Bossy vs. Brett Hull

[authentic]

I think a lot of this has to do with the respective teams they played on (and a little bit by era). Gretzky and Bossy were playing on clubs that could score 350-to-400+ goals per season, whereas Hull's Blues of the late-80s through mid-90 were scoring 270-to-310 goals per season. As the designated "go-to" trigger guy, Hull was certainly going to score far more "significant" goals than Gretzky and Bossy, even if he'd scored less.

That being said, I do think Hull's 1990-91 season is probably the #1 goal-scoring season in NHL history. It's parly because his club wasn't that amazing offensively, but also because he was so consistent (and no empty-netters!). In 1990-91, Hull scored goals in 56 different NHL games (of 78 that he dressed for), more than any other player in any season in history.

So how do people think Bossy was just as good a goal scorer at his peak then I wonder? I knew this about the empty netters, but I had no idea about the amount of games scoring a a goal in. Would’ve assumed Gretzky had that one.

 

[authentic]

How many shots on net were they taking? Here's Bossy's best nine seasons:

View attachment 985693

Brett Hull by comparison:

View attachment 985694

Shots on Goal (league leaders):

Bossy:

View attachment 985697

Brett Hull:

View attachment 985699

The Islanders scored a lot of goals, sure, but how many shots did they take as a team vs the league?

Islanders SOG:

1977-78: 2490 (4th out of 18 teams) --- Goals For: 334 (2nd of 18)
1978-79: 2301 (9th out of 17 teams) --- Goals For: 358 (1st of 17)
1979-80: 2216 (18th out of 21 teams) -- Goals For: 281 (12th of 21)
1980-81: 2417 (12th out of 21 teams) -- Goals For: 355 (1st of 21)
1981-82: 2469 (12th out of 21 teams) -- Goals For: 385 (2nd of 21)
1982-83: 2429 (11th out of 21 teams) -- Goals For: 302 (15th of 21)
1983-84: 2422 (12th out of 21 teams) -- Goals For: 357 (3rd of 21)
1984-85: 2415 (12th out of 21 teams) -- Goals For: 345 (5th of 21)
1985-86: 2352 (19th out of 21 teams) -- Goals For: 327 (8th of 21)

Blues SOG:

1988-89: 2327 (15th out of 21 teams) ---- Goals For: 275 (16th of 21)
1989-90: 2333 (15th out of 21 teams) --- Goals For: 295 (8th of 21)
1990-91: 2550 (4th out of 21 teams) ------ Goals For: 310 (4th of 21)
1991-92: 2376 (15th out of 22 teams) ---- Goals For: 279 (12th of 22)
1992-93: 2439 (20th out of 24 teams) ---- Goals For: 282 (18th of 24)
1993-94: 2570 (11th out of 26 teams) ---- Goals For: 270 (17th of 26)
1994-95: 1411 (15th out of 26 teams) ---- Goals For: 178 (4th of 26)
1995-96: 2548 (9th out of 26 teams) ------ Goals For: 219 (24th of 26)
1996-97: 2415 (15th out of 26 teams) ----- Goals For: 236 (14th of 26)

Did Bossy have to score more goals, in order for the Islanders to perform better? Would it have been more beneficial, for him to play closer to 30 minutes per game, rather than the Islanders being a 4-line team?

For all of the talk about the high scoring '80s, the Islanders shot a high percentage, were middle-of-the-pack for shots on net, yet were near the top in goals scored throughout (most of) Bossy's prime.



I mean, Bossy has 18 fewer goals in the playoffs, while playing 73 fewer games. Not to mention 4 cups...

If we're isolating shooting, and the ability to be in the right spot at the right time, coming out of nowhere, these guys are probably #1a and #1b in league history.

Bossy's a better all around player, he should pass more because he could. You don't need to force it every single time (that's not a dig at Hull but guys chasing numbers).

Gretzky left goals on the table - you're aware of this - but throw that logic out with Bossy for some reason. (No, I'm not suggesting that Bossy's on Gretzky's level as a passer.)

lol I wonder why Bossy has that edge in playoff goal scoring

 

[authentic]

Prop Bossy up with his own stats, his peak playoffs? We're propping up Hull for his 3-year regular season run (1989-1992), but we're removing Bossy's best 3-year playoff run? They're also winning the cup those 3 years (not that you're not fully aware of this). [edited to add "that"]

If we're doing this, let's remove Hull's best 3-year run, just to see how he'd normally do.

Does anyone have a goal per game ratio, regular season and playoffs, goals that matter and are put towards winning, higher than Mike Bossy? Fascinating, the more someone looks at Bossy, the more unimpressed they are. Ridiculous. (Is anyone more punished from the '80s and is anyone more punished for playing with quality teammates than Bossy?)

It's funny, some of us realize how Gretzky didn't need to call his own number past a certain point, having to bend the game to grab as many goals as he could by the mid-80s, but perhaps Bossy figured this out early on enough because they were already winning.

This qualifier, that you had to surpass a 70 goal, 80 goal threshold, to be considered the greatest goal scorer, is just throwing out putting team-first concepts.

Perhaps Bossy should have put up 80 goal, 30 assist seasons, and play on okay-ish teams that can only win it in years if/when everything lines up perfectly for his teams.

Considering Sakic scored more goals in a playoff run in a lower scoring era I don’t see how you think Bossy’s playoff peak would place him above Brett Hull by any objective measure

 

[Midnight Judges]

Bossy is overrated by virtue of having played exclusively in the highest scoring era. Hockey fans and the hockey media are exceptionally poor at accounting for this - with many in the mainstream claiming no context at all is necessary despite 50% swings in the scoring rates across certain seasons. That is not equitable to any player outside of the highest scoring environments.

Peak:
When you account for scoring environment, Bossy's peak goal scoring season adjusts to 58 goals. Brett Hull's best season adjusts to 78 goals.

Advantage Hull.

Prime:
Bossy only has two adjusted 50 goal seasons. Brett Hull has 5.

Brett Hull has 518 adjusted goals in his 10 best seasons. Bossy has 461.

Advantage Hull.

Longevity:
Bossy doesn't even have 500 adjusted career goals. Brett Hull has 738.

Advantage Hull.

Bossy is striking out here.

 

[tabness]

I think a lot of this has to do with the respective teams they played on (and a little bit by era). Gretzky and Bossy were playing on clubs that could score 350-to-400+ goals per season, whereas Hull's Blues of the late-80s through mid-90 were scoring 270-to-310 goals per season. As the designated "go-to" trigger guy, Hull was certainly going to score far more "significant" goals than Gretzky and Bossy, even if he'd scored less.

That being said, I do think Hull's 1990-91 season is probably the #1 goal-scoring season in NHL history. It's parly because his club wasn't that amazing offensively, but also because he was so consistent (and no empty-netters!). In 1990-91, Hull scored goals in 56 different NHL games (of 78 that he dressed for), more than any other player in any season in history.

Yeah there's definitely era considerations to take into account (you see it too with dead puck era scorers especially doing good in terms of tying/go ahead) but Hull's 1990-1991 is such an enormous outlier from the rest it sort of defies expectations lol

What is surprising is how poorly the original six guys fare here (less games so you expect but still), even if the goals per game were lower, it's basically like you had more 5-0 games and such

 

[overpass]

What do you make of the difference in their peak levels of goal scoring? Does this one come down to ice time in favour of Hull?

I estimate Brett Hull did play quite a bit more ice time than Bossy in their respective peak seasons, based on their respective on-ice goals for. As I've said before I estimate Bossy played 18-19 minutes per game. Hull played 24-27 minutes/game in his peak seasons. So yeah, Hull had the advantage of playing more ice time. And Hull's usage is pretty normal in the context of all-time great scoring forwards. Bossy's relatively low ice time is the outlier among the greats.

That said, I agree Hull's 1990-91 season is pretty amazing as a goal scoring season, probably the best of all time when you consider how many of his goals were big goals for his team.

Hull and Bossy were similar in that they could both had great goal-scoring tools and could score in a lot of different ways. They didn't need the puck a lot, but they were skilled puck-handlers and passers who could see the ice and make plays even though it wasn't their primary role. I would say Bossy was quicker and stronger and a bit more dynamic as a puck carrier, but they were pretty similar as goal-scorers.

 

[authentic]

I estimate Brett Hull did play quite a bit more ice time than Bossy in their respective peak seasons, based on their respective on-ice goals for. As I've said before I estimate Bossy played 18-19 minutes per game. Hull played 24-27 minutes/game in his peak seasons. So yeah, Hull had the advantage of playing more ice time. And Hull's usage is pretty normal in the context of all-time great scoring forwards. Bossy's relatively low ice time is the unu

That said, I agree Hull's 1990-91 season is pretty amazing as a goal scoring season, probably the best of all time when you consider how many of his goals were big goals for his team.

Hull and Bossy were similar in that they could both had great goal-scoring tools and could score in a lot of different ways. They didn't need the puck a lot, but they were skilled puck-handlers and passers who could see the ice and make plays even though it wasn't their primary role. I would say Bossy was quicker and stronger and a bit more dynamic as a puck carrier, but they were pretty similar as goal-scorers.

Well that is quite the gap in ice time. Makes you think Bossy could’ve had an 80 goal season or two playing upwards of 25 minutes a game at his peak. Yeah based on what I saw of them at their peaks they were pretty close at carrying the puck and making skilled plays other than shooting, Hull has become especially underrated here as time has gone on.

 

[Cruor]

Even though Bossy lost to Gretzky in 6 of 8 seasons they were in the league together? That's some twisted logic right there!

If we allow for the fact that Gretzky saw upwards of 50% more ice time (!) and ran up the scores in what was essentially meaningless games I'm not sure how significant this is. Not saying one is better than the other but I think it's interesting to consider.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Well that is quite the gap in ice time. Makes you think Bossy could’ve had an 80 goal season or two playing upwards of 25 minutes a game at his peak. Yeah based on what I saw of them at their peaks they were pretty close at carrying the puck and making skilled plays other than shooting, Hull has become especially underrated here as time has gone on.

TOI doesn't always work that way. Sometimes a player's minutes are increased or decreased and the productivity impact isn't as linear as one would think.

 

[overpass]

Just a little more on those ice time estimates for Bossy and Brett Hull.

Let's take the 1980-81 Islanders, where Bossy scored 68 goals and 119 points, and the 1990-91 Blues, where Hull scored 86 goals and 131 points.

The two teams were pretty similar at EV. NYI scored 240 goals and allowed 171. STL scored 230 goals and allowed 177.

After estimating and removing SH on-ice goals for and against, I have Bossy on the ice for 96 EVGF and 56 EVGA. Hull on the ice for 108 EVGF and 69 EVGA. Based on this I'm pretty confident Hull played more EV ice time. A simple estimate based on percentage of team's EVGA puts Hull at 18.3 EV minutes per game and Bossy at 15.7.

Hull also played more on the power play. He was on the ice for 62 of his team's 70 power play goals, and Bossy was on the ice for 63 of his team's 93 power play goals. Basically Hull played almost the full power play, and Bossy played on the first unit only. I estimate Hull at 6.5 power play minutes per game, and Bossy at 4.3.

SH minutes were negligible for both, putting Hull at an estimate of 24.9 per game and Bossy at 20.5 per game.

Based on these estimates, even strength scoring per 60 minutes:
1980-81 Bossy: 1.8 G/60 and 3.5 P/60
1990-91 Hull: 2.4 G/60 and 3.6 P/60

Power play scoring per 60 minutes:
1980-81 Bossy: 5.0 G/60 and 7.8 P/60
1990-91 Hull: 3.5 G/60 and 5.4 P/60

Estimated ATOI for 80-81 Islander forwards:
Mike Bossy: 20.5
Bryan Trottier: 19.2
Butch Goring: 19.0
Steve Tambellini: 17.7
Clark Gillies: 16.9
Bob Bourne: 16.3
Anders Kallur: 16.1
Bob Nystrom: 15.8
John Tonelli: 15.6
Wayne Merrick: 8.1
Garry Howatt: 6.0

Estimated ATOI for 90-91 Blues forwards:
Adam Oates: 26.7
Brett Hull: 24.9
Rod Brind'Amour: 18.1
Ron Wilson: 16.7
Dave Lowry: 14.3
Geoff Courtnall: 14.0
Bob Bassen: 13.5
Rich Sutter: 12.8
Paul MacLean: 12.1
Gino Cavallini: 11.7
Sergio Momesso: 9.9
Cliff Ronning: 8.0

Al Arbour used his top 9 forwards much more evenly than Brian Sutter. Bossy and Trottier played the most, but not by nearly as much as Hull and Oates did.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The ice time difference was a huge factor in the Islanders becoming a dynasty. In 1978-79, they still ran a fairly normal ice time distribution. As a result, Trottier won the Art Ross and Hart. Bossy had a career high in goals. Gillies had a career high in points. Potvin won the Norris and a career high in points. Islanders won the regular season and were poised to win the Cup.

And then they didn't.

Then in 1979-80 Al Arbour deliberately changes the ice time. All the stars see a decline in points and ice time. The result was 4 straight Cups.

Trottier talks about it in his book. The contemporary newspapers recognize it. And clearly, it worked.

They would have won at least 1 under the old methodology. But certainly not 4 in row. Even under reduced minutes the team became physically broken by 1985. They just wouldn't have had the juice to 4peat at 22-28 minutes a night.

 

[JackFr]

Really? I feel the opposite. Atleast two posters on this board have made a convincing argument that he was better than Gretzky.

Hull is a good comparison in being underrated though.

I think Bossy's legacy among younger fans is heavily impacted by our understanding of just how high-scoring the 1980s were and how accepted era-adjusting stats are.

As a kid in the 2000s, looking at his stats on a hockey card or book or whatever it was mindblowing what he did - especially since Rockets were being won with 41 goals.

Now you look at those numbers and think "well hold on, this is a player whose entire career basically encompasses the highest-scoring era in NHL history start to finish." The "50 goals is 50 goals no matter when it happened" doesn't hold much water for fans who have seen multiple Rocket winner not hit 50 and only been alive for one season where two players scored 60.

I don't think it's unfair to simultaneously be incredibly impressed by Bossy's unreal consistency and efficiency while also recognizing that he was extremely fortunate to have his entire prime align with the best time in the history of the sport to be an elite goal-scorer.

 

[MadLuke]

22-28 years old Bossy scored in the playoff at a 58 goals and 107pts by 82 game pace.

Very high scoring era 22-28 years old Hull (1987 to 1993) scored at a 62 goals and 103 pts by 82 pace.

Bossy did it in conference and cup finals, Hull exclusively in the first 2 round.

Fine to say that Hull did peak higher (I mean Hull could have had the highest peak goal scoring wise of them all and one of the great playoff/intl/big moment player of all time and could make up for everything else Bossy did better), but the gap can be exaggerated, from 79 to 85, 3.54 goal per game in the playoff.
From 87 to 93 it was 3.34.

 

[Thenameless]

The more I learn about Bossy, the more I think he is overrated. But let's compare him and Hull Jr. Bossy led the league in goals twice, Hull -- three times. Bossy never touched 70 goals, Hull -- three times, including 86 goals (#1 all time adjusted). Sure, Bossy's nine straight 50+ goal seasons is unsurpassed but Hull had five, then 29 in 48 GP (lockout), which prorates to 50 in 82, and then the DPE began (though 43 in 70 in 95-96 also prorates to 50).

So, peak: Hull >> Bossy
Prime: Hull > Bossy
Consistency: Hull <~ Bossy
Career: Hull by default because every goal he scored after 30 is more than Bossy.
Playoffs: Hull << Bossy (the only area where Bossy is clearly superior, although Hull led both Cup-winning teams in goals and even scored the golden goal in 99).

Teammates: Bossy played on a dynasty. Hull's peak was with Oates. So it's a wash.

As an overall player, Hull won the Hart, while Bossy never rose above a third place in votes.

Overall, I find that Bossy is not even a top 7 goalscorer of all time (Ovechkin, Gretzky, Hull Sr, Esposito, Lemieux, Richard, Howe, Hull Jr).

Now eat me up.

This looks pretty accurate to me, especially if we're primarily looking at their goal scoring. As you've stated, Bossy is quite clearly ahead in playoffs, and that is more important than regular season, for me at least. A pretty fair assessment overall.

 

[MadLuke]

Bossy is quite clearly ahead in playoffs,

In a close but clearly way ?