Anyone who calls the Sedins locks are confused about the definition of a lock.
Ovechkin might not even be a lock.
Ovechkin is absolutely a lock. He has two Harts, three Lindsays, five first-teams, and an Art Ross. Four top-three finishes and five top-seven finishes in points. Absolutely a lock.
Both Sedins have accomplished more offensively in terms of awards and offense than many HHOFers who were considered locks when they retired. Have the criteria changed?
I heard they do HoF stats by combining player's awards. They are twin brothers. When they get in, they will be inducted together thus it is only fair to combine their accomplishments.
Pretty irrelevant. Not really. They were drafted #2 and #3 overall. The higher you're drafted, the more pedigree you hold. Being drafted that high is an accomplishment in itself.
Ok.
Because they had a lot of competition in that respect, right? Last time I checked, it was called the Hall of FAME. They are the most famous twins in hockey history.
You don't qualify someone as a lock based on future performance. That's not how it works.
If a player is a lock, then he's a lock RIGHT NOW.
If you think that player will become a lock by the end of his career, then you call him a "probable".
The main argument that people bring up on the topic of the Sedins and the HHOF is that they do not have enough career totals. This is why I brought my point up. They will easily have a 1000 points each by the end of their careers. They would still be locks even if they retired today. Not first ballot, but they'd get in eventually.
Ovechkin is absolutely a lock. He has two Harts, three Lindsays, five first-teams, and an Art Ross. Four top-three finishes and five top-seven finishes in points. Absolutely a lock.
I used Ovechkin as kind of an example, in that there are people who don't consider him a lock. I absolutely think he makes the hall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero
Both Sedins have accomplished more offensively in terms of awards and offense than many HHOFers who were considered locks when they retired. Have the criteria changed?
Can you give me 5 examples? Burden of proof
Last edited by Unaffiliated: 11-13-2012 at 08:06 PM.
The Sedins will definitely get in, if not for their actual play, but the fact that they are identical twins and were able to play at such a high level, together, is truly dynamic.
What a joke. Henrik Sedin has put up 75 or more points every year since the lockout (7 years).
Alfredsson wasn't a late bloomer? Is that why he had his highest point total in his career at the age of 32?
And how does Alfredsson have a better playoff resume than the Sedins? Alfie has a 0.81 career PPG in the post season while Henrik and Daniel are sitting at 0.75 and 0.71 respectively.
Alfredsson and the Sedins have both lead their teams to a Cup final so I don't see how he is more successful in the playoffs. In fact, if I recall, the Sens got embarrassed in 5 games as opposed to the Canucks losing in 7.
They have many major similarities, all things considered.
-Olympic golds all around (of note: Alfredsson led the Swedes in scoring)
-Finals appearances all around (of note: Alfredsson led the playoffs in scoring)
-One 100 point season each (of note: Henrik and Daniel led the league in scoring respectively)
-Consistency in reaching the 70-plus point plateau (Alfredsson-10, Henrik-7, Daniel-6)
What I have a problem with is your assertion that a late-round draft pick Calder winner was a late bloomer. Very counterintuitive. His peak was in his 30's? That means he was consistently good from the moment he entered the league. The Sedins, being high picks and all, were the late bloomers, and if anything, those mediocre seasons were the difference between Alfredsson and the Sedins' HHOF chances at this juncture. His PPG average is superior.
Anyhow, should they continue to produce at a high level and get closer to the point a game mark, they will have a good shot. They'll have to lead the charge to some sort of victory though, as their 'unclutch' factor is problematic (Alfredsson led the Swedes to Gold, and rewrote the SEL record book in the lockout year en route to a championship). And one final point, I don't consider Alfredsson to be a lock. He's close, but two lockouts hurt his chances.
I wonder if a defensive defenseman like Rod Langway will make it in ever again.
Langway could be argued as a player who didn't deserve to make it. He won two Norrises he didn't deserve, beating out notably superior defensemen in Mark Howe (1983) and Ray Bourque (1984), both of whom were very good defensively in their own right as well as FAR better offensively. Langway's defense was great, but not THAT great. IMHO, Howe, Bourque, Coffey, and Potvin all were better both years. Coffey scored 96 and 126 points to lead defensemen, respectively - Langway wasn't 70 points worth of defense better than Coffey in 1983, and certainly not 100 points better in 1984. In making the assumption Bob Gainey was the best defensive forward ever, that would then make the argument that Gainey, not Lafleur, was the best Montreal forward in the late 70s. Which is an insane argument. Langway's win over Howe (Howe still trounced him in All-Star voting) is one of the major reasons Howe's entry was delayed for so long.
That said, the Hall is for the absolute elite. Can you realistically say there are any purely defensive defensemen in the league who have been elite defensemen? Derian Hatcher received a Norris nomination, but IMHO wasn't even the best defenseman on his team. And he certainly didn't maintain that level of play. Chara is about the closest thing we've seen, and he developed from a pylon to a defensive guy, and then into a two way monster. Konstantinov might have been the guy, but his career was obviously cut short by his accident. And he had notably better offensive skills than Langway; in addition to having a higher PPG in a lower scoring era, Konstantinov missed out on a lot of points because the Wings' puck possession style under Bowman was about quality, rather than quantity. This led to Konstantinov being the "third assist" on many plays; an important pass without a credited point.
Crosby Ovechkin Malkin Datsyuk Stamkos St.Louis Selanne Iginla Alfredsson The Sedins Thornton
Perry
Getzlaf
Brodeur Luongo Lundqvist
Bold = Definitely
Italic = Probably
Getzlaf, Perry = Probably Not
Sadly, Perry is probably going in. He has a Hart trophy to his name, and to my knowledge no eligible Hart winner is not in. Henrik Sedin gets the same. Datsyuk is highly decorated, as is Daniel Sedin. So they are a guaranteed as anyone. Iginla is definitely going in, as is Alfredsson.
Jaromir Jagr
Teemu Selanne
Chris Pronger
Jarome Iginla
Miikka Kiprusoff
Daniel Alfredsson
Tim Thomas
Martin St. Louis
Joe Thornton
Vincent Lecavalier
Pavel Datsyuk
Zdeno Chara
Henrik Sedin
Daniel Sedin
Brad Richards
Henrik Lundqvist
Corey Perry
Ilya Kovalchuk
Rick Nash
Henrik Zetterberg
Alexander Ovechkin
Sidney Crosby
Evgeni Malkin
Claude Giroux
Jonathan Toews
Steven Stamkos
Erik Karlsson
Drew Doughty
will most likely get in... some are safer than others.
Sadly, Perry is probably going in. He has a Hart trophy to his name, and to my knowledge no eligible Hart winner is not in. Henrik Sedin gets the same. Datsyuk is highly decorated, as is Daniel Sedin. So they are a guaranteed as anyone. Iginla is definitely going in, as is Alfredsson.
Well we know Theodore will not get in. Unless Perry can string together a few more elite seasons I dont think he will get in.
