Claude Lemieux = HHOF?

Status
Not open for further replies.

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Funny, didn't Neely score 16 goals in 19 games in 1991? And isn't that one goal off the record, even though Neely's team wasn't good enough to beat Pittsburgh, and Neely was playing hurt for much of the Pittsburgh series. While Claude was magnificent in the Cup victories of 86, 95 and 96 (he was a secondary player in 2000), he never had a playoff as good as Neely in 1991.

And I think RSBPC hit the nail on the head: replace Lemieux with an in his prime Neely, and Lemieux's teams still win their championships. Put Lemieux in Neely's place, Boston doesn't win. (Note: I'm not taking away from Lemieux's clutch play. I'm just saying an HHOF player would have had the same, if not a greater impact).
 

lemieux32*

Guest
RSBPC said:
If you take Claude Lemieux off of the 4 championship teams he was on, and replace him with Cam Neely, I'd bet that they all still win the Cup. Likewise...If you take Neely off of those late 80s/early 90s Bruins teams and replace him with Claude, they still don't win the cup.

Cam Neely was a much, much better hockey player than CLaude Lemieux. It really is not even close. Gee Wally brings up a great point. Which one would you rather have on your team?

So who would have shut down the opposing scorers if Claude was not on those Devils teams? Which makes another point about Cam, Claude shut him down. Which leads to the other side: with Lemieux scoring clutch goals who knows how much further the Bruins could have gone.
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
Tao Jones said:
Sorry to go OT, but I'd like to see where Ray Bourque is on the Mike Gartner test.
Ray Bourque is no doubt about it Hall of Famer. There's no need to question his credentails. The Keltner List was made for players of questionable worthiness, that's what the Gartner test should be for as well.
 

habs_24x

Registered User
Sep 12, 2002
2,483
55
montreal
Visit site
God Bless Canada said:
And I think RSBPC hit the nail on the head: replace Lemieux with an in his prime Neely, and Lemieux's teams still win their championships. Put Lemieux in Neely's place, Boston doesn't win.

how do you know this for a fact? ''put so and so in so and so's place and ...'' get real! makes no sense. the fact of the matter is Lemieux was extremely important for his teams when they won cups and no one can say that those teams would of still won if he hadnt been there.
 

Chileiceman

Registered User
Dec 14, 2004
9,871
713
Toronto
I sure hopes he makes it, but his chance is pretty slim IMO plus with all the good players that are retiring, I think that he ever does make he'll have to wait a while. The HOF is not that nice to defensive forwards.
 

barfy2000

Registered User
Jun 23, 2005
1,784
1
Whitby, Ontario
Tao Jones said:
Sorry to go OT, but I'd like to see where Ray Bourque is on the Mike Gartner test.

Dr Love said:
Ray Bourque is no doubt about it Hall of Famer. There's no need to question his credentails. The Keltner List was made for players of questionable worthiness, that's what the Gartner test should be for as well.

i agree. but just for fun:

*There are no correct or incorrect answers to these questions. There is no ideal combination of answers. It is simply a set of questions that helps one put a player in a better perspective.*

The Gartner Test: Raymond Bourque

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in hockey? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in hockey?


Not to my knowledge. Maybe best defenceman....but i doubt someone woulda picked him over Gretzky or Lemieux at the time.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes. For a large part of his career, i would say he was.

3. Was he the best player in hockey at his position? Was he the best player in his conference at his position?

Id say yes, slightly, to both accounts. Aside from coffey, i dont think anyone could've given Bourque a run for his money at top dman. Maybe chelios, leetch or macinnis...but id take Raymond over all of them by a hair.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of Cup runs?

Well...technically only one real cup run. But he had a few good postseasons.
23 pts. in 82/83
21 pts. in 87/88
17 pts. in 89/90
25 pts. in 90/91

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Sure was. He saw still a key player on the Bruins and even the Avs, well past his 35th.

6. Is he the very best hockey player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

He is in the hall of fame.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Of course. Hes in the top 10 in all time scoring, and hes a defenceman. What more can you ask from a guy?
1579 points, 410 goals in 1612 career reg season games.
180 points, 41 goals in 214 career playoff games.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Note: Hall of Fame Standards is a formula for the baseball hall of fame. Since we've already discussed his career numbers, this question will be passed.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Not really. Putting up those kind of numbers, you would think that he would be as bad as Phil Housley or Bryan Berard on the defensive side of the game, but that is not true. (Aside from the times he got schooled by Mario) He was, at the very worst, an above average defensive defenseman.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

All time? Nope. But, over the course of his hockey playing days, he forged a career that will not soon be forgotten.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close? How many awards total did he ever win?

None. Playing in the heydey of some of the all time great forwards will do that to you. Aside from Pronger in 00', no dman has won the pearson since 1975 (orr). 1972 for the hart (orr). He won 5 norris trophies (leagues best defenseman), the calder memorial trophy (best rookie) and king clancy (on and off ice contributions).

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

Ray was the recipient of 17 postseason all star selections, good for second all time, next to only gordie howe. He also holds the record for most consecutive all star game appearances. (19)

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could make the Finals?

Yes.

14. What impact did the player have on hockey history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Umm..him and coffey inspired a lot of young puck moving, dmen?

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Ray bourque was one of the greatest ambassadors of the game. a real class act. I have never heard anyone say any bad things about the guy. When he came back to boston after asking for a trade to colorado, the home fans cheered him even when he scored a goal. How can you not like the guy?
 
Last edited:

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,582
1,259
Montreal, QC
Psycho Papa Joe said:
I don't, but he's there, therefore Lemieux should at least be given a long look.

PS Glen Anderson was better than either guy IMO.

Actually, he should NOT be given a long look but he WILL, and that's because of Gillies. And I definitely agree with you on Anderson. It's a joke that he isn't in yet.
 

Tao Jersey Jones

Registered User
Sep 28, 2003
16,771
7,655
Plainfield, NJ
Dr Love said:
Ray Bourque is no doubt about it Hall of Famer. There's no need to question his credentails. The Keltner List was made for players of questionable worthiness, that's what the Gartner test should be for as well.

No question. Just anticipating the comparisons for when it's Scott Stevens turn, and the questioning of the character of his hits is inevitably raised. :deadhorse
 

RSBPC

Registered User
Jan 19, 2005
2,356
0
lemieux32 said:
So who would have shut down the opposing scorers if Claude was not on those Devils teams? Which makes another point about Cam, Claude shut him down. Which leads to the other side: with Lemieux scoring clutch goals who knows how much further the Bruins could have gone.

Let me cut to the chase. Simple yes or no question.

Do you think Claude Lemieux was a better hockey player than Cam Neely?
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,232
6,471
South Korea
Would you want Selanne in the hall over Claude?

I don't understand why the regular season is often revered so much.
Hockey players know the real season is the PLAYOFFS !
I value the playoffs at least equal in value to the regular season (no way in hell Selanne makes the hall imo).
And Claude Lemieux was a playoff superstar! Yes, superstar.

How many playoff GAME-WINNING GOALS (GWG) did he have? It was something obscenely high. I think only Gretzky and Brett Hull ever had more.

If they ever opened a special exhibit for playoff warriors, then Claude Lemieux and Esa Tikkanen would be front and center.
 

Crosbyfan

Registered User
Nov 27, 2003
12,657
2,479
VanIslander said:
Would you want Selanne in the hall over Claude?

I don't understand why the regular season is often revered so much.
Hockey players know the real season is the PLAYOFFS !
I value the playoffs at least equal in value to the regular season (no way in hell Selanne makes the hall imo).
And Claude Lemieux was a playoff superstar! Yes, superstar.

How many playoff GAME-WINNING GOALS (GWG) did he have? It was something obscenely high. I think only Gretzky and Brett Hull ever had more.

If they ever opened a special exhibit for playoff warriors, then Claude Lemieux and Esa Tikkanen would be front and center.

Is Tikkanen in? I would put him in ahead of Lemieux or Anderson although both Tikkanen and Anderson are good comparisons to Claude in different ways.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,232
6,471
South Korea
Crosbyfan said:
Is Tikkanen in? I would put him in ahead of Lemieux or Anderson although both Tikkanen and Anderson are good comparisons to Claude in different ways.
I don't think Tikkanen is in. But like Claude, he shone as a star in the playoffs, not the regular season.

Anderson is in. But he scored a lot more goals in the regular season compared to those two, though he was less valuable playoff wise (though still somewhat clutch).
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
VanIslander said:
I don't think Tikkanen is in. But like Claude, he shone as a star in the playoffs, not the regular season.

Anderson is in. But he scored a lot more goals in the regular season compared to those two, though he was less valuable playoff wise (though still somewhat clutch).

Andy was supremely clutch ... 6 Cups .. and I believe only 3 players in NHL history have more playoff OT goals. (Sakic, Roenick and Richard)
 

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
John Flyers Fan said:
Andy was supremely clutch ... 6 Cups .. and I believe only 3 players in NHL history have more playoff OT goals. (Sakic, Roenick and Richard)

yeah, i think the main argument for Anderson is that he was so good in the playoffs. his regular season stats are good, but not terribly impressive compared to a number of other guys
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
Gee Wally said:
If you had Cam would you trade him straight up for Claude ?



( I rest my case :D )



I would certainly trade Cam Neely straight up for Lemieux, but only if that particular Lemieux was a Montreal-born center named Mario.





Other than that, LONG LIVE SEABASS!!!!!!
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
Psycho Papa Joe said:
I don't, but he's there, therefore Lemieux should at least be given a long look.

PS Glen Anderson was better than either guy IMO.



Anderson was both helped and harmed by playing on the 80's Oilers, no doubt about it.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
29,096
8,487
TransportedUpstater said:
Anderson was both helped and harmed by playing on the 80's Oilers, no doubt about it.
Anderson's biggest problem is that he ran to the Caribbean and is skipping out on paying child support. When he comes back to Canada and finally does the right thing, he'll get in pretty quick.

Until then, while he deserves to be in, he's not about to get a sniff of consideration.

Brad Park on the other hand, it's still a travesty he's not in.

Lemieux? As much as he was clutch in the playoffs and a big part of 4 Stanley Cup champions (and the guy you absolutely hated but still wanted on your team come playoff time in the mid-to-late 90s), at the end of the day I have to say no as well.
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,016
1,259
Irish Blues said:
Anderson's biggest problem is that he ran to the Caribbean and is skipping out on paying child support. When he comes back to Canada and finally does the right thing, he'll get in pretty quick.

Until then, while he deserves to be in, he's not about to get a sniff of consideration.

Brad Park on the other hand, it's still a travesty he's not in.

Brad Park is already in.
 

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
10,020
3,154
Canadas Ocean Playground
Irish Blues said:
Anderson's biggest problem is that he ran to the Caribbean and is skipping out on paying child support. When he comes back to Canada and finally does the right thing, he'll get in pretty quick.

Until then, while he deserves to be in, he's not about to get a sniff of consideration.

Brad Park on the other hand, it's still a travesty he's not in.

Lemieux? As much as he was clutch in the playoffs and a big part of 4 Stanley Cup champions (and the guy you absolutely hated but still wanted on your team come playoff time in the mid-to-late 90s), at the end of the day I have to say no as well.


Brad Park is in the Hall, has been since 98 :)

Anderson has appeared in court in BC to face the music. I can't remember the outcome, but believe he has no income or interest in earning one to show that he's not a loser as a parent.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
Bring Back Bucky said:
Brad Park is in the Hall, has been since 98 :)

Anderson has appeared in court in BC to face the music. I can't remember the outcome, but believe he has no income or interest in earning one to show that he's not a loser as a parent.


Park = 1st team All-Underrated.


That's kind of disappointing for Anderson...He wasn't a quitter as a player, why should he act that way now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->