Brett Hull = 9th in goals in 1992-93

[The Panther]

I was always a little surprised at Brett Hull's drop-off in goal production for 1992-93. He was tied for 9th in goals (with Andreychuk, but Hull played fewer games). Remember, he was 1st in 1990, 1991, and 1992.

Hull's 1993 total was 54 goals (in 80 games played of an 84-game season). Still very impressive, of course, but a long ways off his 72 goals, 86 goals, and 70 goals (in just 73 games) totals of the three previous years. His shooting percentage the three previous seasons in aggregate was 19.2%, while in 1992-93 (ostensibly an "easier" season to score in) it dropped to 13.8%.

Considering that 1992-93 was generally a higher-scoring year (certainly for elite players) than the three preceding seasons, and considering that the Blues' offence was basically at the same level as the year before, Hull suddenly being out-goaled by Robitaille, Turgeon, and Stevens was a little surprising. To put it another way, in 1991-92 Hull had scored 25% of the Blues' overall goals, while in 1992-93 he scored 19.1%.

I know the obvious explanation most people will suggest: Adam Oates was gone. This is probably a part of it, sure. However, the preceding season, after Oates was traded in early February, Hull scored 16 times in 19 games, the #1 GPG in the NHL during that short period (and added 4 more goals in six playoff games). Likewise, a year prior, in the games Adam Oates had missed in 1990-91, Hull carried on scoring just as usual.

When 1992-93 began, Hull was 28. He was kind of a heavy-set guy not known for his conditioning, and it wasn't unusual for forwards around 28 to start to slow down a bit in that era. Is that all there is to it?

Wondering if anyone was watching Hull regularly in this period and has a theory.

Click to read more...

 

[WarriorofTime]

He was 9th not 99th. Full season of no Oates, new coach and then another new coach eleven games in, St. Louis as a team didn’t score much relative to league, maybe some bad shooting luck, getting a bit outside of peak. Bounced back the next year to finish second. Don’t think there’s a ton to it.

 

[MadLuke]

1, Hull carried on scoring just as usual.

Shooting percentage went from 17.8% down to 14% after Oates left, not a big sample size post Oates for example.

In 1993 he shot for 13.8% almost the same, so maybe not that out of lines and he would be shooting 14.x for a while.

Did he carried on scoring just as usual during the missed game or a could be significant drop in S% occured has well during Oates injuries, I imagine that something people looked at.

 

[tabness]

I don't have the book on hand right now but I remember the Hockey Scouting Report 1993-1994 going into unusual detail about Hull's off year, basically calling out a few things like his lack of physical involvement compared to the past three years not getting him the space and chances he got before, as well as his confidence being shot and never recovering leading to a shot that was still as hard but not as accurate as his previous best shot ever years.

 

[bobholly39]

I was always a little surprised at Brett Hull's drop-off in goal production for 1992-93. He was tied for 9th in goals (with Andreychuk, but Hull played fewer games). Remember, he was 1st in 1990, 1991, and 1992.

Hull's 1993 total was 54 goals (in 80 games played of an 84-game season). Still very impressive, of course, but a long ways off his 72 goals, 86 goals, and 70 goals (in just 73 games) totals of the three previous years. His shooting percentage the three previous seasons in aggregate was 19.2%, while in 1992-93 (ostensibly an "easier" season to score in) it dropped to 13.8%.

Considering that 1992-93 was generally a higher-scoring year (certainly for elite players) than the three preceding seasons, and considering that the Blues' offence was basically at the same level as the year before, Hull suddenly being out-goaled by Robitaille, Turgeon, and Stevens was a little surprising. To put it another way, in 1991-92 Hull had scored 25% of the Blues' overall goals, while in 1992-93 he scored 19.1%.

I know the obvious explanation most people will suggest: Adam Oates was gone. This is probably a part of it, sure. However, the preceding season, after Oates was traded in early February, Hull scored 16 times in 19 games, the #1 GPG in the NHL during that short period (and added 4 more goals in six playoff games). Likewise, a year prior, in the games Adam Oates had missed in 1990-91, Hull carried on scoring just as usual.

When 1992-93 began, Hull was 28. He was kind of a heavy-set guy not known for his conditioning, and it wasn't unusual for forwards around 28 to start to slow down a bit in that era. Is that all there is to it?

Wondering if anyone was watching Hull regularly in this period and has a theory.

Ovechkin is the most consistent goal-scorer in history by far....and after scoring 65, 56 and 50 in 72 games, he drops down to 32 in 2011, and 38 in 2012.

Matthews - who up to age 27 can be argued to actually slot ahead of Ovechkin for goalscoring and consistency - had a season of just 40 goals in 2023. That's sandwitched between 60 in 2022 (including 51 in 50 games) and 69 last year.

You say Hull finished 9th in 92-93. Neither Ovechkin nor Matthews in their off years were even top 10 in goals.

The point is - it's hard to score at such a high, elite peak level year over year with no off-years.

 

[DangeRouss]

Do you really talk about my hero in 2024

 

[MadLuke]

Did he carried on scoring just as usual during the missed game or a could be significant drop in S% occured has well during Oates injuries, I imagine that something people looked at.

Apperently not he did not in 1991 either:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

From the 18 games without Oates, shoot percentage was down to 16.7% (389 shoots that season, with that s% would have been a really good but "normal" 65 goals)

It was 25% before (16 in 64) and 23.6% after (54 in 229).

So in both case when Oates missed time or got traded, the effect on Hull scoring seem huge, which make sense, either Oates is a great playmaker and help someone scoring goal or he is not, all empty calories numbers his big assists totals.

 

[Crosby2010]

Its Adam Oates. A full season without Oates does that to anyone. Everyone from Cam Neely to Peter Bondra to Chris Simon all had their best year(s) with Oates as their centre. Bondra still scored, but perhaps his best season is 1998 with Oates. Hull is no different. He was just an elite goal scorer regardless. So instead of 70 goals he was getting 50+. That makes sense. Plus he had 57 in 1994 and Bure led the NHL with 60. I think he was still quite elite up to that point. And still a very good goal scorer after that. But Oates is the type of guy who can feed his teammate for 86 goals, and Hull did that. Oates can be forgotten at times at how great of a player he truly was.