Hull vs. Kane, Who Was Better?
The Chicago Blackhawks have had many legends come through this organization over the years. And when it comes to the shortlist of names on the all time Blackhawks list, the names Patrick Kane and Bobby Hull are always going to come up. Two players who both played the wing position in completely different eras. Both with successful careers, one with a jersey already in the rafters, and one with a spot waiting for him. So when it is broken down by numbers, who really was better? Let's take a look!
Bobby Hull (only his numbers as a Blackhawk) :
Total games played: 1036
Goals: 604
Assists: 549
Points: 1153
Patrick Kane:
Total games played: 1099
Goals: 428
Assists: 746
Points: 1174
Games played advantage goes to Kane, but hard to hold that against Hull as the NHL did not start playing 82 game seasons until the 1995-1996 season. Kane has quite a bit of catching up to do when it comes to goal scoring. Assist wise, Kaner's lead is only going to continue to grow because even as his career progresses, his passing only seems to get better and better. Kaner has the edge on points, something he just passed Hull on earlier this season.
Numbers wise, both players had an amazing career. Because of that, both players have accumulated quite the trophy case. Let's take a look at some of the trophies/awards both men have won throughout their careers.
Bobby Hull (only during his time as a Blackhawk):
Stanley Cup: 1961
Calder Trophy: 1957-58
Art Ross Trophy: 1959-60, 1961-62, 1965-66
Hart Memorial Trophy: 1964-65, 1965-66
Lady Byng Memorial Trophy: 1964-65
Patrick Kane:
Stanley Cup: 2010, 2013, 2015
Calder Trophy: 2007-08
Conn Smythe: 2012-13
Art Ross Trophy: 2015-2016
Hart Memorial Trophy: 2015-2016
Ted Lindsay Award: 2015-2016
So when you take a look at all of this information, it begs the question, who was the better player? Let me preface this by saying that both players are all time NHL greats, let alone all time Blackhawk greats. But in my personal opinion, Patrick Kane is the better player. I mean a player who can score and pass at the level that he can is just so key to winning championships, hence why he was a part of three teams that did. In my opinion, Kane also just has played in a more skillful league than Hull did. The physicality may not be on the same level, but I just can't be convinced that in their prime a 1961 Stanley Cup team with Bobby Hull could beat any of the 3 teams that Kane won with. Like I said, both players are legends and in debates like this it is always hard to decide. But me personally, I would have to choose Patrick Kane over Bobby Hull.
| POLL | ||
Who was better? | ||
| Kane | 128 | 57.7 % |
| Hull | 94 | 42.3 % |
| List of polls | ||
