How is it backtracking? Do you know how impractical a bet it would be to bet whether or not he would ever get inducted? There would be no way to win in that situation. By presenting it as a 1st ballot inductee, you present it in a scenario in which one side can claim victory.
It's pretty simple stuff actually. So I thought.
No one cares about the practicality of a bet that you proposed that no one accepted on. And now you're changing your stance from "no way this guy gets into the HHOF" to "well he's not a first ballot guy" and hiding behind the bet as the reason because you didn't get a bunch of people quoting your original post saying "you're spot on man!!"
You made a stance on JR. Then you backtracked to a safer position for your argument.
Doug Gilmour, Adam Oates, Mark Howe, and Sergei Makarov, all players that deserve the hall of fame more than Jeremy Roenick yet aren't in currently.
For those who will be eligible at the same year, Joe Sakic and Chris Chelios are head and shoulder above Roenick, and Sundin is equal to if not greater.
and also, if you say that Roenick is a hall of famer, you are a short step away from saying a guy like Eric Lindros is a hall of famer
No one cares about the practicality of a bet that you proposed that no one accepted on. And now you're changing your stance from "no way this guy gets into the HHOF" to "well he's not a first ballot guy" and hiding behind the bet as the reason because you didn't get a bunch of people quoting your original post saying "you're spot on man!!"
You made a stance on JR. Then you backtracked to a safer position for your argument.
Fine, if you think thats backtracking, how about this for backtracking:
Jeremy Roenick will never get in the hall of fame.
I was just hoping a few of you would put your metaphorical money where your mouths were.
No disrespect intended to the "Hockey History guys..." don't know who they are...but I had to laugh when he put them up on a pedestal as if they were world-renowned experts.
I was thinking, "WTF am I? a higher-class schmuck?" I don't consider myself to be an expert or anything like that, but when you cover hockey for more than 20 years, you learn more than a few things. :-)
Doug Gilmour, Adam Oates, Mark Howe, and Sergei Makarov, all players that deserve the hall of fame more than Jeremy Roenick yet aren't in currently.
For those who will be eligible at the same year, Joe Sakic and Chris Chelios are head and shoulder above Roenick, and Sundin is equal to if not greater.
and also, if you say that Roenick is a hall of famer, you are a short step away from saying a guy like Eric Lindros is a hall of famer
Impossible. Neither Oates nor Sundin have won the Cup or any major individual awards. Sound familiar?
And your last "point" is a major stretch of a slippery slope theory.
Impossible. Neither Oates nor Sundin have won the Cup or any major individual awards. Sound familiar?
And your last "point" is a major stretch of a slippery slope theory.
Doug Gilmour won a selke (and a cup with Calgary, remember?) Gilmour has also been in top-10 points twice, and Adam Oates has lead the league in assists 3 times and been top-5 in points 3 times.
Both have longevity and peak over Roenick. Both were better players. Neither are in the hall of fame.
Doug Gilmour won a selke (and a cup with Calgary, remember?) Gilmour has also been in top-10 points twice, and Adam Oates has lead the league in assists 3 times and been top-5 in points 3 times.
Both have longevity and peak over Roenick. Both were better players. Neither are in the hall of fame.
Funny I didn't mention Gilmour.
The accomplishments you mentioned for Oates don't satisfy the requirements you made of Roenick earlier. Sorry.
It's amazing how much you know of these guys without having watched them!!
The accomplishments you mentioned for Oates don't satisfy the requirements you made of Roenick earlier. Sorry.
It's amazing how much you know of these guys without having watched them!!
Do I need to watch a player to determine that 70 points per a season after a very good peak is not enough to get into the hall of fame? Just barely cracking 500 goals? Being in an incredibly high scoring era for his short peak?
Adam Oates has done something tangible - lead the league in assists. And he was on the 1990-1991 all-star team as a 2nd team all-star. He is also 6th in all-time assists.
Do I need to watch a player to determine that 70 points per a season after a very good peak is not enough to get into the hall of fame? Just barely cracking 500 goals? Being in an incredibly high scoring era for his short peak?
Adam Oates has done something tangible - lead the league in assists. And he was on the 1990-1991 all-star team as a 2nd team all-star. He is also 6th in all-time assists.
Someone should do their homework
1. Yes you do. Stats don't tell the whole story.
2. Let me know when Oates "barely cracks 500 goals."
3. Should you really use an "incredibly high scoring era" argument against one guy but for another of the same era?
4. You should do your homework if you think JR hasn't done something tangible.
The difference between you and the guys that vote for the HHOF: they watch the players. These guys don't get in strictly on their stats. I've watched all of the discussed players play. You haven't.
Do I need to watch a player to determine that 70 points per a season after a very good peak is not enough to get into the hall of fame? Just barely cracking 500 goals? Being in an incredibly high scoring era for his short peak?
Adam Oates has done something tangible - lead the league in assists. And he was on the 1990-1991 all-star team as a 2nd team all-star. He is also 6th in all-time assists.
Someone should do their homework
I'm going to chip in for a moment.
Doughty sucked last year. Yes he did. Look at his +/-.
That's a line I've read on HFboards before. How do we typically respond? 'There's more to stats that prove a player.' We're correct too.
I'll take your bet if you wish. Could somebody witness it please?
I'm half drunk on Pabst Blue Ribbon and I log onto this typing diarrhea....Lord of mercy.
2. Let me know when Oates "barely cracks 500 goals."
3. Should you really use an "incredibly high scoring era" argument against one guy but for another of the same era?
4. You should do your homework if you think JR hasn't done something tangible.
The difference between you and the guys that vote for the HHOF: they watch the players. These guys don't get in strictly on their stats. I've watched all of the discussed players play. You haven't.
Yes, unfortunately, Roenick's prime was over before I was able to speak.
Your second point is silly. Oates is clearly a playmaker and not a goalscorer.
Your third point doesn't hold water because Oates was consistently amongst the top scorers, even in the higher scoring era. Roenick was top-10 only twice in his career in point scoring. Oates was top-10 7 times. So Oates dominated Roenick in regards to scoring relative to peers.
In regards to leading the league in something, getting some sort of trophy, or playoff success, Jeremy Roenick has only done anything singificant twice - he was third in goals in 91-92, and he made it to the Stanley Cup finals once in that same year. That was a great year, and if he had done something like that consisetntly (basically, if he had extended those years from 91-94 throughout his career, he would be a shoe-in hall of famer.
But his game didn't hold up, and after those two years, he was never top-10 in any category ever again.
Doughty sucked last year. Yes he did. Look at his +/-.
That's a line I've read on HFboards before. How do we typically respond? 'There's more to stats that prove a player.' We're correct too.
I'll take your bet if you wish. Could somebody witness it please?
I'm half drunk on Pabst Blue Ribbon and I log onto this typing diarrhea....Lord of mercy.
Because +/- is a completely different stat from points. You can't compare them.
But wait a minute - isn't one of the arguments for Roenick getting in based on having 500 goals? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Roenick is getting in on statistics, yet say that statistics can't be used as a goodd measure of his career.
Yes, unfortunately, Roenick's prime was over before I was able to speak.
Your second point is silly. Oates is clearly a playmaker and not a goalscorer.
Your third point doesn't hold water because Oates was consistently amongst the top scorers, even in the higher scoring era. Roenick was top-10 only twice in his career in point scoring. Oates was top-10 7 times. So Oates dominated Roenick in regards to scoring relative to peers.
In regards to leading the league in something, getting some sort of trophy, or playoff success, Jeremy Roenick has only done anything singificant twice - he was third in goals in 91-92, and he made it to the Stanley Cup finals once in that same year. That was a great year, and if he had done something like that consisetntly (basically, if he had extended those years from 91-94 throughout his career, he would be a shoe-in hall of famer.
But his game didn't hold up, and after those two years, he was never top-10 in any category ever again.
Then maybe you shouldn't comment on a player you know nothing about?
I was being factitious towards your ridiculous point about "just breaking 500 goals."
I'm not arguing against Adam Oates career or his eventual induction into the HHOF. We get it. You know how to look up stats of players you never watched. You argue JR won't get in because there are guys with better stats that aren't in yet. Well I could just as easily say he WILL get in because there are guys in the HHOF with inferior stats to Roenick.
Again, congratulations you can look up stats. You earlier pointed out that JR doesn't get in because of no individual awards or no postseason success (which I'll take to mean stanley cups since you've already been proven wrong in regards to his individual postseason success). You then pointed to players like Sundin and Oates that don't have that either. But now you're spinning your point once again.
Have you watched any of the players you're talking about in this thread for an extended period of time?
Then maybe you shouldn't comment on a player you know nothing about?
I was being factitious towards your ridiculous point about "just breaking 500 goals."
I'm not arguing against Adam Oates career or his eventual induction into the HHOF. We get it. You know how to look up stats of players you never watched. You argue JR won't get in because there are guys with better stats that aren't in yet. Well I could just as easily say he WILL get in because there are guys in the HHOF with inferior stats to Roenick.
Again, congratulations you can look up stats. You earlier pointed out that JR doesn't get in because of no individual awards or no postseason success (which I'll take to mean stanley cups since you've already been proven wrong in regards to his individual postseason success). You then pointed to players like Sundin and Oates that don't have that either. But now you're spinning your point once again.
Have you watched any of the players you're talking about in this thread for an extended period of time?
I was too young to watch any of these players.
I'm not going to debate this with you anymore. You can't see the logic of it, so there is no use in continuing this.
You know, the funny thing is that I have not once said anything about anyone in this thread, yet you all are throwing the ad hominems at me and consistently acting condescending, even though you don't know me. Again, I find it hilarious for reasons I won't explain.
Yeah, that or I have other concerns and I concede that my logic does not seem able to convince you all.
You know, the funny thing is that I have not once said anything about anyone in this thread, yet you all are throwing the ad hominems at me and consistently acting condescending, even though you don't know me. Again, I find it hilarious for reasons I won't explain.
Yeah, that or I have other concerns and I concede that my logic does not seem able to convince you all.
