Bobby Hull: Two-Way Player?

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,519
3,357
Actually Red Hay would have been a good choice. He was a big centre and actually was quite good defensively. After Espo replaced him on the Hull line, Hay moved to the third line in a defensive role.

Ah thanks for that I am not all that knowledgeable about the Hawks during that time.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Here is the Punch Imlach quote word for word. This took place when he was being interviewed & picking the 3 stars after the final game of the 61 final.

"...put the third star to another Chicago player-Bobby Hull. I have to say through the whole series, if I had to pick one man who was responsible for Chicago winning, it was Bobby Hull. Bobby was the driving force behind the whole team"

Sure he doesn't mention defense or offense but we all know, back in 61, Punch didn't have much tolerance for one dimensional offensive players.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Here is the Punch Imlach quote word for word. This took place when he was being interviewed & picking the 3 stars after the final game of the 61 final.

"...put the third star to another Chicago player-Bobby Hull. I have to say through the whole series, if I had to pick one man who was responsible for Chicago winning, it was Bobby Hull. Bobby was the driving force behind the whole team"

Sure he doesn't mention defense or offense but we all know, back in 61, Punch didn't have much tolerance for one dimensional offensive players.

Thank you for posting the quote. Unfortunately you are right that it does not say anywhere that he was good defensively. Furthermore, if Hull really was the driving force, why was he only the 3rd star?

Based on newspaper articles, I've gathered that Bobby Hull scored 9 points in the finals. Perhaps Imlach didn't appreciate flash and dash, but I'm sure he fully appreciated points.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Thank you for posting the quote. Unfortunately you are right that it does not say anywhere that he was good defensively. Furthermore, if Hull really was the driving force, why was he only the 3rd star?

Based on newspaper articles, I've gathered that Bobby Hull scored 9 points in the finals. Perhaps Imlach didn't appreciate flash and dash, but I'm sure he fully appreciated points.

Type of response from you that I expected. Sure Imlach only picked Hull as third star in that particular game. The others stars in that game were Ab McDonald who scored the winning goal and Tex Evans who scored one of his rare goals & was a rock on defense.

However, he does say Hull was the reason they won the series.

Seems you know even less about Punch than you do about Bobby.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Type of response from you that I expected. Sure Imlach only picked Hull as third star in that particular game. The others stars in that game were Ab McDonald who scored the winning goal and Tex Evans who scored one of his rare goals & was a rock on defense.

However, he does say Hull was the reason they won the series.

Seems you know even less about Punch than you do about Bobby.

I'm glad you were expecting a perfectly reasonable response.

It does say that Hull was responsible for the win, but it doesn't say how or why. You are just assuming you know what Punch Imlach meant, but he doesn't actually say it. Hull scored 9 points in the finals, which evern Imlach would recognize as very important.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,254
2,736
I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about specific player match ups.

Anyway, I don't really remember the Mikita line being used as a checking line all that often. I know guys like Nasterenko and Reg fleming were used on a checking line. I have a leaf game from 62 where they were used against the Mahovlich line.

Also, I provided a quote from Red Hay regarding the Hull line going up against the Howe line. I do remember the Hull/Howe match up being quite frequent. I have a 65 Hawks/Wings game where it is quite evident.

I was just reading a column from 1965 about the 1965 Hawks/Wings series. The columnist quoted Sid Abel as saying that the matchups were Howe vs Hull, Mikita vs Ullman, and Martin, Joyal, and Faulkner vs Maki and sometimes Murphy. The matchups were the same in both rinks, which surprised Abel because he thought they would have tried to get Mikita against the kids at home, but he concluded that they were afraid to take Mikita away from Ullman.

Interesting that Abel thought they would try to free up Mikita, not Hull. Maybe the Howe matchup was simply too important.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Dreakmur, I don't know what the agenda is, but your search for 'evidence' is just bizarre. If you're going to provide your own hearsay evidence as to how badly a defensive player Hull was, do yourself a favour, and don't use Stan Fischler, who is just an idiocy machine.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=341080

I'd take a rumoured Punch Imlach quote, a youtube video and some plus minus stats over that junk any day. What's your other evidence, a quote suggesting team chemistry could be affected when Hull returns, and a one liner from a guy who was a Howe teammate? Just impartial observation, right?

Just horrible.

I think Stephen summed this thread up pretty good except that your agenda was absolutely clear. "bizarre" & "horrible" describe it well.

I think we are finished here.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
I think Stephen summed this thread up pretty good except that your agenda was absolutely clear. "bizarre" & "horrible" describe it well.

Even if I had an agenda, whatever you think it might be, you could have shut me down with any reasonable amount of real evidence.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,832
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Having not been old enough to see the legendary Bobby Hull, I'm always curious about these kinds of things to further my knowledge. Not that I have a particular dog in this fight, and my evidence is surely anecdotal, I stumbled across this...

Frederick Daily Leader: May 4 said:
Only a few years back Bobby Hull was the same dominant force for Chicago that Bobby Orr is now for Boston. The Hawks played hockey only one way. Offense, offense and more offense. But then they finished in the basement two years ago and decided to change their entire style. They became a defensive club and Bobby Hull, the celebrated golden jet, had to change along with them whether he liked it or not.

The change came hard for Hull. "I was used to having the puck all the time, skating with it, and playing 45 minutes of the game," he says. "After the club and I had a little contract difficulties I guess I didn't have the right attitude to begin with. When I came back the team was playing very well defensively. They wanted us wingmen to just go up and down in a straight line and simply watch the guy we were playing against so that they wouldn't do anything against you.

"That's what I did, I started going up and down and watching my guy and I just got into playing the different style of hockey. Oh, every once in a while you like to go back, pick up the puck and go with it, I expect you always have something left that you had before."

Bobby Hull showed everybody he did last Sunday afternoon.

That was the old Bobby Hull out there, not the new one. He was playing offensively, not defensively. He was playing the way he always had for most of the 14 years he has been with the Hawks.

Now with the Montreal Canadiens coming up in the finals, Hull will return to the Hawks' present style of play. That means he'll ne playing defensively again because that figures to be the way all the rest of the Hawks are going to play the Canadiens. Why abandon a successful formula, one that brought you two straight division championships and this far up to now?

Don't become startled though if Bobby Hull suddenly returns to his old way. Particularly if the series goes right down to the wire.

"Every once in awhile you like to go back, pickup the puck and go with it..."

One article, but it doesn't leave too much ambiguity, in my opinion.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,519
3,357
Great find with both of those articles.

More and more it is looking like Bobby could at the very least play responsibly two ways when needed.

Also the information overpass provided really calls into question some of our assumptions about how much lineup matching really happened the way we think it did based on player reputation in the long shift days.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,663
In terms of defensive GVT per game, from the 1960 season until the 1971 season Hull beats Howe just slightly, .05489 to .05422.
 

Flames420

Registered User
Jan 2, 2007
154
0
It also shows, however, that he could run out of position in his own zone.

I miss those days where players actually dared to leave their area and tried to make a play.

Being a bit picky considering it was 40 years ago? Back then I would have considered that more of a good defensive play than a bad one.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
In terms of defensive GVT per game, from the 1960 season until the 1971 season Hull beats Howe just slightly, .05489 to .05422.

Only thing is, what data is even used to calculate defensive GVT from the 60s?

as for that article, sure, I can agree that it makes it look like Hull could play defensively when needed. But it looks like he usually didn't.

That was the old Bobby Hull out there, not the new one. He was playing offensively, not defensively. He was playing the way he always had for most of the 14 years he has been with the Hawks.

right?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Having not been old enough to see the legendary Bobby Hull, I'm always curious about these kinds of things to further my knowledge. Not that I have a particular dog in this fight, and my evidence is surely anecdotal, I stumbled across this...



One article, but it doesn't leave too much ambiguity, in my opinion.

That tells me that any stats Hull accumulated before around 1969 were done while playing mainly one-way hockey.

Edit: That would appear to include all of Hull's Art Rosses and "Richard" trophies.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
If Bobby Hull was a one dimensional player prior to 1969, then he doesn't deserve to rank higher than Jean Beliveau. To me he is an 'anglo' version of jagr, he holds no decisive edge over him whatsoever.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Come on. watch some games you guys. Bobby Hull was not a one dimensional player pre 68. there might have been a year or two when Chicago as a team played a mainly offensive style. There is a 62 & a 65 game in the sticky above. Watch them. Hull was going up & down his wing being responsible defensively.

I find it a bit ridiculous that people latch onto some obscure quote to come to a conclusion when there are games out there to watch.

What the article states is that the Hawks needed to tighten up defensively which they did. There was some concern that Hull might not buy into the system. Well he did buy in to it & Hull & the rest of the hawks continued to play that style which took them to the cup final in 71.

Hull played whatever style the team asked him to.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Hull played whatever style the team asked him to.

This is definitely important and definitely something that could not be said about Jagr. And it's why Hull is rightfully ranked above.

On the other hand, if the Hawks were playing a more offensive style than the rest of the league in the years Hull was winning the goalscoring race by huge margins (and I have read this other places too), that must be taken into account.

This is semi off-topic, but I drafted Rudy Pilous in the last MLD, and I found an article that said Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita basically ran him out of town because he didn't give them enough ice time. Hull, in particular, was quoted as saying he thought the Blackhawks would be a much better team without Pilous - it certainly didn't turn out that way.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
On the other hand, if the Hawks were playing a more offensive style than the rest of the league in the years Hull was winning the goalscoring race by huge margins (and I have read this other places too), that must be taken into account.

I find this kind of a strange statement. Does this not apply to all the great scorers. To put up great numbers they have to be allowed to be creative & go for it. Bruins with Orr & Esposito, Oilers with Gretzky, Pens with Lemieux were all Offensive teams. Should we downgrade their careers because of this. Should we upgrade the Big M because Imlach stressed Defense. It seems the Hawks were the only team to take their best offensive player & say we want you to go up & down your wing & shadow Gordie Howe. sounds pretty dumb to me. I think the chicago system hurt his numbers.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
This is semi off-topic, but I drafted Rudy Pilous in the last MLD, and I found an article that said Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita basically ran him out of town because he didn't give them enough ice time. Hull, in particular, was quoted as saying he thought the Blackhawks would be a much better team without Pilous - it certainly didn't turn out that way.

My recollection is that there was a conflict between Pilous & Ivan & that is why Pilous was fired. I know some of the veteran players didn't like Pilous. Nesterenko was quoted as saying Pilous couldn't coach a girl's volleyball team. Hull certainly didn't have problems with Pilous later in his career. it was hull who had them bring Pilous in to manage the Winnipeg Jets.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Good find. Pilous was notorious for being a hardass who was hated by his players. Is it possible that he was really demanding on Hull (and Mikita), while Reay basically let them do what they wanted? You obviously know better than I do.

I think Pilous was tough equally on all his players (not just Hull & Mikita). I really don't know what to make of Reay. Imlach fired him right away. The Hawks kept him for years despite all his failures. I really think Hull's success & popularity rubbed the Reay/Ivan/Wirtz trio the wrong way. They fought him tooth & nail over money even though he drew in the fans (and was very good with the fans). They never made him captain & even stripped the "A" from him. They made him play like Bob Gainey. It seemed as if they were trying to break his spirit.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I think Pilous was tough equally on all his players (not just Hull & Mikita). I really don't know what to make of Reay. Imlach fired him right away. The Hawks kept him for years despite all his failures. I really think Hull's success & popularity rubbed the Reay/Ivan/Wirtz trio the wrong way. They fought him tooth & nail over money even though he drew in the fans (and was very good with the fans). They never made him captain & even stripped the "A" from him. They made him play like Bob Gainey. It seemed as if they were trying to break his spirit.

Here's the article about Pilous's firing:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1075444/index.htm

Some quotes:
With Pilous cast in the role of Captain Bligh, and Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita alternating as Mr. Christian, someone had to be cast adrift, and the Chicago management was not inclined to make it two of the league's sharpest shooters. Manager Ivan fired Pilous, hired Reay—who had himself been fired by the Toronto Maple Leafs after pulling them out of the cellar and into the playoffs in 1959—and, in effect, said to Hay, Mikita, Hull and Co., "Now put up or shut up."
...
One of the complaints that both Hull and Mikita had last year was that Pilous did not give them enough ice time, a deprivation that cut down their opportunity to score. One of Reay's first changes was to put these high shooters on a schedule that has them skating for 40 minutes of every game. Both of them are now serving not only in their regular lines but as penalty killers and key men. Chicago's players are known for being among the roughest and toughest in the league, but under Reay they seem suddenly to have become also the happiest.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->