God Bless Canada said:Andy Moog, Glenn Anderson and Kevin Lowe were all excellent players, too. But all of them are a notch below Hall worthy.
Interesting to note: It's a very weak year for first-time candidates. Mike Vernon, Pat Verbeek and Gary Suter are the best of this year's bunch. I don't see any of them getting in on the first ballot. I'd put Vernon in there, and he may get in eventually, but not the other two, or anyone else eligible this year. That means a couple overlooked players might finally get in.
God Bless Canada said:I'm just going on memory when I mention first-ballot HHOFers. I don't have an exact source. I remember the hubbub when Hawerchuk was excluded. I remember that Goulet was left out his first time. I think Lafontaine was on his third try when he got in. The HHOF has a three-year waiting period to get in (with few exceptions), so if you want to know who got in on the first ballot, add three years to the date of their retirement. (Bourque, Coffey and Murphy were all first-ballot guys).
I don't think Pat Verbeek or Gary Suter belong. I just said they're two of the most notable first time candidates. 500 goals stopped being the threshold before Verbeek reached it. In fact, Dino Ciccarelli has over 600 goals, and has been passed over in his first two attempts. (He's another guy who has a good shot at getting in this year. Whether or not he belongs is certainly debatable).
One final player who's eligible for the first time this year is Rick Tocchet, and while he certainly was an outstanding power forward, he's not Hall-worthy, either.
jtuzzi21 said:I don't think they will, its for honoring the best "hockey" players, not humans.
kmad said:He was a mediocre player at best. We can't let people into the hall of fame for one fluke goal.
Bulldog fan said:Please help me understand how a guy 3 years retired doesn't have the stats to make it into the hall. But, somehow, 4 years retired, with no change to his stats, he suddenly is?
Larionov said:A mediocre player? Well, if Paul Henderson is a mediocre player, then so too are about 95% of the guys who ever played the game at the NHL level, because Henderson's numbers are better than most. He was also a hell of a skater and a very effective two way player -- sort of a Marty Gelinas with perhaps slightly better hands.
You can argue his career numbers all you want, however -- that's not the reason he belongs in the Hall. He belongs in the Hall because, for a few glorious weeks in September 1972, he played the best hockey of his life and led his team to victory in perhaps the greatest hockey series of all time.
"One fluke goal"? Henderson tied for the Team Canada lead in the series with seven goals. He also scored THREE game winners -- not one, not two, but three. His team was down three games to one, and Henderson got the winner in Game Six, Game Seven, and Game Eight. Has anyone ever scored three straight game winning goals in the playoffs? With their team down three games to one? Incredible.
The Hall of Fame is not just about the numbers. It is about the heritage of the game, and honouring those who helped to build it. Take a look at some of the names that have been inducted recently -- God bless Clark Gillies, but Paul Henderson did more for the game of hockey in those three weeks than Clark Gillies did in fifteen years.
Its about time that someone has said Kharlamov. IMO he belongs there without question. I don't understand how Tretiak gets in but not Kharlamov. IMO he's the greatest player to never play in the NHL.Chili said:Some worthy people mentioned such as Rogie Vachon. If you get a chance, watch the 1976 Canada Cup. He was fabulous in that inaugral tournament and had a great career.
Valery Kharlamov is one of the most gifted players of all time.
Two international players not mentioned, Boris Mikhailov and Vladimir Petrov are worthy in my opinion. Mikhailov especially had a great international career and excelled in the NHL vs Russia tournaments. Petrov was a great offensive player. Kharlamov, Petrov and Mikhailov is one of the best lines in the history of the game.
Larionov said:A mediocre player? Well, if Paul Henderson is a mediocre player, then so too are about 95% of the guys who ever played the game at the NHL level, because Henderson's numbers are better than most. He was also a hell of a skater and a very effective two way player -- sort of a Marty Gelinas with perhaps slightly better hands.
You can argue his career numbers all you want, however -- that's not the reason he belongs in the Hall. He belongs in the Hall because, for a few glorious weeks in September 1972, he played the best hockey of his life and led his team to victory in perhaps the greatest hockey series of all time.
"One fluke goal"? Henderson tied for the Team Canada lead in the series with seven goals. He also scored THREE game winners -- not one, not two, but three. His team was down three games to one, and Henderson got the winner in Game Six, Game Seven, and Game Eight. Has anyone ever scored three straight game winning goals in the playoffs? With their team down three games to one? Incredible.
The Hall of Fame is not just about the numbers. It is about the heritage of the game, and honouring those who helped to build it. Take a look at some of the names that have been inducted recently -- God bless Clark Gillies, but Paul Henderson did more for the game of hockey in those three weeks than Clark Gillies did in fifteen years.
moneyp said:Next year comes Patrick Roy, Barrasso, Gilmour, Richter, Housley.... it's gonna get a mite crowded.
The Hall of Fame should be ONLY for people who had OUTSTANDING careers .Its not the Hall of Good Players .Too many merely good players getting in .Gillies ,Langway ,Lafonataine ,Barber ,Federko ..its a slight to the truly great NHL players .
moneyp said:Yeah, but then you wouldn't have an induction ceremony every year, and the Hall wouldn't make as much money, which, dear God, they should be entitled to do. I don't mind lowering the standard enough to allow one or two a year.
It's called the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of Statistics. The group of players that have done something more famous than Henderson is a lot smaller than the one of players who have better stats.KOVALEV10 said:Henderson played great dont get me wrong. But you honestly believe a guy who was just great for 3 weeks deserves a spot in the hall of fame? We're talking hall of fame already! Richards scored 7 mind you 7 game winning goals last year in the playoffs... I guess he belongs in the hall too? Theodore had an outstanding 20-30 last games in 2002 and won the hart trophy so he belongs in the hall of fame too? Guys who are great for only 3 weeks dont deserve to get inducted and that's a fact.