HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   Brett Hull vs. Steven Stamkos (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1089217)

Vinny Bombatz 01-24-2012 11:07 AM

Brett Hull vs. Steven Stamkos
 
Please comment only if you've seen both haha

1) Better goalscorer
2) Better overall player
3) Better one timer

FrozenJagrt 01-24-2012 11:10 AM

What exactly are you asking? Better goalscorer? Better playmaker? Better two way player? Better one timer? Most unattractive?

Reds4Life 01-24-2012 11:11 AM

Joke, haha?

TheDevilMadeMe 01-24-2012 11:12 AM

Unless you can come up with a more specific question, this thread is going to have a short life span.

FrozenJagrt 01-24-2012 11:19 AM

I will say that Hull was probably fairly overrated as a goalscorer. Great, of course, but to my knowledge, he never broke 60 again after the 70-80-70 seasons he enjoyed with Adam Oates. Remains to be seen how Stamkos does once he plays a few full seasons without Saint Luwee. I obviously do not think he will ever hit 70 like Hull did, but different eras, adjusted stats and all that business.

Vinny Bombatz 01-24-2012 11:28 AM

My answer: Brett Hull

Comparable players in different eras…Brett hull probably is a better “goalscorer”, however Stamkos is more fluid (mobile) on the ice…

Some fun facts:

Brett Hull – second highest goal total in a single season with 86, only behind Gretsky (92)

Brett Hull – 17 straight 20+ goal seasons

Brett Hull – 8 straight 40+ goals seasons (skipping half season lost to lock-out)

I can honestly say best PURE sniper behind Bossy…

begbeee 01-24-2012 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny Bombatz (Post 43023835)
Please comment only if you've seen both haha

1) Better goalscorer
2) Better overall player
3) Better one timer

1. Hull 2. Hull 3. Hull

Wrigley 01-24-2012 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace14 (Post 43024457)
I will say that Hull was probably fairly overrated as a goalscorer. ...

:shakehead That's why he's 3rd all time in goals scored. Is your next topic "Can a team with Chelios make the playoffs?" :shakehead

revolverjgw 01-24-2012 11:38 AM

I'd be surprised if Stamkos doesn't establish himself as the better all-around player, but he hasn't peaked quite as high yet so it's too early to make the call. He'll probably match Hull's total of elite (top 5) scoring seasons this year, in a deeper era, and he's just getting started. But you never know, Ovechkin declined sharply out of nowhere.

FrozenJagrt 01-24-2012 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Made Me (Post 43025295)
:shakehead That's why he's 3rd all time in goals scored. Is your next topic "Can a team with Chelios make the playoffs?" :shakehead

I just saw someone call him the second best pure sniper. Now either that is a cop out, using the word pure to eliminate all other factors, or Brett really is that overrated. Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Gretzky, and Bossy were all arguably better, and that's to say nothing of pre expansion era players. Brett was great, as I said in my original post. Right after what you quoted, in fact. But he had three stellar seasons with one of the greatest playmakers of all time, followed by two ~55 goal seasons, and progressively dropped further and further after that. If we only look at where they place in the all time leaders list, Mike Gartner was a better goalscorer than Mario Lemieux and Mark Recchi was a better goalscorer than Guy Lafleur. I don't buy that.

And then, as alluded in the post above me, you have to take into account what a player did in direct comparison to his peers, you have to consider the era. Brett was top five in league goals four times. That's very good, but perhaps not as good as one would expect given how some fans view him.

begbeee 01-24-2012 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolverjgw (Post 43025365)
I'd be surprised if Stamkos doesn't establish himself as the better all-around player, but he hasn't peaked quite as high yet so it's too early to make the call. He'll probably match Hull's total of elite (top 5) scoring seasons this year, in a deeper era, and he's just getting started. But you never know, Ovechkin declined sharply out of nowhere.

Deeper era? Noone, never ever, will convince me that post lockout NHL is more stacked than 1990-2000 NHL. Hull's stats are inflated by higher GPG during his era but .. geez... please just take a look on the names, start with goalies and continue...

Vinny Bombatz 01-24-2012 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace14 (Post 43025575)
I just saw someone call him the second best pure sniper. Now either that is a cop out, using the word pure to eliminate all other factors, or Brett really is that overrated. Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Gretzky, and Bossy were all arguably better, and that's to say nothing of pre expansion era players. Brett was great, as I said in my original post. Right after what you quoted, in fact. But he had three stellar seasons with one of the greatest playmakers of all time, followed by two ~55 goal seasons, and progressively dropped further and further after that. If we only look at where they place in the all time leaders list, Mike Gartner was a better goalscorer than Mario Lemieux and Mark Recchi was a better goalscorer than Guy Lafleur. I don't buy that.


"Pure Sniper" in the sense of, if the games on the line with 3 seconds left and I need to choose a player to bury that puck...

1) Bossy
2) Brett Hull

Sure guys like "99" and "66" scored a variety of goals (one-on-one moves, one-timers, snipes), yet very few picked corners like those 2...

FrozenJagrt 01-24-2012 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny Bombatz (Post 43025839)
"Pure Sniper" in the sense of, if the games on the line with 3 seconds left and I need to choose a player to bury that puck...

1) Bossy
2) Brett Hull

Sure guys like "99" and "66" scored a variety of goals (one-on-one moves, one-timers, snipes), yet very few picked corners like those 2...

Gretzky picked corners better than anyone in this history of the game in my opinion. You make it sound like he was all flash, no substance. I know you wouldn't really diminish his talent like that, but that's how it sounds. Up until you mention "snipes", which I consider to be picking corners. For my money, there was nobody that picked an opening and fired it home as well as 99.

revolverjgw 01-24-2012 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by begbeee (Post 43025729)
Deeper era? Noone, never ever, will convince me that post lockout NHL is more stacked than 1990-2000 NHL. Hull's stats are inflated by higher GPG during his era but .. geez... please just take a look on the names, start with goalies and continue...

To me the list of talent during that era is less impressive than this one. During Hull's best three years, a Euro finished top-20 in scoring a grand total of twice (Sandstrom and Kurri, 17th and 18th respectively). Stamkos has had to compete for his top 5 finishes with Malkin, Datsyuk, Ovechkin, two Sedins, Hossa, Backstrom, etc. The only names that stand out back then are Gretzky and Lemieux, but those are just two guys versus tons of elite Euros today. NA talent is a wash.

FrozenJagrt 01-24-2012 12:03 PM

I think the high end talent was certainly greater back then at all positions, but the second to fourth liners, the fourth through sixth defensemen, and a vast majority of the goaltenders would probably struggle in todays NHL. In my opinion.

TheMoreYouKnow 01-24-2012 12:45 PM

Bit harsh to say Oates made Hull. Obviously every great goalscorer benefits from the presence of a great passer and Hull certainly did, but then if you hold Oates against Hull what would he have to do with Oates to prove he's a great sniper? Score an unprecedented 100 goals?

Don't forget that Brett Hull's 86 goal season was 1990/91 - scoring had come down and was at 1970s levels, not the insanity of 1980 to 1986. Goal per game average in Hull's best season was over a whole goal lower than it was in Gretzky's 92 goal romp.

Hull's numbers did drop after Oates left but then aside from the obvious fact that hockey is a team game and replacing a player like Oates with a player like Janney will have a negative effect on every team you have to take general factors into consideration as well, Hull was getting older, league scoring was decreasing and the Blues had some issues (between 1992 and 1997 the Blues had five head coaches).

Hull did score nearly 40 and was a PPG player in the middle of the Dead Puck Era in 00/01 as a 36 year old, he got 37 goals two years later as a 38 year old, good for 8th in the league.

I think goalscorers' stats will always depend more on their environment, the team they are on etc. than playmakers' stats. But we do have to take into account here that an assist is an easier point to score than a goal.

Vinny Bombatz 01-24-2012 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow (Post 43028631)
Bit harsh to say Oates made Hull. Obviously every great goalscorer benefits from the presence of a great passer and Hull certainly did, but then if you hold Oates against Hull what would he have to do with Oates to prove he's a great sniper? Score an unprecedented 100 goals?

Don't forget that Brett Hull's 86 goal season was 1990/91 - scoring had come down and was at 1970s levels, not the insanity of 1980 to 1986. Goal per game average in Hull's best season was over a whole goal lower than it was in Gretzky's 92 goal romp.

Hull's numbers did drop after Oates left but then aside from the obvious fact that hockey is a team game and replacing a player like Oates with a player like Janney will have a negative effect on every team you have to take general factors into consideration as well, Hull was getting older, league scoring was decreasing and the Blues had some issues (between 1992 and 1997 the Blues had five head coaches).

Hull did score nearly 40 and was a PPG player in the middle of the Dead Puck Era in 00/01 as a 36 year old, he got 37 goals two years later as a 38 year old, good for 8th in the league.

I think goalscorers' stats will always depend more on their environment, the team they are on etc. than playmakers' stats. But we do have to take into account here that an assist is an easier point to score than a goal.

+1 -well said

FrozenJagrt 01-24-2012 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow (Post 43028631)
Bit harsh to say Oates made Hull. Obviously every great goalscorer benefits from the presence of a great passer and Hull certainly did, but then if you hold Oates against Hull what would he have to do with Oates to prove he's a great sniper? Score an unprecedented 100 goals?

Don't forget that Brett Hull's 86 goal season was 1990/91 - scoring had come down and was at 1970s levels, not the insanity of 1980 to 1986. Goal per game average in Hull's best season was over a whole goal lower than it was in Gretzky's 92 goal romp.

Hull's numbers did drop after Oates left but then aside from the obvious fact that hockey is a team game and replacing a player like Oates with a player like Janney will have a negative effect on every team you have to take general factors into consideration as well, Hull was getting older, league scoring was decreasing and the Blues had some issues (between 1992 and 1997 the Blues had five head coaches).

Hull did score nearly 40 and was a PPG player in the middle of the Dead Puck Era in 00/01 as a 36 year old, he got 37 goals two years later as a 38 year old, good for 8th in the league.

I think goalscorers' stats will always depend more on their environment, the team they are on etc. than playmakers' stats. But we do have to take into account here that an assist is an easier point to score than a goal.


I don't disagree with anything you said, it was all well put. I simply don't have Hull in the top five goalscorers of all time like some tend to.

RabbinsDuck 01-24-2012 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace14 (Post 43029679)
I don't disagree with anything you said, it was all well put. I simply don't have Hull in the top five goalscorers of all time like some tend to.

Bobby Hull
Maurice Richard
Lemieux
Howe
Gretzky
Esposito
Bossy

Are all better goal scorers, IMO.
Brett Hull is Top 10 though.

tjcurrie 01-24-2012 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow (Post 43028631)
Bit harsh to say Oates made Hull. Obviously every great goalscorer benefits from the presence of a great passer and Hull certainly did, but then if you hold Oates against Hull what would he have to do with Oates to prove he's a great sniper? Score an unprecedented 100 goals?

Don't forget that Brett Hull's 86 goal season was 1990/91 - scoring had come down and was at 1970s levels, not the insanity of 1980 to 1986. Goal per game average in Hull's best season was over a whole goal lower than it was in Gretzky's 92 goal romp.

Hull's numbers did drop after Oates left but then aside from the obvious fact that hockey is a team game and replacing a player like Oates with a player like Janney will have a negative effect on every team you have to take general factors into consideration as well, Hull was getting older, league scoring was decreasing and the Blues had some issues (between 1992 and 1997 the Blues had five head coaches).

Hull did score nearly 40 and was a PPG player in the middle of the Dead Puck Era in 00/01 as a 36 year old, he got 37 goals two years later as a 38 year old, good for 8th in the league.

I think goalscorers' stats will always depend more on their environment, the team they are on etc. than playmakers' stats. But we do have to take into account here that an assist is an easier point to score than a goal.

Thumbs up.

Not to mention, Hull didn't play with Oates as much as people think. Not for his first 70 goals season anyways. His center was Peter Zezel. People tend to think that everyone of Hull's goals was all because Adam Oates made the play and Hull had a gimme, and that's just not the case.

He was also much better at skating with the puck, passing the puck, and stick handling than what people think too. If you watch lost of his highlights, he does score some beauty goals.

Ishdul 01-24-2012 03:01 PM

You can not possibly "make" an 86 goal scorer. To say that Oates made Hull is to say that Oates was a better playmaker than Gretzky or Lemieux or any one else, although Ace never said that. Obviously he contributed to his success, as did Hull to Oates.

As for the pure sniper talk, I have lots of trouble putting that many guys ahead of Brett. I guess the definitions for some people are different but to me, with Brett, if you defended his shot, you have successfully defended Brett Hull, whereas with Gretzky his shot wasn't even the most dangerous element of his game. Hull was as one dimensional player as an elite player can be but even though teams knew exactly what Hull was going to do they couldn't stop it, whereas with the other players people have listed, they had many different ways to beat you and so you couldn't just rush up to them and take the shot away. Then again, in another sense you could say that if Gretzky had focused solely on goal scoring that he would be seen as the better sniper. I'd still have Brett in my top 5, though.

As for Stamkos, he looks well on his way to his 3rd top 5 point finish and 3rd top 2 goal finish in his first 4 years in the league coming right out of the draft. Obviously it's damn near impossible to surpass Hull in your first 4 years but I'd be pretty amazed if he doesn't have the better career.

Slapshooter 01-24-2012 03:10 PM

Prime Brett Hull had an unnatural shot, likely the best overall shot ever. Nobody had such quickness/power/accuracy -combination. Hull's shooting % was not great, though, as he shot a lot from everywhere. But definitely not overrated as a goal scorer.

The problem with Hull was that he was a lazy and egoistic jerk, but as a goal scoring talent he is top 5 ever. Easily. Hull was also a better stickhandler and a playmaker than a typical sniper.

As for Stamkos, meh...

Nab77 01-24-2012 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolverjgw (Post 43026615)
To me the list of talent during that era is less impressive than this one. During Hull's best three years, a Euro finished top-20 in scoring a grand total of twice (Sandstrom and Kurri, 17th and 18th respectively). Stamkos has had to compete for his top 5 finishes with Malkin, Datsyuk, Ovechkin, two Sedins, Hossa, Backstrom, etc. The only names that stand out back then are Gretzky and Lemieux, but those are just two guys versus tons of elite Euros today. NA talent is a wash.

A wash? Hogwash is more like it.

Hawerchuk
LaFontaine
Andreychuk
Oates
Neely
Sakic
Nolan
Yzerman
Roenick
Shanahan
Modano
Messier
Gartner
Lemieux
Stevens
Recchi
Francis
Turgeon
Gretzky
Robitaille

Now try to put together a comparable list of todays players. Difficult, eh? Besides there were some pretty good Euros back then too Mogilny, Fedorov, Bure, Sundin, Bondra, Larionov to name a few.

seventieslord 01-24-2012 04:14 PM

Hull to all three questions right now.

Stamkos now has put together three seasons to compare, and they're currently not close. Maybe he'll put together three better ones, and then we can have this conversation again.

arrbez 01-24-2012 04:23 PM

Brett Hull is also 4th all-time in playoff goals and 6th all-time in playoffs points.

To elaborate on that point further, Brett Hull has more playoff goals and points than anyone who wasn't on the Oiler's Dynasty.

So that's pretty damn good, especially for a guy who didn't make the conference finals until he was 34.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.