- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,671
- 10,316
Kane has the best case as the 4th best player of his generation.
Whatever Hull is, it isn't 4th.
Whatever Hull is, it isn't 4th.
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.
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?
Hull better at his best so I voted him, for career id pick Kane.
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.
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.
I mean Hull also scored more points at their respective peaks so there's that. Ridiculous post in general to be honest.
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.
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.
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.