Class of 2011 HHOF

[John Flyers Fan]

The Nieuwendyk-Brind'amour comparison is an excellent one, and goes to show now screwed up the HHoF really is.

Nieuwendyk and Brind'amour were both very good players. Guys you would love to have on your team. Winning players. They were both excellent 2nd line centers for most of their careers. Therein lies the rub, if they were your 2nd line center your team had an excellent chance of being really good. If they were your top center or best forward, you likely weren't a serious Stanley Cup threat.

I'm a big Brind'amour fan, saw his entire career, and saw every game he ever played for the Flyers (the bulk of his prime). Never once did I think Hall of Famer.

He was the 3rd best player on the team (some would say 4th) behind Eric Lindros and Eric Desjardins.

The difference the Hall makes towards forwards/defenseman is stark.

Neither Brind'amour or Nieuwendyk were ever a top 10 center in the league, and most years not a top 15 center, top 40 forward or top 60 player.

Forwards like that still quite often have find their way into the Hall.

Standards for defenseman are so much higher. A Norris is almost a prerequisite. If you weren't a top 5 defenseman for a significant stretch you have no shot.

Eric Desjardins was a huge part of a Cup champion, was selected to play for Canada in multiple best-in-best tourneys, and was a legit #1 defenseman for a decade. He was a top 10 defenseman for a decade and had years that he was borderline top 5.

Yet, a guy like Desjardins has no shot. He isn't the only one, others that fall into this general category (although not all were on Desjardins level) Adam Foote, Derien Hatcher, Sergei Zubov, Sergei Gonchar, Teppo Numminen, Kimmo Timmonen.

Larry Murphy is pretty much the only defenseman put in the Hall in recent years that fits this sort of player. He wasn't a Norris candidate on a regular basis, butMurphy's pile of points and Cups got him noticed.

I'm not arguing that all these defenseman should be in the Hall, as I prefer to keep it more exclusive than it is, but pointing out that if they played at their same level as a forward, they'd stand a pretty good chance of being enshrined one day.

I would prefer the kept this level forward out.

If you want your kid to be a Hall of Famer, make him a forward.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The Nieuwendyk-Brind'amour comparison is an excellent one, and goes to show now screwed up the HHoF really is.

Nieuwendyk and Brind'amour were both very good players. Guys you would love to have on your team. Winning players. They were both excellent 2nd line centers for most of their careers. Therein lies the rub, if they were your 2nd line center your team had an excellent chance of being really good. If they were your top center or best forward, you likely weren't a serious Stanley Cup threat.

I'm a big Brind'amour fan, saw his entire career, and saw every game he ever played for the Flyers (the bulk of his prime). Never once did I think Hall of Famer.

He was the 3rd best player on the team (some would say 4th) behind Eric Lindros and Eric Desjardins.

The difference the Hall makes towards forwards/defenseman is stark.

Neither Brind'amour or Nieuwendyk were ever a top 10 center in the league, and most years not a top 15 center, top 40 forward or top 60 player.

Forwards like that still quite often have find their way into the Hall.

Standards for defenseman are so much higher. A Norris is almost a prerequisite. If you weren't a top 5 defenseman for a significant stretch you have no shot.

Eric Desjardins was a huge part of a Cup champion, was selected to play for Canada in multiple best-in-best tourneys, and was a legit #1 defenseman for a decade. He was a top 10 defenseman for a decade and had years that he was borderline top 5.

Yet, a guy like Desjardins has no shot. He isn't the only one, others that fall into this general category (although not all were on Desjardins level) Adam Foote, Derien Hatcher, Sergei Zubov, Sergei Gonchar, Teppo Numminen, Kimmo Timmonen.

Larry Murphy is pretty much the only defenseman put in the Hall in recent years that fits this sort of player. He wasn't a Norris candidate on a regular basis, butMurphy's pile of points and Cups got him noticed.

I'm not arguing that all these defenseman should be in the Hall, as I prefer to keep it more exclusive than it is, but pointing out that if they played at their same level as a forward, they'd stand a pretty good chance of being enshrined one day.

I would prefer the kept this level forward out.

If you want your kid to be a Hall of Famer, make him a forward.

Brind'Amour was the best centre in the league in 2005-06. Thornton won the Hart, but if you include the playoffs, Brind'Amour was probably the overall league MVP that year. I still think he was robbed blind of the Conn Smythe.

I think that one huge HOF-caliber season is what puts him a hair over Nieuwendyk in my books, and you're absolutely right that this induction opens the door to Rod. Hard to say how the voters will treat him. He had a much more anonymous career than Nieuwendyk. I think a lot of people forget he was St. Louis, he played in Lindros' shaddow in Philly, and Carolina wasn't exactly a high-profile Cup champion.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Two Centers

Brind'Amour was the best centre in the league in 2005-06. Thornton won the Hart, but if you include the playoffs, Brind'Amour was probably the overall league MVP that year. I still think he was robbed blind of the Conn Smythe.

I think that one huge HOF-caliber season is what puts him a hair over Nieuwendyk in my books, and you're absolutely right that this induction opens the door to Rod. Hard to say how the voters will treat him. He had a much more anonymous career than Nieuwendyk. I think a lot of people forget he was St. Louis, he played in Lindros' shaddow in Philly, and Carolina wasn't exactly a high-profile Cup champion.

Kyle

Your post brings the issue of depth at center to the forefront.

Short list Crosby/Malkin/Jordan Staal, Brind'Amour/Eric Staal,
Yzerman/Fedorov/Larionov, Gretzky/Messier, Mario Lemieux/Francis,
Beliveau/Henri Richard, Delvecchio/Ullman, Keon/Kelly and so forth.

Any reason why the second center should not be honoured?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Brind'Amour was the best centre in the league in 2005-06. Thornton won the Hart, but if you include the playoffs, Brind'Amour was probably the overall league MVP that year.

Now I have a huge deal of respect for Rod Brind'Amour but that's just hyperbole.

 

[VanIslander]

don't confuse top-40 scorer with top-40 player

 

[seventieslord]

Nieuwendyk and Brind'amour were both very good players. Guys you would love to have on your team. Winning players. They were both excellent 2nd line centers for most of their careers. Therein lies the rub, if they were your 2nd line center your team had an excellent chance of being really good. If they were your top center or best forward, you likely weren't a serious Stanley Cup threat.

Very well-said.

I used a similar argument when comparing 3rd defense pairings in the last ATD final.

Neither Brind'amour or Nieuwendyk were ever a top 10 center in the league, and most years not a top 15 center, top 40 forward or top 60 player.

I can go back to at least 1993 using the THN yearbooks to put this theory to the test. This will work for Brind'Amour, who had no hope of being a top-60 player until at least 1994, and for the 2nd phase of Nieuwendyk's career. It's not perfect, but at least it's somewhat objective. I suspect Brind'Amour makes the list twice, following the 2006 and 2007 seasons. Nieuwendyk, well, I'd love to find out that they only ranked him 2-3 times because it would make their constant hyping of him as a HHOF slam dunk even more puzzling.

Larry Murphy is pretty much the only defenseman put in the Hall in recent years that fits this sort of player. He wasn't a Norris candidate on a regular basis, butMurphy's pile of points and Cups got him noticed.

Murphy was top-8 in Norris voting something like 8 times, and it was against a very talented top-level group of D-men. He doesn't belong in your post.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I didn't say the factors are a checklist guys had to pass, guys can get big boosts from any of those things even if they miss other factors. Neely was inducted in spite of lacking totals because he was extremely popular as a player and was universally held in high esteem in hockey circles.

I'm not saying I think popularity and such things should matter, I just saw the pattern.

That's kind of my point though. The HOF isn't nearly objective enough in it's decision making. There IS a pattern of taking popular players over ones that were better on the ice. And that's a big problem.

The voting process is also a problem because it's limited to 18 guys and held completely in secret. You can't tell me that these guys are objective in who and how they've voted people in.

Well, again, I think with him you got a combination of a guy that was well-liked and also got over the magic 1k hump. I also think it was the sort of thing where him being "Mr.Blues" worked for him and in addition the whole underrated because of being on the Blues thing became sort of a meme.

With regards to Dino who someone else brought up, you have big totals and another guy who was pretty popular and fulfilled the "gritty Canadian" characteristic. He had to wait because of some off-ice stuff, maybe similarly to Gilmour, so it shows how reputation can be a double-edged sword in this regard.

I was more talking about guys like Bure (representing guys like Mogilny here as well) or Oates, though both may eventually make it in.

How is it though that a guy like Oates has to wait? How is it that Howe has to wait? Those guys are legit HOF players when you look at who they've voted in already. To vote in Newy over Oates is a disgrace.

Plenty of people including myself expected Nieuwendyk to get in. I expect Andreychuck to ultimately make it too. Doesn't mean I think it's great but let's not act like this Nieuwendyk induction came out of nowhere.

Why? He's done nothing close to meriting induction. It's great that he was on cup winning teams and he was a very good player but his induction was a shock to me when I read about it. Oates should've been the guy here. Makarov would be another guy that I'd be fine with. Lindros or Bure? Based on who they've let in already... sure. But Nieuwendyk's induction just continues the trend of lowering the bar for random players while excluding much more worthy candidates.

I'm happy that the other three got in. Belfour especially deserved it and Gilmour and Howe should've been in long ago. Newy isn't in that class of player though and he now goes in with the long (and ever growing) list of players who shouldn't be there. Even by the NHL's own shotty standards, Newy is a terrible choice.

I think Nieuwendyk is a marginal selection but you got a popular, highly respected guy who could check the boxes for totals and team success.

Popular with the 18 voters. If you're part of the boys club you get in. And that's the problem here.

Guys with identical numbers get different results depending on who their friends are and it should never be that way.

I don't know how you can expect anything near 100% consistency in a process that is voted on by human beings. It's not like the Presidential elections follow some sort of predictable pattern of who is deemed worthy of the office.

The baseball HOF doesn't always get it right either but at least it's done by sportswriters with much higher standards and a bigger voting pool with published results. The Hockey HOF is like a high school student council where the 'cool kids' get in even if they don't deserve it.

Quite frankly our Hall sucks. It's way past due that they changed how they vote in the players. There are way too many players in the HOF that shouldn't be there and way too many that are sitting on the sidelines who should.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Great to see Mark Howe (finally) and Gilmour get inducted.

Belfour was a slam dunk.

We all knew Nieuwendyk was going to make it eventually, and we all knew he'd be one of the weaker inductees.

As for what happened to his offense and the Brind'amour comparisons etc.. if memory serves me correctly Nieuwendyk's 40-50 goal ability got robbed from him by knee injuries. He was just never quite the same afterwards.

Joe was much more dynamic in those early years, and I think people are remembering him too much as a 35-40 year old where he was really picking his spots and not played as much. I think he is a weaker induction for sure but people are swinging too far the other way now.

I can't remember who was posting adjusted stats and questioning if Brind'amour was a good offensively as Nieuwendyk up thread but.. I'm a big Brind'amour fan and you could easily make the case that he was the better player overall (I would probably pick him in an atd sense), but if you were picking them at their best and looking at offensive ability it would be an easy pick: Nieuwendyk (who I am also a fan of).

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Murphy was top-8 in Norris voting something like 8 times, and it was against a very talented top-level group of D-men. He doesn't belong in your post.

I have no problem with Murphy in the Hall. He played forever. Always put up points, and he was a winner pretty much wherever he went.

It wasn't an accident that he was on the ice when Mario scored in 87. Pittsburgh surely doesn't win those Cups without him. Detroit was the absolute ideal spot for him at the end. His intelligence, made up for the foot speed that was gone, the style that Detroit played hid his deficiencies and played to his strengths (why Bowman is the best).

Much more of a compiler than dominant. Sort of the defense equivalent of a Mark Recchi/Ron Francis hybrid.

While he ranked in the top 8 often, I don't think he ever had a 2 or 3 year run, where he was a legit threat to win the award

In fact I think the top 2-3 years of a few of the defenseman I mentioned would be better that Murphy's top 2-3 years.

Murphy was incredibly consistent though, and right from his rookie year he put up points.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I have no problem with Murphy in the Hall. He played forever. Always put up points, and he was a winner pretty much wherever he went.

It wasn't an accident that he was on the ice when Mario scored in 87. Pittsburgh surely doesn't win those Cups without him. Detroit was the absolute ideal spot for him at the end. His intelligence, made up for the foot speed that was gone, the style that Detroit played hid his deficiencies and played to his strengths (why Bowman is the best).

Much more of a compiler than dominant. Sort of the defense equivalent of a Mark Recchi/Ron Francis hybrid.

While he ranked in the top 8 often, I don't think he ever had a 2 or 3 year run, where he was a legit threat to win the award

In fact I think the top 2-3 years of a few of the defenseman I mentioned would be better that Murphy's top 2-3 years.

Murphy was incredibly consistent though, and right from his rookie year he put up points.

I agree with you and I think that being good for a long time is something that is getting frowned upon a lot.

I try not to use the put down compiler any more because the more I think about it the more I appreciate how hard it is to stay in the NHL that long let alone be a good player a long time.

Longevity and consistency are special skills/traits too.

Also, seventies, being top 8 in most NHL awards = homer/token votes most of the time, and I think most of the time you get past 5th you might as well throw it out as think it means something.

 

[Dangler99*]

Ah, you beat me to it. That is exactly what I was going to post. That right there should tell a big chunk of the story. Oates was deceptively a top notch scorer. Turgeon did have a couple seasons where he was 4th and 5th in PPG, but if we are going to allow him those extra points for being healthy then we have to do it for Sakic, Jagr etc. Therefore he never wins a major award.

Plus not like either player had a great track record on the Hart trophy voting, but Oates finished 4th one year where Turgeon never cracked that.

Oates was probably the best forward on two teams that reached the final. Turgeon never did this and while he set up a great season for Scott Young once, Oates did this to Bondra, Neely, Hull, Juneau and Chris Simon. The comparisons are far apart.

Another thing, Andreychuk didn't have the seasons he had around Turgeon that he did with Gilmour. The reason I say this, is because Oates and Gilmour constantly get compared and it stands to reason that once Andreychuk was with a better center, he put up more points.

Oates wins this hands down and while Turgeon does get unfairly treated around here I can say in my mind a poll like this should be unanimous

Yup. I don't know how Oates was not on the list to be inducted in the hall of fame this year. They put Nieuendyk over him? He did not once in his entire career make the top 10 in scoring While Oates is a three time top three scorer and a 7 time top 10 scorer. It's supposed to be the Hockey Hall of Fame, so why would they not put a superstar like Oates in before a player like Nieuendyk who was never a top player in the NHL.

 

[Big Phil]

Yup. I don't know how Oates was not on the list to be inducted in the hall of fame this year. They put Nieuendyk over him? He did not once in his entire career make the top 10 in scoring While Oates is a three time top three scorer and a 7 time top 10 scorer. It's supposed to be the Hockey Hall of Fame, so why would they not put a superstar like Oates in before a player like Nieuendyk who was never a top player in the NHL.

The HHOF really dropped the ball. They've looked ridiculous the last two years. Come to think of it, they were given softballs in 2007 and 2009 (hard to not pencil those picks in) but when it comes down to weak years they seem to go out of their way to make weird picks.

2010 and all they picked was Ciccarelli? Mark Howe and Gilmour all of the sudden became all-time greats within a year?

And there was much to be debated with Nieuwendyk. He was a guy that needed to be debated for years to death before getting inducted. Not on his 2nd year! I was talking to a friend today and we both agreed that while Baseball has almost too strict of a code to get in it can at least be agreed that it is more exclusive to all-time greats.

As for Nieuwendyk, I don't understand it. I wouldn't have put him in and to be honest it has really bothered me the last two days. It cheapens the HHOF. Oates, Middleton, Lindros, Bure are all players that deserve it over him. Heck, Fleury even. Just a shame that people have repeated it so much over the years that they actually believe he is legit

 

[Iain Fyffe]

A perception that goes back to Vic Hadfield scoring 50 goals during 1971-1972, yet never scoring more than 31 in any other season before or after. Touching a plateau that others like Howe, Frank Mahovlich and many others never did. Creating expectations and perceptions that do not support what a player actually contributes.

Nieuwendyk did score 50 goals twice very early in his career so the expectation and perception was that he should be able to do it regularly since he had"scoring star" skills.

Nieuwendyk's best years were 51, 51, 45, 45, 39, 38, 36.

Hadfield's were 50, 31, 30, 28, 27, 26, 22.

These are not really similar. Scoring 45 goals is essentially the same as 51, so saying Nieuwendyk's didn't live up to 51 goals is specious. Using adjusted goals, his best season was 1998.

Nieuwendyk was an excellent goal-scorer, while Brind'Amour was the better playmaker. Brindy was no slouch on offence, but he did benefit from massive piles of ice time.

 

[Dangler99*]

The HHOF really dropped the ball. They've looked ridiculous the last two years. Come to think of it, they were given softballs in 2007 and 2009 (hard to not pencil those picks in) but when it comes down to weak years they seem to go out of their way to make weird picks.

2010 and all they picked was Ciccarelli? Mark Howe and Gilmour all of the sudden became all-time greats within a year?

And there was much to be debated with Nieuwendyk. He was a guy that needed to be debated for years to death before getting inducted. Not on his 2nd year! I was talking to a friend today and we both agreed that while Baseball has almost too strict of a code to get in it can at least be agreed that it is more exclusive to all-time greats.

As for Nieuwendyk, I don't understand it. I wouldn't have put him in and to be honest it has really bothered me the last two days. It cheapens the HHOF. Oates, Middleton, Lindros, Bure are all players that deserve it over him. Heck, Fleury even. Just a shame that people have repeated it so much over the years that they actually believe he is legit

I know. Bottom Line if you don't even make the top 10 in scoring even Once in your entire NHL career you should not even be considered for the Hall of fame. Let alone over a superstar like Oates. I agree with you, the Hall of fame selections have been pretty weak of recent. It does cheapen the hall of fame when they induct players who were never superstars in the NHL. Ciccarelli was a very good player but he probably never should have been in the Hall. His best scoring finishes in his career are 6th and 9th. Good but not hall of fame worthy numbers.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I know. Bottom Line if you don't even make the top 10 in scoring even Once in your entire NHL career you should not even be considered for the Hall of fame. Let alone over a superstar like Oates.

It is the top 10 scorers hall of fame now?

 

[Dangler99*]

It is the top 10 scorers hall of fame now?

It just shows that Joe was never a top player in the NHL. If you don't want to judge him on top 10 scoring finishes then what should we judge him on? Playoff Performance. He has a smythe but besides that he is nothing special in the playoffs. Calder Trophy and A smyth make you a hall of famer? No way.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It just shows that Joe was never a top player in the NHL. If you don't want to judge him on top 10 scoring finishes then what should we judge him on? Playoff Performance. He has a smythe but besides that he is nothing special in the playoffs. Calder Trophy and A smyth make you a hall of famer? No way.

There is more to hockey than goals and assists.

 

[Dangler99*]

There is more to hockey than goals and assists.

Ok so then what reason is there for Him to be in the hall? Why does he deserve to be in the hall. Name a few reasons.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Ok so then what reason is there for Him to be in the hall? Why does he deserve to be in the hall. Name a few reasons.

It isn't just top 10 in points, it is the resume:

2x50 goal scorer (it was and is still magical)
Calder winner.
3 Cups 3 teams.
Conn Smythe winner.
500 goals/1000 pts
2002 Gold Medal playing best on best for Canada at age 35.


Oh, and if top whatevers really does float your boat:

Top 10 in goals 5 times.

He's not Wayne Gretzky but he did pretty well for himself.

 

[Dangler99*]

It isn't just top 10 in points, it is the resume:

2x50 goal scorer (it was and is still magical)
Calder winner.
3 Cups 3 teams.
Conn Smythe winner.
500 goals/1000 pts
2002 Gold Medal playing best on best for Canada at age 35.


Oh, and if top whatevers really does float your boat:

Top 10 in goals 5 times.

He's not Wayne Gretzky but he did pretty well for himself.

ehh he had a "good career" If two 50 goal seasons gets you in then why is Bure not in yet? He has 4 58+ goal seasons and Top 10 scoring finishes including 2nd, 3rd place finishes. Bure also had a dominant run with 31 points in 24 games on route to the finals.

 

[seventieslord]

Also, seventies, being top 8 in most NHL awards = homer/token votes most of the time, and I think most of the time you get past 5th you might as well throw it out as think it means something.

If it wasn't significant, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Keep in mind that "top-8" does not mean "8th", it means somewhere in the top-8. At 8th, there may or may not be homer votes in play, so you have to actually look at the voting points to know for sure.

Aside from Murphy's 3 2nd team all-star years (including two 3rd placements, dispelling the notion that he didn't have a top-3 year), he was 5th with 37 voting points, 6th with 47, and 7th with 16. Those are all significant seasons worthy of mention, for a total of six.

As for there being 8 such years... I was attempting to go off the top of my head and got it wrong. But I was NOT attempting to pass off crap as something useful.

 

[BraveCanadian]

ehh he had a "good career" If two 50 goal seasons gets you in then why is Bure not in yet? He has 4 58+ goal seasons and Top 10 scoring finishes including 2nd, 3rd place finishes. Bure also had a dominant run with 31 points in 24 games on route to the finals.

I'm not on the committee so you'll have to ask them.

 

[plusandminus]

Does anyone have a list of the most times a player led his team in scoring? I think Elias is at 7 and Doan at 8 by now. Calling pnep.

I don't know, but like I said, Sundin led Toronto 12 times and Quebec 1 time. I think I just read that Gretzky was top-3 overall in scoring for 14 or 16 straight seasons. Doug Weight had a reputation once of leading his team in scoring for season after season, but I doubt he did it during so many seasons.
It would be interesting to know (perhaps in another thread, I suppose). I tried google it the other day, but unsuccessful.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Kyle

Your post brings the issue of depth at center to the forefront.

Short list Crosby/Malkin/Jordan Staal, Brind'Amour/Eric Staal,
Yzerman/Fedorov/Larionov, Gretzky/Messier, Mario Lemieux/Francis,
Beliveau/Henri Richard, Delvecchio/Ullman, Keon/Kelly and so forth.

Any reason why the second center should not be honoured?

If both C are instrumental to success, then I don't see why not. The knock on Brind'Amour's case being that he only played at his 2005-06 level for one full season, maybe two, whereas most of the others on your list put together numerous campaigns of similar acclaim.

Now I have a huge deal of respect for Rod Brind'Amour but that's just hyperbole.

Brind'Amour was logging huge minutes that year (24 minutes per game) as a Selke-caliber defensive forward, and an offensive force on the powerplay. It's a coach's dream to be able to give your veteran C all the tough minutes at even strength, and know he will also be a key contributor offensively. Not to mention a terrific leader to a team with a good blend of youth and veterans.

Jagr and Thornton had strong second halves to cement themselves as the two Hart candidates, but halfway through the year, Brind'Amour was considered the front-runner. The fact that he continued his strong play for an extra two months to captain his team to a Cup is what puts that season over the top. All things considered, he was the league's top C that year in my books.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Jagr and Thornton had strong second halves to cement themselves as the two Hart candidates, but halfway through the year, Brind'Amour was considered the front-runner. The fact that he continued his strong play for an extra two months to captain his team to a Cup is what puts that season over the top. All things considered, he was the league's top C that year in my books.

Well you are obviously free to feel that way.

But the facts show that he was 23rd in scoring amongst centers, 49th in the league (24th, 59th respectively in PPG).

Yes, he was a really strong two way player and leader, but there's a point where you go "there's more than goals and assists to hockey....but goals and assists are still pretty damn important."

Eric Staal, who also played on Carolina, had 15 goals and 30 points more and led the field in playoff scoring on his way to the Cup as well. Was Brind'Amour more of the "heart and soul" of the team than 21 year old Staal? Absolutely. Do they win the Cup if they don't have Staal's offense? Very doubtful.

Staal did get almost four times as many Hart Trophy votes as Brind'Amour by the way. (121 vs. 33). Staal finished 4th, Brind'Amour 11th.