Bossy vs. Brett Hull

[Michael Farkas]

You used to not be "buried in stats"............................for Red Wings haha

People who think Fedorov and Datsyuk are overrated simply have their noses buried in stats and see nothing else. They just don't see the game behind the numbers. Hockey is not track-and-field, where only numbers matter. In hockey you have to look at the whole thing. Two of the criteria for me that are not defined by stats are "helping your team" and "doing things that nobody else can do" (especially on the consistent basis, which is where players like Kovalev fail). Both 91 and 13 belong squarely on top.

I'm not even touching their artistic value. Without Fedorov and Datsyuk hockey would lose a large chunk of its spectator appeal.


He simply was, and you just don't. Too bad.
Fedorov > Selanne (peak, prime, and face-to-face, not career)
Fedorov > Lindros (peak, career, and face-to-face, not prime)
Fedorov >> Kariya (peak, career, and face-to-face, not prime)

And having seen Fedorov too, I totally get it. There's more to him than the box score. I just wish non-Fedorov players were able to defect from the binary realm too.

 

[Sentinel]

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 ?

Exactly. He was (probably) better than that but he didn't show it, and, as a result, should be judged based on what HE SHOWED.
I'm utterly perplexed at why is this simple concept so hard to understand.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Nylander did not carry Matthews in their win against Tampa. Matthews was the most valuable player whenever Toronto faced Tampa in the playoffs.

Well I don't agree with that at all.

Exactly. He was (probably) better than that but he didn't show it, and, as a result, should be judged based on what HE SHOWED.
I'm utterly perplexed at why is this simple concept so hard to understand.

If it's not hard to understand why do you have a double standard for Mike Bossy?

 

[The Panther]

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

Yeah... I don't totally buy this kind of thing. Obviously, we need to consider the context of era and scoring environments, but it's just not as simple as overall-scoring-down-by-this-much, therefore Player-X-down-by-the-same-amount. I'm sure we've beaten these examples to death before, but consider:
1986-87 (scoring = 3.675 goals / team / game)
183 Gretzky
108 Kurri
107 Lemieux
107 Messier
105 Gilmour
2023-24 (scoring = 3.085 goals / team / game)
144 Kucherov
140 MacKinnon
132 McDavid
120 Panarin
110 Pastrňák

So... was it really so much easier for top-level players to score 110 points in 1986-87, when nobody except Gretzky did so? Yet five guys did it last season in a lower-scoring environment.

Conversely, in 1992-93, when scoring was almost identical to 1986-87, there would have been ten guys scoring 110+ points (if the season had ended at 80 games).

Or, look at Hull''s results:
1990-91 (scoring = 3.450 goals / team / game)
Hull = 88 goals / 80 games
1991-92 (scoring = 3.475 goals / team / game)
Hull = 77 goals / 80 games
1992-93 (scoring = 3.631 goals / team / game)
Hull = 54 goals / 80 games

As overall scoring got higher from '91 to '92 to '93, Hull's goals got lower....

All of this is to say there is more to it than just overall League scoring indicating how a particular player's season-total would translate to another season. One thing that was different in the higher-scoring early/mid-1980s is that 2nd and 3rd-liners scored more... but while that affects overall scoring a lot, it doesn't necessarily affect the scoring levels of top-line players at all.

Honestly, most younger fans straight up do not think that anything before the mid-1990s is even "real hockey" at this point because of how silly the goaltending looks in highlights. Anybody who cares about hockey history enough to even care about Mike Bossy understands that the 1980s were super high scoring relative to every other time in NHL history

Well, firstly, I have no interest in even talking to any hockey fan who dismisses the history of the game. Life is too short to engage with stupidity. The hockey fan who dismisses the past is akin to the pop music fan who thinks Billie Eilish is the only great artist and that The Beatles and Louis Armstrong were nothing. If we're going to engage with that route, we may as well just flush our brain-cells down the toilet. May as well be talking to 'flat-earthers'.

Also, I don't really think "the 1980s" (which really encompasses two different eras) were "super high scoring" compared to all other eras. That era happened to showcase the two greatest offensive players ever, but the point of interest about the scoring being higher was an influx of younger players (many highly talented) into the League in the late-70s and early-80s which drove offensive creativity / skill up, while defensive strategies and goaltending hadn't caught up yet. If you remove Gretzky and Lemieux totals, you have the 80s' Art Ross winner typically with anywhere from 105 to 155 (Yzerman -- an outlier) point totals, which is the same as today. And goatenders still stopped 88 or 89% of shots, compared to 91% or whatever now.

In Bossy's case, he indeed had the most favorable time period possible (1977 to 1987) in which to put up good scoring numbers, but he also played on a team that gave him defensive responsibilities and that rolled four lines. (Neither of these applied to Hull's peak years.) In any case, you can't just ratio-ize overall scoring levels and then apply it to player's stats.

 

[authentic]

Well I don't agree with that at all.



If it's not hard to understand why do you have a double standard for Mike Bossy?

The games are readily available for all to see. Nylander was not better than Matthews against Tampa in either series, and taking two-way play into consideration it’s not really close.

 

[tabness]

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.

We can look at the points together stats on Bossy vs Hull to get a sense of the teammate help.

I don't have the computer with the app I wrote on me now to pull up the numbers fresh, but I posted the simplified numbers (unfortunately removing special teams splits) here way back when: Points Together

So Hull in 1989-1990. He assists most on Momesso (12), then Zezel (6), then Brind'Amour (5), MacLean (4), Brown (4). Quickly checking on Hockey Reference's scoring logs, 34 points together with Oates, 17 power play 17 at even strength.

Comparing to Bossy throughout his career, it's loaded with Trottier at a level Hull never touched with even Oates in 1990-1991 (~60% of points together year after year except of course 1984-1985). Then Gillies, Tonelli, and Potvin show up the most next. What Hull had is quite frankly a far cry from this during the early nineties.

It's just a night and day situation to have linemates so consistent year after year and throughout a year. Hull had to shift linemates a lot more within a year and year by year. His weren't as good beyond Oates (you got some big names in Shanahan and Brind'Amour, but they were green and not nearly the players they'd become after Hull's best years).

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?

To be fair, I put the ifs as a rhetorical response to the ifs for Bossy.

The Yzerman/Fedorov thing under Bowman was bought up earlier too, I don't see it as comparable to the dynasty Islanders personally.

Neither Bossy nor even Trottier to be frank had the defensive responsibilities and suppressed stats of the Wings centers under Bowman I think. Perhaps a more apt comparison would actually be Bryan Murray's Wings, sharing the wealth in a more similar way as Arbour's dynasty Islanders.

 

[Gorskyontario]

The games are readily available for all to see. Nylander was not better than Matthews against Tampa in either series, and taking two-way play into consideration it’s not really close.

That's just like... your opinion man

 

[tabness]

That's just like... your opinion man

there is of course this play lol (Nylander scored twice I think after the game was put away so he looked better in the boxscore of course, but damn, I know the new NHL is soft but this was ridiculous, shades of recent Mika Zibanejad in the playoffs soft and at least Mika you could tell just wanted to get his ass to the bench since he's in his "stoned yoga instructor pondering the mysteries of the universe" phase)

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

We can look at the points together stats on Bossy vs Hull to get a sense of the teammate help.

I don't have the computer with the app I wrote on me now to pull up the numbers fresh, but I posted the simplified numbers (unfortunately removing special teams splits) here way back when: Points Together

So Hull in 1989-1990. He assists most on Momesso (12), then Zezel (6), then Brind'Amour (5), MacLean (4), Brown (4). Quickly checking on Hockey Reference's scoring logs, 34 points together with Oates, 17 power play 17 at even strength.

Comparing to Bossy throughout his career, it's loaded with Trottier at a level Hull never touched with even Oates in 1990-1991 (~60% of points together year after year except of course 1984-1985). Then Gillies, Tonelli, and Potvin show up the most next. What Hull had is quite frankly a far cry from this during the early nineties.

It's just a night and day situation to have linemates so consistent year after year and throughout a year. Hull had to shift linemates a lot more within a year and year by year. His weren't as good beyond Oates (you got some big names in Shanahan and Brind'Amour, but they were green and not nearly the players they'd become after Hull's best years).



To be fair, I put the ifs as a rhetorical response to the ifs for Bossy.

The Yzerman/Fedorov thing under Bowman was bought up earlier too, I don't see it as comparable to the dynasty Islanders personally.

Neither Bossy nor even Trottier to be frank had the defensive responsibilities and suppressed stats of the Wings centers under Bowman I think. Perhaps a more apt comparison would actually be Bryan Murray's Wings, sharing the wealth in a more similar way as Arbour's dynasty Islanders.

You've convinced me. Bossy seems to be very overrated now that I'm re-reading everyone's posts.

He was clearly bolstered by Potvin and Trottier, and a number of replacement players would have replicated what Bossy did.

All these years, I never thought that Hull was a power forward, but I get it now.

Thank you Tabness.

Great post!

 

[tabness]

You've convinced me. Bossy seems to be very overrated now that I'm re-reading everyone's posts.

He was clearly bolstered by Potvin and Trottier, and a number of replacement players would have replicated what Bossy did.

All these years, I never thought that Hull was a power forward, but I get it now.

Thank you Tabness.

Great post!

Cmon bud, I engage in detail, respect, and good faith with you because you do the same until this point (wouldn't really bother spending the time I did with you with others who aren't generally as cordial or open minded as you've seen).

I haven't been taking digs at Bossy or calling him overrated at all, mostly I've just been going to bat for the great (and I feel underrated and unfairly stereotyped) Brett Hull, providing my opinion and some stats that suggest what I'm getting at/some contemporaneous descriptions of his play which go against his general reputation.

Seen a lot of Hull in his peak absolutely kill the Wings, can you blame me?

take it easy

 

[ThreeLeftSkates]

Cmon bud, I engage in detail, respect, and good faith with you because you do the same until this point (wouldn't really bother spending the time I did with you with others who aren't generally as cordial or open minded as you've seen).

I haven't been taking digs at Bossy or calling him overrated at all, mostly I've just been going to bat for the great (and I feel underrated and unfairly stereotyped) Brett Hull, providing my opinion and some stats that suggest what I'm getting at/some contemporaneous descriptions of his play which go against his general reputation.

Seen a lot of Hull in his peak absolutely kill the Wings, can you blame me?

take it easy

Did you ever see Bossy? Or the dynasty Isles?

 

[MadLuke]

Bossy and Trottier production went down when Potvin missed game in 1980, so it is not nothing.

But from 1982 to 1986, Bossy production barely move, in a bit of absurd way (from juniors to retirement)

118, 118, 117, 123 pts those 4 years.

During that time he outscore all the Islanders by a big amount, while still very good Trottier-Potvin are not special all time level offensive player necessarily by the end of that time.

Islanders went from 385 goals in 82 to 302 in 1983 to 357 in 1984, nothing move in Bossy production.

It looks almost like a website error, Bossy goal per games during that time:

1982-83 NHL 0.76 (3rd)
1983-84 NHL 0.76 (3rd)
1984-85 NHL 0.76 (4th)
1985-86 NHL 0.76 (3rd)​

 

[tabness]

Did you ever see Bossy? Or the dynasty Isles?

I've watched a few games yes of course, I don't like to comment much on players I haven't at least seen a little of.

So how much of Brett Hull's peak did you watch? Recently? If you want some games of what I'm on talking about I can put up the Wings Blues series 1991

 

[The Pale King]

Bossy and Trottier production went down when Potvin missed game in 1980, so it is not nothing.

But from 1982 to 1986, Bossy production barely move, in a bit of absurd way (from juniors to retirement)

118, 118, 117, 123 pts those 4 years.

During that time he outscore all the Islanders by a big amount, while still very good Trottier-Potvin are not special all time level offensive player necessarily by the end of that time.

Islanders went from 385 goals in 82 to 302 in 1983 to 357 in 1984, nothing move in Bossy production.

It looks almost like a website error, Bossy goal per games during that time:

1982-83 NHL 0.76 (3rd)
1983-84 NHL 0.76 (3rd)
1984-85 NHL 0.76 (4th)
1985-86 NHL 0.76 (3rd)​

Crazy. That's similar to Khris Davis of the Oakland Athletics hitting .247 for 4 consecutive seasons in the MLB from 2015-2018.

How bout a spooky coincidence? Bossy's highest single-season shooting percentage was 24.7% in 78-79, when he scored 69 goals. Davis is also born the year Bossy retired 1987 but that's stretching things a bit.

 

[authentic]

Bossy and Trottier production went down when Potvin missed game in 1980, so it is not nothing.

But from 1982 to 1986, Bossy production barely move, in a bit of absurd way (from juniors to retirement)

118, 118, 117, 123 pts those 4 years.

During that time he outscore all the Islanders by a big amount, while still very good Trottier-Potvin are not special all time level offensive player necessarily by the end of that time.

Islanders went from 385 goals in 82 to 302 in 1983 to 357 in 1984, nothing move in Bossy production.

It looks almost like a website error, Bossy goal per games during that time:

1982-83 NHL 0.76 (3rd)
1983-84 NHL 0.76 (3rd)
1984-85 NHL 0.76 (4th)
1985-86 NHL 0.76 (3rd)​

I always thought the consistency in which top players produced during this era leading up to the late 80s was remarkable but perhaps indicative of there being little change in the NHL until improvements in goaltending and shorter shifts, more defensive teams and a wider range of coaching strategies. Seemed like top players back then sort of knew what they were up against year in and year out and scored accordingly to some extent.

 

[Frank Cannon PI]

Cmon bud, I engage in detail, respect, and good faith with you because you do the same until this point (wouldn't really bother spending the time I did with you with others who aren't generally as cordial or open minded as you've seen).

I haven't been taking digs at Bossy or calling him overrated at all, mostly I've just been going to bat for the great (and I feel underrated and unfairly stereotyped) Brett Hull, providing my opinion and some stats that suggest what I'm getting at/some contemporaneous descriptions of his play which go against his general reputation.

Seen a lot of Hull in his peak absolutely kill the Wings, can you blame me?

take it easy

My apologies.

You have definitely been respectful.

I guess the question I should have simply asked, was it necessary for Bossy to score more than he did, under his circumstances?

Because the Islanders are near the top of the league in GF and GA, and they're generally challenging for a cup for the bulk of his time with the team, what's to be gained for Bossy by going for more? He's in a unique spot, that Potvin wasn't in at the beginning of his career. The team was already pretty good once Bossy arrived.

What I don't get with most people, is they fail to see that he elevated that team offensively. He's not a freeloader. He backed it up with his production in the playoffs. I don't know what else he needed to accomplish.

Any one of his teammates that scored 40 goals, or hit the 100-point mark, had him on their wing.