Brett Hull Versus Jari Kurri

[GlitchMarner]

Who was better?

Click to read more...

 

[Machinehead]

At worst, Hull was just good on a worse team.

 

[TrillMike]

Brett Hull

 

[East Coast Icestyle]

Think Kurri will be hurt by who he played with here, but from anything I've seen of both, I think Kurri brought more to the table. Hull's peak was insane though stats wise.

Guess this is a question for the older generations, haha.

 

[jetsforever]

The Golden Brett

 

[mja]

I think Kurri is going to lose this poll by way more than he should.

 

[McCoy]

Kurri.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

As a pure goal scorer, Hull. But Kurri could actually play defense and was a pretty damn good playmaker which helped him when his goal scoring started to decline.

 

[Binister]

In his peak Hull was insane. Pure fireworks with his goal scoring.

But I would still take Kurri due to his more variable tool set. He was very good defensively and played also center when necessary. So all around I would take him.

 

[Khomutov]

Brett Hull for sure

 

[Ctrain2k]

Kurri was much better for much longer

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It's close, but I went with Hull.

Their offensive stats are fairly close. They scored nearly the same number of points (1,398 to 1,391 in favour of Kurri), in nearly the same number of games (1,251 for Kurri and 1,269 for Hull). But there are two important factors that favour Hull. One, he spent much more time in the Dead Puck Era, where scoring was lower. Two, Kurri benefitted - though the extent is debatable - by spending his prime playing next to prime Gretzky.

Both were great playoff performers. Kurri scored about 24% more on a per game basis. That's significant - but the same two qualifications I made above also apply here. (Also note that Kurri only played 54 playoff games in thirties; Hull played 130). I'd still rank Kurri ahead as a playoff performer, but it's much closer than the raw numbers suggest.

Kurri was clearly the better defensive player - no debate there.

Ultimately I'd rank Hull ahead because he had the higher peak, and had better longevity. Kurri never had a stretch as dominant as Hull's run from 1990 to 1992. On top of that, Hull simply remained relevant for longer. Kurri scored more than 60 points in a season just twice after age 29 (when he was 32 and 33). Hull did so at ages 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38 and 39 (and he easily would have at age 30 - lockout year).

 

[Regal]

Kurri brought a lot more to the table as an all around player. Selke level defensive winger and a very good playmaker on top of a great goal scorer. Hull had the more impressive three season peak, but Kurri had the more impressive prime. But then Kurri wasn't really relevant in his 30s, while Hull aged well. So it's a tough pick. I think I would probably take Kurri simply because I think prime is most important

 

[tony d]

Kurri for me.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Kurri was the better all around player and I really hope someone tries to dispute that. However, with that being said Hull had a peak that was not matched by Kurri. He also played with lesser talent for much of his career and is considered one of the best goal scorers of all-time. Really close poll and if this was who had the better career I'd go Kurri but I think Hull was the better player by a small margin.

 

[Thenameless]

It's closer than a lot would think.

 

[DropIt]

Kurri certainly no slouch but Hull is one of the greatest goal scorers of all time. Went with Bret by a bit

 

[DannyGallivan]

Kurri was a better overrall hockey player. However, Hull was the more gifted goal scorer. Sure, Hull had Oats while Kurri had Gretzky, and neither would have done anywhere near as well with most other playmakers.

 

[tapi]

Hull AINEC. Kurri was for the most part a product of Gretzky, without him he would have not scored even at 60% the pace career-wise

 

[Regal]

Hull AINEC. Kurri was for the most part a product of Gretzky, without him he would have not scored even at 60% the pace career-wise

Kurri was very good without Gretzky his last year in Edmonton. Granted he was with Messier, but most top line players get to play with other elite players. Hull's peak seasons also coincide with playing with Oates. Kurri also had a ridiculous start to the 92-93 season playing center for the Kings while Gretzky was injured. And while Gretzky no doubt helped Kurri's numbers, this was likely only at ES where the two were the main components of their line. On the PP, Kurri had a smaller role than he likely would have on another team, as there was only one puck to go around for Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Coffey and Anderson. The Oilers also generally had a low amount of PPs relative to the league (likely due to refs not wanting to give them more of an advantage). Playing on another team without Gretzky would likely be partially offset by having a bigger role on a PP with more opportunities

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Kurri all around better imo.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Hull AINEC. Kurri was for the most part a product of Gretzky, without him he would have not scored even at 60% the pace career-wise

Ah, more scathing hot takes to add to the list of Crosby> Howe and Matthews = McDavid

 

[McDavidCrushedLarkin]

Kurri for anyone actually old enough to watch him and Hull play.

 

[McFlash97]

Kurri was a better hockey player.

 

[authentic]

Probably Kurri very slightly. He is underrated and Hull a bit overrated, but still it is basically a coin toss at their peaks. Hull was easily a better goal scorer but Kurri was easily a better playmaker and more rounded player.