View Single Post
05-27-2005, 04:00 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Clark Gillies

I'm another one that doesn't think Clarke Gillies should have been in. But I base that opinion on my own selection criteria. I don't know what criteria the selection committee use. They may not go by criteria like scoring, Stanley Cups, awards, length of career.

Also, maybe in Toronto where I am from, Gillies doesn't impress as a particularly good candidate. But, in the New York area, from their point of view, Gillies is deserving. That is one explanation that I was given. It makes some sense to me that other regions have different perceptions and they are just as valuable as another area's perceptions.

What are the criteria that should be used?

Originally Posted by Dr Love
Easy: because "if X is in there, why isn't Y" is a terrible argument. In every HOF there are players that shouldn't be there. Just because a player is better than someone in there isn't a valid reason for putting them in, they need to be worthy of it of their own merit.

ClassicHockey is offline