Will 2 lockouts in 7 yrs effect HOF eligibility?
 

Will the last 2 lockouts keep some players out of the HOF down the road or will the HOF adjust for this in the future? Personally I would like to think it will only hurt career numbers and players that are truly HOF worthy will make it. Sorry if someone has started a similar thread.

St Louis, Alfredsson, Kariya, Brind'Amour, Elias, Lecavalier, Arnott, and Weight all come to mind here. Possibly even Thomas to a lesser extent.

St Louis and Alfredsson still have strong chances, and I think Brind'Amour is going to be a tough call, but has a good shot at getting in thanks to captaining a team to a cup and winning 2 Selkes. Kariya's probably the most iffy of my first 4, and I'd think if he had hit the 1000 point mark he'd be more of a sure thing.

But two seasons that could easily keep Elias, Arnott, and Lecavalier from getting to 1000 points, a season that could have gotten Weight to 1100... yeah that's going to sting. Vinny still has the best shot of those 4, but even then, probably will have a hard time making it.

I know pure point totals aren't the biggest deal to me, but reaching those milestones is still kindof a big deal.

It's possible, but players that were truly great (see Bure) will still get in.

I think the lockouts, combined with lower scoring over the past two decades (which hurts skaters, particularly forwards), do hurt the chances of players compared to their counterparts of the 70s & 80s. One would hope HHOF would take that into serious consideration, but I tend to think it will hurt the overall representation of the more recent players. Increased competiton, due to a larger talent pool including overseas players, makes it more difficult as well. So it's one of multiple factors that are against current/recent players in terms of potential HHOF induction.

Those guys should all get in, maybe Lecavalier and Arnott are debatable. But not Tim Thomas. This isn't the 1940s, to get into the hall of fame...you need to have career longetivity. Thomas had at most 5 seasons (one in which he was the split starter with Rask) as a notable goalie. Miika Kiprusoff's done more than Thomas in the past decade when you think about it (Kiprusoff's probably the best European goalie of the past decade though Lundqvist will eclipse him) and obviously you aren't gonna put Kiprusoff in the HOF barring a miracle.

Btw I don't think you need to consider 1000 pts, for Kariya for example, he had more than 800 pts which for me is a better cut-off assuming you do it at a ppg and obviously he was a star forward for a decade mostly in the dead puck era and the face of a franchise.

Really hoping you're right. A lot of those guys (aside from possibly St Louis who just needs to not fall off the planet IMO) just seem to me like guys that are going to be negatively affected. Greatness is still greatness, so seeing a guy like Bure get in while a compiler like Andreychuk is still waiting makes me a bit hopeful in some of these cases.

Brind'Amour will get in, but it will take a while. He and St. Louis are pioneers of hockey in the deep south so to speak. And the list of Cup-winning captains not in the Hall of Fame is pretty short.

Your logic about captains places Dustin Brown, Derian Hatcher, Jim Peplinski, Bob Davidson, Doug Young, and Ed Litzenberger squarely in the Hall.

That's a stellar list of players. And that's in addition to borderline guys like Brind'Amour, Andreychuk, and Carbonneau.

IMO there's not a chance Arnott gets in.

I didn't say it give them a free pass to the HOF, I said the list of captains who won the Cup and are not in is short.

Aside from Andreychuk (who I think will get in eventually), none of the other guys you listed have 1100 points like Brind'Amour does. Only Carbonneau has half as many.

When he said that "the list of Cup-winning captains not in the Hall of Fame is pretty short," was your conclusion that the list was of zero length?

Yes it will hurt some guys. I think we may have a different view of Markus Naslunds' career had the entire 2004-'05 not been wiped out. He more or less has 3 very elite seasons. Maybe he has 4 of them with a full season and all of the sudden there is a better case for him. As it was, the year off hurt him, and at the age of 32 starting in 2005 he was never the same.

Same goes for Alfredsson or Hossa for example. Both have decent chances, and if they are ever interested in playing NHL hockey again Hossa has some time left on his career while Alfredsson is more or less done. You have to remember, Alfredsson was on the NHLPA bargaining committee in 2004. He was part of the problem, not the solution (not saying the owners were angels either). In many ways Alfredsson has a role in losing a year of hockey right in the prime of his career.

St. Louis has done so well post lockout and seems to have some steam left so I don't know if either lockout will effect him. Tim Thomas will be one of the most bizarre discussions if he never plays again. On one hand his peak was out of this world but on the other hand his longevity is incredibly short.

But either way, you can't reward players for games they didn't play. Maybe Kariya gets 1000 points without a lockout. But when you preface with the word "might" or "shoulda, coulda, woulda" then that means he "didn't", and I prefer to judge players on what they actually did accomplish not because of lost time that was partly their fault.

I don't think it does. I think it will actually be something that HOF people take into account when looking at potential entrants statistics.

I don't think it does either. Players are compared to their peers, who are also not playing IMO.

Exactly. The timing of it may hurt some players (see: Markus Naslund), but overall it's how players play relative to their current competition. X number of players get inducted every year, so 10 years from now you're not going to start leaving out the retiring players to induct guys from 20-30 years ago.

Really the only place current players will be potentially hurt is in all-time best player ratings, but that's pretty much meaningless.

It hurts guys like Dino Ciccarelli who are inducted based entirely off of their career numbers and not how good they were.

But then, the overall decrease in leaguewide scoring probably kills the chance of guys like that getting in.

You might be right about Naslund, but his lack of longevity as even nearly an elite player really hurts him. He only scored 70+ points five times. He also didn't play in Sweden, so if he was rusty after the lockout, there's a big reason. I don't see him winning the Ross or a Cup in '05, due to his age and the damage (literally) already being done before the end of '04, and that's probably what it would have taken for him to make HHOF.

St. Louis is a different story. He wasn't playing next to Lemieux at age 22 like Naslund was. He was coming off a Ross/Hart season. He also played a couple months in the Swiss league, which is at least something, esp. for a NA player. He has eight 70+ points seasons out of nine, and the one he didn't was after the lockout. He's been very good for basically 10 consecutive years, if we give him fair credit for the lockout season. He has the hardware and the longevity as a top player and I think doing so as a late bloomer should only help his cause. It probably hurts his teammates Richards and Lecavalier though, who would at least have more of a case with another ~150 points each.

Alfredsson's role in the NHLPA shouldn't be considered IMO, for better or worse. I also "see" him making it, although I don't see why his case should be any stronger than Hossa or Elias, who I see as less certain inductees.

Thomas may just need to come back for another ~3 years and solidify his career numbers enough to not take away from his hardware. How many goalies have a Vezina & Cup and are not in HHOF? Do we have to go back to Barrasso's Vezina almost 30 years ago? Thomas has 2 Vezinas, a Cup and a Smythe to boot, in a very deep era for goalies. Boston not winning the Cup for 37 years only helps the aura of that Vezina/Smythe performance.

The goalie who may be hurt most by the lockouts is Kipper. He was 1st & 3rd in SV% before/after the '05 lockout and still top 10 in SV% last season, so he could have had another Vezina or at least AS season. Another deep playoff run would have helped as well. He may miss two lockout seasons, which especially hurts a later bloomer who looks to be more reliant on career totals. Another 70-75 wins puts him in the top 15 and probably surpassing 400 wins and entering the top 10 sometime in '14.

I agree with did over "coulda, woulda", but in the case of a lockout for many it is "coulda, woulda"... especially those that "did", just not in the NHL. One has to look at the data and interpret what the player did to a large extent, then decide what he probably "coulda, woulda done" given what he did do and his abilities at the time. For instance in '05:

Jagr- Split a whole season in Czech/Russia, finishing in the top 10 in RSL in only 32/60 games. He would have run away with the RSL scoring title (1.22 PPG) if he played the whole season in Russia. He also led Czechs to best on best WC gold. That was a long, successful season in the best venues available, only split between Kladno, Omsk and the national team. He played about as much hockey as possible, mostly in the strongest available league and in high level international tourneys, and was highly productive. I would give him full credit for his likely Ross-contender level production.

Elias- Split whole season between Czech/Russia.
Thornton- Played whole season in Switzerland.
Hossa- Split whole season between Slovakia/Russia.

They deserve credit for playing whole season, although Thornton played the entire year in a lesser league. I would give them full credit for their likely production, but even in Thornton's case that is less than Jagr (1.35 PPG in Swiss not the same as 1.22 PPG in Russia).

Alfredsson, Forsberg, Naslund, etc.- Played a couple months in Sweden and some internationally. They deserve partial credit, perhaps most of their likely production, but not full credit IMO.

Sakic, Selanne, Lidstrom, etc.- Only played for national team. They deserve some credit, because we know they could have been productive, but probably no more than half their production. They decided to rest and heal, which may have helped their future production, since they had less wear and tear. This is "coulda, woulda" territory and I could even understand giving them basically no credit for their lost seasons.

Good article from THN
Nhl trilogy stats slasher
http://zno.zinio.com/sitemap/Sports-...416241434/pg-9

Imo, the first two are the only two who should get in.

Do not confuse Marianne and Marcel Hossa.
Time spent in the European leagues are very specific on many factors, starting with the pre-season, and so on

If lockouts survived became a stat. Or games lost due to work stoppage.

Sidney Crosby.
1100 gp, 150 lost to injury, 110 lost to work stoppage.

It's really kind of silly to think about but there's always those what could have been arguments that work stoppage variables will forever be a part of going forward now.

Considering Elias got Hep C during the 2005 lockout, which may have cost him a 100 point season in the high scoring 2005-06 (he was on pace for 97 points after coming back) and might have affected his career later on, I'd definitely say his chances were affected by the lockouts. But that's not really what the OP is about.

I guess you forgot that Crosby was drafted in 2005. Meaning he didn't go threw a lockout. Now if you talk about Zetterberg or Datsyuk, have miss over 100 games cause of the work stopage. I believe that the lockout won't have much of a impact on the soon to be HOF. I know it would of help Vinny Prospal since Vinny had a 80 pts season in 05-06 season.

But there's also the good side. This lockout will truelly help Crosby. Having a year off to work on himself and to get healthier for the 2013-2014 season. The last lockout help save the career of Selanne. I heard that Selanne would of ended is career if the lockout wouldn't of happen. So I believe the truelly best won't effect them as much. But I know that it would of help the following player's Martin St.Louis (he should but never know),Lecavalier,Prospal,Ellias...

My mistake, Marian Hossa split a whole season between Slovakia and Sweden. I understand there are other factors, but it seems that some leagues (e.g. Sweden) welcomed back their stars for only the last half of the season. This may not be the case in RSL/KHL, but obviously there are exceptions there as well (e.g. Jagr in '05).

I tend to look more favorably upon a player going to play in his home country during a lockout, even if it's not the best league available, than a NA player choosing a lesser league. OTOH, I can understand why NA players prefer Swiss & German leagues over better leagues which are more of a culture shock and less luxurious in terms of lifestyle. It's also more understandable that Sakic didn't play in a foreign league as compared to Lidstrom not playing in Sweden, but in either case they don't deserve full or nearly full credit for a season in which they basically didn't play anywhere.

I think it's directly related to the OP's question. Elias is a potential, but more borderline (in most people's eyes) HOFer. He was directly impacted by missing the '05 season, missing half of the '06 season and the current lockout. That's quite a lot of damage to his legacy (and physical being as a result of Hep C), that was directly caused by the lockout(s).

Good point about Selanne, the lockout actually helped him heal his injuries and gave him some much-needed rest. That's why I would give him minimal or no credit for the lockout season.

I agree about Crosby too. If the lockout hurts him, it's by depriving him of a premier season. However, such a season was far from guaranteed given his recent injuries. If he would have such an elite season, then he should be in even better condition for the next season (whenever that is). He will have about as much rest and healing as a player could possibly need, having played less than 30 games in 2 years, and he is only 25 so he has plenty of time to cement his legacy.

I guess we have to disagree here. I don't care for giving them credit for playing in Switzerland. This isn't the NHL and it doesn't feature the best players in the world. It is a moot point. I have seen a million threads on Gretzky and I'll bet many people don't even remember him playing overseas during the 1994 lockout. Even the players playing overseas now, not only are they scabs for taking someone else's job, but their heart cannot possibly be in it 100% since they are basically over there for one reason and that is to stay in game shape. The second a CBA is signed they are splitting. So to me, it is a "nothing" season. Good for Thornton that he has been succesful over there, but try doing it with the true elite talent.

I guess my knock with rewarding players for lost time with the lockout is that for starters the players are 50% to blame for their own mess and secondly a true HHOFer has the career in spite of the lockout. When you start nickel and diming what a player "might" have done had their been hockey then you're giving them charity for something they never accomplished.