Comparing Hull & Ovechkin's playoff resumes

[MadLuke]

Am I the only one observing the overtime problem here? Hull didn't play in any overtimes.

This comparison would be more fair if all of Ovechkin's overtime points (I don't know how many that would be) were taken out of the comparison.

Is this a big typo forgetting than those are playoff resume, playoff goals and points or they didn't had overtime during playoff back then:

NHL Playoff Overtime Goals | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the list of overtime goals scored in Stanley Cup playoff history and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

Bobby Hulls scored an overtime goals in 1971.

Playoff tend in many aspect to be in a way easier to compare over the age (and harder in different way), some ways that I feel are more constant than the RS are the game format, intensity, opponent average strength, scoring, referring the big difference being obviously the length and number of round to win the cup.

 

[The Panther]

Is this a big typo forgetting than those are playoff resume, playoff goals and points or they didn't had overtime during playoff back then:

My bad. I wasn't recognizing the "PO" that the OP used.

 

[Video Nasty]

I’m usually a big fan of defending the older player and not penalizing someone for playing in the context of their time, but the notion of Hull being a better playoff performer seems a bit disingenuous and slavish to the past.

For the first 10 years of his career, there were only 6 teams. 4 teams made the playoffs. That alone gives more opportunities than a more modern example like Ovechkin who has dealt with 16 of 30/32 making the playoffs and needing to win 4 rounds. 8 wins only gets you to the third round. Winning 2 rounds was enough to win a Cup in the first 10 years of Hull’s career.

Hull won 1 Cup in 13 seasons before he went to the WHA. He played a grand total of 3 seasons in a 12 team league where there were 3 rounds.

I don’t know. It just seems like being willingly blind to ignore that Hull and his teams had to do less than modern teams and they still only managed to accomplish about what Ovechkin and his teams have done.

 

[The Panther]

Conclusion
Overall, Hull appears to have been a better playoff performer than Ovechkin. He ranked higher among his peers in production (both in total and per-game, even after we exclude non-Canadians to account for Ovechkin facing a larger talent pool). Hull drove his team's ES differential to a larger extent. He led his team in scoring more often (series by series), and helped his team win about as often as Ovechkin's Capitals (despite his team being the underdog far more often). Hull scored more in overtime, more in the Stanley Cup Finals, more in game 7's, and vastly more when his team could eliminate their opponents (all of which are small data points, but they're all pointing in the same direction). Hull never had a span where he was as unproductive as Ovechkin was from ages 26 to 32 (0.67 PPG over the span of 60 games). I think you'd have to place an unreasonably high value on Ovechkin's Conn Smythe trophy and/or body-checking to argue that he's ahead of Hull.

While this detailed statistical analysis is very welcome (kudos, etc.), I think the era-difference between the two players is so extreme and sharp that I'm not sure such comparisons really tell us too much.

If one player was obviously over-performing and one obviously under-performing, we would know anyway without the statistical deep dive. What I think the stats' analysis shows is that the two are pretty close overall.

Because (as the OP says) both of these players played for quite competitive clubs that generally under-performed in the playoffs, It might be just as -- or more -- constructive to compare things like how each player performed in the series their clubs lost (comparing to teammates, for example), when taking into account strength of competition, etc. Just thinking out loud and throwing some thoughts out there...

Just saying the era difference is so huge here that I don't know if straight stats' comparisons really tell us too much (unless one were clearly inferior or superior, which neither is).

 

[Golden_Jet]

Am I the only one observing the overtime problem here? Hull didn't play in any overtimes.

This comparison would be more fair if all of Ovechkin's overtime points (I don't know how many that would be) were taken out of the comparison.

That seems a fairer comparison to do.
Less playoff rounds then
Less games played as well in a season.

 

[golfortennis]

One of my biggest pet peeves back in the day was the Mike Fisher special - coming down the wing, aiming far post, missing high and wide, the puck rimming around at speed and generating a 3 on 2 odd-man rush going the opposite way.

Isn't it a bit of a high risk high reward kind of play?

Kris Letang has killed more penalties for the opposition this way than good defenders have.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Kris Letang has killed more penalties for the opposition this way than good defenders have.

Pens fans have this weird thought about this. Letang is one of the least guilty players of this in the league because he's not the shooter. He doesn't take slapshots and rarely one times the puck. His shot is a wrist shot, coming down hill, from near the top of the circles. He's usually inside the dot line too.

I took some of the highest volume shooter d-men in the league over the last three years and looked at their ratio of missed shots to total shots. (non-exhaustive list)

Player	SOG	Missed	Miss%	Total
Kris Letang	523​	163​	23.8%​	686​
Seth Jones	461​	146​	24.1%​	607​
Aaron Ekblad	428​	136​	24.1%​	564​
Brady Skjei	427​	140​	24.7%​	567​
Tyson Barrie	464​	162​	25.9%​	626​
Torey Krug	373​	135​	26.6%​	508​
Thomas Chabot	479​	174​	26.6%​	653​
Zach Werenski	482​	177​	26.9%​	659​
Miro Heiskanen	440​	162​	26.9%​	602​
Darnell Nurse	527​	197​	27.2%​	724​
Alex Pietrangelo	578​	218​	27.4%​	796​
Jacob Trouba	442​	168​	27.5%​	610​
Roman Josi	682​	260​	27.6%​	942​
Shea Theodore	585​	226​	27.9%​	811​
Cale Makar	465​	181​	28.0%​	646​
Jeff Petry	410​	161​	28.2%​	571​
Dougie Hamilton	547​	232​	29.8%​	779​
Brent Burns	566​	245​	30.2%​	811​

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Because (as the OP says) both of these players played for quite competitive clubs that generally under-performed in the playoffs, It might be just as -- or more -- constructive to compare things like how each player performed in the series their clubs lost (comparing to teammates, for example), when taking into account strength of competition, etc. Just thinking out loud and throwing some thoughts out there...

I think this is a great idea. I might take a look when I have time (anyone else is welcome to take a look as well).

 

[seventieslord]

Pens fans have this weird thought about this. Letang is one of the least guilty players of this in the league because he's not the shooter. He doesn't take slapshots and rarely one times the puck. His shot is a wrist shot, coming down hill, from near the top of the circles. He's usually inside the dot line too.

I took some of the highest volume shooter d-men in the league over the last three years and looked at their ratio of missed shots to total shots. (non-exhaustive list)

Player	SOG	Missed	Miss%	Total
Kris Letang	523​	163​	23.8%​	686​
Seth Jones	461​	146​	24.1%​	607​
Aaron Ekblad	428​	136​	24.1%​	564​
Brady Skjei	427​	140​	24.7%​	567​
Tyson Barrie	464​	162​	25.9%​	626​
Torey Krug	373​	135​	26.6%​	508​
Thomas Chabot	479​	174​	26.6%​	653​
Zach Werenski	482​	177​	26.9%​	659​
Miro Heiskanen	440​	162​	26.9%​	602​
Darnell Nurse	527​	197​	27.2%​	724​
Alex Pietrangelo	578​	218​	27.4%​	796​
Jacob Trouba	442​	168​	27.5%​	610​
Roman Josi	682​	260​	27.6%​	942​
Shea Theodore	585​	226​	27.9%​	811​
Cale Makar	465​	181​	28.0%​	646​
Jeff Petry	410​	161​	28.2%​	571​
Dougie Hamilton	547​	232​	29.8%​	779​
Brent Burns	566​	245​	30.2%​	811​

is that missed shots as a percentage of total shot attempts? that would probably make more sense (though might put him in the same place in the end)

 

[golfortennis]

Pens fans have this weird thought about this. Letang is one of the least guilty players of this in the league because he's not the shooter. He doesn't take slapshots and rarely one times the puck. His shot is a wrist shot, coming down hill, from near the top of the circles. He's usually inside the dot line too.

I took some of the highest volume shooter d-men in the league over the last three years and looked at their ratio of missed shots to total shots. (non-exhaustive list)

Player	SOG	Missed	Miss%	Total
Kris Letang	523​	163​	23.8%​	686​
Seth Jones	461​	146​	24.1%​	607​
Aaron Ekblad	428​	136​	24.1%​	564​
Brady Skjei	427​	140​	24.7%​	567​
Tyson Barrie	464​	162​	25.9%​	626​
Torey Krug	373​	135​	26.6%​	508​
Thomas Chabot	479​	174​	26.6%​	653​
Zach Werenski	482​	177​	26.9%​	659​
Miro Heiskanen	440​	162​	26.9%​	602​
Darnell Nurse	527​	197​	27.2%​	724​
Alex Pietrangelo	578​	218​	27.4%​	796​
Jacob Trouba	442​	168​	27.5%​	610​
Roman Josi	682​	260​	27.6%​	942​
Shea Theodore	585​	226​	27.9%​	811​
Cale Makar	465​	181​	28.0%​	646​
Jeff Petry	410​	161​	28.2%​	571​
Dougie Hamilton	547​	232​	29.8%​	779​
Brent Burns	566​	245​	30.2%​	811​

Well, this is from what I have seen, so apply the usual caveats, but the number of times on the power play Letang fires from the point and misses the net, and the puck goes down to the other end is far more often than I have seen others. Maybe he is fine the rest of the time, but he could hit the net a few more times.

In fairness, he hasn't pulled a Brooks Orpik, so there is that.

 

[Michael Farkas]

is that missed shots as a percentage of total shot attempts? that would probably make more sense (though might put him in the same place in the end)

I'm not sure, it was just a quick and dirty look of shots on goal and misses...I feel that combination makes up shot attempts, except blocks...but that wasn't really the prompt anyway, ya know...?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I’m usually a big fan of defending the older player and not penalizing someone for playing in the context of their time, but the notion of Hull being a better playoff performer seems a bit disingenuous and slavish to the past.

For the first 10 years of his career, there were only 6 teams. 4 teams made the playoffs. That alone gives more opportunities than a more modern example like Ovechkin who has dealt with 16 of 30/32 making the playoffs and needing to win 4 rounds. 8 wins only gets you to the third round. Winning 2 rounds was enough to win a Cup in the first 10 years of Hull’s career.

Hull won 1 Cup in 13 seasons before he went to the WHA. He played a grand total of 3 seasons in a 12 team league where there were 3 rounds.

I don’t know. It just seems like being willingly blind to ignore that Hull and his teams had to do less than modern teams and they still only managed to accomplish about what Ovechkin and his teams have done.

My biggest takeaway from this entire exercise was how often Bobby Hull's teams were the underdog in their playoff series.

During the first 12 seasons of Hull's career (which captures all seven of his goal-scoring titles, all three of his Art Ross trophies, both of his Hart trophies, eight of his ten first-team all-star selections, and seven of his eight years as a Hart trophy finalist), Chicago played in 14 playoff series. They finished with fewer points than their opponent in the regular season in nine of those series. (There aren't any "close calls" where they were one or two points back - they were still seven points back in the closest of these nine series). On average, they finished about 15 points behind their opponents (in a 70 game schedule). I know that a team's regular season record isn't everything, but it's usually a good starting point.

That result surprised me. My impression was Hull and the Blackhawks were consistently a top team, and they failed to get it done in the spring. I no longer think that's true. It's partly due to the lack of parity in the league. Sure, Chicago had a much better team than Boston or the Rangers in the 1960's - but they were behind Montreal almost every year, and of course the Blackhawks couldn't beat up on the two weaker opponents (who didn't qualify for the postseason).

Chicago finally had a top team - in terms of results, rather than the names of the star players on their roster - only during Hull's final three seasons. The Blackhawks entered a playoff series with more points than their opponents four times from 1970 to 1972 - when Hull was still a star, but no longer as a perennial Richard trophy winner and/or Hart trophy finalist. Incredibly, in those final three years of Hull's NHL career, Chicago was the favourite in only one fewer series, compared to every playoff series they had played in, during the entirety of the 1960's.

I'm not making any specific comments on Hull vs Ovechkin in this post. But looking at the results, Hull's teams were a fair bit weaker than I had imagined. We shouldn't look to make excuses for Hull - but Chicago going 4-5 in the nine series where they had a noticeably weaker record than their opponent isn't a terrible outcome either. It's true that they only needed eight wins to get the Cup, but that didn't help if they were the clear underdog in two-thirds of their series.

 

[Randyne]

Third, Ovechkin never had a player anywhere near the calibre of Stan Mikita on his team. We know that, in general, Hull and Mikita played on different lines

PO 1961: Hull scored 14 points Mikita factored in 4 points (28.6%)
PO 1962: Hull scored 14 points Mikita factored in 10 points (71.4%)
PO 1964: Hull scored 7 points Mikita factored in 4 points (57.1%)
PO 1968: Hull scored 10 points Mikita factored in 4 points (40%)
PO 1970: Hull scored 11 points Mikita factored in 5 points (45.5%)

Hull and Mikita in one team is unfair comparison vs only one Ovi. They were two best players in the league.
It's like SidMalkin vs one Ovi all over again.
Individually Ovi has better NHL career than any of them by a lot.

 

[Midnight Judges]

PO 1961: Hull scored 14 points Mikita factored in 4 points (28.6%)
PO 1962: Hull scored 14 points Mikita factored in 10 points (71.4%)
PO 1964: Hull scored 7 points Mikita factored in 4 points (57.1%)
PO 1968: Hull scored 10 points Mikita factored in 4 points (40%)
PO 1970: Hull scored 11 points Mikita factored in 5 points (45.5%)

Hull and Mikita in one team is unfair comparison vs only one Ovi. They were two best players in the league.
It's like SidMalkin vs one Ovi all over again.
Individually Ovi has better NHL career than any of them by a lot.

Ovechkin has always faced an opponent's top defensive pairing and their shutdown forwards - every opportunity the opposing team has. The Capitals have rarely had a 2nd line that was remotely as threatening as their top line (Vrana-Backstrom-Oshie was the best 2nd line the Caps have iced in the Ovechkin era but was still nowhere near as effective as Ovechkin-Kuznetsov-Wilson).

It seems less likely that an opposing team would pull their top defensive players on the basis that it's "only" Stan Mikita. Even if they weren't on the same line and contributing to each other's points, Hull would still benefit from having another top 3 ish player on his team.

 

[JackSlater]

PO 1961: Hull scored 14 points Mikita factored in 4 points (28.6%)
PO 1962: Hull scored 14 points Mikita factored in 10 points (71.4%)
PO 1964: Hull scored 7 points Mikita factored in 4 points (57.1%)
PO 1968: Hull scored 10 points Mikita factored in 4 points (40%)
PO 1970: Hull scored 11 points Mikita factored in 5 points (45.5%)

Hull and Mikita in one team is unfair comparison vs only one Ovi. They were two best players in the league.
It's like SidMalkin vs one Ovi all over again.
Individually Ovi has better NHL career than any of them by a lot.

No doubt Hull benefitted in scoring from having Mikita on the team, on the power play in particular. It should hurt him in things like relative goal differential though, having one of the league's best players on another line, and despite that Hull does very well.

You've lost the plot at the end though if your position is that Ovechkin has a better NHL career than (Hull, Mikita, Malkin, Crosby) by "a lot". At the very least Ovechkin, Hull, and Crosby are in a very similar range historically, Mikita probably isn't that far behind, and Malkin is roughly that calibre of player if he were healthier.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Ovechkin has always faced an opponent's top defensive pairing and their shutdown forwards - every opportunity the opposing team has. The Capitals have rarely had a 2nd line that was remotely as threatening as their top line (Vrana-Backstrom-Oshie was the best 2nd line the Caps have iced in the Ovechkin era but was still nowhere near as effective as Ovechkin-Kuznetsov-Wilson).

It seems less likely that an opposing team would pull their top defensive players on the basis that it's "only" Stan Mikita. Even if they weren't on the same line and contributing to each other's points, Hull would still benefit from having another top 3 ish player on his team.

Agreed. This is a valid point and helps Ovechkin (relative to Hull).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

PO 1961: Hull scored 14 points Mikita factored in 4 points (28.6%)
PO 1962: Hull scored 14 points Mikita factored in 10 points (71.4%)
PO 1964: Hull scored 7 points Mikita factored in 4 points (57.1%)
PO 1968: Hull scored 10 points Mikita factored in 4 points (40%)
PO 1970: Hull scored 11 points Mikita factored in 5 points (45.5%)

Hull and Mikita in one team is unfair comparison vs only one Ovi. They were two best players in the league.
It's like SidMalkin vs one Ovi all over again.
Individually Ovi has better NHL career than any of them by a lot.

I was wondering why you were only showing the results for certain years. That became obvious when I looked at the years you skipped over.

In 1963, Mikita didn't assist on any of Hull's 10 playoff points. In 1965, it was 2 of 17. In 1971, it was 3 of 25. In 1972, it was 2 of 8. And it was 1 of 7 in the combined results of several quick exists (1959, 1960, 1966).

I have no problem with the data you presented. It definitely should be taken into account, and it proves that, at least some of the time, Mikita and Hull played together.

But you chose to present only the years that makes your favourite player look better, while ignoring the years that don't. Usually, in the History forum, someone will catch that. Everyone has biases (including me), but let's try to be honest when presenting data.

 

[seventieslord]

I was wondering why you were only showing the results for certain years. That became obvious when I looked at the years you skipped over.

In 1963, Mikita didn't assist on any of Hull's 10 playoff points. In 1965, it was 2 of 17. In 1971, it was 3 of 25. In 1972, it was 2 of 8. And it was 1 of 7 in the combined results of several quick exists (1959, 1960, 1966).

I have no problem with the data you presented. It definitely should be taken into account, and it proves that, at least some of the time, Mikita and Hull played together.

But you chose to present only the years that makes your favourite player look better, while ignoring the years that don't. Usually, in the History forum, someone will catch that. Everyone has biases (including me), but let's try to be honest when presenting data.

So that's 35 out of 123 points from 1959-1972 - assuming all years are accounted for there.

It would be interesting to see how many of those were actually at even strength. I'm guessing most were PP.

 

[Vilica]

Looking at Hull's scoring logs, here's the data I found. In 60-61 Mikita and Hull factored on same goal 3 times at even strength and 1 time on the power play, while Hull had 11 EV points and 3 PP points.

60-61 PO - 3 EV 1 PP (of 11 EV 3 PP)
61-62 PO - 3 EV 5 PP 1 SH (of 7 EV 6 PP 1 SH)
62-63 PO - 0 (of 6 EV 4 PP)
63-64 PO - 1 EV 3 PP (of 4 EV 3 PP)
64-65 PO - 1 EV 1 PP (of 11 EV 6 PP)
65-66 PO - 1 PP (of 1 EV 3 PP)
66-67 PO - 0 (of 4 EV 2 PP)
67-68 PO - 1 EV 3 PP (of 6 EV 3 PP 1 SH)
69-70 PO - 3 EV 2 PP (of 7 EV 4 PP)
70-71 PO - 3 PP (of 13 EV 12 PP)
71-72 PO - 2 EV (of 6 EV 1 PP 1 SH)

Total 14 EV 19 PP 1 SH of a total of 76 EV, 47 PP 3 SH, if I added everything up correctly.

When I broke down Hull's playoff runs, he performed better than I thought he would. I'm actually inclined to think he showed up more often than Maurice Richard for each playoff series. The series I'd be most interested in watching if video existed would be the Detroit series in 62-63, where Hull was a -2 despite putting up 8+2=10 with 6 EV points in 5 games. He missed game 3 where Detroit scored 3 of their 18 EV goals, so that means he was on-ice for at least 8 of Detroit's 15 goals.

 

[seventieslord]

Looking at Hull's scoring logs, here's the data I found. In 60-61 Mikita and Hull factored on same goal 3 times at even strength and 1 time on the power play, while Hull had 11 EV points and 3 PP points.

60-61 PO - 3 EV 1 PP (of 11 EV 3 PP)
61-62 PO - 3 EV 5 PP 1 SH (of 7 EV 6 PP 1 SH)
62-63 PO - 0 (of 6 EV 4 PP)
63-64 PO - 1 EV 3 PP (of 4 EV 3 PP)
64-65 PO - 1 EV 1 PP (of 11 EV 6 PP)
65-66 PO - 1 PP (of 1 EV 3 PP)
66-67 PO - 0 (of 4 EV 2 PP)
67-68 PO - 1 EV 3 PP (of 6 EV 3 PP 1 SH)
69-70 PO - 3 EV 2 PP (of 7 EV 4 PP)
70-71 PO - 3 PP (of 13 EV 12 PP)
71-72 PO - 2 EV (of 6 EV 1 PP 1 SH)

Total 14 EV 19 PP 1 SH of a total of 76 EV, 47 PP 3 SH, if I added everything up correctly.

When I broke down Hull's playoff runs, he performed better than I thought he would. I'm actually inclined to think he showed up more often than Maurice Richard for each playoff series. The series I'd be most interested in watching if video existed would be the Detroit series in 62-63, where Hull was a -2 despite putting up 8+2=10 with 6 EV points in 5 games. He missed game 3 where Detroit scored 3 of their 18 EV goals, so that means he was on-ice for at least 8 of Detroit's 15 goals.

14 of 76 at ES, for those counting. This is a case where the two best players get the odd shift together when they're behind, when one is being double-shifted, last minute situations, etc. Not playing on the same line.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

(I wrote this before seeing @Vilica 's post, but our conclusions are pretty much the same).

Here's a table showing the breakdown by situation, by year:

Season

GP

EVP

W/Mikita

X/Mikita

PPP

W/Mikita

X/Mikita

SHP

W/Mikita

X/Mikita

Total

W/Mikita

X/Mikita

1959

6​

2​

0​

2​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

2​

0​

2​

1960

3​

1​

0​

1​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

1​

0​

1​

1961

12​

11​

3​

8​

3​

1​

2​

0​

0​

0​

14​

4​

10​

1962

12​

7​

4​

3​

6​

5​

1​

1​

1​

0​

14​

10​

4​

1963

5​

6​

0​

6​

4​

0​

4​

0​

0​

0​

10​

0​

10​

1964

7​

4​

1​

3​

3​

3​

0​

0​

0​

0​

7​

4​

3​

1965

14​

11​

1​

10​

6​

1​

5​

0​

0​

0​

17​

2​

15​

1966

6​

1​

0​

1​

3​

1​

2​

0​

0​

0​

4​

1​

3​

1967

6​

4​

0​

4​

2​

0​

2​

0​

0​

0​

6​

0​

6​

1968

11​

6​

1​

5​

3​

3​

0​

1​

0​

1​

10​

4​

6​

1970

8​

7​

3​

4​

4​

2​

2​

0​

0​

0​

11​

5​

6​

1971

18​

13​

0​

13​

12​

3​

9​

0​

0​

0​

25​

3​

22​

1972

8​

6​

2​

4​

1​

0​

1​

1​

0​

1​

8​

2​

6​

Total

116​

79​

15​

64​

47​

19​

28​

3​

1​

2​

129​

35​

94​

Percentage

​

19.0%​

81.0%​

​

40.4%​

59.6%​

​

33.3%​

66.7%​

27.1%​

72.9%​

Hull scored 81% of his points without Mikita (and 19% with him) at even-strength. I suspect that they played together even less frequently than that, as many of their ES goals were in high-leverage situations. Four of the 15 ES points are in the last ten minutes of the third period in close games, or in OT (April 12, 1962; April 2, 1964; April 12, 1970; and April 8, 1972) - more than we'd expect by chance alone. I'm speculating, but they might have been playing together as little as 10-15% at ES most of the time, but Rudy Pilous and Billy Reay put both of them on the ice late in the game, when Chicago needed a big goal.

On the other hand, it was close to a 40/60 split on the powerplay (and that seems to be fairly consistent by year).

As MJ mentioned, even if Hull and Mikita weren't playing together, Hull would still benefit by opponents having to split their best defensive players against two different lines. (Though most sources that I've read have indicated that Hull was the top priority - which means it was Mikita who generally got softer matchups).

 

[57special]

I have, like, no clear concept of Bobby Hull.

Never seen the guy play a hockey game (just random highlights, generally in poor quality). I've read about him, most recently from Tretiak's book.

With most legends, there are descriptions of their style, or consensus on their effect, so that I can get a good idea. For example, with Rocket Richard I feel I have a very good idea of how he played and what he did. But I don't have this with Hull, at all.

I mean, I know he could skate and rip a slapshot. But I've heard / read very mixed views on his ability to play within a team concept ("selfish player", etc.) or to elevate his teams' winning capacity. He was a He-man physically, but could he hit / check? I don't know. Was he a good playmaker? No idea. He seemed to age very well, but even that has the WHA spanner thrown into the mix.

Ha! I am old enough to have seen him play, and remember him from around 1964 on. The guy i didn't get to see was the Rocket. I've had his style of play described to me many times, growing up in Montreal, but I still can't get a clear picture of his style, or effect on the game. I do know that he was considered the best Hab ever by most Quebec fans, or at least the most loved.

Hull was a goal scorer. A sniper. Selfish? Aren't all goal scorers? No worse than most of his kind. He would go into corners, though there is no doubt that where he excelled was in the open ice and in shooting positions where he could use his devastating shot. He was very strong, but would use his body more to protect the puck. He could get physical, but again, do you really want the best goal scorer in the league banging and crashing with guys like Orland Kurtenbach, Vic Hadfield, and the like? Hull certainly didn't play frightened, but I am sure that he was told by coaches to let others fight his battles for him, if possible.

He was a good, but not great passer. I would call him a cross between Ovi, and Bure, maybe? He was considered the biggest and best star in hockey in the 1960's till Orr came along, who didn't really start to make an impact till the end of the decade. Howe and Beliveau had aged a bit, Rocket was out of the game, Leafs players were a whole bunch of good two way players... you can make an argument that Makita was the second best forward in hockey during the 60's.

Hull also had a lot of charisma. Strong, good looking, huge grin... he was the one everyone wanted to be. # 9 was always the number that was taken first on teams of the time.

 

[Vilica]

07-08 PO - 0 EV 4 PP (3 EV 6 PP)
08-09 PO - 4 EV 5 PP (13 EV 8 PP)
09-10 PO - 5 EV 1 PP (9 EV 1 PP)
10-11 PO - 0 EV 1 PP (5 EV 5 PP)
11-12 PO - 1 EV 2 PP (5 EV 4 PP)
12-13 PO - 0 EV 1 PP (0 EV 2 PP)
14-15 PO - 5 EV 0 PP (7 EV 2 PP)
15-16 PO - 3 EV 3 PP (5 EV, 7 PP)
16-17 PO - 2 EV 2 PP (4 EV, 4 PP)
17-18 PO - 1 EV, 5 PP (16 EV, 11 PP)
18-19 PO - 4 EV, 1 PP (6 EV, 3 PP)
19-20 PO - 0 EV, 0 PP (3 EV, 2 PP)
20-21 PO - 0 EV, 1 PP (1 EV, 3 PP)
21-22 PO - 0 EV, 1 PP (3 EV, 3 PP)

25 EV, 27 PP of 80 EV, 61 PP

Just out of curiosity, this is Backstrom's contributions to Ovechkin points in the playoffs.

Since I don't feel like doing a complete Crosby/Malkin tonight, I can only report a separate number from a different Crosby/Ovechkin playoff set of stats I compiled - in the 1st round through the 18-19 season, Crosby and Malkin received points on the same goal 7 times at EV and 19 times on the PP, with Crosby having 56 EV points and 35 PP points, while Malkin had 41 EV points, 38 PP points, and 1 SH point.

 

[57special]

(I wrote this before seeing @Vilica 's post, but our conclusions are pretty much the same).

Here's a table showing the breakdown by situation, by year:

Season

GP

EVP

W/Mikita

X/Mikita

PPP

W/Mikita

X/Mikita

SHP

W/Mikita

X/Mikita

Total

W/Mikita

X/Mikita

1959

6​

2​

0​

2​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

2​

0​

2​

1960

3​

1​

0​

1​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

1​

0​

1​

1961

12​

11​

3​

8​

3​

1​

2​

0​

0​

0​

14​

4​

10​

1962

12​

7​

4​

3​

6​

5​

1​

1​

1​

0​

14​

10​

4​

1963

5​

6​

0​

6​

4​

0​

4​

0​

0​

0​

10​

0​

10​

1964

7​

4​

1​

3​

3​

3​

0​

0​

0​

0​

7​

4​

3​

1965

14​

11​

1​

10​

6​

1​

5​

0​

0​

0​

17​

2​

15​

1966

6​

1​

0​

1​

3​

1​

2​

0​

0​

0​

4​

1​

3​

1967

6​

4​

0​

4​

2​

0​

2​

0​

0​

0​

6​

0​

6​

1968

11​

6​

1​

5​

3​

3​

0​

1​

0​

1​

10​

4​

6​

1970

8​

7​

3​

4​

4​

2​

2​

0​

0​

0​

11​

5​

6​

1971

18​

13​

0​

13​

12​

3​

9​

0​

0​

0​

25​

3​

22​

1972

8​

6​

2​

4​

1​

0​

1​

1​

0​

1​

8​

2​

6​

Total

116​

79​

15​

64​

47​

19​

28​

3​

1​

2​

129​

35​

94​

Percentage

​

19.0%​

81.0%​

​

40.4%​

59.6%​

​

33.3%​

66.7%​

27.1%​

72.9%​

Hull scored 81% of his points without Mikita (and 19% with him) at even-strength. I suspect that they played together even less frequently than that, as many of their ES goals were in high-leverage situations. Four of the 15 ES points are in the last ten minutes of the third period in close games, or in OT (April 12, 1962; April 2, 1964; April 12, 1970; and April 8, 1972) - more than we'd expect by chance alone. I'm speculating, but they might have been playing together as little as 10-15% at ES most of the time, but Rudy Pilous and Billy Reay put both of them on the ice late in the game, when Chicago needed a big goal.

On the other hand, it was close to a 40/60 split on the powerplay (and that seems to be fairly consistent by year).

As MJ mentioned, even if Hull and Mikita weren't playing together, Hull would still benefit by opponents having to split their best defensive players against two different lines. (Though most sources that I've read have indicated that Hull was the top priority - which means it was Mikita who generally got softer matchups).

Yeah, it was common for Hull to have a "shadow" on every other team in the league. I don't recall hearing that Makita ever had one.

I know that Pit Martin was Hull's C for a while there in the 60's.

 

[Staniowski]

Yeah, it was common for Hull to have a "shadow" on every other team in the league. I don't recall hearing that Makita ever had one.

I know that Pit Martin was Hull's C for a while there in the 60's.

Yes, teams were scared of Bobby Hull...nobody was scared of Stan Mikita in anything remotely close to the same way.