Zuluss
Registered User
- May 19, 2011
- 2,451
- 2,091
Regarding Crosby vs. Bobby Hull: I once played with the numbers, taking average leads of #1 and #2 in points/goals over #5 or #10, during the O6 era and after 1996 (the current relatively low-scoring environment).
The ratio of average O6 leads to average current leads is rather stable at 60%, no matter how you do it (#1 vs #10, #2 vs #5, etc.)
If we adjust Hull's leads over #10 in points this way, we get
Crosby, 7 best % leads over #10 in points
32-27-26-19-17-15-14
Bobby Hull, 7 best % leads over #10 in points
37-27-27-22-21-17-16
Bobby Hull is a tad better on this metric, but he was also a legendary goal-scorer. Just imagine that in 13/14 Crosby gets 36 goals and 104 points and then a young Bobby shows up and scores 65 goals and 106 points. I think nobody would have doubted in this scenario that young Bobby Hull is a much better player.
Now, picture that happening year after year during all Crosby's peak years: Hull edges him out for Art Ross by a few points and keeps scoring a ridiculous amount of goals while doing that.
The ratio of average O6 leads to average current leads is rather stable at 60%, no matter how you do it (#1 vs #10, #2 vs #5, etc.)
If we adjust Hull's leads over #10 in points this way, we get
Crosby, 7 best % leads over #10 in points
32-27-26-19-17-15-14
Bobby Hull, 7 best % leads over #10 in points
37-27-27-22-21-17-16
Bobby Hull is a tad better on this metric, but he was also a legendary goal-scorer. Just imagine that in 13/14 Crosby gets 36 goals and 104 points and then a young Bobby shows up and scores 65 goals and 106 points. I think nobody would have doubted in this scenario that young Bobby Hull is a much better player.
Now, picture that happening year after year during all Crosby's peak years: Hull edges him out for Art Ross by a few points and keeps scoring a ridiculous amount of goals while doing that.
Last edited: