Bossy vs. Brett Hull

[Sentinel]

For goal-scorers, I have the following tiers:

Tier 1 - Ovechkin/Gretzky/Lemieux/Hull sr. Not necessarily in order, but if I had to place an order, I'd probably do it this way

Tier 2 - Richard/Howe. Same, not necessarily in order, but probably like this if so

Tier 3 is - Bossy/Esposito/Hull jr.

To me that is a very clear top 9 of all-time. I think Matthews is making tremendous strides towards already joining that top 9, and he could even be tier 1 one day - but for now, no one else is really close or on a path to surpass.

Coming back to tier 3 of Espo, Hull Jr and Bossy - I usually rank Bossy #1 in this group, but I could see it either/way. Here's how i'd compare Hull Jr to Bossy.

Bossy's playoff goal-scoring cannot be understated. I probably have Maurice Richard #1 all-time as greatest playoff goal-scorer, but Bossy has an argument for #2. Brett Hull is pretty strong here too, but it's still a big edge for Bossy.

prime - also tempted to go Bossy. He was much more consistant. 9 straight 50+ goal seasons, but five of those are also 60+. It's closer here, but I give a slight edge to Bossy.

Peak - I agree, Hull. Bossy has no season anywhere close to Hull's 86 goal season. Hull may even have the 2nd best season in 92.

Career - again, edge to Hull, since he played a lot longer.

I generally go Bossy > Hull, but I could see the opposite argument too.

I agree with pretty much everything you say. I put Esposito in the Tier 2 though: he has the peak and the consistency that are every bit as good as Howe and Richard. I rank Hull Jr just slightly over Bossy but it's close. At any rate, as long as you put them both in Tier 3, I am cool with that.

 

[Sentinel]

Voting on trophies is just voting by journalists, not something that actually happened on the ice. I don't care for the practice of saying the recipient of a trophy "won" the award. I'd rather reserve the word "win" for actual hockey games.

Awards are fine but let's not mistake them for actual hockey. There's something wrong if you start saying that Brett Hull "won" more or had more "success" than Mike Bossy.

Nobody on the Al Arbour Islanders was going to get a Hart trophy after 1979, because he spread out the ice time with an eye to playoff success. Bossy publicly said he wanted to play more minutes and have the opportunity to win scoring titles like Guy Lafleur, but Arbour made the call and they won four Stanley Cups. Actually won them on the ice, not by a vote of journalists.

I realize much of the hockey world refers to award recipients as winners, and it's not just you, but you're loading the word WON with a lot of weight that doesn't seem very meaningful in the context of awards voting.

You can assign whatever semantical baggage you choose to this word. To the rest of the world, Hart is the most meaningful individual trophy and it's won. Nobody on Al Arbour's Islanders won the Hart after 1979 for a very different reason: Gretzky arrived. But Trottier actually got a second place and Bossy only third is a good indication of their relative value to the team as seen by their contemporaries.

Of course Bossy was a very special player. But he never reached the same heights that numerous players before and after him did. And, as such, he does not belong in the same tier as others that I mentioned.

 

[Namba 17]

Regular season:

Hart:
Hull: 1 (Gretzky, Belfour), 3 (Messier, Bourque), 3 (Messier, Roy), 6, 23
Bossy: 3 (Gretzky, Trottier), 4 (Gretzky, Liut, Dionne), 6, 6, 7, 11

Note.
All Hull's Harts finals his center was not even in the list. The same for his 6th finish
For Bossy Hart final (3d total) Trottier was 2nd, for 4th Trottier was 5th, for 6th Trottier was 3d, for 7th Trottier was 1st.
For 11th Bossy's finish there were two his linemates in he list - both 15th and for another 6th finish Bossy's center was not in the list.

All Stars
Hull: 1 (Neely, Leeman), 1 (Neely, Fleury), 1 (Recchi, Mullen), 3 (Bure, Neely), 3 (Jagr, Fleury), 7, 8, 8, 9, 16
Bossy: 1 (Taylor, Babich), 1 (Middleton, Ciccarelly), 1 (MsDonald, Middleton), 1 (Kurri, Middleton), 1 (Kurri, Kerr), 2 (Lafleur, O'Rielly) 2 (Lafleur, MacMillan), 2 (Kurri, Kerr), 3 (Lafleur, Gare), 7

Goals
Hull: 1 (Yzerman, Bellows, Neely), 1 (Fleury, Neely, Yzerman), 1 (Stevens, Roberts, Roenick), 2 (Bure, Fedorov), 6 (Bondra, Jagr, Nolan, Sheppard, Zhamnov, Fleury), 8, 9, 10
Bossy: 1 (Dionne, Lafleur), 1 (Dionne, Simmer), 2 (Lafleur, Shutt), 2 (Gretzky, Maruk), 2 (Kurri, Kerr), 3 (Gretzky, McDonald), 3 (Gretzky, Kurri), 5 (Simmer, Stoughton, Gare, Dionne), 7

Note
Using my method of estimation (correspondense between goals, scored by player and average goals, scored by every player, who scored in given season with coefficient of amount of teams in the league) we have for their 1st finishes (first number is place in list of the best goalscorers for 46/47 - 23/24 season):

1. Hull 786.59
14. Bossy 685.36
19. Hull 648.01
31 Hull 605.76
68 Bossy 522.45

Being the best goal-scorers of their teams they scored average of team goals:
Hull 19,97%
Bossy 17,58%

In their seasons when they were #1 goalscorers in the league:
Hull
27.74
25.08
24.41

Bossy
19.27
19.15

By ratio between % of player/ team and team/league of their #1 goalscoring seasons:
Hull 550.41
Hull 519.45
Hull 512.11 (all numbers are top-3 for 21 team period of the NHL)
Bossy 348.31 (#8 in 21 team period)
Bossy 256.05 (top-1 for 16-18 team period)

Assists
Hull No top-10 finishes
Bossy 4, 6, 9

Points
Hull 2, 4, 5
Bossy 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6

 

[authentic]

You can assign whatever semantical baggage you choose to this word. To the rest of the world, Hart is the most meaningful individual trophy and it's won. Nobody on Al Arbour's Islanders won the Hart after 1979 for a very different reason: Gretzky arrived. But Trottier actually got a second place and Bossy only third is a good indication of their relative value to the team as seen by their contemporaries.

Of course Bossy was a very special player. But he never reached the same heights that numerous players before and after him did. And, as such, he does not belong in the same tier as others that I mentioned.

I don’t know, seeing those ice time estimates sort of puts into perspective why he’s so highly thought of beyond all the playoff heroics and raw numbers. If he had 5 more minutes a game and a couple extra on the PP he could’ve been a 5 time 70-80 goal scorer.

 

[Sentinel]

I don’t know, seeing those ice time estimates sort of puts into perspective why he’s so highly thought of beyond all the playoff heroics and raw numbers. If he had 5 more minutes a game and a couple extra on the PP he could’ve been a 5 time 70-80 goal scorer.

"If"... "could"...
Hypotheticals again.

It really boils down to which you value more: peak or consistency.

As long as we all agree, Bossy is not in the Top 5 goalscorers of all time.

P.S. I do find it informative that Bossy repeatedly lost the Hart race to a teammate. Hull (and Gretzky, and Ovechkin, and Lemieux, and Howe) never did.

 

[authentic]

"If"... "could"...
Hypotheticals again.

It really boils down to which you value more: peak or consistency.

As long as we all agree, Bossy is not in the Top 5 goalscorers of all time.

P.S. I do find it informative that Bossy repeatedly lost the Hart race to a teammate. Hull (and Gretzky, and Ovechkin, and Lemieux, and Howe) never did.

I’ve been watching hockey long enough not to judge players by this limited criteria though

 

[Cruor]

"If"... "could"...
Hypotheticals again.

But we do have documented stretches of Bossy doing just that when he got more ice time or more favorable team situations in terms of facilitating shots on goals. Bearing that in mind I don't think any evidence bears out he was lesser to Hull or say Ovechkin in terms of goalscoring.

 

[DitchMarner]

Bossy seems difficult to place as a goal scorer.

On one hand, people talk about how natural a goal scorer he was, and he was a guy who scored important and clutch goals and a great playoff scorer and player. His numbers were probably suppressed by playing on a strong and deep team that won multiple Cups.

On the other hand, he played in one of the easiest eras for goal scoring (if not the easiest) and he never hit 70 goals. Yes, he didn't get Gretzky-esque ice time, but Maruk hit 60 goals in the 80s and Lanny McDonald potted 66. I think it's fair if you don't find a peak of 69 goals in that era remarkable (when talking about the greatest goal scorers ever). Matthews dropped 69 last year in a much lower-scoring League. Bossy seems to get more of a pass than Gretzky for having his goal scoring prime in a very wide open and high scoring era.

 

[The Panther]

I don't think Hart trophy finishes are particularly relevant to a discussion of "better goal-scorer". Hart trophies tend to be won by centers or playmaking wingers (or wingers who get a lot of assists and thus win a scoring title).

In addition, Hart trophies are partly narrative-driven, and especially in regard to team success.

If Hull had had his 1990-91 season in 1989 or 1984 or 1982, he likely doesn't sniff a Hart trophy. Or, if Oates (who outscored him when together that season) had played the full season (pacing for 151 points), they probably split votes, just like Bossy and Trottier in 1982. Or if Gretzky hadn't been in his 12th season but his 2nd or 3rd, he likely wins the Hart easily as his club was in 1st and he won the scoring title by 32 points. Or if the Blues hadn't had Scott Stevens that one and only season in which they shot up in the standings.... You get the point. Hull's 1991 Hart is well deserved and all, but it was a 'perfect storm' situation that Bossy simply never had.

So, this Hart comparison is really irrelevant.

I think we don't need to over-think this. Both players were all time great goal-scorers who did it on every stage. They're pretty close, at their respective bests.

My take would be that Hull has the better goal-scoring peak (1989-90 to 1991-92), but that Bossy was the more consistent and reliable (over a prime career) goal scorer. But whatever.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Voting on trophies is just voting by journalists, not something that actually happened on the ice. I don't care for the practice of saying the recipient of a trophy "won" the award. I'd rather reserve the word "win" for actual hockey games.

Awards are fine but let's not mistake them for actual hockey. There's something wrong if you start saying that Brett Hull "won" more or had more "success" than Mike Bossy.

Nobody on the Al Arbour Islanders was going to get a Hart trophy after 1979, because he spread out the ice time with an eye to playoff success. Bossy publicly said he wanted to play more minutes and have the opportunity to win scoring titles like Guy Lafleur, but Arbour made the call and they won four Stanley Cups. Actually won them on the ice, not by a vote of journalists.

I realize much of the hockey world refers to award recipients as winners, and it's not just you, but you're loading the word WON with a lot of weight that doesn't seem very meaningful in the context of awards voting.

This is a great post (and I'll admit I'm guilty of using this wording quite often).

There's some value in considering the voting results for major awards. It provides a snapshot of the perception of the hockey world at a certain point in time. But, as you said, ultimately what happened on the ice is what matters. Usually, the voting results are reasonable, but there's enough exceptions that we shouldn't accept them religiously.

 

[Gorskyontario]

It blows my mind that someone who only led the league in goals twice can be ranked over someone who did it nine times. Whose adjusted peak numbers are incomparable. Even if we eliminate Gretzky, Bossy only gains one additional retro-Richard.

Being praised by your opponents is great but extremely subjective. The only player from my list who was not universally praised by his peers was Brett Hull.

It's really simple. Bossy was good for 60 goals a year for a gpg of .76. The best in NHL history. He was also dynamite in the playoffs, including x3 17 goal campaigns in a row.

He did this while being a team that ran 4 lines, and playing good defense with Trottier/Sutter. Also while being a good playmaker.

Brett Hull was one of the best goal scorers ever. He had 86 goals with Oates missing 19 games. He probably would have broke 90, maybe 95 who knows. He also played on a team that had no other weapons outside of him and Oates. So he got much more ice time than Bossy ever did.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Bossy seems difficult to place as a goal scorer.

On one hand, people talk about how natural a goal scorer he was, and he was a guy who scored important and clutch goals and a great playoff scorer and player. His numbers were probably suppressed by playing on a strong and deep team that won multiple Cups.

On the other hand, he played in one of the easiest eras for goal scoring (if not the easiest) and he never hit 70 goals. Yes, he didn't get Gretzky-esque ice time, but Maruk hit 60 goals in the 80s and Lanny McDonald potted 66. I think it's fair if you don't find a peak of 69 goals in that era remarkable (when talking about the greatest goal scorers ever). Matthews dropped 69 last year in a much lower-scoring League. Bossy seems to get more of a pass than Gretzky for having his goal scoring prime in a very wide open and high scoring era.

Bossy scored almost as many playoff goals in a single cup run than Matthews his entire career. Bossy played to win, not for respect in the handshake line.