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.

Argument for Oates

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-11-2005, 04:19 PM
  #26
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
He is borderline. Excellent player but lacking in accomplishments somewhat.
Not trying to be rude, But this is a good discussion and I am just trying to figure out where the line is where you can be an excellant player like Oates but lack accomplishments. What are your criteria.

c-carp is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 04:20 PM
  #27
CRUNK JUICE
Registered User
 
CRUNK JUICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 1,139
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CRUNK JUICE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
He is borderline. Excellent player but lacking in accomplishments somewhat.
Hmmm... Oates is borderline, but Francis doesn't even get considered... Suuuuuuure...



CRUNK JUICE is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 04:34 PM
  #28
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
Not trying to be rude, But this is a good discussion and I am just trying to figure out where the line is where you can be an excellant player like Oates but lack accomplishments. What are your criteria.
Hart trophies, Pearsons, post season All Star honors, scoring titles and/or finishing in the top 7 (you're a dominant player if you finish in the top 7 ).

norrisnick is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 05:36 PM
  #29
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 13,080
vCash: 500
Best playmaker in the 1990s outside of Gretzky. Led the league in assists 3 times, runner-up to Gretzky a couple more times. Top-3 in scoring 3 times, top-10 a boatload of times. Over 1000 career assists. Took Neely and Hull to heights they never came close to without him. One of the greatest playmakers ever to play the game.

To compare him to Bobby Smith is a little insulting - Oates had more assists than Smith had points. Smith was top-10 in scoring once (8th, 1982) while Oates was consistently amongst the league leaders in assists and points for over a decade. Far, far more dominant scorer.

Only blemish on his career is his lack of team success. But he should be a first ballot HHOFer without any problems.

MS is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 05:43 PM
  #30
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS
But he should be a first ballot HHOFer without any problems.
Depends entirely on how many players they decide to let in. I don't see him ahead of Messier, Yzerman, Francis, Chelios, Hasek, Macinnis, Belfour, Larionov, and possibly a couple others I can't think of. That list sadly is likely done as well.

norrisnick is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 05:53 PM
  #31
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicious Vic
I could be wrong here, but didn't Gretzky center 3 of them: Nichols, Kurri, and Robitaille?
Or did they play on different lines. Just curious.

Oh, and for the record I definitely think Oates should get in. I just don't think he's a first ballot inductee.
problem with those 3 isnt whether they played on a line with 99......they arent in the 50/50 club

Mothra is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 05:57 PM
  #32
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
Not trying to be rude, But this is a good discussion and I am just trying to figure out where the line is where you can be an excellant player like Oates but lack accomplishments. What are your criteria.
Much like norrisnick said, Finishing top 7 in scoring, Hart Trophies, Stanley Cups, post season all stars etc.

Just being good for a long time does not cut it with me. Being great is required. Oates is right on the border.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 05:59 PM
  #33
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicious Vic
Hmmm... Oates is borderline, but Francis doesn't even get considered... Suuuuuuure...


Francis was good for a long time. He had 3 great seasons and 18 good ones. So no, I don't think he should be in. Great not good is required in my world. Unfortunatly the HOF voters don't live in my world.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 06:13 PM
  #34
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Much like norrisnick said, Finishing top 7 in scoring, Hart Trophies, Stanley Cups, post season all stars etc.

Just being good for a long time does not cut it with me. Being great is required. Oates is right on the border.
Top 7 in scoring = 5 times
Top 3 in scoring = 3 times

Played in at least 2 Finals

Hart finalist at least once (cant blame him, he played in the era of 66/99....Yzerman has the same amount of Hart Trophies as Oates)

Not sure how many first or second all star selections....but again...99/66 were locks during much of his career

again...this is beyong "just being good"

Mothra is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 06:14 PM
  #35
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Francis was good for a long time. He had 3 great seasons and 18 good ones. So no, I don't think he should be in. Great not good is required in my world. Unfortunatly the HOF voters don't live in my world.
I'm getting the impression its a lonely place there

Mothra is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 06:15 PM
  #36
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Francis was good for a long time. He had 3 great seasons and 18 good ones. So no, I don't think he should be in. Great not good is required in my world. Unfortunatly the HOF voters don't live in my world.
Thats because they've watched these players play instead of just looking up their stats. No one is talking about putting Brian Bellows, Ivan Boldirev, or Cliff Ronning in the Hall. Francis and Oates had so much more to their game than just putting up points. To overlook that is just completely missing out on how great they were.

#66 is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 06:32 PM
  #37
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #66
Thats because they've watched these players play instead of just looking up their stats. No one is talking about putting Brian Bellows, Ivan Boldirev, or Cliff Ronning in the Hall. Francis and Oates had so much more to their game than just putting up points. To overlook that is just completely missing out on how great they were.
Then Tikkanen should be in too. There was much more to his game than stats.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 06:34 PM
  #38
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra
I'm getting the impression its a lonely place there
Just because I am the only one that thinks the way I do, that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Hopefully I can unveil my revamped rating system in the next few weeks. I have taken suggestions from posters on this board and improved things. Should set off a whole new world of debate...

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 06:36 PM
  #39
Rather Gingerly 1*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra
Oates was well beyond just a "good player" and is a lock for the HOF....ask Hull or Neely if he was special.....the guy centered two members of the 50/50 club....was a Hart finalist....great face off...very good in his own end.....over 1000 assists....you say this is just "good'?
Oates never won any major trophies nor any Stanley Cups. He just wasn't a stand out player. Most of his scoring points totals are inflated because he had the good fortune to play during the offensive '80s and early '90s era. He was a good player but not a great player

Rather Gingerly 1* is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 06:45 PM
  #40
CRUNK JUICE
Registered User
 
CRUNK JUICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 1,139
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CRUNK JUICE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Just because I am the only one that thinks the way I do, that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Hopefully I can unveil my revamped rating system in the next few weeks. I have taken suggestions from posters on this board and improved things. Should set off a whole new world of debate...

There's an old saying: When the world tells you you're drunk, lie down. Out of several thousand posters on this board, you're one of maybe 3 who doesn't think he should be in.

Even John Flyers fan, who thinks he's overrated as hell admits he should get it. Longevity is a factor and before the Andreychuk thread you weren't even willing to acknowledge that he did have some great seasons.

I have an idea: try watching the subtleties in his game instead of just looking at his numbers. Watch his ability to control the play at both ends of the ice. Greatness goes well beyond stats, friend.

CRUNK JUICE is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 06:50 PM
  #41
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicious Vic
There's an old saying: When the world tells you you're drunk, lie down. Out of several thousand posters on this board, you're one of maybe 3 who doesn't think he should be in.

Even John Flyers fan, who thinks he's overrated as hell admits he should get it. Longevity is a factor and before the Andreychuk thread you weren't even willing to acknowledge that he did have some great seasons.

I have an idea: try watching the subtleties in his game instead of just looking at his numbers. Watch his ability to control the play at both ends of the ice. Greatness goes well beyond stats, friend.
That is where the post season all stars and Hart Trophies come into play. The intangibles are covered by the voters. They never believed he was good enough to be recognized. So, you are saying that a whole bunch of seasons that are not good enough = HOF. I disagree.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 06:54 PM
  #42
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rather Gingerly 1
Oates never won any major trophies nor any Stanley Cups. He just wasn't a stand out player. Most of his scoring points totals are inflated because he had the good fortune to play during the offensive '80s and early '90s era. He was a good player but not a great player
When you are 3rd in NHL in scoring 3X and top 7 5X it doesnt matter so much what era you played in, obviously he was one of the best offesive players during those years.....The arguements you make can be applied to other players in the HOF.....and like others you are only looking at stats, besides having the numbers to justify the HOF he was an outstanding player.....a top PKer....one of the best faceoff men during in his career, again....with huge numbers....made other players much better...ask Hull, Neely and even Simon

Mothra is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 06:55 PM
  #43
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra
When you are 3rd in NHL in scoring 3X and top 7 5X it doesnt matter so much what era you played in, obviously he was one of the best offesive players during those years.....The arguements you make can be applied to other players in the HOF.....and like others you are only looking at stats, besides having the numbers to justify the HOF he was an outstanding player.....a top PKer....one of the best faceoff men during in his career, again....with huge numbers....made other players much better...ask Hull, Neely and even Simon
I agree, being a top 7 scorer 5X is impressive. That is why I think he is right on the edge. The HOF has lower standards than I do so, he will be a shoo in. I have him on the edge.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 07:12 PM
  #44
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Then Tikkanen should be in too. There was much more to his game than stats.
True but his stats don't even come close to Francis and Oates. Plus Tik wasn't consistently a great two way player. He became more of a star when given an assignment or played in a big game, like Claude Lemieux.

#66 is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 07:24 PM
  #45
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 13,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
That is where the post season all stars and Hart Trophies come into play. The intangibles are covered by the voters. They never believed he was good enough to be recognized. So, you are saying that a whole bunch of seasons that are not good enough = HOF. I disagree.
The problem (that you refuse to recognize) is that 2 players dominated the Hart, Art Ross, and all-star teams for a 10-15 year stretch. No other player had any real hope of winning any of those awards unless either Gretzky or Lemieux was hurt, and then the 2nd team all-star slot was available. If you're basing everything on awards, then Gretzky and Lemieux are your only HHOF centers who played between 1985 and 1995. Maybe Messier. Yzerman, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Savard, Francis, Oates are all unworthy despite some of the finest careers anyone has ever put together. Yzerman's 1988-89 season was one of the greatest seasons by any hockey player ever but he didn't win the Hart, or Art Ross, and wasn't an All-star.

Second, everyone else is operating by the HHOF's traditional admission requirements. What individual dominance did Dave Keon demonstrate to put him in the HHOF? Is he a poor choice? I suspect that if you had your way, the NHL HHOF would look like the LPGA HHOF and contain about 15 players. Everyone else is operating in reality - is Adam Oates a deserving HHOFer based on his career relative to the careers of players who have been inducted over the last 60 years? To say that Adam Oates is not an HHOFer because you don't like the HHOF standards is fine, but completely worthless. I can say that Cliff Ronning should be in the HHOF because I think the standards are too tough. Doesn't mean I'm 'wrong' either. But it doesn't mean my opinion means crap all relative to anything important.

Third, you're claiming that guys like Francis and Oates are only notable because they have inflated stats from playing in the goal-happy 1980-1994 period when the amount of times these guys led the league in assists and were amongst the leaders in points strongly suggests otherwise. As does their continued excellence (even in advanced age) post-1995 when goalscoring was below the historical average. These are not Brian Propps and Brian Bellowses who scored 1000 points by finishing 15-25 in scoring every year. Oates was on pace for 120 assists in 1990-91, a total not even Gretzky in his prime could reach consistently.

The HHOF has inducted guys like Keon, Federko, Sittler who were absolutely nowhere near Francis or Oates either in career production, or in dominance at their peaks. Francis and Oates are guaranteed Hall of Famers. They deserve to be, relative to the standards that have been in place for the last 50 years. End of story.

MS is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 07:44 PM
  #46
CRUNK JUICE
Registered User
 
CRUNK JUICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 1,139
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CRUNK JUICE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra
problem with those 3 isnt whether they played on a line with 99......they arent in the 50/50 club

OHHHHHHHHHH! My bad. I thought it was just 50 goals, regardless of the number of games. If that was the case, I figured there'd be a few more centers on that list as well. No wonder I was confused.

CRUNK JUICE is offline  
Old
05-11-2005, 11:33 PM
  #47
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,791
vCash: 500
Like I said before, I used to view Oates as a borderline candidate. But he tied for the league lead in assists once or twice after he turned 35. His hockey sense is among the best ever. Yes, he played with some great goal scorers, but those great goal scorers will tell you they had the privilege of playing with Oates. He was also above average defensively and one of the best ever in the faceoff circle. While he was a better playmaker than a shooter, he had a good shot, too. Won't get in on the first ballot if he faces a strong field, but he's a lock to get in eventually.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
05-12-2005, 12:09 PM
  #48
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS
The problem (that you refuse to recognize) is that 2 players dominated the Hart, Art Ross, and all-star teams for a 10-15 year stretch. No other player had any real hope of winning any of those awards unless either Gretzky or Lemieux was hurt, and then the 2nd team all-star slot was available. If you're basing everything on awards, then Gretzky and Lemieux are your only HHOF centers who played between 1985 and 1995. Maybe Messier. Yzerman, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Savard, Francis, Oates are all unworthy despite some of the finest careers anyone has ever put together. Yzerman's 1988-89 season was one of the greatest seasons by any hockey player ever but he didn't win the Hart, or Art Ross, and wasn't an All-star.

Second, everyone else is operating by the HHOF's traditional admission requirements. What individual dominance did Dave Keon demonstrate to put him in the HHOF? Is he a poor choice? I suspect that if you had your way, the NHL HHOF would look like the LPGA HHOF and contain about 15 players. Everyone else is operating in reality - is Adam Oates a deserving HHOFer based on his career relative to the careers of players who have been inducted over the last 60 years? To say that Adam Oates is not an HHOFer because you don't like the HHOF standards is fine, but completely worthless. I can say that Cliff Ronning should be in the HHOF because I think the standards are too tough. Doesn't mean I'm 'wrong' either. But it doesn't mean my opinion means crap all relative to anything important.

Third, you're claiming that guys like Francis and Oates are only notable because they have inflated stats from playing in the goal-happy 1980-1994 period when the amount of times these guys led the league in assists and were amongst the leaders in points strongly suggests otherwise. As does their continued excellence (even in advanced age) post-1995 when goalscoring was below the historical average. These are not Brian Propps and Brian Bellowses who scored 1000 points by finishing 15-25 in scoring every year. Oates was on pace for 120 assists in 1990-91, a total not even Gretzky in his prime could reach consistently.

The HHOF has inducted guys like Keon, Federko, Sittler who were absolutely nowhere near Francis or Oates either in career production, or in dominance at their peaks. Francis and Oates are guaranteed Hall of Famers. They deserve to be, relative to the standards that have been in place for the last 50 years. End of story.
Saying that a player never had a chance because they played during Gretzky and Lemieux's era is a major copout. It simply does not hold water.

During Gretzky and Lemieux's era Dale Hawerchuk, Mark Messier X2, yes - Adam Oates, Pat Lafontaine, Sergei Fedorov, Eric Lindros X2, Alexei Zhamnov, Peter Forsberg and Alexei Yashin all earned post-season all star honors.

During Gretzky and Lemieux's era Mark Messier X2, Brett Hull, Sergei Fedorov, Eric Lindros and Dominik Hasek X2 all won Hart Trophies. Dale Hawerchuk, Ray Bourque X2, Grant Fuhr, Patrick Roy, Doug Gilmour, Dominik Hasek, Jaromir Jagr X2, Mark Messier, Paul Kariya and Alexei Yashin were Hart runners up.

So, nobody was really frozen out of the honors. Everybody had a chance to step up and win - if they were good enough.

My system also recognizes the accomplishment of finishing in the top 7 scorers each year. With Gretzky and Lemieux dominating #1 and #2, there is nothing stopping other players from dominating #3 and building a phenomenal career. Nobody really stood out and grabbed that #3 spot consistently. That being said, I am in the process of adding some recognition for being a great goal scorer or playmaker, Oates may move up when that is completed.

Why do you say that Yzerman's 1988-89 season is one of the all time greats? 155 points? When you look at the scoring race, 4 players scored at least 150 points so, Steve really did not set himself apart. If he had scored 155 when nobody else hit 130, I would say WOW! AMAZING! But, he did it when 3 other guys did it so, it is not nearly as impressive. Howie Morenz's 51 points in 1927-28 is much more impressive. Nobody else even hit 40 that season.

IMO the Hall has some soft standards. I would limit entry to only the VERY best but, that is just me. The Hall of Fame should be a club for the greatest of all time not a club for the good and very good. Guys like Keon and Francis were very good. If I ran the Hall, they would not be in.

My standards are higher, that is how I will always feel.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-12-2005, 05:02 PM
  #49
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Much like norrisnick said, Finishing top 7 in scoring, Hart Trophies, Stanley Cups, post season all stars etc.

Just being good for a long time does not cut it with me. Being great is required. Oates is right on the border.
Your point are fair I just place a great more emphasis on longevity and consider Oates a great because he was able to enjoy that Longevity. I feel the same about a guy like Mike Gartner.

c-carp is offline  
Old
05-12-2005, 05:08 PM
  #50
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
Your point are fair I just place a great more emphasis on longevity and consider Oates a great because he was able to enjoy that Longevity. I feel the same about a guy like Mike Gartner.
I understand where you are coming from and that is OK. We just disagree on the criteria.

When I originally began creating rankings, I specifically wanted to weed out the "longevity" guys because, in my opinion, they never excelled and dominated like a great player should. As well, the "longevity" guys like Gartner, Francis and to a large extent Messier, played in the most offensive era of all time. I feel that their places on the all time scoring lists are flawed because greats of other eras played a 30, 44, 50, 60 or 70 game schedule in a defensive era. They had no opportunty to move up the list because of "longevity". As well, I believe that dominance, greatness or stand out ability is what is required to be considered great. Being a top 20 scorer for 15 years is not greatness, IMO.

Again, nothing wrong with your point of view, I just don't share it.

Ogopogo* 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 09:55 AM.

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.