How inflated were Bobby Hull WHA stats?

[reckoning]

Years ago there was a statistical study looking at players who played in the NHL immediately before or after playing in the WHA, and comparing the numbers, it put the value of a WHA point at about 2/3rds the value of a NHL point. So that would put Bobby Hull's total above Howe but below Gretzky.

The other unknown is how long he would play in the NHL. Hull said that he was considering retirement before Hedberg and Nilsson arrived and rekindled his passion for the game. Would he have stuck around on a mediocre late-70s Chicago team?

 

[Davenport]

Years ago there was a statistical study looking at players who played in the NHL immediately before or after playing in the WHA, and comparing the numbers, it put the value of a WHA point at about 2/3rds the value of a NHL point. So that would put Bobby Hull's total above Howe but below Gretzky.

The other unknown is how long he would play in the NHL. Hull said that he was considering retirement before Hedberg and Nilsson arrived and rekindled his passion for the game. Would he have stuck around on a mediocre late-70s Chicago team?

If we're assuming that there is no WHA, and - as a result - Hull remains a Hawk throughout the 1970s, maybe Chicago would have remained competitive. Although beyond the loss of Bobby - which was needless to say a significant loss - were the Hawks especially affected by the rival league?

 

[reckoning]

If we're assuming that there is no WHA, and - as a result - Hull remains a Hawk throughout the 1970s, maybe Chicago would have remained competitive. Although beyond the loss of Bobby - which was needless to say a significant loss - were the Hawks especially affected by the rival league?

They lost Pat Stapleton to the WHA the next year, which left a big hole. But the bigger issue may have been not being able to adapt to the league changing from the sponsorship era to the draft era. When their core from the 60s aged, they weren't adequately replaced (except for bringing in Tony O). Their draft record in the early 70s was not good.

They stuck with the Tommy Ivan- Billy Reay GM/coach combo for a long time.

 

[Golden_Jet]

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.

You mostly hear Stanley cup champion, not NHL champion.
I don’t understand your “most” valuable trophy lol, it’s a made up statement, not to mention it’s the hardest trophy to win.

Not too mention if you win it, you get the trophy for 24 hours.

 

[Staniowski]

Hull played in the NHL until his age 32 season, and then left for the WHA. If he had stayed in the NHL he likely would've easily sailed past 800 goals.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I am not speaking from direct experience as I am too young to have watched it regularly or with any deep understanding.

Why are you defending this league so ruthlessly and belligerently then? Ignoring statistical evidence, evidence from people who lived in it, played in it, saw it...all of it. Just to say "duck season", when it's obviously rabbit season?

My uncle did play in the WHA briefly however.

Oh, I see.

So...

I can only assume to presume some inherent bias here.

 

[Crosby2010]

They are inflated for sure, yes. You just need to look at the leaders of the scoring race in the WHA. This is why someone who made his living in the WHA doesn't get considered for the Hall. I don't mean if he already was established and had a HHOF career and then played in the WHA, because plenty did. Frank Mahovlich did, Keon, Hull, Howe, Cheevers, etc. all did. Even J-C Tremblay probably deserves the HHOF based on his NHL stats. I mean someone like Marc Tardif for example. Tardif had a career high 68 points in the NHL and then had 154, 148 and 109 as tops in the WHA. Plus other years. He led the WHA in scoring twice. Mike Walton also led the WHA in scoring. There are plenty of other examples of guys who were not stars in the NHL became stars in the WHA. So yeah, Hull's numbers were inflated, but he's Bobby Hull, you don't need to call him out on that, we already know what he could do in the NHL, and his last NHL season before the WHA he hit 50 goals. So if he peaked at 77 in the WHA to me that is no big deal because he didn't have to prove a thing. We already knew what he could do.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Why are you defending this league so ruthlessly and belligerently then? Ignoring statistical evidence, evidence from people who lived in it, played in it, saw it...all of it. Just to say "duck season", when it's obviously rabbit season?


Oh, I see.

So...

There's nothing biased about it. My uncle for the record wasn't good enough for the WHA to be a regular so it's irrelevant. I mentioned it for perspective of hearing stories about the league, and comparisons between training camps between NHL and WHA teams. Regardless you're saying it's a 'glorified minor league' when in reality it was probably a step or two behind the NHL at worst(at least in it's later years).

You mostly hear Stanley cup champion, not NHL champion.
I don’t understand your “most” valuable trophy lol, it’s a made up statement, not to mention it’s the hardest trophy to win.

Not too mention if you win it, you get the trophy for 24 hours.

Most valuable is the trophy guys get paid the most to win. Simple, what you said doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Most valuable is the trophy guys get paid the most to win. Simple, what you said doesn't make any sense to me.

lol, you made that up.

 

[Gorskyontario]

lol, you made that up.

So the NHL makes more money then the NFL? Can you prove this?

 

[jigglysquishy]

You're conflating financial value with sport value. Hockey players aren't making any money for winning an Olympic Gold, but good luck convincing them it doesn't have any value.

 

[Gorskyontario]

You're conflating financial value with sport value. Hockey players aren't making any money for winning an Olympic Gold, but good luck convincing them it doesn't have any value.

Completely irrelevant and I'm not sure what your point is. My point is there was realistically zero reason for the NHL not to play the WHA when the NFL did the same thing around a decade prior.
1. Money
2. Prestige/Pride
All the only reasons any intelligent business owner should need.

Then again when discussing the NHL of just before that era ,the original 6(it's important in understanding the culture of croneyism in the NHL) it's important to note for the majority of the time, 4 teams were owned by the same person. Clown world. Not exactly a well run league from a financial perspective until the 90's.

 

[MadLuke]

Completely irrelevant and I'm not sure what your point is. My point is there was realistically zero reason for the NHL not to play the WHA when the NFL did the same thing around a decade prior.

The nfl played on a made up new game-trophy for that league confrontation, they did not put in play their yearly championship. Do you think today the NFL would accept to not have 2 NFL team play in their superbowl, for it to stop to exist as it has for a while and have a team from a different league playing in it instead of 2 nfl team ?

The nhl did play the WHA, but for a team that won the cup that year to say that they did not and to put in play in a tourney that quite different.

realistically zero reason for the NHL not to play the WHA

What if they felt it augmented the chance the WHA would disappear and would regain a stronger market position ? Sacrificing a very small short money grab for a longer play ?