View Single Post
05-16-2005, 11:32 AM
Registered User
Malefic74's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,758
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
gary, I completely agree. If a defenseman cannot even be one of the four post-season all stars at least once in his career, his is not HOF worthy. As fine a defenseman as Foote is, if he was elected to the Hall, I should be elected as a builder for participating on these boards.

The Hall should be for greats. Too many goods and very goods are being considered. Sad really.
The game of hockey has just too many nuances and subtleties that the definition of greatness being boiled down to only the amount of points scored is the sad thing. It is widely acknowledged that it's a lot harder to get into baseball's Hall of Fame, yet they at least have Gold Gloves to measure defensive contributions. No one was ever afraid of Ozzie Smith's bat, but the Wizard gets in because of defensive greatness measured by Gold Gloves. My point is that the HHOF should recognize more than just the guys who score goals.

It's not surprising to me when the media and fans get stuck on the points column, but I feel the selection committee for the HHOF being comprised of former players and hockey people would know better. Maybe that's why guys like Gillies and Federko have got in I don't know.

But I guarantee you that when a guy like Foote or Stevens comes up and a bunch of forwards are in that room they remember how hard they played and how hard it was to beat them and how sore they were after a seven game series against them.

If we're only going to reward guys who score a lot then just call it the Scorers Hall of Fame and be done with it.

Malefic74 is offline