View Single Post
04-03-2013, 04:01 PM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,863
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
I really don't like using the HHOF as an argument for or against a player. There's so few voters, no transparency, no explanation on the inclusion etc ... You cannot use the argument that Leo Boivin & Dick Duf etc ... are not HHOF caliber, but then turn around and use the fact that the HHOF chose Harry Watson over Jim Thomson as an argument against Thomson.
I think it's somewhat arrogant to totally dismiss the HHOF committee and their picks, rather than trying to figure out why they picked who they did. We have a pretty good idea of why they picked Duff - he was the only player who was part of both the Montreal and Toronto dynasties of the 60s, and he was a good soldier, etc.

I just find it curious that when they were specifically looking for players to induct from the 1940s (after Don Cherry among others whined that there weren't enough players from the 1940s in the Hall - perhaps unaware that maybe there was a reason that the 40s had less than their share of players), that Thomson wasn't one who was inducted.

Maybe the Vet's committee is totally full of crap, but the actual HHOF voters who saw them play didn't vote for them, either.

Edit: I mean, Thomson does seem above average as a #3 and perhaps he's even "high end," but I do still see him a step down from the Flaman/Howell/White trio who themselves seem to be in the 60-65 range of defensemen and by definition the cut off for "low end #2s." I also thought Thomson's competition in the late 40s was basically crap; am I wrong there?

Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-03-2013 at 04:07 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote