How inflated were Bobby Hull WHA stats?
- Thread starter WingsFan95
- Start date
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,758
- 11,107
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I'd like to hear more if you're willing...like, every single detail that you can recall would be of interest to me and virtually everyone here. And if you've already posted this somewhere before, I'd love to be pointed to it...
I am not speaking from direct experience as I am too young to have watched it regularly or with any deep understanding. My uncle did play in the WHA briefly however.
34-22-7 against NHL teams however isn't the caliber of a 'glorified minor league' in my opinion. You could say the top end talent in the NHL was far greater and that would probably be accurate. It's also relevant that not every exhibition was played by the best WHA teams. WHAhockey.com - WHA vs NHL .
Whether or not the AHL or WHL of the original 6 era is on par with the WHA I don't know. I have minimal knowledge about the WHL. However it stands to reason that, being only 6 teams the talent level in the minor leagues would have been far greater.
That being said the WHA paid greater or comparable salaries to NHL clubs. 67 NHL players left to play in the WHA in 1972, an average of 5.58 players per WHA team. As the WHA contracted in the 1970's and more veteran players crossed over for paydays to end their careers it's clear the leagues quality improved, and likely had a much balanced overall talent level then the NHL in 77-79, again due to horrid expansion teams.
Needless to say. The ahl/whl/chl/ihl never had Bobby Hull, Dave Keon, Gordie Howe(and sons), Frank Mahovlich, J.C Tremlblay, Ralph Backstrom in their league at the same time. Just shooting off the first top tier NHL players to come to mind.
It may have been a ploy to make money from the start, and it may have failed but it gave players an opportunity to get paid fairly. Or in some cases (Keon) have control over their careers and play in a good quality league while again being paid a good wage.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,554
- 5,189
Sure my message was about the statement quoted, that it is a odd way for a 'superior' league to react, it is the expected way for the superior league to react, if the khl want their champion to play the nhl champion for the stanley cup (i.e. remove the stanley cup from the NHL), we would expect them to say no and for the khl to have to convince them.
Here we could even say the more superior the league think they are the less odd it is for them to refuse, no one would find strange this year winner of the stanley cup would not want to change their employment rules this summer to play their Stanley Cup to the winner of the Q in a 4 of 7.
Last edited:
The KHL are from another country and another continent. They also play on different size ice.
The NFL played the AFL without a problem because it made money. NHL has always lacked vision and drive compared to other leagues.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,554
- 5,189
NFL did not had a valuable trophy to put in play, would the NFL owned the superbowl back then (just even being a fifth to what it was in the 90s) I doubt it would have been easy to convince them to have an non NFL team to play in and win the superbowl.
It is one thing to compete with another league and create something new, it is another to lose a very valuable thing like the Stanley Cup, would be much easier to convince them to compete for something else (like the soviet did playing against NHL clubs or against nhl stars in a different made up series, not for the stanley cup).
It is one thing to compete with another league and create something new, it is another to lose a very valuable thing like the Stanley Cup, would be much easier to convince them to compete for something else (like the soviet did playing against NHL clubs or against nhl stars in a different made up series, not for the stanley cup).
That makes close to zero sense. The stanley cup is the 2nd least valuable trophy in all of North American pro sports. Only trophy less valuable is the Grey Cup. What exactly does the NHL have to lose from playing the WHA aside from the money they would make from attendance, TV revenue, and potentially reaffirming the dominance of their league.
The hockey may have been more entertaining back then, but the NHL has always been run complete bush league compared to other pro sports. Even more so back in the original 6- 90's.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
What incentive does the NHL have to ever allow another league to compete for the Stanley Cup? It's all downside.
If the WHA were much stronger and lasted into the 90s they still wouldn't have competed for the Cup.
The market leader doesn't mention #2 while #2 always mentions the leader.
You see it with Coke/Pepsi. The late 00s Mac/PC commercials. WWE and AEW now. WWF/WCW in the late 90s. Burger King has obsessed over McDonalds while McDonalds doesn't even recognize Burger King.
The WHA's job was to poke the NHL. The NHL's job was to view the WHA as minor league.
If the WHA were much stronger and lasted into the 90s they still wouldn't have competed for the Cup.
The market leader doesn't mention #2 while #2 always mentions the leader.
You see it with Coke/Pepsi. The late 00s Mac/PC commercials. WWE and AEW now. WWF/WCW in the late 90s. Burger King has obsessed over McDonalds while McDonalds doesn't even recognize Burger King.
The WHA's job was to poke the NHL. The NHL's job was to view the WHA as minor league.
The point of the NHL is to deliver the best entertainment product possible while making as much money as possible.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,554
- 5,189
I think they have the most valuable trophy.
Take any other north american league, sell the current trophy to a different one and give a new one to the world series champion, Superbowl winner, NBA finals, etc.... would anyone care ? If no one tell it to their audience and new trophy look someone a bit like the previous, what percentage will even know about the shift....
What exactly does the nhl have to lose if they stop to have the Stanley Cup finals and be the league the winner win the stanley cups ? Seem a bit obvious
Last edited:
WingsFan95
Registered User
Thanks for the responses. I do often forget how this all plays into Gordie Howe's totals but the WHA allowed him a lot of leeway and not to say he doesn't last to 1980 if all in the NHL but there's definitely a few negative variables. Bobby Hull on the other hand for me was still capable of scoring 50+ and could have closer seasons to his WHA totals given the NHL scoring rates. That might seem ludicrous to some but it really depends.
In 74-75 for the NHL Esposito lead the league with 61 goals while Rick Martin had 52 in 68 games (Lafleur was 2nd with 53). I think Bobby Hull given his prowess in the WHA that year would be at minimum in the 45-50 range. He aged quite well.
Gordie Howe retired for 2 years but it's reasonable to look at him as a 20 goal scorer in the NHL if he returned and kept going. The battle between him and Hull would have been something indeed.
In 74-75 for the NHL Esposito lead the league with 61 goals while Rick Martin had 52 in 68 games (Lafleur was 2nd with 53). I think Bobby Hull given his prowess in the WHA that year would be at minimum in the 45-50 range. He aged quite well.
Gordie Howe retired for 2 years but it's reasonable to look at him as a 20 goal scorer in the NHL if he returned and kept going. The battle between him and Hull would have been something indeed.
The Habs refused to play the Jets back then. So…maybe the Habs were a little “concerned “ about losing to them ?
Cuz they would have.
If the NHL has the most valuable trophy why are is the NHL a less valuable league then the NFL,NBA,MLB? Even the MLS surpassed the NHL a few years ago.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,554
- 5,189
Because a league is obviously more than the winning team trophy ? I am not sure how much you are being serious.
People talk about the world series winner, superbowl champion, etc... in the nhl they talk with the trophy name, the Stanley Cup champion.
The Superbowl-world series branding is more valuable than the Stanley Cup, but the Stanley Cup is more important-valuable than the Vince Lombardi trophy (they make a new one every year to start with in those league, it has zero history like the Cup) and the trophy I do not know the name before googling it in the MLB.
I am not sure the NFL today would be excited to lose the Superbowl and share it with a different league.
So when people discuss which NFL team won the superbowl. They do it without mentioning it's called the superbowl? That makes absolutely zero sense.
Sure but looking at the voting for Hart, Norris, all star teams ect the WHA was pretty under represented and even your example of exhibition games, they don't mean anything as they were simply exhibition games and the rosters were probably mixed with non NHLers.
Back to the thread topic bobby hull probably would have scored pretty well if just him and him only switched back to the NHL in some alternative universe.
I think that you are strictly looking at the forwards.
The defenseman and goalies of the WHA were generally not that great and also the top teams had a great top 6 but lacked depth compared to the top NHL teams of the time.
The torphy is also handed to a front office type not the captain of the winning team and even watchign this year it was pretty clear that aside from a crappy viva Las vegas chant the players don't revere the trophy the same way NHL players revere the SC.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,554
- 5,189
?
If you think that the NFL trophy given to the team that win the Superbowl is called the Superbowl and not the Vince Lombardi trophy, I think that would demonstrate quite well what I mean....
If not, I am not sure what you mean here.
VMBM
And it didn't even bring me down
On paper, a 4—0 sweep for the Habs (if it was a playoff series). The only comparable thing were their top lines. However, depth, defense, goalie(s), Montreal wins in every department.
Last edited:
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,554
- 5,189
Yes and the fact that the name of the game does not seem to have any link with the trophy and that you did not seem to know the name of the trophy that the winner get a good clue that the Vince Lombardi trophy is not as valuable as the Stanley Cup ?
Do you think that the NFL would not ask a lot to loose the Super Bowl to have it shared with a different league (have half its team participate in it, share the revenues, etc... and so on now ?) That it would be odd for the Chiefs to void their last Superbowl win from the book, lets play another team from a different league that just challenged us in the actual Superbowl if they consider that league to be an inferior one ?
I think the making as much money as possible is the point, it is a bit in reverse here and having the WHA not thriving and eventually closing was seen as much better for the NHL profits than them playing for the cup and becoming an equal to the nhl league.
I've lived in Canada all my life and I have heard tons of people refer to X years winner as 'NHL champions'.
I literally don't understand the point you're trying to make about a 'trophy' being more valuable then another 'trophy' in a clearly more valuable league.
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: ECQF Game 4: Boston Bruins vs Toronto Leafs:, | 8pm, | SN- Latest: YukonCornelius
-
-
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
KNOCKOUT Panther City Lacrosse Club @ San Diego SealsWagers: 2Staked: $200.00Event closes- Updated: