Oates vs Selanne

[canucks4ever]

So if that's the case the best thing to do is look at the original post and see where their places were in the scoring race. This is the best way to judge eras although their careers overlapped for a long time.

I picked Oates. Because in all honesty I would give Francis the edge if I had a gun to my head in the other thread vs. Selanne. Oates was better at his best than Francis for sure.

It's funny because Oates was so quietly one of the more underappreciated players of all time. You never saw him in commercials on TV. You barely saw him do an interview. He never won a Cup. He was snubbed from the Olympics/Canada Cups. His face just wasn't familiar to the casual fan and I think this hurts him, but it shouldn't really because if you isolate his on-ice play he was fabulously effective. I mean he turned Chris Simon into a 29 goal scorer. Neely, Hull and Bondra all owe it to him for their best years. Hull is an all-time great and we saw the proof of his numbers slipping once Oates left town.

Selanne's career is funny too. He was dominant from 1992-2000 for the most part. He scored 729 points (2nd most in that timeframe to Jaromir) and yet Oates wasn't far behind at 682 (4th). This excludes Oates' three elite seasons prior to this as well. Plus when Selanne had that collapse in his career (2000-2004) it was Oates who decided to lead the NHL in assists twice. Throw in his defense superiority to Selanne and his playoff superiority in that time frame and I figure Oates is the clear cut winner.

Now post lockout Selanne has redeemed himself. A couple of really good seasons and good playoffs, as well as a Cup and arguably the best forward on a Cup winning team. So that narrows the gap but career wise I still believe it to be Oates. Selanne was flashier and on the surface more dangerous looking on the ice. But the playmaking of Oates seemed to make his LINEMATES so dangerous looking while everyone forgot about him and how they got their goals in the first place.

The ironic thing is Selanne is a lock for the HHOF, and I agree. Oates should be but isn't in there yet. Something is fishy. Hart voting and goal scoring though is an avenue that Selanne does come out on top so it isn't as if I am trying to discredit him at all.

Well, he does have that lame commercial where the blonde chick says he's 'offsides'.

I am suprised though that he was never marketed, he has the looks to be a posterboy for the league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well, he does have that lame commercial where the blonde chick says he's 'offsides'.

I am suprised though that he was never marketed, he has the looks to be a posterboy for the league.

Oates was never marketed mainly because he was such a sourpuss with the media. Also, there were always better and/or more excited stars when Oates played.

 

[canucks4ever]

Oates was never marketed mainly because he was such a sourpuss with the media. Also, there were always better and/or more excited stars when Oates played.

Yeah maybe after 95, but from 91-94, he was one of the top players in the league. A guy like paul kariya was marketed more and he isn't better than oates, same with modano.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah maybe after 95, but from 91-94, he was one of the top players in the league. A guy like paul kariya was marketed more and he isn't better than oates, same with modano.

From 91-94, Oates was overshadowed by either Brett Hull or Ray Bourque/Cam Neely on his own team.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Lafontaine, Yzerman, Roenick, and Messier all overshadowed Oates among centers during this time. Gilmour in some years, as well.

 

[canucks4ever]

From 91-94, Oates was overshadowed by either Brett Hull or Ray Bourque/Cam Neely on his own team.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Lafontaine, Yzerman, Roenick, and Messier all overshadowed Oates among centers during this time. Gilmour in some years, as well.

I dont really understand what your trying to say, cam neely wasn't even there half the time. What does ray bourque as a defensemen have anything to do with Oates getting media attention as a forward. Mats Sundin and Mike Modano have gotten far more media attention and hes a better player than both. I'm sure that in 1993, Oates was the best player that year for his team and the hart trophy votes would support that.

What do you mean by overshadowed him at that time, oates outpointed Roenick handily every year. The only reason he was a media darling is because he's american.

In 1991, Hull and Oates were seen as the next best skaters after Gretzky, anyone that was around back then would tell you that. It's funny how you say these guys overshadowed oates, when he scored the most points during this time frame.

Your reason for why Oates didnt deserve media attention makes no sense at all. Roenick was never better than oates.

If adam oates was an american, or a european player, he would have gotten more attention because he would have been 'different'. But he was just seen as another canadian playmaking center like francis and turgeon and that hurts him when it comes to fame and marketing because brett hull wasn't better than him, he just got more media attention. Their stats from 1993-2002 show who really was the better player between the two.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I dont really understand what your trying to say, cam neely wasn't even there half the time. What does ray bourque as a defensemen have anything to do with Oates getting media attention as a forward. Mats Sundin and Mike Modano have gotten far more media attention and hes a better player than both. I'm sure that in 1993, Oates was the best player that year for his team and the hart trophy votes would support that.

What do you mean by overshadowed him at that time, oates outpointed Roenick handily every year. The only reason he was a media darling is because he's american.

In 1991, Hull and Oates were seen as the next best skaters after Gretzky, anyone that was around back then would tell you that. It's funny how you say these guys overshadowed oates, when he scored the most points during this time frame.

Anyone who actually watched hockey in the early 90s will tell you that Roenick was considered a better player than Oates until his injury. As for "outpointing Roenick handily ever year," Roenick actually had more points outright in 91-92 than Oates. Roenick by the way, was the last player with 3 straight 100 point seasons before the more recent lockout.

Your reason for why Oates didnt deserve media attention makes no sense at all. Roenick was never better than oates.

Roenick was seen as one of the most complete forwards in the game. Oates was a one-dimensional playmaker who wasn't the good defensive player he would later become. Oates was also seen as partially a product of Brett Hull and later Neely, though he obviously proved this perception mostly wrong in 92-93.

If adam oates was an american, or a european player, he would have gotten more attention because he would have been 'different'. But he was just seen as another canadian playmaking center like francis and turgeon and that hurts him when it comes to fame and marketing because brett hull wasn't better than him, he just got more media attention. Their stats from 1993-2002 show who really was the better player between the two.

Oates' stats are barely better than Hull's for this time frame. 208-634-842 vs. 377-367-744 in the regular season.

In the playoffs? Hull has 58-56-114 in 129 games and Oates has 12-39-51 in 64 games over this time frame. I think it's clear who that favors.

It's far from clear who was the better player after the two split apart, but I'd give Hull an edge for his playoff performances, especially considering the time he spent in the stifling Dallas system and in the defense-first Detroit system.

 

[Big Phil]

Oates was never marketed mainly because he was such a sourpuss with the media. Also, there were always better and/or more excited stars when Oates played.

Yeah but he looked like Ray Liotta

 

[Big Phil]

Anyone who actually watched hockey in the early 90s will tell you that Roenick was considered a better player than Oates until his injury. As for "outpointing Roenick handily ever year," Roenick actually had more points outright in 91-92 than Oates. Roenick by the way, was the last player with 3 straight 100 point seasons before the more recent lockout.

Roenick was seen as one of the most complete forwards in the game. Oates was a one-dimensional playmaker who wasn't the good defensive player he would later become.

Don't get me wrong I loved Roenick at that time. But let's face it he was flashy and fast and exciting and marketable, not to mention quotable. I'm not sure I agree with the theory that "anyone who watched hockey in the early 1990s" would have picked Roenick over Oates. In the aforementioned years Oates outpointed him badly in 1991, was behind him in 1992, killed him in 1993 and outpointed him in 1994. After 1994 Roenick was never the same as we all know. Now that we are out of that era I think it's important to look back on that era and reflect. Is it possible that people might pick Roenick at that time frame because of the flash and dash rather than the steady, quiet and reliable Oates? If you are a GM you might just as well pick Roenick at that time because he would be more of a face of a franchise. But isolating strictly their on ice play, it is extremely close in my mind.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Don't get me wrong I loved Roenick at that time. But let's face it he was flashy and fast and exciting and marketable, not to mention quotable. I'm not sure I agree with the theory that "anyone who watched hockey in the early 1990s" would have picked Roenick over Oates. In the aforementioned years Oates outpointed him badly in 1991, was behind him in 1992, killed him in 1993 and outpointed him in 1994. After 1994 Roenick was never the same as we all know. Now that we are out of that era I think it's important to look back on that era and reflect. Is it possible that people might pick Roenick at that time frame because of the flash and dash rather than the steady, quiet and reliable Oates? If you are a GM you might just as well pick Roenick at that time because he would be more of a face of a franchise. But isolating strictly their on ice play, it is extremely close in my mind.

Agreed. I will say though, that I have always given Roenick enormous props for putting up those offensive numbers as a youngster on a team that I always considered to be full of little more than grinders (granted, very good ones) and veteran scorers who were well into their compiling years (i.e. well past their "peak"/star years); more props than I have ever given Oates for winning faceoffs and dishing pucks to Hull, anyway.

 

[canucks4ever]

Anyone who actually watched hockey in the early 90s will tell you that Roenick was considered a better player than Oates until his injury. As for "outpointing Roenick handily ever year," Roenick actually had more points outright in 91-92 than Oates. Roenick by the way, was the last player with 3 straight 100 point seasons before the more recent lockout.



Roenick was seen as one of the most complete forwards in the game. Oates was a one-dimensional playmaker who wasn't the good defensive player he would later become. Oates was also seen as partially a product of Brett Hull and later Neely, though he obviously proved this perception mostly wrong in 92-93.



Oates' stats are barely better than Hull's for this time frame. 208-634-842 vs. 377-367-744 in the regular season.

In the playoffs? Hull has 58-56-114 in 129 games and Oates has 12-39-51 in 64 games over this time frame. I think it's clear who that favors.

It's far from clear who was the better player after the two split apart, but I'd give Hull an edge for his playoff performances, especially considering the time he spent in the stifling Dallas system and in the defense-first Detroit system.

No, roenick was just considered another 'rising star' like jagr, he wasn't seen as better than oates, especially not in the year where oates dwarfed him in the scoring race. How would oates be seen as a product of neely when he scored 142 points the year before? Oates clearly proved from 93-2002 that hull was the one that relied on him, i dont know what you are trying to say. Whenever your arguments are wrong, you have to bring up playoffs, even though thier career playoff ppg are virtually the same, except hull played for better teams. Since you love talking about playoffs so much, just compare the playoffs between oates and roenick from 1990-94, its pretty clear who was better.

Oates put up 100 more points over 10 years, that's not 'barely' better, consider the two way play into the equation and it was revealed who really was better between the two. I mean do you not give props to Oates that he took a mediocre washington team to the finals, what did brett hull do, ride as a passenger to two cups on two very stacked teams. It's not that cut and dry, sometimes its better when you look at who they were playing with in the playoffs. Oates had better playoff numbers than hull from 88-94. As a matter of fact, when Yzerman got injured in 88, it was Oates who stepped up and took over in the playoffs. Hull never carried a team and took over, he always relied on teammates to help feed him pucks. Hull is not exactly a leader.

This is all besides my point anyways. Guys like selanne, kariya, sundin and modano have all gotten more media attention than oates. The main reason for this is that they had prime years from the 96-2001 era, when the nhl was looking for a new golden boy when Mario was about to retire. All i was trying to say is that Oates could have gotten a little more attention and recognition and your trying to say he didnt deserve it, its like you have something against him. If you finish 3rd in scoring 3 times within a 4 year period, it means you were a superstar in that era. I could care less about what 'potential' roenick had, he flopped and oates had a much better career. Oates is in the hawerchuk-perrault-ratelle-stasnty group of players, while roenick is on the same level as a theo fluery.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Don't get me wrong I loved Roenick at that time. But let's face it he was flashy and fast and exciting and marketable, not to mention quotable. I'm not sure I agree with the theory that "anyone who watched hockey in the early 1990s" would have picked Roenick over Oates. In the aforementioned years Oates outpointed him badly in 1991, was behind him in 1992, killed him in 1993 and outpointed him in 1994. After 1994 Roenick was never the same as we all know. Now that we are out of that era I think it's important to look back on that era and reflect. Is it possible that people might pick Roenick at that time frame because of the flash and dash rather than the steady, quiet and reliable Oates? If you are a GM you might just as well pick Roenick at that time because he would be more of a face of a franchise. But isolating strictly their on ice play, it is extremely close in my mind.

I might not have been clear. I didn't mean that everyone who watched would have picked Roenick at the time (I'm sure quite a few who looked more deeply at players than the majority perception would have picked Oates). But Roenick WAS more highly regarded by the media and the majority of fans at the time.

Need more proof? NHL 93 Roenick is a consensus top 5 video game athlete of all time. http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/pu...y-Roenick-4th-best-video-game-?urn=nhl-104179

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, roenick was just considered another 'rising star' like jagr, he wasn't seen as better than oates, especially not in the year where oates dwarfed him in the scoring race. How would oates be seen as a product of neely when he scored 142 points the year before? Oates clearly proved from 93-2002 that hull was the one that relied on him, i dont know what you are trying to say. Whenever your arguments are wrong, you have to bring up playoffs, even though thier career playoff ppg are virtually the same, except hull played for better teams. Since you love talking about playoffs so much, just compare the playoffs between oates and roenick from 1990-94, its pretty clear who was better.

What were you, 3 years old in 92-93? Please stop lecturing me, who was actually following hockey at the time fairly closely, as to what teh perceptions of fans and media were at the time.

Oates put up 100 more points over 10 years, that's not 'barely' better, consider the two way play into the equation and it was revealed who really was better between the two. I mean do you not give props to Oates that he took a mediocre washington team to the finals, what did brett hull do, ride as a passenger to two cups on two very stacked teams. It's not that cut and dry, sometimes its better when you look at who they were playing with in the playoffs. Oates had better playoff numbers than hull from 88-94. As a matter of fact, when Yzerman got injured in 88, it was Oates who stepped up and took over in the playoffs. Hull never carried a team and took over, he always relied on teammates to help feed him pucks. Hull is not exactly a leader.

Brett Hull, a passenger on Cup teams. Hilarious. I take it you weren't watching hockey particularly closely by 1999, either.

And, I do think 100 points is barely better, when you are putting up 170 fewer goals out of that 100 points.

This is all besides my point anyways. Guys like selanne, kariya, sundin and modano have all gotten more media attention than oates. The main reason for this is that they had prime years from the 96-2001 era, when the nhl was looking for a new golden boy when Mario was about to retire. All i was trying to say is that Oates could have gotten a little more attention and recognition and your trying to say he didnt deserve it, its like you have something against him. If you finish 3rd in scoring 3 times within a 4 year period, it means you were a superstar in that era. I could care less about what 'potential' roenick had, he flopped and oates had a much better career. Oates is in the hawerchuk-perrault-ratelle-stasnty group of players, while roenick is on the same level as a theo fluery.

Of course, Oates had a much better career than Roenick! Roenick was a shell of himself after the injury.

I have Oates in the Hawerchuk/Perreault/Savard class myself. I have Ratelle a little bit below them and Stastny a little bit above.

 

[canucks4ever]

What were you, 3 years old in 92-93? Please stop lecturing me, who was actually following hockey at the time fairly closely, as to what teh perceptions of fans and media were at the time.



Brett Hull, a passenger on Cup teams. Hilarious. I take it you weren't watching hockey particularly closely by 1999, either.

And, I do think 100 points is barely better, when you are putting up 170 fewer goals out of that 100 points.




Of course, Oates had a much better career than Roenick! Roenick was a shell of himself after the injury.

I have Oates in the Hawerchuk/Perreault/Savard class myself. I have Ratelle a little bit below them and Stastny a little bit above.

I aint givin you a lecture, your the one thats changing the topic of my poll.I was old enough to remember the 92-93 season and espcially the 94 season. I want to keep this back on topic between selanne and oates so dont change the topic of this poll.Jeremy roenick was just the young kid that was supposed to end up great, he was never top 5. I do find it pretty funny what you said, considering that you were probably just a 10 year old kid yourself when oates and hull were playing with each other. I dont think boston ever considered giving up oates for roenick, why would they sacrifice 30 points of offense.

I saw the entire 1999 playoffs, hull was invisible until he scored a goal that shouldnt have been allowed.

So, yeah back on topic. Another point that favours Oates over Selanne to me is longevity. Oates had 13 seasons as a top 35 scorer, selanne has 9. It puzzles me how he's still wating to get inducted, while selanne is a 'mortal lock'.

 

[Puck Scorer]

oates made players around better

 

[Oowatanite]

Selanee for sure Oates was a good playmaker but Selanne was a good playmaker and a great goal scorer

 

[Starchild74]

Teemu Selanne was a pleasure to watch in his career and even today and as much as I like him. Adam Oates was the better player. I know some will say that Oates was a playmaker and Selanne was a goal scorer therefore the goal scorer is more important. One person wrote that Oates was far better at setting up then Selanne was at scoring. This is true. I would not say by a wide margin but quite a bit. For as good as Selanne was at scoring goals he is only ranked at 17 going into this season for all time goal scoring. At the end of the year he will be ranked 14th. Adam Oates was always throughout his career thought of a set up man. The best in the game He is ranked 6th all time for assists. Adam Oates is one of the most underated players ever.

Getting an assist might not be important to some. However a good set up man can create goals from his passing, which is what Oates could do. When it came to opposite Selanne setting players up and Oates scoring, I would say the edge goes to Selanne. Oates was not that good scoring but was pretty good none the less.

No one can argue that Oates was better defensively. Not that Selanne was a major liability just that Oates was better and his faceoff percentage was amazing. Hockey is all about possession and with Oates taking the faceoff the team knew they would get the puck especially in their own zone.

Playoffs is a tough one. Selanne has a Cup Oates doesn't however Oates produced or I should say most times was the top point getter for his team in the playoffs. When Selanne won the cup he was the 4th best forward for the Ducks and I would say 8th best player on the team. So sometimes one cup ring doesn't mean as much when you take it into context. I would give a slight edge to Oates for playoffs. Based on more seasons of decent playoffs.

Career wise definately edge to Oates. I mean he has had the better career.

Peak years which some on here put alot of stock into I would say even. Oates had more higher peak seasons but Selanne had that amazing rookie year.

Internationally Selanne by a landslide. However it was not Oates's fault that he was Canadian. If he was born in any other country he would have been a number 1 center.

It is always tough to compare two different type of players especially when they play different positions. I can not say who was the best leader because as much as I like both players I would not necessarily put them in a category of great leaders.

In the end Oates was the better player on the ice and had a better career. I mean if you are mentioned with Gretzky as one of the best passers in the game I guess that says something about your abilities.

 

[Merya]

Selanne has a Cup Oates doesn't however Oates produced or I should say most times was the top point getter for his team in the playoffs. When Selanne won the cup he was the 4th best forward for the Ducks and I would say 8th best player on the team.

IIRC Selänne tied second in points, and scored the most important goal of Ducks Franchise History unassisted. Oates also had better teams, Selänne had Kariya, sometimes, but also proved he could be a force without Kariya.
Also Selänne career is still continuing, and was at pace for 41 goals last season if not for freak injuries.
I agree Oates is underrated, but Selänne is criminally underrated.
Currently Selänne for some inexplicable reason isn't on the HoH top 120 even. Probably because people look at his playoff stats without realizing his team usually wasnt in the playoffs, and if it was he was the number 1 target for defense. And then there is the 01-04 injury.
Calder, unbreakable rookie scoring title, and 05-07 cemented Selänne as first ballot HHoFamer.
Gods and stars, guy who scores 27 goals in 54 games in the year he turns 40 doesn't get any respect.

ps. and finally ducks PP% 09-10, 25% with Selänne, 10% without Selänne.

 

[Oowatanite]

I agree Selanee is underated and ages well, he has really revitalized his career post lockout with a cup and a couple of 40 goal seasons. Oates was awfull his last few seasons especially with Edmonton.

 

[whyohwhyohwideman*]

Selanne was the more impactful player of the two. Oates was a great playmaker, but Selanne the better goal scorer who had above average vision and play making skill. I am a long time Bruin fan, and have a great appreciation for Oates; good qualities, but when you look at Oates' medicore d numbers, you have to give it to Selanne.

Btw I think Selanne and Frank Mahavolich have strong similaries in style and career arc. Somebody besides me should do a who is better involving those two.....

 

[Starchild74]

IIRC Selänne tied second in points, and scored the most important goal of Ducks Franchise History unassisted. Oates also had better teams, Selänne had Kariya, sometimes, but also proved he could be a force without Kariya.
Also Selänne career is still continuing, and was at pace for 41 goals last season if not for freak injuries.
I agree Oates is underrated, but Selänne is criminally underrated.
Currently Selänne for some inexplicable reason isn't on the HoH top 120 even. Probably because people look at his playoff stats without realizing his team usually wasnt in the playoffs, and if it was he was the number 1 target for defense. And then there is the 01-04 injury.
Calder, unbreakable rookie scoring title, and 05-07 cemented Selänne as first ballot HHoFamer.
Gods and stars, guy who scores 27 goals in 54 games in the year he turns 40 doesn't get any respect.

ps. and finally ducks PP% 09-10, 25% with Selänne, 10% without Selänne.

WHen the Ducks won the Stanley Cup Ryan Getzlaf, and Corey Perry were the top 2 forwards for the Ducks. As far as forwards go Getzlaf was the most important forward. Andy McDonald had 10 goals. He was awesome. So I am sorry if I do not share the sentiment that Selanne was the top forward. He was an important part however he was like I said the 4th best forward. Scott Niedermayer, Chriis Pronger and Francois Beauchemin on Defence were amazing in that year and had better playoffs then Selanne and of course Giguerre. I was not knocking the great God Selanne I am just saying that the Ducks didn't win the cup because of Selanne but He did help alot.

Selanne is not underated he is just good nothing more or nothing less. I would not say he is a lock for the HHOF. Not saying he doesn't belong but not a lock either. If you just take his NHl career their have been other goal scorers that were way better then him and others who might not have scored more then him but brought more to the game then him.

First of all whether you are the number one target for defence or the opposition doesn't mean anything. The greats just do it, not whine about having the main focus on. Not all players have the best playoff stats and if their team did not make the playoffs much or he was injured that is one thing. However whenever he was in the playoffs he did not have many years where he was getting points like the top players. Once you say a person is a HHOF lock you are putting them in the same category of the greats who performed at a high level no matter what the circumstances were.

Wow your standards for the Hall of Fame are pretty low. A good rookie year, an unbreakable record and a span of 3 years make a person a lock. Give me a break. It takes more then that to make it into the HHOF. Will Selanne be in the HHOF? yes but their are other players who deserve it alot more. Remember to be a lock you have to have more then 4 seasons like you mentioned. By the way 95-99 Selanne was better then he was 2005-2007. So I would rethink your one statement of 2005-2007 making him a lock alone

Yes Selanne was having a great year last year but he did get injured who knows what would have happened. I think you are over evaluating Selanne a little I mean he is not god however he is the 2nd best Finnish player I have ever seen, and my third favourite Finnish player ever. Adam Oates is just better then Selanne that does not mean I undervalue Selanne it is just that who I might like as a player does not judge my mind on who was better. Sometmes it is hard to admit it but the player you like might not be better then some other players.

 

[Big Phil]

I agree Selanee is underated and ages well, he has really revitalized his career post lockout with a cup and a couple of 40 goal seasons. Oates was awfull his last few seasons especially with Edmonton.

Oates was 8 years younger than Selanne and started his NHL career prior to Selanne. Therefore it is only natural that he ends it first too right? Selanne is 40 years old now. When Oates turned 40 he led the NHL in assists which is what I would hardly call "awful". When he was 41 he helped guide the Ducks to the final and I felt he was arguably their best forward considering Kariya laid an egg. Oates aged very, very well. Selanne's resurgence post lockout has shown that he has too, but let's not forget about Oates either.

 

[tony d]

Teemu Selanne for me.

 

[jepjepjoo]

Selanne is not underated he is just good nothing more or nothing less. I would not say he is a lock for the HHOF. Not saying he doesn't belong but not a lock either. If you just take his NHl career their have been other goal scorers that were way better then him and others who might not have scored more then him but brought more to the game then him.

-Stanley Cup
-Calder Memorial Trophy
-Rocket Richard Trophy
-Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy
-1st Rookie All Star
-2 x 1st All Star
-2 x 2nd All Star
-all time rookie scoring record (points)
-all time rookie scoring record (goals)
-all time olympic scorer (points)
-all time Finnish goal scorer in the NHL
-98 and 06 top scorer of the Olympics
-one of 3 europeans who have scored over 600 career goals
-First player in NHL history over the age of 35 to record consecutive seasons with 40-plus goals
-Most goals by an european player in a single season
-Holds the records for most goals and points in a single season for Ducks and Jets/Coyotes franchises
-9 different records for the Ducks franchise
-NHL calendar month record for most goals (20)

1186gp 606g 654a 1260pts
3 times 1st in goals
5 times top5 in goals
5 times top5 in points (including 2nd place to Jagr and a 2nd place to Lemieux)
4 times top10 in assists

I'm sure I forgot something, but that's more than enough to say that he is a lock for the HHOF.

 

[Oowatanite]

WHen the Ducks won the Stanley Cup Ryan Getzlaf, and Corey Perry were the top 2 forwards for the Ducks. As far as forwards go Getzlaf was the most important forward. Andy McDonald had 10 goals. He was awesome. So I am sorry if I do not share the sentiment that Selanne was the top forward. He was an important part however he was like I said the 4th best forward. Scott Niedermayer, Chriis Pronger and Francois Beauchemin on Defence were amazing in that year and had better playoffs then Selanne and of course Giguerre. I was not knocking the great God Selanne I am just saying that the Ducks didn't win the cup because of Selanne but He did help alot.

Selanne is not underated he is just good nothing more or nothing less. I would not say he is a lock for the HHOF. Not saying he doesn't belong but not a lock either. If you just take his NHl career their have been other goal scorers that were way better then him and others who might not have scored more then him but brought more to the game then him.

First of all whether you are the number one target for defence or the opposition doesn't mean anything. The greats just do it, not whine about having the main focus on. Not all players have the best playoff stats and if their team did not make the playoffs much or he was injured that is one thing. However whenever he was in the playoffs he did not have many years where he was getting points like the top players. Once you say a person is a HHOF lock you are putting them in the same category of the greats who performed at a high level no matter what the circumstances were.

Wow your standards for the Hall of Fame are pretty low. A good rookie year, an unbreakable record and a span of 3 years make a person a lock. Give me a break. It takes more then that to make it into the HHOF. Will Selanne be in the HHOF? yes but their are other players who deserve it alot more. Remember to be a lock you have to have more then 4 seasons like you mentioned. By the way 95-99 Selanne was better then he was 2005-2007. So I would rethink your one statement of 2005-2007 making him a lock alone

Yes Selanne was having a great year last year but he did get injured who knows what would have happened. I think you are over evaluating Selanne a little I mean he is not god however he is the 2nd best Finnish player I have ever seen, and my third favourite Finnish player ever. Adam Oates is just better then Selanne that does not mean I undervalue Selanne it is just that who I might like as a player does not judge my mind on who was better. Sometmes it is hard to admit it but the player you like might not be better then some other players.

I disagree here, Selanne is a definite lock for the Hall of Fame,also Selanne was better than Perry in the 07 playoffs and better than Perry and Getzlaf during the regular season outscoring them both by a fair margin.

 

[quoipourquoi]

When he was 41 he helped guide the Ducks to the final and I felt he was arguably their best forward considering Kariya laid an egg.

As far as guiding the Mighty Ducks to the Finals, only one player on that team had a paddle in the water. None of the forwards deserve credit for being the best by default with 12-13 points.