Brett Hull or Mike Bossy

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,340
59,233
Ottawa, ON
Not a tough call at all. Mike Bossy was a far greater goal scorer than Brett Hull. You just have to analyze it correctly.

Bossy is the 6th greatest goal scorer of all time, Hull is 14th. That is how I see it.

It would have been interesting to see Bossy playing in the dead puck era.

He's one of those guys who came up when offense really shone in the league but never stuck around for when it deteriorated.

Anyway, I'd probably go with Bossy as well.
 
Last edited:

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Also, his goals per game during the regular season was .762, which is the best in the history of the game. His goals per game during the playoffs was .659, which was second only to Lemieux.

That's an area where his back injury helped him out. The back injury certainly cost him a few hundred goals, but it helped keep his gpg number higher, because he never played when he was really past his peak which cause those numbers to drop.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
That's an area where his back injury helped him out. The back injury certainly cost him a few hundred goals, but it helped keep his gpg number higher, because he never played when he was really past his peak which cause those numbers to drop.

Still it wasn't like Bossy was exactly slowing down at the time of his injury. What if he plays 4 more seasons without injury with Pat LaFointaine as his centre? He could easily have had 3 or 4 more 50 goal seasons.
 

Yammer

Registered User
Oct 22, 2002
2,357
2
Republic of East Van
This question looked much better than it is turning out to be when I am typing an answer. That is, you immediately think, "yes, both amazing scoring wingers, elite of the elite." But then, you think of the numbers. In my view they are vastly tilted towards Hull. His career was longer, his totals greater, therefore better.

I suppose there is the allure among true fans of the game in very the mystery of not knowing exactly how much Bossy could have done with better body parts, a la Bobby Orr. But careers aren't judged by what-ifs.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
This question looked much better than it is turning out to be when I am typing an answer. That is, you immediately think, "yes, both amazing scoring wingers, elite of the elite." But then, you think of the numbers. In my view they are vastly tilted towards Hull. His career was longer, his totals greater, therefore better.

I suppose there is the allure among true fans of the game in very the mystery of not knowing exactly how much Bossy could have done with better body parts, a la Bobby Orr. But careers aren't judged by what-ifs.

Not exactly like Bossy should be judged by what-if's he was massively dominant his entire 10 season career. He had to play Junior until 20 unlike most great players becuse of the draft rules at the time. If he comes up at 18 it is likely he adds 40-50 goals both of his first 2 seasons. But that is another irrelevant what-if. Bossy did enough in 10 years to trump what Hull did in his much longer career.
 

brianscot

Registered User
Jan 1, 2003
1,415
17
Halifax, NS
Visit site
Bossy is the laser by which all post original six shooters should be judged.

Other aspects of their respective games are more difficult to judge. Specifically, Hull never played with the supporting cast that Bossy did, not just the all around brilliance possessed by Trottier, but also Potvin's creativeness.

(not to mention Jonsson, Gillies, Persson, Tonelli, et al).

All in all, however, I'd take Bossy.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
...But then, you think of the numbers. In my view they are vastly tilted towards Hull. His career was longer, his totals greater, therefore better.

I suppose there is the allure among true fans of the game in very the mystery of not knowing exactly how much Bossy could have done with better body parts, a la Bobby Orr. But careers aren't judged by what-ifs.

Nor are they judged by selective choosing of statistics.

They are judged by one's own two eyes. Unless one is incapable of making an assessment and needs to fall back upon numbers.

Neither Mike Bossy nor Bobby Orr had anything resembling "what if" careers. They each had dominating, HOF careers.
 

Psycho Papa Joe

Porkchop Hoser
Feb 27, 2002
23,347
17
Cesspool, Ontario
Visit site
As what? An overall player? A goalscorer? A leader?

Hull, IMO, was the better goalscorer, but I really think Bossy holds an advantage over him in other areas.

Overall player - Bossy
Goalscorer - Bossy
Leader - Bossy

86 goals or 147 pts? Hull's 86 goal year my be better than any season Bossy ever put up, but I'd still take Bossy.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
One other point, something that never ceases to amaze (and frustrate) me when assessments of any player comes up here on HF.

An argument against Bossy (in this case) is that he played with great players and on a winning team.

That, to me, is a plus in his favor rather than a black mark. For Bossy's individual success LED TO TEAM SUCCESS. He was a major (core) player on a dynasty team.

And, ultimately, that is what sports is about. When assessing AN INDIVIDUAL's accomplishment, it is extremely short-sighted, IMO, to disregard the big picture. To ignore the CONTEXT in which individual success was achieved.

Bossy produced...and produced...and produced...from Day One in the NHL (scoring in his first game, in Buffalo) until he was forced to hang them up prematurely. Every season on a playoff team, every season on a bonafide Cup contender, and as previously cited, for fully half his career on a Cup Finalist. Read: producing in a constant high-pressure, high-expectation environment. There is a difference between netting 50+ on a Cup team and netting 50 for a non-competitive bottom feeder. (Not implying that the Blues were the latter.) The stats geeks overlook this point, because the numbers do not offer that insight. But ask most anyone in the game.

I recognize that this basic point runs counter to the common HF wisdom that the better his team, the better his teammates, the lesser the player is (the "Marty Brodeur Syndrome"). Ridiculous, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Ogopogo*

Guest
One other point, something that never ceases to amaze (and frustrate) me when assessments of any player comes up here on HF.

An argument against Bossy (in this case) is that he played with great players and on a winning team.

That, to me, is a plus in his favor rather than a black mark. For Bossy's individual success LED TO TEAM SUCCESS. He was a major (core) player on a dynasty team.

And, ultimately, that is what sports is about. When assessing AN INDIVIDUAL's accomplishment, it is extremely short-sighted, IMO, to disregard the big picture. To ignore the CONTEXT in which individual success was achieved.

Bossy produced...and produced...and produced...from Day One in NHL (scoring in his first game, in Buffalo) until he was forced to hang them up prematurely. Every season on a playoff team, nearly every season on a bonfide Cup contender, and as previously cited, for half his career on a Cup Finalist. Read: in a constant high-pressure, high-expectation environment. There is a difference between netting 50+ on a Cup team and netting 50 for a non-competitive bottom feeder. (Not implying that the Blues were the latter.) The stats geeks overlook this point, because the numbers do not offer that insight. But ask most anyone in the game.


So many people fail to realize that the true greats can produce with any linemates on any team under any conditions. Gretzky tied for the scoring lead as a rookie with Callighen and MacDonald as linemates, Lemieux played great with mediocre talent on his wings as did many other players. Bossy would have put up huge numbers with the Colorado Rockies or the New York Islanders.

Greatness is greatness no matter who the linemates.
 

Forever27

Registered User
Aug 20, 2005
2,351
0
Two great goal scorers, that 86 goals is a shocker, but I choose Bossy. I mean, the guy waited 9 years to dip below 50 goals.
 

hckyfan0099

Registered User
Jul 4, 2006
406
0
BUFU
I would take Bossy, he was just a pure goal scorer form the begining of his career. Every year he played he scored 50 goals or more. Too bad a back injury took him from us too early. It is a shame...:(
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Two great goal scorers, that 86 goals is a shocker, but I choose Bossy. I mean, the guy waited 9 years to dip below 50 goals.

And his goal totals that final season are highly misleading. He played the entire season with a wretched back which subsequently led to his retirement. That he even registered 38 goals is amazing; he actually had an outside chance for 50 until his pain grew progressively worse during that season.

One recalls numerous times that year when he was hunched over his stick on the ice, in excruciating pain. My last on-ice memory of him was being hit from behind in the corner at the old Cap Center in the playoffs, on his knees, barely able to get back up.

Historical tidbit: that summer ('87) Bossy announced that he was taking the following season 1987-88 "off". That is, he did not announce his retirement, as he hoped to be able to find some cure for his wonky back and return. Turns out he never did. Our loss.
 
Last edited:

bossy22

Registered User
Mar 14, 2004
1,853
23
Calgary
No mystery who I select....

For those who did not see Bossy play or know little of him, here are some links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Bossy
http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=P199101#photo

Bossy was the best RW in the league from '77 to '87 and is arguably one of the top snipers and RW's of all time. Was always in the shadow of Gretz, Lafleur, et al, so he never received top billing. I personally think his all round game is better than Hull's.

I do think Hull was much better at finding open ice and had a better one timer. Bossy's release might be the quickest all time.
 

StorminZ

Registered User
Jun 3, 2003
209
0
Edmonton
Visit site
Bossy by a good length ... not really a close race at all, IMHO.

Numbers and teammates aside, Bossy was -- still is -- a fine example of a role-model. I think Brett is a great goal scorer, but sometimes Brett is too much about Brett.
 

Brooklyndevil

Registered User
Jun 24, 2005
20,384
1,170
Freehold, NJ USA
This question looked much better than it is turning out to be when I am typing an answer. That is, you immediately think, "yes, both amazing scoring wingers, elite of the elite." But then, you think of the numbers. In my view they are vastly tilted towards Hull. His career was longer, his totals greater, therefore better.

I suppose there is the allure among true fans of the game in very the mystery of not knowing exactly how much Bossy could have done with better body parts, a la Bobby Orr. But careers aren't judged by what-ifs.


When it comes to Mike Bossy, there are no what ifs. He was amazing. Did you ever see him play? Because you would never question La Machine, if you did.

(La Machine, named by Bill Mazer). Any long time NY Sports fan should remember Mazer, one of the few T.V. news sportscasters in the NY area that loved hockey.)
 
Last edited:

chooch*

Guest
So many people fail to realize that the true greats can produce with any linemates on any team under any conditions. Gretzky tied for the scoring lead as a rookie with Callighen and MacDonald as linemates, Lemieux played great with mediocre talent on his wings as did many other players. Bossy would have put up huge numbers with the Colorado Rockies or the New York Islanders.

Greatness is greatness no matter who the linemates.

:shakehead ummm yes of course.

99 was on a loser expansion club in 1980, camping out at centre racking up 2 points a game but coming out a -3. Nothing to lose...and everything to $$gain

Let me guess, you didnt see that year either. If you had....
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
:shakehead ummm yes of course.

99 was on a loser expansion club in 1980, camping out at centre racking up 2 points a game but coming out a -3. Nothing to lose...and everything to $$gain

Let me guess, you didnt see that year either. If you had....


chooch, thank God you are here! This thread desperately required some intelligence and sage wisdom.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->