Why do people think Joe Sakic was better than Brett Hull?

[NativeHockey77*]

Brett Hull in my opinion is top 10 while Sakic is top 50. Look at the comparasins

Ive seen so many people on these boards say Sakic was better and ect ect .... Brett doesnt get enough respect around here.



Their top 5 seasons


Sakic
1989-90|80 39 63 102
1990-91|80 48 61 109
1992-93|78 48 57 105
1995-96|82 51 69 120
2000-01|82 54 64 118

Hull
1989-90|80 72 41 113
1990-91|78 86 45 131
1991-92|73 70 39 109
1992-93|80 54 47 101
1993-94|81 57 40 97

Click to read more...

 

[BraveCanadian]

Brett Hull in my opinion is top 10 while Sakic is top 50. Look at the comparasins

Ive seen so many people on these boards say Sakic was better and ect ect .... Brett doesnt get enough respect around here.



Their top 5 seasons


Sakic
1989-90|80 39 63 102
1990-91|80 48 61 109
1992-93|78 48 57 105
1995-96|82 51 69 120
2000-01|82 54 64 118

Hull
1989-90|80 72 41 113
1990-91|78 86 45 131
1991-92|73 70 39 109
1992-93|80 54 47 101
1993-94|81 57 40 97

Maybe because Sakic was better in the defensive side of the rink, and because he was a 100 point scorer at 20 and a 100 point scorer at 38?

I think Hull had probably the best one-timer ever, and his peak is insane but I'd take Sakic every day and twice on Sunday.

 

[NativeHockey77*]

Maybe because Sakic was better in the defensive side of the rink, and because he was a 100 point scorer at 20 and a 100 point scorer at 38?

I think Hull had probably the best one-timer ever, and his peak is insane but I'd take Sakic every day and twice on Sunday.

ok so were talking defence now? remember these guys were FORWARDS. you get paid to score.



But go ahead take Sakic. If Hull was canadian he would be #2 all time

 

[Bear of Bad News]

ok so were talking defence now? remember these guys were FORWARDS. you get paid to score.

You get paid to win. Scoring helps with that. So does defense.

 

[Loto68]

ok so were talking defence now? remember these guys were FORWARDS. you get paid to score.



But go ahead take Sakic. If Hull was canadian he would be #2 all time

Please. Brett wasn't even the best Hull.

 

[Dgill]

ok so were talking defence now? remember these guys were FORWARDS. you get paid to score.



But go ahead take Sakic. If Hull was canadian he would be #2 all time

You don't think that every aspect of a position should be taken into consideration to find out who is better? Or do you truly believe that forwards should not worry about defense at all and sit on the bluelines waiting for that breakout pass?

 

[McGuillicuddy]

If Hull was canadian he would be #2 all time

Actually, Hull is Canadian. Still not #2 all time.

 

[Weztex]

ok so were talking defence now? remember these guys were FORWARDS. you get paid to score.



But go ahead take Sakic. If Hull was canadian he would be #2 all time

You seem less encline to ask a question than to confront answers. I hope this is not the case...so let's discuss.

Why makes you personally put Hull ahead of Sakic?

 

[JackSlater]

Brett Hull in my opinion is top 10 while Sakic is top 50. Look at the comparasins

Top 10 ever in terms of all players ever? That would be insanity. If you are just ranking them as goalscorers you may be on to something.

Sakic is better than Hull at everything other than goalscoring, and even there the gap is not huge. Sakic was a far better playmaker than Hull. Sakic has a much better prime and far superior longevity. In terms of raw numbers Hull appears to have the better peak, but when you consider the era, that he contributed little away from the puck and how much his prime coincided with his time with Oates, I would honestly give peak to Sakic as well. Of course Sakic was also the better defensive player by quite a bit.

ok so were talking defence now? remember these guys were FORWARDS. you get paid to score.

Of course defence matters. Forwards also have to contribute defensively if they want to be as effective as possible. Sakic was better at contributing defensively.

But go ahead take Sakic. If Hull was canadian he would be #2 all time

The xenophobic Canadian is a national identity I didn't know we had acquired until I read it in a few threads on this site recently. I personally consider Hull to be a Canadian hockey player, and I still consider Sakic to be the better player pretty easily. Are you seriously saying that you think Brett Hull is the second best hockey player of all time? Better even than Gretzky and Lemieux, two contemporaries who were blatantly superior?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not to be snide, but I don't think anyone watching either player would ever take Brett Hull over Joe Sakic.

But just to humor the original post:

Joe Sakic's Top 10 points finishes:

2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 10th

Brett Hull's Top 10 points finishes:

2nd, 4th, 5th

Not to mention the fact that Hull never finished top 10 in scoring without Adam Oates as his center. 3 straight 73+ goal seasons, then Oates leaves and Hull never beats 57 again? Hmmm....

And that's before getting into the massive advantage Sakic has over Hull in terms of defensive play.

Throw in Sakic's Conn Smythe, 2nd Smythe-worthy performance, and MVP at the Olympics....

 

[Stephen]

ok so were talking defence now? remember these guys were FORWARDS. you get paid to score.



But go ahead take Sakic. If Hull was canadian he would be #2 all time

Hull is Canadian, and the only thing he's coming in second in is this conversation.

 

[Boxscore]

The problem is, Sakic and Hull are contrasting players. The more comparable would be Brett Hull vs. Mike Bossy. But, when it comes down to the greatness of Sakic and Hull, there are many factors in play: Skill, production, leadership, accomplishment, intangibles, longevity and such.

In terms of goal scoring, this is a slam dunk for Golden Brett. But if you are factoring everything, I would choose Sakic for my team. Sakic made players better and was a great leader. Hull was a sick sniper and offensive powerhouse.

But, if we are just looking at peak -- the nod goes to Hull rather quickly. At his peak, Hull was more dominant and scary than Sakic.

 

[Stephen]

Also, as ungodly as Hull's 86 goal season was, his assist totals were pretty paltry in comaprison, meaning that while he scored, he wasn't necessarily making guys around him more productive by setting up his linemates either. I guess you can make the argument that that doesn't matter, since he scored so much, but Sakic's team affects were definitely greater than Hull's as far as the prototypical offensive juggernaut in the center position. Hull's Blues never won anything, Sakic and the Avs won a couple of championships.

 

[NativeHockey77*]

You seem less encline to ask a question than to confront answers. I hope this is not the case...so let's discuss.

Why makes you personally put Hull ahead of Sakic?

how can you argue with 86 goals and a GT Brand?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

how can you argue with 86 goals and a GT Brand?

Clearly, we're done here.