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.

 

[The Panther]

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.

That's a bit optimistic. Hull scored (I believe) 18 goals in the 19 games Oates missed, so just at his normal pace for 1989-1992. Unless you think he was going to score 22 goals in 18 games, or 27 goals in 18 games...?

 

[MadLuke]

Bossy shot over 20% every season of his career (outside the retirement year), 21.2% average.

Maruk and McDonald did it kind of once and reached 60 those years and never scored more than 50 again, single season for goalscorer can be a bit noisy, difference between 68-69 and 70 goals, that's a single bounce, maybe he did score 70 if they reviewed the footage, maybe he scored 66.

If we do rolling 6 seasons
78 to 83, Bossy first 6 season
79 to 84, 80 to 85, 81 to 86...

Bossy outscore everyone not named Gretzky by 50 goals in all of them, would it not be of 99, it would look a bit prime Ovechkin separation wise for a while.

His first 6 season:
Mike Bossy 365
Marcel Dionne 312
Lanny McDonald 271

With the most goals in the playoffs in all those 78 to 86 rollings 6 years window as well, they tend to look all a bit like this, the 4 of them with Gretzky climbing up ultra rapidly.

I think we can sometime downplay continued excellence vs looking at single peak season and for something as noisy (for most) like goalscoring it is a bit dangerous to be misleading.

Maybe players having a peak season during the early 80s could have scored 60 like Maruk and McDonald did sure, Karlsson first year in Vegas, someone having that kind of season back then, maybe he do. 3-4 times, doing it shooting your career average shoot percentage like an Ovechkin do with 50 goals in a low scoring era, that a different category.

It's really simple. Bossy was good for 60 goals a year for a gpg of .76. The best in NHL history.

It is not that simple, what was Lemieux, Gretzky, Hull, Esposito, etc... gpg after 752 games in their career ?

How is that fair to an Gordie Howe, Richard, Bobby Hull to look it like that.

 

[Staniowski]

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.

In a period that included most of Gordie Howe's best years, he was beaten, or tied, in Hart voting most of the time by teammate Red Kelly. In seven seasons from '50 to '56, Kelly had more votes in three and tied in two (and Howe won the Hart the other two).

And you didn't mention Orr, but he lost multiple times to a teammate too.

 

[authentic]

That's a bit optimistic. Hull scored (I believe) 18 goals in the 19 games Oates missed, so just at his normal pace for 1989-1992. Unless you think he was going to score 22 goals in 18 games, or 27 goals in 18 games...?

Well 68 goals in 59 games with Oates would have him on pace for over 90 goals to be fair

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ovechkin also sacrifices his teams success, and his playmaking to score his goals. Something Bossy/Gretzky/Lemieux/Espo never did.

When Ovechkin came to the Washington Capitals, they were a lottery team. Over the course of his career he's scored 884 goals, 1600 points, and they have the second most points in the NHL.

The facts are not on your side here dude.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So the argument is that a player who was forced into retirement with multiple injuries at age 30...should have been given much heavier minutes?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Maybe if he played 50% more minutes, he'd be 50% stronger and therefore...


(But no, it doesn't read that way...)

 

[MadLuke]

So the argument is that a player who was forced into retirement with multiple injuries at age 30...should have been given much heavier minutes?

He won 4 cups in a row, no one would make any argument about coaching decision.

The argument is more, when he on the ice trying to score a goal, how good he was at it.

 

[DitchMarner]

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.

Okay?

And did I say Matthews is better?

Stamkos is another guy who hasn't been great in the playoffs, and he scored 60 goals in an extremely lower-scoring era.

Hell, Pastrnak had a 61 goal season two years ago.

My point is that a goal scorer as great as Bossy probably should have peaked higher than he did, and I'm always hearing about how Gretzky feasted on a weak League, bad goalies etc but don't hear the same criticisms about Bossy... at least nearly as often.

 

[Gorskyontario]

That's a bit optimistic. Hull scored (I believe) 18 goals in the 19 games Oates missed, so just at his normal pace for 1989-1992. Unless you think he was going to score 22 goals in 18 games, or 27 goals in 18 games...?

I had no idea on the stats it was just a guesstimate. Although that's pretty impressive on Hull's part.

When Ovechkin came to the Washington Capitals, they were a lottery team. Over the course of his career he's scored 884 goals, 1600 points, and they have the second most points in the NHL.

The facts are not on your side here dude.

The caps have been a contender for almost every season of his career. Now he's been playing not to get hurt for like 7 years to break Gretzky's record lol.

It is not that simple, what was Lemieux, Gretzky, Hull, Esposito, etc... gpg after 752 games in their career ?

How is that fair to an Gordie Howe, Richard, Bobby Hull to look it like that.

I'm of the opinion that Lemieux and Bobby Hull are equal or possibly greater than Bossy for goal scoring.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Okay?

And did I say Matthews is better?

Stamkos is another guy who hasn't been great in the playoffs, and he scored 60 goals in an extremely lower-scoring era.

Hell, Pastrnak had a 61 goal season two years ago.

My point is that a goal scorer as great as Bossy probably should have peaked higher than he did, and I'm always hearing about how Gretzky feasted on a weak League, bad goalies etc but don't hear the same criticisms about Bossy... at least nearly as often.

How is scoring the highest GPG in nhl history while playing 18 minutes a night on a dynasty not peaking high enough?


You compared Matthews, who has accomplished nothing but scoring empty points in a similarly diluted league to Bossy directly.

 

[tabness]

• Gretzky scored 583 goals in 696 games in Edmonton, that beats Bossy in goals in the same/less games and pace
• Lemieux scored 613 goals in 745 games up to his first retirement, that beats Bossy in goals in the same/less games and pace
• even Brett Hull got close to the pace, he scored 527 in 735 in his first 10 years (plus the bag of chips 5 game first season in Calgary), less than 4 goals per 82 game season, a 58.8 goal rate per 82 games compared to Bossy's 62.5...

The goals per game thing is a pretty simplistic way of looking at things. @overpass and others have done a nice job of showing that Bossy's numbers were likely suppressed a bit (especially compared to say Gretzky as a direct peer comparison), in terms of role and team style limiting some of his opportunities.

I'm not exactly sure the dynasty thing was a negative in terms of Bossy's scoring though. You could do far worse with the linemates and more importantly the way the line was built that Bossy had to score his goals (and yes, I'm aware that Bossy kept scoring with Sutter instead of Trottier, but that's as much a testament to the depth of the Islanders as it is to Bossy's individual role in scoring right? Same thing with Tonelli easily taking a first line role when called for, they had guys who could really step up if needed, these weren't your average depth guys needing to come up). You see what the Hockey Scouting Report said about the lack of Blues depth and what it meant for Hull: "If the Blues could get just one more line to click, he would get even more of a chance to shine. The glare could be blinding."

But Bossy also did not have a tail end to his career to drop his goals per game.

And then there is era (this forum has recently went at length about the strengthening of the league throughout the eighties). Bossy was on record saying it was a load of [fecal matter] that he couldn't score 50 in the dead puck era, and I believe him, but maybe it would affect his goals per game rate slightly that he didn't play after 1986-1987 in his thirties?

And the nature of powerplay scoring in the early eighties (the average rates were through the roof only matched recently, and the Islanders were like in best ever recorded territory until the Oilers recently).

 

[JackSlater]

Bossy was better, Hull was more of a star though. Hull had a better shot because he got more power on it and didn't sacrifice much accuracy, otherwise Bossy was probably better at everything. That said I don't think it is a huge gap or anything, they are fairly similar players a things considered.

I do find it funny that a poster who is quite familiar with Detroit of the 90s and how Detroit used its roster has in recent times taken up the mantle of declaring Bossy and Beliveau and Richard overrated. You'd think that the very obvious similarities would stand out.