What if Hull doesn't jump to the WHA at age 32. What if he stays in the NHL his whole career? Where would he stand among the Alltime leaders? Let's say he continues to play in the NHL when he was in the WHA and plays a similar number of games each year. 72/73 65 games 43 goals 90 points 73/74 75 42 85 74/75 75 53 108 75/76 80 45 100 76/77 35 18 45 77/78 75 35 85 78/79 4 2 4 Assuming he could produce at this pace which is reduced considerably from what he actually achieved in the WHA he would have retired with... 1472 games played which would have been 2nd to Howe when he retired and 15th overall now. 848 goals. Which would be 1st overall when he retired and second only to Gretzky now. And since Howe scored 801 even if Hull is off the pace I predicatied by quite a bit he still probably have retired the All-time goal king. 1687 points which would have been 2nd overall when he retired and 8th now. 839 assists would put him 3rd overall when he retired and 23rd overall now. So do you think if Hull had not jumped to the WHA would he be more highly regarded now? Gretzky would have been chasing Hull not Howe for the All-time goal record. Right now there is a big 4 players Orr, Gretzky, Howe and Lemieux who people debate whether they were the greatest of All-time. Maybe if Hull doesn't jump to the WHA when he was still in his prime years he becomes part of a big 5 and is in the debate as the best player ever too. Hull is remembered well and he is in most top 10 lists of the best players ever but maybe he should be a consensus top 5 and debate about whether he was higher than Harvey, Beliveau, Shore, Bourque or a few others should instead be a debate about whether he was as good as Howe and Lemieux?