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.

Marc Tardif - HoF??

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2006, 10:18 AM
  #26
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Its a shame that there is such a fixation on statistics here. Listing where a player finished in the scoring stats may give you the sense of knowing about a certain player but in reality it means little in the broad scope of things. With all due respect to the posters here, and there are many excellent things written here, its what you don't know that makes this discussion incomplete and inadequate.

You simply cannot measure a player's worth by stats.

Fortunately, hockey people don't think that way. Of course, they have information that is not available to you but there aren't many in this thread that even try to properly analyse a player's true worth using other factors.

With thinking like that, its easy to see why some people here can't
fully comprehend why certain players are inducted. Its fun disagreeing of course, but the same statistical reasons are used over and over again.

It should be obvious that there is more to the game than scoring - I've listed these intangibles before - but I think I'll give up as know one seems convinced.

Regarding the Leafs of the 60's getting inducted prior to Duff - out of Bower, Horton, Stanley, Keon, Mahovlich, Armstrong, Pulford - only Pulford is the one that shouldn't belong. Others like Kelly, & Olmstead from that team made their HHOF worth on other teams. So, if you recall that there were only 6 teams in the NHL in the 60's and less than 120 players and the Leafs won 4 Cups, how can you say that 7 players of those Leafs teams indicate a unwarranted dominance in the HHOF? It doesn't. Detroit from the 60' s had Sawchuk, Pronovost, Ullman, Delvecchio, Howe and Gadsby if you want to count him . That's 6 players and they won nothing. Its a ridiculous argument. All those Leafs except Pulford belong. Pulford was a very good player but is perceived as a political appointment.

The argument about putting every Leaf in the HHOF makes no sense if its really analysed. I'm sure though that some poster here will still mention it.

We had Dave Keon in a question and answer session last night and he talked about the players he played with and against. It would be very enlightening to many here to listen and find out the true effectiveness of those players. The stats were not mentioned once.

I'll say this last thing about Dick Duff - not that it will make any difference because of this fixation on stats - but the legacy that Dick Duff left was his ability to transform the Leafs of the mid 50's from a team of underachievers and losers into the team that emerged into the dynasty of the 60's.

According to those in the know, it was Duff's spirit, never give up attitude that changed the attitude and gave the impetus to his teammates to believe in themselves. Yes, he was the Leafs top goal scorer and best player on the ice for that period but it was the influence that he had with his intangibles that made him a most valuable asset. Its not me saying this but the hockey men and the players of the time. That legacy was a big reason why he was considered for induction into the HHOF. Disagree all you want, but you can't change what really happened.

True 'research' is not reciting stats and comparing players from different eras.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
As for Duff I did some research. He was never more than 17th in NHL scoring. Ever. Now I know he's more than stats but come on! Duff won 6 Cups, thats fine but so did Kevin Lowe. Bob Bourne, and for that matter the '81 Conn Smythe Trophy winner Goring were at least as important to their teams success then Duff. Do you remember Dick Duff being on anyone's list as best player not in the Hall? I dont think he would have even been on the radar. If Bob Pulford was the most controversial choice before Duff then the bar has been lowered.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2006, 12:04 PM
  #27
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Classic, it would be silly to argue a player's intangibles without having seen him or read about how he was regarded by his peers. You saw him, you are involved in the business and know what people think. I saw Claude Provost and know how valued he was to a great team. I know how important Peter Mahovlich was during a certain period.

The issue gets to the definition of a hof'er. If you limit membership to exclusively dominant players, well stats become more the yardstick. Hockey's hof isn't as exclusive as baseball's, at least imo., but maybe baseball's more of a #'s sport. If hockey wants to recognize more than that and include guys who contribute in many ways past the #'s, I have no arguement. I don't need the Hall to confirm my memories.

Regarding the Leafs, their 60's teams are well recognized, but I wonder if fan objection, can be partly due to the type of players that were on the team. Pulford and Armstrong are perfect examples of good long term steady, effective players. They weren't flashy, were never looked at as 'the guy' but contributed mightily. This could have a bit to do with it, other than the obvious Toronto centric stuff that you'll hear no matter what.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2006, 12:08 PM
  #28
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,035
vCash: 500
To me, the biggest tragedy of the WHA is that Bobby Hull could have over 900 goals if he stayed his entire career in the NHL.

kmad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2006, 07:24 PM
  #29
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by third_sedin View Post
To me, the biggest tragedy of the WHA is that Bobby Hull could have over 900 goals if he stayed his entire career in the NHL.
I think you must have missed Classic Hockey's post above starting with the first sentence.

chooch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2006, 10:16 PM
  #30
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch View Post
I think you must have missed Classic Hockey's post above starting with the first sentence.
I'm confused...are you talking about the "being too obsessed with statistics" thing? If so, what's the problem with Bobby Hull (who, after all, is who kmad was referring to in his post)? Isn't Hull being easily the best LW in the history of hockey and a Top 10 player all-time enough?

Maybe I'm just missing something...

Transported Upstater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2006, 07:55 PM
  #31
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
Classic, it would be silly to argue a player's intangibles without having seen him or read about how he was regarded by his peers. You saw him, you are involved in the business and know what people think. I saw Claude Provost and know how valued he was to a great team. I know how important Peter Mahovlich was during a certain period.

The issue gets to the definition of a hof'er. If you limit membership to exclusively dominant players, well stats become more the yardstick. Hockey's hof isn't as exclusive as baseball's, at least imo., but maybe baseball's more of a #'s sport. If hockey wants to recognize more than that and include guys who contribute in many ways past the #'s, I have no arguement. I don't need the Hall to confirm my memories.

Regarding the Leafs, their 60's teams are well recognized, but I wonder if fan objection, can be partly due to the type of players that were on the team. Pulford and Armstrong are perfect examples of good long term steady, effective players. They weren't flashy, were never looked at as 'the guy' but contributed mightily. This could have a bit to do with it, other than the obvious Toronto centric stuff that you'll hear no matter what.
Yes, but why should slightly above average players like Armstong, Pulford & Duff be in the HOF whereas slightly above average players like Dean Prentice & Eric Nesterenko not be. Because they played for Toronto & won Stanley cups. They won those Stanley cups because they were lucky enough to be on teams with great goaltending & great coaching.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2006, 09:41 PM
  #32
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,618
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by murray View Post
Yes, but why should slightly above average players like Armstong, Pulford & Duff be in the HOF whereas slightly above average players like Dean Prentice & Eric Nesterenko not be. Because they played for Toronto & won Stanley cups. They won those Stanley cups because they were lucky enough to be on teams with great goaltending & great coaching.
Half the guys in the hall are good players on great teams.

Would Bill Barber or Steve Shutt be in the Hall if they had played for the Oakland Seals? Would Glenn Anderson even be considered if he played for the Leafs during the 80's? His clutch postseason play probably wouldn't have even had the chance to happen. Maybe Rick Vaive's 3 straight 50 goal seaons (and 9 straight over 30) are seen in a different light if he played for the Islanders or Oilers?

On one hand, I hate the argument that cups are a measure of individual success. On the other hand, these guys were all key contributors to their teams success, and won the ultimate prize many times. You can't take that away from them.

I've just learned to accept it for what it is. There's guys who would be hall-of-famers regardless, and then there's guys who may have just been lucky or unlucky enough to be on whichever team they landed on.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2006, 09:55 PM
  #33
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Winning counts. 4 Stanley Cups are hard to ignore. Winning and contributing to championships was a measuring point, is a measuring point and will always be a measuring point. The thought is that a certain player contributed to the Stanley Cup victory. If you were talking about Eddie Shack, Ron Stewart and Larry Hillman, then I agree that they were lucky to be on a championship team. But not Pulford, Armstrong and Duff. Each had huge contribitions to the Leaf championships - Pulford scored some key goals and he turned his game up especially defensively. Armstrong was the glue that held the team together and exhibited enormous leadership and points, Duff scored many clutch goals.

I agree about great goaltending but I'm not so sure about great coaching. Punch Imlach was a good bench coach sometimes but he was very lacking in many other areas. In fact, the 1967 Cup win for the Leafs was won in despite of Imlach. The players met on their own after game 2 in Chicago and planned their own strategy and followed it through. Imlach wasn't dumb enough to interfere when they were winning. Any player from that 1967 team will tell you that.

Eric Nesterenko had a long career and was mostly known as a defensive player. If you compare him to Armstrong then he lacks the intangible of leadership that Armstong showed as captain. Conn Smythe said that 'as a captain, George Armstrong was the best he ever had - and that is saying something considering that Teeder Kennedy & Syl Apps were Leaf captains. Armstrong was also an intense competitor who refused to give up. You may disagree but the feeling is that Nesterenko was never a leader and never had the intensity that he should have had. Interesting to note that when Nesterenko came up with the Leafs, they were hailing him as the next 'Jean Beliveau'. Nesterenko had the talent but not the head to become a star player.

I like Dean Prentice and there was a move to get him into the HHOF. But unfortunately, Prentice never had the extra intangibles to make him stand out and he didn't contribute to any Stanley Cup victories. That seems unfair because his best years were with poor teams. But if you compare him to Armstrong, then I think Armstrong's 'extras' certainly helped him get inducted. He was a very, very valuable performer for the Leafs.

Bob Pulford was an above average player but his inclusion into the HHOF is very debatable. His career put him on the cusp but I think that his connections got him over the top. Now don't say Toronto Maple Leaf connections. His connections were Wirtz and Eagleson. Don't bring the Toronto influence in here because it simply wasn't a factor - Wirtz, Eagleson and other cronies were involved.

So, its not the stats with any of these guys, its the 'other' contributions.

By the way, there are plans to bring back the members of the 1967 Leafs for a gala 40th anniversary celebration and charity affair. I'm on the committee and I'm sure you would love to attend that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by murray View Post
Yes, but why should slightly above average players like Armstong, Pulford & Duff be in the HOF whereas slightly above average players like Dean Prentice & Eric Nesterenko not be. Because they played for Toronto & won Stanley cups. They won those Stanley cups because they were lucky enough to be on teams with great goaltending & great coaching.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2006, 10:15 PM
  #34
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
I know that a lot of these older players are unknown to a lot of guys here. Even with some of the recent players, the intangibles are not always evident.

I just wanted to point out that if stats were the only measuring stick, then there's no need for a selection committee - just draw a line at a certain point for goals and every above that line is an automatic Hall of Famer. If you were a coach in the NHL, you would shudder at such a thought.

I also wanted to stress that the selection committee uses all of the players qualities when considering induction. You have to agree that their method is better than the simple stats category that so many people here seem to think is the only measuring stick. Those are the same people who are blasting the selection committee for incompetence when its their own lack of analyses that is 'lacking'.

If a player gets inducted but he doesn't have the superior stats, then guaranteed that player has something else that got him inducted. It makes sense.

I didn't agree with Clark Gillies in the HHOF but if you talk to Bryan Trottier or any opponents of Gillies, they will fiercely defend Gillies major contributions to the success of that team. I keep saying - the players know. They really do. So much more than we could because we aren't on the ice with those guys.

I still think there is no real debate here if the posters just use stats. It would be much more interesting if people starting asking questions about what other things those players bring to the table.

By the way, Dave Keon believes that Mark Howe was one of the most talented players he ever played with. I think Mark Howe should be in the HHOF. He even here played in the Olympics when he was 16 years old.

Coming back to Claude Provost. Why don't you list the 'extras' that he brought to the game. Interesting that Provost played on such a great team of stars and that would make him less well known and less appreciated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
Classic, it would be silly to argue a player's intangibles without having seen him or read about how he was regarded by his peers. You saw him, you are involved in the business and know what people think. I saw Claude Provost and know how valued he was to a great team. I know how important Peter Mahovlich was during a certain period.

The issue gets to the definition of a hof'er. If you limit membership to exclusively dominant players, well stats become more the yardstick. Hockey's hof isn't as exclusive as baseball's, at least imo., but maybe baseball's more of a #'s sport. If hockey wants to recognize more than that and include guys who contribute in many ways past the #'s, I have no arguement. I don't need the Hall to confirm my memories.

Regarding the Leafs, their 60's teams are well recognized, but I wonder if fan objection, can be partly due to the type of players that were on the team. Pulford and Armstrong are perfect examples of good long term steady, effective players. They weren't flashy, were never looked at as 'the guy' but contributed mightily. This could have a bit to do with it, other than the obvious Toronto centric stuff that you'll hear no matter what.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2006, 11:17 AM
  #35
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch View Post
I think you must have missed Classic Hockey's post above starting with the first sentence.
Sorry, I forgot to add his timeless knowledge to my borg-cube. My mistake.

Some people like statistics, some don't.

kmad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2006, 11:31 AM
  #36
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Sorry that I offend you with my posts. I like stats too - they are very important.

But, I'd rather have a well rounded opinion than a single-minded one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by third_sedin View Post
Sorry, I forgot to add his timeless knowledge to my borg-cube. My mistake.

Some people like statistics, some don't.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 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.