Class of 2011 HHOF

[seventieslord]

Interesting thing is that I bet more Hall of Famers score at 20% or less than one might think. Gut feeling is that it's probably close to 30%, and this is Hall of fame guys not just run of the mill guys either.

It probably is. I'm not saying this to criticize Nieuwendyk or to claim that it's a bad record, more to mitigate the hyping of the idea that he was some kind of clutch beast.

 

[Hardyvan123]

??????

Because winning the Art Ross is a random draw?

Winning an art Ross is alot different than a couple of 7-10 places in a counting stat o category 2 over a career, what does that have to do with my comment?

 

[Hardyvan123]

It probably is. I'm not saying this to criticize Nieuwendyk or to claim that it's a bad record, more to mitigate the hyping of the idea that he was some kind of clutch beast.

Most would agree that he wasn't clutch, although a few might be blinded by the 6 GWG during his Conn Smythe year.

He is a borderline guy for me but then again probably has a better case than at least 20 guys in the Hall already.

the biggest problem I see is that with only 4 inductions per year the Hall is going to have a logjam of some very good candidates coming up very soon, along with the current ones like Bure, Lindros, Makarov et.al

 

[Sens Rule]

Love that Howe finally got it in, but did anyone find it interesting that Pat Quinn specifically mentioned his +/- and referred to it as "an important measure of a player's productivity"? I'm sure bashing of Quinn's hockey mind is going to ensue, but it's funny how hard people try to bash the stat (without qualification, mind you... most of us know it's limited, and requires context) when those actually in the hockey world continue to laud it.

Also chalk me up for the disappointment in Nieuwendyk's inclusion. I know it's the Hall of Fame, and not necessarily the Hall of Talent, but this pick just reeks of high school student council voting by popularity (as opposed to merit), to me. I would have put Lindros and Oates in ahead of Nieuwendyk, probably Bure too, but whatever I guess. Cup rings are obviously one of the most important criteria on the selection committee's tally sheet. Glad Belfour got in though. Totally deserves it.

+/-is a team stat and has so meaningless or useless often in comparing players.... HOWEVER in looking at Howe and his play in the 1980's it is a very useful stat to show how amazingly valuable he was on both ends of the ice.

 

[MS]

Based on? They seem pretty similar to me in terms of individual accomplishment.

In terms of offensive peak and career totals, yeah, they're pretty close. Nieuwendyk has a very slight edge in adjusted career totals, and in terms of adjusted points in their peak seasons it's nearly dead even.

But hockey is a two-way sport.

Ciccarelli was a below-average defensive player while Nieuwendyk was an above-average defensive center (although not close to Selke calibre) and great faceoff guy, which meant that he was a substantially better overall player.

Additionally, Nieuwendyk has a massively superior playoff record. 3 Cups and a Conn Smythe as opposed to a guy who never won anything. And while I think Nieuwendyk's playoff exploits are somewhat over-rated (you'd think he was Claude Lemieux to hear some in the media talk), he was a good postseason performer and a contributor on winning teams.

And he was selected twice to Olympic teams, and won a Gold in the 2002 Olympics. Ciccarelli was passed over for 3 Canada Cups.

Last of all, Nieuwendyk was a class act from start to finish, solid citizen and clean player who was well-liked everywhere he went. Nieuwendyk was never jailed for hitting a player over the head with his stick, never jailed for exposing himself to a neighbor. Class and contribution to the sport matter, and Ciccarelli should have fallen way short in that regard.

So yeah, Nieuwendyk is a much better induction than Ciccarelli. And like I said, I don't like Nieuwendyk's induction that much. But it is palateable, whereas Ciccarelli's really isn't to me.

 

[Ishdul]

I know that you are not advocating Brind'Amour for the Hall but do you really think he has a stronger resume? I just don't see it, it's not a huge gap but there is a gap between the 2.

Brind'Amour has more points while benefitting a lot less from the days of inflated scoring, and he was vastly superior defensively and on faceoffs. Nieuwendyk is the better goal scorer by a decent margin. I'd also take Brind'Amour in the playoffs, too, as their offensive numbers are fairly close but Brind'Amour was again quite a bit better at everything else. Most people would see Rod as a better leader, too.

 

[seventieslord]

Brind'Amour has more points while benefitting a lot less from the days of inflated scoring, and he was vastly superior defensively and on faceoffs. Nieuwendyk is the better goal scorer by a decent margin. I'd also take Brind'Amour in the playoffs, too, as their offensive numbers are fairly close but Brind'Amour was again quite a bit better at everything else. Most people would see Rod as a better leader, too.

I find it very hard to disagree with any of this. Why is it, then, that my whole life, it's been drilled into me that Nieuwendyk = scoring star and Brind'Amour = good defensive player who was decent offensively?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Belfour was a lock for the HHOF before he signed with Toronto, before he was the No. 3 for Canada at the Olympics. He really did a great job of resurrecting his career in Dallas. His 1996-97 season will go down as one of the worst ever by an all-time great who's about to become a UFA. I had doubts about Belfour's ability to recover after his disastrous 1996-97 season, but he erased all those doubts with his first three seasons in Dallas. After his stellar play in the 2000 playoffs, he was a shoo-in for the HHOF.

I would say that Nieuwendyk was a lock for the HHOF after 2003. At that point, you're looking at a guy who had a ring with three different teams, and was a near lock to finish with at least 500 goals and 1,100 points.

Belfour and Nieuwendyk had their moments in Toronto, but when you look back at their careers, they won't be remembered first and foremost as Leafs. They'll be guys who should probably be remembered first and foremost as Dallas players, even though they played their best hockey elsewhere.

nieuwy was like the 10th most important player on the 2003 Devils. It's funny that it really is that Cups win (as a veteran repected locker room presence, true) that put him over the top.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I know that you are not advocating Brind'Amour for the Hall but do you really think he has a stronger resume? I just don't see it, it's not a huge gap but there is a gap between the 2.

I view then as basically equals offensively, with Brindamour the better defensive player.

Am I wrong that they are basically equal offensively?

 

[Sens Rule]

I view then as basically equals offensively, with Brindamour the better defensive player.

Am I wrong that they are basically equal offensively?

I think so. Nieuwendyk was a lot better goal scorer. Offensively overall the edge is not nearly as big for Joe.

But overall.... defence included they are equal probably.

Both are KILLER Faceoff guys. I wonder what their faceoff record is VS EACH OTHER? Would there be records? Maybe just for the later parts of their careers?

 

[MS]

I find it very hard to disagree with any of this. Why is it, then, that my whole life, it's been drilled into me that Nieuwendyk = scoring star and Brind'Amour = good defensive player who was decent offensively?

Best 5 seasons, adjusted points :

Nieuwendyk

86
80
79
77
75

Brind'Amour

88
85
84
84
83

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Yes.

Really? So how did Neely make it in? It certainly wasn't the totals.

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.

And that's another problem with the HOF. Why should popularity matter at all? If a guy plays in Phoenix and is better than an Original six player it shouldn't matter. And if reputation is important, then they've really missed the mark on some of these guys. Giving it based on popularity just makes the HOF less credible.

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

One dimensional players like Bernie Federko?

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.

There's no consistency here at all. They value peak... wait no... they value totals... wait no... it's leadership... It's far more random than baseball is. On any given year some guy (this year it's Nieuwendyk) gets in that nobody expects while other more deserving candidates sit on the sidelines. The votes are kept secret so there's no accountability whatsoever and it's an 'old boys club'.

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.

Sorry, Newy was a very good player but I don't see how he makes it in, esp while guys like Makarov and Oates sit around waiting to invited. Newy is nowhere near what a HOFer should be and if he makes it... there's a whole lot more players that should already be there.

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.

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.

 

[seventieslord]

nieuwy was like the 10th most important player on the 2003 Devils. It's funny that it really is that Cups win (as a veteran repected locker room presence, true) that put him over the top.

The same thing just took Recchi from a "probably" to a "definitely" - not that that's right.

Best 5 seasons, adjusted points :

Nieuwendyk

86
80
79
77
75

Brind'Amour

88
85
84
84
83

well exactly!

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

So yeah, Nieuwendyk is a much better induction than Ciccarelli. And like I said, I don't like Nieuwendyk's induction that much. But it is palateable, whereas Ciccarelli's really isn't to me.

Agreed. I really liked the idea that bad behaviour kept borderline players out. Then Ciccerelli got inducted...

I like this group.

Mark Howe-About damn time. Now lets get JC Tremblay in and there will be no more North American omissions. (I dont count players that have been passed over once or twice as omissions.)
Ed Belfour-One of the great goalies, although not in the same class as Patrick Roy, he was able to be an insurmountable rival to him. And that has weight.
Doug Gilmour-Toronto legend, at his best was arguably the best player in the world, even if it was for two years tops. He played big in big games.
Joe Nieuwendyk-Yeah, questionable, but, class act, winner, has worthy hardware and recognition and we knew this was comming, at least this time he can squeek by in a class with big names.

 

[Stray Wasp]

After last year, I was steeling myself for a Nieuwendyk induction coupled with another snub for Gilmour, Howe and Oates. Great to see two of those three get their just rewards.

 

[Hab-a-maniac]

In terms of offensive peak and career totals, yeah, they're pretty close. Nieuwendyk has a very slight edge in adjusted career totals, and in terms of adjusted points in their peak seasons it's nearly dead even.

But hockey is a two-way sport.

Ciccarelli was a below-average defensive player while Nieuwendyk was an above-average defensive center (although not close to Selke calibre) and great faceoff guy, which meant that he was a substantially better overall player.

Additionally, Nieuwendyk has a massively superior playoff record. 3 Cups and a Conn Smythe as opposed to a guy who never won anything. And while I think Nieuwendyk's playoff exploits are somewhat over-rated (you'd think he was Claude Lemieux to hear some in the media talk), he was a good postseason performer and a contributor on winning teams.

And he was selected twice to Olympic teams, and won a Gold in the 2002 Olympics. Ciccarelli was passed over for 3 Canada Cups.

Last of all, Nieuwendyk was a class act from start to finish, solid citizen and clean player who was well-liked everywhere he went. Nieuwendyk was never jailed for hitting a player over the head with his stick, never jailed for exposing himself to a neighbor. Class and contribution to the sport matter, and Ciccarelli should have fallen way short in that regard.

So yeah, Nieuwendyk is a much better induction than Ciccarelli. And like I said, I don't like Nieuwendyk's induction that much. But it is palateable, whereas Ciccarelli's really isn't to me.

Joe's a better induction than Dino I agree and I also agree Nieuwendyk's playoff resume is overrated. Wasn't even a huge playoff factor in 89 (10 goals but just 14 points in 22 games), mostly due to a broken jaw I believe and then was on 5 Flames teams that got bounced in the 1st round not to mention Dallas in 97. He wasn't to blame for most of those but the dude was a consistent 40 goal, 90 point man early on, then saw his offensive numbers dip along with the rest of the NHL and he became more defensive on Dallas. 66 goals and 118 points in 158 playoff games is pretty damn good but far from incredible.

 

[Gobias Industries]

The same thing just took Recchi from a "probably" to a "definitely" - not that that's right.

Here's the thing though, Recchi put up a PPG in the finals...

Nieuwendyk missed the finals...

 

[WingsFan95]

Good to see Mark Howe get in. I've written a lot of words in support of him on here, as have many others. While he could have gone in earlier, at least he was inducted while his dad was still around to see it.

Good job all around by the committee. Gilmour and Belfour are among the greats of the last 25 years, and fully deserving. I wouldn't have put Nieuwendyk in, but we knew it was coming. And it's not like his induction opens the door to any undeserving players - he had a pretty impressive combination of accomplishments, and there aren't a lot of similar candidacies out there.

Wouldn't put Nieuwendyk in either but a Conn Smythe puts a lot of players in, especially forwards.

Claude Lemieux in my mind>Joe.

But x5000 on Mark Howe getting in, bout freaking time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Vic Hadfield Perception

I find it very hard to disagree with any of this. Why is it, then, that my whole life, it's been drilled into me that Nieuwendyk = scoring star and Brind'Amour = good defensive player who was decent offensively?

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.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

nieuwy was like the 10th most important player on the 2003 Devils. It's funny that it really is that Cups win (as a veteran repected locker room presence, true) that put him over the top.

Could be the same deal for Recchi.

3rd Cup with 3rd team, not even close to 10th most important.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Joe's a better induction than Dino I agree and I also agree Nieuwendyk's playoff resume is overrated. Wasn't even a huge playoff factor in 89 (10 goals but just 14 points in 22 games), mostly due to a broken jaw I believe and then was on 5 Flames teams that got bounced in the 1st round not to mention Dallas in 97. He wasn't to blame for most of those but the dude was a consistent 40 goal, 90 point man early on, then saw his offensive numbers dip along with the rest of the NHL and he became more defensive on Dallas. 66 goals and 118 points in 158 playoff games is pretty damn good but far from incredible.

Maybe its because its a nice round number, but I've always considered 10 or more goals in the playoffs a big factor.

 

[seventieslord]

Here's the thing though, Recchi put up a PPG in the finals...

Nieuwendyk missed the finals...

true.

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.

good point.

Could be the same deal for Recchi.

3rd Cup with 3rd team, not even close to 10th most important.

I would say 11th. 6th among forwards, with Thomas and the top-4 D-men also ahead.

Maybe its because its a nice round number, but I've always considered 10 or more goals in the playoffs a big factor.

Goals may mean more than assists, but points mean a lot more than goals. 14 in 22, in 1989, isn't that special.

 

[plusandminus]

Incidentally, Sakic, Shanahan and Sundin are absolute locks for 2012. ... Sundin? I'm not sold on him as much as others, but for about a decade, there wasn't a player in the game more consistent on a nightly basis than Sundin. And when you're dealing with a committee of players, coaches and executives, nightly consistency is a very big deal.

Sundin is the all time leading scorer for an original 6 team, that's a pretty big accomplishment, and also something not many Europeans have accomplished. He also was the first European drafted as number 1 overall, left Sweden as a teenager, and from that day on was a top-2 scorer for his team during 17 straight seasons. During last 11-12 seasons he was the captain for the team, also something relatively unique for a European born player.
He once had a 30 game point streak, and I think also lots of consecutive games without injury. Lots of game winning goals, and I think tied leader alltime in OT goals. Very consistent. Lots of consecutive 20 goal seasons.

17 straight seasons as a top-2 scorer for his team (13 1st, 4 2nd).
At age 23-36, 13 seasons, he led Toronto in scoring 12 seasons (often goals and/or assists too) out of 13, and once finished a close 2nd behind Mogilny.
At age 19-22, 4 seasons, he led Quebec in scoring once, and finished 2nd 3 times (Sakic and him always being top-2).

No Stanley Cup. But he did prove internationally what a great clutch player he could be, often scoring important goals for the Swedes. He also 3 times was elected to the all star team in tournaments featuring all the best players (Canada Cup, World Cup, Olympics). Several World Championship gold medals, one of those times being voted as tournament's best forward.
Was captain when Sweden won the 2006 Olympics, and assisted on the tournament winning goal.

Definitely could/would have had some Stanley Cups had he played for a better team. (Which may be true for Marcel Dionne, Peter Stastny et al too, but still.)

 

[seventieslord]

Sundin is the all time leading scorer for an original 6 team, that's a pretty big accomplishment, and also something not many Europeans have accomplished. He also was the first European drafted as number 1 overall, left Sweden as a teenager, and from that day on was a top-2 scorer for his team during 17 straight seasons. During last 11-12 seasons he was the captain for the team, also something relatively unique for a European born player.
He once had a 30 game point streak, and I think also lots of consecutive games without injury. Lots of game winning goals, and I think tied leader alltime in OT goals. Very consistent. Lots of consecutive 20 goal seasons.

17 straight seasons as a top-2 scorer for his team (13 1st, 4 2nd).
At age 23-36, 13 seasons, he led Toronto in scoring 12 seasons (often goals and/or assists too) out of 13, and once finished a close 2nd behind Mogilny.
At age 19-22, 4 seasons, he led Quebec in scoring once, and finished 2nd 3 times (Sakic and him always being top-2).

No Stanley Cup. But he did prove internationally what a great clutch player he could be, often scoring important goals for the Swedes. He also 3 times was elected to the all star team in tournaments featuring all the best players (Canada Cup, World Cup, Olympics). Several World Championship gold medals, one of those times being voted as tournament's best forward.
Was captain when Sweden won the 2006 Olympics, and assisted on the tournament winning goal.

Definitely could/would have had some Stanley Cups had he played for a better team. (Which may be true for Marcel Dionne, Peter Stastny et al too, but still.)

Jeez, all that to a guy who wasn't even really criticizing Sundin!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.