HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

Jaromir Jagr vs Bobby Hull

View Poll Results: Jaromir Jagr vs Bobby Hull
Jaromir Jagr 69 60.53%
Bobby Hull 45 39.47%
Voters: 114. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2009, 12:20 AM
  #26
poise
Registered User
 
poise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fataldogg View Post
Hockey also wasn't as competitive in the 60's. I know there will be some 60 year old fans who will claim otherwise because of the nostalgia, glory days, etc; but there just wasn't as much competition. Jagr played in a much lower scoring era. Jagr also played in an era with much more talent. Hull wouldn't have had those "margins" that everyone is speaking about if he played in a league with dozens upon dozens of elite players including Gretzky and Lemieux (clearly the two best forwards to ever play the game). Than include the fact that European players didn't flood into the NHL until the early 90's where players like Bure, Forsberg, Selanne, Lidstrom, etc; came in and you have a much deeper pool of elite talent. Than add in the fact that, in general, goaltending wasn't as good in the era that Hull played in.

Just based on talent level alone in the NHL one can argue that had there been more talent from Europe while he was playing in the NHL that those margins wouldn't have been as wide. And Jagr never dominated in a way that he did? How is leading the NHL in scoring five out of six years and four consecutive years not dominating or as dominating as anythng Hull did? I swear, Jagr gets a bad wrap on these boards, probably because of his stint with Washington, with the constant talk that "Jagr has no heart," it's almost as if people what to tear down his tremendous accomplishments that very few have been able to replicate.
Jaromir Jagr is definitely underrated by many, but I think you're going in the opposite direction here.

On the talent level, there was less of a pool of players to draw for the NHL during much of Hull's time, but then again, it was a six team league for his best years and hockey in Europe was probably not developed enough to compete with the NHL. Not to mention that the pool started declining by the mid 1990's anyway (less children were born starting around 1970 or so than during the 50's and 60's).

Scoring levels during Hull's best years fluctuated between 5.5 - 6 goals per game. Scoring levels during Jagr's best years were around 5.25 - 6.25 goals per game. Not a huge difference, and the offensive talent of the dead puck era was probably one of the weakest. Not to mention that there were injuries to many of the top scorers throughout that period. It's really no coincidence that players in their late 30's like Ron Francis could still make the top 10 points list - something he had a harder time doing earlier in his career when he was better.

Bobby Hull had to face a Hall of Fame goalie basically every game pre expansion. Goaltending techniques got better and equipment got to be its largest during the dead puck era, but even considering that, it wasn't as big of a difference as say the early 1980's.

I agree it's a lot closer than some are saying though, it does seem easier to dominate a six team league than a thirty team league just by the numbers (though I guess you could argue that the best players will always be the best players regardless of league size).

poise is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 08:53 AM
  #27
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sky04 View Post
2nd...6th..and 2nd?

Jagr finished 1st,1st,1st,1st and 1st in 95 then 98-01

Jagr had about 8 seasons where he dominated the league
You obvioulsy didn't read the original post I was commenting on where Jagr and Hull's best 7 seasons were compared...I was adding on 3 more to compare their best 10. So you are right, Jagr did have about 7-8 seasons where he was dominant, but Hull had 10-11 (and that doesn't even count his WHA years)

Hawkey Town 18 is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 09:32 AM
  #28
McNuts
Registered User
 
McNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
You obvioulsy didn't read the original post I was commenting on where Jagr and Hull's best 7 seasons were compared...I was adding on 3 more to compare their best 10. So you are right, Jagr did have about 7-8 seasons where he was dominant, but Hull had 10-11 (and that doesn't even count his WHA years)
Jagr had 11 seasons in the top 10, just not consecutive seasons. Bobby Hull had 11 as well.

Also, Hull wasn't far from Mikita, Esposito and Beliveau.

In fact, if you take Hull's 15 seasons - 1957 - 1972, Hull is only 2-3% ahead of Howe, Mikita and Beliveau (not counting Esposito and Orr who played only 200-300 games in that period)

If you take Jagr 1992-2008 (the same 15 year period), he is about 5% ahead of Forsberg (not counting Crosby Ovechkin and Lemieux).

So the margins are not very different, and if anything they favour Jagr.

As for Jagr's best seasons, he dominated Sakic by 25% in 1996 and beat Selanne by 19% in 1999. Hull beat Mikita by 24% in 1966 but it was the only season out of his 3 Art Ross years that he won by a significant margin.

Their domination on their peers was pretty close.

McNuts is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 09:48 AM
  #29
Stoneberg
Bored
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
To be honest, I think it's a joke that Jagr is winning. Hull is a top ten player of all time. Jagr most definitely is not (although easily top 30-40).

Looks like HF needs some history lessons, maybe catch some classic games, or read a couple of hockey history books.

Edit: I'm not one to cast stones or anything, as I've just recently been getting in to hockey history more, but even before I joined the ATD I thought it was common knowledge Bobby Hull was the best LW ever, and one of the best to ever play.

Stoneberg is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:06 AM
  #30
McNuts
Registered User
 
McNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalberg View Post
To be honest, I think it's a joke that Jagr is winning. Hull is a top ten player of all time. Jagr most definitely is not (although easily top 30-40).
Good arguments to support that - oh wait, there isn't any.

Look at the facts. Jagr is definitely the best player to have played post-Gretzky and Lemieux. That's a 25 year period.

He won FIVE Art Ross trophies. Can you tell me who won more? I'll tell you: Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux. THAT'S IT. And he's only top 30-40?

Please. That's just embarrassing.

McNuts is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:08 AM
  #31
HockeyFan83
 
HockeyFan83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalberg View Post
Hull is a top ten player of all time. Jagr most definitely is not.


This statement couldn't be furthest from the truth ... It's more like the other way around

First, there are statistics to back it up:

Jagr: 1273 GP / 1599 PTS / 1.26 PPG / Ranks 9th all time
Hull: 1063 GP / 1170 PTS / 1.10 PPG / Ranks 47th all time

Then, there's the sheer dominance that Jagr had in his prime

HockeyFan83 is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:09 AM
  #32
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyFan83 View Post


This statement couldn't be furthest from the truth ... It's more like the other way around

First, there are statistics to back it up:

Jagr: 1273 GP / 1599 PTS / 1.26 PPG / Ranks 9th all time
Hull: 1063 GP / 1170 PTS / 1.10 PPG / Ranks 47th all time

Then, there's the sheer dominance that Jagr had in his prime
Unadjusted statistical comparison between players from difference eras = fail.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:12 AM
  #33
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
Good arguments to support that - oh wait, there isn't any.

Look at the facts. Jagr is definitely the best player to have played post-Gretzky and Lemieux. That's a 25 year period.

He won FIVE Art Ross trophies. Can you tell me who won more? I'll tell you: Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux. THAT'S IT. And he's only top 30-40?

Please. That's just embarrassing.
Lemieux retired in 2005, led the NHL in points-per-game in 2000-01, and was second in PPG in 02-03, so I have no idea where you are getting "25 year period" from. Even removing Lemieux, Jagr is not "definitely the best player." I would definitely take Lidstrom and Hasek over Jagr.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-28-2009 at 10:23 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:19 AM
  #34
Stoneberg
Bored
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyFan83 View Post


This statement couldn't be furthest from the truth ... It's more like the other way around

First, there are statistics to back it up:

Jagr: 1273 GP / 1599 PTS / 1.26 PPG / Ranks 9th all time
Hull: 1063 GP / 1170 PTS / 1.10 PPG / Ranks 47th all time

Then, there's the sheer dominance that Jagr had in his prime
This pretty much reinforces my point about people needing to buff up on their hockey history around here. Thanks for that.

This is what I was going to drone on about but is much more to the point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Unadjusted statistical comparison between players from difference eras = fail.
If peoples opinions are based purely on the stats in front of them n comparing varying eras of the NHL, the argument will always be weak, and more ofthen than not (such as the case above), be completely unfounded.

Stoneberg is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:23 AM
  #35
Stoneberg
Bored
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
Good arguments to support that - oh wait, there isn't any.

Look at the facts. Jagr is definitely the best player to have played post-Gretzky and Lemieux. That's a 25 year period.

He won FIVE Art Ross trophies. Can you tell me who won more? I'll tell you: Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux. THAT'S IT. And he's only top 30-40?

Please. That's just embarrassing.
Almost not worth even responding, but do some research on the history of the game. Maybe a little reading, or watching of some old games. Trust me, it will open up a whole new world to you.

It's pretty much a concensus among most who have done any kind of research (even limitted) in to the history of the game that Bobby Hull is the best LW to ever play.

Then again, I forgot that the measure of a player is in the number of Art Ross trophies they won, looks like I just wasted my time with that post...or something.

Stoneberg is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:27 AM
  #36
McNuts
Registered User
 
McNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Lidstrom and Hasek are both better than Jagr.
And Orr and Plante are both better than Hull... You don't seem to have a real point here. Jagr and Hull were dominant in a similar way, and people who say that "it's not even close" one way or the other is clearly not looking at the facts objectively.

Hull competed against Howe, Mikita and Beliveau, beating them by 2-3 %, while Jagr competed with Lemieux, Forsberg, Gretzky and Sakic, beating them by 5-10% (except Lemieux).

Both cracked the top 10 eleven times.

So I fail to see how "it's not even close".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalberg View Post
Almost not worth even responding, but do some research on the history of the game. Maybe a little reading, or watching of some old games. Trust me, it will open up a whole new world to you.

It's pretty much a concensus among most who have done any kind of research (even limitted) in to the history of the game that Bobby Hull is the best LW to ever play.

Then again, I forgot that the measure of a player is in the number of Art Ross trophies they won, looks like I just wasted my time with that post...or something.
Ah, the classic argument of "do some research", which implies that you know more than I do without actually bringing any factual evidence to support your view.


Last edited by McNuts: 10-28-2009 at 10:41 AM.
McNuts is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:37 AM
  #37
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
And Orr and Plante are both better than Hull... You don't seem to have a real point here. Jagr and Hull were dominant in a similar way, and people who say that "it's not even close" one way or the other is clearly not looking at the facts objectively.

Hull competed against Howe, Mikita and Beliveau, beating them by 2-3 %, while Jagr competed with Lemieux, Forsberg, Gretzky and Sakic, beating them by 5-10% (except Lemieux).

Both cracked the top 10 eleven times.

So I fail to see how "it's not even close".
Hull > Plante. I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim otherwise. And Orr and Hull's careers barely overlapped. So I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with those comparisons.

Claiming that Jagr "competed" with a Gretzky on his last legs is equally intellectually dishonest.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:40 AM
  #38
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
Jagr had 11 seasons in the top 10, just not consecutive seasons. Bobby Hull had 11 as well.

Also, Hull wasn't far from Mikita, Esposito and Beliveau.

In fact, if you take Hull's 15 seasons - 1957 - 1972, Hull is only 2-3% ahead of Howe, Mikita and Beliveau (not counting Esposito and Orr who played only 200-300 games in that period)

If you take Jagr 1992-2008 (the same 15 year period), he is about 5% ahead of Forsberg (not counting Crosby Ovechkin and Lemieux).

So the margins are not very different, and if anything they favour Jagr.
You can argue Jagr's career was similar to Hull, but that does ignore Hull's seasons in the WHA where he was top 5 in points another 5 seasons.

But Hull is arguably the greatest goal scorer of all-time, leading the NHL in goals scored 7 times, more than any player in history and by a margin as high as 50%. His peak and prime years are better than Jagr's, his playoff performances were better and Hull was a better all-around player than Jagr - much more physical and a better skater.

The only clear win for Jagr is playmaking -- everything else favors Hull.

Quote:
As for Jagr's best seasons, he dominated Sakic by 25% in 1996 and beat Selanne by 19% in 1999. Hull beat Mikita by 24% in 1966 but it was the only season out of his 3 Art Ross years that he won by a significant margin.

Their domination on their peers was pretty close.
If you are going to take Lemieux out of the running in 1996, you surely have to alter Jagr's numbers that year considering they played on the same line. Jagr's PPG differences that year pre and post Lemieux returning is staggering.

RabbinsDuck is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:45 AM
  #39
Stoneberg
Bored
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
And Orr and Plante are both better than Hull... You don't seem to have a real point here. Jagr and Hull were dominant in a similar way, and people who say that "it's not even close" one way or the other is clearly not looking at the facts objectively.

Hull competed against Howe, Mikita and Beliveau, beating them by 2-3 %, while Jagr competed with Lemieux, Forsberg, Gretzky and Sakic, beating them by 5-10% (except Lemieux).

Both cracked the top 10 eleven times.

So I fail to see how "it's not even close".



Ah, the classic argument of "do some research", which implies that you know more than I do without actually bringing any factual evidence to support your view.
Sorry, I'm at work, I don't have the time to go digging through for stats, I shouldn't be posting from work as is. I'll pull some stuff up when I get home from work to reinforce my point. Although, I'm sure someone with some knowledge of the history of the game will fully address it before I even get the chance.

Stoneberg is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 10:59 AM
  #40
McNuts
Registered User
 
McNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
The only clear win for Jagr is playmaking -- everything else favors Hull.
I'm looking at the points per game. You said that Hull's margins were "not close", and I have shown that they are close.

I really don't mind people voting for Hull. My only problem is with those who say that it's "not even close".

McNuts is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 11:18 AM
  #41
DOOMGUY*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
I really don't mind people voting for Hull. My only problem is with those who say that it's "not even close".
Only one person has said that..

DOOMGUY* is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 12:12 PM
  #42
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Hull's 3 most dominant goal scoring seasons compared to the next closest guy in the NHL.

61-62
Hull: 50
2nd: 33
Margin: 51.5%

65-66
Hull:54
2nd: 32
Margin: 68.8%

66-67
Hull:52
2nd: 35
Margin: 48.6%


Here are some of the best 3 perfromances of other all-time great goal scorers...

Maurice Richard
44-45
M. Richard:50
2nd: 32
Margin: 56.3%

46-47
M. Richard: 45
2nd: 30
Margin: 50.0%

49-50
M. Richard: 43
2nd:35
Margin: 22.9%


Gordie Howe
52-53
Howe: 49
2nd: 32
Margin: 53.1%

51-52
Howe: 47
2nd: 31
Margin:51.6%

56-57
Howe: 44
2nd: 33
Margin: 33.3%

Phil Esposito
70-71
Esposito:76
2nd:51
Margin: 49.0%

71-72
Esposito: 66
2nd: 50
Margin: 32.0%

73-74
Esposito: 68
2nd:52
Margin:30.8%


Wayne Gretzky
83-84
Gretzky: 87
2nd: 56
Margin: 53.6%

81-82
Gretzky: 92
2nd: 64
Margin: 43.8%

82-83
Gretzky:71
2nd: 66
Margin:7.6%


Mario Lemieux
87-88
Lemieux: 70
2nd: 56
Margin:25.0%

88-89
Lemieux:85
2nd:70
Margin: 21.4%

95-96
Lemieux:69
2nd:62
Margin: 11.3%


Brett Hull
90-91
Brett Hull: 86
2nd: 51
Margin: 68.6%

91-92
Brett Hull:70
2nd: 54
Margin: 29.6%

89-90
Brett Hull: 72
2nd: 62
Margin: 16.1%


Here's how their margins of victory rank if you average all 3 years...

1. Bobby Hull - 56.3%
2. Gordie Howe - 46.0%
3. Maurice Richard - 43.1%
4. Brett Hull - 38.1%
5. Phil Esposito - 37.3%
6. Wayne Gretzky - 35.0%
7. Mario Lemieux - 19.2%


Hull is head and shoulders above the rest. The difference between 1st and 2nd is 10.3, while the difference between 2nd and 6th place is 11.0.


Can Jagr dominate the best of the best in anything?

Hawkey Town 18 is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 12:38 PM
  #43
Falcons93
Registered User
 
Falcons93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalberg View Post
To be honest, I think it's a joke that Jagr is winning. Hull is a top ten player of all time. Jagr most definitely is not (although easily top 30-40).

Looks like HF needs some history lessons, maybe catch some classic games, or read a couple of hockey history books.

Edit: I'm not one to cast stones or anything, as I've just recently been getting in to hockey history more, but even before I joined the ATD I thought it was common knowledge Bobby Hull was the best LW ever, and one of the best to ever play.
Nope

Falcons93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 12:45 PM
  #44
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcons93 View Post
Nope
Hull is not a top 10 player of all time?
I'd love to see everyone you have ahead of him.

RabbinsDuck is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 12:47 PM
  #45
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Hull is not a top 10 player of all time?
I'd love to see everyone you have ahead of him.
I honestly think that people are confusing Bobby Hull with Brett Hull here.

Either that, or they are doing the Bilros thing where "all players before 1990 suck because I wasn't old enough to watch them."

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 12:51 PM
  #46
McNuts
Registered User
 
McNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Hull is head and shoulders above the rest. The difference between 1st and 2nd is 10.3, while the difference between 2nd and 6th place is 11.0.


Can Jagr dominate the best of the best in anything?
That argument does not apply to the question at hand. In his prime (not just peak seasons), Hull dominated his peers in goals per game by about 20%, but in points per game it's only 5%-7% (ahead of Howe, Mikita and Beliveau), while Jagr dominated his peers by 14-20% in points per game during his prime, (ahead of Forsberg, Sakic, etc).

Even though Bobby Hull was probably the most dominant goal scorer of all time, Jagr was more dominant points-wise than Hull was when compared to his peers. This is easily illustrated by their number of Art Ross trophies. Offensive ability is measured in points, not just goals. Had the question been who was the best goal scorer, then yes, that argument would be valid.

McNuts is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 12:51 PM
  #47
Falcons93
Registered User
 
Falcons93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Hull's 3 most dominant goal scoring seasons compared to the next closest guy in the NHL.

61-62
Hull: 50
2nd: 33
Margin: 51.5%

65-66
Hull:54
2nd: 32
Margin: 68.8%

66-67
Hull:52
2nd: 35
Margin: 48.6%


Here are some of the best 3 perfromances of other all-time great goal scorers...

Maurice Richard
44-45
M. Richard:50
2nd: 32
Margin: 56.3%

46-47
M. Richard: 45
2nd: 30
Margin: 50.0%

49-50
M. Richard: 43
2nd:35
Margin: 22.9%


Gordie Howe
52-53
Howe: 49
2nd: 32
Margin: 53.1%

51-52
Howe: 47
2nd: 31
Margin:51.6%

56-57
Howe: 44
2nd: 33
Margin: 33.3%

Phil Esposito
70-71
Esposito:76
2nd:51
Margin: 49.0%

71-72
Esposito: 66
2nd: 50
Margin: 32.0%

73-74
Esposito: 68
2nd:52
Margin:30.8%


Wayne Gretzky
83-84
Gretzky: 87
2nd: 56
Margin: 53.6%

81-82
Gretzky: 92
2nd: 64
Margin: 43.8%

82-83
Gretzky:71
2nd: 66
Margin:7.6%


Mario Lemieux
87-88
Lemieux: 70
2nd: 56
Margin:25.0%

88-89
Lemieux:85
2nd:70
Margin: 21.4%

95-96
Lemieux:69
2nd:62
Margin: 11.3%


Brett Hull
90-91
Brett Hull: 86
2nd: 51
Margin: 68.6%

91-92
Brett Hull:70
2nd: 54
Margin: 29.6%

89-90
Brett Hull: 72
2nd: 62
Margin: 16.1%


Here's how their margins of victory rank if you average all 3 years...

1. Bobby Hull - 56.3%
2. Gordie Howe - 46.0%
3. Maurice Richard - 43.1%
4. Brett Hull - 38.1%
5. Phil Esposito - 37.3%
6. Wayne Gretzky - 35.0%
7. Mario Lemieux - 19.2%


Hull is head and shoulders above the rest. The difference between 1st and 2nd is 10.3, while the difference between 2nd and 6th place is 11.0.


Can Jagr dominate the best of the best in anything?
Phil Espositio played in the NHL at the same time as Bobby Hull and absolutely crushed him in goals scored from 69-72.

Falcons93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 12:53 PM
  #48
Falcons93
Registered User
 
Falcons93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I honestly think that people are confusing Bobby Hull with Brett Hull here.

Either that, or they are doing the Bilros thing where "all players before 1990 suck because I wasn't old enough to watch them."
I find it's quite the opposite. Most people overrate players who played before 1990.

Falcons93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 01:00 PM
  #49
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
That argument does not apply to the question at hand. In his prime (not just peak seasons), Hull dominated his peers in goals per game by about 20%, but in points per game it's only 5%-7% (ahead of Howe, Mikita and Beliveau), while Jagr dominated his peers by 14-20% in points per game during his prime, (ahead of Forsberg, Sakic, etc).
I assume you are removing Mario Lemieux from the equation when you talk about Jagr's domination? If you do that, it is only fair to remove Howe from the comparison with Bobby Hull.

Quote:
Even though Bobby Hull was probably the most dominant goal scorer of all time, Jagr was more dominant points-wise than Hull was when compared to his peers. This is easily illustrated by their number of Art Ross trophies. Offensive ability is measured in points, not just goals. Had the question been who was the best goal scorer, then yes, that argument would be valid.
Goals are more valuable than assists. If they weren't, Ovechkin wouldn't have won the Hart last year (by a wide margin too, so don't try to say it was controversial). Speaking of "most valuable," I think it's telling that Jagr only won a single Hart trophy - it points to the fact that while he was an amazing points producer, he didn't add anything to his team's ability to win games but points.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
10-28-2009, 01:01 PM
  #50
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcons93 View Post
Phil Espositio played in the NHL at the same time as Bobby Hull and absolutely crushed him in goals scored from 69-72.
Hull was already 30 years old in 69 - past his goal scoring prime. Plus, Esposito might have had a little help from this guy named Bobby Orr.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcons93 View Post
I find it's quite the opposite. Most people overrate players who played before 1990.
So name 10 players better than Bobby Hull. You're the one who disagreed that he was a Top 10 player of all time.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.