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.

Do they deserve to be in the HHOF? pt. 2

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-06-2006, 07:53 PM
  #1
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,513
vCash: 500
Do they deserve to be in the HHOF? pt. 2

Another bunch of guys who seem to be according to people's opinions, on the border either way of the HHOF.


J-C Tremblay - As far as I'm concerned he's close to a top 5 list of guys that arent in the HHOF. I know the REAL reason he's not in there. Of course jumping to the WHA doesnt help, but Bobby Hull did it. But then again the public wouldnt stand for Hull not being in the HHOF, they can for Tremblay. Played his whole career with the Habs, won 5 Cups and was a big player on each of those. Was a second team all-star in '68 and a first team all-star in '71. He had a career high of 63 points which was big for a defenseman back then, still is. He's also a name you hear of guys who werent invited to Team Canada in '72, he was missed there. I say put him in already.

Carl Brewer - Another guy who got a lot of people mad and I think that helps in keeping him out of the HHOF. But lets keep it on the ice. He was a second team all-star in '62, '65, '70. Was a first team in '63, losing out the Norris Trophy to Pierre Pilote, not a bad choice. Also was part of the Leafs three Cups from '62-64. The knock is Brewer left the NHL in '65. He didnt return until '69. he lost four years there. In total he played only 12 seasons in the NHL. I think it hurt his legacy coming back ot Toronto in '79-80 for 20 games. Now that he's dead people just might forget about him. His prime was short and it hurt him to leave the NHL in '65. Other than that he probably was a lock.

Mark Howe - He's always a hotly contested topic. Its hard to believe a guy with three first team all-star ('83, '86, '87) isnt in the HHOF. He had a great and I think long enough prime in his 16 year career. I think it hurts him that he has no Cup although he has two Cup final appearances. A Norris Trophy would have helped him too. Aside from that he led the NHL in plus/minus in '86.

Curtis Joseph - This will be a huge debate when his time comes up. He's got over 400 wins which will help. He has a playoff record that's below .500 though and even though he may be considered the best 1st round goalie of all time to me that's a knock. Once the 2nd round of the playoffs hit Joseph disapearred faster than the Roadrunner (not Yvan Cournoyer). He had some BAD game 7s in his career ('93, '01) and although he had some good moments it seemed when push came to shove he wasnt ready for the pressure ('96 World Cup). Joseph was an acrobatic goalie who did help his team but he has no Vezinas, no post season all-stars, and no Cups as well as Cup finals appearances. He never led the league in anything either, and in his prime he was always behind Roy, hasek and Brodeur at least. History tells us that a goalie basically has to win the Cup if he wants a chance at the HHOF unless its a case like Eddie Giacomin who had 5 post season all-star nods. That said Cujo has a better chance than Cup champ Khabibulin, but goalies have to be great to get in. There arent many if any goalies that get contested in the HHOF. Right now I say no to Cujo.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2006, 08:47 PM
  #2
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,887
vCash: 500
All three of those defencemen deserve to be in. The ratio of defencemen to forwards in the Hall is far too small. It`s a joke that Tremblay, Brewer and especially Howe aren`t there, but Gartner, Federko and Gillies are.

What you said about goalies not having a chance if they don`t win a Cup is true and very unfair; it seems to apply to defencemen too. But the Hall seems to have no problem inducting forwards with flimsy playoff portfolios.

reckoning is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2006, 08:55 PM
  #3
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,900
vCash: 968
I'm a big Glen Anderson fan but aside from his omission I think Howe is a glaring mark on the institution in Toronto which I no longer recognize. From what I read, the other two defencemen as well. Cujo? Not for me..

Bring Back Bucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2006, 09:05 PM
  #4
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Another bunch of guys who seem to be according to people's opinions, on the border either way of the HHOF.


J-C Tremblay - As far as I'm concerned he's close to a top 5 list of guys that arent in the HHOF. I know the REAL reason he's not in there. Of course jumping to the WHA doesnt help, but Bobby Hull did it. But then again the public wouldnt stand for Hull not being in the HHOF, they can for Tremblay. Played his whole career with the Habs, won 5 Cups and was a big player on each of those. Was a second team all-star in '68 and a first team all-star in '71. He had a career high of 63 points which was big for a defenseman back then, still is. He's also a name you hear of guys who werent invited to Team Canada in '72, he was missed there. I say put him in already.

Carl Brewer - Another guy who got a lot of people mad and I think that helps in keeping him out of the HHOF. But lets keep it on the ice. He was a second team all-star in '62, '65, '70. Was a first team in '63, losing out the Norris Trophy to Pierre Pilote, not a bad choice. Also was part of the Leafs three Cups from '62-64. The knock is Brewer left the NHL in '65. He didnt return until '69. he lost four years there. In total he played only 12 seasons in the NHL. I think it hurt his legacy coming back ot Toronto in '79-80 for 20 games. Now that he's dead people just might forget about him. His prime was short and it hurt him to leave the NHL in '65. Other than that he probably was a lock.

Mark Howe - He's always a hotly contested topic. Its hard to believe a guy with three first team all-star ('83, '86, '87) isnt in the HHOF. He had a great and I think long enough prime in his 16 year career. I think it hurts him that he has no Cup although he has two Cup final appearances. A Norris Trophy would have helped him too. Aside from that he led the NHL in plus/minus in '86.

Curtis Joseph - This will be a huge debate when his time comes up. He's got over 400 wins which will help. He has a playoff record that's below .500 though and even though he may be considered the best 1st round goalie of all time to me that's a knock. Once the 2nd round of the playoffs hit Joseph disapearred faster than the Roadrunner (not Yvan Cournoyer). He had some BAD game 7s in his career ('93, '01) and although he had some good moments it seemed when push came to shove he wasnt ready for the pressure ('96 World Cup). Joseph was an acrobatic goalie who did help his team but he has no Vezinas, no post season all-stars, and no Cups as well as Cup finals appearances. He never led the league in anything either, and in his prime he was always behind Roy, hasek and Brodeur at least. History tells us that a goalie basically has to win the Cup if he wants a chance at the HHOF unless its a case like Eddie Giacomin who had 5 post season all-star nods. That said Cujo has a better chance than Cup champ Khabibulin, but goalies have to be great to get in. There arent many if any goalies that get contested in the HHOF. Right now I say no to Cujo.
Not a big fan of the official HOF selection methodsa s there is too much secrecy & some very questionable elections. By their standards all these guys should be in. By my standards, JC Trembly is in. CUJO is out & the others are borderline. Would probably vote for Brewer just because of his rebel persona.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2006, 10:09 PM
  #5
ForsbergForever
Red Rocket
 
ForsbergForever's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
All three of those defencemen deserve to be in. The ratio of defencemen to forwards in the Hall is far too small. It`s a joke that Tremblay, Brewer and especially Howe aren`t there, but Gartner, Federko and Gillies are.

What you said about goalies not having a chance if they don`t win a Cup is true and very unfair; it seems to apply to defencemen too. But the Hall seems to have no problem inducting forwards with flimsy playoff portfolios.
Gartner, as in Mike Gartner? With his 708 goals and 1335 points? I'd say he'd make anyone's Hall of Fame.

ForsbergForever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2006, 10:45 PM
  #6
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Carl Brewer was one of the most talented defencemen to play the game. And, he never reached his potential either. I think that Brewer's off ice achievements could make him eligible to be voted in as a builder. But politics may keep him out.

The Carl Brewer book is coming out in early October and its an interesting and informative read - not just for the Eagleson affair but in trying to understand Brewer, a tormented and complex person.

I don't know why Mark Howe isn't in. Having played in the WHA might work against J.C. Tremblay but he is deserving to be considered as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
All three of those defencemen deserve to be in. The ratio of defencemen to forwards in the Hall is far too small. It`s a joke that Tremblay, Brewer and especially Howe aren`t there, but Gartner, Federko and Gillies are.

What you said about goalies not having a chance if they don`t win a Cup is true and very unfair; it seems to apply to defencemen too. But the Hall seems to have no problem inducting forwards with flimsy playoff portfolios.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2006, 11:46 PM
  #7
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
I think the WHA works against both Howe and Tremblay. They'd never keep a guy like Bobby Hull out just because he played in the WHA. Come on. But guys like Howe and Tremblay, who would be defined as borderline cases? Incidentally, I list those two as the two best defencemen not in the HHOF. Both incredible players. Howe was good enough to be a first-team all-star in the 80s, when there was plenty of competition for those spots. Tremblay? A two-time all-star, a five-time Cup champion, and a top defenceman in both the NHL and the WHA.

Brewer is No. 3 on my list for best eligible defenceman not in the HHOF. I think he should be there. Problem is, he pissed off a lot of people. Again, when you're borderline, if the voters have something against you, it seems you're in trouble. And I'd rate Brewer as borderline. Interesting to note: his four all-star selections are the most by an eligible defenceman not in the HHOF. (Rob Blake also has four). Thanks for the heads up on the Brewer bio, Classic. Look forward to reading it. Did you work on it at all?

As for CuJo: I think he'll be one of the most debated goalies for years to come. You don't need to have a Cup to get in the HHOF if you're a goalie. Ed Giacomin never won a Cup. Of course, Giacomin was a five-time all-star. An all-star five straight years, to be exact. Joseph? A Vezina finalist in 1993 and 2001. No all-star selections. He was never on a team that had a legitimate chance to win a Cup until he arrived in Detroit. His Detroit years won't be fondly remembered, although you could hardly blame him for Detroit's offensive failures in 2003 and 2004 that was ultimately their undoing. While Joseph has been excellent in several first rounds (1993, 1997-1999, etc), he's developed a reputation for fading. That could be due to overwork or fatigue, it could he isn't the guy you want in net in an elimination game after the first round. And that's what I think will keep him out of the HHOF. Not the lack of a Cup. Not the absence of all-star selections. But the fact that he often would follow up a fantastic performance in the first round, with an auspicious effort in the second.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2006, 11:52 PM
  #8
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsberg4ever View Post
Gartner, as in Mike Gartner? With his 708 goals and 1335 points? I'd say he'd make anyone's Hall of Fame.
You'd be surprised how many people around here don't view Gartner as an HHOFer. Never a top 10 player in the league. To me, the biggie is that he was a playoff choke artist. Gartner, Bryan Murray and shoddy goaltending (not necessarily in that order) were the reasons Washington was a perennial playoff flop in the 1980s, despite having some terrific teams.

I think Gartner belongs. 700 goals appears to be the one remaining gimmie accolade for HHOF induction. (Maybe 1,000 assists. Everyone in that club is in the HHOF, or will be in the HHOF). Nine 40-goal seasons. (Tied for the third most of all-time). His 17 30-goal seasons (a run only interrupted by the lockout) is a very, very well-respected distinguishment.

My first (but not the only) criteria for HHOF worthiness is playoff performance. If you were a dominant playoff performer, you get in. That's why I'm leaning more and more to JFF's side when it comes to Brian Propp's worthiness. That's why Glenn Anderson belongs. If you weren't, you'd better have some regular season credentials that simply can't be ignored. Mike Gartner and Marcel Dionne are two of the very, very few that fit in that category for me.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2006, 11:54 PM
  #9
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 20,767
vCash: 500
Howe should have been in years ago. Top-5 defender of the 1980s, and one of only two modern-era players to be elite players both at forward and defense.

Tremblay should be in as well.

Brewer is a tough call. Was on his way to a HHOF career, then retired at age 26 and only played one full season after that. Very short career. To induct a player with a career that short, IMO he should probably have a Norris. But then he was a defining figure in the NHL labour movement, which has to be considered. A player I'm really on the fence with.

I'll support Joseph's induction if he hits 500 wins, which would be a truly great milestone. But no Cups, no awards, and no All-star berths, so otherwise he's a no.

MS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2006, 12:17 AM
  #10
Bluesfan1981
Registered User
 
Bluesfan1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Yes to all. With Joseph I'm biased as a Blues fan, but he might end up 4th all-time with more than 500 wins.

Bluesfan1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2006, 12:25 AM
  #11
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Interesting observation on Brewer, his All-Star selections and the HHOF, I didn't know that. (Too bad the book is already printed). I did help with the Brewer book and its called, 'The Power of Two' as told by Susan Foster, who was Brewer's long time partner. Carl Brewer had left a lot of notes of his thoughts throughout the years and those are incorporated in the book. Another book that I also worked on and I recommend is the 'Searching for Bobby Orr' book by Stephen Brunt.

But back to Brewer, I use intangibles to rate a player's worthiness and one of the most important is the opinions of the player's peers - both those who played with and against a player. I think those views are so valuable in judging the worth of a player. They are the ones who really know. Brewer was a definite Hall of Famer if you talk to Brewer's peers.
Another factor in rating a player's worth is if he made the players around him better. Its hard to say with some players but with Brewer there was no question. The best example is of Bob Baun. Together, Brewer and Baun formed an outstanding defence tandem. When Brewer retired, Baun seemed lost and became an irregular on the Leaf defence. It took years for Baun to adjust. Larry Hillman, who replaced Baun on the Leaf defence explained to me that with Baun's style of standing up and challenging players at the blueline, Brewer was the only player who was not only quick enough but had the instinct to know when and where Baun would be taking himself out of the play and leave Brewer to jump on the loose puck. No other Leaf defenceman on the Leaf team could do what Brewer did for Baun - not Pronovost, not Hillman, not anyone.

I'd like to see more posters evaluate players not simply by the stats but by using intangibles like those I mentioned. The HHOF selection committee thinks this way as well and its obvious a lot of people here are mystified by their choices without trying to understand their reasoning. I don't always agree with the results but I can understand their thinking. Clark Gillies, to me is not a HHOF player. But if you use the criteria I mentioned like the player's peers view of playing with and against him, and if he made his linemates better, then there could be a case made for Gillies.

I'd like to see the same criteria used on the borderline cases that have been mentioned in this thread. Then decide if the player is HHOF worthy.

It would be an interesting exercise. Did Claude Provost make the players around him better. I don't think so. But did his peers regard Provost as tough to play against. Maybe. What about Gartner who is in? What about Federko who is in? What about Mark Howe and others who are not in?

[QUOTE=God Bless Canada;6438420]Thanks for the heads up on the Brewer bio, Classic. Look forward to reading it. Did you work on it at all?

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2006, 01:02 AM
  #12
ForsbergForever
Red Rocket
 
ForsbergForever's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,993
vCash: 500
I think if Dick Duff can get in the gates are wide open for pretty much all comers.

ForsbergForever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2006, 04:05 AM
  #13
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,275
vCash: 500
If Shorty Green is in the Hall as a player, Carl Brewer should be in. Brewer was a much better player, equally brief career and just as, if not more, important outside of the rink than Green.

Tremblay and Howe are perfect examples of why the people who run the Hall are incapable of doing their job. Their biases make it the NHL Hall of Fame, it's the Hockey Hall of Fame, and if the people in the selection committee can't except that, they shouldn't be on the selection committe.

Curtis Joseph... The 6th best goalie of an era does not merit Hall of Fame selection, even during the dead puck era.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2006, 10:30 AM
  #14
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
All 3 defencemen should be in and should have been in a while ago.

With Joseph I will still say no until he wins something. Ultimately I feel that the older goalies who played out the string in the late 90s have inflated win totals due to the so-called "Dead Puck" era when defences ruled. This applies not only to Joseph, but also Belfour, Vernon, and even Roy, Hasek and Brodeur.

The point is that for golaies who played in that era you can not simply use wins or even GAA as a measuring stick. The only thing that makes sense would be All-Star selections and playoff success. In that respect Roy, Hasek and Brodeur are still among the all time greats, Belfour a step below, Vernon on the bubble with Joseph and a host of others on the outside looking in IMO.

Malefic74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2006, 01:46 PM
  #15
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
I don't buy the WHA theory for Tremblay and Howe, and I can't imagine that anyone on the selection committee really cares that a player played in a rival league thirty years ago. Dave Keon played in the WHA, and apparently the Hall didn't have any animosity towards him. Michel Goulet did, too.

Even if Tremblay and Howe had never played for the WHA, their exclusion wouldn't be that surprising. Both are the kind of players that are usually undervalued and underpraised. "Quiet" performers, not flashy, just solid and steady at a high level. Yes, I'd vote for both, but so what? It ain't my Hall of Fame.

As to what criteria the HoF should use, the question should be asked: Who is the Hall of Fame for? Is it for the players? Is it for the fans? Is it for the Hall itself? Is it for Truth, Justice and the North American Way? What purposes do the inductions serve (aside from making money for the Hall, which isn't a bad thing...). Aside from debates on barstools and the internet, does the honor carry that much relevance any more?

Snap Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2006, 07:51 PM
  #16
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsberg4ever View Post
Gartner, as in Mike Gartner? With his 708 goals and 1335 points? I'd say he'd make anyone's Hall of Fame.
I would put Gartner in for sheer career numbers. But in terms of greatness at his peak. Having watched Mark Howe on the Flyers and Gartner for his whole career. Howe was magnitudes better. What would you want on your team? The 2nd or 3rd maybe 4th Defenceman in the NHL or a 40 goal guy that doesn't raise his game in the playoffs? I'll take Howe over Gartner any day of the week and I missed out on watching Howe all through his stellar WHA career and his time in Hartford.

Sens Rule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2006, 11:37 AM
  #17
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Personally, I also don't buy the WHA theory of working against the star players. If the there was a player who was just great in the WHA and not at all in the NHL, then I can see that.

Good point about who the Hall of Fame is for but it obviously the mandate is about celebrating the game's greatest players. Having said that, its naive to think there isn't any politics involved.

As for significance, you better believe that, other than the Stanley Cup, induction into the HHOF is the greatest honour a player can have. Players are extremely adamant and emotional about that.

It must mean something to the fans because there is so much discussion about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp View Post
I don't buy the WHA theory for Tremblay and Howe, and I can't imagine that anyone on the selection committee really cares that a player played in a rival league thirty years ago. Dave Keon played in the WHA, and apparently the Hall didn't have any animosity towards him. Michel Goulet did, too.

Even if Tremblay and Howe had never played for the WHA, their exclusion wouldn't be that surprising. Both are the kind of players that are usually undervalued and underpraised. "Quiet" performers, not flashy, just solid and steady at a high level. Yes, I'd vote for both, but so what? It ain't my Hall of Fame.

As to what criteria the HoF should use, the question should be asked: Who is the Hall of Fame for? Is it for the players? Is it for the fans? Is it for the Hall itself? Is it for Truth, Justice and the North American Way? What purposes do the inductions serve (aside from making money for the Hall, which isn't a bad thing...). Aside from debates on barstools and the internet, does the honor carry that much relevance any more?

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2006, 11:46 AM
  #18
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
You are missing my point. After reading the posts here, the thread might be to rename it to the 'Hockey Hall of Fame of Statistics'. There is so much emphasis here on entry into the Hall solely based on stats.

It just doesn't work that way, nor it should. You think the people on the selection committee are incompetent, yet you don't take into consideration that they are basing their selections from a completely different perspective that you do. Does that make them wrong or incompetent?

Regarding Shorty Green, the people and standards that inducted him into the HHOF are completely different today. Smythe, Adams, Selke etc. aren't around today to vote. Its unfair to blame the selectors today for Green in the Hall. But again, you are just looking at the stats without knowing (I presume) anything about what Green contibuted to the game at the time. And the era of hockey then is nothing like it is now.

I certainly don't agree with all the selections either. But we have to understand what happens in the meetings. They just don't flash up the career stats of a player. It doesn't work that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
If Shorty Green is in the Hall as a player, Carl Brewer should be in. Brewer was a much better player, equally brief career and just as, if not more, important outside of the rink than Green.

Tremblay and Howe are perfect examples of why the people who run the Hall are incapable of doing their job. Their biases make it the NHL Hall of Fame, it's the Hockey Hall of Fame, and if the people in the selection committee can't except that, they shouldn't be on the selection committe.

Curtis Joseph... The 6th best goalie of an era does not merit Hall of Fame selection, even during the dead puck era.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2006, 01:23 PM
  #19
Chili
Registered User
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: la Belle Province
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 3,180
vCash: 500
I saw others attempt it (i.e. Guy Lapointe) but I have never seen another player who could duplicate the 'JC Tremblay bounce'. I don't know how many goals he scored on those but he left a few goalers pretty red faced (it was a long shot that he would flip high in the air towards the net from the center ice area). Based on his combined NHL/WHA career he should be in the Hall to me. Mark Howe is probably the same, although I did not see very much of his WHA career. Carl Brewer's best days were before my time. His talent is clear though when you watch the Leafs in the early '60's games (mobility, skill).

Cujo would not get my vote. He has won alot of regular season games but I don't ever remember him being able to raise the level of his game in the playoffs. And he did play on some good teams in his career.

Chili is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2006, 01:50 PM
  #20
jamiebez
Registered User
 
jamiebez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp View Post
I don't buy the WHA theory for Tremblay and Howe, and I can't imagine that anyone on the selection committee really cares that a player played in a rival league thirty years ago. Dave Keon played in the WHA, and apparently the Hall didn't have any animosity towards him. Michel Goulet did, too.
I don't think it's a question of animosity (although I wouldn't rule that out completely ) rather a question of competitiveness. Most people don't believe that the WHA was on par with the NHL, skill-wsie, so I think the accomplishments of WHAers are diminished in the eyes of many voters.

You mentioned Keon and Goulet, and someone else mentioned Hull, but those players enjoyed their best years either before or after their WHA years. There is not one player in the HHOF who played their "prime" years in the WHA. Howe and to a lesser extent, Tremblay, are probably the only two who did that merit discussion, which is why those names always come up on these threads. Real Cloutier would have been a real (no pun intended) interesting debate if his career had lasted longer, too.

jamiebez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2006, 05:59 PM
  #21
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 jamiebez View Post
I don't think it's a question of animosity (although I wouldn't rule that out completely ) rather a question of competitiveness. Most people don't believe that the WHA was on par with the NHL, skill-wsie, so I think the accomplishments of WHAers are diminished in the eyes of many voters.

You mentioned Keon and Goulet, and someone else mentioned Hull, but those players enjoyed their best years either before or after their WHA years. There is not one player in the HHOF who played their "prime" years in the WHA. Howe and to a lesser extent, Tremblay, are probably the only two who did that merit discussion, which is why those names always come up on these threads. Real Cloutier would have been a real (no pun intended) interesting debate if his career had lasted longer, too.
I believe you could add Marc Tardif into that category as well. He was easily one of the best players in the WHA. 666 pts in 446 games although he was never the same player after the cowardly attack by Rick Jodzio nearly killed him.

But even if you add his numbers from the NHL he has 1067 points in 963 games with 510 goals. The Nords retired his number when he retired.

Malefic74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2006, 06:38 PM
  #22
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey View Post
Regarding Shorty Green, the people and standards that inducted him into the HHOF are completely different today. Smythe, Adams, Selke etc. aren't around today to vote. Its unfair to blame the selectors today for Green in the Hall. But again, you are just looking at the stats without knowing (I presume) anything about what Green contibuted to the game at the time. And the era of hockey then is nothing like it is now.
My point is that Shorty Green is in the Hall for his contribution to players rights first, and on ice play second. And using that sort of criteria. Carl Brewer is a sure fire Hall of Famer.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2006, 11:37 PM
  #23
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Actually, the players rights thing and the fact that he was part of the leadership that led the Hamilton Tiger players to strike would have worked against him in those days. Shorty Green was a local hero, a star for the Hamilton Tigers before they moved to New York. Not only that, you could say that he helped build the New York Americans by his play and being a drawing card. There is plenty to consider him a true Hall of Famer (if you can get your head around just stats, which weren't that plentiful in those days.).

He is actually held in high regard by historians.

As an aside, Shorty Green scored the first ever goal in Madison Square Garden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
My point is that Shorty Green is in the Hall for his contribution to players rights first, and on ice play second. And using that sort of criteria. Carl Brewer is a sure fire Hall of Famer.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2006, 12:10 AM
  #24
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,980
vCash: 500
I definitely think Howe should be in.


EDIT: While I remember, a big "NO" for Cujo. Hey, that rhymed...


Last edited by Transported Upstater: 09-10-2006 at 05:40 PM. Reason: Cujo smells like skate funk.
Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2006, 06:08 AM
  #25
Randall Graves*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 18,621
vCash: 500
Could someone provide some background info on Carl Brewer and JC Tremblay and why they are not in the HOF?

As for Cujo..I'd put him in, he played on some mediocre teams and stood on his head to even get him out of round 1, some of the teams he played on were just too overmatched. Although I think what hurts his cause more than anything is his stint in Detroit where he did play on what was preceived to be a tremendous team and he didn't get them anywhere. But 400 wins, very good all around stats I'd say he gets in. It is not his fault that he played in an era with 3 of the top 10 goalies of all time(Roy, Hasek, Broduer) and arguably 4 of the top 20-25 ever(Belfour)

He has a chance at 500 wins for me he'd be in but I don't know how the inner workings of the HHOF voters are.


Last edited by Randall Graves*: 09-10-2006 at 06:19 AM.
Randall Graves* 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 10:17 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.