Does Marleau need a cup to be a hof player

[Fantomas]

I want Marleau in regardless- I find being overly selective about the HoF odd. Like, we know who the best of the best were, who were right behind them, and who is kinda lucky to be inducted. We know he'd be a lower tier guy in the hall. But he's a gamer, a great guy, and he's made positive contributions to the game for 20 years. It'd mean a lot to some fans, and if you don't like it you can just walk past his plaque. It's that easy. It adds a lot for some fans, but on the other side you can just ignore the couple guys you think too borderline to pay respects to.

****, I do that already to some degree. I marvel over Orr, his stats, and what could have been. I look at Andreychuk.. "huh, so he played awhile, huh?"

If the HOF was about just guys like Orr, some of the objections here would make sense. But it's not, which is why I'm in the "If guys like Andreychuk made it then Marleau should do" camp.

People will twist themselves into a pretzel arguing for why their imaginary view of the HOF as a sacred institution for hockey excellence should not be sullied by certain unworthy candidates. Some of these players get in anyways, and like a broken record the same people repeat the same arguments ad nauseam.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Jagr?

Is in on first vote.

 

[FerrisRox]

Now THERE is a great example of a completely unspectacular player playing at the right time and for a long time.

I think Pierre Turgeon was a better player than Patrick Marleau... and I don't think Pierre Turgeon belongs in the HHoF either.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

I’m not one to continue a trend of weak inductions just because they let in a few stinkers.

Is the term “elite” really need to be better explained? Usually elite implies that they are among the best at whatever they do. Marleau has never been among the best at anything, other than staying healthy. Not every play can be elite or play at an elite level. That’s the point of that categorization

Sure but YOU have no say. The debate isn't about what the Great Gonzo thinks, it's about what the HOF committee thinks.

 

[Fantomas]

Sure but YOU have no say. The debate isn't about what the Great Gonzo thinks, it's about what the HOP committee thinks.

And what the committee thinks depends highly on who gets how much lobbying.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

If the HOF was about just guys like Orr, some of the objections here would make sense. But it's not, which is why I'm in the "If guys like Andreychuk made it then Marleau should do" camp.

People will twist themselves into a pretzel arguing for why their imaginary view of the HOF as a sacred institution for hockey excellence should not be sullied by certain unworthy candidates. Some of these players get in anyways, and like a broken record the same people repeat the same arguments ad nauseam.

Exactly this. Wish I could re-like.

It's like posters argue it because they can and it entertains them, but in reality I visit the HoF and unless Cooke's up on the wall I really don't give a shit. There will always be a debatable cut-off line with no clear answer, so instead of spinning my wheels arguing who deserves it and who doesn't I'd rather visit the hall and enjoy the stars that matter to me.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

And what the committee thinks depends highly on who gets how much lobbying.

Not really sure what bearing that has on anything? We can see how they have voted in the past. Based on that, Marleau has a shot.

 

[MyBudJT]

Jagr?

Are you suggesting he won't be in the HHOF?

You do realize that inducting Marleau takes away that whole idea right?

The whole idea of what, exactly?

 

[ottawa]

Are you suggesting he won't be in the HHOF?

I'm suggesting he isn't one at the moment but I may be wrong, I haven't checked.

 

[MyBudJT]

I'm suggesting he isn't one at the moment but I may be wrong, I haven't checked.

He's a lock for the HHOF, which kind of deminishes your point.

 

[Dustin]

I’m not one to continue a trend of weak inductions just because they let in a few stinkers.

Is the term “elite” really need to be better explained? Usually elite implies that they are among the best at whatever they do. Marleau has never been among the best at anything, other than staying healthy. Not every play can be elite or play at an elite level. That’s the point of that categorization

If it was so easy to define then why is there no mention of the level of skill a player requires to be inducted?

For a player to be able to be nominated he needs to fulfil this requirement based on what the Hall has stated

"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and contributions to his or her team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."

That's it. Based on the fact that he checks off several Hall of Fame markers, Games played, Goals, Assists and total points, I can certainly see why he would be in the Hall eventually.

 

[MyBudJT]

If it was so easy to define then why is there no mention of the level of skill a player requires to be inducted?

For a player to be able to be nominated he needs to fulfil this requirement based on what the Hall has stated

"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and contributions to his or her team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."

That's it. Based on the fact that he checks off several Hall of Fame markers, Games played, Goals, Assists and total points, I can certainly see why he would be in the Hall eventually.

In a low scoring hockey era, no less.

 

[Fantomas]

Not really sure what bearing that has on anything? We can see how they have voted in the past. Based on that, Marleau has a shot.

My point is that Marleau's shot depends on both his body of work and the extent to which others lobby for his inclusion. Those are the two factors that often make the difference, especially when it's a close call.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

I'm suggesting he isn't one at the moment but I may be wrong, I haven't checked.

It's impossible for him to be in.

 

[93LEAFS]

I personally wouldn't vote for him as he's a hall of very good guy. I don't think many people marked down the Sharks on the schedule and said they had to see Patrick Marleau (I think this is a small criteria), and he was never viewed as one the elite players of the game. He has amazing longevity with good but not elite production relative to his peers.

I don't think a cup makes a difference, unless he plays like a top 3 player on the Leafs and is instrumental in the Leafs (or whatever team he is on) wins. If he's just a solid top 9 forward, I don't think it matters to him legacy wise.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

My point is that Marleau's shot depends on both his body of work and the extent to which others lobby for his inclusion. Those are the two factors that often make the difference, especially when it's a close call.

Great? We know his body of work is similar to others who are in and that others with similar body of work are in, so the point remains the same, he has a shot.

 

[Dustin]

In a low scoring hockey era, no less.

Look, as others have stated, we all have our opinions on whether certain players should be in the Hall or not. Marleau is one of the rare cases where I'm torn either way. While I don't think Marleau has ever been one of the best players in league, I do however respect the fact that he could play as long as he has and still contribute. While I don't think he was ever a "superstar", I also don't think that playing a lot of games is totally dependent on being healthy.

As such I would say that he fits in the grey area and if it was up to me I would rather vote people in who perhaps don't belong as opposed to keeping players out that probably should be there.

The fact is the Hall likes stories. Marleau played so many years for an expansion team is one good story. Playing as many games as he has and accumulating as many points as he has is another. He's always been viewed as a "good guy" which the Hall is very much about and his playoff and GWG resume is impressive as well. I doubt very much he's a first ballot but I wouldn't be surprised to see him in on his second chance.

 

[Thenameless]

If it was so easy to define then why is there no mention of the level of skill a player requires to be inducted?

For a player to be able to be nominated he needs to fulfil this requirement based on what the Hall has stated

"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and contributions to his or her team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."

That's it. Based on the fact that he checks off several Hall of Fame markers, Games played, Goals, Assists and total points, I can certainly see why he would be in the Hall eventually.

Maybe level of skill is incorporated into playing ability? He's certainly been an above average player throughout his career, but I've never thought of him as a Hall of Fame level player. Of course, I still feel that way about guys like Ciccarelli and Andreychuk, so what do I know? I'm not into the "he was pretty for a long time" crowd, when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

 

[joe dirte]

I think Pierre Turgeon was a better player than Patrick Marleau... and I don't think Pierre Turgeon belongs in the HHoF either.

Teurgon? Meh. We are all entitled to our opinion though.

 

[MXD]

Teurgon? Meh. We are all entitled to our opinion though.

Turgeon being a better player than Marleau isn't an opinion, though.

 

[Dondini]

No his 500+ goals 1000+ points and games played is enough to get him in. Weaker candidate foresure but I believe he will be in one day

 

[joe dirte]

Turgeon being a better player than Marleau isn't an opinion, though.

Uh it actually is.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Sure but YOU have no say. The debate isn't about what the Great Gonzo thinks, it's about what the HOF committee thinks.

I’m far from the only one who thinks what I think. Marleau simply isn’t a strong enough player in his own right.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Are you suggesting he won't be in the HHOF?



The whole idea of what, exactly?

That’s the Hall is for the best of the best, and clinging to the few who don’t belong there to boost Marleaus value doesn’t help much.

 

[GreatGonzo]

If it was so easy to define then why is there no mention of the level of skill a player requires to be inducted?

For a player to be able to be nominated he needs to fulfil this requirement based on what the Hall has stated

"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and contributions to his or her team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."

That's it. Based on the fact that he checks off several Hall of Fame markers, Games played, Goals, Assists and total points, I can certainly see why he would be in the Hall eventually.

So your saying Marleau character and sportsmanship are HOF worthy. That he’s on a different level in those regards than most of the league?