Current players that are worthy of being in the HHOF

[mikee*]

Locks:
Jagr, Datsyuk, Iginla, MSL, Thornton, Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin

Pronger, Chara, Keith

Brodeur


Potentials:
Hossa, Toews, Kane, Kopitar, Stamkos, Elias, Sedins, Zetterberg, Bergeron, Getzlaf, Perry, Giroux, Tavares

Doughty, Weber, Karlsson, Subban

Quick, Luongo, Lundqvist, Price, Rinne

 

[eliostar]

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

It's not just his Olympics , leading his team to 5 conference finals in seven years in a tough western conference aint to shabby. Oh wait , it's a stacked team , he always plays on a stacked team.
What if he had been drafted by a lousy team?

 

[SladeWilson23]

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

Elias is easily better than those players.

 

[SladeWilson23]

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.

I'm not using low water marks. My point was, just because your HOF would be different than what the current HOF is, doesn't prove a certain player is or isn't HOF worthy.

 

[SladeWilson23]

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.

You think Hossa definitely should be in, but not Elias? Explain to me what he has that Elias doesn't.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

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

When Green did it, the scoring was higher and he had Backstrom, Ovy and Semin around him. Who does Karlsson exactly have?

 

[ThorntonFightClub*]

When Green did it, the scoring was higher and he had Backstrom, Ovy and Semin around him. Who does Karlsson exactly have?

Scoring level difference is negligible.

League average was 229 "back" then, its 225 now.

 

[PAZ]

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.

He's "Hall of Very Good".

Just look at this list, he's not comparable to many of those players: http://www.notinhalloffame.com/hockey?limit=20&start=20.

 

[SladeWilson23]

He's "Hall of Very Good".

Just look at this list, he's not comparable to many of those players: http://www.notinhalloffame.com/hockey?limit=20&start=20.

He also is comparable to some of those players, I'd bet a few of them will eventually make it.

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

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

Ugh... more Player X only had X amount of points arguments. For the record, in 2010, I was at the height of my hockey-watching peak (was still in high-school, a lot of time) and I loved the Olympic tournament so much that I bought the DVD, so I've watched every game at least twice with some of my more favourite ones (CAN vs. RUS) watched three or four times. Toews was also my favourite player at the time (and still is one of today) and I actually started a thread about him during the tourney: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=742288&highlight=

Toews was dominant, way beyond his numbers. First of all, his points were consistent; I believe he registered at least one point in every game except against Slovakia. Guys like Iginla might have similar stat-lines (5 goals 2 assists), but he piled up points against weak teams like Norway, where he scored a hat-trick in a 8-0 win.

Also, Toews was not given the same opportunities. He started the tournament in a 4-man rotation with Iginla (later Bergeron when Babcock switched the two), Morrow and Richards on the fourth-line and even Yzerman admitted that he thought Toews was going to be the 13th forward when he brought him in. He played so well that he soon got heavier minutes. He was Babcock's first option at forward on a 5-on-3. He was given literally ZERO PP minutes (not even 1 sec). His eventual line, along with Nash and Richards was supposed to be the shutdown line and matched with the top lines of opposition teams. This was most apparent against Russia, where their aggressive counterattack DESTROYED the opposition.The game was not even close was like 4-0 by the end of the 1st. They dominated possession and Toews somehow ended up leading the stacked TC in points despite receiving ZERO PP time and playing in a shutdown role. I don't know if CORSI was recorded during that tourney, but Toews' CORSI must've been sky high. Toews was also Canada's #1 faceoff option (Bergeron played with an injured shoulder). It was also his unique ability to elevate players. Rick Nash struggled on Crosby's line for 3+ games, get's put on Toews' line and becomes one of the best forwards in the tourney. As Mike Babcock said when asked who the best players on his team were in the tourney, "Anyone that plays with Jonathan Toews". Toews was also a plus-9 and IIRC, was not on the ice for a single goal against, even-strength or penalty kill (I believe this statistic applied going into the gold-medal game, I'm not sure if he was on the ice for one of the 2 USA goals. EDIT: Just checked. Alright Toews was on the ice for Zach Parise's GTG, but that's it. One goal against (even-strength or PK) during the entire tournament despite playing against top-line opposition every night. Although Canada was generally good defensively, they did give up 16 total goals in the tournament.). Opposing teams also started to notice what TC's real "top-line" was. As a poster noted in the thread I linked, at the Slovakia semi-final game at the latest, teams were started to use their top-pair D-man against Toews. Chara was matched up against Toews in that game all-night. All-in-all just one of the finest two-way performances I've ever seen in a short tournament like this.

 

[pvr]

Locks:
Jagr, Datsyuk, Iginla, MSL, Thornton, Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin

Pronger, Chara, Keith

Brodeur


Potentials:
Hossa, Toews, Kane, Kopitar, Stamkos, Elias, Sedins, Zetterberg, Bergeron, Getzlaf, Perry, Giroux, Tavares

Doughty, Weber, Karlsson, Subban

Quick, Luongo, Lundqvist, Price, Rinne

This is just about as accurate as a list can get.

In the "potentials" list, the players fall into either one of three categories...

1. Borderline and nearing the end of their career. Likely not a first ballot choice.
2. In the middle of their career and just need to keep on the same trajectory for a few more years.
3. Too young to really know with 100% certainty, but looks like a future HOFer if career path continues.

 

[BayStreetBully]

I had previously been of the view that it was way too early for Toews and Kane, and even Keith. I thought we'd have to reevaluate Toews and Kane in 5 years. But if the Hawks win the Cup this year, I think that makes all 3 locks. All of the dynasties and near-dynasties of the past have had their core go to the Hall, and these three form the core of this Hawks team.

 

[Voight]

I had previously been of the view that it was way too early for Toews and Kane, and even Keith. I thought we'd have to reevaluate Toews and Kane in 5 years. But if the Hawks win the Cup this year, I think that makes all 3 locks. All of the dynasties and near-dynasties of the past have had their core go to the Hall, and these three form the core of this Hawks team.

With two Norris', and two Gold Medals, Keith is a lock.

 

[BayStreetBully]

With two Norris', and two Gold Medals, Keith is a lock.

Merely your opinion.

2 gold medals with those teams is not impressive, and 2 Norris' doesn't make him a lock any more than it would make Subban or Karlsson a lock if one of them wins their 2nd next month. Keith has low stats, and hasn't been dominant long enough to make him a lock if he retired this very day. 2 cups is good too, but not determinative. However, the threshold has to be put somewhere and I believe a 3rd cup in 2015 along with his other credentials would then make him a lock.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Merely your opinion.

2 gold medals with those teams is not impressive, and 2 Norris' doesn't make him a lock any more than it would make Subban or Karlsson a lock if one of them wins their 2nd next month. Keith has low stats, and hasn't been dominant long enough to make him a lock if he retired this very day. 2 cups is good too, but not determinative. However, the threshold has to be put somewhere and I believe a 3rd cup in 2015 along with his other credentials would then make him a lock.

0.54 PPG in today's era is pretty solid for a defenseman and that's without taking in consideration his stats in the playoffs (0.64PPG). Add the championships he's won and his Norris' and you've pretty much got a guy who's a lock for the HHOF.

 

[Voight]

Merely your opinion.

2 gold medals with those teams is not impressive, and 2 Norris' doesn't make him a lock any more than it would make Subban or Karlsson a lock if one of them wins their 2nd next month. Keith has low stats, and hasn't been dominant long enough to make him a lock if he retired this very day. 2 cups is good too, but not determinative. However, the threshold has to be put somewhere and I believe a 3rd cup in 2015 along with his other credentials would then make him a lock.

Every 2x Norris winner is in the HHOF.

How is two Gold's not overly impressive? Only a handful of hockey players can lay claim to that, with about 90% of them being Russian.

He's arguably been dominant since 2008 (11th in Norris Voting) or 2009 (6th in Norris voting), and fat-out domain since 2010. So depending on how you look at it thats 6/7/8 seasons of dominance.

 

[kmad]

Among active players

Locks:
Jaromir Jagr, Roberto Luongo, Jarome Iginla, Martin St. Louis, Henrik Lundqvist, Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Zdeno Chara, Duncan Keith, Joe Thornton

Probable:
Marian Hossa, Evgeni Malkin, Jonathan Toews, Daniel Sedin, Henrik Sedin, Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Shea Weber, Erik Karlsson

On Pace:
Corey Perry, Patrick Kane, Drew Doughty, Ryan Getzlaf, PK Subban, Steven Stamkos, John Tavares, Jamie Benn, Ryan Suter, Claude Giroux, Tyler Seguin, Carey Price

Longshot/Unlikely:
Patrik Elias, Patrice Bergeron, Ryan Miller, Marc-Andre Fleury, Jonathan Quick, Anze Kopitar, Ilya Kovalchuk, Evgeni Nabokov, Patrick Marleau, Nicklas Backstrom

 

[BayStreetBully]

Every 2x Norris winner is in the HHOF.

How is two Gold's not overly impressive? Only a handful of hockey players can lay claim to that, with about 90% of them being Russian.

He's arguably been dominant since 2008 (11th in Norris Voting) or 2009 (6th in Norris voting), and fat-out domain since 2010. So depending on how you look at it thats 6/7/8 seasons of dominance.

Virtually every Hart winner was in the Hall until Jose Theodore came along.

Every 600 goal scorer was an indisputable lock for the Hall until Dino Ciccarelli and Dave Andreychuk came along. Ciccarelli is now in the Hall, but whether Andreychuk makes it remains to be seen.

Keith winning gold with is not the same achievement as Hasek winning gold. Replace Keith and Canada still wins in 2010 and 2014. Replace Hasek and Czechs don't even come close in 1998. The Hall knows that, everyone knows that.

I'm not saying Keith hasn't been dominant for years. He has. But how many players are locks for the Hall after just 10 years of hockey. It's my opinion Keith hasn't reached that. Not as of today.

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

Virtually every Hart winner was in the Hall until Jose Theodore came along.

Every 600 goal scorer was an indisputable lock for the Hall until Dino Ciccarelli and Dave Andreychuk came along. Ciccarelli is now in the Hall, but whether Andreychuk makes it remains to be seen.

Keith winning gold with is not the same achievement as Hasek winning gold. Replace Keith and Canada still wins in 2010 and 2014. Replace Hasek and Czechs don't even come close in 1998. The Hall knows that, everyone knows that.

I'm not saying Keith hasn't been dominant for years. He has. But how many players are locks for the Hall after just 10 years of hockey. It's my opinion Keith hasn't reached that. Not as of today.

The 600 goal thing is true but only because 1) NHL seasons were shorter for many previous seasons (50, 60, 70 games). It only became 80 or more games by the 1975 season so it was a lot harder for players in Maurice Richard's time to score 600 goals. 2) Scoring spiked drastically during the 1980s and early 1990s (which is the era which both the players you mentioned played in) so 600 goals meant much less compared to players who played in eras before and after.

For the Hart point, you are just wrong. There are currently four players who have won the Hart Trophy not to be inducted (excluding active or ineligible players like Fedorov, Crosby etc.): Tommy Anderson (1942), Al Rollins (1954), Eric Lindros (1995) and Jose Theodore (2002). Now I believe that Lindros will be inducted in the next few years - he's only out right now because of off-ice controversy. So essentially there were more Hart Trophy winners who did not make the HHOF BEFORE Theodore than since he won. 2 to 1. And how can you even begin to compare Theodore's career with Keith? I don't know anything about Rollins/Anderson so I won't comment on them. Theodore had one amazing season, one good season (2004) and a very mediocre career otherwise, where he was not near the best at his position. Keith has been a top D-man since 2008. From 2008-2015, he's been at least a top-10 D-man every year IMO, with some years top-5, some years top-3 and some years the best (2010). Also has way more team success than Theodore and has three Smythe-worthy playoff runs (2010, 2013, 2015). They're not even close to to being in the same stratosphere of player.

And no, I don't necessarily believe Canada win's in 2010 and 2014 without Keith. He was one of their most important players in both stints. You have to remember, Canada barely squeaked past Slovakia 3-2 in the semis in 2010. They also barely won 3-2 in OT against the USA. Canada barely won against Latvia (!) 2-1 in 2014 QF and USA 1-0 in the SF. Take away one of arguably their top-5 most important players in both years who logs huge minutes, and they could easily have faltered in any of those 1 goal elimination games.

 

[BayStreetBully]

The 600 goal thing is true but only because 1) NHL seasons were shorter for many previous seasons (50, 60, 70 games). It only became 80 or more games by the 1975 season so it was a lot harder for players in Maurice Richard's time to score 600 goals. 2) Scoring spiked drastically during the 1980s and early 1990s (which is the era which both the players you mentioned played in) so 600 goals meant much less compared to players who played in eras before and after.

For the Hart point, you are just wrong. There are currently four players who have won the Hart Trophy not to be inducted (excluding active or ineligible players like Fedorov, Crosby etc.): Tommy Anderson (1942), Al Rollins (1954), Eric Lindros (1995) and Jose Theodore (2002). Now I believe that Lindros will be inducted in the next few years - he's only out right now because of off-ice controversy. So essentially there were more Hart Trophy winners who did not make the HHOF BEFORE Theodore than since he won. 2 to 1. And how can you even begin to compare Theodore's career with Keith? I don't know anything about Rollins/Anderson so I won't comment on them. Theodore had one amazing season, one good season (2004) and a very mediocre career otherwise, where he was not near the best at his position. Keith has been a top D-man since 2008. From 2008-2015, he's been at least a top-10 D-man every year IMO, with some years top-5, some years top-3 and some years the best (2010). Also has way more team success than Theodore and has three Smythe-worthy playoff runs (2010, 2013, 2015). They're not even close to to being in the same stratosphere of player.

And no, I don't necessarily believe Canada win's in 2010 and 2014 without Keith. He was one of their most important players in both stints. You have to remember, Canada barely squeaked past Slovakia 3-2 in the semis in 2010. They also barely won 3-2 in OT against the USA. Canada barely won against Latvia (!) 2-1 in 2014 QF and USA 1-0 in the SF. Take away one of arguably their top-5 most important players in both years who logs huge minutes, and they could easily have faltered in any of those 1 goal elimination games.

Yes I understand the 600 goal standard, it's an example of there being a first for everything, and an example of there being exceptions.

I also understand the Hart winner thing too, that's why I said "virtually." Like you, aside from Lindros who will get in, I don't know anything about the other two Hart winners not in the Hall, but seeing as every other Hart winner made it to the Hall from 1955 onwards, Theodore's absence from the Hall is notable. Again, an example of there being a first for everything.

However important you feel Keith was to 2010 and 2014, he did not define Canada's golds like Hasek did. Sure, it's a great achievement and all, but let's be realistic. If you are going to play for Team Canada in your lifetime, chances are you will be a gold medal winner despite your presence and not because of it. That goes for Crosby and Toews too.

If you feel Keith is already a lock, that's fine. I can respect that opinion even if I don't agree with it.