Just how good were Hull, Hedberg, and Nilsson?

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
Hm, well, you're sort of overlooking the fact that Nilsson played 59 and 50 games in his first two seasons for the Rangers. He was pacing for 89 and 93 points those first two NHL seasons, respectively. The projected totals would have easily made him the Rangers' leading scorer in both years. It's a big drop from the 130-kind of point pace had the last couple years with the Jets, but we'd expect almost that much of a drop from a top-WHA team to a good-ish NHL one. Further, in 1978-79 he had the top shooting-percentage in the NHL. Not only that, but on a per-game basis he also had the best plus/minus on the Rangers in both seasons.

Here's the major injury he suffered on Feb.25th, 1979:


He was almost 29 when this happened, and then the next season he had another major injury (still scored 16 points in 14 playoff games in '81).

Point being, while Nilsson was a superb WHA performer, he was still an excellent NHL performer... when healthy and before age caught up to him.

Sure, there's the Robbie Ftoreks who go from 115 to 75-point players overnight upon entering the NHL, but, as noted above, there are also Rogers, Stoughton, and even young-Gretzky, all of whom improved their scoring their first few NHL seasons after the WHA. By the way, on those same late-70s' Jets, there was also Swede Kent Nilsson, who (twice) scored 107 points for Winnipeg, and then later scored 131 in the NHL.


As I said before, this is about Hull, Nilsson and Hedberg.

Their last season together they were still the best line in the league, even though Hull was 39. He only played 31 games total after that.

Hedberg had a very health career with the Rangers but was never the superstar he was in the WHA. Nor was Nilsson.

If they played together in their prime in the NHL, they most likely would have been a top line, but not the top line.

Gretzky improved in the NHL because he only played in the WHA as an 18 year old. Should have used Messier (also 18) as an example. He had 1 goal in 57 games in the WHA. Was better in the NHL.

Mike Rogers floated through the WHA. When he had something to prove he really picked it up. Stoughton was always a one dimensional floater. But he could shoot. Rogers (and Mark Howe) got a lot of assists setting him up.

Then there was Andre Lacroix. In 4 seasons in the NHL his best season was 58 points. Went to the WHA at age 27 and put up 6 straight 100 point seasons. Led the league twice.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
I mean, they were definitely as good as a typical NHL top line, right?

During that era (~1976) an average NHL team-leading scorer was in the 80-90 point range. Hull was trending toward being a 90-point guy when he left the NHL four years earlier. Upon their arrival in the NHL in their late 20s, Nilsson and Hedberg started around a 90- and 80-point pace, respectively, and trended steadily down with age.

I think it's completely realistic that the trio would have been good for around 90 points apiece. That would have put them each around 15th in the NHL in scoring, and you can imagine a perfect storm where they get closer to 100 and the top-10, or a bad season where they trend closer to 80. That all represents about a 30% discount from their WHA figures, which feels right to me.

So... yeah, think 3 late-70s Lanny McDonalds in terms of statistical performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yozhik v tumane

TheEye

Registered User
Nov 4, 2018
191
132
As I said before, this is about Hull, Nilsson and Hedberg.

Their last season together they were still the best line in the league, even though Hull was 39. He only played 31 games total after that.

Hedberg had a very health career with the Rangers but was never the superstar he was in the WHA. Nor was Nilsson.

If they played together in their prime in the NHL, they most likely would have been a top line, but not the top line.

Gretzky improved in the NHL because he only played in the WHA as an 18 year old. Should have used Messier (also 18) as an example. He had 1 goal in 57 games in the WHA. Was better in the NHL.

Mike Rogers floated through the WHA. When he had something to prove he really picked it up. Stoughton was always a one dimensional floater. But he could shoot. Rogers (and Mark Howe) got a lot of assists setting him up.

Then there was Andre Lacroix. In 4 seasons in the NHL his best season was 58 points. Went to the WHA at age 27 and put up 6 straight 100 point seasons. Led the league twice.

Put differently, merely apply a myriad of rationalizations to shoehorn everything together to align with a pre-conceived narrative. Conceivably it's more straightforward to acknowledge the WHA, and The Hot Line, was clearly better than you understood or are willing to admit?
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
I mean, they were definitely as good as a typical NHL top line, right?

During that era (~1976) an average NHL team-leading scorer was in the 80-90 point range. Hull was trending toward being a 90-point guy when he left the NHL four years earlier. Upon their arrival in the NHL in their late 20s, Nilsson and Hedberg started around a 90- and 80-point pace, respectively, and trended steadily down with age.

I think it's completely realistic that the trio would have been good for around 90 points apiece. That would have put them each around 15th in the NHL in scoring, and you can imagine a perfect storm where they get closer to 100 and the top-10, or a bad season where they trend closer to 80. That all represents about a 30% discount from their WHA figures, which feels right to me.

So... yeah, think 3 late-70s Lanny McDonalds in terms of statistical performance.

That sounds reasonable.

Though its all speculative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
Put differently, merely apply a myriad of rationalizations to shoehorn everything together to align with a pre-conceived narrative. Conceivably it's more straightforward to acknowledge the WHA, and The Hot Line, was clearly better than you understood or are willing to admit?

Its not pre-conceived. I'm just recalling what I observed. I have no agenda.

You can take it or leave it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->