Steve Duchesne Hall of Fame?

[The Fuhr*]

--- Regular Season --- ---- Playoffs ----
Season Team Lge GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982-83 Drummondville Voltigeurs QMJHL 66 5 16 21 75 -- -- -- -- --
1983-84 Drummondville Voltigeurs QMJHL 67 1 34 35 79 10 3 7 10 17
1984-85 Drummondville Voltigeurs QMJHL 65 22 59 81 94 5 4 7 11 8
1985-86 New-Haven Nighthawks AHL 75 14 35 49 76 5 0 2 2 9
1986-87 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 75 13 25 38 74 5 2 2 4 4
1987-88 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 71 16 39 55 109 5 1 3 4 14
1988-89 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 79 25 50 75 92 11 4 4 8 12
1989-90 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 79 20 42 62 36 10 2 9 11 6
1990-91 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 78 21 41 62 66 12 4 8 12 8
1991-92 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 78 18 38 56 86 -- -- -- -- --
1992-93 Quebec Nordiques NHL 82 20 62 82 57 6 0 5 5 6
1993-94 St. Louis Blues NHL 36 12 19 31 14 4 0 2 2 2
1994-95 St. Louis Blues NHL 47 12 26 38 36 7 0 4 4 2
1995-96 Ottawa Senators NHL 62 12 24 36 42 -- -- -- -- --
1996-97 Ottawa Senators NHL 78 19 28 47 38 7 1 4 5 0
1997-98 St. Louis Blues NHL 80 14 42 56 32 10 0 4 4 6
1998-99 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 60 4 19 23 22 -- -- -- -- --
1998-99 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 11 2 5 7 2 6 0 2 2 2
1999-00 Detroit Red Wings NHL 79 10 31 41 42 9 0 4 4 10
2000-01 Detroit Red Wings NHL 54 6 19 25 48 6 2 4 6 0
2001-02 Detroit Red Wings NHL 64 3 15 18 28 23 0 6 6 24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHL Totals 1113 227 525 752 824 121 16 61 77 96

Are thos numbers good enough for the Hall of Fame? 752 career points is pretty good for a D-man

Click to read more...

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Huh?

 

[loadie]

I highly doubt he'll get consideration.

 

[Snap Wilson]

Bei mir Steve Duchesne
Please let me explain
Bei mir Steve Duchesne means you're grand

Bei mir Steve Duchesne
Again I'll explain
It means you're the fairest in the land

 

[albertGQ]

No. Are you drunk?

 

[Hasbro]

No

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Steve Duchesne definitely deserves to be in the Hall of Good. Arguably (and it might take a good argument) he could be in the Hall of Very Good.

Duchense in the Hall of Fame? Not a chance.

 

[Jo]

NOt in a million years

 

[Wetcoaster]

Definitely not HHOF worthy. An adequate career but not near good enough for induction.

 

[VanIslander]

omfg

no

alzheimer's? or too young to remember? his talent-to-flaws ratio wasn't great enough

 

[Evil Sather]

What? He was arguably never even a top 5 OFFENSIVE defenseman in any given year of his career.

 

[AgentOrange*]

I dont know. Those stats he had with the Drummondville Voltigeurs were pretty impressive.

 

[God Bless Canada]

In no uncertain terms: no. 752 points is nice, but there's a lot more to being a defenceman than points, and Duchesne never grasped that. No all-star team births, finished top five in Norris voting only once (1989, I believe), and at times a liability on defence and in the locker room. He won a Cup with Detroit in 2002, but frankly, he was a secondary/bit player on that team.

Phil Housley has a heck of a lot more points than Duchesne, and he won't get in, either, because of his defensive lapses.

 

[Big Phil]

Wow I just had a dream where someone thought Duchesne could be in the HOF...............oh wait!

Look as crazy as it sounds it might get some consideration. Not that I think he should get in cause I'd faint if I ever saw his picture hung up there, but if there are some 'experts" who have Andreychuk as a "lock" then I guess Duchesne who wasnt any worse off than him is a lock too.

really lets not lower these standards any more than they have to be. For future players that will be eligible here are the RIGHT answers. Duchesne, Andreychuk, Richter, Vanbiesbrouck, Housley, Suter, Tocchet, are all resounding NO's! The HOF is about as easy to get into as kindergarten as it is.

 

[Aki Berg]

Steve Duchesne Hall of Fame?




Only after Aki.

 

[MS]

really lets not lower these standards any more than they have to be. For future players that will be eligible here are the RIGHT answers. Duchesne, Andreychuk, Richter, Vanbiesbrouck, Housley, Suter, Tocchet, are all resounding NO's! The HOF is about as easy to get into as kindergarten as it is.

Is it really?

How much easier is it really than MLB, which is always held up as the stereotype of a 'tough' HOF? Since 1999, MLB has inducted 15 'new' players plus 6 from the veterans committee. The NHL has inducted 17.

People whine about being 'good for a long time' being enough to get you into the HHOF. Isn't this exactly how many players get into baseball's HOF? Eddie Murray is one example that sticks out right away. Never led the league in any major categories, never had more than 35 HR, never had more than 200 hits, never won an MVP. But hitting 25-30 HR for 20 seasons was enough to get make him a HOFer. How is than any different from Gartner, or Andreychuk?

Gary Carter? Bill Mazeroski? This year's inductee, Bruce Sutter - a reliever who only had about 5 years of excellent play, and a losing career record? Were those guys really 'great'?

Aside from the one really bogus induction of Clark Gillies, and the Ziegler/Wirtz-induced Pulford induction, the HHOF has been pretty decent. It's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be. Anyone who scores 500 goals in the best league in the world is not a 'soft' induction.

Problem is that everyone points to the poor Gillies selection as defining everything the HHOF does. But it isn't. In the past 30 years, outside of the controversial 2002 inductions, and the politically motivated Pulford induction, what should be changed? Two soft selections since 1975 doesn't make a weak hall.

If all the Andersons, Verbeeks, Propps, Middletons, Wilsons, Liuts, Suters, etc. were getting in, maybe it would be a different discussion. But they aren't, and won't.

 

[JWINK19]

Absolutely, positively no way. Look at the stats. He did next to nothing after he left Quebec. I know the scoring levels league wide went way down, but his declined even more. Heck, I'd put Gaetan Duchesne in first.

 

[reckoning]

Aside from the one really bogus induction of Clark Gillies, and the Ziegler/Wirtz-induced Pulford induction, the HHOF has been pretty decent. It's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be. Anyone who scores 500 goals in the best league in the world is not a 'soft' induction.

Problem is that everyone points to the poor Gillies selection as defining everything the HHOF does. But it isn't. In the past 30 years, outside of the controversial 2002 inductions, and the politically motivated Pulford induction, what should be changed? Two soft selections since 1975 doesn't make a weak hall.

If all the Andersons, Verbeeks, Propps, Middletons, Wilsons, Liuts, Suters, etc. were getting in, maybe it would be a different discussion. But they aren't, and won't.

I couldn`t have put that better myself. The fact is that the Hall`s standards have been heightened over the last decade as there`s less players being inducted now than ever before. There`s always going to be someone in the Hall who is felt to be undeserving just as there`s always going to be a player left out who is deserving. That`s why we have these discussions.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Is it really?

How much easier is it really than MLB, which is always held up as the stereotype of a 'tough' HOF? Since 1999, MLB has inducted 15 'new' players plus 6 from the veterans committee. The NHL has inducted 17.

People whine about being 'good for a long time' being enough to get you into the HHOF. Isn't this exactly how many players get into baseball's HOF? Eddie Murray is one example that sticks out right away. Never led the league in any major categories, never had more than 35 HR, never had more than 200 hits, never won an MVP. But hitting 25-30 HR for 20 seasons was enough to get make him a HOFer. How is than any different from Gartner, or Andreychuk?

Gary Carter? Bill Mazeroski? This year's inductee, Bruce Sutter - a reliever who only had about 5 years of excellent play, and a losing career record? Were those guys really 'great'?

Aside from the one really bogus induction of Clark Gillies, and the Ziegler/Wirtz-induced Pulford induction, the HHOF has been pretty decent. It's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be. Anyone who scores 500 goals in the best league in the world is not a 'soft' induction.

Problem is that everyone points to the poor Gillies selection as defining everything the HHOF does. But it isn't. In the past 30 years, outside of the controversial 2002 inductions, and the politically motivated Pulford induction, what should be changed? Two soft selections since 1975 doesn't make a weak hall.

If all the Andersons, Verbeeks, Propps, Middletons, Wilsons, Liuts, Suters, etc. were getting in, maybe it would be a different discussion. But they aren't, and won't.

Anderson gets in this year. His omission last year drew the largest outcry since Hawerchuk's common-sense-deficient omission in 2000. Anderson was a key player in six Cup wins (he was a strong leader for the Rangers in 1994, and scored some key goals for them), and his playoff track record (which counts volumes in the eyes of the HHOF voters) is enough to get him in on its own.

Sutter is in because he introduced the split-finger fastball. That's it. Murray is sort of baseball's answer to Gartner: he used superb consistency to reach the HHOF's benchmark level. Murray did it to reach 500 home runs (before the juiced ball/juiced bicep era). Gartner did it to reach 700 goals, and judging by Dino Ciccarreli's four failed attempts to get into the Hall (and his best shot may not be until 2010 or 2011), 600 goals no longer makes you a lock.

But for once, MS, we do basically agree. The HHOF standards have gotten much stricter in the past 30 years. (Largely, IMO, due to the elimination of the veterans committee, which made some great inductees such as Lionel Conacher, but also inducted Leo "The Fire Hydrant" Boivin).

When deserving candidates like Neely, LaFontaine and Makarov need several attempts for enshrinement (we're still waiting on Makarov), and when borderline guys like Anderson and Ciccarrelli are constantly being passed over, it says that the standards are getting tougher, and that's a good thing.

Guys like Middleton, Propp, Verbeek, Suter, Turgeon, Bondra, Blake and Andreychuk had/are having long, successful careers filled with distinctions. But none of them will get in. Doug Wilson was one of the top 5 defencemen in the league when he could stay healthy, but the HHOF is determined on what you did do, not what you could have done.

 

[MXD]

Hummmm...

Garry Galley?!?!

 

[pappyline]

When did the standards get tougher? Gilles along with Federko & Langway got in in 2002. Fuhr & lafontaine in 03. Murphy in 04, Neely in 06. All these selections are questionable.

 

[God Bless Canada]

When did the standards get tougher? Gilles along with Federko & Langway got in in 2002. Fuhr & lafontaine in 03. Murphy in 04, Neely in 06. All these selections are questionable.

*Langway is one of the elite defensive defencemen that we have seen in a long time. Two Norris trophies, a Hart nomination and multiple all-star team births. The only reason he wasn't a first ballot guy was the strength of the 1998 retirees.
*Fuhr won five Cups, four of them as the starter, and had several other strong playoffs. Like Gerry Cheevers, his numbers weren't always captivating, but in the big game or the big moments of the big game, he was there for you. Sure-fire first ballot guy.
*LaFontaine was considered one of the top five players in the world from 1989-1993. Only injuries prevented him from finishing in the top 10-15 scorers of all-time. Never let his size get in the way. Played with heart and desire, and wasn't afraid to take a hit to make a play.
*Murphy was an integral part of two back-to-back Cup winning teams. He was a big addition for Pittsburgh in 1991 and Detroit in 1997. Three all-star team selections.
*Outside of Messier, nobody has combined goals and physical play like Neely in the last 30 years. He was clutch in the playoffs. Boston's Cup hopes died in 1991 when he suffered the knee injury. Four all-star team births.

How are these guys questionable again?

 

[pappyline]

They are all questionable. None of them are locks. You seem to think a couple of awards or being a minor cog on a Stanley cup team
automatically get you into the Hall of fame.

Langway. I like him. He is from just down the road from where I live. He had a couple of great years but didn't have a HOF career.

Furhr was an average goalie on a great offensive team. Did nothing after he left Edmonton.

You are the first person I ever heard say Lafontaine was a top 5 player from 89-93. Even if he was that is only a 4 year spread. As a comparison, Ed litzenberger was a top 5 player from 1954-59 and he is not in the HOF so what is your point.

Murphy was a great player but no HOFer.

I like Neely & maybe you are right here but he is borderline.

 

[God Bless Canada]

They are all questionable. None of them are locks. You seem to think a couple of awards or being a minor cog on a Stanley cup team
automatically get you into the Hall of fame.

Langway. I like him. He is from just down the road from where I live. He had a couple of great years but didn't have a HOF career.

Furhr was an average goalie on a great offensive team. Did nothing after he left Edmonton.

You are the first person I ever heard say Lafontaine was a top 5 player from 89-93. Even if he was that is only a 4 year spread. As a comparison, Ed litzenberger was a top 5 player from 1954-59 and he is not in the HOF so what is your point.

Murphy was a great player but no HOFer.

I like Neely & maybe you are right here but he is borderline.

LaFontaine took an awful 1989-90 Islanders team and single-handedly got them into the playoffs. That team had no business anywhere except second-last in the league, behind Quebec. He was probably the best player in the league in the second half of the 1991-92 season, and we all know what he did in 1992-93. He also had courage and a willingness to sacrifice his body that few small players had. From 1987 to 1996, when he was healthy, he was almost peerless.

Name me five better defencemen over the last 25 years who were better defensively than Langway. Stevens comes to mind. Stevens comes to mind. Konstantinov could have been in that class if not for the accident, but we only have two years to judge him. Langway had eight years of defensive dominance from 1979-1987, and it would have continued if not for back injuries. He won the Norris Trophies with 32 and 33-point season, in a run and gun era. That speaks volumes.

Murphy got in on the first ballot. He was brilliant in both zones. He could QB the power play and play shut down guy in the final minute with his team up by a goal. He didn't dominate you physically, but he was effective. But the clincher is his key role in winning back-to-back Cups with two different organizations. Murphy would have likely been borderline based on regular season play, but playoffs count big-time in the eyes of HHOF voters, and for good reason. Playoffs are what matters. That's why he's in the HHOF.

Fuhr, to me, is like Cheevers, and nobody disputes Cheever's place in the Hall. Made the saves when it counted. Didn't care about GAA or save percentage, just timely saves and wins. Fuhr could have retired after the 1988 season, and he would have made the HHOF. And he did do something after he left Edmonton. He dominated the heavily-favoured Bruins in the 1993 playoffs, and was the MVG (most valuable goalie) in the league in 1995-96.

Gillies was a mistake. A big mistake. I don't agree with Federko's induction, but it's a disagreement, not an emphatic disagreement. The other players you mentioned have a definite place in the Hall.

By the way, there's no such thing as "a minor cog." A cog is someone, or something, that is pivotal. A minor cog. Bah. It's as contradictory as "instrumental nightly healthy scratch."

 

[pappyline]

LaFontaine took an awful 1989-90 Islanders team and single-handedly got them into the playoffs. That team had no business anywhere except second-last in the league, behind Quebec. He was probably the best player in the league in the second half of the 1991-92 season, and we all know what he did in 1992-93. He also had courage and a willingness to sacrifice his body that few small players had. From 1987 to 1996, when he was healthy, he was almost peerless.

Name me five better defencemen over the last 25 years who were better defensively than Langway. Stevens comes to mind. Stevens comes to mind. Konstantinov could have been in that class if not for the accident, but we only have two years to judge him. Langway had eight years of defensive dominance from 1979-1987, and it would have continued if not for back injuries. He won the Norris Trophies with 32 and 33-point season, in a run and gun era. That speaks volumes.

Murphy got in on the first ballot. He was brilliant in both zones. He could QB the power play and play shut down guy in the final minute with his team up by a goal. He didn't dominate you physically, but he was effective. But the clincher is his key role in winning back-to-back Cups with two different organizations. Murphy would have likely been borderline based on regular season play, but playoffs count big-time in the eyes of HHOF voters, and for good reason. Playoffs are what matters. That's why he's in the HHOF.

Fuhr, to me, is like Cheevers, and nobody disputes Cheever's place in the Hall. Made the saves when it counted. Didn't care about GAA or save percentage, just timely saves and wins. Fuhr could have retired after the 1988 season, and he would have made the HHOF. And he did do something after he left Edmonton. He dominated the heavily-favoured Bruins in the 1993 playoffs, and was the MVG (most valuable goalie) in the league in 1995-96.

Gillies was a mistake. A big mistake. I don't agree with Federko's induction, but it's a disagreement, not an emphatic disagreement. The other players you mentioned have a definite place in the Hall.

By the way, there's no such thing as "a minor cog." A cog is someone, or something, that is pivotal. A minor cog. Bah. It's as contradictory as "instrumental nightly healthy scratch."

They would love you on the Hof selection committee. Yurr standards are low. Everyone would get in. No way lafontaine is an Hofer. He will not be remembered. A couple of good seasons do not make you a legend,

There were not many defensive defencemen when Langway played. If being defensive gets him in so be it. He will not be remembered as one of the greats. People will look at his plaque years from now & say "who the hell was he?

Murphy is another footnote.

I don't think Cheevers belongs in the HOF either. Fuhr & Cheevers were lucky to be a strong offensive teams that won cups. They were not the main reason those teams won cups. If they had been on teams like LA or Minnesota no one would remenber them.