HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

HHOF- Here's The Problem

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-24-2007, 09:07 PM
  #26
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
1. Hull/Andreychuk highlights how much of a role era plays. Hull has led the NHL in goal-scoring more than any other player in history. Lemieux, Gretzky, Bossy, Howe, Richard, Esposito, Conacher, Geoffrion... Hull beats them all. His relative production dwarfs Andreychuk's. And, for what it's worth, my adjusted stats show that Hull has 115 more goals in nearly 500 fewer games.

2. I agree that Oates is a HOFer (though I would disagree with anybody's reasoning if they think he should be in simply because he scored 1,400 points). He was arguably the best playmaker EVER not named Gretzky (certainly top ten), and outscored all of his peers except Gretzky in the 1990s. He never won a Cup but was a very solid, consistent playoff performer and his defensive game seems to get underrated as well. That's a HOF resume to me.

3. In terms of the THN list... Crosby doesn't belong in the HOF yet (though I have little doubt that he will be deserving in 8-10 years). I'd definitely put Oates, Gilmour, and Howe in the HOF despite them not being on that list. Sundin, Modano and Vachon are debatable, as well. I'm sure I'm missing a few.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2007, 09:29 PM
  #27
backliner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 32
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Backliner, were you following the Rangers throughout Howell's career? If so, do you know why he was never traded to a contender? Somebody asked me this question a few weeks ago and I couldn't find an answer.
I began following sports intently in '69, so my memories of Harry are not as a Ranger, but as a cagey old vet with those bad Cal teams--the Seals and the Kings. So I was not dialed into the Ranger scene during the '60s, which is a lucky thing, because they really sucked.

Howell couldn't buy a break. After toiling in Ranger purgitude since '52, they finally gave him amnesty the summer before the 1969-'70 season. Problem was, the NYR were finally putting out a competitive club, thanks to Cat Francis. Howell's last 3 years with the club, they made a breakthrough of sorts by making the playoffs each year, finishing as high as second in '68. (They had made the post-season just one other year in the entire decade.) The next hump, though--winning a playoff series--continued to elude them each year. The year that finally happened--1970-'71--would take place without Harry; just his luck, as soon as his miserable team finally got good, he was shipped off to the worst team in the NHL.

But you ask an interesting question, as to why they kept Howell for so long. I can't answer it offhand, but I could guess that it was a combination of Harry being their best backliner--and one of the best in the league--and of him being one of those loyal soldiers. It may be that he never made much noise about being shipped to a contender, as many stars on also-rans were known to do back then.

A longtime teammate of Howell's, Andy Bathgate, who came up at almost the same time and was the same age, was so delivered unto cup fame by his club. Immensely popular, and at the time the team's all-time leading scorer, he was moved to Toronto in Feb. '64, as the Leafs needed a scorer for their Cup run.

The timing was perfect. The Leafs won it all, and Bathgate made a major contribution. I have read that the Ranger fans were in an uproar, but I have read that the team spun it in two ways: 1.) We owe it to Andy to give him this chance; and 2.) We're getting a lot of solid pieces for the future.

They were right on both counts. Andy got his Cup, and the Rangers got Bob Nevin, Arnie Brown and Rod Seiling, who would all be solid cogs on future teams.

The previous June, the club had accomodated another long-suffering servant, Gump Worsely, sending him to Montreal (in the blockbuster that landed them Jacques Plante, Phil Goyette and Donnie Marshall), where he was part of several Cups from '65-'69.

Until Francis came along, the team had been remarkably inept at wheeling and dealing. As you know, back in the 6-team days, it was a cozy little poker game, and teams moved around the big chips all the time. When the Cat came to town, finally some sensible personnel moves started to happen, and during the '70s they were one of the best teams in the league, albeit prone to falling tragically short of the big prize.


Last edited by backliner: 12-26-2007 at 08:10 AM.
backliner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2007, 09:53 PM
  #28
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,124
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
The WWHOF really confuses me sometimes. They claim to have tougher standards, and yet they just inducted Mike Gartner while guys like Hawerchuk, Sittler and Lafontaine are still on the outside looking in...

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2007, 06:01 AM
  #29
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
The WWHOF really confuses me sometimes. They claim to have tougher standards, and yet they just inducted Mike Gartner while guys like Hawerchuk, Sittler and Lafontaine are still on the outside looking in...
In fairness Gartner does have over 700 goals. That simply cannot be ignored.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2007, 09:51 AM
  #30
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,124
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
In fairness Gartner does have over 700 goals. That simply cannot be ignored.
Sure, but he did it in anything but dominant fashion. The other three were simply far better players, and you'd have a hard time arguing otherwise.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2007, 11:39 AM
  #31
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by backliner View Post
I began following sports intently in '69, so my memories of Harry are not as a Ranger, but as a cagey old vet with those bad Cal teams--the Seals and the Kings. So I was not dialed into the Ranger scene during the '60s, which is a lucky thing, because they really sucked.
Wow, great post. Thanks for the info. Howell reminds me of another great Rangers D, Bill Gadsby, in the sense that they both played for weak teams their whole career and thus we can't really judge their playoff legacy.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2007, 02:32 PM
  #32
cupcrazyman
Chex Lemeneux
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leafland
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,776
vCash: 500
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/records/minor_record.php3

who do you induct from this list who is draft eligible ?

stats are heavily considered regardless of what some people say.

these players should be in when eliglible.

Sakic..........1611
Jagr............1555
Oates..........1420
Gilmour........1414
Robitaille......1394
Hull.............1391
Recchi.........1349
Shanahan.....1319
Sundin.........1285
Modano........1248

cupcrazyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2007, 09:52 AM
  #33
backliner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 32
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
The WWHOF really confuses me sometimes. They claim to have tougher standards, and yet they just inducted Mike Gartner while guys like Hawerchuk, Sittler and Lafontaine are still on the outside looking in...

Not to worry. Sittler got in in '89, Hawerchuck in '01 (same year as Gartner) and Pat in '03. I'm up on one of my favorite sites right now, the HOF Player Index (http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/search.htm).

Anyway, ain't nuthin' wrong with Gartner, one of the most consistent scoring wingers of his time. In the 13-year period from 1981-'82 to 1993-'94, he topped 30 goals every year but one. After injuries held him to 38 games in '94-'95, he came back with 35 and 32 the next 2 years, before retiring after the next season.

We Ranger fans are big fans of Gartner, who played in NY from 1989-'90 to 1993-'94. He was acquired during that first year and let go in the last, but in those 3 full, middle years he got 49, 40 and 45 goals.

For a very long time, he was the NHL's fastest player, which as you know is not some unofficial, reputational honor, but something the players actually compete for every year at the AS game in the skills competition.

He was one of those unfortunate stars who never got to carry the Cup (just like the other 3, although Pat played in the '84 Final). I have never felt worse for a player than in the Spring of '94, when Gartner was dealt to the Leafs for Glenn Anderson right at the deadline. Even in his prime, Anderson would have been an unnecessary addition, but he was essentially finished and Gartner was a way better player at that point. The following year, Anderson signed with the Blues as a free agent, having played a total of 12 regular season and 23 playoff games for the Rangers. Besides all that, Anderson already had--what?--five rings at that point.

Cup-wise, it all worked out for the NYR that Spring, but Anderson was hardly a star, getting 6 points in those 23 games. It was an example of the team going one step overboard on their "Edmonton East" plan in that Cup run. Off the top of my head, I can think of 7 ex-Oilers who filled that lineup: Messier, Buekeboom, Lowe, Anderson, Tikkanen, Graves, MacTavish. All except Anderson made an enormous contribution.

backliner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2007, 10:04 AM
  #34
backliner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 32
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Wow, great post. Thanks for the info. Howell reminds me of another great Rangers D, Bill Gadsby, in the sense that they both played for weak teams their whole career and thus we can't really judge their playoff legacy.

Right, Gadsby--another fine player, and another vet on a bad team who got sent off to give the Cup a try, the NYR sending him to the Wings in '61. He had two shots in the final, but the Leafs took out the Wings both times ('63 & '64).

backliner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2007, 10:18 AM
  #35
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,124
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by backliner View Post
Not to worry. Sittler got in in '89, Hawerchuck in '01 (same year as Gartner) and Pat in '03. I'm up on one of my favorite sites right now, the HOF Player Index (http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/search.htm).
Yeah, I know they got in the real HOF (and deservedly so), but I'm just talking about the World Wide Hall of Fame. I suppose I can see the knocks against Sittler and Lafontaine, but I'm amazed that anyone would take Gartner over Hawerchuk.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2007, 05:50 PM
  #36
Palinka
Registered User
 
Palinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,259
vCash: 500
I think the actual HHOF selection process is heavily flawed, the primary reason being that it's a lot easier to stack the deck toward a viewpoint (Gil Stein, anyone?) and sway a small roomful of men than it is to pull the wool over the eyes of 500+ media members.

I'm a big critic of the Baseball Hall of Fame, but there has been exactly ONE selection made over the entire history by the BBWAA that I can take issue with (Catfish Hunter). The Veterans' Committee, being a small group of a bunch of oldtimers, has basically destroyed the Hall by putting in players who were no better than average at any point over their career. One, Chick Hafey, was benched in Game 7 of a World Series in a year that he hit .330.

This isn't an issue of "stat guys" versus "whoever else". Stats cannot exist in a vacuum, and the ones who make stats into an abomination are usually those who have never given any thought to context or changes in the game over time. I have no problem with using valid statistical analysis; to me that certainly trumps the blind "But Dave Andreychuk scored xxx number of goals!"

Palinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2007, 03:26 PM
  #37
justsomeguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by backliner View Post
Right, Gadsby--another fine player, and another vet on a bad team who got sent off to give the Cup a try, the NYR sending him to the Wings in '61. He had two shots in the final, but the Leafs took out the Wings both times ('63 & '64).
He had a third kick at the can in 1966 but Detroit lost to Montreal that spring. Leading the Habs in postseason points - coincidentally enough, Jean-Claude Tremblay

justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2007, 03:44 PM
  #38
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palinka View Post
I think the actual HHOF selection process is heavily flawed, the primary reason being that it's a lot easier to stack the deck toward a viewpoint (Gil Stein, anyone?) and sway a small roomful of men than it is to pull the wool over the eyes of 500+ media members.

I'm a big critic of the Baseball Hall of Fame, but there has been exactly ONE selection made over the entire history by the BBWAA that I can take issue with (Catfish Hunter). The Veterans' Committee, being a small group of a bunch of oldtimers, has basically destroyed the Hall by putting in players who were no better than average at any point over their career. One, Chick Hafey, was benched in Game 7 of a World Series in a year that he hit .330.

This isn't an issue of "stat guys" versus "whoever else". Stats cannot exist in a vacuum, and the ones who make stats into an abomination are usually those who have never given any thought to context or changes in the game over time. I have no problem with using valid statistical analysis; to me that certainly trumps the blind "But Dave Andreychuk scored xxx number of goals!"
If we start letting guys like Howe vote this is exactly what we will see. As for the baseball reference, there is very little attention given to who the Veteran's Committee elects anymore.

Fish on The Sand 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 09:51 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.