Argument for Oates
View Single Post
05-16-2005, 12:58 PM
Join Date: Apr 2005
Originally Posted by
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.
Scott Stevens will be in the Hall of Fame. He was a 5 time all star, 2 time Norris runner up and a Conn Smythe Winner. Rod Langway won two Norris Trophies, was a three time all star and a Hart runner up. Bill Gadsby was a 7 time all star and 3 time Norris runner up. My point being, if a defensive defenseman is GREAT at what he does, he will be recognized for it. These three are all defensive defensemen that deserve a prominent place in the Hall because they were GREAT.
Foote is good, not GREAT. Good is not HOF worthy.
As well, a lot of excellent defensive defensemen also happen to score a lot. Does that mean they cannot play good defense? Re: Pronger, Chelios, Bourque etc.
Last edited by Ogopogo*: 05-16-2005 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ogopogo*