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.
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.