Argument for Oates

[Big Phil]

Okay this is another one of those "should he be in the Hall" posts. Love them or hate them they create good debates. This is my case for the reason Adam Oates should be in there.

For starters I'll agree in recent years that the Hall has been too soft on the inductees, and the fact that Kirk McLean or even Mike Richter are considered is very questionable. But in Oates' case I want to go over his numbers with you. First off his highest point seasons were: 142, 115, 112, 102, 99, 92. Not too shabby I must say. What makes the 142 even more eye popping is that Cam Neely was injured that whole year too.

Oates was never a bona fide sniper. He did hit 45 goals in '92-93 but never more than 32 other than that. It was his playmaking that set him apart. He led the league in assists three times. He is well over a point a game in his career and in the playoffs he's right at a PPG. He is the only guy to centre two 50 in 50 guys, Hull in '91 Neely in '94. Is it just me or is there a common denominator? It seemed no matter what he could pass to anyone. And as far as it goes for no Cups for him I say so what? He played in 2 Cup finals. And with all due respect St. Louis, Boston, or Washington were never the best team in the league at any time. Besides, do guys like Dionne, Perreault, Sittler, Park, Statsny, Goulet, Ullman get kicked out of the Hall because they never won?

Oates doesnt have any major awards either, but he was Second team all-star in '91. He was one of the best playmakers of all time and other than Gretzky probably the best passer of his generation. How many of you know that between '91-95 he had more points than any other player? Oates gets my bet for the Hall bar none. If this is a shrine for great players then I say throw him in!

Click to read more...

 

[acr*]

He was the ideal centerman of the past twenty years. He made his wingers that much better, could win faceoffs, and was very good defensively.

Just look at Brett Hull's numbers before and after Oates. His points shot up, and he scored 70+ goals with him, then when he left, the numbers took a decline.

Another thing, possibly the most important thing was the fact that he was one of the better defensive forwards of his time too. He killed penalties better than a lot of guys who specialize in the PK. I was watching an old game from his time with the Bruins and was amazed at his penalty killing and overall defensive play. Add that to all the assists and points and it'd be a shame if he didn't make it in the HoF.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Okay this is another one of those "should he be in the Hall" posts. Love them or hate them they create good debates. This is my case for the reason Adam Oates should be in there.

For starters I'll agree in recent years that the Hall has been too soft on the inductees, and the fact that Kirk McLean or even Mike Richter are considered is very questionable. But in Oates' case I want to go over his numbers with you. First off his highest point seasons were: 142, 115, 112, 102, 99, 92. Not too shabby I must say. What makes the 142 even more eye popping is that Cam Neely was injured that whole year too.

Oates was never a bona fide sniper. He did hit 45 goals in '92-93 but never more than 32 other than that. It was his playmaking that set him apart. He led the league in assists three times. He is well over a point a game in his career and in the playoffs he's right at a PPG. He is the only guy to centre two 50 in 50 guys, Hull in '91 Neely in '94. Is it just me or is there a common denominator? It seemed no matter what he could pass to anyone. And as far as it goes for no Cups for him I say so what? He played in 2 Cup finals. And with all due respect St. Louis, Boston, or Washington were never the best team in the league at any time. Besides, do guys like Dionne, Perreault, Sittler, Park, Statsny, Goulet, Ullman get kicked out of the Hall because they never won?

Oates doesnt have any major awards either, but he was Second team all-star in '91. He was one of the best playmakers of all time and other than Gretzky probably the best passer of his generation. How many of you know that between '91-95 he had more points than any other player? Oates gets my bet for the Hall bar none. If this is a shrine for great players then I say throw him in!

I agree with most of what you say Phil, but on what planet has anyone ever suggested Kirk McLean is hall of fame material???

Your argument is sound on Oates' behalf, but I would think unnecessary, as think his place is pretty much waiting for him.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Agreed that Oates should be in.

Great face-off man as well.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I don't know if Oates is a mortal lock for his first few years. He'll face strong competition in his first ballot from Roy (a mortal lock) and Gilmour (a better all-round player). Richter, Barasso and Housley are also up for nomination the first time, and there'll be lots of prior overlooks who will get consideration. So it may take him a few years, but I think he'll get in.

The guy was a wicked playmaker. At his peak in the early to mid 1990s, his hockey sense and playmaking abilities were mentioned in the same breath as Gretzky, Sakic, LaFontaine, Yzerman, Lemieux and the other top playmakers of the day. Only an injury kept him from joining the vaunted 100-assist club in 1991. I always viewed him as a borderline Hall candidate, until about five years ago, when he led the league in assists a couple times despite being over 40. He was close to a point-per-game player until he was 40.

I wouldn't say Oates was a great defensive player, he was adequate at defensive play. Not Ron Francis calibre, but not useless defensively. He was one of the best ever in the faceoff circle, as he had very quick hands and used a straight stick blade. His faceoff abilities enabled him to be used as a penalty killer and a last-minute guy when up by a goal.

One thing that will hold Oates back was his absence of playoff production. I won't hold his lack of a Cup against him, but he had a lot of years where he disappeared in the playoffs. (Witness 1995, 00, 01, 02). He was invisible in the second round of 1991 with St. Louis and 1994 with Boston. That's not to say he didn't have some strong playoffs, but he had a lot of post-seasons where he was ineffective.

 

[KH1]

I agree with most of what you say Phil, but on what planet has anyone ever suggested Kirk McLean is hall of fame material???

Your argument is sound on Oates' behalf, but I would think unnecessary, as think his place is pretty much waiting for him.

I agree. If McLean is in the HoF then I am. Richter should be in the Hall though, on the merit of being perhaps the best goalie to ever play in internation competition plus how good he was for a while in the NHL.

As for Oates, you will be hard pressed to find somebody who wouldn't vote for his induction.

 

[Big Phil]

I agree with most of what you say Phil, but on what planet has anyone ever suggested Kirk McLean is hall of fame material???

Your argument is sound on Oates' behalf, but I would think unnecessary, as think his place is pretty much waiting for him.

Its not that he was considered its just that earlier this year he was one the short ist of guys who were eligible (guys who retired in '02) even the fact that he was mentioned that he is eligible is too much for him. But I dont think he'll ever get in as long as the sky is blue thats for sure

 

[CoupeStanley]

No need to argue his induction, he'll get in.

 

[reckoning]

I don't know if Oates is a mortal lock for his first few years. He'll face strong competition in his first ballot from Roy (a mortal lock) and Gilmour (a better all-round player). Richter, Barasso and Housley are also up for nomination the first time, and there'll be lots of prior overlooks who will get consideration. So it may take him a few years, but I think he'll get in.

IIRC, Oates retired at the end of last season, so he won`t be eligible `til 2007. Roy, Gilmour and co. are up next year.

Personally, I think it`s a no-brainer. I can`t imagine anybody claiming Oates isn`t Hall-worthy. Then again, I didn`t think anyone wouild question Ron Francis` qualifications either.

 

[God Bless Canada]

My bad. Oates does come up in 2007, and he will have to go against Larionov for sure, plus the 2006 and prior rejects. (Can anyone clarify that if Messier, Yzerman, Francis and MacInnis retire because of the lockout, whether they'd be eligible for 2007 [three years from their last game] or 2008 [three years from their retirement]. All four would get in on that ballot ahead of Oates and Larionov).

I'm not doubting Oates' induction, I'm doubting whether he'll get in on the first ballot. His frequent playoff disappearing acts will cost him some votes.

 

[Malefic74]

I agree. If McLean is in the HoF then I am. Richter should be in the Hall though, on the merit of being perhaps the best goalie to ever play in internation competition plus how good he was for a while in the NHL.

As for Oates, you will be hard pressed to find somebody who wouldn't vote for his induction.

Barrasso and Moog before Richter.

Oates should be in.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Barrasso and Moog before Richter.

All should be out. Barasso, Moog, Richter, Vanbiesbrouck and Vernon. All very good goalies, but very good shouldn't get you in the HHoF.

Fuhr, Roy, Hasek, Brodeur and Belfour are your 5 HoF goalies.

 

[Drake1588]

I don't think there will be any controversy. As most seem to agree, Oates will be a first-ballot entry, I expect. Probably with good reason... as much for the consistently high production throughout his long career as anything, regardless of team or linemates or situation. He'll get in, easily.

 

[reckoning]

All should be out. Barasso, Moog, Richter, Vanbiesbrouck and Vernon. All very good goalies, but very good shouldn't get you in the HHoF.

Barasso is a tough call. There`s no way Andy Moog deserves to be there; A good goalie but never one of the best. Saying he`s a 3-time Cup winner is like saying Bunny Laroque was a 4-time Cup winner. Richter will likely get in; i think he deserves to but nobody else on this board agrees. I`d rate Vanbiesbrouck in the same group as Pete Peeters or Kelly Hrudey- those guys were never serious Hall candidates. His stupidity a couple of years ago may have buried his chances anyways. I think Vernon should fall just short, but may get in due to the weak field this year.

Then again, I think Rogie Vachon was better than all five of them, so what do I know?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Barasso is a tough call. There`s no way Andy Moog deserves to be there; A good goalie but never one of the best. Saying he`s a 3-time Cup winner is like saying Bunny Laroque was a 4-time Cup winner. Richter will likely get in; i think he deserves to but nobody else on this board agrees. I`d rate Vanbiesbrouck in the same group as Pete Peeters or Kelly Hrudey- those guys were never serious Hall candidates. His stupidity a couple of years ago may have buried his chances anyways. I think Vernon should fall just short, but may get in due to the weak field this year.

Then again, I think Rogie Vachon was better than all five of them, so what do I know?

From the modern era Roy, Hasek, Brodeur and Belfour will get in. Barrasso is on the edge. Fuhr is already in.

The rest were just not dominant enough to be in the Hall, IMO.

 

[Malefic74]

From the modern era Roy, Hasek, Brodeur and Belfour will get in. Barrasso is on the edge. Fuhr is already in.

The rest were just not dominant enough to be in the Hall, IMO.

Agree actually. I don't think Moog should be in the Hall, but I would rank him ahead of Richter. And Barasso is ahead of both.

 

[pld459666]

I wouldn't

Agree actually. I don't think Moog should be in the Hall, but I would rank him ahead of Richter. And Barasso is ahead of both.

I could imagine the numbers that Richter would have had playing behind the Oilers during their mid to late 80's dominance.

Also the Hall of Fame is not only for NHL, it's for international play as well and Richter's accomplishments during international play in conjunction with a great career, in my opinion, gets him in the hall.

Look at the teams that both Barasso and Moog played for and I don't think that any team that Richter played for (cup team included) could match up

Leetch was the first American born player to win the Conn Smyth Trophy, but there was another American born player just as deserving of that trophy in 94.

 

[God Bless Canada]

International play is way overrated on this board. Richter won one international title. That's not going to be nearly enough. The guys who get in for international play are usually the guys who dominate internationally year after year, guys like Tretiak and Fetisov.

Adam Foote has been one of the best international defencemen over the past decade. He's had a great NHL career, but not an HHOF career, and despite his play on the international stage, it won't be enough to elevate him.

If you think Richter's international credentials are going to be enough to push him over the hump, you're going to be disappointed. Bill Ranford has a better international record, and he's not in the Hall.

 

[Malefic74]

I could imagine the numbers that Richter would have had playing behind the Oilers during their mid to late 80's dominance.

Also the Hall of Fame is not only for NHL, it's for international play as well and Richter's accomplishments during international play in conjunction with a great career, in my opinion, gets him in the hall.

Look at the teams that both Barasso and Moog played for and I don't think that any team that Richter played for (cup team included) could match up

Leetch was the first American born player to win the Conn Smyth Trophy, but there was another American born player just as deserving of that trophy in 94.

Moog's best seasons were in Boston after he left Edmonton in 88. He won 20 or more games in 6 different seasons after leaving the Oilers. He was huge in getting those Boston teams to the Finals only to lose to Edmonton. His career after leaving those Edmonton teams is as good or even better than it was when he was with the Oilers. And he was undefeated at 88 Olympics in Calgary.

Barasso had a big role in Team USA in the early Canada Cups and played in his first one nearly right out of high school. He was fantrastic in those first seasons in Buffalo with and elevated that team to potential contender. And he holds an often ignored record among goalies. Most points for a goalie. If voters are looking for American-born firsts, Barasso has more wins than Richter and more Cups regardless of the difference in teams.

 

[Rather Gingerly 1*]

Okay this is another one of those "should he be in the Hall" posts. Love them or hate them they create good debates. This is my case for the reason Adam Oates should be in there.

For starters I'll agree in recent years that the Hall has been too soft on the inductees, and the fact that Kirk McLean or even Mike Richter are considered is very questionable. But in Oates' case I want to go over his numbers with you. First off his highest point seasons were: 142, 115, 112, 102, 99, 92. Not too shabby I must say. What makes the 142 even more eye popping is that Cam Neely was injured that whole year too.

Oates was never a bona fide sniper. He did hit 45 goals in '92-93 but never more than 32 other than that. It was his playmaking that set him apart. He led the league in assists three times. He is well over a point a game in his career and in the playoffs he's right at a PPG. He is the only guy to centre two 50 in 50 guys, Hull in '91 Neely in '94. Is it just me or is there a common denominator? It seemed no matter what he could pass to anyone. And as far as it goes for no Cups for him I say so what? He played in 2 Cup finals. And with all due respect St. Louis, Boston, or Washington were never the best team in the league at any time. Besides, do guys like Dionne, Perreault, Sittler, Park, Statsny, Goulet, Ullman get kicked out of the Hall because they never won?

Oates doesnt have any major awards either, but he was Second team all-star in '91. He was one of the best playmakers of all time and other than Gretzky probably the best passer of his generation. How many of you know that between '91-95 he had more points than any other player? Oates gets my bet for the Hall bar none. If this is a shrine for great players then I say throw him in!

To me Oates falls into the Bobby Smith category. In that he was a good player, picked up his scoring points. But was not the type of player who was something special. A good player but not hall of fame material

 

[John Flyers Fan]

To me Oates falls into the Bobby Smith category. In that he was a good player, picked up his scoring points. But was not the type of player who was something special. A good player but not hall of fame material

Oates was a significantly better player than Smith IMO.

 

[Mothra]

To me Oates falls into the Bobby Smith category. In that he was a good player, picked up his scoring points. But was not the type of player who was something special. A good player but not hall of fame material

Oates was well beyond just a "good player" and is a lock for the HOF....ask Hull or Neely if he was special.....the guy centered two members of the 50/50 club....was a Hart finalist....great face off...very good in his own end.....over 1000 assists....you say this is just "good'?

 

[c-carp]

Okay this is another one of those "should he be in the Hall" posts. Love them or hate them they create good debates. This is my case for the reason Adam Oates should be in there.

For starters I'll agree in recent years that the Hall has been too soft on the inductees, and the fact that Kirk McLean or even Mike Richter are considered is very questionable. But in Oates' case I want to go over his numbers with you. First off his highest point seasons were: 142, 115, 112, 102, 99, 92. Not too shabby I must say. What makes the 142 even more eye popping is that Cam Neely was injured that whole year too.

Oates was never a bona fide sniper. He did hit 45 goals in '92-93 but never more than 32 other than that. It was his playmaking that set him apart. He led the league in assists three times. He is well over a point a game in his career and in the playoffs he's right at a PPG. He is the only guy to centre two 50 in 50 guys, Hull in '91 Neely in '94. Is it just me or is there a common denominator? It seemed no matter what he could pass to anyone. And as far as it goes for no Cups for him I say so what? He played in 2 Cup finals. And with all due respect St. Louis, Boston, or Washington were never the best team in the league at any time. Besides, do guys like Dionne, Perreault, Sittler, Park, Statsny, Goulet, Ullman get kicked out of the Hall because they never won?

Oates doesnt have any major awards either, but he was Second team all-star in '91. He was one of the best playmakers of all time and other than Gretzky probably the best passer of his generation. How many of you know that between '91-95 he had more points than any other player? Oates gets my bet for the Hall bar none. If this is a shrine for great players then I say throw him in!

I say Oates is in no question, he is probably the best passer not named Gretzky.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Oates was well beyond just a "good player" and is a lock for the HOF....ask Hull or Neely if he was special.....the guy centered two members of the 50/50 club....was a Hart finalist....great face off...very good in his own end.....over 1000 assists....you say this is just "good'?

He is borderline. Excellent player but lacking in accomplishments somewhat.

 

[CRUNK JUICE]

Oates was never a bona fide sniper. He did hit 45 goals in '92-93 but never more than 32 other than that. It was his playmaking that set him apart. He led the league in assists three times. He is well over a point a game in his career and in the playoffs he's right at a PPG. He is the only guy to centre two 50 in 50 guys, Hull in '91 Neely in '94. !

I could be wrong here, but didn't Gretzky center 3 of them: Nichols, Kurri, and Robitaille?
Or did they play on different lines. Just curious.

Oh, and for the record I definitely think Oates should get in. I just don't think he's a first ballot inductee.