HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

HHOF pyramid

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2010, 08:33 PM
  #26
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxellien View Post
..The basketball anology proves my point....Akeem is way up there while Ralph Sampson is not even listed...ridiculous!
Olajuwon was several orders of magnitude the better player both at peak and over his career than Sampson ever was.

Big guy had injury woes, but even then Hakeem was taking over the reigns by his second season.

Olajuwon is remembered for being one of the premiere centers of his time, while Sampson is remembered for making a heck of a shot to knock of the Lakers in '86.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 09:54 PM
  #27
ohiohabsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
Sawchuk has to be a Level 5 guy.

ohiohabsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 10:53 PM
  #28
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiohabsfan View Post
Sawchuk has to be a Level 5 guy.
I really think the Level 5 guys should be limited to the Big 4.
If you start including others, yes, Sawchuk, as well as Hasek, Roy and Plante have an argument for inclusion.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 08:30 AM
  #29
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,980
vCash: 500
There should be 6 levels.

SidGenoMario is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 12:52 PM
  #30
Peter9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 412
vCash: 500
Fascinating stuff, but a pyramid discussion becomes, in substance, a top 100 (perhaps 150) ranking discussion. Why bother with a new Hall of Fame at all?

Peter9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 08:24 PM
  #31
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,360
vCash: 500
for me, the pyramid concept is useful because if you really want to say that gartner has to be a hall of famer because he scored 700 goals, it allows you to do that without opening the door for ciccarelli or andreychuk.

- you can establish a cut off guy, which the current hall doesn't have.
- you can establish criteria for each level, whereas the current hall is kind of a "gut feeling" thing: you either know that, say, nieuwendyk is a hall of famer, or you know that he isn't. there is no (established) discourse or reasoning, and there is no accountability for the selection committee.
- it allows you to more easily compare players in order to judge who is or isn't in, and it promotes more interesting cross-era analysis: say delvecchio, parent, and leetch are all on the same tier-- these are very different players with very different career arcs, and it seems more interesting to think about and debate them relative to one another than it is to say, "if gillies and duff are in, then those guys are slam dunk hall of famers."

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 08:43 PM
  #32
Axxellien
Registered User
 
Axxellien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sherbrooke, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Ralph Sampson:

Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Olajuwon was several orders of magnitude the better player both at peak and over his career than Sampson ever was.

Big guy had injury woes, but even then Hakeem was taking over the reigns by his second season.

Olajuwon is remembered for being one of the premiere centers of his time, while Sampson is remembered for making a heck of a shot to knock of the Lakers in '86.
..No, no..Sampson was a college superstar..Player of the year 3 times, a true force..Way higher profile than Jordan..Rookie of the year in the NBA...All Star MVP...Olajuwan`s arrival created a twin towers phenomena..Complicated Sampson`s position..Was never comfortable at Power Forward..Someone said it was like putting Gretzky on Defence...Never got along with coach Fitch...Injuries shortened Ralph`s career.. Yet, Olajuwan himself claims the Rockets would have had much more success in the late 80s had Sampson stayed, even oft. injured...Yet another example of a major star ignored because of anti climactic end of career..Extreme cases include the Sam Bowie syndrome..Repeatedly injured from the get go...Gord Kluzak with the Bruins..


Last edited by Axxellien: 12-16-2010 at 10:16 AM.
Axxellien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2010, 06:47 AM
  #33
Noldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,285
vCash: 500
Disclaimer: I have very little knowledge about baseball greats

Looking at the criteria Simmons mentions, it seems to me that the pyramid concept would not be only about the player's ability, but also about his legacy, putting FAME into hall of fame.

Considering the importance given to career milestones and world series wins (Levels 2 -> 3), the very idea of "greatness" (Level 4) and the fact that level 5 is pretty much the household names of the game (LeBlondeDemon10 mentioned that DiMaggio's short career should place him to level 3 or 4 instead of 5, but with my limited knowledge about baseball, I recognise some of the names on the list, DiMaggio being among them (together with for example Babe Ruth, Cy Young, Ty Cobb and Jackie Robinson). That might be random change, but to me it indicates that DiMaggio had the fame).

In a sense I think that levels of pyramid should not strictly correspond to player's level of play (although you have to be excellent in order to be great), but importance should be given to the fame. Whether this would cause any actual difference, I don't know, but just an idea to think about.

Noldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2010, 05:03 PM
  #34
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxellien View Post
..No, no..Sampson was a college superstar..Player of the year 3 times, a true force..Way higher profile than Jordan..Rookie of the year in the NBA...All Star MVP...Olajuwan`s arrival created a twin towers phenomena..Complicated Sampson`s position..Was never comfortable at Power Forward..Someone said it was like putting Gretzky on Defence...Never got along with coach Fitch...Injuries shortened Ralph`s career.. Yet, Olajuwan himself claims the Rockets would have had much more success in the late 80s had Sampson stayed, even oft. injured...Yet another example of a major star ignored because of anti climactic end of career..Extreme cases include the Sam Bowie syndrome..Repeatedly injured from the get go...Gord Kluzak with the Bruins..
I think part of what made Sampson's profile was based upon expectation, not so much what he actually achieved.

Sampson had a good college career, but there's no reason based upon his performance that he would have gone on to meet the ridiculous expectations that people had of him. Chamberlain's numbers with Russell's championships. He may have demonstrated this dominance had he not been injured, but sorry if I don't hold things like All-Star Game MVPs in high regard, but even looking at Ralph's college numbers they aren't even that overwhelming when compared to many of the greats he was expected to surpass.

People saw him winning player of the year like Walton and Jabbar/Alcindor, but he did it without the sheer dominance that Jabbar and Walton had. In spite of being consensus #1 player, he made the Final Four just once in his career, and was never able to be Most Outstanding Player in the NCAA tournament (though his future teammate, Olajuwon, was able to in Sampson's last year).

Should Sampson get consideration? I suppose. But considering the Sampson snub an outrage when compared to Olajuwon is foolish. Injuries cut short careers and leave giant question marks. Olajuwon's peak and career values far exceed Sampson's. It is what it is.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 11:27 AM
  #35
Axxellien
Registered User
 
Axxellien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sherbrooke, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Ralph Stick Sampson:

Was one of the biggest stars in NCAA History..A ratings & media bonanza with insane, hyped up expectations..The new Kareem..He certainly delivered on cue in His 1rst 4 seasons & was on His way to improve His finesse presence year by towering year until injuries struck & exile to Golden State..Sacramento?..Look at his principal competion in college, Kentucky U. phenom. Sam Bowie who was never able to play up to His full potential because of serious & recurring foot injuries..Awesome potential...


Last edited by Axxellien: 12-20-2010 at 09:14 AM.
Axxellien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 02:22 PM
  #36
Felonious Python
Still Drej
 
Felonious Python's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Hot Seat
Posts: 16,220
vCash: 500
There's a reason why this idea hasn't been adopted.

Pyramid schemes are illegal.

Felonious Python is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2010, 04:44 PM
  #37
kevinBOOMBOOMbieksa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 493
vCash: 500
interesting comment.

My correction to Simmons list would be Reggie Miller moving to L2.

I have heavy bias but he was the leader of his team his entire career, especially in the playoffs and in no way can he be called a role player.

So L2 fits him quite well seeing as he has that big tag of not winning a championship (though he sure pushed the bulls hard in 98) and never being the best at his position (the most talented position), though he was close come playoff time

kevinBOOMBOOMbieksa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 01:03 AM
  #38
Dooman
Registered User
 
Dooman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 552
vCash: 50
So if a concept like this were adopted, would Kevin Lowe wind up being inducted as a level 1?

Dooman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 11:00 AM
  #39
Dom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 663
vCash: 500
I am an avid reader of Bill Simmons. The average quality of his columns has decreased these last years due to his many side projects (like 30 for 30), but he really is at his best when he comes up with gimmicks like the pyramid. Most if not all of what I know about basketball is due to reading him.

So, in his honor, here are my pyramids. Like in Gizah, there are three, a big one for forwards, a medium one for defensemen and a small one for goalies.
I have left out most of the old timers as I have absolutely no idea where they should fit. Please enlighten as where they should fit.
I also left out Europeans that did not play long in the NHL, due to a lack of knowledge.
I also am sure I contradict myself and that players don't fit the criteria of the level they are on. I just did this to stir the subject a bit.

Level 5 There is an argument for them being the best of all time at their position.
Level 4 Guaranteed contender for a long time / Best at their position multiple years
Level 3 Best at their position at one time
Level 2 Surefire hall of famers (Very good for a long time, or great but not best)
Level 1 Borderline hall of famers - Members of dinasties - Still active, etc.

Forwards

5
Gretzky
Howe
Lemieux

4
Hull
Béliveau
M.Richard
Morenz
Mikita
Lafleur
Esposito
Clarke
Jagr

3
Messier
Trottier
Bossy
Sakic
Schmidt
Yzerman
Taylor
Lalonde
Apps
Cook
Geoffrion
Malone
Boucher
Mahovlich
Dionne
Forsberg


2
H. Richard
Bathgate
Bentley
Moore
Denneny
Kurri
Cournoyer
Hull
Kennedy
Stastny
Lach
Cowley
Blake
Fedorov
Perrault
Bucyk
Keon
Stewart
Abel
Francis
Nighbor
Delvecchio
Armstrong
Ullman
Savard
Goulet
Selanne
Sittler
Bailey
Ratelle
Gilbert
Shanahan
Federko
Gainey
Smith
Pulford
Olmstead
Dye
Modano
Sundin


1
Robitaille
Recchi
Barber
McDonald
Shutt
Thornton
Iginla
Lafontaine
Gartner
Alfreddson
Anderson
Lewis
Laprade
Neely
Gillies
Duff
Ciccarelli

Messier and Bossy flutter between 3 and 4. Forsberg between 2 and 3. Robitaille and Sundin between 1 and 2.
I have not listed Ovechkin or Crosby.


Defenseman

5
Orr

4
Harvey
Shore
Bourque
Lidstrom
Kelly
Potvin

3
Robinson
Chelios
Park
Coffey
Clancy
Pilote

2
Horton
Siebert
MacInnis
Cleghorn
Salming
Stevens
Savard
Leetch
Laperrière
Langway
Niedermayer
Pronger


1
Lapointe
Murphy
Howe
Zubov
Blake
Chara


Goaltenders

5
Hasek
Plante
Roy

4
Brodeur
Sawchuk
Hall
Dryden

3
Durnan
Broda
Benedict
Brimsek
Hainsworth
Parent
Gardiner
Belfour

2
Esposito
Bower
Thompson
Vezina
Giacomin
Smith
Worsley
Lumley
Joseph

1
Fuhr
Cheevers
Osgood


Last edited by Dom: 12-20-2010 at 11:06 AM.
Dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 01:48 PM
  #40
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,156
vCash: 500
Dom, you missed Roy Worters, and Hainsworth doesn't belong with those guys in tier 3.

Also, if this is a pyramid you'd want to fill out spots 2 and 1 with about 20 more goalies to achieve the right shape

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.