Round 2, Vote 5 (HOH Top Wingers)

[Captain Bowie]

I guess it depends on how you define "prime." If Hull's 38 year old season is part of his "prime, then he has easily the lowest quality of play in his prime of anyone this round.

Compare to someone like Joliat or Iginla who were superstars for a decade or so each. Hull saw a major dropoff in his play after 1991-92.

Well to compare to Iginla, first he never came close to touching Hull's peak. Hull more or less "fell" to Iginla's for 6 or 7 years outside of his 3 year peak. So there primes are quite similar, after taking out Hull's 3 peak years. Of course this is factoring in strength of scoring competition for top 10/top 20 finishes.

Looking at Hull's season 4-10 compared to Iginla's season 1-7:

|Games| Goals| Rank| Adjusted Goals
Iginla 01/02| 82| 52| 1st| 60
Iginla 03/04| 81| 41| 1st| 48
Hull 93/94| 81| 57| 2nd| 52
Iginla 07/08| 82| 50| 3rd| 56
Iginla 10/11| 82| 43| 3rd| 48
Hull 94/95| 48| 29| 6th| 50
Hull 02/03| 82| 37| 8th| 43
Hull 92/93| 80| 54| 9th| 44
Hull 96/97| 77| 42| 10th| 42
Iginla 06/07| 70| 39| 11th| 41
Hull 95/96| 70| 43| 14th| 41
Hull 00/01| 79| 39| 14th| 43
Iginla 08/09| 82| 35| 14th| 37
Iginla 02/03| 75| 35| 17th| 40

7 year average:
Hull - 43
Iginla - 42

7 year adjusted average:
Hull - 45
Iginla - 47




***** Talking strictly goal-scoring.*****

 

[Captain Bowie]

Actually, I was responding to the argument presented. He was making a big deal out of Hull leading his team in scoring when it lost in the first or second round of a 26-30 team league. I was pointing out that isn't all that meaningful. I tend to focus on the parts of arguments I disagree with.



Still not as good as Denneny, Blake, or Moore, especially when you consider Blake and Moore's all-round games.

Was there ever a point in his career when anyone considered Hull as one of the best playoff performers in the league? Because the guys he is being compared to were (at least Kurri, Blake, and Moore... hard to tell with Denneny, but the stats are sure there).

Being "average" out of this group of 11 candidates is still pretty damn good, all things considered.

Seems the problem with Hull is, he had his big number years at the end of his career, while having good years with teams that didn't go anywhere for most of his career. If the situations were reversed, and he had 3 cup runs in the first 6 years of his career rather than the last, while putting up the numbers he did, he likely would have received that label early on and unlikely to shed it later on in his career.

 

[seventieslord]

***** Talking strictly goal-scoring.*****

And why would we want to do that?

 

[Captain Bowie]

And why would we want to do that?

Because that's what each does best?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Seems the problem with Hull is, he had his big number years at the end of his career, while having good years with teams that didn't go anywhere for most of his career. If the situations were reversed, and he had 3 cup runs in the first 6 years of his career rather than the last, while putting up the numbers he did, he likely would have received that label early on and unlikely to shed it later on in his career.

Having all his best playoff runs towards the end of his career didn't stop Steve Yzerman from being a legendary playoff player.

Again, I think Hull has a very good playoff resume, but I don't think he had the impact of some other players mentioned here.

 

[steve141]

Having all his best playoff runs towards the end of his career didn't stop Steve Yzerman from being a legendary playoff player.

Hull and Yzerman's playoff numbers are virtually identical, except for the fact that Hull scored more goals:

Hull: 202 GP, 103 G, 87 A, 190 P
Yzerman: 196 GP, 70 G, 115 A, 185 P.


Yzerman was a better playoff performer than Hull, but it wasn't because he was better offensively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hull and Yzerman's playoff numbers are virtually identical, except for the fact that Hull scored more goals:

Hull: 202 GP, 103 G, 87 A, 190 P
Yzerman: 196 GP, 70 G, 115 A, 185 P.


Yzerman was a better playoff performer than Hull, but it wasn't because he was better offensively.

Their stats look this close this close because Hull played more games in a higher scoring era. His Blues were better teams than the "Dead Wings." You can't just conflate playoff stats from a high scoring era and playoff stats from a low scoring era like this.

I'm also not sure how this is supposed to show Hull is on the same (playoff) level as two-way players like Blake/Moore, or Denneny, who was easily the top goal scorer of a dynasty.

 

[ted2019]

You know that being just outside Top 20 would make him at least 5th this round?

Correct, but He's not in My top 4.

 

[steve141]

Their stats look this close this close because Hull played more games in a higher scoring era. His Blues were better teams than the "Dead Wings." You can't just conflate playoff stats from a high scoring era and playoff stats from a low scoring era like this.

The opposite is true actually. Yzerman played slightly more playoff games (93 to 92) between 1984 and 1996, while Hull played more playoff games (110 to 103) in the dead puck era (1997-). Regardless, their numbers are pretty close in either era.

Again, I'm not saying Hull was a complete two-way player, but it just seems wrong to use the word average about a guy who is 4th all-time in playoff goal scoring and 7th all-time in playoff points. Removing the Oilers Hull is 1st all-time in playoff goal scoring and 2nd in points. That has to account for something? Why is this worse than Denneny for example?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The opposite is true actually. Yzerman played slightly more playoff games (93 to 92) between 1984 and 1996, while Hull played more playoff games (110 to 103) in the dead puck era (1997-). Regardless, their numbers are pretty close in either era.

oops, okay. I was just eyeballing it... funny enough Yzerman's Cup win in 1997 drags down his numbers.

Again, I'm not saying Hull was a complete two-way player, but it just seems wrong to use the word average about a guy who is 4th all-time in playoff goal scoring and 7th all-time in playoff points. Removing the Oilers Hull is 1st all-time in playoff goal scoring and 2nd in points. That has to account for something? Why is this worse than Denneny for example?

Denneny NHL playoffs:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

His record in the Cup finals (not technically part of the NHL playoffs until 1927) was also excellent... statistically at least.

And IMO, players should get boosts for being core players of dynasties (or modern pseudo-dynasties). I guess you could question whether Denneny was "core"... maybe.

 

[unknown33]

Brett Hull gets unfair treatment here.

Goalscoring peak is a tier above everyone still left.
Playoffs get underrated, international play completely ignored (last round with Selanne it got brought up all the time)
Useful player in different teams and situations even past his peak.

3rd for me this round.

 

[steve141]

ll

Denneny NHL playoffs:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

His record in the Cup finals (not technically part of the NHL playoffs until 1927) was also excellent... statistically at least.

Denneny scored 16 goals in his playoff career, compared to runner up Lalonde's 15 during the same timeframe.

Hull scored 103 goals in his playoff career, compared to runner up Sakic's 78 during the same timeframe.

I know which stat I find more dominating, especially considering that Denneny played on one of the greatest dynasties ever.

And IMO, players should get boosts for being core players of dynasties (or modern pseudo-dynasties). I guess you could question whether Denneny was "core"... maybe.

Denneny led his team in playoff scoring 4 times, but he also went scoreless three years.

Hull finished 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6 in playoff scoring on his own team during his career.
For goal-scoring he finished 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4. That is an incredibly consistent playoff producer.

I don't think either of them were passengers, but Hull could be depended on as a reliable scorer more.

 

[steve141]

I think it's clear his margins would have been much less without Adam Oates. But yes, even with Oates, he had a brilliant single season as a goal scorer.

You are trying very hard to imply that Hull was a product of his team-mates. Apparently it's now down to one single brilliant season, all thanks to Oates.

Here are Hull's intra-team scoring finishes from 1989 to 2004:

1989 1st goals, 1st points
1990 1st goals, 1st points
1991 1st goals, 1st points
1992 1st goals, 1st points
1993 1st goals, 2nd points
1994 1st goals, 2nd points
1995 1st goals, 1st points
1996 1st goals, 1st points
1997 1st goals, 1st points
1998 2nd goals, 1st points (missed 16 games)
1999 2nd goals, 2nd points (missed 22 games)
2000 2nd goals, 2nd points
2001 1st goals, 2nd points
2002 3rd goals, 3rd points
2003 1st goals, 2nd points
2004 2nd goals, 1st points


I don't see how you can look at the above table and not admit that Hull was the primary offensive force on most of those teams. In all his full seasons with a team he was top 2 in both goals and points, with the single exception of the 2002 Red Wings. Apparently the fact that a 37 year old Hull only placed 3rd in goals and points on the most stacked team since the 70s Habs is a big knock against him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You are trying very hard to imply that Hull was a product of his team-mates. Apparently it's now down to one single brilliant season, all thanks to Oates..

Oh goodie, just what we need, yet another guy accusing people with a different opinion of his favorite player(s) of having some kind of nefarious agenda.

From last round:

During the '90/91 season, Oates missed 19 games. Hull had 18 goals (14 at ES) and 27 points. After Oates was traded during the '91/92 seasons, Hull had in 26 games.

'91 w/ Oates 59-68-36-104 43 ESG
'91 w/o Oates 19-18-9-27 14 ESG

'92 w/ Oates 54-54-27-81 36 ESG
'92 w/o Oates 19-16-12-28 9 ESG

Without vs. With
===============
'91: 82% G, 81% Pts, 101% ESG
'92: 84% G, 98% Pts, 71% ESG
'91 & '92: 83% G, 88% Pts, 87% ESG

So there's definitely evidence that Oates significantly helped Hull's production (by ~15% it seems).

It's not even my post, yet somehow it's my agenda. Fantastic.

A 15% increase in production is huge, and keep in mind that the 3 Oates seasons are the only ones when Hull led the league in goals (though he was close several other times) and the only ones where he finished top 10 in points (though he was close several other times).

Or the longer version, a whole damn thread on the subject: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=972131, also started by someone who isn't me. Hull's scoring rate even without Oates was higher in those 3 seasons than any other seasons of his career, so he was clearly playing at a very high level. But his scoring rates with Oates were higher than they were without him.

Meanwhile, Oates kept on trucking at the same level without Hull. Nobody is calling Hull a "product" of anyone, but it's pretty tough to make the case that his 3 year peak wasn't aided at least somewhat by Oates. I mean... Oates is the guy who helped a hobbled Cam Neely to 50 in 50.
___________

Edit: As for the issue you seem to take with me referring to a "single season," next time try reading the quote that I'm responding to. Unknown33 was talking about Hull's ridiculous goal scoring margin in 1990-91, which is statistically one of the greatest goal scoring seasons of all-time, and that is what my response that you are now quoting was referring to.

 

[steve141]

Oh goodie, just what we need, yet another guy accusing people with a different opinion of his favorite player(s) of having some kind of nefarious agenda.

I tend to dislike when people make these projects personal, so I have responded to this in a PM instead. If I thought people didn't do these projects out of good faith, then whats the point of doing it at all?

Hull's scoring rate even without Oates was higher in those 3 seasons than any other seasons of his career, so he was clearly playing at a very high level. But his scoring rates with Oates were higher than they were without him.

Of course Oates is going to help a goalscorer. But for that to be of a knock on Hull in this project it needs to be shown that Hull was helped more by Oates than Kurri by Gretzky/Coffey, Moore by Richard/Geoffreon/Beliveau, Denneny by Nighbor, Joliet by Morenz etc, otherwise I don't know why that is relevant for just Hull. Hull was the leading scorer on three different franchises, so he was hardly dependent of any one playmaker.

 

[unknown33]

Edit: As for the issue you seem to take with me referring to a "single season," next time try reading the quote that I'm responding to. Unknown33 was talking about Hull's ridiculous goal scoring margin in 1990-91, which is statistically one of the greatest goal scoring seasons of all-time, and that is what my response that you are now quoting was referring to.

Even if you assume the worst case scenario for Hull and substract the 15% from Hull but nothing for every other player the margin is still ~43% (about as big as Gretzky's 92 goal season).

 

[overpass]

Denneny NHL playoffs:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

His record in the Cup finals (not technically part of the NHL playoffs until 1927) was also excellent... statistically at least.

Look again at Denneny's Cup finals scoring. If 3 goals and 6 assists in 16 finals games is excellent, what would you call Nighbor's 20 points in 19 finals games or Darragh's 12 points in 12 finals games?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Iginla should be higher than he is, but Joliat's prime was incredibly long for his era.

joliat's prime was long but as we have seen his era had lots of long primes.

the notion that is was harder to maintain ones prime in Joliats time doesn't pass the small test we see alot of older players doing very well in that time period.

joliat is hard to peg, his absolute peak is separated by many years and he is more a consistentely very good player than a perennial superstar, much like Iggy.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doug Bentley Playoffs

Makes sense, though in that case, I think you are underrating Bentley a tad. He was a small player, so I doubt he was very gritty, and his playoff record is basically "incomplete," but he seems to have been an excellent backchecker.



I still think you're overrating Hull to have his playoff record on the same level as Moore, Denneny, or Blake.



Okay. It just seemed strange to me to rate Hull so high for quality and also high for length. Made me think they were measuring the same thing. It makes sense when you explain it.

Doug Bentley as a backchecker? 1944 and 1946 playoffs the Hawks turned to the likes of George Allen to check the Blake, Lach, Richard line after Irvin matched top line against top line. 1946 Doug Bentley was outplayed and out scored by Jimmy Peters, not exactly a tribute to his offensive or defensive skills.

Doug Bentley's prime assists stretch came as a center, not as a LW. 1943-44 at LW an aging Herb Cain out performed Bentley in assists as did Art Jackson:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1944.html

 

[Hardyvan123]

Now you are cherry picking.

Hull is 7th all-time in playoff scoring. Only Jagr has more points among non-Oiler players.

I know that's a raw stat, but considering his career overlapped playoff greats like Fedorov, Sakic, Yzerman, Lidstrom, Modano, Trottier, Bourque, Shanahan, etc that is pretty impressive.

Hull lead the entire NHL in playoff scoring in 2000. There's no getting around that. The Devils won the cup, but Hull was the leading scorer.

He was a key contributor on both of his Stanley Cup wins, even if he wasn't the best player on the team. He scored two game winning goals in both the 1999 and the 2002 run.

I'm not saying Hull was Jean Beliveau, but he definitely brought it during playoff time.

pretty much this, his playoff resume is getting under rated here by some.

it's probably not he best playoff resume here but if the best is wort say 100 points his is still well in the 90's in terms of impact.

Playoff goal scoring is extremely important.

Also while Kurri and to a lesser extent Bentley are considered good back checkers how much actual impact did their defensive play have on their teams?

Probably much less than the goal scoring impact Hull had on his.

 

[Hardyvan123]

oops, okay. I was just eyeballing it... funny enough Yzerman's Cup win in 1997 drags down his numbers.



Denneny NHL playoffs:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

His record in the Cup finals (not technically part of the NHL playoffs until 1927) was also excellent... statistically at least.

And IMO, players should get boosts for being core players of dynasties (or modern pseudo-dynasties). I guess you could question whether Denneny was "core"... maybe.

funny how a guy being made out by some as one of the best play makers this round has a big doughnut in assists in the playoff sample provided here.

And despite all the statistical evidence of Denneny being a great player his real time onlookers in hockey circles back in the day din't think nearly as high of him as some do nearly 80 years alter.

Even after he retired he gained entry into the HHOF much alter than one would expect given his statistics.

Like I mentioned in a different post even if Denneny has an edge in the playoffs, it's very slight over Hull, it's not like Cy had Frank's 2 way game going on.

Maybe if Federov was Hull's line mate (Franks equal in defensive hockey) then hull might be getting a little more respect this round.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Oh goodie, just what we need, yet another guy accusing people with a different opinion of his favorite player(s) of having some kind of nefarious agenda.

From last round:



It's not even my post, yet somehow it's my agenda. Fantastic.

A 15% increase in production is huge, and keep in mind that the 3 Oates seasons are the only ones when Hull led the league in goals (though he was close several other times) and the only ones where he finished top 10 in points (though he was close several other times).

Or the longer version, a whole damn thread on the subject: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=972131, also started by someone who isn't me. Hull's scoring rate even without Oates was higher in those 3 seasons than any other seasons of his career, so he was clearly playing at a very high level. But his scoring rates with Oates were higher than they were without him.

Meanwhile, Oates kept on trucking at the same level without Hull. Nobody is calling Hull a "product" of anyone, but it's pretty tough to make the case that his 3 year peak wasn't aided at least somewhat by Oates. I mean... Oates is the guy who helped a hobbled Cam Neely to 50 in 50.
___________

Edit: As for the issue you seem to take with me referring to a "single season," next time try reading the quote that I'm responding to. Unknown33 was talking about Hull's ridiculous goal scoring margin in 1990-91, which is statistically one of the greatest goal scoring seasons of all-time, and that is what my response that you are now quoting was referring to.

Without context, that 15% doesn't mean much. What is Kurri's % without Gretzky? Denneny without Nighbour? Blake without Richard/Lach? Joliat without Morenz? Moore without his linemates? Bentley? Jackson?

We simply need context before we know if 15% is good, bad or indifferent.

 

[seventieslord]

Because that's what each does best?

Not a good enough answer.

Points > goals.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Not a good enough answer.

Points > goals.

To be fair, I am comparing Hull's prime outside of his 3 best seasons (peak) to Iginla's full prime. They are very comparable. Considering Hull was less of playmaker than Iginla was (a noted minus) we see that Hull was still about as good as Iginla was outside his amazing peak.

Feel free to completely disregard my research here.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I realize I have spent a lot of time defending Hull over the last few pages. To be clear I am not trying to convince everyone he is a top pick here. I'm not even sure if I'll have him in the top 4. It just seems that a few people here are underrating him, whether intentionally or not.

I am fairly confident that Moore and Denneny are my top 2, and have 4 or 5 guys that could fill the 3 and 4 spots. I look forward to comparing Bentley, Jackson, St. Louis and Iginla closer next round.