HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Dick Duff in the Hall of Fame (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=264255)

rocketlives 06-28-2006 06:47 PM

Dick Duff in the Hall of Fame
 
Dick Duff was a good hockey player but if he deserves to be in the hall of fame so does Mats Naslund who had better stats and played fewer games. Mats Naslund has a combined total points per game of .964 for the regulart season and the playoffs, while Dick Duff has only .569 This is hard to explain. A TPPG of .569 vs .964 is night and day.


Dick Duff:

Regular season:
1030 - 283 - 289 -572
Playoffs:
114 - 30 - 49 - 79


Mats Naslund:
Regular season:
651 - 251 - 383 - 634
Playoffs:
102 - 35 - 57 - 92

ludger 06-28-2006 06:56 PM

you can't compare stats from different eras.

rocketlives 06-28-2006 07:10 PM

I saw both Dick Duff and Mats Naslund play quite extensively and there is no doubt in my mind that Naslund was a better player.

I will recognize however that the Little Viking retired in 1995 vs 1972 for Duff. There's still plenty of time for Naslund to get in.

I still believe though that European players, rarely being in the boys' club, have a much harder time getting voted into the HOF.

tinyzombies 06-28-2006 07:19 PM

From what I've read and seen in old games, they are completely different players. Duff is more of a defensive specialist/character guy. He was the guy who would dig the puck out of the corner and score the big goals in playoff games.

He did this both for the Leafs and the Habs during the big rivalry in the 1960s, so that's probably why he got the nod for the Hall.

I have a tape of game 7 of the 1965 finals Montreal-Chicago. Beliveau wins the first ever Conn Smythe trophy. In his acceptance speech, he mentions Duff as being a key to their Cup victory. So Duff was one of those guys like a Bob Gainey who was an important cog on winning teams.

Whether that's enough for him to deserve entry to the Hall, I don't know.

coolguy21415 06-28-2006 09:33 PM

I just think it's a bit odd he was selected over Pavel Bure, who I think should be a shoe-in.

justsomeguy 06-28-2006 10:23 PM

If you're going to compare Naslund and Duff by simply looking at numbers and statistics, how about this one.

Duff's name can be found in six places on the Stanley Cup, Naslund's in one.

In an age when players routinely spent a couple years in minor pro between the end of their junior years and the time they broke into the NHL, Duff was a full-time Leaf at 19, among the 120 best hockey players in the world, second among goal scorers and third in total points in his rookie year. He still had a year of junior eligibility left when he joined Toronto from St. Mike's. Naslund was 23 when he arrived in Montreal.

Both small players, Naslund a more gifted scorer but as a teammate of Duff's, also a HoFer told me today, "All his goals were big goals."

In terms of toughness, it's no contest. Duff played in an era when guys took care of their own battles and, despite standing 5'9" and weighing under 170 pounds, took care of himself quite well when things got a little rambunctious.

Duff was also much more complete player, much handier defensively than Naslund, better at throwing a blanket over opposing forwards and a lot tougher along the boards and in the corners.

A very nice man who understands what he was able to achieve through hockey and more than willing to give back. Always willing to sign and chat. Regularly appears at Leaf and charitable functions.

He will be appearing at the official opening of the Hockey North museum in his home town of Kirkland Lake tomorrow.

mcphee 06-29-2006 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raketheleaves
From what I've read and seen in old games, they are completely different players. Duff is more of a defensive specialist/character guy. He was the guy who would dig the puck out of the corner and score the big goals in playoff games.

He did this both for the Leafs and the Habs during the big rivalry in the 1960s, so that's probably why he got the nod for the Hall.

I have a tape of game 7 of the 1965 finals Montreal-Chicago. Beliveau wins the first ever Conn Smythe trophy. In his acceptance speech, he mentions Duff as being a key to their Cup victory. So Duff was one of those guys like a Bob Gainey who was an important cog on winning teams.

Whether that's enough for him to deserve entry to the Hall, I don't know.


That's not really how I remember Dick Duff. He was the type of guy who'd add some offense. He was a slick player, along the lines of Stillman or Whitney, decent all around player, but teams would acquire him to add some offense. He was complimentary at best.

For some reason, he was my Uncle Bob's favorite player. He loved Dickie Duff for some reason. At no time was he a dominant player or even close to the best player on his team. He was simply 'pretty good'.

mcphee 06-29-2006 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justsomeguy


Duff was also much more complete player, much handier defensively than Naslund, better at throwing a blanket over opposing forwards and a lot tougher along the boards and in the corners.

.

When Mtl. acquired Duff, they had been playing Ferguson or Gilles Tremblay on Beliveau's left, and I think the idea was that Duff could play on that line allowing Fergy to move to Backstrom's line. Tremblay was out at the time I think ? Anyways, I remember Duff as someone who could play with good players. They used to use the term money player to describe him,or players like him.

I liked him in mtl, but to me he seems like a lot of good players from that era, like Marshall,Goyette,Nevin, Backstrom etc. I don't know if any of the others are in, but what the heck, there's nothing wrong with the lifetime achievement award.

Darz 06-29-2006 08:50 AM

Yes, but Mats Naslund never had a fictional cartoon beer named after him.


OH YEAH!!!!

waffledave 06-29-2006 09:10 AM

I really don't agree with Duff's being voted in. Why Duff over Provost?

mcphee 06-29-2006 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waffledave
I really don't agree with Duff's being voted in. Why Duff over Provost?

There were a lot of fine players from that generation, I can't see why after all this time, one comes out of the pack, realistically, but when he goes in, I'll be happy for him, and I do remeber his G7 in 1966, that RTL refers too, it's the first cup I remember.

rocketlives 06-29-2006 10:19 AM

Perhaps Mats Naslund doesn't deserve to be in the HOF. But on the same basis, why accept a player like Dickie Duff who was basically an ordinary offensive player with a lifetime PPG of .569. Then, you'd have to consider the likes of Claude Provost, Ralph Backstrom, J.C. Tremblay and Mario Tremblay who have similar stats and also have their names on several Stanley Cups. .

Another player who shouldn't be in the HOF, in my opinion is Tom Johnson who had one or two outstanding seasons but was quite average for the rest of his career.

The NHL has a tendency to be liberal in admitting players of the pre-expansion era. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for superstars, otherwise it will lose its clout and importance.

mcphee 06-29-2006 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketlives
Perhaps Mats Naslund doesn't deserve to be in the HOF. But on the same basis, why accept a player like Dickie Duff who is basically an ordinary offensive player with a lifetime PPG of .569. Then, you'd have to consider the likes of Claude Provost, Ralph Backstrom, J.C. Tremblay and Mario Tremblay who have similar stats and also have their names on several Stanley Cups. .

Another player who shouldn't be in the HOF, in my opinion is Tom Johnson who had one or two outstanding seasons but was quite average for the rest of his career.

The NHL has a tendency to be liberal in admitting players of the pre-expansion era. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for superstars, otherwise it will lose its clout and importance.

Tom Johnson and Harry Sinden always made me think of Ed McMahon and Johnny Carson. I think being a crony didn't hurt TJ getting in. JC Tremblay's the perfect player to make the point with. Though he took a lot of crap, he was one of the best, and it's ridiculous to honor one over the other. Come to think of it, JC would be perfect for today's league, great puck mover.

Dick Duff and Jim Gregory are old friends aren't they ?

V-2 Schneider 06-29-2006 10:52 AM

Did I ever love to watch Backstrom skate! He was so slick,with fine,fine stickhandling skills.He's get so easily overlooked, but he was a top Hab, and desrves greater recognition.I'd include Bobby Rousseau in that category too. :handclap:

My fondest memories of JC Tremblay were his garbage goals.He seemed to get one or two every two years,by flipping the puck very high in the air and letting it bounce in on net.He was a master talent at that,on top of being able to slow the play down in his end.I don't doubt that Serge Savard learned that technique from watching JC, and it helped to make Serge the great D man he was.

While were on players deserving greater recognition, Rogie Vachon is the most glaring omission from the HHOF's more mature vets.

Darz 06-29-2006 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketlives
The Hall of Fame should be reserved for superstars, otherwise it will lose its clout and importance.

It's too late, imo. With guys like Mullen, Federko, LaFontaine and Gilles in already, the Hall has sent the message that a good NHL career is the prerequisite for hall entry.

mcphee 06-29-2006 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darz
It's too late, imo. With guys like Mullen, Federko, LaFontaine and Gilles in already, the Hall has sent the message that a good NHL career is the prerequisite for hall entry.

I look at Lafontaine, and to me, he's a true superstar. So, do you not recognize him because his time was shorter due to injury in favor of a long term accumlation guy like Federko, or Gartner ? So it becomes like a good old house party, if you're a good guy, bring a bottle of wine for the hostess and you get in.

Darz 06-29-2006 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcphee
I look at Lafontaine, and to me, he's a true superstar. So, do you not recognize him because his time was shorter due to injury in favor of a long term accumlation guy like Federko, or Gartner ? So it becomes like a good old house party, if you're a good guy, bring a bottle of wine for the hostess and you get in.


I would put Lafontaine ahead of Federko or Gartner, but personally I don't think any of them deserve to be in the hall of fame.

To me the hockey hall of fame should be as hard to get into as the baseball hall of fame. Heck, I would even like it to be a little harder than that. I would like there to be years that nobody gets in. I want a hall of fame with only the best of the best.
No Clarke Gilles, no Bernie Federko's, no Dick Duff's.

Truthfully, if I had it my way only about 30% (I haven't totalled numbers or anything, but...) of the players in the hall of fame right now, would still be there.

coolguy21415 06-29-2006 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darz
I would put Lafontaine ahead of Federko or Gartner, but personally I don't think any of them deserve to be in the hall of fame.

To me the hockey hall of fame should be as hard to get into as the baseball hall of fame. Heck, I would even like it to be a little harder than that. I would like there to be years that nobody gets in. I want a hall of fame with only the best of the best.
No Clarke Gilles, no Bernie Federko's, no Dick Duff's.

Truthfully, if I had it my way only about 30% (I haven't totalled numbers or anything, but...) of the players in the hall of fame right now, would still be there.

There could be multiple levels of enshrinement. Gold, Platinum, Adamantium ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.