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.

Top 5 ommitted HOFers

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-01-2005, 02:23 PM
  #51
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,637
vCash: 500
Vaclav Nedomansky

BM67 is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 02:54 PM
  #52
Bulldog fan
Timmy Dogs Alum 1999
 
Bulldog fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 101York Bld Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 918
vCash: 500
The HHOF is a joke anyway. If a player doesn't get in first ballot that should be it, sorry pal, no hall for you. How does a player become become more deserving in his 2nd and 3rd (and so on) attempts?

The guys retired, his stats haven't got any better. How come those stats that weren't good enough in his first year of eligibility are now good enough in his (ie) 3rd year?

The level of the Hall has lowered that is the only way that a guy eventually makes it. Keep inducting 3 or 4 guys every year and soon mediocre careers are allowed in, like we've seen recently.

But then, if Ryan Seacrest can get a star on the hollywood walk of fame I guess Bernie Federko should be in the HHOF .

Bulldog fan is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 06:18 PM
  #53
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
There are some who believe that unless a player had a truly, top 10 or 15 all-time, special career (Gretzky, Mario, Gordie, Orr, etc), he shouldn't get in on the first ballot. (In fact, in baseball, there are some who voters who will never vote for a first time eligible player). Don't understand why, but that's for the voters to decide.

The HHOF doesn't have a limit on how many times a player can be up for induction. They dropped that when they scrapped the Veteran's wing a few years ago. There are also criteria that eliminate players from future eligibility if they don't get enough votes.

Deserving guys like Michel Goulet (top goal-scoring LW of the 1980s), Dale Hawerchuk (one of the best offensive players ever) and Pat LaFontaine (best American-born forward of the past 30 years) didn't get in on the first ballot. Hawerchuk's snub caused more unrest than any snub I've ever seen.

I don't think anyone eligible for the first time this year will get inducted this time. Like I said, maybe Vernon in the future. I think we'll see two or three previous snubs get in, Makarov almost for sure, and maybe a guy like a Vachon or a Mark Howe, or one of the players from the Oilers' dynasty. (Lowe, Moog or G. Anderson).

i know a lot of people complain about how easy it is to get into the Hall. Honestly, I think it's gotten tougher. Once upon a time, guys would get in if they played for a long time. Not any more. With the exception of Federko and Gillies, I can't think of a player inducted in the last 20 years who didn't belong.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 06:38 PM
  #54
silver_made*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,058
vCash: 500
Bernie Nicholls

for playing on BAD kings teams, never getting consistent time with simmer, taylor, or dionne, and STILL ending his reg./post season career better than pt/gm despite being bounced between New York R., New Jersey, Edmonton, Chicago, and San Jose.

silver_made* is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 07:09 PM
  #55
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
Nichols was better than most people give him credit for. But I think he's a step below HHOF calibre. He played much of his career in relative obscurity in Los Angeles, which hasn't helped. And it's not like those LA teams weren't capable of scoring. They had some excellent offensive players. (Dionne, Taylor, Simmer, etc). But when I think of Nichols, I think of a player who had some very good seasons, and a couple great seasons playing on the same PP as Gretzky. Like say, a Bobby Smith or a Steve Larmer, he is a step below HHOF worthy.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 08:01 PM
  #56
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Andy Moog, Glenn Anderson and Kevin Lowe were all excellent players, too. But all of them are a notch below Hall worthy.

Interesting to note: It's a very weak year for first-time candidates. Mike Vernon, Pat Verbeek and Gary Suter are the best of this year's bunch. I don't see any of them getting in on the first ballot. I'd put Vernon in there, and he may get in eventually, but not the other two, or anyone else eligible this year. That means a couple overlooked players might finally get in.
I`m just curious where you found that list of first-time candidates. Is there somewhere on the Web where it`s listed? I know it`s supposed to be three years after retirement, but what about players who`ve stopped playing but haven`t filed retirement papers yet?

About the first-time candidates you mentioned:

Mike Vernon: He`ll probably make it. It`s hard to imagine a goalie who won two Stanley Cups and a Conn Smythe not getting in, but he`s been wildly inconsistent over his career and had a few dreadful seasons

Pat Verbeek: 500 Goals used to be a magical milestone. It only happened once every few years and was considered a big deal. With the goal-scoring explosion of the 80s coupled with careers lasting longer due to 90s expansion, more and more players hit the mark and it lost some of its lustre. The day Verbeek scored his 500th was the day that plateau was no longer a Hall Of Fame guarantee. I don`t think there was ever a point in his career when he was considered one of the top 10 or even 20 forwards in the game. A good player, but not a Hall of Famer.

Gary Suter: It would be a joke to put him in considering that he`s far less deserving than Mark Howe or J.C. Tremblay, for that matter he`s less deserving than Doug Wilson.

reckoning is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 08:12 PM
  #57
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
I'm just going on memory when I mention first-ballot HHOFers. I don't have an exact source. I remember the hubbub when Hawerchuk was excluded. I remember that Goulet was left out his first time. I think Lafontaine was on his third try when he got in. The HHOF has a three-year waiting period to get in (with few exceptions), so if you want to know who got in on the first ballot, add three years to the date of their retirement. (Bourque, Coffey and Murphy were all first-ballot guys).

I don't think Pat Verbeek or Gary Suter belong. I just said they're two of the most notable first time candidates. 500 goals stopped being the threshold before Verbeek reached it. In fact, Dino Ciccarelli has over 600 goals, and has been passed over in his first two attempts. (He's another guy who has a good shot at getting in this year. Whether or not he belongs is certainly debatable).

One final player who's eligible for the first time this year is Rick Tocchet, and while he certainly was an outstanding power forward, he's not Hall-worthy, either.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 08:47 PM
  #58
Bulldog fan
Timmy Dogs Alum 1999
 
Bulldog fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 101York Bld Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
I'm just going on memory when I mention first-ballot HHOFers. I don't have an exact source. I remember the hubbub when Hawerchuk was excluded. I remember that Goulet was left out his first time. I think Lafontaine was on his third try when he got in. The HHOF has a three-year waiting period to get in (with few exceptions), so if you want to know who got in on the first ballot, add three years to the date of their retirement. (Bourque, Coffey and Murphy were all first-ballot guys).

I don't think Pat Verbeek or Gary Suter belong. I just said they're two of the most notable first time candidates. 500 goals stopped being the threshold before Verbeek reached it. In fact, Dino Ciccarelli has over 600 goals, and has been passed over in his first two attempts. (He's another guy who has a good shot at getting in this year. Whether or not he belongs is certainly debatable).

One final player who's eligible for the first time this year is Rick Tocchet, and while he certainly was an outstanding power forward, he's not Hall-worthy, either.
Please help me understand how a guy 3 years retired doesn't have the stats to make it into the hall. But, somehow, 4 years retired, with no change to his stats, he suddenly is?

Bulldog fan is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 09:28 PM
  #59
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
There are a couple reasons. One, some believe a player should not be allowed in on the first ballot. I don't know why some people have such a belief. I think it's a croc that people would think that. But you'd have to ask someone with a Hall vote why that is.

The other reason is competition. In some years, there are many deserving candidates for the HHOF. In Lafontaine's first year of eligibility, Fetisov, Kurri and Gartner were also in their first year, and voters were under incredible pressure to induct Hawerchuk after the massive blunder the year before. Thus, LaFontaine, Makarov, Moog, Lowe and other first-timers didn't get in. Because the crop of 2002 retirees is shallow, it means guys who have been bypassed before will likely get in this time.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 09:35 PM
  #60
Bulldog fan
Timmy Dogs Alum 1999
 
Bulldog fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 101York Bld Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 918
vCash: 500
A max of 4 per year could leave a deserving guy out in the cold, but honestly it seems to me like they have to add 3 or 4 guys every year so they can have their gala event. To me that seems to lower the bar for entry. If they are going to continue to add questionable players perhaps they should have gold, silver and bronze level entries .

Bulldog fan is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 09:51 PM
  #61
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
Actually, the three defencemen they added last year (Bourque, Coffey and Murphy, all of whom deserved it), was the largest induction class since 2001, which is the largest ever. In 1999, they added only one (Gretzky), and in 2000 and 2003, they added two. In fact, in 2002, Roger Neilson got most of the headlines for his induction.). And while the HHOF takes heat for "questionable" inductees, outside of Federko and Gillies in 2002 (who went in ahead of more deserving guys like LaFontaine, Makarov and M. Howe), the last inductee that I would deem "contentious" would be Bill Barber in 1990. Most of the controversial selections came from the veterans committee.

There's no guarantee they'll induct three or four a year, it's just the maximum. Many years, they've only inducted one, and in 1994, the two players chosen were from the veterans committee.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
05-01-2005, 10:08 PM
  #62
Bulldog fan
Timmy Dogs Alum 1999
 
Bulldog fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 101York Bld Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 918
vCash: 500
I'm sure your facts are correct and I'm glad to see that in most years they have been more selective. I guess the Federko, Gillies year is the one I remember most and the year I realized that the selection committee was a farce. Any chance there are Liberal cabinet members on the committee ?

Bulldog fan is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 09:17 AM
  #63
MojoJojo
Registered User
 
MojoJojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtuzzi21
I don't think they will, its for honoring the best "hockey" players, not humans.
You dont think that the HOF might have just a little something to do with public relations and promoting the NHL do you?

I'm not saying its right, just that thats the way it is.

MojoJojo is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 11:03 AM
  #64
Larionov
Registered User
 
Larionov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmad
He was a mediocre player at best. We can't let people into the hall of fame for one fluke goal.
A mediocre player? Well, if Paul Henderson is a mediocre player, then so too are about 95% of the guys who ever played the game at the NHL level, because Henderson's numbers are better than most. He was also a hell of a skater and a very effective two way player -- sort of a Marty Gelinas with perhaps slightly better hands.

You can argue his career numbers all you want, however -- that's not the reason he belongs in the Hall. He belongs in the Hall because, for a few glorious weeks in September 1972, he played the best hockey of his life and led his team to victory in perhaps the greatest hockey series of all time.

"One fluke goal"? Henderson tied for the Team Canada lead in the series with seven goals. He also scored THREE game winners -- not one, not two, but three. His team was down three games to one, and Henderson got the winner in Game Six, Game Seven, and Game Eight. Has anyone ever scored three straight game winning goals in the playoffs? With their team down three games to one? Incredible.

The Hall of Fame is not just about the numbers. It is about the heritage of the game, and honouring those who helped to build it. Take a look at some of the names that have been inducted recently -- God bless Clark Gillies, but Paul Henderson did more for the game of hockey in those three weeks than Clark Gillies did in fifteen years.

Larionov is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 12:24 PM
  #65
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldog fan
Please help me understand how a guy 3 years retired doesn't have the stats to make it into the hall. But, somehow, 4 years retired, with no change to his stats, he suddenly is?
Because, for better or worse, he's up against a different crop of available candidates, and really, that's who you get viewed against.

Next year is probably the last, best chance for the current stragglers like Ciccarelli, Anderson, Vachon, etc. to get in. The list of first-time eligibles isn't that strong (Beezer, Vernon, Kevin Stevens, Verbeek, Tocchet, Suter). Next year comes Patrick Roy, Barrasso, Gilmour, Richter, Housley.... it's gonna get a mite crowded.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 02:43 PM
  #66
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 22,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larionov
A mediocre player? Well, if Paul Henderson is a mediocre player, then so too are about 95% of the guys who ever played the game at the NHL level, because Henderson's numbers are better than most. He was also a hell of a skater and a very effective two way player -- sort of a Marty Gelinas with perhaps slightly better hands.

You can argue his career numbers all you want, however -- that's not the reason he belongs in the Hall. He belongs in the Hall because, for a few glorious weeks in September 1972, he played the best hockey of his life and led his team to victory in perhaps the greatest hockey series of all time.

"One fluke goal"? Henderson tied for the Team Canada lead in the series with seven goals. He also scored THREE game winners -- not one, not two, but three. His team was down three games to one, and Henderson got the winner in Game Six, Game Seven, and Game Eight. Has anyone ever scored three straight game winning goals in the playoffs? With their team down three games to one? Incredible.

The Hall of Fame is not just about the numbers. It is about the heritage of the game, and honouring those who helped to build it. Take a look at some of the names that have been inducted recently -- God bless Clark Gillies, but Paul Henderson did more for the game of hockey in those three weeks than Clark Gillies did in fifteen years.
Henderson's play in 1972 is honoured in the HHOF in many ways. As it should be.

Induction into the HHOF is reserved for the best players in hockey history. Henderson is nowhere near that. You don't get into the HHOF based on 8 games.

If Rob Zamuner had played the hockey of his life in the 1998 Olympics, scored 7 goals, and led Canada to the gold medal, would Zamuner go into the HHOF?

How about Jim Craig and Mike Eruzione?

MS is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 07:41 AM
  #67
Chili
Registered User
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: la Belle Province
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 4,143
vCash: 500
Some worthy people mentioned such as Rogie Vachon. If you get a chance, watch the 1976 Canada Cup. He was fabulous in that inaugral tournament and had a great career.

Valery Kharlamov is one of the most gifted players of all time.

Two international players not mentioned, Boris Mikhailov and Vladimir Petrov are worthy in my opinion. Mikhailov especially had a great international career and excelled in the NHL vs Russia tournaments. Petrov was a great offensive player. Kharlamov, Petrov and Mikhailov is one of the best lines in the history of the game.

Chili is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 07:49 AM
  #68
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 11,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili
Some worthy people mentioned such as Rogie Vachon. If you get a chance, watch the 1976 Canada Cup. He was fabulous in that inaugral tournament and had a great career.

Valery Kharlamov is one of the most gifted players of all time.

Two international players not mentioned, Boris Mikhailov and Vladimir Petrov are worthy in my opinion. Mikhailov especially had a great international career and excelled in the NHL vs Russia tournaments. Petrov was a great offensive player. Kharlamov, Petrov and Mikhailov is one of the best lines in the history of the game.
Its about time that someone has said Kharlamov. IMO he belongs there without question. I don't understand how Tretiak gets in but not Kharlamov. IMO he's the greatest player to never play in the NHL.

#66 is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 07:54 AM
  #69
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larionov
A mediocre player? Well, if Paul Henderson is a mediocre player, then so too are about 95% of the guys who ever played the game at the NHL level, because Henderson's numbers are better than most. He was also a hell of a skater and a very effective two way player -- sort of a Marty Gelinas with perhaps slightly better hands.

You can argue his career numbers all you want, however -- that's not the reason he belongs in the Hall. He belongs in the Hall because, for a few glorious weeks in September 1972, he played the best hockey of his life and led his team to victory in perhaps the greatest hockey series of all time.

"One fluke goal"? Henderson tied for the Team Canada lead in the series with seven goals. He also scored THREE game winners -- not one, not two, but three. His team was down three games to one, and Henderson got the winner in Game Six, Game Seven, and Game Eight. Has anyone ever scored three straight game winning goals in the playoffs? With their team down three games to one? Incredible.

The Hall of Fame is not just about the numbers. It is about the heritage of the game, and honouring those who helped to build it. Take a look at some of the names that have been inducted recently -- God bless Clark Gillies, but Paul Henderson did more for the game of hockey in those three weeks than Clark Gillies did in fifteen years.
Henderson played great dont get me wrong. But you honestly believe a guy who was just great for 3 weeks deserves a spot in the hall of fame? We're talking hall of fame already! Richards scored 7 mind you 7 game winning goals last year in the playoffs... I guess he belongs in the hall too? Theodore had an outstanding 20-30 last games in 2002 and won the hart trophy so he belongs in the hall of fame too? Guys who are great for only 3 weeks dont deserve to get inducted and that's a fact.

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 10:04 AM
  #70
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
Next year comes Patrick Roy, Barrasso, Gilmour, Richter, Housley.... it's gonna get a mite crowded.
Roy and Barrasso should get the nods.

Gilmour waits a year.

Richter and Housley.... sorry, no.

Malefic74 is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 11:23 AM
  #71
Captain Leaf
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Petawawa
Posts: 282
vCash: 500
The Hall of Fame should be ONLY for people who had OUTSTANDING careers .Its not the Hall of Good Players .Too many merely good players getting in .Gillies ,Langway ,Lafonataine ,Barber ,Federko ..its a slight to the truly great NHL players .
The Hall should only be for guys like Richard,Orr ,Hull,Howe ,Beliveau,Gretzky ,Lafleur ,Plante ..legends , a very select group .Players who defined their era , who made a differance in the outcome of games , series and championships.
Bernie Federko???????? Actually of the above i singled out Gillies maybe the most deserving , he was a key compnent to those winning Isles teams .Barber ..i dont know about you but when i think of Barber i think of diving ..heck i remember Leach scoring most of those big goals during the Flyers glory years .
I think it should be VERY hard to get in the Hall ..it should be a real true honour to have your picture hanging in the Hall .

Captain Leaf is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 11:40 AM
  #72
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
The Hall of Fame should be ONLY for people who had OUTSTANDING careers .Its not the Hall of Good Players .Too many merely good players getting in .Gillies ,Langway ,Lafonataine ,Barber ,Federko ..its a slight to the truly great NHL players .
Yeah, but then you wouldn't have an induction ceremony every year, and the Hall wouldn't make as much money, which, dear God, they should be entitled to do. I don't mind lowering the standard enough to allow one or two a year.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 11:48 AM
  #73
Captain Leaf
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Petawawa
Posts: 282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
Yeah, but then you wouldn't have an induction ceremony every year, and the Hall wouldn't make as much money, which, dear God, they should be entitled to do. I don't mind lowering the standard enough to allow one or two a year.
Yes i am afraid you have hit the nail on the head ..its all about the $$$$$$ these days .I think in their heart a player knows if he deserves to be a Hall of famer or not .

Captain Leaf is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 11:58 AM
  #74
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOVALEV10
Henderson played great dont get me wrong. But you honestly believe a guy who was just great for 3 weeks deserves a spot in the hall of fame? We're talking hall of fame already! Richards scored 7 mind you 7 game winning goals last year in the playoffs... I guess he belongs in the hall too? Theodore had an outstanding 20-30 last games in 2002 and won the hart trophy so he belongs in the hall of fame too? Guys who are great for only 3 weeks dont deserve to get inducted and that's a fact.
It's called the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of Statistics. The group of players that have done something more famous than Henderson is a lot smaller than the one of players who have better stats.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 12:16 PM
  #75
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Lots of players mentioned so far, but not much in the "Builders" category, so here's my 5:

Bill Hunter - I was sure he was in, but decided to check, and, amazingly enough, he isn't. Just unbelievable - Wild Bill was one of the founders of both the WCHL/WHL and WHA, and probably contributed more to hockey in Western Canada in the 60's and 70's than any other man. But he ruffled a lot of NHL feathers, which may explain why he's not in the HoF.

Eddie Livingstone - Basically, the reason the NHL was founded. The other NHA owners wanted to get rid of him, so they started a new league without him. He accomplished a lot prior to that, though. No good biography online, but read the book "Deceptions and Doublecross" for a good overview of what was done by, and to, him.

Mike Buckna - The "father of Czech hockey." A Czech-Canadian who returned home and took the game back with him, he built the foundations of the game in the former Czechoslovakia in the 30's and 40's. In the IIHF Hall of Fame already.

Lou Lamoriello - Turned the Devils from a joke franchise into a three-time Stanley Cup winner and won a World Cup for the US. What else does he have to do?

Fred Shero - Yeah, other guys had longer coaching careers, and he's tarnished a bit by the reputation of the 70's Flyers. But he won two cups and made the finals two other times, and what's obscured by the "Broad Street Bullies" hype is the fact that he was an innovator in implementing the lessons the NHL learned from the Soviet game in 1972. The Flyers didn't win just by intimidating people.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:08 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.