Brett Hull - how good was he?

[bobholly39]

Ive been following and reading through a lot of threads ranking all time greats and all time peaks and im curious as to why Brett Hull never gets mentioned.

And its not like I expect him to even be top 5 but I never even see people sticking up for him as far as top 20.

Didnt he score more goals than anyone else aside from Gretzky and Lemieux?

Only other player to break 80 goals in a year.
only other player to do 70+more than once (3x)


How do people here rank somone like Bret Hull, both in terms of peak and all time and why? Shouldng he be regarded as higher than Bure Jagr Lindros Sakic and Forsberg to name a few with those numbers of his?

Would love to hear some opinions.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

His prime was epic. He also had outstanding longevity and career numbers. He won two cups with two different teams, as well as a key role on the World Cup team in 96. He was awesome, but he was also pretty one-dimensional.

Top 70-80 of all time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Weird career - 3 seasons as an all-time elite goal scorer, then a huge dropoff, but a long decade and a half of a productive (but lesser) player

 

[Copmuter*]

He might have the best one-timer in hockey history, which is pretty valuable weapon to have when you're a goal scorer

But he only eclipsed the 60 goal mark when he had Oates feeding him passes

 

[Johnny Engine]

Ive been following and reading through a lot of threads ranking all time greats and all time peaks and im curious as to why Brett Hull never gets mentioned.

And its not like I expect him to even be top 5 but I never even see people sticking up for him as far as top 20.

Didnt he score more goals than anyone else aside from Gretzky and Lemieux?

Only other player to break 80 goals in a year.
only other player to do 70+more than once (3x)


How do people here rank somone like Bret Hull, both in terms of peak and all time and why? Shouldng he be regarded as higher than Bure Jagr Lindros Sakic and Forsberg to name a few with those numbers of his?

Would love to hear some opinions.

- His peak goal-scoring seasons were among the best ever, but not to the degree that he blows everyone besides Gretzky and Lemieux out of the water. Taking era into account, you can make a a variety of cases that Ovechkin's 65, Esposito's 76, his Dad's 54, and Howe's 49 are as good. This is nothing to be ashamed of.

- He didn't really do much besides score goals. He wasn't totally one-dimensional, but other players have had a wider array of elite skills.

- He's better than Bure or Lindros, neither of whom had the full career Hull did.

- Forsberg is a matter of preference. I'd put Foppa ahead, but I wouldn't laugh if you didn't. Do you want a physical defensive beast of a centre who was the best passer in the league and money in the playoffs, but frequently injured, or do you want a sniper who had a long and healthy career? Both guys had maybe 2 or 3 years, where they looked like the best player in the world (nevermind Mario, he doesn't count).

- Sakic, that's another matter. He didn't have that mindblowing peak, but he was the best player in hockey in 2001, and he was pretty much top-10 in the game for two decades. Only Howe and Bourque have that kind of longevity. Add that to a defensive game that sometimes approached Selke caliber, and you've got a guy that manages to be underrated even though everyone under the sun loves him.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Weird career - 3 seasons as an all-time elite goal scorer, then a huge dropoff, but a long decade and a half of a productive (but lesser) player

Not sure how 92-93 and 93-94 was a huge drop-off, especially finishing second in goals in 94.

 

[Copmuter*]

- He's better than Bure or Lindros, neither of whom had the full career Hull did.

There isn't a scout, coach or GM in hockey that would take Hull over Lindros

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

There isn't a scout, coach or GM in hockey that would take Hull over Lindros

by the same token, knowing what we know is there a coach, scout, or GM that would take any single libdros season over 91 hull? or any three lindros seasons over 90-92 hull?

 

[billybudd]

He might have the best one-timer in hockey history, which is pretty valuable weapon to have when you're a goal scorer

But he only eclipsed the 60 goal mark when he had Oates feeding him passes

Among the best at getting lost in coverage and finding soft spots as well. Wasn't a great skater, but must have been a quiet one.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He was amazingly good in his prime.

Probably the best one timer in hockey history combined with the ability to stay right in the no-man's land between the D and backchecking forwards.

Hull really had disappearing into that gap down to a science and art at the same time. You'd wonder how a guy who was the best goalscorer in the world would get open all the time but he did and as soon as he got the puck coming to him with that one-timer.. look out.

He was also better at moving the puck than the sort of one-timer machine he has been caricatured into around here.

He might have the best one-timer in hockey history, which is pretty valuable weapon to have when you're a goal scorer

But he only eclipsed the 60 goal mark when he had Oates feeding him passes

How many times does a fork need to be stuck in the "Hull as a product of Oates" thing before it dies?

Weird career - 3 seasons as an all-time elite goal scorer, then a huge dropoff, but a long decade and a half of a productive (but lesser) player

Part of that was the timing. Kind of like Roenick, Hull had his huge seasons right before things started clamping down in the league and that made his numbers look like they took more of a dive than they did.

He did put up 10 seasons with an adjusted 40 goals or more -- including a couple in his late thirties.

 

[Copmuter*]

by the same token, knowing what we know is there a coach, scout, or GM that would take any single libdros season over 91 hull? or any three lindros seasons over 90-92 hull?

Using adjusted points...

Hull's 1991 season was worth 118 points

Lindros' 1995 season was worth 120 points


And using adjusted points, Hull never again reached the 100 point mark

Lindros' 1996 season was worth 110 adjusted points


But I don't want to nitpick over the numbers...

Question is: assuming both are healthy and in their prime, which of the two would have been more productive playing on a line with Oates in the early 90's?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Using adjusted points...

Hull's 1991 season was worth 118 points

Lindros' 1995 season was worth 120 points


And using adjusted points, Hull never again reached the 100 point mark

Lindros' 1996 season was worth 110 adjusted points


But I don't want to nitpick over the numbers...

Question is: assuming both are healthy and in their prime, which of the two would have been more productive playing on a line with Oates in the early 90's?

i think the larger point is, one guy in the comparison never played anything resembling a full season at an MVP level.

so lindros in '95 was great, arguably as good as or maybe even better than hull's MVP year (arguably/maybe, but i would side with hull). but being that we never saw him not eventually get hurt and miss at least 10 games until he changed his game, i don't put a lot of stock in lindros' adjusted/prorated numbers for that season.

and three adjusted 60+ goal seasons is still three adjusted 60+ goal seasons, no matter how few assists came with them. ditto three consecutive hart noms.

 

[OzzyFan]

Using adjusted points...

Hull's 1991 season was worth 118 points

Lindros' 1995 season was worth 120 points


And using adjusted points, Hull never again reached the 100 point mark

Lindros' 1996 season was worth 110 adjusted points


But I don't want to nitpick over the numbers...

Question is: assuming both are healthy and in their prime, which of the two would have been more productive playing on a line with Oates in the early 90's?

Now you have me wondering how Lindros would have looked with Oates on his wing. Not to completely add the Oates affect, but Oates is a top 10 playmaker of all time no? At least top 10 of the past 50yrs, it should have some help to Hull, even if they compliment each other well. As others have said though, still one of the best prime/peak goalscorers of all time, and arguably the best 1 timer ever. All-time I don't know where to rank him though, as for your OP, better career and peak than Bure, better career than Lindros for sure but peak I don't know probably a toss-up imo. Lindros was an all around monster vs Hull's offense is tough.

 

[Copmuter*]

Just for the sake of discussion, Lindros may actually have had a better one-timer than Hull

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

He was the Phil Esposito of his era. Will always be underrated, and maybe justly so, but was so good at doing one or two things as good as or better than anyone else in history.

 

[Big Phil]

He might have the best one-timer in hockey history, which is pretty valuable weapon to have when you're a goal scorer

But he only eclipsed the 60 goal mark when he had Oates feeding him passes

Yeah but he hit 54 and 57 goals other times without him. In fact, he scored as much as 37 goals when he was 38 years old. No Oates in sight. He scored wherever he went, but you have to come down from 70+ in three different seasons sometimes which is why it looks like a bigger dropoff because like Gretzky he had a lot longer to drop.

He finished 2nd in goals in 1994, which was still pretty good. One of the best slapshots of all-time as well. Someone mentioned one-timers and that's true as well. Stamkos has nearly perfected that off-wing one-timer on the power play, but I think Hull did it better. Ovechkin is up there with that too.

The knock on him was that he was too one-dimensional. Not interested in playing defense, wasn't physical, couldn't fight, never back-checked and went to the beat of his own drum. Brett Hull was an enigma. Kovalev and Mogilny were enigmas, but the difference is no matter what uniform he wore whether it was St. Louis, Dallas, Detroit or Team USA, he was always that thorn in your side when it came to clutch goals. You always had to watch out for him. Because despite all of those poor qualities he had you would think he'd be a no-show in the postseason but he never was. You wanted Brett Hull on your team during a playoff run. He often scored the goal that broke the camel's back.

Look no further than his 103 career playoff goals. Only Gretzky, Messier and Kurri have more. Hull and Gretzky share the all-time lead in playoff game winning goals with 24. That's no accident. So while Hull could drive you nuts as a coach, as an opponent you knew he'd be the guy to snipe that goal with two minutes left in the game. You just knew it. He was a winner.

The things that bug you to no end about him is that he wasn't as complete as he could have been. I have no idea how a 54 goal scorer could be -27 on the 1993 Blues but he was. Even stranger, he was a -21 on the 2000 Stars. Something Ken Hitchcock would have hated. Overall he is only +23 for his whole career. Strange since he was a 740 goal scorer and the worst teams he played on were the Blues, which were still good enough teams. But the bottom line is that he scored, and he won, and he cared less about anything else.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Hull and Oates were amazing.

Sickest one timer I've ever seen in the slot.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

He might have the best one-timer in hockey history, which is pretty valuable weapon to have when you're a goal scorer

But he only eclipsed the 60 goal mark when he had Oates feeding him passes

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=972131

This thread shows that Oates might not have had the dramatic impact that he had on Hull.

 

[shazariahl]

Yeah but he hit 54 and 57 goals other times without him. In fact, he scored as much as 37 goals when he was 38 years old. No Oates in sight. He scored wherever he went, but you have to come down from 70+ in three different seasons sometimes which is why it looks like a bigger dropoff because like Gretzky he had a lot longer to drop.

He finished 2nd in goals in 1994, which was still pretty good. One of the best slapshots of all-time as well. Someone mentioned one-timers and that's true as well. Stamkos has nearly perfected that off-wing one-timer on the power play, but I think Hull did it better. Ovechkin is up there with that too.

The knock on him was that he was too one-dimensional. Not interested in playing defense, wasn't physical, couldn't fight, never back-checked and went to the beat of his own drum. Brett Hull was an enigma. Kovalev and Mogilny were enigmas, but the difference is no matter what uniform he wore whether it was St. Louis, Dallas, Detroit or Team USA, he was always that thorn in your side when it came to clutch goals. You always had to watch out for him. Because despite all of those poor qualities he had you would think he'd be a no-show in the postseason but he never was. You wanted Brett Hull on your team during a playoff run. He often scored the goal that broke the camel's back.

Look no further than his 103 career playoff goals. Only Gretzky, Messier and Kurri have more. Hull and Gretzky share the all-time lead in playoff game winning goals with 24. That's no accident. So while Hull could drive you nuts as a coach, as an opponent you knew he'd be the guy to snipe that goal with two minutes left in the game. You just knew it. He was a winner.

The things that bug you to no end about him is that he wasn't as complete as he could have been. I have no idea how a 54 goal scorer could be -27 on the 1993 Blues but he was. Even stranger, he was a -21 on the 2000 Stars. Something Ken Hitchcock would have hated. Overall he is only +23 for his whole career. Strange since he was a 740 goal scorer and the worst teams he played on were the Blues, which were still good enough teams. But the bottom line is that he scored, and he won, and he cared less about anything else.

Excellent post.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

The things that bug you to no end about him is that he wasn't as complete as he could have been. I have no idea how a 54 goal scorer could be -27 on the 1993 Blues but he was. Even stranger, he was a -21 on the 2000 Stars. Something Ken Hitchcock would have hated. Overall he is only +23 for his whole career. Strange since he was a 740 goal scorer and the worst teams he played on were the Blues, which were still good enough teams. But the bottom line is that he scored, and he won, and he cared less about anything else.

Even crazier to think of when you see he had 456 career ES goals...

 

[tjcurrie]

His prime was epic. He also had outstanding longevity and career numbers. He won two cups with two different teams, as well as a key role on the World Cup team in 96. He was awesome, but he was also pretty one-dimensional.

Top 70-80 of all time.

Higher than that. Come on.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Higher than that. Come on.

Taking every position into account, and every player thats played since the early days in 1910-1920, yeah thats about where he falls IMO.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Yeah but he hit 54 and 57 goals other times without him. In fact, he scored as much as 37 goals when he was 38 years old. No Oates in sight. He scored wherever he went, but you have to come down from 70+ in three different seasons sometimes which is why it looks like a bigger dropoff because like Gretzky he had a lot longer to drop.

He finished 2nd in goals in 1994, which was still pretty good. One of the best slapshots of all-time as well. Someone mentioned one-timers and that's true as well. Stamkos has nearly perfected that off-wing one-timer on the power play, but I think Hull did it better. Ovechkin is up there with that too.

The knock on him was that he was too one-dimensional. Not interested in playing defense, wasn't physical, couldn't fight, never back-checked and went to the beat of his own drum. Brett Hull was an enigma. Kovalev and Mogilny were enigmas, but the difference is no matter what uniform he wore whether it was St. Louis, Dallas, Detroit or Team USA, he was always that thorn in your side when it came to clutch goals. You always had to watch out for him. Because despite all of those poor qualities he had you would think he'd be a no-show in the postseason but he never was. You wanted Brett Hull on your team during a playoff run. He often scored the goal that broke the camel's back.

Look no further than his 103 career playoff goals. Only Gretzky, Messier and Kurri have more. Hull and Gretzky share the all-time lead in playoff game winning goals with 24. That's no accident. So while Hull could drive you nuts as a coach, as an opponent you knew he'd be the guy to snipe that goal with two minutes left in the game. You just knew it. He was a winner.

The things that bug you to no end about him is that he wasn't as complete as he could have been. I have no idea how a 54 goal scorer could be -27 on the 1993 Blues but he was. Even stranger, he was a -21 on the 2000 Stars. Something Ken Hitchcock would have hated. Overall he is only +23 for his whole career. Strange since he was a 740 goal scorer and the worst teams he played on were the Blues, which were still good enough teams. But the bottom line is that he scored, and he won, and he cared less about anything else.

Outstanding summary. Honestly don't think there's anything else to add here other than Brett Hull scared the living daylights out of me when he played for the U.S. in international competitions. Like you said, he was a winner, and he always scored in crunch time. The definition of the clichéd big game player.

 

[Plural]

- Sakic, that's another matter. He didn't have that mindblowing peak, but he was the best player in hockey in 2001, and he was pretty much top-10 in the game for two decades. Only Howe and Bourque have that kind of longevity. Add that to a defensive game that sometimes approached Selke caliber, and you've got a guy that manages to be underrated even though everyone under the sun loves him.

Good post, but I do disagree with you on that one. While Sakic did not have comparable peak to Gretzky, he did have that one amazing season. 2nd in points (would have been first if Mario didn't come out to boost Jagr) won the Hart (by a huge margin 53 first place votes agaisnt Lemieux with 8. Nobody else had even one) and 2nd in Selke voting. (With having more 1st place votes than Madden and losing just barely) I think that is one hell of a peak season.

Edit:

I should have quoted Phil's post one more time. Cause it was so spot on.

 

[bobholly39]

His prime was epic. He also had outstanding longevity and career numbers. He won two cups with two different teams, as well as a key role on the World Cup team in 96. He was awesome, but he was also pretty one-dimensional.

Top 70-80 of all time.

See, that's what i'm talking about.

At the end of the day, scoring goals is the most important thing in hockey. You can defend, you can +/-, you can block, you can goalie shots, you can assist goals, but at the end of the day you need more goals to win a game.

And Bret Hull had the 2nd highest peak (perhaps 3rd behind Mario) in terms of single-season goals scored of all-time. Now, he didn't maintain that ridiculously high peak for all of his career, even though he did have a very solid all around career nonetheless.

How the hell can that be 70-80 lol.