2010 Hall of Fame Class

[unknown33]

apparently it is....and I have no issues at all with it.

I realize some here want a HoF with one wing and about 20 players in it....

No it's just ... why inducte a player if you have at least 10 guys that are more fitting?
Is there anything that makes Dino more deserving than say Gilmour, Makarov, Oates, Howe...?

 

[Mothra]

No it's just ... why inducte a player if you have at least 10 guys that are more fitting?
Is there anything that makes Dino more deserving than say Gilmour, Makarov, Oates, Howe...?

There time will come too....well, maybe not Makarov....but thats for other reasons I would say. Howe is an interesting case. He should have won a Norris at some point in his career......had he won he would already be in the Hall.....but because he didnt (and again, he deserved to win one) he seems to be passed over each year.

IMO Oates for sure and Gilmour to a lesser extent are the only two (from your list) that should be in over Dino. Im pretty sure both retired after Dino...so again, their time will come. All this "how did this guy get in when this guy isnt in yet" talk is nonsense to me.

 

[revolverjgw]

So weird seeing Ciccarelli going in alone while guys like Gilmour and Oates get passed over. If Dino made it, obviously they have to, too. Making them wait while there's three slots open is just... ugh.

 

[jkrx]

When these 14 people are lifelong hockey people, yes...Im more likely to trust their insight than a guy on a hockey board who states that, because he has a Wings picture, he's seen it all. That and...in this case, ive seen it all



Ask me that when Avery gets in the HoF....otherwise its just another ridiculous analogy on your part...on par with Kurri/Dino




Its the fact that you went into great detail on two players that could not be more different. Ive seen a lot of things here on HF....but the Dino/Kurri analogy caught me off guard

I took Kurri and Dino because someone brought up Dinos GPG in playoff games where in fact he and Kurri has around the same numbers. Do you even read the thread before you reply?

14 people are still humans and do experts always get things right? My point is that Ciccarelli didnt have a HHoF career because he didn't. He was a great scorer in a high scoring era. But goals and being gritty doesnt define HoF status. The fact is he was rarely a top-10 player in the league.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He is also -37 and 34 goals is on the PP.

Compare that to his closest rival above him Kurri.

200 games, 106 goals and 71 on even strengh. +73, 10 shorthanded, Dino has none.

I didn't know power play goals didn't count in the playoffs.

What do Jari Kurri's numbers have to do with this?

 

[jkrx]

I didn't know power play goals didn't count in the playoffs.

What do Jari Kurri's numbers have to do with this?

Read the thread and PP goals count.

 

[seventieslord]

apparently it is....and I have no issues at all with it.

I realize some here want a HoF with one wing and about 20 players in it....im not as bent on just having players with Hart's or nominations in the Hall. IMO he is one of the great players from back then.....and it seems the people whose opinions really matter agree with that.

See, it's more the other way around. If they really think he's a HHOF player, then maybe their opinions don't matter as much as we thought they do.

It's not that we just want the best 20 players to be inducted. But the bar for induction is changing by the year. They let in players like Duff and Ciccarelli while overlooking players universally considered better, like Oates, Gilmour, Makarov, Bure, Vasiliev, Brewer, etc.

Why would you not care about inducting players who were actually considered the best and most valuable when they played?

Cecil Dillon, Dany Heatley, Gaye Stewart and Ziggy Palffy all made the top-5 in goals twice, and they were top-20 four other times. Are their hall tickets punched now?

Don't forget Hossa, Leclair, Bondra, and Bure, with 16 top-5 seasons between them.

Ciccarelli is 2nd all-time in worst career playoff +/-: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...=gt&c4val=&order_by=plus_minus&order_by_asc=Y

 

[seventieslord]

I took Kurri and Dino because someone brought up Dinos GPG in playoff games where in fact he and Kurri has around the same numbers. Do you even read the thread before you reply?

14 people are still humans and do experts always get things right? My point is that Ciccarelli didnt have a HHoF career because he didn't. He was a great scorer in a high scoring era. But goals and being gritty doesnt define HoF status. The fact is he was rarely a top-10 player in the league.

Rarely? Try never. I might even say he was never top-20.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nature of the Game

See, it's more the other way around. If they really think he's a HHOF player, then maybe their opinions don't matter as much as we thought they do.

It's not that we just want the best 20 players to be inducted. But the bar for induction is changing by the year. They let in players like Duff and Ciccarelli while overlooking players universally considered better, like Oates, Gilmour, Makarov, Bure, Vasiliev, Brewer, etc.

Why would you not care about inducting players who were actually considered the best and most valuable when they played?

Cecil Dillon, Dany Heatley, Gaye Stewart and Ziggy Palffy all made the top-5 in goals twice, and they were top-20 four other times. Are their hall tickets punched now?

Don't forget Hossa, Leclair, Bondra, and Bure, with 16 top-5 seasons between them.

Ciccarelli is 2nd all-time in worst career playoff +/-: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...=gt&c4val=&order_by=plus_minus&order_by_asc=Y

You seem to have a problem with the bar for induction changing every year acting as if this is some big surprise or unexpected aspect of hockey. Well the bar for winning or success in hockey changes from game to game, season to season.Sometimes one goal is enough to win a game, usually it is not. Some seasons weak teams do well in the playoffs, usually they do not. Some seasons a point total will get a team into the playoffs other times it will not. Some seasons a performance will win an award or honour, others it will not.

The HHOF reflects this aspect of hockey in its inductions very well, reflecting the fluid nature of the game, specifically that one can never be sure about the outcome or what will be required to win at any specific time or in any given situation.

Your use of benchmarks is rather interesting though misguided. Not aware of any sport where benchmarks are the actual objective. Benchmarks are simply after the fact descriptions of the participants - teams or individuals. The sport, in this case hockey, is played with a simple objective - winning, be it a game, a series, a tournament, the Stanley Cup or however winning is defined.

 

[jkrx]

You seem to have a problem with the bar for induction changing every year acting as if this is some big surprise or unexpected aspect of hockey. Well the bar for winning or success in hockey changes from game to game, season to season.Sometimes one goal is enough to win a game, usually it is not. Some seasons weak teams do well in the playoffs, usually they do not. Some seasons a point total will get a team into the playoffs other times it will not. Some seasons a performance will win an award or honour, others it will not.

The HHOF reflects this aspect of hockey in its inductions very well, reflecting the fluid nature of the game, specifically that one can never be sure about the outcome or what will be required to win at any specific time or in any given situation.

Your use of benchmarks is rather interesting though misguided. Not aware of any sport where benchmarks are the actual objective. Benchmarks are simply after the fact descriptions of the participants - teams or individuals. The sport, in this case hockey, is played with a simple objective - winning, be it a game, a series, a tournament, the Stanley Cup or however winning is defined.

...and what did Ciccarelli win?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

The points seventieslord makes about why Ciccarelli shouldn't be in the Hall are exactly right, and even if Gilmour and Oates were in the Hall I still say he shouldn't be there. The fact that they're not makes it a bit more puzzling. The main thing he did was compile tons of goals in a highscoring era. Today you will not make the Hockey Hall of fame by compiling high career goal totals, because anyone who does that today...will be an elite goal scorer! I have a feeling it's all about the raw career totals with him which is just wrong. I also agree, that not at any point in time, was he an overall top 20 player in the league. Maybe he was a top 10-15 forward for a few years at best. Certainly not Hall of Fame worthy.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Read the thread and PP goals count.

Here's your post:

He is also -37 and 34 goals is on the PP.
Compare that to his closest rival above him Kurri.
200 games, 106 goals and 71 on even strengh. +73, 10 shorthanded, Dino has none.

So what's your point about PP goals?

 

[Canadiens1958]

...and what did Ciccarelli win?

Look at the GWG list - granted it is contemporary and incomplete but Dino Ciccarelli rates very well given that he played for middling teams most of his career.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_gw_career.html

The list is rather interesting. Once completed and balanced with playoffs, it will offer deeper insight.

 

[seventieslord]

You seem to have a problem with the bar for induction changing every year acting as if this is some big surprise or unexpected aspect of hockey. Well the bar for winning or success in hockey changes from game to game, season to season.Sometimes one goal is enough to win a game, usually it is not. Some seasons weak teams do well in the playoffs, usually they do not. Some seasons a point total will get a team into the playoffs other times it will not. Some seasons a performance will win an award or honour, others it will not.

The HHOF reflects this aspect of hockey in its inductions very well, reflecting the fluid nature of the game, specifically that one can never be sure about the outcome or what will be required to win at any specific time or in any given situation.

Your use of benchmarks is rather interesting though misguided. Not aware of any sport where benchmarks are the actual objective. Benchmarks are simply after the fact descriptions of the participants - teams or individuals. The sport, in this case hockey, is played with a simple objective - winning, be it a game, a series, a tournament, the Stanley Cup or however winning is defined.

Every player I mentioned there, made arguably the same contribution to winning as Dino Ciccarelli, if not more. LeClair, Heatley and Bure, for example, were/are clearly better.

You will never criticize an induction or argue that an uninducted player should go in, will you? (I believe mark howe was the only example of this) The committee is always right!!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Usual from the Usual

Every player I mentioned there, made arguably the same contribution to winning as Dino Ciccarelli, if not more. LeClair, Heatley and Bure, for example, were/are clearly better.

You will never criticize an induction or argue that an uninducted player should go in, will you? (I believe mark howe was the only example of this) The committee is always right!!

John LeClair is the only one who may make it down the road once a better appreciation is attained of 1990's LWers. Let Heatley's career play-out before reaching conclusions.No rush - beats giving out phantom Harts and scoring championships.

You fall into the trap that somehow if by your perceptions a player is better then that equates with being HHOF worthy.Far from accurate.

Based on Ciccarelli, perhaps LeClair a case may be made for Brian Propp, Rick Martin, Craig Ramsay.

You overlooked coaches - Shero should be in.

 

[seventieslord]

John LeClair is the only one who may make it down the road once a better appreciation is attained of 1990's LWers. Let Heatley's career play-out before reaching conclusions.No rush - beats giving out phantom Harts and scoring championships.

You fall into the trap that somehow if by your perceptions a player is better then that equates with being HHOF worthy.Far from accurate.

Based on Ciccarelli, perhaps LeClair a case may be made for Brian Propp, Rick Martin, Craig Ramsay.

You overlooked coaches - Shero should be in.

So make that two criticisms you are willing to make.

I realize that how good and how accomplished a player are, are two different things. But I also fail to see how any of the names we have tossed around are less accomplished, either.

Who said anything about phantom harts and scoring championships?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Phantom Hart

So make that two criticisms you are willing to make.

I realize that how good and how accomplished a player are, are two different things. But I also fail to see how any of the names we have tossed around are less accomplished, either.

Who said anything about phantom harts and scoring championships?

Phantom Hart(s).

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=734178&page=3&highlight=dickie+moore

see your post #59.

Basically when you make projections - like you did with Ovechkin running up to 5 Harts and the attendant Ross this year you are no longer reality based in your analysis.

Essentially that is where your support for players falls significantly short.

 

[seventieslord]

Phantom Hart(s).

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=734178&page=3&highlight=dickie+moore

see your post #59.

Basically when you make projections - like you did with Ovechkin running up to 5 Harts and the attendant Ross this year you are no longer reality based in your analysis.

Essentially that is where your support for players falls significantly short.

Point being?

There's nothing wrong with assessing where a player's all-time legacy lies assuming he does this or that. I'm not giving Ovechkin credit he hasn't earned.

So either give a real example or go back to lying low. thanks.

 

[cupcrazyman]

...and what did Ciccarelli win?

Entry Into The HHOF.

 

[jkrx]

Entry Into The HHOF.

Yes, you can actually say he won the lottery instead of deserving a place in HHoF.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Point Being

Point being?

There's nothing wrong with assessing where a player's all-time legacy lies assuming he does this or that. I'm not giving Ovechkin credit he hasn't earned.

So either give a real example or go back to lying low. thanks.

Point being is that there is nothing right about doing so.Just reduces any debate to who can create the more attractive delusion. Have fun.

 

[seventieslord]

Point being is that there is nothing right about doing so.Just reduces any debate to who can create the more attractive delusion. Have fun.

ok buddy.

 

[Big Phil]

No it's just ... why inducte a player if you have at least 10 guys that are more fitting?
Is there anything that makes Dino more deserving than say Gilmour, Makarov, Oates, Howe...?

Howe? No, he (Ciccarelli) isn't more deserving.

Gilmour? Not a chance either.

Oates? No way.

Makarov? The thing with him is that we can only base on projection what he "probably" would have done in the NHL in his prime. But based on the sample we saw, it is clear he was better than Ciccarelli and probably anyone mentioned above him

I agree with you here. There were 3 other spots open and there is little reason why they can't all be filled in considering there are some clear cut players waiting. They used the maximum (2) of women they are allowed to induct. I know the HHOF is trying to make women's hockey relevant to us and pretend it is more exciting than paint drying but the truth is if the use the maximum for the women's wing in the Hall with a sport no one cares about then why not use it for the men who constantly garner debate about who should be in there already?

There are cases that can be made for Ciccarelli. There really are. He isn't the worst one to be inducted in the world but the knock on him in 2010 is that he didn't deserve to get in there ahead of some of his contemporaries - and to be the sole inductee in a year! Other than that, if we stand back, there are cases to be made for a guy who scored 608 goals and 73 more in the playoffs. Truth be told, he never really had a BAD playoff year. Maybe nothing legendary outside of 1981, but never a time where you felt he didn't contribute to the team what you expected.

Anyways, I'm torn on him as of right now

 

[Mothra]

See, it's more the other way around. If they really think he's a HHOF player, then maybe their opinions don't matter as much as we thought they do.

It's not that we just want the best 20 players to be inducted. But the bar for induction is changing by the year. They let in players like Duff and Ciccarelli while overlooking players universally considered better, like Oates, Gilmour, Makarov, Bure, Vasiliev, Brewer, etc.

Why would you not care about inducting players who were actually considered the best and most valuable when they played?

Cecil Dillon, Dany Heatley, Gaye Stewart and Ziggy Palffy all made the top-5 in goals twice, and they were top-20 four other times. Are their hall tickets punched now?

Don't forget Hossa, Leclair, Bondra, and Bure, with 16 top-5 seasons between them.

This arguement can be spun back around......Gartner. I take Dino on my team every single time over Gartner

Why dont you worry about Bondra and Palffy getting in if they get in, not as an argument against Dino getting in...

 

[pluppe]

Howe? No, he (Ciccarelli) isn't more deserving.

Gilmour? Not a chance either.

Oates? No way.

Makarov? The thing with him is that we can only base on projection what he "probably" would have done in the NHL in his prime. But based on the sample we saw, it is clear he was better than Ciccarelli and probably anyone mentioned above him

I agree with you here. There were 3 other spots open and there is little reason why they can't all be filled in considering there are some clear cut players waiting. They used the maximum (2) of women they are allowed to induct. I know the HHOF is trying to make women's hockey relevant to us and pretend it is more exciting than paint drying but the truth is if the use the maximum for the women's wing in the Hall with a sport no one cares about then why not use it for the men who constantly garner debate about who should be in there already?

There are cases that can be made for Ciccarelli. There really are. He isn't the worst one to be inducted in the world but the knock on him in 2010 is that he didn't deserve to get in there ahead of some of his contemporaries - and to be the sole inductee in a year! Other than that, if we stand back, there are cases to be made for a guy who scored 608 goals and 73 more in the playoffs. Truth be told, he never really had a BAD playoff year. Maybe nothing legendary outside of 1981, but never a time where you felt he didn't contribute to the team what you expected.

Anyways, I'm torn on him as of right now

one interesting fact to add in this matter is that Makarov outscored Dino (360 to 348) in his only 5 "full" seasons when he came over.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

this inspite being 2 years older, adjusting to a new league/coulture and past his prime.

also note that he scores almost as much as Niewendyk (386) who was right in the middle of his prime.