View Single Post
12-04-2012, 04:20 PM
Big Phil
Registered User
Big Phil's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,516
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Disagree. The HHOF quite obviously gives players "what if" credit for World War 2. See Bobby Bauer, Woody Dumart, and your favorite Edgar Laprade for 3 examples off the top of my head.
Laprade is an awful selection even if he had played during the War. Dumart and Bauer aren't strong selections either. Dumart is one of the worst playoff performers of all-time in comparison to his regular seasons. That "Kraut" line peaked pretty high with Schmidt though and while Dumart and Bauer were the weaker two players on that line I think that puts them over the top in the HHOF's eyes. Still, they aren't strong selections, and Laprade is one who should NOT be in there. Honestly, do we need more marginal selections in the HHOF just because a few players that may have had better career numbers missed playing time? All of those names I mentioned (Alfie, Elias, Hossa, St. Louis, Naslund) may not be good enough anyway (although St. Louis has peaked the highest for sure and has the best case). Is the HHOF a worse place without these players?

Now on the other hand, Iginla, Thornton, maybe even Kovalchuk have missed a ton of time too. All three missed a prime year and Kovalchuk is missing another prime year. That being said they all appear to be future HHOFers regardless of missed time. Kovalchuk has a ways to go, but his goal totals and his recent Cup final appearance are helping. Or how about Chara? Or even Shea Weber? Do these guys need charity to make the HHOF? Don't think so, and they will be part of this generations inductees.

Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
I don't know, Hall of Fame inductees don't always work like this. There are always going to be marginal cases.

For example: We know perfectly well how good Elias was, he's on the cusp of the HOF, and if he had 1,000 points, he probably gets in, since the induction committee loves milestones like that. But he'll probably fall just short of 1,000 points. So that's where the what-ifs come in. (And it's hardly a stretch to think that Elias would have another 106 points without the two lockouts, either.)

Like I said, the HOF committee might end up agreeing with your stance. Fair enough. But that could end up leaving a bunch of players out of the Hall who would've made it in without the lockouts.
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I think one has to keep things in context, the players have been locked out.

There has to be some consideration given to them in those circumstances, just like WW2.

How much I'm not sure but to give no credit would be ridiculous IMO.
The players are as much to blame for the lockout as the owners. Look at the inductees in 2012. All of them missed time - some missed substantial time - but very few argue against them being in there. Sundin missed a season after he was a 2nd team all-star and Sakic was a first team all-star. They also have a half season to their credit. Sakic would have had another 100 point year. A true HHOFer is one who can overcome lost time

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote