Credentials of HHOF Voters

[RECsGuy*]

Should people who have either never played hockey at its highest level, never played professional hockey, or, in many cases, never played organized hockey at even a recognized junior level be allowed to vote on Hockey Hall Of Fame player inductions?

More than half of the selection committee (10/18) falls into this category...

Jim Gregory, Scotty Bowman, David Branch, Eric Duhatschek, Jan-Ake Edvinsson, Mike Emrick, Michael Farber, Yvon Pedneault, Harry Sinden, Bill Torrey

vs.

Pat Quinn, Colin Campbell, Joh Davidson, Mike Gartner, Igor Larionov, Lanny McDonald, Serge Savard, Peter Stastny

http://www.hhof.com/htmlInduct/indselect.shtml

Click to read more...

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I changed your overly-coy thread title. In the future, please try and make thread titles reflect what's in the thread.

 

[Gobias Industries]

I'm wondering what the debate here is?..

Look at a lot of MLB GMs...they've never played at high levels either..

Clearly a first hand experience of the game isn't necessary for a high understanding of it...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Corrections

...people who have either never played hockey at its highest level, never played professional hockey, or, in many cases, never played organized hockey at even a recognized junior level be allowed to vote on Hockey Hall Of Fame player inductions?

More than half of the selection committee (10/18) falls into this category...

Jim Gregory, Scotty Bowman, David Branch, Eric Duhatschek, Jan-Ake Edvinsson, Mike Emrick, Michael Farber, Yvon Pedneault, Harry Sinden, Bill Torrey

vs.

Pat Quinn, Colin Campbell, Joh Davidson, Mike Gartner, Igor Larionov, Lanny McDonald, Serge Savard, Peter Stastny

http://www.hhof.com/htmlInduct/indselect.shtml

Jim Gregory coached the 1964 Memorial Cup winners, NHL gm and has a solid scouting background. Scotty Bowman was a very good elite junior player untol a stick swinging incident ended his career. Harry Sinden captained the 1958 WHC champion Whitby Dunlops, played minor pro hockey, NhL coach and GM.

 

[RECsGuy*]

I'm wondering what the debate here is?..

Look at a lot of MLB GMs...they've never played at high levels either..

Clearly a first hand experience of the game isn't necessary for a high understanding of it...

I completely disagree. For example, I play professional tennis (primarily ITF Futures main draws, Challenger qualies) and when I read articles by Peter Bodo (chief editor at Tennis.com, official website of Tennis Magazine, the sport's preeminent publication, and ESPN contributor) I can help but laugh at how little he understands about the game's intricacies.

Explaining the difference in grips (the way the racuet is held), the angle the racquet face meets the ball, etc. displays a REAL understanding of the game and TRULY eduactes the audience. Giving readers paragraph after of paragraph of flowery writing about immeasurables like heart, intelligence and the ever popular "grit" requires no insight.

Heck, you can see it in the nomenclature: I've seen the Associated Press refer to a rally as a volley. If you are even slightly familiar with the sport, there is a HUGE difference between the defintion of these terms.

I'm certain there are cases of this in hockey.

You can't thoroughly analyze a sport, much less decide who the greats are, if you haven't experienced. relevant "combat" first hand.

 

[SidGenoMario]

I totally agree, what would Scotty Bowman know about good hockey players?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I totally agree, what would Scotty Bowman know about good hockey players?

Apparently not much!

 

[Epsilon]

The biggest problems with the HHOF committee are:

1. too few voters
2. too much secrecy

If things were more like the NFL HOF (which in my opinion has the best process of any of them), it would be much better. They have a much larger voting group (50 I believe), and journalists like Peter King write detailed articles on how the deliberations go.

 

[Gobias Industries]

The biggest problems with the HHOF committee are:

1. too few voters
2. too much secrecy

If things were more like the NFL HOF (which in my opinion has the best process of any of them), it would be much better. They have a much larger voting group (50 I believe), and journalists like Peter King write detailed articles on how the deliberations go.

NFL is the best, MLB the worst, NLH is somewhere in the middle but could use some reform...

Transparency is definitely the key, if you can't back-up your vote publicly, you don't deserve to have one...

 

[RECsGuy*]

I totally agree, what would Scotty Bowman know about good hockey players?

by defintion, coaching and playing are two different things, but you already knew that, right?

just b/c you know how to delegate strategy doesn't mean you know **** about executing it

"saying it and doing it are two different things"

 

[seventieslord]

The biggest problems with the HHOF committee are:

1. too few voters
2. too much secrecy

3. Not enough diversity in the voting committee.

(although this would likely get solved by having more voters, as long as it wasn't just the exact same demographics as the existing voters)

 

[BraveCanadian]

by defintion, coaching and playing are two different things, but you already knew that, right?

just b/c you know how to delegate strategy doesn't mean you know **** about executing it

"saying it and doing it are two different things"

I wonder how we ever got to the moon when we had never been there?

Apparently you can learn how to execute very complex undertakings even if you have never done them.

Even rocket science.

 

[Epsilon]

3. Not enough diversity in the voting committee.

(although this would likely get solved by having more voters, as long as it wasn't just the exact same demographics as the existing voters)

Agreed. One thing (among many) I would like to see added to the committee is an absolute elite HOFer, someone who would be considered a top 20-30 player of all-time, and preferably not someone from a longtime management background like Clarke or Esposito.

 

[RECsGuy*]

I wonder how we ever got to the moon when we had never been there?

Apparently you can learn how to execute very complex undertakings even if you have never done them.

Even rocket science.

Let's not compare science with trying to distinguishing athletic achievements.

With over 3 decades-worth of coaching experience, Bowman has certainly seen many players/generations and is therefore more than qualified to determine greatness based on what his eyes gauge, but guys like Shanahan and Larionov know how physically diffcult it is to skate like Coffey, hit like Stevens, stickhandle like Lafleur, shoot like Bossy, etc., and that is a truer/more legit level of appreciation.

 

[tarheelhockey]

by defintion, coaching and playing are two different things, but you already knew that, right?

just b/c you know how to delegate strategy doesn't mean you know **** about executing it

"saying it and doing it are two different things"

And when "it" is the evaluation of hockey players against their peers, I'd say an NHL coach or GM has has done "it" at a high enough level to carry some weight in their opinions.

Unless you think Lanny McDonald has proven a better judge of hockey talent than Scotty Bowman, there's not much of an argument here.

 

[Hasbro]

Agreed. One thing (among many) I would like to see added to the committee is an absolute elite HOFer, someone who would be considered a top 20-30 player of all-time, and preferably not someone from a longtime management background like Clarke or Esposito.

Just not Clarke or Esposito period!

 

[Ishdul]

Considering you also admit that half of them did play hockey at an elite level, what exactly are you going for? A Hall made entirely of players would not be a very diverse group and I think it's kind of silly to say that one guy isn't going to be a good voter because he just happened to be 5'6", or he tore his leg up when he was 12, or despite his competency in some other field of hockey (scouting, management, coaching, writing, etc.), he just wasn't a very talented player. And also, there are plenty of Hall of Fame candidates who aren't players, so by your logic, wouldn't guys who were just players be poor judges of their candidacy?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

This is why Rejean Houle was such a great GM with such a keen eye for talent.

 

[RECsGuy*]

And also, there are plenty of Hall of Fame candidates who aren't players, so by your logic, wouldn't guys who were just players be poor judges of their candidacy?

Since you're such an excellent reader, let me re-post this thread's openming paragraph...

...people who have either never played hockey at its highest level, never played professional hockey, or, in many cases, never played organized hockey at even a recognized junior level be allowed to vote on Hockey Hall Of Fame player inductions?

 

[RECsGuy*]

With over 3 decades-worth of coaching experience, Bowman has certainly seen many players/generations and is therefore more than qualified to determine greatness based on what his eyes gauge, but guys like Shanahan and Larionov know how physically diffcult it is to skate like Coffey, hit like Stevens, stickhandle like Lafleur, shoot like Bossy, etc., and that is a truer/more legit level of appreciation.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Being intimately aware of what it feels like to play at a high level is not a qualification for assessing talent. If it were, Wayne Gretzky would be an amazing coach/GM.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

With over 3 decades-worth of coaching experience, Bowman has certainly seen many players/generations and is therefore more than qualified to determine greatness based on what his eyes gauge, but guys like Shanahan and Larionov know how physically diffcult it is to skate like Coffey, hit like Stevens, stickhandle like Lafleur, shoot like Bossy, etc., and that is a truer/more legit level of appreciation.

Maybe they can appreciate it more on a personal level, but I do not believe being personally blessed with extraordinary athletic talent is necessary to identify who is great at hockey.

You may have a much greater understanding of the many intricasies of tennis than I do, and would make a much better scout, but I think I am probably just as capable of ranking players once their careers are over.

Diversity is good on such panels, as the professional players might not reward actual results as much they do style, skill and degree of difficulty.

 

[Epsilon]

There need to be some guys on the panel who challenge conventional hockey paradigms and stereotypes. Guys like Dino Ciccarelli are getting into the HOF because they compiled stats and "played the game the right way". Someone like Brett Hull would be a good addition because he's a superstar player who had to deal with a lot of crap ("you can't win with Brett Hull") because he often didn't play according to conventional norms.

 

[Ishdul]

Since you're such an excellent reader, let me re-post this thread's openming paragraph...

That... doesn't answer my point at all. Do you honestly think that Lanny McDonald or Mike Gartner are completely clueless at evaluating coaches because they themselves were never professional level coaches?

 

[plusandminus]

...people who have either never played hockey at its highest level, never played professional hockey, or, in many cases, never played organized hockey at even a recognized junior level be allowed to vote on Hockey Hall Of Fame player inductions?

More than half of the selection committee (10/18) falls into this category...

Jim Gregory, Scotty Bowman, David Branch, Eric Duhatschek, Jan-Ake Edvinsson, Mike Emrick, Michael Farber, Yvon Pedneault, Harry Sinden, Bill Torrey

vs.

Pat Quinn, Colin Campbell, Joh Davidson, Mike Gartner, Igor Larionov, Lanny McDonald, Serge Savard, Peter Stastny

http://www.hhof.com/htmlInduct/indselect.shtml

I don't see a problem. And for example, I think Scotty Bowman may knows hockey pretty well, including has the ability to judge players. Do you even know about all his Stanley Cups with different organizations? (Plus, I thought he was a skilled player too, but I may be wrong.)
Edit: See that you seem to know about that.