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.

Cup Champs with no Hall of Famers

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-21-2006, 07:32 PM
  #1
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Cup Champs with no Hall of Famers

It's unlikely than any members of the Lightning will become Hall of Famers. Andreychuk, LeCavalier and Richards are possibles.

Going back to 1967 I don't think any other team will finish with less than two.

1993 Habs - Roy & Savard

1995 Devils - Stevens & Brodeur .. with Neidermayer possible

1999 Stars - Hull & Belfour ... with Modano and Nieuwendyk as possibles

2000 Devils - Stevens & Brodeur .. with Neidermayer possible

2003 Devils - Stevens & Brodeur .. with Neidermayer and Nieuwendyk as possibles

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 07:58 PM
  #2
JWINK19
southern Devils fan
 
JWINK19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wilmington, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
89 Flames have Lanny in and Macinnis going. Nobody else on that team is getting in.

JWINK19 is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 08:05 PM
  #3
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
It's unlikely than any members of the Lightning will become Hall of Famers. Andreychuk, LeCavalier and Richards are possibles.

Going back to 1967 I don't think any other team will finish with less than two.

1993 Habs - Roy & Savard

1995 Devils - Stevens & Brodeur .. with Neidermayer possible

1999 Stars - Hull & Belfour ... with Modano and Nieuwendyk as possibles

2000 Devils - Stevens & Brodeur .. with Neidermayer possible

2003 Devils - Stevens & Brodeur .. with Neidermayer and Nieuwendyk as possibles
Very interesting topic. The 1938 Chicago Blackhawks immediately came to mind, since they're arugably the worst team to ever win the Cup. I looked at their roster and they only had one HOF player: Earl Seibert. It's strange for a team in an 8-team league to win the Cup but only have one HOF member. (Yes, I know that teamwork is more valuable than collecting individual talent when it comes to winning the Cup... but, on average, one would still expect better teams to have more HOF members).

Andreychuk will most likely make it to the Hall of Fame, though I wouldn't vote for him. Way too early to tell with Lecavalier and Richards. Until their careers are over, the "honor" of winning the Stanley Cup with the fewest HOF members belongs to the '38 Blackhawks.

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 08:08 PM
  #4
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWINK19
89 Flames have Lanny in and Macinnis going. Nobody else on that team is getting in.
Joey Mullen is in (shouldn't be). Gilmour will likely make it. Nieuwendyk has a chance. Vernon and Fleury have remote chances.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 08:10 PM
  #5
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWINK19
89 Flames have Lanny in and Macinnis going. Nobody else on that team is getting in.
Joe Mullen is in already.

Doug Gilmour has an good shot (>1400 career points, great 2-way player, >point-per-game in post-season).

JCD is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 08:11 PM
  #6
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Joey Mullen is in (shouldn't be). Nieuwendyk has a chance. Vernon and Fleury have remote chances.
Beat me to it. Don't forget Doug Gilmour, I think he has an excellent chance.

If Hawerchuk is in, Gilmour is in.

JCD is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 08:14 PM
  #7
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
Very interesting topic. The 1938 Chicago Blackhawks immediately came to mind, since they're arugably the worst team to ever win the Cup. I looked at their roster and they only had one HOF player: Earl Seibert. It's strange for a team in an 8-team league to win the Cup but only have one HOF member. (Yes, I know that teamwork is more valuable than collecting individual talent when it comes to winning the Cup... but, on average, one would still expect better teams to have more HOF members).

Andreychuk will most likely make it to the Hall of Fame, though I wouldn't vote for him. Way too early to tell with Lecavalier and Richards. Until their careers are over, the "honor" of winning the Stanley Cup with the fewest HOF members belongs to the '38 Blackhawks.
I would agree with last year's Lightning. Personally, I think ANdreychuk has no business even being considered. This is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. At no point in his career was he ever mentioned among the top-5 at his position, he has never won a single award, never led the league in any significant category nor has he even a single 100-point season. Good player, one of my favorites growing up, but he has no business being considered for the Hall.

JCD is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 08:17 PM
  #8
JWINK19
southern Devils fan
 
JWINK19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wilmington, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
Sorry, forgot about Mullen, which I guess would make the other poster's point that he shouldn't be in. I also forgot Gilmour (guess I'm getting old fast), but I don't know if Killer will get in. He was a very good player, but I can't say he's a drop dead lock for the Hall. Same thing with Nieuwendyk. The HOF is supposed to be for the best of the best, and IMO these guys are a notch below, regardless of the fact that they are better than a couple of guys that did get in.

JWINK19 is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 08:23 PM
  #9
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWINK19
Sorry, forgot about Mullen, which I guess would make the other poster's point that he shouldn't be in. I also forgot Gilmour (guess I'm getting old fast), but I don't know if Killer will get in. He was a very good player, but I can't say he's a drop dead lock for the Hall. Same thing with Nieuwendyk. The HOF is supposed to be for the best of the best, and IMO these guys are a notch below, regardless of the fact that they are better than a couple of guys that did get in.
I like Killer's chances actually. At his best, he was mentioned among the best centers in the game (his 1st two years in Toronto specifically). He currently sits 15th All Time in scoring and everyone in the top-20 (with the exception of Oates) is either in the Hall or a sure-fire lock to get in. Add in his consistently good defensive play (winning one Selke, pretty sure he was nominated a couple other times) along with his consistently strong post-season showings (even late in his career; peaking with his impressive 92-93 run) and I think you would be hard-pressed to keep him out. I know I would have no hesitation giving him my vote. IMO, he is certainly more deserving than his former linemate Gartner who was voting in as well as the considerably more 1-dimensional Hawerchuk who hit sits behind in scoring.

JCD is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 08:32 PM
  #10
JWINK19
southern Devils fan
 
JWINK19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wilmington, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
I'll agree on Hawerchuk but not Gartner. The man scored over 700 goals, he deserves to be in.

JWINK19 is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 08:35 PM
  #11
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWINK19
I'll agree on Hawerchuk but not Gartner. The man scored over 700 goals, he deserves to be in.
You take Gartner, and I'll take Gilmour, and my team will win every time.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 08:38 PM
  #12
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWINK19
Sorry, forgot about Mullen, which I guess would make the other poster's point that he shouldn't be in. I also forgot Gilmour (guess I'm getting old fast), but I don't know if Killer will get in. He was a very good player, but I can't say he's a drop dead lock for the Hall. Same thing with Nieuwendyk. The HOF is supposed to be for the best of the best, and IMO these guys are a notch below, regardless of the fact that they are better than a couple of guys that did get in.
Nice topic, JFF. Your insights into the HHOF are always intriguing, even if we don't always agree. (Neely and Gartner are musts for the HHOF, IMO).

Gilmour is a lock. He has everything you'd ever want: 1,400-plus points, a brilliant playoff track record, an uncanny ability to elevate his play in the post-season, physical play, strong defensive awareness, intensity and leadership. He'll be a first ballot inductee.

Nieuwendyk will get in. He'd be borderline based on his regular season performance, but his playoff record will elevate his chances. One of the best money players of his generation. His playoff play is what separates him from Andreychuk.

I'd pick Vernon, too. Had a lot of great seasons, and some brilliant playoffs.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 09:01 PM
  #13
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Nice topic, JFF. Your insights into the HHOF are always intriguing, even if we don't always agree. (Neely and Gartner are musts for the HHOF, IMO).
I would begrudgingly give Gartner my vote. I would not vote for Neely, he didn't have enough "Hall of Fame" calibre years. If I voted for Neely, then I'd have to put Lindros in, and I wouldn't vote for the Big E, etiher.

I'll give you Langway & Garter ... and I'll take Howe & Propp, and I'll like my chances to win more often than not.




EDIT: We've had enough Neely threads, my hope is that this doesn't become another one.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 10:15 PM
  #14
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWINK19
I'll agree on Hawerchuk but not Gartner. The man scored over 700 goals, he deserves to be in.
He was consistently good, never great. I never once tuned into a game thinking "I want to see Gartner play". His career is noted by longevity, not accomplishments or dominance. Heck, was there any point in his career that he was even the best player on his team? I think back to most of his stops (Minnesota, New York, Caps, Leafs) and I can consistently name 3-5 players on that team that were better than him. He is in the Hawerchuk class (or Oates). His case is based on numbers, not play. The Hall of Fame is about players who are famous. Famous to me is a player who dominated or changed the game. Gartner did neither.

Like JFF said, you take a team of Gartners and I will take a team of Gilmours and I will win every time.

JCD is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 10:44 PM
  #15
JWINK19
southern Devils fan
 
JWINK19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wilmington, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
Gartner scored at least 32 goals in every full season except his last. He was a consistent scorer for his entire career. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

JWINK19 is offline  
Old
02-21-2006, 11:40 PM
  #16
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWINK19
Sorry, forgot about Mullen, which I guess would make the other poster's point that he shouldn't be in. I also forgot Gilmour (guess I'm getting old fast), but I don't know if Killer will get in. He was a very good player, but I can't say he's a drop dead lock for the Hall. Same thing with Nieuwendyk. The HOF is supposed to be for the best of the best, and IMO these guys are a notch below, regardless of the fact that they are better than a couple of guys that did get in.
Gilmour is a for sure Hall of Famer. In his first or second year of eligability. He was a legitimate superstar with the Leafs. He was a dominant player for ten years. His first 3 years and his final 6 seasons he was still a very effective and good player. He was one of the best players on the Flames cup team. He was even better in the playoffs. He led playoff scoring when he only went to the 3rd round with the Blues. He had a higher PPG in the playoffs than in the regular season 188 points in 182 games. He was dominant and one of the top 3 or 4 players in the world for 2 years with the Leafs. He won a Selke trophy and was always a great Defensive forward for his entire career. Gilmour was a true Warrior, he would do anything to win, he was relentless and even if when he wasn't scoring he was still always valuable to his team even in his last few years.

Gilmour was one of the best of the best. He is as clear a Hall of Famer as anyone that isn't Messier, Gretzky etc. He was considered a true star in St. Louis and Calgary before he became a mega star in Toronto. Watching the Calgary Cup win I was expecting Gilmour to win the Conn Smythe at the end of the Series. He certainly had to be considered for it.

Sens Rule is online now  
Old
02-22-2006, 06:04 AM
  #17
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWINK19
Gartner scored at least 32 goals in every full season except his last. He was a consistent scorer for his entire career. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Hall of Fame isn't about how many goals they have scored, it is about greatness. During his career, was Gartner ever considered great? I never heard it. We always heard how he was a regular season performer only who would fold in the play-offs.

Toss statistics out the window and Gartner isn't even mentioned for the Hall. Hall is about more than numbers.

We can agree to disagree.

JCD is offline  
Old
02-22-2006, 11:36 AM
  #18
V-2 Schneider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Why are doubts being raised about Hawerchuk's selection? He was a great player from the moment he entered the league, and played like an impact star.There is nothing dubious about having him in the HHOF.

I am one that,while appreciating Gartner's flashy skating, and consistent scoring,think he left no imprint, and I cannot recall Gartner ever being dominating.Same goes for Mullen.

V-2 Schneider is offline  
Old
02-22-2006, 11:40 AM
  #19
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 116,379
vCash: 102
Modano is in...he is one of the greatest American players of all time. And nowadays that's enough

__________________
Philadelphia's Real Alternative
(ynotradio.net)

Stop Feeding the Rumor-Monger

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2014 (sorry it's late)
GKJ is offline  
Old
02-22-2006, 12:00 PM
  #20
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
Hall of Fame isn't about how many goals they have scored, it is about greatness. During his career, was Gartner ever considered great? I never heard it. We always heard how he was a regular season performer only who would fold in the play-offs.

Toss statistics out the window and Gartner isn't even mentioned for the Hall. Hall is about more than numbers.

We can agree to disagree.
Say whatever you want. In this world, 708 goals is going to get you into the hall of fame. Add in that Gartner was one of the classic "Good Guys" in NHL history, and always was good to the media, who just happens to be the ones making this decision, and Gartner is a LOCK for the hall of fame. His stats are tremendous, but obscured because he played in one of the highest scoring eras ever. If a player were to come in now and put up Gartner stats he would be a superstar. It's the chicken vs. the egg, but I think he's getting in.

SML is offline  
Old
02-22-2006, 12:13 PM
  #21
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML
Say whatever you want. In this world, 708 goals is going to get you into the hall of fame. Add in that Gartner was one of the classic "Good Guys" in NHL history, and always was good to the media, who just happens to be the ones making this decision, and Gartner is a LOCK for the hall of fame. His stats are tremendous, but obscured because he played in one of the highest scoring eras ever. If a player were to come in now and put up Gartner stats he would be a superstar. It's the chicken vs. the egg, but I think he's getting in.
Gartner's a no-brainer. 700 goals is now the minimum needed to ensure enshrinement, Gartner reached 700, so he got in. Simple enough for you?

I think it was murray or MS (both respectable, knowledgable posters) who said a month ago that Gartner is sort of hockey's equivalent of Eddie Murray, a brilliant comparison that I hadn't thought of before. Not personality-wise, mind you, Eddie Murray was surly and not always the most pleasant guy to be around, while Gartner was personable and classy. They were never top five players (a case could be made for Murray at one point being a top 10 guy), but they used unprecedented consistentcy to reach levels of greatness that few have ever attained.

Gartner scored 30 goals 15 straight times (interrupted only by the lockout) and 17 times overall. It's one of the most respected individual career records in the game. That's why he's in the HHOF. I feel sorry for those who don't view unprecedented consistency as a sign of greatness.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
02-22-2006, 12:55 PM
  #22
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML
Say whatever you want. In this world, 708 goals is going to get you into the hall of fame. Add in that Gartner was one of the classic "Good Guys" in NHL history, and always was good to the media, who just happens to be the ones making this decision, and Gartner is a LOCK for the hall of fame. His stats are tremendous, but obscured because he played in one of the highest scoring eras ever. If a player were to come in now and put up Gartner stats he would be a superstar. It's the chicken vs. the egg, but I think he's getting in.
When the Baseball Hall of Fame unofficially established the Mendoza line, it became the Hall of Statistically Very Good.

Excuse me if I want the Hockey Hall of Fame to hold a higher standard.

Gartner was never a great player. The reason his stats are obscured is because in the high scoring era in which he played they were never that impressive. He had, what, ONE 50 goal season in his career? As a "Hall of Fame" goal scorer, was he ever in the top-5 (heck, top-10) for goals in any given year?

His career is noted for longevity and consistently. When the Hall for Long Consistent Careers is established, he can be the founding member. To me, the Hall of Fame is about players who made an impact on the game and represent the best the sport has to offer. Gartner doesn't fit that category. Since I am not alone in my beliefs, he is hardly "a lock". Messier is a lock. Hasek is a lock. A lock means somebody that nobody can have fault with.

JCD is offline  
Old
02-23-2006, 05:37 AM
  #23
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
As a "Hall of Fame" goal scorer, was he ever in the top-5 (heck, top-10) for goals in any given year?
He was in the top 10 4 times, and had a few seasons where he just barely missed out on the top 10. 1 top 5 finish, I think. Not too bad... I think he's a HOFer, but one of the lower end guys, never elite but very good a period of time that's pretty exceptional... I think that's a good enough achievement. He was scoring 30+ goals into his late thirties... very few guys can claim that. He was effective regardless of era, not a product of the 80s... though it's weird that he scored 30+ in 1997 when he was so old, and still only managed one 50 goal season in such a high scoring era. Always effective, but never TOO effective...

revolverjgw is offline  
Old
02-23-2006, 07:56 AM
  #24
jamiebez
Registered User
 
jamiebez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-2 Schneider
Why are doubts being raised about Hawerchuk's selection? He was a great player from the moment he entered the league, and played like an impact star.There is nothing dubious about having him in the HHOF.
I agree wholeheartedly, and I'm a little surprised to see it. This guy carried some pretty terrible teams during his 8 years in Winnipeg, and was one of the best of his era at his position. 10th all-time in scoring when he retired and 2 Canada Cups and 2 Memorial Cups to boot....

jamiebez is offline  
Old
02-23-2006, 09:35 AM
  #25
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw
He was in the top 10 4 times, and had a few seasons where he just barely missed out on the top 10. 1 top 5 finish, I think. Not too bad... I think he's a HOFer, but one of the lower end guys, never elite but very good a period of time that's pretty exceptional... I think that's a good enough achievement. He was scoring 30+ goals into his late thirties... very few guys can claim that. He was effective regardless of era, not a product of the 80s... though it's weird that he scored 30+ in 1997 when he was so old, and still only managed one 50 goal season in such a high scoring era. Always effective, but never TOO effective...
That is all that needs to be said IMO. Hall is about more than just the numbers. Gartner was never elite and elite is what the Hall is for. When they construct the Hall of Very Good, he can go there.

I know he is already in, but I totally disagree with the selection.

JCD 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 08:43 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.