - they were 6-15-2-3 under Duane Sutter - only to trade Bure March 18th, 2002. Bure claims that he wanted Keenan. That was his guy. Somehow, Florida management/owernership (GM Cliff Fletcher), wanted Bure's input, even though they must have known that they weren't going to be keeping him?

Of course Bure would love Mike Keenan going back to the 1997-98, when the Canucks were 4-13-2 under Tom Renney, hired Mike Keenan (finishing with 21-30-12), and Keenan made assurances to him that he could get 50 goals to get his bonus; and his stats might increase his value.

In both scenarios, Keenan still wants to move off of Bure.

Mike Keenan allowed him to inflate his value in both scenarios. At this point in time ('98 and again in '01), Bure might relate to him, thinking that they're both misunderstood geniuses. If they had an extended period, attached to one another, there's no chance in hell - who are we kidding - that they would have been two peas in a pod. Love? They never got to the "After the Love Has Gone" portion, it was certainly on the horizon if Bure's still with Florida in 2002-03, or Vancouver in 1998-99.

If you think that Bure's style - which you're very familiar with - would translate well schematically to what the Islanders and Habs where doing back in the day, all the power to you.

Square Peg.png


I don't think they (the coaching staff/players) would put up with his style.

"From Al Arbour and Scotty Bowman and Badger Bob Johnson and all the successful coaches I've been with over the years, that's the way they've had success," says Trottier. "It's not a new turn of the coaching wheel or anything. If you pay attention to defence with fortitude and care, things will eventually happen for you offensively." It's funny how many times coaches and his teammates are quoted for highlighting Bure's defense around this time (FLA/NYR). On one hand, his supporters will cite these examples as to how good he was defensively towards the end of the career, when in reality, it's like teammates/coaches have to keep emphasizing it to him so that it finally sinks in, encouraging him at every chance.

Pistol Pete Maravich and Todd Marinovich also had hard-ass dad's, and specifically with Pistol Pete, his value through the better part of 10 years is in line with Bure's. You'd pay to watch them in their primes, but you're not getting anywhere with them.
 
Last edited:

Gorskyontario

Registered User
Feb 18, 2024
617
468
Esteemed coaches like Tikhonov and Pat Quinn "put up" with his "style" (whatever that's supposed to mean). Supposed hard-ass coach Keenan loved Bure. Bure was trained from his youth by his Olympic swimming dad who was also hard-ass.

Mike Keenan had zero success in the NHL after 1994.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
20,148
17,188
Tokyo, Japan
Mike Keenan had zero success in the NHL after 1994.
Well, that's clearly not true.

In 1995, St. Louis went 28-15-5 (.635), and finished in 2nd place.

In spring 1996, the Blues were old and slow and couldn't score, but still finished 1 shot away from upsetting 132-point Detroit and making the third round.

Even for all the flack he took in Vancouver, the Canucks were far better under him than they'd been under Renney in 1997-98 or Crawford in 1998-99.

In 2000-01, Keenan had a pretty successful season with the Bruins (36-30-8-8), and if they had had him the entire season, they probably would have made the playoffs.

He coached Calgary to a fine season in 2007-08, going 42-30-0-10, and finishing in 3rd place, despite the club's second-leading scorer being Kristian Huselius. They did even better in 2008-09 at 46-30-6 and 2nd place.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
10,766
6,259
Mike Keenan had zero success in the NHL after 1994.
I am not sure how much that has to do with the point being made.

I felt it was more, Keenan was known to be a very strict coach, very direct without much issue of talking against star or anyone, if he had not issue with Bure, fair to assume no coach would have. Not that he was some hockey super genius.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
81,511
59,258
Considering he was only able to score 60 in a high scoring environment, on a fairly good team its safe to say he would not have performed any better. If anything he would have been targeted worse for injuries than he was in the 90s by teams like the Flyers, Boston ect.

He scored 58 and 59 in a lower scoring environment too...
 

Gorskyontario

Registered User
Feb 18, 2024
617
468
Well, that's clearly not true.

In 1995, St. Louis went 28-15-5 (.635), and finished in 2nd place.

In spring 1996, the Blues were old and slow and couldn't score, but still finished 1 shot away from upsetting 132-point Detroit and making the third round.

Even for all the flack he took in Vancouver, the Canucks were far better under him than they'd been under Renney in 1997-98 or Crawford in 1998-99.

In 2000-01, Keenan had a pretty successful season with the Bruins (36-30-8-8), and if they had had him the entire season, they probably would have made the playoffs.

He coached Calgary to a fine season in 2007-08, going 42-30-0-10, and finishing in 3rd place, despite the club's second-leading scorer being Kristian Huselius. They did even better in 2008-09 at 46-30-6 and 2nd place.

So basically. he had zero success after 1994.

He scored 58 and 59 in a lower scoring environment too...

Playing 26 minutes a night on a garbage team that ran all their offense through him and allowed him to cherry pick.

Sorry for not being impressed, lol.

I am not sure how much that has to do with the point being made.

I felt it was more, Keenan was known to be a very strict coach, very direct without much issue of talking against star or anyone, if he had not issue with Bure, fair to assume no coach would have. Not that he was some hockey super genius.

My point is Keenan was clearly poor at evaluating talent in the 2nd half of his career, and both teams he coached Bure on were bottom feeders.

If Keenan was more aware of Bure's flaws maybe they would have been winning more than 24 games a season.
 

Gorskyontario

Registered User
Feb 18, 2024
617
468
To reiterate, to anyone who watched Bure in the early 90s, compared to with the panthers the difference was readily apparent.

He was a far superior player, and offensive threat in the early 90s, regardless of 'better scoring vs league averages' in 00 and 01.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
12,140
6,626
I'd argue that "esteemed" coach Pat Quinn in combination with him being Vancouver's first superstar, (gradually) let Bure do too much of what he wanted to, over Bure's first few years there, which didn't bode well for him over time. He landed in a good spot, and they were a very good team starting around the time Ron Caron gifted them depth in a big trade in 1991; the year before Bure arrived.

How he performed playing for Tikhonov and the CSKA behind the Iron Curtain, is not the same as what he did in the NHL. Tikhonov certainly would have liked him, probably in part because of Bure's training, in conjunction with his game then.

Supposedly, Bure wanted Mike Keenan as his coach in Florida, which probably surprised a lot of people. Bure said this. Does that make any sense though? Florida hired Mike Keenan December 6th, 2001 - they were 6-15-2-3 under Duane Sutter - only to trade Bure March 18th, 2002. Bure claims that he wanted Keenan. That was his guy. Somehow, Florida management/owernership (GM Cliff Fletcher), wanted Bure's input, even though they must have known that they weren't going to be keeping him?

Of course Bure would love Mike Keenan going back to the 1997-98, when the Canucks were 4-13-2 under Tom Renney, hired Mike Keenan (finishing with 21-30-12), and Keenan made assurances to him that he could get 50 goals to get his bonus; and his stats might increase his value.

In both scenarios, Keenan still wants to move off of Bure.

Mike Keenan allowed him to inflate his value in both scenarios. At this point in time ('98 and again in '01), Bure might relate to him, thinking that they're both misunderstood geniuses. If they had an extended period, attached to one another, there's no chance in hell - who are we kidding - that they would have been two peas in a pod. Love? They never got to the "After the Love Has Gone" portion, it was certainly on the horizon if Bure's still with Florida in 2002-03, or Vancouver in 1998-99.

If you think that Bure's style - which you're very familiar with - would translate well schematically to what the Islanders and Habs where doing back in the day, all the power to you.

View attachment 923455

I don't think they (the coaching staff/players) would put up with his style.

"From Al Arbour and Scotty Bowman and Badger Bob Johnson and all the successful coaches I've been with over the years, that's the way they've had success," says Trottier. "It's not a new turn of the coaching wheel or anything. If you pay attention to defence with fortitude and care, things will eventually happen for you offensively." It's funny how many times coaches and his teammates are quoted for highlighting Bure's defense around this time (FLA/NYR). On one hand, his supporters will cite these examples as to how good he was defensively towards the end of the career, when in reality, it's like teammates/coaches have to keep emphasizing it to him so that it finally sinks in, encouraging him at every chance.

Pistol Pete Maravich and Todd Marinovich also had hard-ass dad's, and specifically with Pistol Pete, his value through the better part of 10 years is in line with Bure's. You'd pay to watch them in their primes, but you're not getting anywhere with them.

This seems like an unnecessarily long post, and at times suspiciously facetious, but I do applaud you for the word schematically, it made me chuckle silently.
 

Ad

Ad

Ad