Steve Duchesne Hall of Fame?

Status
Not open for further replies.

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
murray said:
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.


My standards are low? Why don't you do your bloody research? Look at post 19 and see the guys who I think shouldn't be in. Look at previous threads dealing with the HHOF and see who I don't think should be in there. Why don't you look at the NHL forum, where there are other HHOF debates going on as we speak, and see who I don't think should be in there. For the first time in decades, there isn't a player under 30 who would be inducted into the HHOF if he retired tomorrow.

To me, the most important thing when looking at an HHOFer is: did he raise his level of play when it truly mattered most, the playoffs. The answer with all five of these players is, yes. (LaFontaine is debatable, but he one of THN's top 100 players in NHL history back in the 1997 survey, and rightfully so).

Now a player has to have some modicum of regular season contributions, which is why I rule out Gillies and Claude Lemieux, among many others. It's not just about Cups or awards or all-star teams births. It's definitely not about playing in all-star games, because that's irrelevant. It's about taking your level of play to another level in the most important hockey.

If a player didn't consistently raise his level of play in the playoffs, then he'd better have an absolutely brilliant regular season track record (witness Marcel Dionne) or have done something unprecedented in league history (witness Mike Gartner). There are a lot of players who many classify as future HHOFers who I don't think belong.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
God Bless Canada said:
My standards are low? Why don't you do your bloody research? Look at post 19 and see the guys who I think shouldn't be in. Look at previous threads dealing with the HHOF and see who I don't think should be in there. Why don't you look at the NHL forum, where there are other HHOF debates going on as we speak, and see who I don't think should be in there. For the first time in decades, there isn't a player under 30 who would be inducted into the HHOF if he retired tomorrow.

To me, the most important thing when looking at an HHOFer is: did he raise his level of play when it truly mattered most, the playoffs. The answer with all five of these players is, yes. (LaFontaine is debatable, but he one of THN's top 100 players in NHL history back in the 1997 survey, and rightfully so).

Now a player has to have some modicum of regular season contributions, which is why I rule out Gillies and Claude Lemieux, among many others. It's not just about Cups or awards or all-star teams births. It's definitely not about playing in all-star games, because that's irrelevant. It's about taking your level of play to another level in the most important hockey.

If a player didn't consistently raise his level of play in the playoffs, then he'd better have an absolutely brilliant regular season track record (witness Marcel Dionne) or have done something unprecedented in league history (witness Mike Gartner). There are a lot of players who many classify as future HHOFers who I don't think belong.
Ok, but apparently you think all these guys should have made it. We are all entitled to our opinion. There is a site out there called "The World Wide hockey Hall of fame" where a group (20 plus) revoted the HOF year by year. Not saying these guys are any smarter than you but they did give their selections a lot of thought. By the way, Langway, Fuhr, Cheevers, Lafontaine, Murphy & Neely didn't make the their cut to this point. Interesting site, check it out.
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
murray said:
Ok, but apparently you think all these guys should have made it. We are all entitled to our opinion. There is a site out there called "The World Wide hockey Hall of fame" where a group (20 plus) revoted the HOF year by year. Not saying these guys are any smarter than you but they did give their selections a lot of thought. By the way, Langway, Fuhr, Cheevers, Lafontaine, Murphy & Neely didn't make the their cut to this point. Interesting site, check it out.
I'm quite familiar with the World Wide Hall of Fame. (BTW, they have a five-year waiting period for induction, which is why Murphy isn't on their list, but I don't think they would induct him). I respect their efforts for trying to make a difference, instead of sitting their and just *****ing about the standards being too soft.

But I don't agree with all their decisions. I see that Jari Kurri and Slava Fetisov, who rank in the top 5-10 all-time at their respective positions, missed out by one vote. To me, they're gimmies. Hawerchuk, to me, is on the outer fringes for the top 100 players ever, and would rank somewhere among the top 40 offensive players ever. To me, he's worthy. (Biggest outcry I've ever seen for an omission was for Hawerchuk in 2000). Bobby Clarke ranks as a top-10 all-round centre ever, IMO, and he didn't get in until 2001. So when Kurri and Fetisov aren't there, and Clarke needs about a decade to get in, to me it says they've gone too far in the other direction.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
God Bless Canada said:
I'm quite familiar with the World Wide Hall of Fame. (BTW, they have a five-year waiting period for induction, which is why Murphy isn't on their list, but I don't think they would induct him). I respect their efforts for trying to make a difference, instead of sitting their and just *****ing about the standards being too soft.

But I don't agree with all their decisions. I see that Jari Kurri and Slava Fetisov, who rank in the top 5-10 all-time at their respective positions, missed out by one vote. To me, they're gimmies. Hawerchuk, to me, is on the outer fringes for the top 100 players ever, and would rank somewhere among the top 40 offensive players ever. To me, he's worthy. (Biggest outcry I've ever seen for an omission was for Hawerchuk in 2000). Bobby Clarke ranks as a top-10 all-round centre ever, IMO, and he didn't get in until 2001. So when Kurri and Fetisov aren't there, and Clarke needs about a decade to get in, to me it says they've gone too far in the other direction.
I think they are right on the money. Don't think that Kurri & fetisov rank in the top 5-10 in their position. Hawerchuk is definitelyfringe. and in my opinion his high stats are due to that weak defensive Gretzy wesrern division of the 80's. Clark was a great player & belongs in the HOF but he is certainly not in the top 10 of centers ever; Ranks behind: Gretzy. Lemieux, Beliveu, Mikita, Bentley, Yzeman, Morenz, H. Richard, Delvecchio, Schmidt, Apps, Francis, Lach, etc etc
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
murray said:
I think they are right on the money. Don't think that Kurri & fetisov rank in the top 5-10 in their position. Hawerchuk is definitelyfringe. and in my opinion his high stats are due to that weak defensive Gretzy wesrern division of the 80's. Clark was a great player & belongs in the HOF but he is certainly not in the top 10 of centers ever; Ranks behind: Gretzy. Lemieux, Beliveu, Mikita, Bentley, Yzeman, Morenz, H. Richard, Delvecchio, Schmidt, Apps, Francis, Lach, etc etc
The top four RWs of all-time (IMO) are Howe, Richard, LaFleur and Bossy. After that, it's a crapshoot. Kurri is right up there. He was money in the playoffs.

Top five defencemen ever, IMO, are Orr, Shore, Harvey, Bourque and Potvin. Robinson and Kelly are 6 and 7, and then Fetisov, slightly ahead of Chelios and Coffey.

The Smythe Division was considered by most to be the best in hockey in the mid-to-late 1980s, when Hawerchuk was at his best. What's most impressive about Hawerchuk, is he did what he did without a top winger. No offence to Paul MacLean, but he is nowhere near the player Hawerchuk was, but Hawerchuk turned him into a 100-point player. The best players on Winnipeg, after Hawerchuk, were generally defencemen.

Clarke is definitely one of the top 10 centres in NHL history. I'd definitely rank him ahead of Francis and Yzerman, and probably most of the other centres you listed. Gretzky-Lemieux-Beliveau is the unquestionable top 3. Esposito is fourth IMO. Then it's between Mikita, Clarke, Trottier, Morenz and Messier for spots 5-9. Clarke could beat you in every way imaginable. There's nothing he couldn't, and wouldn't, do. A clutch player and one of the best leaders of the last half century. Finished quite high in THN's Top 50.

BTW, to correct myself from earlier, LaFontaine was not one of the THN top 100 I mentioned. To see the top 100, go to "The Hockey News Top 100 Players" thread and post 362. BTW, Kurri is eighth among RWs, and Clarke is 8th among Cs who played their entire career at centre. (Red Kelly is listed as C/D).
 
Last edited:

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
murray said:
Clark was a great player & belongs in the HOF but he is certainly not in the top 10 of centers ever; Ranks behind: Gretzy. Lemieux, Beliveu, Mikita, Bentley, Yzeman, Morenz, H. Richard, Delvecchio, Schmidt, Apps, Francis, Lach, etc etc

Clarke won the Hart trophy 3 times, and you rank him behind Henri Richard (a very soild player, who benefitted from being in the right place at the right time)?

I think you're really underrating Bobby Clarke. He was probably better than half the guys you listed
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Fuhr86 said:
--- 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

LOL.

Despite some of the recent additions to the hall, it is not for "pretty good" players.
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
murray said:
I think they are right on the money. Don't think that Kurri & fetisov rank in the top 5-10 in their position. Hawerchuk is definitelyfringe. and in my opinion his high stats are due to that weak defensive Gretzy wesrern division of the 80's. Clark was a great player & belongs in the HOF but he is certainly not in the top 10 of centers ever; Ranks behind: Gretzy. Lemieux, Beliveu, Mikita, Bentley, Yzeman, Morenz, H. Richard, Delvecchio, Schmidt, Apps, Francis, Lach, etc etc

Rating Henri Richard and Alex Delvecchio ahead of Clarke is debatable, but there is absolutely no way Ron Francis rates ahead of Clarke.

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.

1970s- 34 players inducted
1980s- 31 players inducted
1990s- 27 players inducted
2000s- 16 players inducted (so far; 4 more years to go)

The standards are not getting easier, every era has its questionable choices. Are Federko and Neely any less deserving than Edgar LaPrade and George Armstrong ?

Do you guys have a link for the World Hockey Hall of Fame? I remember seeing it, but don`t remember the web address.

Edit: Nevermind, I found it here .
Quite interesting. They rejected about a hundred players who are in the HHOF, but they elected J.C. Tremblay.
 
Last edited:

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
reckoning said:
Rating Henri Richard and Alex Delvecchio ahead of Clarke is debatable, but there is absolutely no way Ron Francis rates ahead of Clarke.

You really think so? I would rate Clarke way ahead of Delvecchio and Richard. 3 Hart trophies speaks volumes to me. Only Shore, Howe, Gretzky and Lemieux have had more. The other two were excellent players, but never even really the go-to guy on their own team
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
arrbez said:
You really think so? I would rate Clarke way ahead of Delvecchio and Richard. 3 Hart trophies speaks volumes to me. Only Shore, Howe, Gretzky and Lemieux have had more. The other two were excellent players, but never even really the go-to guy on their own team
I said debatable because I never saw Delvecchio or H. Richard in their prime years. Based on research and opinions of those who saw them, you could make the argument for them, just as you could for Clarke. The case for Richard would be much stronger than the case for Delvecchio.
 

El_Scoobo

Registered User
Aug 18, 2004
530
0
Your Imagination
Duchesne---no. Decent player, decent career. He was what he was. Too many blunders defensively. Never really considered a great player.

Neely--I have him as being in. Prototypical power forward, very good goal scorer, strong team player.

Lafontaine--I don't know but I just don't think he should have been in. I hate the "well he could have been......but was injured" argument. Don't get me wrong, he was a top line player in the league but I just feel he is in the tier just below hall of famer.

Langway--In. Underrated imo.

These hall of fame debates can go on forever. Everyone has their own idea of what the hall of fame standard should be. Its just not possible to keep everyone happy.
 

Snap Wilson

Registered User
Sep 14, 2003
5,838
0
God Bless Canada said:
Name me five better defencemen over the last 25 years who were better defensively than Langway. Stevens comes to mind. Stevens comes to mind.

Stevens comes to mind.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
God Bless Canada said:
Anderson gets in this year. His omission last year drew the largest outcry since Hawerchuk's common-sense-deficient omission in 2000.
I bet Anderson doesn't make it in this year. He deserves to be in, but his piss-poor relationship with the media isn't going to help him any.
 

Snap Wilson

Registered User
Sep 14, 2003
5,838
0
murray said:
Ok, but apparently you think all these guys should have made it. We are all entitled to our opinion. There is a site out there called "The World Wide hockey Hall of fame" where a group (20 plus) revoted the HOF year by year. Not saying these guys are any smarter than you but they did give their selections a lot of thought. By the way, Langway, Fuhr, Cheevers, Lafontaine, Murphy & Neely didn't make the their cut to this point. Interesting site, check it out.

It is an interesting site, and a fascinating attempt at duplicating the process (the article on L'affaire Eagleson is particularly revelatory) but I don't think it's any better than the existing Hall. The standards for inclusion are arbitrary and change from year to year. I may try to go back and duplicate their process and see what kind of Hall I come up with (acknowledging that I don't feel particularly qualified to judge the value of international players or off-ice contributors).
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Irish Blues said:
I bet Anderson doesn't make it in this year. He deserves to be in, but his piss-poor relationship with the media isn't going to help him any.
Keep in mind that this is not the baseball HHOF, where the voting is done by the Baseball Writers of America. The HHOF has an 18-member selection committee, and the media accounts for just a small minority of that. The main reason Anderson is not in the Hall is the belief that he only thrived due to the Oilers dynasty. His off-ice conduct may have turned off some voters as well, but his relationship with the media has little to do with the perennial snubs.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
God Bless Canada said:
Keep in mind that this is not the baseball HHOF, where the voting is done by the Baseball Writers of America. The HHOF has an 18-member selection committee, and the media accounts for just a small minority of that. The main reason Anderson is not in the Hall is the belief that he only thrived due to the Oilers dynasty. His off-ice conduct may have turned off some voters as well, but his relationship with the media has little to do with the perennial snubs.
Off-ice conduct???

The HHOF have QUINN on the selection committee who was suspended for life from the NHL by Ziegler due to conduct prejudicial to the NHL in Quinngate. The only non-player ever banned.

Harold Ballard was inducted (as a builder) as he was being sent to prison for 47 counts of fraud.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
Wetcoaster said:
The HHOF have QUINN on the selection committee who was suspended for life from the NHL by Ziegler due to conduct prejudicial to the NHL in Quinngate. The only non-player ever banned.

Harold Ballard was inducted (as a builder) as he was being sent to prison for 47 counts of fraud.
Did either guy tell the media to go **** off most of the time? No? That's why Ballard is in and Quinn is on the committee - because they knew how to curry favor with those who could get them places even as they looked like crap for things they did.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Irish Blues said:
Did either guy tell the media to go **** off most of the time? No? That's why Ballard is in and Quinn is on the committee - because they knew how to curry favor with those who could get them places even as they looked like crap for things they did.
All the time.

In Vancouver Quinn was media unfriendly. He was always telling the media off when he was not having his hatchet man Burkie try to get media credentials pulled or reporters fired (Tony Gallagher and Mike Beamish).

Ballard was known for his media feuds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->