Players who have made HoF cases for themselves this year

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
You make some good points that I agree on for sure.

The problem in this discussion is that we are criticizing the HHOF selection committee based on what we think are the rules and regulations.

Setting a precedent is very important and it could be good or bad. But, the selection committee does not use precedents when deciding who should get in or not.

Each nominee is discussed by its own merits. They don't say the Pulford was in so Duff should be. It doesn't work that way.

Clark Gillies would have been discussed solely on his own accomplishments, completely separate from another player in the same class. That's the simple truth.

You are right on regarding perception. And it doesn't look good. The secrecy just leads to speculation like political appointments. That's probably happened in the past. It may still be a part of the selection process now. Maybe a player is on the borderline of getting inducted. The fact that someone on the selection committee likes that player and puts them over the top, is not as bad as many think. That's because if the player gets that far in the process, then he has to have the requirements. Remember that the people on the committee are human too. If either of us were on the committee, we might make the final, determining choice based on emotion as well. I don't think its a real valid criticism. No system is perfect and they aren't machines. The worst thing they could do is throw up all the career stats of players and then simply make their decisions that way. That's what the majorty of people here think - and its the easiest but most lazy way to say the least.

I need to bring this point up as well. Certain players in the HHOF do not look like they belong based on stats. When the selectors of the time voted him in, AT THE TIME, Pulford's stats did not look as bad as they do now. When criticizing player selections of the past, its important to compare their stats based on what the hockey world knew then, not now. Can anyone watching hockey in the 70's have predicted that a young kid from Brantford would score 215 points in one season?

Having said that, there probably was a political connection to Pulford being inducted.

But if anyone criticizes the selection committee, then criticize it by saying that the rules are not proper. If you were on the selection committee and had to follow the by-laws, then you might be making the same controversial selections.

Create your own rules for what you think the process should be. Its not easy. The World Wide HOF throws stones at the HHOF but they don't have any criteria and make idiotic nominations. Its not something that everyone will agree with.


Classichockey. First, I'd like to say that I really respect your opinion on these matters and I appreciate that you have more knowledge then me. I still need to state my case.

The problem with Duff is that history is filled with players who were nightmares to play against who are not in the Hall. As I've often debated there is a definite bias against defensive players. Some like Gainey or Langway make it, but they are above and beyond. Does Duff's induction mean that defensive specialists are Hall worthy?

Take for example Adam Foote, from 95-03 he was one of the toughest players in hockey to play against. A nightmare for many future HHoFers. He could neutralize HHoFers. But his record on post season all-star votes and Norris votes is no where near Hall worthy.

I think the controversy with Duff is two fold. One. It sets a new precident for what type of player if Hall worthy. Defensive forwards who come up big in the playoffs, unless they're Gainey good, were never Hall worthy before Duff. the HHoF has a rep of being too liberal as it is, so a new precident makes many observers worried. Two. Alot of people percieve the induction as being politically motivated. That having friends on the committee proved to be the kicker for him. Whether this is true or not, I can't say, but that perception really taints his induction in the short run.

More than anything, I think the biggest complaint about the Hall is that it's too exclussive a committee. Baseball has hundreds of voters, this means that it is very difficult for anyone agenda to be a factor. Where as the small exclussive club the HHoF has can be biassed in any number of ways.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
I've said this many times, that most of the posters here are not properly evaluating the worthiness of a player in relation to getting inducted into the Hall of Fame. It is NOT the Hall of Fame of Statistics. You have to realize that the HHOF selection committee takes in all aspects of a player's career. Most of what I read here strictly say so and so is not a HHOF player because he only had so many points.

Some comments don't make sense. For example, if someone was selected to the HHOF in the 40's and the player had terrible stats in relation to a player today, then the player that got elected in the 40's is not HOF material? But the selection committee bases their selections on the standards at the time. They couldn't possibly know what a players might accomplish 50 years later.

I don't agree with all the selections to the HHOF but there are always reasons why certain players get selected. Dick Duff, based on his stats, does not compare favourably to other players in the Hall. But the people on the selection committee who played with against Duff are more qualified to know whether he is HOF material. There are other criteria that they use and they should. It NOT a Hall of Fame of Statistics.

The Duff criticism isn't based solely on statistics. He just wasn't that good.

At best, he was the 10th-most important player on the '60s Leaf teams behind:

Mahovlich
Keon
Armstrong
Kelly
Pulford
Horton
Brewer
Stanley
Bower

... and that just isn't good enough. He had a couple good offensive seasons right at the start of his career on bad Leaf teams, then fell down the pecking order when they improved. After age 23, he averaged 35 points/year and was largely a 3rd-line player. And he wasn't even considered the best defensive forward on his team (Pulford), much less the league (Claude Provost, who isn't in the HHOF despite a clearly superior career).

And the statistical issues involving Duff aren't just small 'adjusted for era' stuff - like claiming that Brian Propp>Dave Keon based on his slightly better numbers in a much higher-scoring era. This is a player who was turning in 25-35 point seasons in his prime years, marginal numbers even at the time. The only guy to get into the HHOF with production like this is Bob Gainey, widely considered the greatest defensive forward ever. And Duff was no Bob Gainey.

This is a slightly above-average regular season player who turned in two excellent playoffs. No awards, no All-Star berths, not considered an elite defensive player, shouldn't be in the HHOF. As I've said a few times now, there just isn't anything to separate him from guys like Bob Nystrom and Bob Bourne.

Duff is in because there are so many people connected to the Leafs in some capacity in the 1960s who now have connections to the HHOF. And he's part of that club. Same thing happened to baseball's HOF in the 1970s, when the heads of the Veteran's Committee allowed in a bunch of marginal ex-teammates, mainly NY Giants of the 1920s, into that hall.

While you might claim that Duff's peers are better suited to judge his value, I'd argue that the inherant biases in place make them less able to adequately judge his HHOF qualifications.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
Actually, I can't say that I fully agree with Duff being selected either although I know the reasons that were given were legitimate. And those are reasons not included in your comparisons which are essentially correct. So, I'm with you on a lot of what you say.

But you had such a good post going until you spoiled it with this remark:

"so many people connected to the Leafs in some capacity in the 1960s who now have connections to the HHOF"

If you are going to use this same old worn and unproven statement, at least name those Leafs from the 60's that have influence in the HHOF.

Who are these people that caused Duff to be selected? Don't bother checking the HHOF site, I'll save you the trouble. Of the 17 members of the selection committee, only one can be sort of linked to the Leafs in the 60's - Jim Gregory, but he was a Junior hockey coach in Toronto then.

So, you are probably guessing that what you heard somewhere was true. To me, that shows you have a bias against things Toronto. Now, maybe I don't agree with the points you made earlier.

Get real people, this Toronto phobia that you seem to think exists is more nonsense than fact.

For your information, the Leafs had a dynasty in the 1960's and the seeds were planted in the late 50's when a young team that was languishing in last place, began to emerge because of the forcefull on and off ice contributions of a certain player who was thought to be most responsible for the turnaround from losers into winners.

Obviously, you didn't know how important Dick Duff was to his team. But the selectors obviously did. Take that with the clutch playoff goals leading to Stanley Cups, his aggressiveness and his ability to make players on his line better, being the best player on his team for years (late 50's) then you have someone that could be considered for the HHOF.

Just cut out the Toronto favouritism crap unless you can give some evidence.


The Duff criticism isn't based solely on statistics. He just wasn't that good.

At best, he was the 10th-most important player on the '60s Leaf teams behind:

Mahovlich
Keon
Armstrong
Kelly
Pulford
Horton
Brewer
Stanley
Bower

... and that just isn't good enough. He had a couple good offensive seasons right at the start of his career on bad Leaf teams, then fell down the pecking order when they improved. After age 23, he averaged 35 points/year and was largely a 3rd-line player. And he wasn't even considered the best defensive forward on his team (Pulford), much less the league (Claude Provost, who isn't in the HHOF despite a clearly superior career).

And the statistical issues involving Duff aren't just small 'adjusted for era' stuff - like claiming that Brian Propp>Dave Keon based on his slightly better numbers in a much higher-scoring era. This is a player who was turning in 25-35 point seasons in his prime years, marginal numbers even at the time. The only guy to get into the HHOF with production like this is Bob Gainey, widely considered the greatest defensive forward ever. And Duff was no Bob Gainey.

This is a slightly above-average regular season player who turned in two excellent playoffs. No awards, no All-Star berths, not considered an elite defensive player, shouldn't be in the HHOF. As I've said a few times now, there just isn't anything to separate him from guys like Bob Nystrom and Bob Bourne.

Duff is in because there are so many people connected to the Leafs in some capacity in the 1960s who now have connections to the HHOF. And he's part of that club. Same thing happened to baseball's HOF in the 1970s, when the heads of the Veteran's Committee allowed in a bunch of marginal ex-teammates, mainly NY Giants of the 1920s, into that hall.

While you might claim that Duff's peers are better suited to judge his value, I'd argue that the inherant biases in place make them less able to adequately judge his HHOF qualifications.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
Further to my previous post, it is so apparent that the same pro-Toronto bias that the HHOF is accused of are coming from obvious anti-Toronto posters. So, it seems to me that if those anti-Toronto posters were on the selection committee, then they would be guilty of using biases as well (only against Toronto players). In reality, you are no better.

You spend all your energy of finding out why a player should not be in instead of why the player should be in. Its curious logic to me. And that isn't how the process works.

To those who criticize Dick Duff, how many actually saw him play in his prime? If you haven't then how can you be so sure he wasn't a great player? You really don't know.




The Duff criticism isn't based solely on statistics. He just wasn't that good.


Duff is in because there are so many people connected to the Leafs in some capacity in the 1960s who now have connections to the HHOF. And he's part of that club. Same thing happened to baseball's HOF in the 1970s, when the heads of the Veteran's Committee allowed in a bunch of marginal ex-teammates, mainly NY Giants of the 1920s, into that hall.

While you might claim that Duff's peers are better suited to judge his value, I'd argue that the inherant biases in place make them less able to adequately judge his HHOF qualifications.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Actually, I can't say that I fully agree with Duff being selected either although I know the reasons that were given were legitimate. And those are reasons not included in your comparisons which are essentially correct. So, I'm with you on a lot of what you say.

But you had such a good post going until you spoiled it with this remark:

"so many people connected to the Leafs in some capacity in the 1960s who now have connections to the HHOF"

If you are going to use this same old worn and unproven statement, at least name those Leafs from the 60's that have influence in the HHOF.

Who are these people that caused Duff to be selected? Don't bother checking the HHOF site, I'll save you the trouble. Of the 17 members of the selection committee, only one can be sort of linked to the Leafs in the 60's - Jim Gregory, but he was a Junior hockey coach in Toronto then.

So, you are probably guessing that what you heard somewhere was true. To me, that shows you have a bias against things Toronto. Now, maybe I don't agree with the points you made earlier.

Get real people, this Toronto phobia that you seem to think exists is more nonsense than fact.

For your information, the Leafs had a dynasty in the 1960's and the seeds were planted in the late 50's when a young team that was languishing in last place, began to emerge because of the forcefull on and off ice contributions of a certain player who was thought to be most responsible for the turnaround from losers into winners.

Obviously, you didn't know how important Dick Duff was to his team. But the selectors obviously did. Take that with the clutch playoff goals leading to Stanley Cups, his aggressiveness and his ability to make players on his line better, being the best player on his team for years (late 50's) then you have someone that could be considered for the HHOF.

Just cut out the Toronto favouritism crap unless you can give some evidence.
Classic, I respect your opinions but I do not understand the selection standards of the HHOF committee. You say they don't pick based on stats or precedents but what the hell are their standards?

I remember Dick Duff from the late 50's & he was my favorite Leaf (mind you I hated the Leafs) but that short period was his peak. He should not be in the HHOF. by the way, I don't think he had much to do with the leafs emerging in the early 60's. That was Imlach's doing. Another selection that complately boggles my mind is Edgar Laprade in 1993 (he retired in 55). Mediocre stats, minimal awards, & no cups. I can think of hundreds of players who meet these standards.

I know you are very critical of the worldwide HOF but at least they air their dirty laundry.

My biggest problem with the official HHOF is the voting secrecy & the fact that the committee members are all selected by one man- Jim gregory.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
Murray, you know, I don't always understand either everything the selection committie does. I'm on record here as not really endorsing Dick Duff, even though I watched him in his prime and he was a major player in the rise of the Leafs. That last part does come from his peers. All I'm saying is that a case could be made for him - based on the rules and regulations in place.

He was nomitated with the proper supporting information
He was discussed and a decision was based on the intangibles exclusive of his stats.

When they discuss Duff, they don't bring out comparables and in this case, its very helpful to Duff.

Edgar Laprade was very talented but a dubious HHOF pick and so is Leo Boivin. But they were selected in the now defunct Veterans' category. Maybe the present selection committee is mindful of not overlooking the veterans because the Veteran's category was terminated. At least that's what I was told.

The reason given for not releasing information on the votes was to spare the players who weren't selected any embarassment. I don't quite buy it but I can understand it.
I think they should be more open.

What I can't handle is people dissing Duff's as a HHOF player because he was a Leaf and the Toronto bias. That tells me that the critics here are not objective.

By the way, Imlach and the rebirth of the Leafs is an interesting topic. I've asked a few players from the 1958-59 team who they would have preferred as coach and they liked Billy Reay.


Classic, I respect your opinions but I do not understand the selection standards of the HHOF committee. You say they don't pick based on stats or precedents but what the hell are their standards?

I remember Dick Duff from the late 50's & he was my favorite Leaf (mind you I hated the Leafs) but that short period was his peak. He should not be in the HHOF. by the way, I don't think he had much to do with the leafs emerging in the early 60's. That was Imlach's doing. Another selection that complately boggles my mind is Edgar Laprade in 1993 (he retired in 55). Mediocre stats, minimal awards, & no cups. I can think of hundreds of players who meet these standards.

I know you are very critical of the worldwide HOF but at least they air their dirty laundry.

My biggest problem with the official HHOF is the voting secrecy & the fact that the committee members are all selected by one man- Jim gregory.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Murray, you know, I don't always understand either everything the selection committie does. I'm on record here as not really endorsing Dick Duff, even though I watched him in his prime and he was a major player in the rise of the Leafs. That last part does come from his peers. All I'm saying is that a case could be made for him - based on the rules and regulations in place.

He was nomitated with the proper supporting information
He was discussed and a decision was based on the intangibles exclusive of his stats.

When they discuss Duff, they don't bring out comparables and in this case, its very helpful to Duff.

Edgar Laprade was very talented but a dubious HHOF pick and so is Leo Boivin. But they were selected in the now defunct Veterans' category. Maybe the present selection committee is mindful of not overlooking the veterans because the Veteran's category was terminated. At least that's what I was told.

The reason given for not releasing information on the votes was to spare the players who weren't selected any embarassment. I don't quite buy it but I can understand it.
I think they should be more open.

What I can't handle is people dissing Duff's as a HHOF player because he was a Leaf and the Toronto bias. That tells me that the critics here are not objective.

By the way, Imlach and the rebirth of the Leafs is an interesting topic. I've asked a few players from the 1958-59 team who they would have preferred as coach and they liked Billy Reay.
They might have liked Billy Reay but they would not have won as many cups with him & not as many of them would be in the HHOF. Imlach might not have been likeable but he sure had a talent for putting together winning teams from scratch.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
Yes, they liked playing for Reay but they didn't put out for him - based on how the team played the rest of the year.

I remember asking Bobby Hull about the 1971 final cup game which was known for Tony Esposito's miss on Lemaire's long shot. He said, to this day, he blames Billy Reay for the loss. He said the Hawks were in control in the 3rd period until Reay put out 2 Hawk players who hadn't played in the game. Montreal scored and that was it. Hull said the players were Nesterenko and Angotti, I think. If you switched coaches that series, Chicago might have won the Cup.



They might have liked Billy Reay but they would not have won as many cups with him & not as many of them would be in the HHOF. Imlach might not have been likeable but he sure had a talent for putting together winning teams from scratch.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
Actually, I can't say that I fully agree with Duff being selected either although I know the reasons that were given were legitimate. And those are reasons not included in your comparisons which are essentially correct. So, I'm with you on a lot of what you say.

But you had such a good post going until you spoiled it with this remark:

"so many people connected to the Leafs in some capacity in the 1960s who now have connections to the HHOF"

If you are going to use this same old worn and unproven statement, at least name those Leafs from the 60's that have influence in the HHOF.

Who are these people that caused Duff to be selected? Don't bother checking the HHOF site, I'll save you the trouble. Of the 17 members of the selection committee, only one can be sort of linked to the Leafs in the 60's - Jim Gregory, but he was a Junior hockey coach in Toronto then.

So, you are probably guessing that what you heard somewhere was true. To me, that shows you have a bias against things Toronto. Now, maybe I don't agree with the points you made earlier.

Get real people, this Toronto phobia that you seem to think exists is more nonsense than fact.

For your information, the Leafs had a dynasty in the 1960's and the seeds were planted in the late 50's when a young team that was languishing in last place, began to emerge because of the forcefull on and off ice contributions of a certain player who was thought to be most responsible for the turnaround from losers into winners.

Obviously, you didn't know how important Dick Duff was to his team. But the selectors obviously did. Take that with the clutch playoff goals leading to Stanley Cups, his aggressiveness and his ability to make players on his line better, being the best player on his team for years (late 50's) then you have someone that could be considered for the HHOF.

Just cut out the Toronto favouritism crap unless you can give some evidence.

Fair enough on the Toronto thing. There aren't as many ex-Leaf connected guys on there as I thought - I knew Pat Quinn was on the selection committee, and I thought Dave Keon and a couple others were too but was incorrect. That said, there are a lot of guys who would have connections to Duff in both Toronto and Montreal - Quinn, Irvin, Selke, Savard, etc.

I certainly don't have a bias against Toronto - see my comments in favour of Mats Sundin in another thread near the top of this board right now. And I think Carl Brewer has a far, far stronger case for the HHOF than Duff does and wouldn't really have a problem at all with Brewer making it.

I don't see the 'great value' he brought to that Leaf team, certainly nothing close to HHOF calibre. He was obviously not one of their key offensive cogs, wasn't a talismanic leadership figure like Armstrong, wasn't an elite defensive player like Pulford. Like I said before, on a team of 19 players, he wasn't any better than the 10th-most important cog. Middle-of-the-road forward who was a clutch scorer. He was so valued he was dealt away in the middle of the Leafs' run in the middle of a string of unproductive seasons, before he found his game again for a couple years near the end of his career in Montreal.

Being arguably the best player for 3 years on a bad Leafs' team isn't really much of an HHOF qualification - guys like Mohns, McKenney, Litzenberger could claim to be the best player on a bad team in that same timeframe and it hasn't gotten them close to the HHOF. I don't think it can be argued that he was a top-10 player in the game - or even a top-10 forward - at the time, so it's largely irrelevant.

This is not to say he was a bad player. Clearly he was a fine clutch scorer, a good two-way player, and was important in helping build that '60s Leaf team. But again, his qualifications are no different than many other guys who won't get a sniff. Bob Nystrom was a leader on the Islanders almost from their inception, a big-time clutch player including one of the biggest goals in modern NHL history, a quality two-way player, and has career numbers almost identical to Duff's. Fine player, has his number deservedly retired by the Isles, but it would be a crime if he went to the HHOF. Same thing with Duff.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Yes, they liked playing for Reay but they didn't put out for him - based on how the team played the rest of the year.

I remember asking Bobby Hull about the 1971 final cup game which was known for Tony Esposito's miss on Lemaire's long shot. He said, to this day, he blames Billy Reay for the loss. He said the Hawks were in control in the 3rd period until Reay put out 2 Hawk players who hadn't played in the game. Montreal scored and that was it. Hull said the players were Nesterenko and Angotti, I think. If you switched coaches that series, Chicago might have won the Cup.
I never heard that story before but Bobby was there(and played incredibly) so he would know but what I remember is Chicago had them on the ropes & Espo let in the the Lemaire long floater. I still have nightmares all these years later.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
I do agree with a lot of your points but I just want to point out that under the circumstances present, it wasn't quite the 'crime' to have Duff in. He may not be fully qualified according to a person's defintion of what a HOF player should be, but he did have some pretty good credentials that you even mention.

I think that each of us has our own interpretation of what a true Hall of Famer should be. And that's the way it should be. I personally don't think that stats are the one and only thing to consider. The HHOF committee feels the same way.

Having your own interpretation based on your own knowledge and experience is great and I respect that. I just don't think that unproven comments of favouritism should be brought into it, unless there is some sort of proof. Bringing that stuff in works against any valid points you make based on your preferences and criteria.

Another thing I question is this anti-WHA bias. Everyone says it but no one really offers significant proof. The WHA is long past and any negative effect that the WHA had would be that selectors would ignore any accomplishments in that league.

The case of Mark Howe has me stumped. He was so good in the NHL, that I would think he deserves to be in, even if his WHA career was ignored. Its just possible that no one nominating him or did but he was against an excellent cast of candidates, and then maybe forgotten about.

Same with J.C. Tremblay. Frank Mahovlich recently said that of all the Original 6 players not in, that he played with or against, that Tremblay should be in.

But I imagine people creating a fuss if Tremblay got in. They would say, 'what, another old-timer?' What about Anderson, Gilmour, Ciccarelli etc.

So, does anyone have any credible evidence about the WHA bias? The true greats who played in the WHA did get in - Howe, Hull, Mahovlich, Cheevers etc.

By the way, I don't consider Real Cloutier anything close to HOF material.


Fair enough on the Toronto thing. There aren't as many ex-Leaf connected guys on there as I thought - I knew Pat Quinn was on the selection committee, and I thought Dave Keon and a couple others were too but was incorrect. That said, there are a lot of guys who would have connections to Duff in both Toronto and Montreal - Quinn, Irvin, Selke, Savard, etc.

I certainly don't have a bias against Toronto - see my comments in favour of Mats Sundin in another thread near the top of this board right now. And I think Carl Brewer has a far, far stronger case for the HHOF than Duff does and wouldn't really have a problem at all with Brewer making it.

I don't see the 'great value' he brought to that Leaf team, certainly nothing close to HHOF calibre. He was obviously not one of their key offensive cogs, wasn't a talismanic leadership figure like Armstrong, wasn't an elite defensive player like Pulford. Like I said before, on a team of 19 players, he wasn't any better than the 10th-most important cog. Middle-of-the-road forward who was a clutch scorer. He was so valued he was dealt away in the middle of the Leafs' run in the middle of a string of unproductive seasons, before he found his game again for a couple years near the end of his career in Montreal.

Being arguably the best player for 3 years on a bad Leafs' team isn't really much of an HHOF qualification - guys like Mohns, McKenney, Litzenberger could claim to be the best player on a bad team in that same timeframe and it hasn't gotten them close to the HHOF. I don't think it can be argued that he was a top-10 player in the game - or even a top-10 forward - at the time, so it's largely irrelevant.

This is not to say he was a bad player. Clearly he was a fine clutch scorer, a good two-way player, and was important in helping build that '60s Leaf team. But again, his qualifications are no different than many other guys who won't get a sniff. Bob Nystrom was a leader on the Islanders almost from their inception, a big-time clutch player including one of the biggest goals in modern NHL history, a quality two-way player, and has career numbers almost identical to Duff's. Fine player, has his number deservedly retired by the Isles, but it would be a crime if he went to the HHOF. Same thing with Duff.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
I suspect that the WHA bias idea exists solely because J.C. Tremblay and Mark Howe aren't in the hall. There is simply no logical reason for them to not be there, and there is one barely logical reason that links both of them, so people hold it as fact.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
I just isn't that simple. The WHA is a common denominator but there is nothing to suggest that when the selectors get together to look at each player, that they would hold the WHA against them -the WHA wasn't that bad. And none of the selectors would have any axe to grind - its not like they were owners of NHL teams in the 70's and suffered financially. In fact, all players benefited financially.

I really do suggest that maybe a proper case hasn't been put forth by a nominator. That's the thing we don't know.

I can see that Glenn Anderson and Dino Ciccarelli (especially) aren't in because of 'character' or bad reputation. Jim Gregory came out and said that the way a player conducts himself on and off the ice is a factor. That is on record.

I think Mark Howe should be in and maybe J.C. Tremblay too. But I also feel that its not like they were absolute slam dunks. Winning a Norris Trophy would have enhanced Howe's chances because that indicates the 'best'. Its not fair of course. Rod Langway won two but Mark Howe was the better player in my view.

Its too easy to blame the WHA but it really isn't a factor.




I suspect that the WHA bias idea exists solely because J.C. Tremblay and Mark Howe aren't in the hall. There is simply no logical reason for them to not be there, and there is one barely logical reason that links both of them, so people hold it as fact.
 

NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS

Registered User
Feb 28, 2006
13,542
5,771
I dont remember seeing Duff play but the way he's being described makes me think of some type of Chris Drury type player. Who would he best be compared to out of 70's or later players?
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
I do agree with a lot of your points but I just want to point out that under the circumstances present, it wasn't quite the 'crime' to have Duff in. He may not be fully qualified according to a person's defintion of what a HOF player should be, but he did have some pretty good credentials that you even mention.

I think that each of us has our own interpretation of what a true Hall of Famer should be. And that's the way it should be. I personally don't think that stats are the one and only thing to consider. The HHOF committee feels the same way.

Having your own interpretation based on your own knowledge and experience is great and I respect that. I just don't think that unproven comments of favouritism should be brought into it, unless there is some sort of proof. Bringing that stuff in works against any valid points you make based on your preferences and criteria.

Another thing I question is this anti-WHA bias. Everyone says it but no one really offers significant proof. The WHA is long past and any negative effect that the WHA had would be that selectors would ignore any accomplishments in that league.

The case of Mark Howe has me stumped. He was so good in the NHL, that I would think he deserves to be in, even if his WHA career was ignored. Its just possible that no one nominating him or did but he was against an excellent cast of candidates, and then maybe forgotten about.

Same with J.C. Tremblay. Frank Mahovlich recently said that of all the Original 6 players not in, that he played with or against, that Tremblay should be in.

But I imagine people creating a fuss if Tremblay got in. They would say, 'what, another old-timer?' What about Anderson, Gilmour, Ciccarelli etc.

So, does anyone have any credible evidence about the WHA bias? The true greats who played in the WHA did get in - Howe, Hull, Mahovlich, Cheevers etc.

By the way, I don't consider Real Cloutier anything close to HOF material.

If Tremblay went in, the reaction wouldn't be remotely similar to the reaction to Duff. Tremblay was clearly a top-5 defender on the planet for an extended stretch in the late 1960s/early 70s, and has the All-Star nods and Norris nominations to prove it. This was clearly an elite player, and I do suspect he'd be in the HHOF if not for his decision to leave the NHL.

The derision of Duff's selection isn't because he's an old-timer - few people would complain if Tremblay, Provost, or Brewer made it. It's because he was just flat-out not HHOF-calibre. If you're a middling 2nd-3rd line player for the majority of your career and you're not your team's defensive ace, you don't belong.

Mark Howe is a mystery to me too. The thing that, to me, puts him over the top is that he's one of only 2 players (Red Kelly being the other) in the modern era who could claim to have been a star-level talent at both forward and defense. Then add the bushel of All-Star nods and Norris nominations, and the fact that he's probably a top-5 defender of the 1980s, and he should be pretty much a lock.

To me, there does seem to be an anti-WHA bias. Howe, Hull, and Mahovlich were all 500-goal all-time greats when they went to the WHA. There was never going to be any doubt. Cheevers is an argument in your favour, but then he only spent 3 seasons in the WHA before returning. When you take a step back and look at Howe and Tremblay in the bigger picture, they certainly seem to fit. But the only thing they seem to be missing is the 'NHL totals' of their peers, which they would have easily met if both didn't spend 7 years in another high-level pro league.

Perhaps 'anti-WHA bias' isn't as correct as 'pro-NHL bias'. Because of course we see the same thing with players who spent the majority of their careers starring in Europe - Yakushev, Makarov, Nilsson, Dzurilla, and many others.
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
Mark Howe is a mystery to me too. The thing that, to me, puts him over the top is that he's one of only 2 players (Red Kelly being the other) in the modern era who could claim to have been a star-level talent at both forward and defense. Then add the bushel of All-Star nods and Norris nominations, and the fact that he's probably a top-5 defender of the 1980s, and he should be pretty much a lock.
The most impressive thing about Mark Howe's career is that he accomplished so much despite suffering one of the most horrifying injuries in NHL history. You have to respect guys like him and Clint Malarchuk for having the guts to go on the ice again after what they went through.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
I appreciate all you say but I'm still not convinced about any WHA bias, especially with the present selection committee. Maybe when Tremblay retired, there were members with a WHA bias. Its just that Tremblay's & Howe's performance in the NHL should be enough to get them in.

Maybe there are other factors. I might allow that the Montreal Canadiens were upset at Tremblay for defecting to Quebec and had some say in the HHOF Induction process at the time. I can see that. But I don't know about now.

Regarding Mark Howe, maybe the family's problems with the HHOF created a backlash. But the HHOF (Museum) administration is separate from the selection committee.

I still believe that both fell through the cracks and weren't nominated or weren't nominated at the right time. It could be as simple as that and not some conspiracy that no one has any proof.

I've heard Claude Provost's name mentioned as HOF material. Can anyone list their reasons why he should be in the HHOF? He was another good player on great teams but not a superstar by any means. I'm not convinced about Duff, but neither am I about Provost.

If Tremblay went in, the reaction wouldn't be remotely similar to the reaction to Duff. Tremblay was clearly a top-5 defender on the planet for an extended stretch in the late 1960s/early 70s, and has the All-Star nods and Norris nominations to prove it. This was clearly an elite player, and I do suspect he'd be in the HHOF if not for his decision to leave the NHL.

The derision of Duff's selection isn't because he's an old-timer - few people would complain if Tremblay, Provost, or Brewer made it. It's because he was just flat-out not HHOF-calibre. If you're a middling 2nd-3rd line player for the majority of your career and you're not your team's defensive ace, you don't belong.

Mark Howe is a mystery to me too. The thing that, to me, puts him over the top is that he's one of only 2 players (Red Kelly being the other) in the modern era who could claim to have been a star-level talent at both forward and defense. Then add the bushel of All-Star nods and Norris nominations, and the fact that he's probably a top-5 defender of the 1980s, and he should be pretty much a lock.

To me, there does seem to be an anti-WHA bias. Howe, Hull, and Mahovlich were all 500-goal all-time greats when they went to the WHA. There was never going to be any doubt. Cheevers is an argument in your favour, but then he only spent 3 seasons in the WHA before returning. When you take a step back and look at Howe and Tremblay in the bigger picture, they certainly seem to fit. But the only thing they seem to be missing is the 'NHL totals' of their peers, which they would have easily met if both didn't spend 7 years in another high-level pro league.

Perhaps 'anti-WHA bias' isn't as correct as 'pro-NHL bias'. Because of course we see the same thing with players who spent the majority of their careers starring in Europe - Yakushev, Makarov, Nilsson, Dzurilla, and many others.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
I've heard Claude Provost's name mentioned as HOF material. Can anyone list their reasons why he should be in the HHOF? He was another good player on great teams but not a superstar by any means. I'm not convinced about Duff, but neither am I about Provost.

Everything I've ever understood about Provost is that he was *the* top defensive forward in the game in the late 1950s and through the 1960s - basically the Gainey of his era - and would have racked up Selkes if the award had existed at the time. Won 9 Cups. Additionally, unlike Duff, he had several distinguished regular-season efforts - a 1st-Team All-Star nod, several seasons top-10 in scoring, and 2nd in the league in goals in 1962. Definitely elements of the 'elite' there, at both ends of the ice, that build a pretty solid HHOF resume.

And one of only 3 players (with Beliveau and Richard) to play on the Hab dynasties of both the '50s and '60s - all 5 Cups from 56-60, then the 4 in 5 from 65-69.

I'm not saying he has to be in (it could be well debated, and he isn't as obvious an omission as some others), but certainly his resume blows away Duff's. And Pulford's as well, although Provost and Pulford were sort of Leaf-Hab bookends.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
Good stuff, although in my opinion, Provost's resume doesn't blow Duff's away.

A few things in Duff's favour. Unlike Provost, Duff was the Leafs' best player from 1956 to 1959. Provost was never Montreal's best player. An argument could be made with who they played with but Provost's image was always a 2nd or 3rd line checking winger who could score. In Duff's early years, he was known for much more than that.

Another thing about Duff was that he was tougher and was a presence on the ice. He often fought battles on behalf of his teammates. That shouldn't be dismissed because having players like that enhance greatly a team's ability to win.

Provost had the one great offensive year but overall, their career stats are real close in the regular season.

But Duff had better playoff stats and scored more clutch playoff goals than Provost.

In fact, Toe Blake decided not to dress Claude Provost in game 6 of the 1967 finals, opting for Leon Rochefort. Duff scores a spectacular goal for Montreal to put them back in the game.

You could debate which was the better player and maybe Provost was better in the regular season and Duff was better in the playoffs. Duff wasn't a bad defensive player, not as good as Provost, but Duff brought things to the table that Provost didn't.

Where is the vast superiority of Provost over Duff?

Just curious, but are you a Montreal fan?

Everything I've ever understood about Provost is that he was *the* top defensive forward in the game in the late 1950s and through the 1960s - basically the Gainey of his era - and would have racked up Selkes if the award had existed at the time. Won 9 Cups. Additionally, unlike Duff, he had several distinguished regular-season efforts - a 1st-Team All-Star nod, several seasons top-10 in scoring, and 2nd in the league in goals in 1962. Definitely elements of the 'elite' there, at both ends of the ice, that build a pretty solid HHOF resume.

And one of only 3 players (with Beliveau and Richard) to play on the Hab dynasties of both the '50s and '60s - all 5 Cups from 56-60, then the 4 in 5 from 65-69.

I'm not saying he has to be in (it could be well debated, and he isn't as obvious an omission as some others), but certainly his resume blows away Duff's. And Pulford's as well, although Provost and Pulford were sort of Leaf-Hab bookends.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
Good stuff, although in my opinion, Provost's resume doesn't blow Duff's away.

A few things in Duff's favour. Unlike Provost, Duff was the Leafs' best player from 1956 to 1959. Provost was never Montreal's best player. An argument could be made with who they played with but Provost's image was always a 2nd or 3rd line checking winger who could score. In Duff's early years, he was known for much more than that.

Another thing about Duff was that he was tougher and was a presence on the ice. He often fought battles on behalf of his teammates. That shouldn't be dismissed because having players like that enhance greatly a team's ability to win.

Provost had the one great offensive year but overall, their career stats are real close in the regular season.

But Duff had better playoff stats and scored more clutch playoff goals than Provost.

In fact, Toe Blake decided not to dress Claude Provost in game 6 of the 1967 finals, opting for Leon Rochefort. Duff scores a spectacular goal for Montreal to put them back in the game.

You could debate which was the better player and maybe Provost was better in the regular season and Duff was better in the playoffs. Duff wasn't a bad defensive player, not as good as Provost, but Duff brought things to the table that Provost didn't.

Where is the vast superiority of Provost over Duff?

Just curious, but are you a Montreal fan?

Not a Hab fan at all.

Whether Duff was the best player on a bad team (and was he really better in that stretch than Armstrong or especially Horton?) is to me, again, largely irrelevant. So was Ed Litzenberger the best player on his team around that time. So was Doug Mohns. So was Tod Sloan on the Leafs for parts of the 1950s. HHOF credentials should be based on your position in the sport as a whole, not solely your own team.

Yes, Duff and Provost's career numbers are almost identical. But Provost was considered the best defensive forward in the world for a substantial portion of his career while Duff was considered 'just' a solid all-around player. Big difference. And Provost has substantially higher offensive peaks than Duff did. And while Provost didn't have Duff's knack for scoring big goals, he does have 9 Cup rings, amongst the highest totals ever.

With his all-star nods and few big seasons, along with his defensive reputation, Provost could at various points legitimately have been called one of the top 10 or so forwards in the game. Duff can't make that claim. Aside from his two playoff runs in '62 and '69 his resume past the age of 23 is about as pedestrian as it gets.

And again, I'm not saying Provost is a HHOF lock, just that I think his case would have been much stronger than Duff's.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
I really hate asking this but were you around in the 50's and 60's watching and following the game? Please don't take an offence but its important to know.

Some of things you mention about Provost are not entirely accurate.

First to Duff, the Leafs were not that bad in the late 50's. That 58-59 team that Duff helped carry to the playoffs, eliminated a strong Boston team in the semis. And, when Duff scored in overtime to beat the Habs in game 3 of the finals, that Leaf team proved pretty darned good and gave Montreal a good fight. So, you are wrong when you say that doesn't matter. That run and his leadership in those Leaf teams of the late 50's was huge. HHOF is based on accomplishments and importance - so Duff's efforts with the Leafs does certainly count. I'm not sure what you are talking about because that accomplishment was something that involved the whole league. Duff wasn't playing against phantom teams.

We're comparing Duff to Provost so don't bring in players from other teams. But if you must, then your assertion of Provost being in the top 10 of forwards at various times back then is kind of, um, ridiculous. In a league that had Beliveau, Geoffrion, H. Richard, Hull, Mikita, Ullman, Howe, Delvecchio, Kelly, Keon, Mahovlich, Bathgate, Bucyk and so on - come on. Provost was just not that highly rated. He was a 2nd and 3rd line winger. Provost finished 10th in scoring in 1961-62 with 62 points and 6th in 1964-65 with 64 points - that's it. He wasn't an offensive force by any means. Duff's goal scoring career had more peaks - mainly in scoring in big playoff games.

If you want to know, Claude Provost got his 'fame' because he 'shadowed' Bobby Hull and Frank Mahovlich. And there was much controversy at the time because when he shadowed them, especially Hull, because he stuck to him like glue all over the ice - not a popular tactic of the day. That's where Provost made his name. Hardly something that made him a HHOF player. And, there were plenty of other defensive forwards in that time - Nesterenko, Stewart, Nevin
etc.

I have nothing against Provost. He was a fine player but he's not that superior to Duff. Apaprently, the HHOF committee agrees with me on that. Provost's nomination didn't get very far.


QUOTE=MS;7772570]Not a Hab fan at all.

Whether Duff was the best player on a bad team (and was he really better in that stretch than Armstrong or especially Horton?) is to me, again, largely irrelevant. So was Ed Litzenberger the best player on his team around that time. So was Doug Mohns. So was Tod Sloan on the Leafs for parts of the 1950s. HHOF credentials should be based on your position in the sport as a whole, not solely your own team.

Yes, Duff and Provost's career numbers are almost identical. But Provost was considered the best defensive forward in the world for a substantial portion of his career while Duff was considered 'just' a solid all-around player. Big difference. And Provost has substantially higher offensive peaks than Duff did. And while Provost didn't have Duff's knack for scoring big goals, he does have 9 Cup rings, amongst the highest totals ever.

With his all-star nods and few big seasons, along with his defensive reputation, Provost could at various points legitimately have been called one of the top 10 or so forwards in the game. Duff can't make that claim. Aside from his two playoff runs in '62 and '69 his resume past the age of 23 is about as pedestrian as it gets.

And again, I'm not saying Provost is a HHOF lock, just that I think his case would have been much stronger than Duff's.[/QUOTE]
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->