Current players that are worthy of being in the HHOF

[SladeWilson23]

My God, one 1st all-star nomination? That's it, roll down the red carpet boys!

No but seriously. It's clear to me Devils fans are pretty emotional towards that debate, so I'm not sure why I bother. You can twist stats as much as you like, at the end of the day he's produced at a pace over his career similar to that of Ray Whitney. To me that simply doesn't cut it. Not even close.

You can say my criteria makes no sense. Elias has been a good player, nothing more. He's a guy along the likes of Kovalev, Marleau, Gonchar, Markov, Koivu and such, no shame in that. The HHOF, to me, should be reserved to the greats of their era. Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Thornton, St-Louis and company as far as forwards go. Elias just doesn't fit the bill.

You just compared Elias to Kovalev, Koivu, and Marleau. Oh my.

If you want a small HOF of just the true legends, fine. But that's not what the HOF is, and worse players than Elias are already in.

Basically, what you need to do is stop looking at his raw numbers, and trophies.

 

[arrbez]

If you want a small HOF of just the true legends, fine. But that's not what the HOF is, and worse players than Elias are already in.

If you want to use the low water marks in the hall as the basis going forward, then the Hall is truly in trouble. Just because mistakes were made in the past, doesn't mean they should be used as the rule going forward. Clark Gillies and Dick Duff can't be where the bar is set.

Outside of some of the glaring mistakes (like the two mentioned above), I think you'd be hard pressed to find worse players than Elias in the hall, at least from the post-expansion era.

 

[systemsgo]

The locks should be Jagr, Datsyuk, MSL, Iginla, Thornton, Chara for the older players. And I'm personally rooting for Hossa to get in, and think he should be.

In their early thirties, Keith (and H Sedin most likely).

Among the under 30 players, only Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin should be locks at this point in their career (and in that order based on awards).

There're a bunch of other players who should make in time, but they haven't been playing long enough yet to be locks, and there's nothing wrong with that. Not many players get to be locks early on in their careers, it doesn't mean they aren't elite superstars.

 

[Lebowski]

You just compared Elias to Kovalev, Koivu, and Marleau. Oh my.

If you want a small HOF of just the true legends, fine. But that's not what the HOF is, and worse players than Elias are already in.

Basically, what you need to do is stop looking at his raw numbers, and trophies.

Explain how this is a ridiculous notion to you. Let me guess, his one appearance on the first all-star team?

 

[systemsgo]

I don't understand why people use his Olympic forward mvp as a basis of anything. He finished 5th in overall scoring and was a measly 1 point ahead of 4 other players on his team.

I just don't see the whole dominating factor in have 1 goal and 7 assists on the best team in the world. Sure he was MVP and that's great, but you can't ignore who he was player with

That's not fair to Toews, he was playing with great players on Team Canada, but so was every other Canadian player. He did play the best among them and that's a credit to him. On the Hawks though, I can see what you mean, not many teams have 1Cs who have that kind of winger talent to play with him no matter how they switch it around. I'm incredibly jealous.

That's the problem with too many fanboys and girls, the truth ends up somewhere in between because fans prop them up too much and it leads to resentment which leads to unfairly dismissing the players' accomplishments. I've seen it happen endlessly with Sid and Ovi stuff.



To reply to the poster you quoted though, Toews wasn't asked by Hockey Canada to be the captain, but was asked by Crosby if it was alright if he took the captaincy because 2 cups vs 1. It reflects well on both of them as players, that's why the story came to be published, because most Canadians like at least one of them.

 

[glovesave_35]

So I guess its better to be a Sundin-type HHOF player then. Stand out cause you were the best player on a bunch of crap (other than2006 Olympics). Oh the horror that someone was burdened with playing on great teams. Hey maybe without him they don't win. Willing to bet both cups and both WJC gold aren't won without Toews, Olympics is far more understandable.

Unless a player rewrites the record books at the WJC's that tournament shouldn't even enter the picture when talking about HOF credentials.

 

[Voight]

The locks should be Jagr, Datsyuk, MSL, Iginla, Thornton, Chara for the older players. And I'm personally rooting for Hossa to get in, and think he should be.

In their early thirties, Keith (and H Sedin most likely).

Among the under 30 players, only Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin should be locks at this point in their career (and in that order based on awards).

There're a bunch of other players who should make in time, but they haven't been playing long enough yet to be locks, and there's nothing wrong with that. Not many players get to be locks early on in their careers, it doesn't mean they aren't elite superstars.

The most accurate and true post I've seen in this thread.

 

[Moops]

If you want to use the low water marks in the hall as the basis going forward, then the Hall is truly in trouble. Just because mistakes were made in the past, doesn't mean they should be used as the rule going forward. Clark Gillies and Dick Duff can't be where the bar is set.

Outside of some of the glaring mistakes (like the two mentioned above), I think you'd be hard pressed to find worse players than Elias in the hall, at least from the post-expansion era.

Joe Nieuwendyk, Dino Ciccarelli, Glenn Anderson, Pat Lafontaine, Cam Neely, Bernie Federko, Clark Gilles, Mike Gartner, Dale Hawerchuk, Joe Mullen, Dennis Savard, Steve Shutt, Lanny McDonald. And that's just forwards.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any players who are as good as Elias, who outright missed the Hall, with the exception of non-NHL greats like Sergei Makarov. He already has a resume that is roughly as strong as Paul Kariya, who himself is currently the best LW up for HOF consideration and thus will most likely get in eventually.

That's the barometer--not if you're better than the worst player in the Hall, but whether you're better than the best comparable player to miss the Hall. And trying to go back in time to slice the Hall in half is just silly. Outright silly. The standard is what it is, it's not going to change, and there is literally no way to determine what would be better or worse. It's literally as subjective as any sports topic can be, so you might as well just go off of past precedent. Maybe improve the criteria to induct more Makarovs and fewer Duffs, but not the exclusivity. That die is cast and it's not changing. You'd make just as much sense saying the Stanley Cup should be awarded once every two years (you know, to make it REALLY special).

There will always be borderline candidates. If you cut the Hall in Half, then people will complain that Leetch is dragging down the standard. If you cut it by 75%, people will moan about Sakic. People complain about a league-wide retired jersey, and that's a club that's literally composed of the (almost) undisputed GOAT.

Elias in.

 

[NyQuil]

Elias is another one of these dead-puck career guys who might get overlooked because of the team and era he played on.

 

[arrbez]

Joe Nieuwendyk, Dino Ciccarelli, Glenn Anderson, Pat Lafontaine, Cam Neely, Bernie Federko, Clark Gilles, Mike Gartner, Dale Hawerchuk, Joe Mullen, Dennis Savard, Steve Shutt, Lanny McDonald. And that's just forwards.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any players who are as good as Elias, who outright missed the Hall, with the exception of non-NHL greats like Sergei Makarov. He already has a resume that is roughly as strong as Paul Kariya, who himself is currently the best LW up for HOF consideration and thus will most likely get in eventually.

That's the barometer--not if you're better than the worst player in the Hall, but whether you're better than the best comparable player to miss the Hall. And trying to go back in time to slice the Hall in half is just silly. Outright silly. The standard is what it is, it's not going to change, and there is literally no way to determine what would be better or worse. It's literally as subjective as any sports topic can be, so you might as well just go off of past precedent. Maybe improve the criteria to induct more Makarovs and fewer Duffs, but not the exclusivity. That die is cast and it's not changing. You'd make just as much sense saying the Stanley Cup should be awarded once every two years (you know, to make it REALLY special).

There will always be borderline candidates. If you cut the Hall in Half, then people will complain that Leetch is dragging down the standard. If you cut it by 75%, people will moan about Sakic. People complain about a league-wide retired jersey, and that's a club that's literally composed of the (almost) undisputed GOAT.

Elias in.

I guess we fundamentally disagree on how good Elias was. I watched him an awful lot, and I never considered him a franchise player. Never a true star for a sustained period of time. An excellent player, but not a guy who could be THE GUY on a team. Not even in the same ballpark as Savard and Hawerchuk, never had the impact of a Lafontaine or Neely or the aforementioned Paul Kariya. Those guys were true superstars, iconic players of their era.

Some of the other guys there, as I said before, shouldn't be in the hall. And saying that the induction bar should be at the low water mark is trouble. As I say, if Clark Gillies is the bar, then what's the point? How about Bernie Nicholls? John Leclair? Pat Verbeek? Ken Hodge? I LOVE Gary Roberts...but he shouldn't be in a Hall of Fame discussion...except if Clark Gillies is the bar. Or Dick Duff. Etc. And there are certainly better candidates than those guys I mentioned who may never make it in. These are just some guys who are clearly not Hall of Fame players, but who stack up alright against the weakest inductions.

 

[AfroThunder396]

Explain how this is a ridiculous notion to you. Let me guess, his one appearance on the first all-star team?

The case has been made extensively. He placed in the Art Ross race than all of them, had higher quality scoring finishes, was BY FAR the most important to his team in terms of scoring, had the least amount of help, had the most playoff success, is MUCH better defensively, had the most team success (which he was a major engine behind), more longevity, higher peak, etc.

He's clearly separated himself from the Kovalev/Marleau/Whitney field and is in the Hossa/Alfredsson field.

Hell, Elias is closer to Mike Modano than he is to those guys. Modano never hit 50 goals or 100 points, yet he was pretty automatic as a guy in the Hall despite playing in a higher scoring era. Where is the outrage over him getting in during his first year of eligibility?

You're looking at raw points like this is a video game or something. If Elias was born 5 years earlier and got to pad his stats with some cozy early 90's seasons is this even a discussion?

 

[Moops]

I guess we fundamentally disagree on how good Elias was. I watched him an awful lot, and I never considered him a franchise player. Never a true star for a sustained period of time. An excellent player, but not a guy who could be THE GUY on a team. Not even in the same ballpark as Savard and Hawerchuk, never had the impact of a Lafontaine or Neely or the aforementioned Paul Kariya. Those guys were true superstars, iconic players of their era.

Some of the other guys there, as I said before, shouldn't be in the hall. And saying that the induction bar should be at the low water mark is trouble. As I say, if Clark Gillies is the bar, then what's the point? How about Bernie Nicholls? John Leclair? Pat Verbeek? Ken Hodge? I LOVE Gary Roberts...but he shouldn't be in a Hall of Fame discussion...except if Clark Gillies is the bar. Or Dick Duff. Etc. And there are certainly better candidates than those guys I mentioned who may never make it in. These are just some guys who are clearly not Hall of Fame players, but who stack up alright against the weakest inductions.

There's definitely a peak vs. longevity to be found in there somewhere. I agree that he never reached the heights of some of the players that I mentioned, but he was close, and he sustained his peak level of play for an extremely long time.

They say it's not the Hall of Very Good, but I would rather have someone be very good on my team for a very long time, than be a little better for a few seasons but tail off much more quickly. Basketball is different, where having the best player on planet earth for four years gets you two championships. If you want to build a Cup window, you need guys who are consistent, year in and year out.

Elias best three seasons combined for 110 adjusted goals created, according to hockey-reference.
Lafontaine: 114
Neely: 101
Kariya: 126
Savard: 109
Hawerchuk: 112

Even in Kariya's case, I'd argue that it's better to lose a few goals on the front end in exchange for a player that will be a top-60 winger for years and years and years. Longevity tends to be overvalued by the Hall, but it has its place when put into perspective.

Obviously stats don't tell the whole story, but IMHO it's a lot easier for me to believe that the numbers sell Elias short, than any of those guys. And I'm sure they did more to take charge of games, had more talent--but what good is all of the offensive talent in the world beyond the ability to produce goals?

I will concede that Elias never truly passed an eyeball test of greatness. I just think that he did enough little things well to make up for it.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I agree with all of your lists except for Karlsson. He's debatable. Elias belongs in the Hall of Excellent as well. Not the HHoF.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I have to be honest, I don't have much of a clue where Bergeron ranks historically in terms of defensive forwards, especially since the Selke has only been around since the 1970's. And yes, he is/was one of the best players during the Bruins recent playoff success and winning two gold medals doesn't hurt. But I just don't know how the voters will treat a two way forward with his offensive output. Players like Datsyuk, Toews and Kopitar are good comparables to Bergeron in my mind and all have had higher point totals during their primes while playing great defense at the center position. I also think that those 3 players are looked at as the undisputed #1 centers on their teams while Bergeron has always had Krejci as a 1A/B.

I guess it might largely depend on what happens the next few seasons. The Selke is sometimes seen as a reputation based award at times, so I wonder if that will hurt Bergeron at all. But if he continues his defensive play with 55+ points for the next 4-5 years and finishes with 4+ Selkes, I would definitely revise my opinion. Also, I wonder how the emergence of advanced statistics will alter Hall of Fame voting, which would most certainly aid Bergeron's argument.

So now it's Bergeron's fault his team has another #1 quality center, while Toews is rewarded for garbage center depth behind him.

 

[Nocashstyle]

Explain how this is a ridiculous notion to you. Let me guess, his one appearance on the first all-star team?

You just compared Elias to Kovalev and Koivu...you are comically off base. Elias' case has been argued extensively in this thread and other threads. If you really need an explanation just go back a few pages.

No one is saying Elias is first ballot, but it is not ridiculous to think he has an argument to make the HOF. I have no problems with those who say "Hall of Very Good," because it is debatable if he gets in. Personally, I think he should eventually be in. But the fact you compared him to the above players just proves you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Lebowski]

You just compared Elias to Kovalev and Koivu...you are comically off base. Elias' case has been argued extensively in this thread and other threads. If you really need an explanation just go back a few pages.

No one is saying Elias is first ballot, but it is not ridiculous to think he has an argument to make the HOF. I have no problems with those who say "Hall of Very Good," because it is debatable if he gets in. Personally, I think he should eventually be in. But the fact you compared him to the above players just proves you don't know what you're talking about.

That's why I'm asking you to explain to me how come you perceive him to be that much better than these guys. The explanations of the last few pages clearly weren't sufficient. That's why I'm asking YOU to prove your point. Why am I comically off base?

His career is fairly comparable to that of Kovalev. Similar peaks and valleys. Similar individual accomplishments (which could be resumed to being respectively part of the 1st and 2nd all star team exactly ONCE in their career), similar team accomplishments, similar accomplishments on the international scene.

I have no dogs in this fight. Clearly, some of you do. Elias isn't a guy that should be in the HHOF, anyway you slice it, or else the standard has gotten laughably low.

 

[Nocashstyle]

That's why I'm asking you to explain to me how come you perceive him to be that much better than these guys. The explanations of the last few pages clearly weren't sufficient. That's why I'm asking YOU to prove your point. Why am I comically off base?

His career is fairly comparable to that of Kovalev. Similar peaks and valleys. Similar individual accomplishments (which could be resumed to being respectively part of the 1st and 2nd all star team exactly ONCE in their career), similar team accomplishments, similar accomplishments on the international scene.

I have no dogs in this fight. Clearly, some of you do. Elias isn't a guy that should be in the HHOF, anyway you slice it, or else the standard has gotten laughably low.

Best forward on two cup winners, leading playoff point producer for a decade, hart votes in multiple season....I'm pretty certain the guys you mentioned do not have those accolades.

If you're just too lazy to look at the previous posts than you might as well stop arguing

 

[Connor McJesus]

Hall of very good: Patrick Marleau, Vincent Lecavalier, Ray Whitney, Sergei Gonchar, Patrick Elias, Marian Gaborik, Shane Doan, Dan Boyle, Jason Spezza, Dany Heatley, Eric Staal, Alex Tanguay, Roberto Luongo, Phil Kessel, Rick Nash, Kimmo Timonen, Andrei Markov, Evgeni Nabokov, Ryan Miller,

HHOF worthy: Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Evgeni Malkin, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Martin St. Louis, Jarome Iginla, Joe Thornton, Martin Brodeur, Jaromir Jagr, Marian Hossa, Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Zdeno Chara, Duncan Keith, Erik Karlsson, Patrice Bergeron.

Debatable: Tim Thomas, Henrik Lundqvist, Anze Kopitar, Nicklas Backstrom, Jonathan Quick, Henrik & Daniel Sedin, Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf (winning the Cup this year would help them tremendously), PK Subban, Drew Doughty, Shea Weber, Carey Price, Claude Giroux & John Tavares (will both need some top 3 finishes down the stretch to make a case for themselves).

Agree/disagree?

Not sure Marian Hossa is a HOFer. I don't think Bergeron will get in, real good player but might lack a bit offense.

Shea Weber should be but all these years he should have won the Norris but didn't might end up costing him.

Tavares, Doughty and Price will be HOFers I would think.

 

[torlev*]

Yeah sure some players heavily benefitted from the amount of PP time following the lockout (players like Marek Svatos, Michael Nylander, JP Dumont, Shawn Horcoff, etc) but guys like Naslund, Modano, Iginla, St. Louis were all under a PPG. It still shows that Bergeron could get the job done and his numbers considering his usage are still excellent.

Yeah history will show that the Hawks were a solid team but it doesn't change the fact that these two were the catalyst of those championship teams (as their Conn Smythe trophies show). Kane had 64 pts in 61 GP playing with Richards and Versteeg on the second line. Nuff said. These players have been consistent and all have some solid hardware and a guy like Toews is not only seen as the face of the franchise but as done it all at a very young age. I'll give you that Forsberg is a good counter-argument to maybe raise my standards as for Kane & Toews' current accomplishments but I don't think I'm in the wrong by suggesting that they have done enough to justify their spot in the HHOF. As far as Karlsson is concerned, name me one defenseman (from the last generation) who can change the outcome of a game more than him? If you're going to suggest Green, I'll point out that the league's scoring has gone down and Karlsson doesn't have the same teammates as the former.

There are several, from the last generation, and from this.

Pronger for one.

 

[torlev*]

That's why I'm asking you to explain to me how come you perceive him to be that much better than these guys. The explanations of the last few pages clearly weren't sufficient. That's why I'm asking YOU to prove your point. Why am I comically off base?

His career is fairly comparable to that of Kovalev. Similar peaks and valleys. Similar individual accomplishments (which could be resumed to being respectively part of the 1st and 2nd all star team exactly ONCE in their career), similar team accomplishments, similar accomplishments on the international scene.

I have no dogs in this fight. Clearly, some of you do. Elias isn't a guy that should be in the HHOF, anyway you slice it, or else the standard has gotten laughably low.

Yeah, Elias is chronically underrated. He was amazing.

Scoring over 1000 points, in 1200 games, placing in the top 5 in scoring some years, while playing for a team that invented the trap, and routinely sent 1 guy into the offensive zone while the rest held back, is unreal. He was, by far, the offensive catalyst most years. He could drag guys like Scott Gomez and Brian Gionta to impressive stats, and we all know how those stories end when he was no longer by their side.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

There are several, from the last generation, and from this.

Pronger for one.

I won't argue that Pronger didn't have that greatness to turn an average team to a great one and he definitely had a complete package to distribute that bone crushing hit, shutdown elite talent or chip in offensively but in terms of offense, Karlsson has him beat. I'm completely aware that Pronger was a much more complete player but I'm arguing Karlsson's impact on GF for his team.

 

[Voight]

Not sure Marian Hossa is a HOFer. I don't think Bergeron will get in, real good player but might lack a bit offense.

Shea Weber should be but all these years he should have won the Norris but didn't might end up costing him.

Hossa is the best defensive/two-way winger of his generation, would have a Selke if there wasn't the whole centre bias thing. He's definitely in.

4 Top 10 goal finishes
2 top 10 point finishes
In Adjusted point shares he compares to Robitaille, Hull, Trottier, Kurri and Forsberg.

Even if Weber never wins a Norris, Park, M Howe, Stevens, Murphy, Lapointe and Salming are all in the HHOF and none of them won a Norris.

 

[arrbez]

Hossa is the best defensive/two-way winger of his generation, would have a Selke if there wasn't the whole centre bias thing. He's definitely in.

4 Top 10 goal finishes
2 top 10 point finishes
In Adjusted point shares he compares to Robitaille, Hull, Trottier, Kurri and Forsberg.

Even if Weber never wins a Norris, Park, M Howe, Stevens, Murphy, Lapointe and Salming are all in the HHOF and none of them won a Norris.

I'm not sure Hossa's definitely in, but he should be IMO. He suffers from the Mark Recchi syndrome, where you can't really identify him with any team in particular. More or his points were with Ottawa than anywhere else. He had his best offensive seasons in Atlanta. He had a monster playoffs in Pittsburgh just coming up short. Made his only allstar team in Detroit. And now has been an important piece on a great Chicago team for a number of years now, winning 2 Cups.

I don't have a great handle on what adjusted point shares are, but I can't imagine how he stacks up to Trottier in any capacity. And Forsberg was clearly better, although I'm sure games played work heavily into the equation.

 

[torlev*]

I won't argue that Pronger didn't have that greatness to turn an average team to a great one and he definitely had a complete package to distribute that bone crushing hit, shutdown elite talent or chip in offensively but in terms of offense, Karlsson has him beat. I'm completely aware that Pronger was a much more complete player but I'm arguing Karlsson's impact on GF for his team.

Karlsson impacts the GF for both his team, and the opposition.

You said “change the outcome of a gameâ€. The answer to that, is “manyâ€.

 

[ThorntonFightClub*]

I won't argue that Pronger didn't have that greatness to turn an average team to a great one and he definitely had a complete package to distribute that bone crushing hit, shutdown elite talent or chip in offensively but in terms of offense, Karlsson has him beat. I'm completely aware that Pronger was a much more complete player but I'm arguing Karlsson's impact on GF for his team.

Mike Green.

Comparing their 2 big years:

Green
31-42-73 +24
19-57-76 +39

Karlsson
19-59-78 +16
20-54-74 -16