Bobby Smith, Yay or Nay For Hall Of Fame?

[Nick Hansen]

Philosophical question:

Are you a defenseman if you don't play defense even though you are assigned as one?

 

[frisco]

Philosophical question:

Are you a defenseman if you don't play defense even though you are assigned as one?

Semantics. Are you a "center" if you ever play along the the boards?

My Best-Carey

 

[Michael Farkas]

Centers should play the boards...

 

[DannyGallivan]

Well, when Dick Duff and Clark Gillies are in it's hard to say no to anyone else who had a remotely decent career.
But no he shouldn't be in.

This.

 

[sr edler]

They all worthy of being remembered in the history of hockey.

Mats Näslund, Steve Larmer and Bobby Smith wont be scrapped from the history books just because they're not in the HHOF. We're talking about them in this thread, so it's not like they're obscure or forgotten antiquities. But you're afraid they will become obscure or forgotten antiquities unless we put them in stuffed versions in display cases of glass in an old building in Toronto?

The HHOF is not the be all end all to hockey history, though. There's a lot of stuff going on on the track side.

 

[ted2019]

yes if you get 1,000 points you should get in.

Bobby Smith can buy a ticket like anyone else. About your 1,000 point quote, hypothetically, if someone plays 25 years and averages 40 points per season, does that make them a HOF player?

 

[Nick Hansen]

Bobby Smith can buy a ticket like anyone else. About your 1,000 point quote, hypothetically, if someone plays 25 years and averages 40 points per season, does that make them a HOF player?

Patrick Marleau will be the litmus test.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i think there's a forest for the trees thing here.

like, if you're saying well larmer and middleton and propp were better players than andreychuk and gartner, you're not really saying that larmer and middleton and propp should be in the hall of fame. what you're really doing is highlighting the things that andreychuk and gartner didn't do or that they don't have on their resumes that makes them bad choices for the hall of fame.

one day, we'll probably be arguing about bobby smith and patrick marleau.

 

[frisco]

Yes, he is the weakest choice. He was never one of the top-40 players in the NHL, ever. Even following his best season (with a lot of help from Doug Gilmour), for the team that gets the most media attention, THN couldn't find room for him on their annual top-40 and I can't blame them.

For a "compiler" Andreychuk's peak performance was strong. His seven best goal scoring years he averaged 43 goals per year. A guy like Cam Neely, who's basically in the Hall for having a dominant peak, also averaged 43 goals over his best seven years. And they played in the same era. So, essentially you are saying the extra 250 goals Andreychuk potted over Cam Neely in their careers don't matter?

I mentioned Steve Shutt. Shutt's best seven years are 44 goals per season. Basically, the same as Andreychuk. But Andreychuk was 200+ goals ahead for his career. Shouldn't that count for something?

My Best-Carey

 

[seventieslord]

For a "compiler" Andreychuk's peak performance was strong. His seven best goal scoring years he averaged 43 goals per year. A guy like Cam Neely, who's basically in the Hall for having a dominant peak, also averaged 43 goals over his best seven years. And they played in the same era. So, essentially you are saying the extra 250 goals Andreychuk potted over Cam Neely in their careers don't matter?

I mentioned Steve Shutt. Shutt's best seven years are 44 goals per season. Basically, the same as Andreychuk. But Andreychuk was 200+ goals ahead for his career. Shouldn't that count for something?

My Best-Carey

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Career totals do not matter. In no way was Dave Andreychuk more impactful than Cam Neely, and Neely is very overrated.

sure, today 43 goals sounds great. But this was the 80s and goals are only one part of offense.

His best points finishes: 10, 16, 21, 22, 33, 40. That's who we want to have in the hall of fame? A six-time 40 point scorer? Ray Whitney did it seven times, for chrissake!

 

[frisco]

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Career totals do not matter.

Who says? Look, I can see the peak argument. But to weigh that exclusively and ignoring career totals is not prudent, imo. There has to be some balancing of the two for practical purposes. The word "impactful" is too subjective and arbitrary.

I think determining overall value has to be the goal. But that's how I see things. I'm not one of those guys who says let's look at a player's best 6-7 years and just throw the rest out.

My Best-Carey

 

[seventieslord]

Who says?

Logic says. It doesn't matter what a player does when they are average or below average (like Andreychuk in his last 6 years). It matters what they did when they were great. What Andreychuk did when he was great was not great enough. Did you really sit there watching Andreychuk lurch his way from 503 to 630 goals over his last 8 seasons, thinking that every time he put in another goal, it made him an incrementally better player?

Look, I can see the peak argument. But to weigh that exclusively and ignoring career totals is not prudent, imo. There has to be some balancing of the two for practical purposes. The word "impactful" is too subjective and arbitrary.

Sure, it's subjective, but that doesn't mean that the entire hockey world can't agree on some things - and one of them is that Cam Neely was definitely a better, more impactful, more memorable and more important player - and he's still not even a very good hall of famer himself.

You can put high emphasis on career value all you want. But career totals and career value are not the same thing.

I think determining overall value has to be the goal. But that's how I see things. I'm not one of those guys who says let's look at a player's best 6-7 years and just throw the rest out.

Neither am I.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

the case for neely is and always will be this—

andreychuk was generally a disappointing playoff performer. in andreychuk’s best 77 game playoff sample he barely has 49 points.

 

[frisco]

the case for neely is and always will be this—

View attachment 202985

andreychuk was generally a disappointing playoff performer. in andreychuk’s best 77 game playoff sample he barely has 49 points.

Well, I guess Cam has all those Cups and Andreychuk doesn't.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Logic says. It doesn't matter what a player does when they are average or below average (like Andreychuk in his last 6 years). It matters what they did when they were great.

I don't particularly think so. I player can contribute without beyond his "great" years. It's not just a three or four year peak that matters it's the totality of the career. I'd rather have 15 years of Mike Gartner getting 35+ goals than five years of Pavel Bure scoring 50 and then either holding out for money, injured, or slumping the rest of the time. That's just my take.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

No disrespect to Bobby Smith, and I personally think he may not always get brought up enough in comparison to other players for the HHOF, but he doesn't belong. Near the top of the Hall of Very Good though. He has a lot of surprisingly good playoff runs and playoff numbers in general. I think if anything that gets underrated with him but there isn't that ONE defining postseason where you said "There it is" either.

I am actually surprised he didn't get inducted shortly after he retired. There was this obsession with players that hit 1,000 points. But in all honesty, he once was 10th in Hart voting and finished 8th in points. Just not HHOF material. And Cup or no Cup with the Leafs Patrick Marleau won't belong either.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He has a lot of surprisingly good playoff runs and playoff numbers in general. I think if anything that gets underrated with him but there isn't that ONE defining postseason where you said "There it is" either.

i think 1981 was that year. he had back to back four point games in the conference finals to lead minnesota into the finals. he helped his linemate steve payne to the second highest single season goal total ever (now fourth all time). he helped his other linemate, rookie ciccarelli, to his career high in playoff goals, which is also the rookie playoff goals record (still stands today). his linemates combined for 31 goals (including 7 GWGs).

he followed it up with his lone 100 point season, and 80s or not 114 points is a very impressive season.

it’s pederson-esque. on his first four years, anyone would think smith was a sure hall of famer. he averaged 91 points a year, and if you prorated his per game to today’s 82 game season, he scored at exactly a 100 point pace over those four years. he also added 45 points in 38 playoff games and five series wins—and he was a first overall pick so he started on a last place team.

 

[MXD]

My point made earlier in this thread still stands as far as I'm concerned : He doesn't have a better case than Vincent Damphousse, and Damphousse isn't going in any time soon.

 

[ted2019]

Patrick Marleau will be the litmus test.

Marleau isn't a HOF player. He has nothing on his resume to say that he is.

 

[Michael Farkas]

One thing for Marleau: fastest gear -> street clothes guy in the league in his prime. He was ready to go out when guys were still undoing their clear tape haha

But yeah, other than that...no, nothing.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

My point made earlier in this thread still stands as far as I'm concerned : He doesn't have a better case than Vincent Damphousse, and Damphousse isn't going in any time soon.

yeah, there's a whole tier of guys with good well-rounded resumes who shouldn't be in but would be way better than some of the worst and most one-dimensional names in there. smith, damphousse, middleton, propp, larmer. i put roenick in that pile too, and, well, smith's former linemate dino ciccarelli.

and here's a controversial take: i would actually choose any number of elite role players/specialists for the hall over that tier of high HOVGers... carbonneau, tikkanen, claude lemieux. there are enough guys on the shallow end of the hall like the ones i mentioned above. mullen, federko, lanny mcdonald, all within range and a decent degree of similarity. the hall has not enough claude lemieuxes and carbonneaux, and there is only one tikkanen of course.

 

[Thenameless]

I'm a Bobby Smith fan, and I wouldn't put him in the Hall of Fame. His strongest case would be his exploits in junior hockey where I think he still holds some records, but of course, we should be putting more weight on NHL play. He was at times a fantastic player that I would love to have on my team, but overall, I don't think he played at a Hall of Fame level.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm a Bobby Smith fan, and I wouldn't put him in the Hall of Fame. His strongest case would be his exploits in junior hockey where I think he still holds some records, but of course, we should be putting more weight on NHL play. He was at times a fantastic player that I would love to have on my team, but overall, I don't think he played at a Hall of Fame level.

He and Gretzky were duking it out for the highest scoring season in OHL history in 1978 right? Smith of course was three years older. But he ended with 192 points, still an OHL record I believe. In fact, I remember a discussion about it during McDavid's final OHL season as to if he had a shot to break it without getting injured.

yeah, there's a whole tier of guys with good well-rounded resumes who shouldn't be in but would be way better than some of the worst and most one-dimensional names in there. smith, damphousse, middleton, propp, larmer. i put roenick in that pile too, and, well, smith's former linemate dino ciccarelli.

and here's a controversial take: i would actually choose any number of elite role players/specialists for the hall over that tier of high HOVGers... carbonneau, tikkanen, claude lemieux. there are enough guys on the shallow end of the hall like the ones i mentioned above. mullen, federko, lanny mcdonald, all within range and a decent degree of similarity. the hall has not enough claude lemieuxes and carbonneaux, and there is only one tikkanen of course.

There is a lot to like about those guys for sure. I just wonder where the line is drawn? Tikkanen brings back a lot of great playoff memories and there is no one that kicks him off their team even if he steals your car. But then there are guys like Ken Linseman too. There really isn't a clear guy in that role where you can say "Okay, now THAT is the cut off position."

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

There is a lot to like about those guys for sure. I just wonder where the line is drawn? Tikkanen brings back a lot of great playoff memories and there is no one that kicks him off their team even if he steals your car. But then there are guys like Ken Linseman too. There really isn't a clear guy in that role where you can say "Okay, now THAT is the cut off position."

linesman’s a good one. tonelli maybe, or is he really more of a larmer than a tikkanen?

i think maybe also a valid question as to whether you’d prefer a larmer or a rick tocchet.

 

[Big Phil]

linesman’s a good one. tonelli maybe, or is he really more of a larmer than a tikkanen?

i think maybe also a valid question as to whether you’d prefer a larmer or a rick tocchet.

All very fine players for sure. Lots to like about them. You want all of them on your team come playoff time. However, none of them you want as your best forward. Or even 2nd best forward because you likely won't win. That's the thing here, we could probably name a dozen guys like them and if we start putting them in where is the cut off? Rick Tocchet gets in but how do you leave a player who is stylistically different but at least as good of a player like Doug Weight out?

By the way, a bit off topic but how many better first rounds that resulted in a loss were there than Weight's 2003 series vs. Vancouver? 13 points in 7 games.