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.

Players who have made HoF cases for themselves this year

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-15-2007, 10:17 PM
  #26
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
I'm not sure how you can be so down on Sundin as a HOFer, and support Mike Gartner. Gartner was the better goal scorer, Sundin is better at pretty much everything else (including goal-scoring in the playoffs).

It just makes no sense.
Gartner did things, over the course of his career, that nobody else has ever done. That's the end reality. His nine 40-goal seasons are tied for the third most in league history. Question the validity of when he put up the numbers, but all he ever did was score goals. If there is a guaranteed point for HHOF induction, it is 700 goals. (Dino has proven that 600 goals doesn't guarantee anything).

All stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. There's a lot more to evaluating players than stats. Based strictly on stats, Gartner's one of the top 10 goal scorers of all-time. He is not. Based on stats, he's the most consistent goal scorer ever. He is not.

But in the end, he still did something that no other player in NHL history could accomplish. And his records are two of the most respected in the game.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2007, 10:52 PM
  #27
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
and Brian Propp (a clutch player like that deserved a couple rings. He might make it eventually).
Propp will never get in, although he's certainly better than a number of players currently in the Hall.

He's only the 3rd biggest snub among former Flyers.

Mark Howe and Fred Shero should be no brainers.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2007, 12:02 AM
  #28
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
What's the difference between Dick Duff and Joe Nieuwendyk? Nieuwendyk's was never had an all-star team selection, and was never a top 10 to 20 player in the regular season. But Nieuwendyk was a money player, a guy who stepped his play up when the hockey mattered the most - the playoffs. Duff was probably one of the best clutch players in the latter years of the Original 6/the first few years of the post-expansion era. Most people around here think that Nieuwendyk's getting in. It'll take a few years, although not as long as Duff.

I support Gartner's induction. Gartner still holds the record for consecutive 30-goal seasons and career 30-goal seasons, and he's tied for third all-time with nine 40-goal seasons. He had world-class skating and shooting abilities that I think would have translated well to any era. (He did score over 30 goals as a 36-year-old in a season when scoring dipped below six goals per game). I don't think he's a top 100 player in NHL history, he doesn't have the playoff track record to rate that highly (he did finish 89th on THN's top 100 list, ahead of retired greats like Ullman, Schriner, Joe Primeau, Cournoyer and Gadsby) but you don't have to be a top 100 guy to get in the HHOF. When the THN Top 50 was released in 1998, he was one of the most controversial omissions among then-active players. So there are obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people who think very highly of Gartner.

I don't think Dino Ciccarelli belongs. He's a borderline player whose on and off ice antics have helped keep him out. I don't think Andreychuk belongs, either. Andreychuk was not as good of a player as Dino. I'm a big Vincent Damphousse fan, but I wouldn't vote for him, either.

500 goals and 1,200 points are great accomplishments, but I don't think they guarantee HHOF enshrinement anymore. Not when players are playing at high levels in their late 30s. The only guarantees to get into the HHOF now appear to be 700 goals, and maybe 1,000 assists. That's it.

There's not that much similarities between Nieuwendyk and Duff. As you wrote, Nieuwendyk won't be a first ballot induction and probably won't be a first year induction either. He'll be on the lower part of the Hall-of-famers. The problem I have with Dick Duff is how on earth a guy that has been ignored for 31 year suddenly become Hall of Fame worthty. If he would be, he should have been inducted long ago. Glenn Andersson was as great a clutch player as Duff and has a better regular season portfolio to showcase. He's still waiting for his HHOF ring.

The problem I have with Gartner is that while he scored 30 goals in 96, most of them are between 1979 and 1983 whose can be labeled as the ''boosted stats'' era. Gartner today's alter-ego would be a 25-35 goal scorer. He had longevity but not much more dominance than Recchi. His record for consecutive 30-goal seasons (which is one of the main reason he's in) will be tied this season by Jagr. I see Gartner as a very good player whose stats are product of the era in played in but not anywhere near the top 100 players of all-time. Plus, I don't like the fact that Gartner kept being traded near the deadline. Teams build around great players...


Last edited by Weztex: 01-16-2007 at 12:10 AM.
Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2007, 12:04 AM
  #29
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,921
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Gartner did things, over the course of his career, that nobody else has ever done. That's the end reality. His nine 40-goal seasons are tied for the third most in league history. Question the validity of when he put up the numbers, but all he ever did was score goals. If there is a guaranteed point for HHOF induction, it is 700 goals. (Dino has proven that 600 goals doesn't guarantee anything).

All stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. There's a lot more to evaluating players than stats. Based strictly on stats, Gartner's one of the top 10 goal scorers of all-time. He is not. Based on stats, he's the most consistent goal scorer ever. He is not.

But in the end, he still did something that no other player in NHL history could accomplish. And his records are two of the most respected in the game.
They're just numbers though...and regular season numbers at that.

Say he started his career in 1990 instead of 1980. Would he have as many 40 goal seasons? Probably not. What if he got injured halfway through his 30 goal season streak?

Would he have these records? No...but he wouldn't be any less of a player for it. Just different circumstances is all. My point here is not to start an argument about "what if's" or era vs. era scoring, but just to point out that these records don't make him something more than he was.

If he was never an elite player at any point in his career, he doesn't automatically become one in light of whatever stats he ends up with when all is said and done. If that's the case, then he's not being rated on his ability to play the game.

Gartner was an excellent goal scorer. However, he has one 50 goal season, and one 100 point season (both in 1985). That's not at all impressive for a guy who played his prime in the 80's and early 90's, when everyone and their sister was scoring 50 goals (Babych, Leeman, Richer...).

He never accomplished anything too astounding in the playoffs, and in fact, his goal scoring dropped dramatically in the post season. No leadership credentials to speak of, relatively soft, and not once voted to an NHL allstar team. Heck, he was never even selected to play in the allstar GAME.

In their primes, Sundin brings so much more to the table than Gartner that I wouldn't even think twice about it.


Last edited by arrbez: 01-16-2007 at 06:09 PM.
arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2007, 02:14 AM
  #30
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 20,766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Duff's not in the HHOF because he delivered in the regular season. He's in the HHOF because he got the job done when the hockey mattered most. Third line players don't finish second in postseason scoring on a powerhouse Montreal Canadiens team. He was a very important piece of those first two Toronto Cup wins, and those four Montreal wins. It's like they said when he was inducted: Winning has a knack for following some people around.

And being a third liner on that late 60s Habs team isn't necessarily a bad thing. Ralph Backstrom was the No. 3 centre on those teams, and there are a lot of people who want Backstrom in the HHOF.

40 years from now, people who look at just the stats and awards for Nieuwendyk and wonder why he's in the HHOF. (And mark my words, he will get in). Never an all-star. Won a Calder Trophy, but there are a lot of Calder winners who went on to have fairly forgettable careers. Won a Conn Smythe, but the numbers aren't inspiring. They'll point out the fact that in his first nine years, a lot of people put up great numbers. But those who watched Nieuwendyk, who know the game and look beyond the regular season numbers, will be able to say why Nieuwendyk's in the Hall.

As for Sundin: while it's true that he's been a keystone part of Toronto for over a decade, is it a time to be a keystone player for that team? The Leafs haven't exactly enjoyed great success over the last decade. They went to the conference finals twice. The furthest that the Leafs advanced in the playoffs was 2002, and Sundin played in less than half of the games. He's never been able to take his play in the playoffs, something that Federko and Sittler did do. (And I'm not saying that Federko belongs in the HHOF. He does not). If the Leafs enjoyed the success that they enjoyed in the late 40s/early 50s, or during the 60s, then absolutely he belongs in the HHOF. But he's been the best player on a team that has ranged from disappointing to above average for the last 10 years.

Honestly, I wouldn't rate Sundin in the top 15 Leafs ever. Not until he takes his play to another level in the playoffs, and leads his team to something more to a win in the conference final.
And again, everything you can say about Duff and his clutch play, and his history of winning, you can say about 10 other average regular season players who won't even get a sniff at the HHOF. Like Nystrom and Bourne. Guys like Lemieux and Tikkanen won't get in, and their resumes bury Duff's. 2 really strong playoffs ('62 & '69) shouldn't get a middle-of-the-road player like Duff into the HHOF. On those Toronto and Montreal teams, it's hard to argue he was in the 8 most valuable players on either of those squads. Worst inductee in modern NHL history, in because of the connections of his ex-Leaf teammates to the HHOF.

Niewendyk's career numbers are HHOF worthy, he delivered in the clutch for multiple teams, has a Calder and a Conn Smythe, and had one of the best sets of hands in the history of the game. He would have pushed 650 career goals if not for his injury problems in the 1990s, and is top-20 all-time in goals anyway. No-one will ever question his induction if he gets in. To compare him to Duff is an insult.

________

Sittler had one huge playoff series in 1977 (and the Leafs went out after 9 games anyway), and other than that was largely a playoff flop. Take out that year, and he put up 53 points in 67 career playoff games. Sundin's career, in terms of All-Star nods, career numbers, and international success is superior. Sundin in the last decade has been to the Leafs what Sittler was in the 1970s. If you think Sittler is legitimate, then there is absolutely no argument for claiming that Sundin isn't.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2007, 05:10 AM
  #31
DarkShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Dan Cloutier should get in on the first ballot.

DarkShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2007, 02:02 PM
  #32
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Duff apparently got very close to induction in 2005. Don't know whether there were any other close calls or not. ClassicHockey might be able to answer that question. And there are players who have been snubbed for a very long time who deserve to be inducted. Guys like Lorne Chabot, J.C. Tremblay, Carl Brewer and Rogie Vachon. (Chabot's been eligible since the HHOF started).

Lionel Conacher was inducted 57 years after he retired. I don't think any of us will question his place in the HHOF. Roy Conacher got in 36 years after he retired. He belongs in the HHOF, too. Now, these were veteran's committee inductions, but Duff still isn't the first to be inducted 31 years after his first chance. (And keep in mind that Duff was off the ballot from 1991 to 1998, as that was when the HHOF had a 15-year cap, followed by the veteran's committee).

I think Claude Lemieux will get in eventually. Like Duff, it'll take quite a while, but I think Duff's induction will give Claude a window for induction that wasn't there before. The one thing that will hurt Lemieux more than anything else is character. He was not well-liked as a player or a person. Character won't keep an all-time great out. Look at Eddie Shore. But it will hurt the chances of a borderline case like Ciccarelli or Anderson. (And I do think Anderson will get in eventually as well).

I don't think Duff's induction is worse than Pulford, who definitely was a political induction.

Are there people who deserve to be in the HHOF more than Duff who aren't there? Yes. I can name two players who won with Duff who deserve it more - Carl Brewer and Rogie Vachon. Not to mention Soviet stars like Mikhailov, Yakushev and Makarov (I include Makarov because his best days were in the USSR), and Czech star Vaclav Nedomansky.

BTW, I never said Duff was as good as Nieuwendyk. Nieuwendyk was the better player, and I would have had a hard time voting for Duff to be inducted. I would vote for Nieuwendyk on the first ballot. I just asked the question of what's the difference. They're both clutch players who consistently raised the level of play in the post-season, who brought far more to a team than just stats, who were never consensus top 20 players in the league, but you always wanted on your team when the hockey mattered the most. And in both cases, winning had a way of following them around.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2007, 04:31 PM
  #33
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,301
vCash: 500
Well the delay time the HHOF have with some of the indictions is something that irritates me. I didn't know Duff was on the commitee and that is not the point of this post. I just wonder how a some guys that are not described as good enough by the contemporaries could become worthy of induction years laters (veteran's commitee aside). You said thet Claude Lemieux will eventually get in and we can see it coming. The problem is if he wasn't worthy of induction of can he suddenly become good enough, or why wasn't he inducted before. That lacks logic. Very little people on these boards have seen Duff in him prime so it's hard to really judge his case. Still, in all those years, I've never heard any protestation about him not being honored.

The HHOF should use those spots to repair their previous mistake (Mark Howe, Rogatien Vachon...) instead of making debatable choice. There's so many logical choices to make before guys like Pulford or Duff it's not even funny. If Gilmour and Bure were more HOF worthy, why not honor them already?

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2007, 05:38 PM
  #34
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,301
vCash: 500
By the way, here's the current players I consider future Hall-of Famers, as today. It's all matter of opinion thought.

Locks

Teemu Selanne
Chris Pronger
Joe Sakic
Sergei Fedorov
Dominik Hasek
Nicklas Lidstrom
Chris Chelios
Ed Belfour
Paul Kariya
Martin Brodeur
Brendan Shanahan
Jaromir Jagr
Peter Forsberg

Probable choices

Scott Niedermayer
Jarome Iginla
Mike Modano
Eric Lindros
Rob Blake
Mats Sundin

Are on their way

Daniel Alfredsson
Joe Thornton
Vincent Lecavalier
Markus Maslund

Longshots

Rob Brind'Amour
Sergei Zubov
Curtis Joseph

Left out

Peter Bondra
Pierre Turgeon
Owen Nolan
Jeremy Roenick
Mark Recchi

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 01:27 AM
  #35
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lord of HFBOARDS
Country: United Nations
Posts: 70,713
vCash: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
I disagree that Pronger is a HHOF lock. Maybe with the newer, marginal players ya but he's no lock. When you compare his career and accomplishments with some of the players in the HHOF he's VERY lacking. Niedermayer has a much stronger case, but still doesn't strike me as a player that should be placed next to the HHOF greats on an equal level.

Sundin - No. No Cups and not a dominant player for a long enough stretch to justify it.
Selanne - No. Great numbers but again, he needs to justify it. If he keeps it up this season and adds 2 more then yes.
Modano - Probably.

If you want into the HHOF without at least 1 Cup, you better bring 700+ goals and 1200+ points to the table or you're wasting your time. I don't want the HHOF to become the MLBHOF where EVERYONE gets in, devaluing the point of it. The HHOF should be for the ELITE of the ELITE, not the really good for awhile.
I think how Pronger handled himself in Edmonton will hurt him in how or if he gets into the hall of fame

__________________
**Avatar approved by the powers that be***
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 10:52 AM
  #36
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by graveyardshift View Post
I think how Pronger handled himself in Edmonton will hurt him in how or if he gets into the hall of fame
He brought a team that hadn't had a sniff of the finals in 15 years... to the finals, in his one and only season there. I don't think the Edmonton experience is going to hurt his chances. The wife thing will be negligible, I don't think anybody outside of a few people in Edmonton care about that.

revolverjgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 11:19 AM
  #37
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weztex View Post
By the way, here's the current players I consider future Hall-of Famers, as today. It's all matter of opinion thought.

Locks

Teemu Selanne
Chris Pronger
Joe Sakic
Sergei Fedorov
Dominik Hasek
Nicklas Lidstrom
Chris Chelios
Ed Belfour
Paul Kariya
Martin Brodeur
Brendan Shanahan
Jaromir Jagr
Peter Forsberg

Probable choices

Scott Niedermayer
Jarome Iginla
Mike Modano
Eric Lindros
Rob Blake
Mats Sundin

Are on their way

Daniel Alfredsson
Joe Thornton
Vincent Lecavalier
Markus Maslund

Longshots

Rob Brind'Amour
Sergei Zubov
Curtis Joseph

Left out

Peter Bondra
Pierre Turgeon
Owen Nolan
Jeremy Roenick
Mark Recchi
For your locks, I agree with everyone except Kariya. I think Kariya is somewhere between "on their way" and a "longshots." Kariya had an excellent peak, but it was brief, only about four years. (Even though he did put up good numbers in 2000 and he was an all-star in 2003). He's been to a Cup final, but he has never had that dominant playoff. Also, contrary to what some people believe, international play means nothing to HHOF voters for North Americans or played most of their career in North America.

I would say that Niedermayer is now a lock, for the reasons I stated above.

I don't think Iginla's a probable yet. He's putting the finishing touches on his third strong season, and has the one dominant playoff. Again, the international portfolio will mean nothing. If something were to happen and he suffered a career-ending injury tomorrow, he'd fit into the Tim Kerr/Mickey Redmond class of guys who were brilliant for short periods of time, but not long enough to warrant induction.

Alfredsson and Thornton definitely need some playoff success to crack the "on their way" classification. Naslund definitely isn't "on his way." Not with the way he has played since the lockout. He's fading, and I don't think he's going to get his game back. His playoff numbers aren't bad, but his playoff performance hasn't always been there.

I don't think Lindros makes it, either. A great five-year peak. But the name Eric Lindros doesn't always invoke the fondest thoughts among hockey people. His off-ice antics will hurt him.

Here's why Brind'Amour won't get in: for most of his career, he was the standard-bearer for the second line centre. Not from the perspective of "Ron Francis is a second line centre because he plays behind Lemieux." But every draft, you'd hear about a kid who projected as an ideal second line centre in the Rod Brind'Amour mould. That'll hurt Brind'Amour's chances. I love watching him play, he'll always be one of my favourites, but he isn't an HHOF type. Captaining a team to the Cup is great, but Derian Hatcher did it, too, so it doesn't guarantee induction.

Recchi will get in. Players who put up those numbers, playing that style of game, while winning two Cups, have a knack for getting in the HHOF. I would take Steve Larmer ahead of Recchi, and Larmer isn't in the HHOF, but those who know me know that I'm a big-time Larmer fan.

One more interesting name for the "no's:" John LeClair. Five-time all-star at LW. The only eligible player with four all-star team selections who isn't in the HHOF is Rick Martin. If LeClair doesn't get in, he'll set the standard for all-star selections among non-HHOFers. (Of course, LW has been the NHL's position of weakness since Bobby Hull and Frank Mahovlich were at their peak).

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 12:41 PM
  #38
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
For your locks, I agree with everyone except Kariya. I think Kariya is somewhere between "on their way" and a "longshots." Kariya had an excellent peak, but it was brief, only about four years. (Even though he did put up good numbers in 2000 and he was an all-star in 2003). He's been to a Cup final, but he has never had that dominant playoff. Also, contrary to what some people believe, international play means nothing to HHOF voters for North Americans or played most of their career in North America.

I would say that Niedermayer is now a lock, for the reasons I stated above.

I don't think Iginla's a probable yet. He's putting the finishing touches on his third strong season, and has the one dominant playoff. Again, the international portfolio will mean nothing. If something were to happen and he suffered a career-ending injury tomorrow, he'd fit into the Tim Kerr/Mickey Redmond class of guys who were brilliant for short periods of time, but not long enough to warrant induction.

Alfredsson and Thornton definitely need some playoff success to crack the "on their way" classification. Naslund definitely isn't "on his way." Not with the way he has played since the lockout. He's fading, and I don't think he's going to get his game back. His playoff numbers aren't bad, but his playoff performance hasn't always been there.

I don't think Lindros makes it, either. A great five-year peak. But the name Eric Lindros doesn't always invoke the fondest thoughts among hockey people. His off-ice antics will hurt him.

Here's why Brind'Amour won't get in: for most of his career, he was the standard-bearer for the second line centre. Not from the perspective of "Ron Francis is a second line centre because he plays behind Lemieux." But every draft, you'd hear about a kid who projected as an ideal second line centre in the Rod Brind'Amour mould. That'll hurt Brind'Amour's chances. I love watching him play, he'll always be one of my favourites, but he isn't an HHOF type. Captaining a team to the Cup is great, but Derian Hatcher did it, too, so it doesn't guarantee induction.

Recchi will get in. Players who put up those numbers, playing that style of game, while winning two Cups, have a knack for getting in the HHOF. I would take Steve Larmer ahead of Recchi, and Larmer isn't in the HHOF, but those who know me know that I'm a big-time Larmer fan.

One more interesting name for the "no's:" John LeClair. Five-time all-star at LW. The only eligible player with four all-star team selections who isn't in the HHOF is Rick Martin. If LeClair doesn't get in, he'll set the standard for all-star selections among non-HHOFers. (Of course, LW has been the NHL's position of weakness since Bobby Hull and Frank Mahovlich were at their peak).
Thanks for the input. The ''On their way'' class could be called ''need a little something to prove. Seeing things this way we share the same thoughts about Thornton and Alfredsson. I put Naslund there because, even if he's not dominating anymore, he'll slowy continue to rack up points. I alos agree in Leclair's case even if his career is similar to Recchi's one. You also bring up a good point in Lindros case but I don't think it'll overcome the monster player he was. If Neely is in, I wanna see Lindros in there too.

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 05:06 PM
  #39
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,921
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weztex View Post
You also bring up a good point in Lindros case but I don't think it'll overcome the monster player he was. If Neely is in, I wanna see Lindros in there too.
True that. Based solely on on-ice performance, Lindros was better than Neely, and his shortened "prime" was longer than Neely's.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 06:16 PM
  #40
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
True that. Based solely on on-ice performance, Lindros was better than Neely, and his shortened "prime" was longer than Neely's.
It's not even close either.

Personally I wouldn't have either in the Hall, but if Neely's in, Lindros must go.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 06:19 PM
  #41
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weztex View Post
Thanks for the input. The ''On their way'' class could be called ''need a little something to prove. Seeing things this way we share the same thoughts about Thornton and Alfredsson. I put Naslund there because, even if he's not dominating anymore, he'll slowy continue to rack up points. I alos agree in Leclair's case even if his career is similar to Recchi's one. You also bring up a good point in Lindros case but I don't think it'll overcome the monster player he was. If Neely is in, I wanna see Lindros in there too.
Naslund doesnt even have 800 points or 350 goals yet. And he's closing in on 1000 games I believe. During the 2-3 years before the lockout he was probably one of the top 10 players in the NHL, but I doubt he'll ever even sniff the HoF.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 06:24 PM
  #42
OvechkinDomination*
 
OvechkinDomination*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
I'm not sure how you can be so down on Sundin as a HOFer, and support Mike Gartner. Gartner was the better goal scorer, Sundin is better at pretty much everything else (including goal-scoring in the playoffs).

It just makes no sense.
Sundin is a Leaf, therefore despite the fact he deserves to be in the HHOF and should be a lock for it, there will be people who will question it due to the blindness of hate for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

OvechkinDomination* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 08:59 PM
  #43
crisb
Registered User
 
crisb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
No jagr?

crisb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 09:02 PM
  #44
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFan35 View Post
No jagr?
Jagr was on Weztex's list. If you're referring to why Jagr hasn't been mentioned much in this thread, it's because he was a gimmie, first-ballot HHOFer years ago. Same with Sakic, Brodeur, Lidstrom and Chelios, among others. In general, we're discussing players who have made an HHOF case for themselves since the lockout.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2007, 11:56 PM
  #45
asdf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country:
Posts: 2,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OvechkinDomination View Post
Sundin is a Leaf, therefore despite the fact he deserves to be in the HHOF and should be a lock for it, there will be people who will question it due to the blindness of hate for the Toronto Maple Leafs.
Interesting, I thought it was the other way around.

asdf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2007, 12:05 AM
  #46
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTENOUGHBREWER View Post
Naslund doesnt even have 800 points or 350 goals yet. And he's closing in on 1000 games I believe. During the 2-3 years before the lockout he was probably one of the top 10 players in the NHL, but I doubt he'll ever even sniff the HoF.
Not that I think he deserves to be a Hall of Famer, but if I'm not mistaken, Naslund will join Mark Howe as the only players with three first team All-Star selections not in the Hall. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And other than Mike Liut (and players who are still playing) would, he'd be the only player with a Pearson not in the Hall either.

I think if Naslund can come back to form and be a top 10 player another couple of years, or have a monster playoff, he will definitely be considered.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2007, 06:05 PM
  #47
Randall Graves*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 18,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caniacforever View Post
I was going to mention him, but didn't want to come across as being a homer. I think he's put a pretty impressive career up to this point and it continues. With as much of a conditioning freak as he is, he'll be effective for a few more years. We could see 1,200-1,300 points out of him and another Selke before it's all said and done. Plus, the dynamic of having lead Carolina to a Stanley Cup last season. Two years ago, I would have said anybody that thought he deserved in was out of their mind. Right now, i'm still on the fence about whether he deserves consideration or not. He's another one of those "reclamation project" type players who played consistant for a decade, took a dump for a few years, and now have come back stronger than ever. His consistant defensive play may be the trump card. Plus the intangible and leadership qualities that he brings to the rink.

Mark Recchi is a HHOF'er. The way he continues to produce is pretty astounding considering his stature. How many players as small and skilled as Recchi still have the ability to play a physical style at 38 years old? Talk also is that he's not going to hang them up after this year so he has another year or two at least to pad those already impressive statistics. I'm not sure what criteria people are using here, but Mark Recchi is a better player than Mike Gartner, IMO.
The problem with Brind'Amour is he's never really been an elite player so he'll be tough to judge.

Randall Graves* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2007, 06:14 PM
  #48
Randall Graves*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 18,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barfy2000 View Post
Sidney Crosby.


But really...I think that Pronger, Sundin and Selanne have all punched their tickets to the Hall after their years they're having.

Chris Pronger would have and may still win the Hart if he didn't go down with injury. He built on an unbelieveable playoffs and didnt miss a step...which really irks me because i can't stand the guy...
As I said on the poll board in the Lidstrom/Niedermayer/Pronger thread, most Anaheim fans prefere Niedermayer I prefere Pronger. This teams transition game has been abysmal since he got hurt and the side of the ice he was shutting down is wide open. Normally he's a slow starter but with the way he started offensively 80 points looked to be attainable, if Pronger gets the Steve Nash treatment where he gets points for the team sucking without him he could very well win. If he can get around 70+ points I think he should atleast win the Norris but you are right he was having a great season.

Randall Graves* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2007, 01:13 AM
  #49
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
I've said this many times, that most of the posters here are not properly evaluating the worthiness of a player in relation to getting inducted into the Hall of Fame. It is NOT the Hall of Fame of Statistics. You have to realize that the HHOF selection committee takes in all aspects of a player's career. Most of what I read here strictly say so and so is not a HHOF player because he only had so many points.

Some comments don't make sense. For example, if someone was selected to the HHOF in the 40's and the player had terrible stats in relation to a player today, then the player that got elected in the 40's is not HOF material? But the selection committee bases their selections on the standards at the time. They couldn't possibly know what a players might accomplish 50 years later.

I don't agree with all the selections to the HHOF but there are always reasons why certain players get selected. Dick Duff, based on his stats, does not compare favourably to other players in the Hall. But the people on the selection committee who played with against Duff are more qualified to know whether he is HOF material. There are other criteria that they use and they should. It NOT a Hall of Fame of Statistics.

I'm not sure why Mark Howe isn't in the Hall of Fame. I really don't think there is a WHA bias. Maybe Mark Howe was not nominated in the approriate years. You need to know that in baseball, retired players are automatically on the ballot when they reach their eligibility. In hockey, a player has to be nominated, with sufficient backing, to be eligible to be voted on. So, if you think a certain player should be in the Hall, then arrange to nominate him. No nomination, no consideration. There were people who nominated Gillies, Federko & Duff well after they retired. That's one reason why those players were selected long after they retired.

J.C. Tremblay is another player who his peers think should be in the HHOF. And I really believe that a player's peers know the true value of a player. I sometimes read here that diehard Flyer fans think that Fred Shero should be in the Hall of Fame. If you guys talk to players who played against Shero's teams, you would unanimously have Shero voted to the 'Hall of Shame'. That man did so much damage to the game that he should never be inducted. I admire the Flyer's fans devotion to their team, but just try to step out of your worshipping of those players and coach and realize that in the big picture, Shero's negative impact on the game far outweighed any perceived plusses. Is Shero a Hall of Famer in the Philadelphia area? Maybe, by Philly standards. But there is no coach or team more despised than those Flyers teams.
You think you know about the consequences of that brutality, but you really don't.

To God Bless Canada, Duff was not officially off the ballot those years, he just wasn't nominated until the last few years. But I suppose you can say that every single retired player is officially off the ballot until there is a nomination for consideration. I enjoy your posts as you are one of the few that understands that selection to the HHOF is not just based on stats.

I'd like to discuss Brewer, Vachon and the others someday with you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Duff apparently got very close to induction in 2005. Don't know whether there were any other close calls or not. ClassicHockey might be able to answer that question. And there are players who have been snubbed for a very long time who deserve to be inducted. Guys like Lorne Chabot, J.C. Tremblay, Carl Brewer and Rogie Vachon. (Chabot's been eligible since the HHOF started).

Lionel Conacher was inducted 57 years after he retired. I don't think any of us will question his place in the HHOF. Roy Conacher got in 36 years after he retired. He belongs in the HHOF, too. Now, these were veteran's committee inductions, but Duff still isn't the first to be inducted 31 years after his first chance. (And keep in mind that Duff was off the ballot from 1991 to 1998, as that was when the HHOF had a 15-year cap, followed by the veteran's committee).

I think Claude Lemieux will get in eventually. Like Duff, it'll take quite a while, but I think Duff's induction will give Claude a window for induction that wasn't there before. The one thing that will hurt Lemieux more than anything else is character. He was not well-liked as a player or a person. Character won't keep an all-time great out. Look at Eddie Shore. But it will hurt the chances of a borderline case like Ciccarelli or Anderson. (And I do think Anderson will get in eventually as well).

I don't think Duff's induction is worse than Pulford, who definitely was a political induction.

Are there people who deserve to be in the HHOF more than Duff who aren't there? Yes. I can name two players who won with Duff who deserve it more - Carl Brewer and Rogie Vachon. Not to mention Soviet stars like Mikhailov, Yakushev and Makarov (I include Makarov because his best days were in the USSR), and Czech star Vaclav Nedomansky.

BTW, I never said Duff was as good as Nieuwendyk. Nieuwendyk was the better player, and I would have had a hard time voting for Duff to be inducted. I would vote for Nieuwendyk on the first ballot. I just asked the question of what's the difference. They're both clutch players who consistently raised the level of play in the post-season, who brought far more to a team than just stats, who were never consensus top 20 players in the league, but you always wanted on your team when the hockey mattered the most. And in both cases, winning had a way of following them around.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2007, 04:07 AM
  #50
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,275
vCash: 500
Classichockey. First, I'd like to say that I really respect your opinion on these matters and I appreciate that you have more knowledge then me. I still need to state my case.

The problem with Duff is that history is filled with players who were nightmares to play against who are not in the Hall. As I've often debated there is a definite bias against defensive players. Some like Gainey or Langway make it, but they are above and beyond. Does Duff's induction mean that defensive specialists are Hall worthy?

Take for example Adam Foote, from 95-03 he was one of the toughest players in hockey to play against. A nightmare for many future HHoFers. He could neutralize HHoFers. But his record on post season all-star votes and Norris votes is no where near Hall worthy.

I think the controversy with Duff is two fold. One. It sets a new precident for what type of player if Hall worthy. Defensive forwards who come up big in the playoffs, unless they're Gainey good, were never Hall worthy before Duff. the HHoF has a rep of being too liberal as it is, so a new precident makes many observers worried. Two. Alot of people percieve the induction as being politically motivated. That having friends on the committee proved to be the kicker for him. Whether this is true or not, I can't say, but that perception really taints his induction in the short run.

More than anything, I think the biggest complaint about the Hall is that it's too exclussive a committee. Baseball has hundreds of voters, this means that it is very difficult for anyone agenda to be a factor. Where as the small exclussive club the HHoF has can be biassed in any number of ways.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.

Last edited by Nalyd Psycho: 01-19-2007 at 04:24 AM.
Nalyd Psycho 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 10:37 AM.

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.