Brett Hull's All-Time Goals IF?

[WingsFan95]

The guy basically started his NHL career at 23, didn't play in his age 40 season due to a lock out and retired with 741 goals.

Scored 39 at age 36 and 37 at age 38 in low scoring seasons for the league. His first season came in 1987 and he collected from that era but missed out on 82-87 if he had come in like most legends at 18. Scored 32 goals in 65 games that rookie year.

I can't help but think what just an extra 3 seasons in the 80s from age 20 (when he was drafted) would have done for his numbers. Gotta add at least 90 collectively. Putting him at 831. That margin means he keeps going for it in his 40s.

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

The guy basically started his NHL career at 23, didn't play in his age 40 season due to a lock out and retired with 741 goals.

Scored 39 at age 36 and 37 at age 38 in low scoring seasons for the league. His first season came in 1987 and he collected from that era but missed out on 82-87 if he had come in like most legends at 18. Scored 32 goals in 65 games that rookie year.

I can't help but think what just an extra 3 seasons in the 80s from age 20 (when he was drafted) would have done for his numbers. Gotta add at least 90 collectively. Putting him at 831. That margin means he keeps going for it in his 40s.

I know what you mean, but as many will point out, this kind of goes both ways. On the one hand, he lost potential NHL games. On the other hand, more games at a younger age often means a shorter career due to faster injury-accumulation or burnout.

In Hull's case, I can guess that the BCJHL (when he was 19) might have been a bit rough, but I'm also guessing the WCHA in Minnesota was a bit less physical and also had a 48-game-ish season, spread out to allow students to go to classes. He was there at age 20 and 21, when he otherwise might have been playing 180 NHL games and getting ground down by the travel and the pressure (not to mention the goons, back then).

 

[alko]

Plus the fact, that 2 lockouts shortened his career.

 

[feffan]

As The Panther says, it goes both ways. In most cases in hockey it´s more about the miles than the years. And the NHL is a rougher road to ride, so Hull having it "easier" in his early 20´s probably just moved his career a few years. Instead maybe he is done just about when he has his Dallas years.

And he was really done after the lock out. That version of Hull wasn´t scoring 20 goals a year or even close as I see it. He looked and played worse than Iginla last year.

 

[Thenameless]

Brett Hull was a late bloomer like Hasek. People wonder what Hasek would have been like if he had come to the NHL at 18, but they say he wasn't quite ready yet at that time.

 

[bobholly39]

In the best of cases - less than Gretzky.

If Hull had scored 1000 goals by starting at 18 (not saying he would have) - Gretzky simply would have scored 1001+

 

[alko]

Brett Hull was a late bloomer like Hasek. People wonder what Hasek would have been like if he had come to the NHL at 18, but they say he wasn't quite ready yet at that time.

Its for discussion. Dont forget, he was as 16 years old guy in top Czech team in Top senior Czechoslovak league. Not as Nr. one goalie, but played 13 games. As a 18 years old he was invited to Canada Cup. You have to consider, that in 80s was our league maybe 3. best in the world. After NHL and Soviets. And our national team was something different, as it is now.

 

[tony d]

Would be interesting. Hull was always a pretty good player. I'm always surprised that you never see his name on a list of all time greatest goal scorers.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Would be interesting. Hull was always a pretty good player. I'm always surprised that you never see his name on a list of all time greatest goal scorers.

He will always be there somewhere in the 5-10 range.

 

[sr edler]

Brett Hull was a late bloomer like Hasek. People wonder what Hasek would have been like if he had come to the NHL at 18, but they say he wasn't quite ready yet at that time.

Hasek was not a late bloomer. He was a starter in the Canada Cup as a teenager, and was stuck behind the Iron Curtain. You’re making it sound like he’s Tim Thomas. When he first came to the NHL he didn’t get a fair chance as a starter because of Belfour|Keenan, then in his first season as a starter what happens: Vezina.

 

[HeScores27]

I thought the "IF" was going to be without Oates.

Maybe the timing was perfect, because had he come into the league earlier, maybe he never gets traded to St.Louis to play alongside the center responsible for his most productive stretch.

Hull was an elite goal scorer, but without Oates, he doesn't crack 650, which makes all other arguments moot.

 

[Hobnobs]

Its for discussion. Dont forget, he was as 16 years old guy in top Czech team in Top senior Czechoslovak league. Not as Nr. one goalie, but played 13 games. As a 18 years old he was invited to Canada Cup. You have to consider, that in 80s was our league maybe 3. best in the world. After NHL and Soviets. And our national team was something different, as it is now.

That could pretty accurate. Would be a fun discussion ranking leagues in the 80s. Fins had a pretty good leage in 84 as well.

Now for Hasek. No, he wasnt a late bloomer. That is a north american centric argument to make. By 87 he was one of the best goalies in the world.

 

[FerrisRox]

I thought the "IF" was going to be without Oates.

Maybe the timing was perfect, because had he come into the league earlier, maybe he never gets traded to St.Louis to play alongside the center responsible for his most productive stretch.

Hull was an elite goal scorer, but without Oates, he doesn't crack 650, which makes all other arguments moot.

Adam Oates only played 195 games as a St. Louis Blue. You are suggesting that without Oates, Hull scores nearly one hundred less goals in career? Hull scored what, 200 goals with Oates? You honestly think it's half without him?

After the mid-season trade of Oates to Boston, Craig Janney put up over an assist a game as a Blue. I think you're being a little overzealous suggesting he scores 90 less goals in his career without Oates.

 

[Bluesguru]

I don't think there's any what if with Hull. He had a great career and it is what it is. He was done when he retired and he started playing at the right age. No what if here. You want to play what if, play what if with Mike Bossy.

 

[HeScores27]

How great a set-up man was Adam Oates? WOWY numbers of gunners Hull, Neely, Bondra make a Hall of Fame caseHow great a set-up man was Adam Oates? WOWY numbers of gunners Hull, Neely, Bondra make a Hall of Fame case

Hull averaged a goal a game with Oates, and 0.5 goals a game without. You can argue that Hull was in his prime while playing with Oates, but you can't argue that Oates helped make many snipers throughout his career, Hull included. His ability to set people up and make snipers better can't be challenged (Bondra and Neely also had significant upticks in production playing along side him.).

An interesting question would be what IF Hull played more games with Oates, how many more goals would he have scored? Considering Neely and Bondra's extra production, I think it's fair to assume Hull would have probably average somewhere around 0.75 for the next 200 games had Oates been resigned.

 

[The Panther]

Hull averaged a goal a game with Oates, and 0.5 goals a game without. You can argue that Hull was in his prime...

Uh... yeah, you can. (That may be the silliest example of stat-cherry picking I've seen on here.)

Look, there's no doubt that Hull & Oates were a dynamic combination. Oates was Hull's best centerman. But there's also no doubt that Hull put up huge numbers with other centers.

Incidentally, Oates missed 19 games during 1990-91, Hull's greatest season. In those 19 games, Hull scored 18 goals (a 76-goal pace). Hull also had consecutive 50+ goal seasons, and scored 100+ points in a season, and had 8 goals in 11 playoff games, without Oates.

So, yes, he was at his best with Oates in those three seasons, but maybe he was at his best then anyway, with or without Oates. In the 1992 off-season, Hull turned 28, which is about the normal age for goal-scorers to start to reduce in numbers a bit.

 

[HeScores27]

I never said Hull wasn't a good goal scorer. I did say Oates definitely helped. He never came close to the same totals after Oates left. The very next season after Oates left he fell 16 goals (with 7 more games played).

So before Oates, 40 some goals was his high. After Oates he topped 50 twice (3 times if you count the lockout shortened season's pace). With Oates he was 70+. I'm sorry, that's a pretty big drop to have and not bounce back from. It's hard to cherry pick when the stats are so plain. Without Oates, Hull would have probably been a perennial 50 goal guy, maybe topping 60 once or twice. Still awesome, but certainly not 86.

I can agree my initial 650 was on the low side, but he'd have missed out on probably 50 or so goals throughout those 3 seasons. He'd have struggled to reach 700.

 

[The Panther]

It's hard to cherry pick when the stats are so plain.

Okay, so how do you explain his scoring 18 goals in 19 games while Oates was injured?

Maybe c.1990-91 was just Hull's peak period, regardless of Oates.

 

[HeScores27]

I don't think the 18 in 19 was sustainable. I'm not sure who they played, but could have been due to playing weaker teams, or he was just on such a roll with Oates, that without, it kept going for some time (confidence, swagger, team confidence). I simply believe that with Oates, Hull would have gotten better than 57 in 92-93, the highest goal scoring season of all time. Oates's career peaked after leaving St.Louis, his best seasons were in Boston. That probably would have offset any regression in Hull's game for another 2-3 seasons.