Who was the most talented out of Mogilny, Bure and Fedorov?

[connellc]

He had the most opportunities to go deep. Let's not forget Bure led the 1994 playoffs in goals, while scoring 31 points. I would say Bure's playoff stats are better than Fedorov's; it's just a smaller sample.

I see your Bure of 1994 and present you with Fedorov 1998. He led the playoffs in goals too. I actually more impressed with Fedorov. All of Pavels playoff stats are in his prime and Sergei hangs in pretty good with him at nearly a PPG with nearly 3 times more played and more success and tougher competition too. I give the playoff resume to Fedorov. How many players have scored 4 straight 20-point playoffs? Sergei always stepped up his game in the playoffs.

If you're talking absolute peak (1 season), Bure's 1994 is better than Fedorov's 1998, but the body of work and success is too much to put Pavel ahead of Sergei.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

He had the most opportunities to go deep. Let's not forget Bure led the 1994 playoffs in goals, while scoring 31 points. I would say Bure's playoff stats are better than Fedorov's; it's just a smaller sample.

Also an objectively bad take.

Take Fedorov away from those wings teams and they don’t get past the second round.

He deserved at least one Conn Smythe between the 97, 98 and 02 teams. He would have been the winner in 95 as well if the Wings won.

Playoff Fedorov was 94 hart level.

I see your Bure of 1994 and present you with Fedorov 1998. He led the playoffs in goals too. I actually more impressed with Fedorov. All of Pavels playoff stats are in his prime and Sergei hangs in pretty good with him at nearly a PPG with nearly 3 times more played and more success and tougher competition too. I give the playoff resume to Fedorov. How many players have scored 4 straight 20-point playoffs? Sergei always stepped up his game in the playoffs.

If you're talking absolute peak (1 season), Bure's 1994 is better than Fedorov's 1998, but the body of work and success is too much to put Pavel ahead of Sergei.

Look at scoring in 94 and scoring in 98. High scoring early 90s vs second season of the dead puck era. Fedorov leading the playoffs in goals while playing Selke defense and shutting everyone down is more impressive to me.

 

[connellc]

Here's the problem with Mogilny and Fedorov. If you take away their two best seasons each, between the two of them you have:

0x hardware
0x top-10 scoring finishes
0x AST nominations

How much mileage they should get off those two seasons each is up to you, but they probably had very few Hart/Pearson votes either outside of those two seasons either.

Bure meanwhile, if we take away his 1994 and 2000 seasons, is left with a 3rd and 7th place scoring finish as well as a Rocket at the very least, and this is in a shorter career than the others.

The original question was who is the most talented . If you value defensive two way play like Bowman and most NHL coaches Fedorov gives you incredible versatility Wayne or Mario couldn't play defense, but Fedorov could and that's a huge feather in his cap not many in NHL history could do well.

I have no evidence of this other than the eye test, but Fedorov took many nights off in the regular season from 1997-2003 and coasted through the regular season. I get the feeling that Alex did too, but when it came time to get paid, both turned it up a notch.

For the sake of your argument BTW, I agree Bure had more top elite regular season performances than Mogilny and Fedorov

 

[Felidae]

Yeah imo talent doesn't necessarily come down to "best season(s)" or how long one was elite for (though obviously not mutually exclusive)

It's hard to quantify, but I think Vadim had it right. It's a combination of technical/physical skills (I'd say moreso the former). It's why you have many people saying Lemieux was the most talented player ever, even though the consensus is Gretzky>Lemieux.

And also why people say Kovalev was one of the most talented of his era, with quite a few players even going as far as to label him the most talented they ever played with.


That being said...

The fact that Bure has more elite seasons than Fedorov and Mogilny despite the much shorter career means he clearly had something over the other two...and I don't think it was better hockey sense (which is usually not considered on the subject of "talent")

The easy explanation is that Fedorov and Mogilny weren't as motivated. The other one would be the few things Bure was better at than the other two was enough to close the gap between them as players, despite the other two being better at more things.

An extreme example, but sort of like how if you were to compare Robitaille to other players in a breakdown of skills, he'd lose to players he's better than.

 

[connellc]

Yeah imo talent doesn't necessarily come down to "best season(s)" or how long one was elite for (though obviously not mutually exclusive)

It's hard to quantify, but I think Vadim had it right. It's a combination of technical/physical skills (I'd say moreso the former). It's why you have many people saying Lemieux was the most talented player ever, even though the consensus is Gretzky>Lemieux.

And also why people say Kovalev was one of the most talented of his era, with quite a few players even going as far as to label him the most talented they ever played with.


That being said...

The fact that Bure has more elite seasons than Fedorov and Mogilny despite the much shorter career means he clearly had something over the other two...and I don't think it was better hockey sense (which is usually not considered on the subject of "talent")

The easy explanation is that Fedorov and Mogilny weren't as motivated. The other one would be the few things Bure was better at than the other two was enough to close the gap between them as players, despite the other two being better at more things.

An extreme example, but sort of like how if you were to compare Robitaille to other players in a breakdown of skills, he'd lose to players he's better than.

I agree, but just taking into context of Fedorov, it was clear through the eye test that the reason why Fedorov wasn't as motivated, is that he was" coasting" through a lot of it (1997-2003) until the playoffs. This along with Bowman playing him on Defense and defensive responsibilities sacrificed some of that offense.

The statistical evidence back this up 4 straight seasons with 20 points (another one with 19) .Not the same case, however, with Mogilny whose playoff resume is lacking.

Now my question is how much do those playoff runs eat into Bure's (admittedly) more elite regular seasons? I frankly weight in playoffs a lot more than people in this forum, but that's just me.

 

[The Panther]

The statistical evidence back this up 4 straight seasons with 20 points (another one with 19) .Not the same case, however, with Mogilny whose playoff resume is lacking.

I'm pretty confident that if Bure had played on a Hall-of-Faden laden team and gotten 1st-unit PP time (which he would have), he'd have been able to put up 20+ points on the '95, '96, '97, and '98 Red Wings.

The guy who played on the best team shouldn't be the answer to the thread question. It's about talent.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The original question was who is the most talented . If you value defensive two way play like Bowman and most NHL coaches Fedorov gives you incredible versatility Wayne or Mario couldn't play defense, but Fedorov could and that's a huge feather in his cap not many in NHL history could do well.

I have no evidence of this other than the eye test, but Fedorov took many nights off in the regular season from 1997-2003 and coasted through the regular season. I get the feeling that Alex did too, but when it came time to get paid, both turned it up a notch.

For the sake of your argument BTW, I agree Bure had more top elite regular season performances than Mogilny and Fedorov

"Talented" cannot mean anything other that "produces results", it just doesn't make sense any other way. That's why the idealized version of Fedorov everyone has in their heads is vaporous. It's why Sidney Crosby is more talented than all three of the players in this comparison - all of them have game-breaking ability, but he doesn't just have this hypothetical toolbox that comes together when all the planets are in retrograde, it's his default state.

 

[Felidae]

"Talented" cannot mean anything other that "produces results", it just doesn't make sense any other way. That's why the idealized version of Fedorov everyone has in their heads is vaporous. It's why Sidney Crosby is more talented than all three of the players in this comparison - all of them have game-breaking ability, but he doesn't just have this hypothetical toolbox that comes together when all the planets are in retrograde, it's his default state.

Then basically best player is interchangeable with most talented.

Which, I don't think there's anything wrong with the position, but I don't think it's primarily what people think of when it comes to "talent"

You bring up Crosby for instance. He's definitely a smarter player than all 3, better passer, stronger on the puck.

But I'd say none of those attributes save for maybe passing are associated with talent when I usually see the term thrown around.

Though I do think you need some degree of hockey sense to have your "talent" appreciated. We all know a few players that are all tools no toolbox.

 

[GarlicbreadTB]

Remember that's it's Fedorov. Not Federov.

 

[Gorskyontario]

I'm pretty confident that if Bure had played on a Hall-of-Faden laden team and gotten 1st-unit PP time (which he would have), he'd have been able to put up 20+ points on the '95, '96, '97, and '98 Red Wings.

The guy who played on the best team shouldn't be the answer to the thread question. It's about talent.

I don't think Bowman would have liked Bure.

He had a good run in 94(and he was pretty good in the playoffs before 94), for the most part he looked like he didn't care after 94 so success isn't guaranteed.

 

[Michael Farkas]

"Talented" cannot mean anything other that "produces results"

Well, maybe, maybe not. You sort of wink at it there...production is a result. Talent is more of a/the process.

If Fedorov played for the 1994 Ottawa Senators, would he have had 120 points and been a +60,000 or whatever? Certainly not. Would Fedorov have been less talented? No, certainly not. It's the same player.

This is seen often with goalies, as Wings fan know very well...goalies can produce results while having lower end talent, while great goalies in bad situations don't practically have the same ability to produce in that way.

Generally, talent and results have a pretty strong relationship - particularly with forwards. But it's far from great...

 

[tabness]

Mogilny stands out even from these standouts in terms of ability.

I'd go Fedorov over Bure for second, even if I think that Fedorov couldn't generally outscore Bure because he played a different sort of game except for 1993-1994 when he was pushed to lead the offense before Scotty had changed the team style.

All three are obviously all time A+ talents

 

[The Panther]

I'd go Fedorov over Bure for second, even if I think that Fedorov couldn't generally outscore Bure because he played a different sort of game except for 1993-1994 when he was pushed to lead the offense before Scotty had changed the team style.

Yes, I think this happened partly because Yzerman was injured. Fedorov scored at 1.73 PPG when Yzerman was out, and at 1.34 PPG when Yzerman was in the line-up. Obviously great either way, and he was peaking anyway that season, but I'm sure that extra ice-time and added PP-time, etc., made a lot of difference.

 

[MadLuke]

"Talented" cannot mean anything other that "produces results", it just doesn't make sense any other way

In a, if we ran their career 1,000 times, yes, if we consider having high drive-grit-work ethic has a form of talent in sport.

But to take an extreme case, Lemieux produced no result in 1994-1995, 0 points, was he less talented than most that year ?

There is obviously some form of disconnect, William Karlsson when from 6 goals-25 points to 43 goals-78 points between 2017 to 2018, without gaining any talents.

Minutes, roles, teammates, team style, luck when you are not in really high sample size (Karlsson shooting 23%), some people like a Robitaille could be argued by some to have produced more results than the lindros-forsberg-bure-mogilny without being more talented than them.

If we include everything it took to not get injured as a form of talent, then it becomes closer but even then, take Martin StLouis age 21 to 26, he produced only 95 pts in the nhl.

Wayne Primeau was not more talented, he was bigger and a team played him and gave him a chance while StLouis that was stuck outside the league or on third lines.

particularly with forwards

Depending at the type of result we are talking about, third line with no power play versus second line + first unit of PP could be a way bigger difference than for which team you play for a goaltender imo (or having Barkov as your center or not). Not many goaltender benefited more from circumstance than RNH being on the oilers first PP units to score 100 points or Patrick Maroon finishing top 35 in goals in 2017).

 

[sr edler]

"Talented" cannot mean anything other that "produces results", it just doesn't make sense any other way.

Talent means innate ability, so technically you don't have to produce any results, but on the other hand, if you can't (or don't want to) produce any type of evidence for your talent, at any point, it'll be hard for other people to believe you.

But say you have a great talent for something but your parents tormented you in your childhood in an attempt to make money off of you, then perhaps you don't want to do it anymore in the future as an adult, i.e. produce results. Or say if you're plagued by some type of mental illness like schizophrenia or social phobia that you can only control with a lot of alcohol or other type of substances, then perhaps the results will be affected somewhat (Bryan Fogerty).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Depending at the type of result we are talking about, third line with no power play versus second line + first unit of PP could be a way bigger difference than for which team you play for a goaltender imo (or having Barkov as your center or not). Not many goaltender benefited more from circumstance than RNH being on the oilers first PP units to score 100 points or Patrick Maroon finishing top 35 in goals in 2017).

You know I'm more ready than ever to trade these instances haha. A minor leaguer winning the Vezina twice is much stranger than a 1st overall pick having a 100 point season.

You're right, of course, it does happen with forwards too...I'm just suggesting that the disparity between talent and results happens more per capita with goalies than forwards.

 

[sr edler]

Talent comes in many different forms though. We should be happy hockey is such a multi-layered sport this is even a discussion. It could be bowling or dart....