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, but still pointing to a major effect.

In 1993 he shot for 13.8%, which was almost the same than without Oates the year before, so maybe not that out of lines.

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.

edit: Hull was greatly affected when Oates got injured has well:
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 rocket win but a more "normal" 65 goals one)
It was 25% before (16 in 64) and 23.6% after (54 in 229).

 

[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.

 

[Dingo]

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.

You can add Juneau to that list. I thought he was gonna be a superstar based off of being a rookie with over 100 points.

To take it one step further - that was Oates' best season for himself. He had the least talented wingers in his prime years, and nearly scored 50 himself.

 

[JianYang]

You can add Juneau to that list. I thought he was gonna be a superstar based off of being a rookie with over 100 points.

To take it one step further - that was Oates' best season for himself. He had the least talented wingers in his prime years, and nearly scored 50 himself.

I wonder how much injuries impacted Juneau. He played a full season in his rookie year but never after that. Alot of seasons, he was in the 50s and 60s for games played.

He still had decent production after his rookie year from a points per game standpoint, before he morphed into a pure checking player later in his career.

 

[Stephen]

Adam Oates recorded 97 assists in Boston in 1992-93, whereas Craig Janney recorded 82 assists in St. Louis, which is a delta of 15 assists.

Brett Hull with 15 additional goals gets him up to 69 goals.

Also, Brendan Shanahan emerged as a 50 goal scorer, up from 33 the year before, taking up some of the goal scoring responsibilities.

A bit reductive, but mystery solved?

 

[The Panther]

Adam Oates recorded 97 assists in Boston in 1992-93, whereas Craig Janney recorded 82 assists in St. Louis, which is a delta of 15 assists.

Brett Hull with 15 additional goals gets him up to 69 goals.

Also, Brendan Shanahan emerged as a 50 goal scorer, up from 33 the year before, taking up some of the goal scoring responsibilities.

A bit reductive, but mystery solved?

Yes, that seems to be the most likely answer, all things considered.

While Hull could still rifle in 50-60 goals with Janney as his center, maybe it wasn't quite as productive as with Oates. Also, Hull was getting a bit older and maybe a bit less physically engaged, as one person put it.

I just wondered why 1992-93, of all seasons, was the year he would take a step down.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

One does not dissect gossamer.

 

[The Panther]

You can add Juneau to that list. I thought he was gonna be a superstar based off of being a rookie with over 100 points.

Despite the popular myth, Juneau actually was a stud for two seasons -- 1992-93 and 1993-94. Scoring was down a bit in 1993-94, and Juneau had 85 points in 74 games. (If you go by 'Adjusted points', his 1994 production is actually higher than his 1993 production, per game.)

Actually, he did well in the short 1995 season, too. A point per game was really good that year.

And in 1996, he still had 64 points, which isn't chump-change.

Definitely boosted by Oates, though.

 

[MadLuke]

That made my thought about Oates really big impact on Hull shooting, which others case where there was big enough played with or without (Kevin Stevens with Mario Lemieux was huge)

Forsberg-Gagne pair did came to mind, peak Gagne was a really good scorer, but would normally never flirt with the Rocket would be my guess without an elite playmaker.

06&07, per games pace
Without Forsberg: 0.46 goals, 0.28 assists, 0.73 points, -0.08 +/-
With... Forsberg: 0.66 goals, 0.46 assists, 1.12 points, 0.37 +/-

54 goals by 82 pace down to 38.

He scored 66 goals shooting 15.6% with Forsberg, 22 goals shooiting only 10.78% without, we do not have to ask why he never scored 35 or made a top 10 in gpg outside those 2 seasons.

90-91-92, with Oates, without oates


Without Oates: 0.89 goals, 0.55 assists, 1.44 points, 0.15 +/-, 5.36 shots a games, 16.66%
Without Oates: 1.01 goals, 0.54 assists, 1.54 points, 0.07 +/-, 5.07 shots a games, 19.83%

Remove 12% of Hull goals totals if that Oates effect size and it would have look more like this:

89: 41, 13.4%
90: 63, 16.5%
91: 76, 19.5%
92: 62, 15.2%
93: 54, 13.8%
94: 57, 14.5%
95: 50, 14.5% (adjusted for 82 games)
96: -- Comfortably turned 30 by now.

Look like your usual goalscorer peaking-decline arguably better than usual, Ovechkin 2 season after his peak, post 85 Gretzky, Yzerman around the same time (he was just one season later and he was younger but more mileage), Hull style of scoring making it easier to age well than most.

 

[Boxscore]

No Oates.

Emergence of Shanahan.

Other players had insane (never replicated) seasons... Mogilny and rookie Selanne 76g each.

In fact, 4 players ahead of Hull had their best goal-scoring years that year... Selanne, Mogilny, Robitaille, Turgeon.

If Oates will still a Blue, there's zero chance Hull doesn't score 6 more goals and tie Bure for 5th with 60.

 

[dr robbie]

It was always Hull & Oates. You take away Oates, and Hull just isn't the same. Yeah, he's still a crazy good goal scorer, but he needed Oates for that next level scoring.

 

[Crosby2010]

You can add Juneau to that list. I thought he was gonna be a superstar based off of being a rookie with over 100 points.

To take it one step further - that was Oates' best season for himself. He had the least talented wingers in his prime years, and nearly scored 50 himself.

1993 was that year with Neely out as well. Oates was never a goal scorer. He did 45 that year you are talking about and then 32 the following year. But that was it for 30 goal seasons. It just wasn't his thing. He was a playmaker first and foremost and went out of his way to be that guy. But when Neely was out in 1993 I think Oates took things to another level. He scored 45 and had 97 assists. That's just an amazing year. And yeah, Joe Juneau on his left wing. Juneau had a huge gap from the 1993 season to his next best. Actually the next year he had Oates too. But yeah, there are so many names where you can see Oates' impact. Even Neely who scored 50 goals two other times never hit 50 in 49 like he did in 1994 and of course Oates is the guy feeding him.

 

[67 others]

Oates ability to elevate teammates was pretty amazing.

its not surprising that superstar goal scorers paired with one of the greatest playmakers of all time has a bit of drop as he needs to learn how to do it with far lesser help

 

[Jumptheshark]

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.

I an confused by this post.

Hulls scoring
90/91 86 goals
91/92 70
92/93 54
93/94 57
94/95 29 in 48 games
95/96 43

It is not like he scored only 20 goals

 

[VistamarCroissants]

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.

That's because the 92/93 season was one of the highest scoring in history.

Correct me if I'm wrong, 14 forwards reached the 50-goal plateau. The competition was huge