Bossy vs. Brett Hull

[JackSlater]

That's true. But.

If we insert peak Gretzky into any era, he will come out on top and no player win a Hart over his eight season stretch. Not Lemieux, not Crosby, not Ovechkin, not Hull Sr. Howe won his six over a 12 season span, so he may win one. Orr may be the sole exception... possibly Hasek. Hull's 86 goals might be as close to upending peak Gretzky as one can get, but still. Bossy's top season certainly is not overtaking Hull's top.

But Bossy didn't just not win the Hart. He was never even #2. And his teammate almost always ended up higher than him in votes. To me, that's important.


Why just one season and not three? In what world are 69, 68, and 64 better than 86, 72, and 71?

I don't think that Hull's second and third best seasons are better than Bossy's second and third best seasons to any degree.

 

[JackFr]

I would hesitate to use that one when talking about elite goal scorer, they use league wide scoring, roster size, etc....

for them the fact that roster size was 17 instead of 18 players in 1981 is not only a significant variable, but a linear one, but for the top 10 player in the league on the first PP unit, that not necessarily that relevant.


They think the same for the low scoring original 6 and like you say do not respect it in general, but Bossy higher numbers from having played in an higher scoring era probably help them more than hurt or being neutral.

It is not like that kind of person argument is Howe > Bossy as a goalscorer, played strong system against HOF goaltender, Bossy was in the mickeymouse league era

Even so, my back of the napkin calculation above was pure league-wide scoring.

Either way, it's all estimates, but at least broadly illustrative of the point

 

[MadLuke]

Why just one season and not three? In what world are 69, 68, and 64 better than 86, 72, and 71?

Under that logic how 113 and 109 pts, -1, -2 better than 126 and 123 pts, +63, +30 ?

 

[tabness]

Pretty bad comparison. Remove the peak season for each player and "on paper" Bossy is way ahead of Hull, and if you look at how they played and how they were used the gap gets bigger. The only thing that makes it a conversation at all is Hull's 1991 season, so yes if someone wants to put Hull ahead they'd have to be putting a massive amount of weight on one season. I'm very open to a comparison of them as players and not resumes as well, but I don't think that that comparison will help Hull.

I think it's a pretty good comparison regardless of your dismissal, let me once again point to why:

On paper, the goals per game average for Bossy vis a vis Hull first 10 years (and 5 games for Hull) has already been called out to less than a 4 goal difference over 82 games anyway (removing the best season gets that difference to a 6.5 goal difference).

This is of course ignoring linemates, era, being on a one line team vs being on a dynasty not always being better for a one line guy as called out for Hull while it was happening, and so on and so forth.

As I (and @Sentinel himself) said, this sort of dismissal would work better if you accepted the obvious and took it to be three seasons. Yeah not many people are arguing that Bossy was a more consistent goal scorer than Hull. Who cares when his best was just better though?

 

[MadLuke]

think it's a pretty good comparison regardless of your dismissal, let me once again point to why:

On paper, the goals per game average for Bossy vis a vis Hull first 10 years (and 5 games for Hull) has already been called out to less than a 4 goal difference over 82 games anyway (removing the best season gets that difference to a 6.5 goal difference).

Are we sure you are both talking about the same thing ?

There is more about Bossy being better than Hull or not than goalscoring, Bossy scored at a 123 pts per 82 those 10 first seasons vs 104.

 

[tabness]

Are we sure you are both talking about the same thing ?

There is more about Bossy being better than Hull or not than goalscoring, Bossy scored at a 123 pts per 82 those 10 first seasons vs 104.

probably not lol, then again it was my bad to engage in the first place, shouldn't have expected much more than just another trite dismissal lol

Although strictly speaking, even the points gap can be closed and argued with era, linemates, team strength, and so on (Hull didn't have a centerman who could really take advantage of his passing, nor did he play all the much with Oates at even strength beyond 1990-1991, certainly the drop off with others beyond Oates (Janney, and I guess a young Shanny later on in 1991-1992, but more so the Cavallini guys and Zezel rather than Gillies/Tonelli/Sutter of course Denis Potvin)). Bossy was of course "softer" than Hull as well, Hull's peak he wasn't much defensively, but he got better strangely enough as he lost some of his offensive and physical confidence in 1992-1993 and beyond.

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

If Bossy didn't play for the Islanders, where there were a number of restrictions that were smartly put in place (emphasizing winning over individual performance), is it hard to fathom that if Bossy just went for it, that his higher 60-goal seasons couldn't convert into at least a couple of 80 goal seasons?

In this new situation, he likely doesn't have many defensive responsibilities, he can play a lot more minutes, perhaps there's a higher emphasis with he's being the #1 star on the team, that they'd load up for him more on the power play?

If he played in the same situation as Hull, I don't see how he couldn't have replicated a similar peak output as a goalscorer. I think Hull has an advantage in his scenario, to grab more goals. The dynastic Islanders scenario works against Bossy being able to run up his numbers.

 

[WarriorofTime]

If Bossy didn't play for the Islanders, where there were a number of restrictions that were smartly put in place (emphasizing winning over individual performance), is it hard to fathom that if Bossy just went for it, that his higher 60-goal seasons couldn't convert into at least a couple of 80 goal seasons?

In this new situation, he likely doesn't have many defensive responsibilities, he can play a lot more minutes, perhaps there's a higher emphasis with he's being the #1 star on the team, that they'd load up for him more on the power play?

If he played in the same situation as Hull, I don't see how he couldn't have replicated a similar peak output as a goalscorer. I think Hull has an advantage in his scenario, to grab more goals. The dynastic Islanders scenario works against Bossy being able to run up his numbers.

Islanders regular season goal total during Bossy's career:
334
358
281
355
385
302
357
345
327
279

AVG = 332.3

Hull team regular season goal total starting with St. Louis (ignoring partial seasons in CGY before):
275
295
310
279
282
270
178 (pro-rates to 304 over 82 games since it was a 48 game season)
219
236
256
236
211
241
215
251
269
255

AVG = 259.06

(used the pro-rated number from 1994-95 for averaging)

I think Bossy was clearly in a more advantageous position as far as being able to run up large goal scoring totals over the course of his career.

 

[MadLuke]

I think Bossy was clearly in a more advantageous position as far as being able to run up large goal scoring totals over the course of his career.

I do not imagine people have an old Dallas stars in the dpe in mind when they say something like that.

And using a player team offense can cut a bit both ways, how much it is on the ability to create total offense of the stars being compared here. (I particularly do not like it when it is used against Gretzky by looking at his points percentage of his team total goal scored, Bossy-Hull are more OK obviously, but a bit of the same logic apply all the time between big stars, that drove a team offense)

 

[JackSlater]

I think it's a pretty good comparison regardless of your dismissal, let me once again point to why:

On paper, the goals per game average for Bossy vis a vis Hull first 10 years (and 5 games for Hull) has already been called out to less than a 4 goal difference over 82 games anyway (removing the best season gets that difference to a 6.5 goal difference).

This is of course ignoring linemates, era, being on a one line team vs being on a dynasty not always being better for a one line guy as called out for Hull while it was happening, and so on and so forth.

As I (and @Sentinel himself) said, this sort of dismissal would work better if you accepted the obvious and took it to be three seasons. Yeah not many people are arguing that Bossy was a more consistent goal scorer than Hull. Who cares when his best was just better though?

Still a not a good argument argument, don't really know what else there is to say. It's fine to be a fan of Hull, 1991 Brett Hull was awesome. Bossy and Hull are comparable as goal scorers, and if someone thinks that Hull was the better goal scorer then that's quite defensible. Bossy is better everywhere else - he's the better player.

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

Islanders regular season goal total during Bossy's career:
334
358
281
355
385
302
357
345
327
279

AVG = 332.3

Hull team regular season goal total starting with St. Louis (ignoring partial seasons in CGY before):
275
295
310
279
282
270
178 (pro-rates to 304 over 82 games since it was a 48 game season)
219
236
256
236
211
241
215
251
269
255

AVG = 259.06

(used the pro-rated number from 1994-95 for averaging)

I think Bossy was clearly in a more advantageous position as far as being able to run up large goal scoring totals over the course of his career.

You're not really able to run it up, if you're rolling out 4-lines, and you're on a minutes restriction (or perhaps there was another way of saying that back in the '80s).

Bossy complained about this in his career, though I would imagine just earlier on in his career. Sticking with Arbour's plan, and winning, overrides chasing numbers. He was thrust in a great situation, and the team (with his help) were pretty much ready to challenge for cups (or go on deepish runs in the playoffs).

If Bossy's getting 69 goals in a season, and the Islanders are rolling out four lines (balancing out the minutes), he doesn't need to get 80 to prove anything. Hull's scenario isn't the same.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I do not imagine people have an old Dallas stars in the dpe in mind when they say something like that.

His Retro-Rocket 3-peat years were 295, 310, 279 goals scored by Blues

That's still way below where the Islanders were at in Bossy's day.

 

[WarriorofTime]

You're not really able to run it up, if you're rolling out 4-lines, and you're on a minutes restriction (or perhaps there was another way of saying that back in the '80s).

Bossy complained about this in his career, though I would imagine just earlier on in his career. Sticking with Arbour's plan, and winning, overrides chasing numbers. He was thrust in a great situation, and the team (with his help) were pretty much ready to challenge for cups (or go on deepish runs in the playoffs).

If Bossy's getting 69 goals in a season, and the Islanders are rolling out four lines (balancing out the minutes), he doesn't need to get 80 to prove anything. Hull's scenario isn't the same.

Yeah, idk the Per 60s since ice time is just more of a guesstimate from that era, but look at the shooting percentages which were really more of a reflection of the save percentages of goalies leaguewide. Seems pretty easy to me that you take a more even spread of even strength ice time (which can also help you stay fresh) and then dynasty level support from teammates and a way higher shooting percentage based on external factor.

 

[MadLuke]

It could be dangerous to double dip it too right, when Bossy scored 50 in 50, he did get more liberty and ice time to do it if I remember correctly ? that was is 68 goals season.

That could be an interesting case, when he did 50 in 50 he was not even in a hot shooting streak, 21.8% career average. He just took way more shots, 4.5 a game. After that he did shoot the same 20.9%, career average, but down to ~3 shots a game.

i think that part of what built that argument of he could have scored more, if he and his team went all in to do it like a Florida Bure (who did not necessarily get better than pre-injury Bure at scoring goal despite is peer domination say, just played more and focused more at just scoring).

way higher shooting percentage based on external factor.

Maybe he went to best in 79 to worst in 80 when Potvin missed time.

But he still shoot 20.4 and 20.2 his 2 last seasons on the 85&86 Isles now more of a middle of the pack among good teams at with a good but normal offense. Tonelli at #20 the only teammate in the Top 20 in points, Potvin about a top ~10 offensive D, your nothing special team support. That 28-29 Bossy outscoring all not Oilers/Mario in goals and points.

Hull was still great at this point-type of support in his career obvously, 111 goals was #2 in the league in 93-94, minus 30, #14 in points, 19 in ppg among players with 100 games or more.

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

Yeah, idk the Per 60s since ice time is just more of a guesstimate from that era, but look at the shooting percentages which were really more of a reflection of the save percentages of goalies leaguewide. Seems pretty easy to me that you take a more even spread of even strength ice time (which can also help you stay fresh) and then dynasty level support from teammates and a way higher shooting percentage based on external factor.

I agree with the "stay fresh" point to an extent. Which is also why Al Arbour was doing it.

Of course there's 1984-85, Bossy doesn't miss a beat. He maintains his impressive shooting percentage.

How good were Potvin and Trottier that year?

Potvin, Trottier, and Bossy, at various points, were the team's best player. I love all three of them, they were all equally important to the teams when they won championships.

I think Bossy (if he were born in 1964 and playing in Hull's situation) were on that 1990-91 St. Louis Blues team, with Oates, and Stevens, and a pretty good team in terms of depth (great in the standings), he could have gone for 86 himself.

 

[authentic]

Did not watch all the game but that seem vastly unfair to matthews at a glance.

Matthews was playing 22 minutes a night, +3, scored 5 goals in 6 games against Tampa, Nylander was playing 17-18, minus 2.. Maybe meant Marner ?

In our 4-1 comeback win in OT against Tampa in the 2nd series, Matthews had like 3 points and didn’t allow a single shot on goal against when he was on the ice in a game that went to overtime.. He was the easy MVP

 

[tabness]

I think Bossy (if he were born in 1964 and playing in Hull's situation) were on that 1990-91 St. Louis Blues team, with Oates, and Stevens, and a pretty good team in terms of depth (great in the standings), he could have gone for 86 himself.

I dunno if he would, sure the leash loosened on the Blues as compared to the dynasty Isles, as well as shooting more being the primary goal scorer would likely net him a few more goals, but beyond the stats, Hull seems to have scored in more variegated ways than Bossy in his three year zenith.

Hull was just a better skater, and more powerful to boot, he could go through players like Bossy couldn't. And while Bossy was as fearless as Hull about staying in front of the net and taking the punishment that came with it, Hull was just better built to take it (I'd also say there was more punishment to give when Hull was doing Hull things).

And who knows how Hull develops on the dynasty Isles? Probably develops his defensive game earlier than rather than waiting for him to fall off the hill a bit in 1992-1993. Almost certainly racks up more assists due to the players around him finishing better.

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

I dunno if he would, sure the leash loosened on the Blues as compared to the dynasty Isles, as well as shooting more being the primary goal scorer would likely net him a few more goals, but beyond the stats, Hull seems to have scored in more variegated ways than Bossy in his three year zenith.

Hull was just a better skater, and more powerful to boot, he could go through players like Bossy couldn't. And while Bossy was as fearless as Hull about staying in front of the net and taking the punishment that came with it, Hull was just better built to take it (I'd also say there was more punishment to give when Hull was doing Hull things).

And who knows how Hull develops on the dynasty Isles? Probably develops his defensive game earlier than rather than waiting for him to fall off the hill a bit in 1992-1993. Almost certainly racks up more assists due to the players around him finishing better.

I dunno, Hull's a good passer, sure, but not in the same league as Bossy. Which is another great reason why Bossy didn't have to hit some benchmark of 80 goals in a season to prove anything, he can pass as much as he scores. He's on another tier as a player because of that. I feel the same way about Guy Lafleur being a great goalscorer who I think gets overlooked in that department (when talking about the greatest), because he passed a lot too.

We had a similar discussion about Pat Lafontaine not too long ago, where you didn't think that he had good players around him, which I can understand your point. There is a bit of overlap though, in who those teammates were (with Bossy in mind), post Islanders-dynasty, and who Lafontaine was playing with into the late '80s.

I don't think Bossy had a bunch of great finishers to play with, specifically when Trottier was no longer the same guy that he was in the late '70s/early '80s. Bossy's still getting 60 assists with guys I wouldn't necessary think are great finishers.

I like Brent Sutter and John Tonelli, but they definitely had their best year playing with Mike Bossy, both hitting the 40 goal mark for the only time in their careers (and the 100 point mark).

The Islanders depth - beyond their Big-3 - was very good, because their lower line players played their assigned roles very well. I also think there's a significant great drop off from the 1st line, to the 2nd, nothing comparable to what the '80s Oilers were like, or the early '90s Penguins teams were. And the '70s Habs were just so deep and balanced in all areas, more than any team that I can think of.

If you swap out Bossy for Mike Gartner, I'm not sure that the Islanders are near the top of the league in Goals For all of those years.

I like Hull btw. I don't disagree with most of what you're saying about him. I was a fan of his too. Bossy was a better skater than I think people realize. He could score in just as many ways as Hull could. They're about as similar in that department, as any two players I can think of with a comparable skill.

 

[DitchMarner]

Not really related to the specifics of Hull vs. Bossy, but illustrative of the impact of scoring eras, is that if you adjust Bossy's numbers to the hypothetical of him starting his career in 1994-95 instead of 1977-78 he hits 50 goals one time.

1994-95 53 -> 48
1995-96 69 -> 62
1996-97 51 -> 42
1997-98 68 -> 47
1998-99 64 -> 42
1999-00 60 -> 43
2000-01 51 -> 36
2001-02 58 -> 39
2002-03 61 -> 41
2003-04 38 -> 27

This kind of thing is why younger fans (millennial and younger) just aren't going to share the Bossy worship. Raw numbers from the 1980s just aren't going to hold as much weight to fans who came up in depressed scoring environments where even all time greats struggled to crack 50

Adjusting stats can be controversial.

But yes, people definitely need to account for scoring environment when comparing numbers.

If you compare Bossy's absolute best seasons to those of other great goal scorers (in terms of goal scoring alone), you can argue for quite a few players over him, whether you go by adjusted totals or performance relative to peers.

He had two seasons where he led the League in goals and he had healthy leads in each season. But those seasons aren't necessarily better than the best goal scoring seasons of guys like Bure, Stamkos and Matthews. That shouldn't be considered a knock on Bossy because those players are all great goal scorers. But it's things like consistency, clutch scoring and playoff excellence that set Bossy apart rather than a monstrous goal scoring season or two (like Brett Hull had).

 

[Sentinel]

Under that logic how 113 and 109 pts, -1, -2 better than 126 and 123 pts, +63, +30 ?

I don't know what these numbers are.

If you mean Bossy's and Hull's points, then, again: I am not arguing that Hull was the better overall player. I rank Bossy at 27 and Hull in the 30s. But as far as goalscoring goes... I already stated my case

 

[Sentinel]

If Bossy didn't play for the Islanders, where there were a number of restrictions that were smartly put in place (emphasizing winning over individual performance), is it hard to fathom that if Bossy just went for it, that his higher 60-goal seasons couldn't convert into at least a couple of 80 goal seasons?

In this new situation, he likely doesn't have many defensive responsibilities, he can play a lot more minutes, perhaps there's a higher emphasis with he's being the #1 star on the team, that they'd load up for him more on the power play?

If he played in the same situation as Hull, I don't see how he couldn't have replicated a similar peak output as a goalscorer. I think Hull has an advantage in his scenario, to grab more goals. The dynastic Islanders scenario works against Bossy being able to run up his numbers.

That's a whole lotta ifs.

 

[MadLuke]

I am not arguing that Hull was the better overall player.

That make for such a strange conversation, because you answered to someone arguing that Bossy was a better overall player specially if you remove each best season in your comparison. And a lot of talk was around: As an overall player, Hull won the Hart, while Bossy never rose above a third place in votes.
And the thread title, etc.... everytime someone talk about goalscoring alone it will be good to specify, because by default talk of a player over an other or Bossy > Hull or anything like that we assume as player.

People seem to jump from one or the other from message to message (Hart talk make only sense if we talk overall player and so on)

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

That's a whole lotta ifs.

How is it any different than the 'ifs' @tabness used in his Hull on the Islanders' scenario that you thanked?

I guess this discussion would be different had Mike Bossy donned a Red Wings' uniform at some point in time?

It's okay for me to be understandable that someone like Yzerman and Fedorov's numbers would be suppressed to a degree, because of the Red Wings being a 4-line team, a defensive team, but the same reasoning can't possibly work for Bossy for some reason?

 

[Sentinel]

How is it any different than the 'ifs' @tabness used in his Hull on the Islanders' scenario that you thanked?

I guess this discussion would be different had Mike Bossy donned a Red Wings' uniform at some point in time?

It's okay for me to be understandable that someone like Yzerman and Fedorov's numbers would be suppressed to a degree, because of the Red Wings being a 4-line team, a defensive team, but the same reasoning can't possibly work for Bossy for some reason?

I literally argued the opposite. That I DO NOT play the "what if" games with Fedorov. He did what he did, and so did Bossy.

 

[MadLuke]

I literally argued the opposite. That I DO NOT play the "what if" games with Fedorov. He did what he did, and so did Bossy.

why say that he: not coasted through RS like he did, is that not implying he was not really a ~70 pts guy ? that he was better than that but did not do it for some what if reasons ?