Brett Hull vs Patrick Kane

[Midnight Judges]

Kane has the best case as the 4th best player of his generation.

Whatever Hull is, it isn't 4th.

 

[Unspecified]

Hull

 

[Albatros]

Kane has the best case as the 4th best player of his generation.

Whatever Hull is, it isn't 4th.

Debatable. But either way Kane wouldn't be anywhere close to 4th among Boomers or GenX players.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Debatable. But either way Kane wouldn't be anywhere close to 4th among Boomers or GenX players.

Yeah, that's nostalgia talking. Those generations aren't superior to the current generation. If anything the millennials are far superior to the boomers of generation X'ers because the talent pool was far larger. At best they are equals.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I tend to agree that Hull had a very high run of peak seasons, but the larger picture seems to favor Kane at this point. I would also argue that Kane is more capable of carrying an entire team on his back, as he did this past season.

Kane is now at the same age where Hull took a step back and became a containable goal-scorer who you still respected but no longer quite feared anymore. The next couple of years will tell us a lot about how Kane stacks up. It's quite possible he falls back behind Hull if he ages poorly.

 

[Albatros]

Yeah, that's nostalgia talking. Those generations aren't superior to the current generation. If anything the millennials are far superior to the boomers of generation X'ers because the talent pool was far larger. At best they are equals.

Oh is it really?

Which of Pavel Bure, Sergei Fedorov, Peter Forsberg, Jaromír Jágr, Mario Lemieux, Eric Lindros, Joe Sakic, Teemu Selänne, Steve Yzerman would you take Patrick Kane over?

And that's just some of the GenX forwards, not mentioning the likes of Nicklas Lidström or Dominik Hašek.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Oh is it really?

Which of Pavel Bure, Sergei Fedorov, Peter Forsberg, Jaromír Jágr, Mario Lemieux, Eric Lindros, Joe Sakic, Teemu Selänne, Steve Yzerman would you take Patrick Kane over?

All of them except Jagr, Lemieux, and Sakic.

 

[SouthWest]

Peak is Hull, prime is Kane.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Kane, though I'm biased towards high end playmakers who can also score regularly.

 

[Thenameless]

Hull better at his best so I voted him, for career id pick Kane.

That's about as fair as can be.

 

[ColbyChaos]

Kane by a decent amount imo. I think their peaks are comparable if you era adjust, but Kane has been in the top players in the league for a much longer timeframe

Adjusting the era makes it Kane by a mile.

Adjusted for era Kane has four 100+pt seasons (highest being 119 in 2016) along with 3 more at near misses at 99, 98, and 94 Vs Hull having a 118pt season and then a 97 and 95.

 

[psycat]

Adjusting the era makes it Kane by a mile.

Adjusted for era Kane has four 100+pt seasons (highest being 119 in 2016) along with 3 more at near misses at 99, 98, and 94 Vs Hull having a 118pt season and then a 97 and 95.

86(in 78 games) goals is 86 goals even if it was in the early 90s that's extremely impressive and Kane hasn't really done anything comparable so peak is Hull easily for me.

 

[ColbyChaos]

86(in 78 games) goals is 86 goals even if it was in the early 90s that's extremely impressive and Kane hasn't really done anything comparable so peak is Hull easily for me.

Points > Goals

Being dangerous in shooting and passing is a lot better than only being dangerous in shooting. In the end Kane creates more goals for his team than Hull which is why Hull was never able to win as "the guy" (and why Ovechkin almost didnt either). 50 goals and 30 assists will never be better than 40 goals and 70 assists.

 

[psycat]

Points > Goals

Being dangerous in shooting and passing is a lot better than only being dangerous in shooting. In the end Kane creates more goals for his team than Hull which is why Hull was never able to win as "the guy" (and why Ovechkin almost didnt either). 50 goals and 30 assists will never be better than 40 goals and 70 assists.

I mean Hull also scored more points at their respective peaks so there's that. Ridiculous post in general to be honest.

 

[Regal]

I mean Hull also scored more points at their respective peaks so there's that. Ridiculous post in general to be honest.

Gee, I wonder why

 

[blundluntman]

Points > Goals

Being dangerous in shooting and passing is a lot better than only being dangerous in shooting. In the end Kane creates more goals for his team than Hull which is why Hull was never able to win as "the guy" (and why Ovechkin almost didnt either). 50 goals and 30 assists will never be better than 40 goals and 70 assists.

It's harder to score goals consistently than it is to set up multiple teammates imo. Just think of the number of players that have put up 70 assists then look at the number of players scoring a goal per game; its very disproportionate. Hull's skillset is rarer than Kane's if we're being honest, arguably more dangerous too. Not to mention his peak actually translated to the postseason too, he had back to back gpg playoff campaigns in his peak. As a GM I'd have a hard time justifying Kane over Hull at their best

 

[Iapyi]

The good old pseudoAmerican [at least in respect to hockey] comes up again.

 

[ColbyChaos]

I mean Hull also scored more points at their respective peaks so there's that. Ridiculous post in general to be honest.

Because of his era... scoring in the 80s and early 90s is a lot easier than in 2016...

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[ColbyChaos]

It's harder to score goals consistently than it is to set up multiple teammates imo. Just think of the number of players that have put up 70 assists then look at the number of players scoring a goal per game; its very disproportionate. Hull's skillset is rarer than Kane's if we're being honest, arguably more dangerous too. Not to mention his peak actually translated to the postseason too, he had back to back gpg playoff campaigns in his peak. As a GM I'd have a hard time justifying Kane over Hull at their best

Doesnt matter which skill is "more rare" what matters is that Kane outproduces Hull no matter what era they play in. Scoring in Hulls era was noticeably higher than Kane's. In now universe is a player who creates less goals for his team more dangerous than a guy who creates more goals for his team. Same comparable with Ovi, anyone who would rather have a 50goal 20-30 assist winger over a winger who can score 35-40goals a season but also produce 60-70 assists is just plain dumb.

 

[blundluntman]

Doesnt matter which skill is "more rare" what matters is that Kane outproduces Hull no matter what era they play in. Scoring in Hulls era was noticeably higher than Kane's. In now universe is a player who creates less goals for his team more dangerous than a guy who creates more goals for his team. Same comparable with Ovi, anyone who would rather have a 50goal 20-30 assist winger over a winger who can score 35-40goals a season but also produce 60-70 assists is just plain dumb.

You're missing my point. There's a difference between putting a puck in the net and helping someone put the puck in the net. Hull was Directly responsible for more goals for his team at his best than Kane was. Even if you try to argue Hull scored 86 goals in a higher scoring era, he's still the only player to score at that rate besides Gretzky and Lemieux. That means something no matter how much you want to adjust stats for era. And your Ovi comparison is flawed because you're comparing Kane's best versus Ovi's post-peak play. If we put the goal posts back where they belong: Is it plain dumb to prefer a 65 goal 112 point peak over 40 goal 110 point season? (which took place in a higher scoring season)

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Points > Goals

Being dangerous in shooting and passing is a lot better than only being dangerous in shooting. In the end Kane creates more goals for his team than Hull which is why Hull was never able to win as "the guy" (and why Ovechkin almost didnt either). 50 goals and 30 assists will never be better than 40 goals and 70 assists.

99% of hawks fans say Toews and Keith were more important to the 3 cup wins. Since they've declined and Kane became "the guy", the hawks can't even make the playoffs. So not really a good argument.

Also about OV. Not sure why you're using Kane's one peak season (which could be a fluke since he never did anything like that before or after) vs OV way past his peak. Peak OV was a 50+50 guy and no one is ever taking Kane over him.