Hall or no Hall

[Big Phil]

Hey you gotta love the diverse Hall of Fame debates. Everyone has an opinion. My question is whether or not you think these five often borderline guys should be in or out and why?

Bill Barber - Five time 40+ goal scorer. One time 50 goal man. Career high of 112 points, next highest is 89. First team all-star in '76, second in '79, '81. Two time Cup winner, played in four Cup finals. Pretty good playoff numbers as well.

The verdict: IMO Barber just barely makes the HOF. He had a short 12 year career and in his prime was a pretty prolific sniper. Played on the '76 Canada Cup team as well. He was on one of the greatest lines of all time, and dont forget he was also a three time all-star at left wing.


Pete Mahovolich - Two time 100+ points man. Played in '72 Summit Series and '76 Canada Cup. Four time Cup winner.

The verdict: He had two great seasons. But that was it. The ironic thing was that those two seasons he was Lafleur's centre. He had 115, 117 points those years. Other than that he was a 70 point man, look it up. Unfortunately that doesnt get you in there. If he put up two more 100 point seasons and actually led the league in something then I'll say yes.

Daryl Sittler - two time 100 point man. Record of 10 points in one game, played in '76 Canada Cup. Second team all-star in '78.

Verdict: Yes he's a HOFer. Was at least consdiered a top ten player at points in his career. Was in the top 10 in scoring a few times and despite no Cups, well who did witht the Leafs? Sittler's an all-time great. I dont know how anyone can compare him to Federko.

Jeremy Roenick - Three time 100 point man. No Cups, no all-stars, no leading the league in any category. He was in ther top ten in scoring twice. That's not bad but after '94 he was never the same.

Verdict: Roenick never seemed to win, anywhere. No Cups, and the only time Team USA won was in '96 when he wasnt on the team. The thing is he never has done anything to make you put him in there, and he wont start now.

Mike Modano - A notorious 80 point man, One Cup, one all-star ('00), reliable.

Verdict: He's borderline for me. But let the debate begin.

Click to read more...

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Barber & Sittler yes. Barber's career ended prematurely, or he would have hit the 500 goal plateau, still a big deal back then.

Roenick and Modano borderline ... both are better than players in the Hall: Mullen, Gillies, ... but I wouldn't put them in.

Mahavolich, no. Very good player, that had the good fortune of playing with great players and on a great team.

 

[Trottier]

Sittler and Modano get my vote (if I had one).

Barber is very borderline, IMO.

Big Pete, no.

JR, absolutely not. A good player who's style (i.e., his supposed great personality), outweights his substance.

 

[brianscot]

While its easy to just look at stats when considering hall of fame worthiness, I think
its more important to ascertain whether a player changed the culture or tone of games that he played in.

Towards that end, both Bill Barber and Darryl Sittler are hall of fame worthy.

Barber was one of the most complete players of the 70's - early 80s. Beyond scoring, he also killed penalties and even played the point on the powerplay at times.

Sittler carried a struggling franchise for several seasons and was the face of the organization. Until Bill Derlago came along in 79, can anyone even remember who the leafs second line center was?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Not a single one of them.

They were all second-tier stars and that is not what the Hall should be about.

 

[chooch*]

Hey you gotta love the diverse Hall of Fame debates. Everyone has an opinion. My question is whether or not you think these five often borderline guys should be in or out and why?

Pete Mahovolich - Two time 100+ points man. Played in '72 Summit Series and '76 Canada Cup. Four time Cup winner.

The verdict: He had two great seasons. But that was it. The ironic thing was that those two seasons he was Lafleur's centre. He had 115, 117 points those years. Other than that he was a 70 point man, look it up. Unfortunately that doesnt get you in there. If he put up two more 100 point seasons and actually led the league in something then I'll say yes.

Then how the heck does Lemaire get in? Lemaire had no 100 point seasons and wasnt selected for either of the 72 or 76 team.

Pete's selection for 72 was 2 or 3 years before his first 100 point season and shows that he was a highly regarded centre/penalty killer even then. Big Pete was the #1 centre of the Habs as long a period as Lemaire was and was mvp of 75 all star game also whereas Lemaire didnt play in a single all star game during his Lafleur years including Challenge Cup.

I dont get it.

 

[BM67]

Then how the heck does Lemaire get in? Lemaire had no 100 point seasons and wasnt selected for either of the 72 or 76 team.

Pete's selection for 72 was 2 or 3 years before his first 100 point season and shows that he was a highly regarded centre/penalty killer even then. Big Pete was the #1 centre of the Habs as long a period as Lemaire was and was mvp of 75 all star game also whereas Lemaire didnt play in a single all star game during his Lafleur years including Challenge Cup.

I dont get it.

Playoffs.

Lemaire GP 145 G 61 A 78 Pts 139 PIM 63 Cups 8
Mahovlich GP 88 G 30 A 42 Pts 72 PIM 134 Cups 4

Mahovlich hit a point a game in the playoffs once. Lemaire did it 5 times and led in goals and points in the 79 playoffs.

 

[chooch*]

Playoffs.

Lemaire GP 145 G 61 A 78 Pts 139 PIM 63 Cups 8
Mahovlich GP 88 G 30 A 42 Pts 72 PIM 134 Cups 4

Mahovlich hit a point a game in the playoffs once. Lemaire did it 5 times and led in goals and points in the 79 playoffs.

Those stats (save for Cups) are pretty similar. I agree Lemaire had a great 79 playoff where he tied Lafleur for points.

But you overlooked a lot to say "playoffs".

 

[BM67]

Those stats (save for Cups) are pretty similar. I agree Lemaire had a great 79 playoff where he tied Lafleur for points.

But you overlooked a lot to say "playoffs".

If you can say a higher per game rate of goals, assists and points in more games in fewer years is "pretty similar".

 

[jiggs 10]

Not a single one of them.

They were all second-tier stars and that is not what the Hall should be about.

There you go. Summed up nicely, I think.

Although Modano has the chance to make it if he cranks it up for a few years, and the Stars win another Cup.

 

[pappyline]

None of them belong in the hall. Unfortunately the Hall has low standards and favors Leaf players. If players like Gilies, Federko, Tony Esposito, Pulford, laprade Etc make i, than anybody does including these guys. Why can't there be standards like Baseball?

 

[Lowetide]

Baseball has plenty of poor players in the Hall. The CURRENT state of baseball's HOF makes it seem like there are few or no marginal talents in there but they've got skeletons in their closet too.

Barber was a cheap little jerk but he had some monstrous seasons and was a big part of a great team. He's in.

Sittler gets in without a throw.

Mahovlich and Roenick don't make the grade, mostly because neither player was a complete forward. Big holes without the puck.

As for Modano, he is a Hall of Famer at there's little doubt imo. Quality center forever who could play an exceptional game and lined up every night against the other guy's best. Major impact on a Stanley Cup team, best player on his team many times.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Hey you gotta love the diverse Hall of Fame debates. Everyone has an opinion. My question is whether or not you think these five often borderline guys should be in or out and why?

Bill Barber - Five time 40+ goal scorer. One time 50 goal man. Career high of 112 points, next highest is 89. First team all-star in '76, second in '79, '81. Two time Cup winner, played in four Cup finals. Pretty good playoff numbers as well.

The verdict: IMO Barber just barely makes the HOF. He had a short 12 year career and in his prime was a pretty prolific sniper. Played on the '76 Canada Cup team as well. He was on one of the greatest lines of all time, and dont forget he was also a three time all-star at left wing.


Pete Mahovolich - Two time 100+ points man. Played in '72 Summit Series and '76 Canada Cup. Four time Cup winner.

The verdict: He had two great seasons. But that was it. The ironic thing was that those two seasons he was Lafleur's centre. He had 115, 117 points those years. Other than that he was a 70 point man, look it up. Unfortunately that doesnt get you in there. If he put up two more 100 point seasons and actually led the league in something then I'll say yes.

Daryl Sittler - two time 100 point man. Record of 10 points in one game, played in '76 Canada Cup. Second team all-star in '78.

Verdict: Yes he's a HOFer. Was at least consdiered a top ten player at points in his career. Was in the top 10 in scoring a few times and despite no Cups, well who did witht the Leafs? Sittler's an all-time great. I dont know how anyone can compare him to Federko.

Jeremy Roenick - Three time 100 point man. No Cups, no all-stars, no leading the league in any category. He was in ther top ten in scoring twice. That's not bad but after '94 he was never the same.

Verdict: Roenick never seemed to win, anywhere. No Cups, and the only time Team USA won was in '96 when he wasnt on the team. The thing is he never has done anything to make you put him in there, and he wont start now.

Mike Modano - A notorious 80 point man, One Cup, one all-star ('00), reliable.

Verdict: He's borderline for me. But let the debate begin.

I say no to both Modano and Roenick. They both have some attributes that Hall voters are looking for. Modano was a strong two-way player. He played a key role on a Cup champion. He had some very good years, and a lot of good years. But so did Vincent Damphousse, and I don't see anyone clamouring for Damphousse's induction. I don't see much difference between the two. Modano had a few more seasons in the 80-point range. Damphousse had a few more around 90 points. Damphousse was also more versatile (excelled at centre and left wing) and was a better leader.

Roenick had the three 100-point seasons, and a couple really strong playoffs (challenged Ciccarelli's rookie points record in 1990 and was excellent in 1992), but his production has declined since. He hasn't had an 80-point season (to my knowledge) since 1994. He's also had some stinker post-seasons. (1993, anyone). To his credit, he keeps the locker room loose, plays a hard-nosed game and can still carry a team on his back. But I think the voters will recognize that J.R. was not a consistent top player after his 25th birthday.

Mahovlich? No. Two great years doesn't constitute HHOF induction, unless there's a jaw-dropping playoff record, and Pete doesn't have that. Yes, he has two more 100-point seasons and has several Cup rings, but was he a vital, can't-win-without-this-guy cog on those teams? Did he carry his team on his back in those playoffs? No.

Sittler? Without a doubt, yes. Had a couple 100-point seasons, well over a point-per-game for much of his career, and had some dynamite playoffs, too. Had some great seasons on some fairly mediocre Leaf teams.

Barber? One of the most contentious selections. I say yes, but very debatable. A couple monster seasons, some strong playoffs, and a key role in one Cup championship (a secondary role in another).

 

[Ogopogo*]

None of them belong in the hall. Unfortunately the Hall has low standards and favors Leaf players. If players like Gilies, Federko, Tony Esposito, Pulford, laprade Etc make i, than anybody does including these guys. Why can't there be standards like Baseball?

You are greatly underestimating Tony Esposito. He is easily one of the top 20 goaltenders of all time.

 

[Big Phil]

You are greatly underestimating Tony Esposito. He is easily one of the top 20 goaltenders of all time.

Yeah tell me about it! Tony Esposito not in the Hall of Fame? Oh my someone doesnt know their history very well.

 

[jamiebez]

I say no to both Modano and Roenick. They both have some attributes that Hall voters are looking for. Modano was a strong two-way player. He played a key role on a Cup champion. He had some very good years, and a lot of good years. But so did Vincent Damphousse, and I don't see anyone clamouring for Damphousse's induction. I don't see much difference between the two. Modano had a few more seasons in the 80-point range. Damphousse had a few more around 90 points. Damphousse was also more versatile (excelled at centre and left wing) and was a better leader.

First of all, let me say that I totally agree with the Modano-Damphousse comparison. If it was up to me, I wouldn't put either guy in.

The difference is that Modano played his entire career with one team. That somehow seems to move guys up a notch in the eyes of HHOF voters. Federko is the best example of this - I remember around the time of his induction, he was called "the best St. Louis Blue of them all". Modano's in the exact same category: he's the best Minnesota/Dallas Star of them all.

Depending on when he retires (ie: alongside Jagr, Forsberg, Fedorov, Selanne, Lindros etc) he may have to wait a few years, but I think they'll vote him in eventually.

 

[Tundra]

I'd day "yes" to Barber and Sittler. Barber could be counted on to score when it counted. Modano's HOF application would be classified as a "work in progress." I really can't get worked up against Modano's ordinary offensive numbers from 1996 to 2001 on the account that Hitchcock had him locked down as a defensive center. Conversely, this role won Modano a cup so Mike won't have any complaints. Modano showed some toughness by playing in the cup finals with a fractured forearm, so he went a long way in shedding his prettyboy image but it might have been too late. Furthermore, with all his world class skills Modano should have left a greater impact on the league though he still played at a high level. Just imagine if Modano had exhibited a passion for the game like Gordie Howe. With that said, if he can accumulate another 90 point season or two, with a Stanley Cup run, hes in.