Pavel Bure's ice time in 2000-01 season

[jigglysquishy]

Nicely researched and presented argument.
Why is the ice time important? Bure is in the HHOF and considered one of the most electrifying players ever regardless. Does his ice time affect his legacy in some way?

Correcting incorrect data should always be seen as a valuable exercise.

 

[Fatass]

Correcting incorrect data should always be seen as a valuable exercise.

Okay, if that’s your thing. But Bure was one of the greatest regardless of this gremlin. So really it appears to serve no purpose. There’s a mistake in Pavel’s TOI at one point in his career. But that in no way impacts his legacy of greatness, does it? I certainly appreciate the smarts of the op in regards to data analysis. Clearly he’s one super smart guy. But there is no hypothesis. Yes, there is clearly a mistake in the data, but where is the connection to Bure’s greatness. Is he somehow less great because of this? Is he more great?

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

Okay, if that’s your thing. But Bure was one of the greatest regardless of this gremlin. So really it appears to serve no purpose. There’s a mistake in Pavel’s TOI at one point in his career. But that in no way impacts his legacy of greatness, does it? I certainly appreciate the smarts of the op in regards to data analysis. Clearly he’s one super smart guy. But there is no hypothesis. Yes, there is clearly a mistake in the data, but where is the connection to Bure’s greatness. Is he somehow less great because of this? Is he more great?

Why does this bother you so much? Trying to correct incorrect data for an important context stat like time on ice should be applauded, not questioned with pointless musings like this.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Complaining about someone making data more accurate is a weird point of view generally, but especially in this subforum.

 

[overpass]

Nicely researched and presented argument.
Why is the ice time important? Bure is in the HHOF and considered one of the most electrifying players ever regardless. Does his ice time affect his legacy in some way?

This post is in the By the Numbers forum. Having correct statistics for hockey history is important in itself. And the way the NHL has changed these TOI numbers is just so stupid, it insults my intelligence as a user of these stats.

From a narrative perspective, something has been lost. It's interesting to know that in the 2000-01 season, the Florida Panthers got off to a terrible start, fired Terry Murray and hired Duane Sutter, and then saw their forward ranks depleted by injuries and trade. And that, as a result, Duane Sutter sent Pavel Bure out for 30+ minutes on a regular basis, and Bure scored 40 goals in those last 46 games of the season under Sutter.

Similarly, it's interesting to know that Ray Bourque played 40 minutes for the Bruins in a particular late 90s game. There's a story behind all the highest game TOI totals of the last 25 years. Now those TOI stats have been cut in two and the story is hidden. Imagine if NHL records now showed Darryl Sittler with 5 points in a game instead of 10. Or Sam Gagner with 4 instead of 8.

With regard to Bure's ice time in particular, if you're trying to place his 99-00 and 00-01 seasons among the great goal scoring seasons, having accurate TOI matters. We know Bure played under the disadvantage of having little high end talent among his teammates. We should also know that he had the advantage of huge amounts of ice time. To take one example, I realized the ice time stats had changed because of a discussion about Mike Bossy and Pavel Bure as goal scorers on the HOH board. I think both Bossy and Bure were first class goal scorers, but when you start talking about adjusting their stats, it's relevant that Bure probably played 5-7 minutes more per game than Bossy did in his top goal scoring seasons.

 

[Fatass]

This post is in the By the Numbers forum. Having correct statistics for hockey history is important in itself. And the way the NHL has changed these TOI numbers is just so stupid, it insults my intelligence as a user of these stats.

From a narrative perspective, something has been lost. It's interesting to know that in the 2000-01 season, the Florida Panthers got off to a terrible start, fired Terry Murray and hired Duane Sutter, and then saw their forward ranks depleted by injuries and trade. And that, as a result, Duane Sutter sent Pavel Bure out for 30+ minutes on a regular basis, and Bure scored 40 goals in those last 46 games of the season under Sutter.

Similarly, it's interesting to know that Ray Bourque played 40 minutes for the Bruins in a particular late 90s game. There's a story behind all the highest game TOI totals of the last 25 years. Now those TOI stats have been cut in two and the story is hidden. Imagine if NHL records now showed Darryl Sittler with 5 points in a game instead of 10. Or Sam Gagner with 4 instead of 8.

With regard to Bure's ice time in particular, if you're trying to place his 99-00 and 00-01 seasons among the great goal scoring seasons, having accurate TOI matters. We know Bure played under the disadvantage of having little high end talent among his teammates. We should also know that he had the advantage of huge amounts of ice time. To take one example, I realized the ice time stats had changed because of a discussion about Mike Bossy and Pavel Bure as goal scorers on the HOH board. I think both Bossy and Bure were first class goal scorers, but when you start talking about adjusting their stats, it's relevant that Bure probably played 5-7 minutes more per game than Bossy did in his top goal scoring seasons.

Maybe teams had more good players before the league expanded so much so ice times were more spread out? Then we saw ice time numbers go up for the top players as the league expanded more because they were fewer On each club?
It’s for certain interesting but imo increased ice time doesn’t impact a players legacy of greatness.

 

[Michael Farkas]

increased ice time doesn’t impact a players legacy of greatness.

I'm sorry, you keep this saying this...but is this the claim of the thread?

It reads to me like this is a data issue and op is surfacing it to a group of people that might be interested in such data issues. Maybe I'm missing it, but is there a claim that Bure's greatness - whatever that means - should be affected?

 

[overpass]

Maybe teams had more good players before the league expanded so much so ice times were more spread out? Then we saw ice time numbers go up for the top players as the league expanded more because they were fewer On each club?
It’s for certain interesting but imo increased ice time doesn’t impact a players legacy of greatness.

My assessment is that, overall, ice times for top scorers increased from the 80s to the 90s. Teams used more checkers on their third lines and more goons on their fourth lines, and shortened their shifts. This may have been because talent was stretched thin due to expansion. I would also point to the increased professionalisation of coaching causing teams to manage shifts more closely from the bench. Longer TV timeouts starting in 92-93 allowed teams to skip their fourth line and get their top line back out more quickly.

Some players and coaches were ahead of this trend. For example, Wayne Gretzky regularly played through multiple sets of wingers before Messier switched to centre in January 1984. Phil Esposito did at times as well. Scotty Bowman knew all the tricks when it came to bench and shift management, and I'm sure he got Guy Lafleur out as much as he wanted to, depending on the situation. But overall, there was a clear change from the 80s to the 90s where coaches actively managed to get their top line out more instead of rolling lines.

All of this matters when talking about adjusting stats for era, especially among top scorers. Which is an interest of mine, even if it's not universal to all hockey fans. I think there is a segment of NHL fans that understands scoring levels have varied and looks to the adjusted totals on sites like hockey-reference, and I don't think they realize that other things are not included in those adjustments, like changes in ice time for top scorers. Mike Bossy, who played in Al Arbour's egalitarian system where all four lines were expected to contribute, was in a very different ice time environment than Pavel Bure's Florida teams.