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

NHL on TSN Quiz: Potential Hall of Fame Inductees For 2013

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2012, 07:48 PM
  #101
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,572
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind of Milbury View Post
I know this is veering slightly off topic (although there was a brief mention of John Elway in this thread), but what if I pointed out a player who (to point 1) was a wonderful and dedicated father, husband, and teammate, who (to point 2) was a TREMENDOUS playoff performer who won 2 Championships, appeared in a third Championship Series, but who (to point 3) admittedly played a relatively short time in his sport? The sport is baseball, and that player was Thurman Munson. Hes credited with an 11 year career, although he only had a brief appearance in '69 and obviously didnt play much more than half of '79 before he died (Similarly, Lindros had one whole year missed and there are about 4 seasons you can piece together to bring his total career years from 14 to 11 or so...) Even so, Munson's career was extraordinarliy decorated and productive (he was ROY in '70 and MVP in '76) for its length. He has done things Lindros hasnt (playoff-wise, plus Lindros wasnt ROY), and yet Munson doesnt even get a sniff of the HOF (he has only received more than %10 of the votes once, in 1981).

Point is, off-field goings-on dont necessarily have to have a profound effect one way or the other when it comes to HOF voting processes, irrespective of the career in question. I suppose based upon this one particular example, longevity and durability (Munson was healthy during his career) takes precedence over relative production. On the other hand, Lindros might need to be even MORE attractive statistically to overcome any issues (real or perceived) off ice in the minds of the voters. It is all really very subjective (obviously).

Source: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...unsoth01.shtml
First, baseball is a very statistical game. Munson just wasn't close to a premier offensive player. Unfortunately for him, in addition to his very premature death, much of Munson's perceived value was due to his handling of the pitching staff and his leadership, which are difficult to quantify. His stats during his MVP season really don't appear to be any better than the year before or year after... when he finished 7th each season.

That's yet another reason I'm so skeptical of awards voting, esp. in single seasons. I've seen writers make mind-boggling choices in the very quantitative game of baseball... so that doesn't inspire faith for a less quantitative game like hockey.

You say off the field stuff doesn't come into play in baseball voting... well, I assure you it does. Players like Raines, Parker, etc. are not there because of off the field issues... while players like Dawson, Rice, Puckett and Winfield are in BBHOF. Does the name Pete Rose ring a bell? There are numerous players who aren't in BBHOF when players of the same or lesser ability/value are... or their hockey equivalents are... and vice versa. As you say, it's subjective and riddled with bias, inconsistency and very questionable selections (and non-selections).

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 08:03 PM
  #102
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Just a side note, you really thought the 1998 Olympic team was better than the 2002 team? You should explain that.
The 1998 team played better overall, though 2002 possibly had a higher ceiling. In 2002 Canada only really played well in the finals (and they played really well), while in 1998 they gelled early and performed well from the start.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 10:56 PM
  #103
Mind of Milbury
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 24
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
As you say, it's subjective and riddled with bias, inconsistency and very questionable selections (and non-selections).
This is basically all I was driving at, just in a more longwinded manner The example I used was just to highlight how no amount of off field "goodness" (speaking of difficult to quantify...) can overcome being only very good, not a superstar, or suffering from a shortened career. Clearly it didnt help Munson, and the jury is out on Lindros. As for Pete Rose, he is banned from baseball--nothing subjective about that.

The players you brought up as to which are in and which are out are all fine examples, and there are plenty more. Going farther back, guys like Mantle and Cobb werent exactly altar boys off the field, and were total no-brainers for the HoF. We'll see how the steroid-era players make out in the coming years. In any event, Halls of Fame (in any sport) should be EXclusive, not INclusive. Too many good/very good players getting in, not superstars/legends of the game, but I digress.

By the way, in what way is hockey less quantitative? Care to explain? Not sure I get what you mean. All sport's awards and HoF voting are (presumably) stats-based endeavors for the most part, no? (present conversation excepted of course )

Mind of Milbury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:18 PM
  #104
Ed Wood
Registered User
 
Ed Wood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,970
vCash: 500
J. C. Tremblay
Chris Chelios
Eric Lindros
Brendan Shanahan

Ed Wood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 09:33 AM
  #105
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
The 1998 team played better overall, though 2002 possibly had a higher ceiling. In 2002 Canada only really played well in the finals (and they played really well), while in 1998 they gelled early and performed well from the start.
Hmmm, never heard anyone say that before. I thought the 1998 team really had only one good game and that was against the US. The rest they looked desperately like they could have used a true game breaker. In 2002 their arc was an incline, which it is supposed to be as the tournament goes on and the games get tougher. Head to head I can't see how that 1998 team could beat 2002

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 09:41 AM
  #106
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind of Milbury View Post
This is basically all I was driving at, just in a more longwinded manner The example I used was just to highlight how no amount of off field "goodness" (speaking of difficult to quantify...) can overcome being only very good, not a superstar, or suffering from a shortened career. Clearly it didnt help Munson, and the jury is out on Lindros. As for Pete Rose, he is banned from baseball--nothing subjective about that.

The players you brought up as to which are in and which are out are all fine examples, and there are plenty more. Going farther back, guys like Mantle and Cobb werent exactly altar boys off the field, and were total no-brainers for the HoF. We'll see how the steroid-era players make out in the coming years. In any event, Halls of Fame (in any sport) should be EXclusive, not INclusive. Too many good/very good players getting in, not superstars/legends of the game, but I digress.

By the way, in what way is hockey less quantitative? Care to explain? Not sure I get what you mean. All sport's awards and HoF voting are (presumably) stats-based endeavors for the most part, no? (present conversation excepted of course )
What you failed to mention is that Munson was a total SOB in regards to the media. Not exactly the way to find the path to Cooperstown.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 10:00 AM
  #107
jack mullet
@jackmullethockey
 
jack mullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Baxter, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
as we learned this year, there is no such thing as a "lock". i would like to see some of the first ballot guys wait a few years, and instead see guys like Rogie Vachon get in. i think the HHOF needs to re-vamp their selections. make it an 8 year wait before you are eligible. only induct 2 players at a time. then, the players that make it truly are, with no question, legends of hockey. i think we can all agree there are a few guys in the hall that are head scratchers.

jack mullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 03:08 PM
  #108
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Made Me View Post
Here's a link to an article about the relationship between a player getting into the HHoF and him winning the Stanley Cup. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...7348--nhl.html
Interesting article but winning the cup or not winning has less meaning in a 30 team league IMO.

Even with less multiple winners over the last 30 years than since the last Edmonton dynasty there are about 15 SC winners in any 20 year cycle (the typical maximum career length for any superstar and maybe 10 prime years).

So in a 30 team league every player has about a 50% chance of winning a single Cup in a 20 year career.

In his prime 10 years the odds are much less.
the bottom line is that TEAMS win championships and sure they are usually made up of great players but there shouldn't be too much focus, on winning Cups or not winning them in a 30 team league.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 03:52 PM
  #109
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,459
vCash: 500
Only 2 per year? It's the hall of fame not "legends." There aren't that many Gretzky's or Beliveau's, 2 per year is too little especially now that they already have a back log of 90s stars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Wood View Post
J. C. Tremblay
Chris Chelios
Eric Lindros
Brendan Shanahan
No if you mention JC Tremblay then I can mention Adam Foote once he's eligible or Vinny Damphousse and say they're just as deserving. I know there's a nostalgic factor associated with vintage players but it shouldn't be at the expense of someone who's done just as well in a more recent era.

Elever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 04:23 PM
  #110
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
No if you mention JC Tremblay then I can mention Adam Foote once he's eligible or Vinny Damphousse and say they're just as deserving. I know there's a nostalgic factor associated with vintage players but it shouldn't be at the expense of someone who's done just as well in a more recent era.
except that this nostalgia factor you mention is actually the exact opposite of how the HHOF actually makes its decisions. total born yesterday presentism. nieuwendyk is first ballot? over makarov? larry murphy was first ballot, over mark howe. everybody's saying niedermayer is a no question first ballot guy. i've seen many articles in the last week billing niedermayer before freakin' chelios. i love niedermayer and think he's unquestionably a hall of famer, but looking at the field of possibles, i think it's very much in question whether he's one of the best four. (that said, niedermayer does crack my top four for 2013, but more narrowly over blake than one would probably imagine-- chelios, makarov, niedermayer, shanahan; blake has to wait even though he was greater than shanny because shanny had to wait and that wasn't fair; lindros has to wait because we're still making him face the corner.)

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 08:28 AM
  #111
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,082
vCash: 500
This is a great year for them to induct Shanahan. There hasn't been any hockey played and probably won't be, so there won't be any focus on his craptastic job as head of discipline.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 09:21 AM
  #112
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
No if you mention JC Tremblay then I can mention Adam Foote once he's eligible or Vinny Damphousse and say they're just as deserving. I know there's a nostalgic factor associated with vintage players but it shouldn't be at the expense of someone who's done just as well in a more recent era.
Rogie Vachon and Fred Shero would be in if the Hall of Fame relied on nostalgia. And in the case of these two gentlemen, they actually deserve it without the rose coloured glasses.

To be fair, J-C Tremblay was a better defenseman than Foote. I would describe Foote as a "serviceable" defenseman, maybe a little bit like Kevin Lowe. Nothing wrong with that but clearly short of the HHOF despite everyone knowing about his career. Tremblay is a funny one on here because his NHL career alone could probably propel him in there.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 09:34 AM
  #113
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Rogie Vachon and Fred Shero would be in if the Hall of Fame relied on nostalgia. And in the case of these two gentlemen, they actually deserve it without the rose coloured glasses.

To be fair, J-C Tremblay was a better defenseman than Foote. I would describe Foote as a "serviceable" defenseman, maybe a little bit like Kevin Lowe. Nothing wrong with that but clearly short of the HHOF despite everyone knowing about his career. Tremblay is a funny one on here because his NHL career alone could probably propel him in there.
I think "serviceable" is a term a lot of people would find a bit too dismissive of Foote's quality. That's often how you see 2nd pairing plugger types like Hal Gill described.

That being said, I agree with both your Kevin Lowe comparison (in fact, Lowe is Foote's #3 similarity score on Hockey-Reference), and that he's clearly short of HHOF quality based on modern standards (yet he was still higher on my expanded master list for the HOH Top 80 Defensemen project that HOFer Leo Boivin).

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 11:48 AM
  #114
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
I think "serviceable" is a term a lot of people would find a bit too dismissive of Foote's quality. That's often how you see 2nd pairing plugger types like Hal Gill described.

That being said, I agree with both your Kevin Lowe comparison (in fact, Lowe is Foote's #3 similarity score on Hockey-Reference), and that he's clearly short of HHOF quality based on modern standards (yet he was still higher on my expanded master list for the HOH Top 80 Defensemen project that HOFer Leo Boivin).
Yes I thought that too, "serviceable" is too low of a compliment for Foote. He was on enough Team Canada's and long Cup runs to be just that. I'll say with a better offensive edge he's in the HHOF discussion, but alas.........

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:30 PM
  #115
FakeKidPoker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,681
vCash: 500
Is there a more overrated player than Scott Neidermayer? The media suckling is so sad actually.

He is not even close to being a top 15 d-man of all time people.

FakeKidPoker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 07:54 AM
  #116
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,082
vCash: 500
God kills a kitten every time a media figure puts Scott Niedermayer on a Top 10 all-time defensemen list.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 07:22 PM
  #117
FakeKidPoker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,681
vCash: 500
or top 20

FakeKidPoker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 11:41 AM
  #118
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,708
vCash: 500
Will never forget Pierre McGuire's assesment of his career after he "retired" in 2007. He was caught up in the moment, I think, but he ranked Niedermayer as the 7th best defenseman of all-time. I remember him saying this and then trying to build a case for it. I think he had a list where Orr, Harvey, Bourque, Lidstrom and Potvin were ahead of him at least. I can't remember who the 6th one McGuire had ahead of him but it hardly matters.

This means that in a group of Robinson, Shore, Chelios, Coffey, Stevens, MacInnis, Pilote, Park, Horton, Leetch and for that matter even Pronger, would have had only one player in that group ahead of...................Niedermayer. And we're the common folks without hockey jobs, go figure.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 02:06 PM
  #119
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Made Me View Post
Agreed. I was just trying to not be a homer.
Then let a Red Wings fan tell it. Pilote belongs in that group.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 02:07 PM
  #120
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
God kills a kitten every time a media figure puts Scott Niedermayer on a Top 10 all-time defensemen list.
That would mean there are no cats left on this planet.

jkrx 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 12:32 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.