Does Marleau need a cup to be a hof player

[MyBudJT]

Not an HOF'er... cup or no cup. Way too many better players out there that even after a number of years still haven't been inducted into the HOF. Marleau won't even get a sniff at it.

Non-HOF'ers

Keith Tkachuk - Retired in 2010. 18-year career, and in that time, he scored 538 goals and 1,065 points in 1201 games. Tkachuk is the 5th highest scoring American player in NHL history

Alexander Mogilny - Retired in 2006. 16 seasons in the NHL. He scored 473 goals and 1,032 points in just 990 games

Paul Kariya - Retired in 2010. 989 games he scored 402 goals and 989 points

Pierre Turgeon - Retired in 2007. 19 seasons. 1,294 games in which he scored 515 goals and 1,327 points.

Steve Larmer - Retired in 1995. 1,006 games where he scored 441 goals and 1,012 points.

Theoren Fleury - Retired in 2003. Scored 455 goals and 1,088 points in 1,084 games.

Rod Brind’Amour - Retired in 2010. 20 seasons - 1,484 games. 452 goals and 1184 pts.

Kariya is in the HHOF....

Not many people would disagree with you that the list of players you've provided is better than Marleau. That does not mean that they're more HHOF worthy.

The HHOF inducted players based on their contirbutions to the game of hockey. I'd argue that Marleau has contributed more to the game of hockey than any of these players.... Brind'Amour being the closest.

 

[Voight]

0 shot. Great all around guy and player, but no accolades, no super elite season. Just a standard compiler.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Are there any guys in the Hall that could be debated that they are in the same tier as Marleau. I think so.

The same way we can use players that have not made the Hall to keep him out, we can use the reverse argument that players that are in that are similar to Marleau should allow him in.

Maybe Andreychuk. Can’t think of any others right now though. If you can, please list them.

But your speaking as if every player with these standards and stats deserves to be in the Hall regardless. You can be a really good player, 500 goal/1000 point player and not be HOF worthy, it’s entirely possible and is going on right now obviously. What we do know is the all time pool is very shallow at this moment so “weaker” inductions will happen because they need slots to fill and this/that player is good enough. It gives those certain players a chance, but it’s only because the talent level has dropped. We are in a new, more fresh generation and it won’t be until these players playing today retire until the inductions get stronger.

I mean off the top of my head: Jagr, Iginla, Hossa, and The Sedins are the only recent retired that will make the Hall. Then there’s the ones that aren’t slam dunks(IMO) but might: Alfredsson, Elias, and Zetterberg. Out of the players that might retire in the near future: Chara, Thornton, Luongo, Keith, and Lundqvist should be HOFers.

That isn’t a lot of top end talent, but all those guys are still more deserving than Marleau. Add the long list of others that have been retired but still haven’t been inducted: Roenick, Turgeon, Mogilny, Brind’Amour, Fluery, etc.

All in all, Marleau shouldn’t be simply put in the same category as a majority of these players just because of his games played and the fact that he has 500 goals and 1000 points, especially with such a low PPG, little to no top end seasons(how about standout seasons), and no hardware or even significant accolades.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Kariya is in the HHOF....

Not many people would disagree with you that the list of players you've provided is better than Marleau. That does not mean that they're more HHOF worthy.

The HHOF inducted players based on their contirbutions to the game of hockey. I'd argue that Marleau has contributed more to the game of hockey than any of these players.... Brind'Amour being the closest.

They are more HOF worthy because they were better players with greater impacts. I don’t mean to be blunt but it is the hall of “fame,” and last time I checked.....Marleau only gained more notice after moving to a larger Canadien market. Ok, how exactly did Marleau contribute more? Actually what did he contribute overall?

Name any player in the Hall who got in just for the amount of games they played. Because you make it sound like it’s obvious that the Hall would let him in, yet the evidence isn’t there.

 

[MyBudJT]

They are more HOF worthy because they were better players with greater impacts. I don’t mean to be blunt but it is the hall of “fame,” and last time I checked.....Marleau only gained more notice after moving to a larger Canadien market. Ok, how exactly did Marleau contribute more? Actually what did he contribute overall?

Name any player in the Hall who got in just for the amount of games they played. Because you make it sound like it’s obvious that the Hall would let him in, yet the evidence isn’t there.

Greater impacts how? On a game-to-game basis, or throughout the career? There is a big difference.

Its been well versed what Marleau has contributed to the game of hockey.

He leads the San Jose sharks franchise in a whole bunch of different catergories.
He has played over 1600 NHL games (only 7 people have ever played more games than Marleau).
He will have scored over 550 NHL goals
He will have scored over 1150 NHL points
He will have scored 106+ NHL game winning goals
He has scored 20 NHL goals 15+ times
He will have played more playoff games than most people ever in the NHL.
He will be top 10 in playoff NHL game winning goals, and top 15 in goals scored
He will have 2 Olympic gold medals (4 golds total, internationally).

The list goes on.

We're not suggesting Marleau deserves to go in the hall solely for his games played... but the games he's played has helped , not hindered his chances. For instance, I don't think Matt Cullen is HHOF worthy, despite also playing an impressive amount of NHL games. Cullen hasn't reached the impressive milestones that Marleau has.

 

[wetcoast]

0 shot. Great all around guy and player, but no accolades, no super elite season. Just a standard compiler.

Pretty much this.

Even if he wins a SC this year would he even be one of the top 5 guys on the team?

Maybe top 10ish and that's not enough for the HHOF.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Greater impacts how? On a game-to-game basis, or throughout the career? There is a big difference.

Its been well versed what Marleau has contributed to the game of hockey.

He leads the San Jose sharks franchise in a whole bunch of different catergories.
He has played over 1600 NHL games (only 7 people have ever played more games than Marleau).
He will have scored over 550 NHL goals
He will have scored over 1150 NHL points
He will have scored 106+ NHL game winning goals
He has scored 20 NHL goals 15+ times
He will have played more playoff games than most people ever in the NHL.
He will be top 10 in playoff NHL game winning goals, and top 15 in goals scored
He will have 2 Olympic gold medals (4 golds total, internationally).

The list goes on.

We're not suggesting Marleau deserves to go in the hall solely for his games played... but the games he's played has helped , not hindered his chances. For instance, I don't think Matt Cullen is HHOF worthy, despite also playing an impressive amount of NHL games. Cullen hasn't reached the impressive milestones that Marleau has.

Ok but what is significant about his contribution? Your confusing his contribution between the league and the sharks. Totally different standards.

How did they have a greater impact? You really think 10, 15, maybe 20 years from now people will be talking about Marleau? You think he will go down as that player? No he won’t, at least until they develop a better storyline for him to bank off of. Once again, what impact has Marleau made in the league?

He will be top 10 in all those playoff statistics with a bad PPG and no playoff success. He will end at this/that mark in goals, assists, and points, all while hardly ever being a top player, or even a great player. He’s spent a majority of his career being 22-23 goal scorer and 47-48 point player. His MAIN advantage has always been his health and durability. At his best span, he averaged 33 goals and 71 points, and at his very best as a goal scorer, he averaged 40 goals and 77 points. From ‘06-‘14, he sits 17th in points, 5th in goals, and 26th in assists while sitting 10th in PPG with at least 650 games played(17th with at least 600). Again, where is this “impact” that your speaking of?

Games played is the only strong argument though. It’s the only stat that has him in some very elite company. It’s the only stat worth noting. You use words like “hinder” yet the hypocrisy is the fact that your glorifying his games played rather than seeing it for what it is.

 

[GreatGonzo]

@MyBudJT All their averages for careers.

Turgeon: 32 goals and 84 points per 82
Larmer: 35 goals and 82 points per 82
Fluery: 27 goals and 82 points per 82
Tkachuk: 36 goals and 72 points per 82
Brind’Amour: 24 goals and 65 points per 82
Marleau: 27 goals and 58 points per 82

I don’t want to hear any whining about eras and what not. Marleau wouldn’t have been a 50 goal/PPG player in the 80s or early 90s from barely 30 goals and 60 points.

So the best comparable to Marleau is in fact Brind’Amour. Brind’Amour has two selkes, a stanley cup with two other runs. He had better high end seasons than Marleau, more consistent, and was better offensively while being a better defensive player. He’s not in the HOF and has been passed over multiple times. He was a better player than Marleau, had a bigger impact, and contributed, yet isn’t in the HOF(yet?).

 

[Dustin]

Maybe Andreychuk. Can’t think of any others right now though. If you can, please list them.

But your speaking as if every player with these standards and stats deserves to be in the Hall regardless. You can be a really good player, 500 goal/1000 point player and not be HOF worthy, it’s entirely possible and is going on right now obviously. What we do know is the all time pool is very shallow at this moment so “weaker” inductions will happen because they need slots to fill and this/that player is good enough. It gives those certain players a chance, but it’s only because the talent level has dropped. We are in a new, more fresh generation and it won’t be until these players playing today retire until the inductions get stronger.

I mean off the top of my head: Jagr, Iginla, Hossa, and The Sedins are the only recent retired that will make the Hall. Then there’s the ones that aren’t slam dunks(IMO) but might: Alfredsson, Elias, and Zetterberg. Out of the players that might retire in the near future: Chara, Thornton, Luongo, Keith, and Lundqvist should be HOFers.

That isn’t a lot of top end talent, but all those guys are still more deserving than Marleau. Add the long list of others that have been retired but still haven’t been inducted: Roenick, Turgeon, Mogilny, Brind’Amour, Fluery, etc.

All in all, Marleau shouldn’t be simply put in the same category as a majority of these players just because of his games played and the fact that he has 500 goals and 1000 points, especially with such a low PPG, little to no top end seasons(how about standout seasons), and no hardware or even significant accolades.

I mean we fundamentally disagree on whether a player who achieves milestones over a long period should get in or not.

Andreychuk is decent "Hall" comparable. I still think Gartner is too but you disagree. Recently Phil Housley was inducted. I see him in a similar light. Dino is not a bad comparable either. Again no one is saying Marleau is a sure fire Hall of Famer but there is a bottom tier that has already been established and I feel he fits there.

As someone else has mentioned I do think the Hall will like the fact that he played as long as he did for an expansion team. I think that, being generally considered a good guy and his tenure and milestones are enough to get him in eventually.

 

[MyBudJT]

Ok but what is significant about his contribution? Your confusing his contribution between the league and the sharks. Totally different standards.

How did they have a greater impact? You really think 10, 15, maybe 20 years from now people will be talking about Marleau? You think he will go down as that player? No he won’t, at least until they develop a better storyline for him to bank off of. Once again, what impact has Marleau made in the league?

He will be top 10 in all those playoff statistics with a bad PPG and no playoff success. He will end at this/that mark in goals, assists, and points, all while hardly ever being a top player, or even a great player. He’s spent a majority of his career being 22-23 goal scorer and 47-48 point player. His MAIN advantage has always been his health and durability. At his best span, he averaged 33 goals and 71 points, and at his very best as a goal scorer, he averaged 40 goals and 77 points. From ‘06-‘14, he sits 17th in points, 5th in goals, and 26th in assists while sitting 10th in PPG with at least 650 games played(17th with at least 600). Again, where is this “impact” that your speaking of?

Games played is the only strong argument though. It’s the only stat that has him in some very elite company. It’s the only stat worth noting. You use words like “hinder” yet the hypocrisy is the fact that your glorifying his games played rather than seeing it for what it is.

Are you asking what is significant about scoring 550+ goals, 1150+ points, playing 1600+ games, winning 2 olympics gold medals, etc? If you don't understand this significance, then I can't help you... I'm osrry.

People don't talk about most players 15-20 years after they make the HHOF. Who is Clark Gillies? Rod Langway? Bernie Federko, etc? "Player memorability" is not a criteria on who should or shouldn't be in the HHOF...

Games played is not the only stat where Marleau is in elite company with though... but you can pretend that if you'd like.

@MyBudJT All their averages for careers.

Turgeon: 32 goals and 84 points per 82
Larmer: 35 goals and 82 points per 82
Fluery: 27 goals and 82 points per 82
Tkachuk: 36 goals and 72 points per 82
Brind’Amour: 24 goals and 65 points per 82
Marleau: 27 goals and 58 points per 82

I don’t want to hear any whining about eras and what not. Marleau wouldn’t have been a 50 goal/PPG player in the 80s or early 90s from barely 30 goals and 60 points.

So the best comparable to Marleau is in fact Brind’Amour. Brind’Amour has two selkes, a stanley cup with two other runs. He had better high end seasons than Marleau, more consistent, and was better offensively while being a better defensive player. He’s not in the HOF and has been passed over multiple times. He was a better player than Marleau, had a bigger impact, and contributed, yet isn’t in the HOF(yet?).

You don't get it, do yo? Career averages aren't all that significant. Best single season totals are not all that significant... Heck, its not even about "Who is better than who"... Its the career totals that are significant, and ultimately show a player's overall contribution to the game of hockey. Using career averages is a disservice to players with longer careers like Marleau and Brind'Amour, because of course productivity decreases with age.

Brind'Amour likely will get to the HHOF in my opinion, so that kind of defeats your point a little bit. I'm not suggesting Marleau is a better than any of these players on this list either... but I think his career acheivements are more impressive. What about that, don't you understand?

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

If any player needs a Cup to be considered for the HHOF, they are not worthy to be in the Hall. You're either good enough or not, a Cup changes nothing.

 

[Siludin]

Marleau will get in

 

[GreatGonzo]

I mean we fundamentally disagree on whether a player who achieves milestones over a long period should get in or not.

Andreychuk is decent "Hall" comparable. I still think Gartner is too but you disagree. Recently Phil Housley was inducted. I see him in a similar light. Dino is not a bad comparable either. Again no one is saying Marleau is a sure fire Hall of Famer but there is a bottom tier that has already been established and I feel he fits there.

As someone else has mentioned I do think the Hall will like the fact that he played as long as he did for an expansion team. I think that, being generally considered a good guy and his tenure and milestones are enough to get him in eventually.

Well what puts Gartner out of the comparison is his 700 goals. That’s not the same as 500, not even 600. Marleau doesn’t have any achievement like that, it alone puts Gartner in some elite company. I don’t understand why that keeps being pushed.

Housley was a bad induction....BUT as an American and defenseman, his stats are extremely superior compared to his peers. That’s ultimately what got him in. Again, something Marleau sorely lacks. Your right though, Dino is a good comparison, but still very weak. IMO Dino shouldn’t be anywhere near the Hall and I’m not going to continue entertaining or justifying Marleau as a HOF based on Dino, that’s acruallt really sad for Marleau.

If he would have stuck around with the sharks, I feel that would have helped his case. The irony is being in Toronto has him seeing a lot of HOF buzz based on his recent achievements.

Are you asking what is significant about scoring 550+ goals, 1150+ points, playing 1600+ games, winning 2 olympics gold medals, etc? If you don't understand this significance, then I can't help you... I'm osrry.

People don't talk about most players 15-20 years after they make the HHOF. Who is Clark Gillies? Rod Langway? Bernie Federko, etc? "Player memorability" is not a criteria on who should or shouldn't be in the HHOF...

Games played is not the only stat where Marleau is in elite company with though... but you can pretend that if you'd like.



You don't get it, do yo? Career averages aren't all that significant. Best single season totals are not all that significant... Heck, its not even about "Who is better than who"... Its the career totals that are significant, and ultimately show a player's overall contribution to the game of hockey. Using career averages is a disservice to players with longer careers like Marleau and Brind'Amour, because of course productivity decreases with age.

Brind'Amour likely will get to the HHOF in my opinion, so that kind of defeats your point a little bit. I'm not suggesting Marleau is a better than any of these players on this list either... but I think his career acheivements are more impressive. What about that, don't you understand?

Yes that’s exactly what I’m asking. If he was so significant and so impactful, maybe you would have a better answer, but you don’t....further making my claim correct. They are great and very proud achievements, but your really reaching calling HIM a significant player in NHL history. He isn’t, that’s the problem.

I mean very random set of names, but still.....Langway is one of the greatest defensive defenseman in history, Gillies was a tough guy who could play and won 4 cups with the Islanders(still a weak induction). And Federko isn’t in the Hall.....and he wasn’t exactly a stand out with a long career either. What is Marleaus legacy? Being a good guy with good character who was able to play a long time?

Career averages tell a lot of about a player regardless. Continue to refute that, but an average 58 point center/winger with little to no defensive game overall isn’t exactly knocking down the doors of the Hall for their play. Marleau hasn’t been a significant player in 5 years, he is literally sticking around long enough to be a bottom 6 guy who can still score at a decent pace. He’s that much closer to being a compiler.

But he isn’t is he? And he hasn’t been in the conversation, has he? So if he isn’t in, when he obviously has more of a chance.....what’s Marleaus claim to fame? What makes you think he will?

If he ever did get inducted, all it would say to others is as long as you stick around long enough to rack up goals and point totals at a very insignificant rate, while being a great guy....you have a shot at the Hall. And it will have to be an EXTREMELY weak year, further showing everyone that the Hall had to lower their standards in order to induct a man who’s talent isn’t HOF worth.

 

[MyBudJT]

Yes that’s exactly what I’m asking. If he was so significant and so impactful, maybe you would have a better answer, but you don’t....further making my claim correct. They are great and very proud achievements, but your really reaching calling HIM a significant player in NHL history. He isn’t, that’s the problem.

I mean very random set of names, but still.....Langway is one of the greatest defensive defenseman in history, Gillies was a tough guy who could play and won 4 cups with the Islanders(still a weak induction). And Federko isn’t in the Hall.....and he wasn’t exactly a stand out with a long career either. What is Marleaus legacy? Being a good guy with good character who was able to play a long time?

Career averages tell a lot of about a player regardless. Continue to refute that, but an average 58 point center/winger with little to no defensive game overall isn’t exactly knocking down the doors of the Hall for their play. Marleau hasn’t been a significant player in 5 years, he is literally sticking around long enough to be a bottom 6 guy who can still score at a decent pace. He’s that much closer to being a compiler.

But he isn’t is he? And he hasn’t been in the conversation, has he? So if he isn’t in, when he obviously has more of a chance.....what’s Marleaus claim to fame? What makes you think he will?

If he ever did get inducted, all it would say to others is as long as you stick around long enough to rack up goals and point totals at a very insignificant rate, while being a great guy....you have a shot at the Hall. And it will have to be an EXTREMELY weak year, further showing everyone that the Hall had to lower their standards in order to induct a man who’s talent isn’t HOF worth.

PLEASE ANSWER THESE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, THEY'RE NOT RHETORICAL.

1) How many people have played more games in the NHL than Marleau?
2) How many people have scored more goals in the NHL than Marleau?
3) How many people have scored more game winning goals in the NHL than Marleau?
4) How many people have scored more playoff game winning goals in the NHL than Marleau?
5) How many people have at least 2 Olympic gold medals and at leasts 4 total international gold medals?
6) How many people have had an ironman streak greater than Marleau?
7) How many people have played more games, scored more goals, points, game winning goals, powerplay goals, etc for the San Jose Sharks?

Your answer to these questions is exatly why they are so significant.

Not random, I just looked at players that were nominated in the HHOF 15-20 years ago... which was the timeframe you were talking about. Federko IS in the HHOF, by the way. Why does a player in the HHOF need to have a 'legacy'. Not all of them do. If a player must have a legacy (I'll play your game here), what is wrong with it being how many games he played in the NHL?

The fact your stating that Marleau has little to no defensive game throughout his career goes to show how little you konw about him, in his prime. Also, you keep labelling Marleau as a 'compiler'... whats wrong with being a 'compiler'?

For the 1000th time, nobody is saying Marleau is HHOF worthy for his talent... they are saying he is HHOF worthy for his career acheivments and his contributions to the game of hockey.

 

[ClydeLee]

Well what puts Gartner out of the comparison is his 700 goals. That’s not the same as 500, not even 600. Marleau doesn’t have any achievement like that, it alone puts Gartner in some elite company. I don’t understand why that keeps being pushed.

Housley was a bad induction....BUT as an American and defenseman, his stats are extremely superior compared to his peers. That’s ultimately what got him in. Again, something Marleau sorely lacks. Your right though, Dino is a good comparison, but still very weak. IMO Dino shouldn’t be anywhere near the Hall and I’m not going to continue entertaining or justifying Marleau as a HOF based on Dino, that’s acruallt really sad for Marleau.

If he would have stuck around with the sharks, I feel that would have helped his case. The irony is being in Toronto has him seeing a lot of HOF buzz based on his recent achievements.

Yes that’s exactly what I’m asking. If he was so significant and so impactful, maybe you would have a better answer, but you don’t....further making my claim correct. They are great and very proud achievements, but your really reaching calling HIM a significant player in NHL history. He isn’t, that’s the problem.

I mean very random set of names, but still.....Langway is one of the greatest defensive defenseman in history, Gillies was a tough guy who could play and won 4 cups with the Islanders(still a weak induction). And Federko isn’t in the Hall.....and he wasn’t exactly a stand out with a long career either. What is Marleaus legacy? Being a good guy with good character who was able to play a long time?

Career averages tell a lot of about a player regardless. Continue to refute that, but an average 58 point center/winger with little to no defensive game overall isn’t exactly knocking down the doors of the Hall for their play. Marleau hasn’t been a significant player in 5 years, he is literally sticking around long enough to be a bottom 6 guy who can still score at a decent pace. He’s that much closer to being a compiler.

But he isn’t is he? And he hasn’t been in the conversation, has he? So if he isn’t in, when he obviously has more of a chance.....what’s Marleaus claim to fame? What makes you think he will?

If he ever did get inducted, all it would say to others is as long as you stick around long enough to rack up goals and point totals at a very insignificant rate, while being a great guy....you have a shot at the Hall. And it will have to be an EXTREMELY weak year, further showing everyone that the Hall had to lower their standards in order to induct a man who’s talent isn’t HOF worth.

To that last paragraph... Dave Andreychuk and Mark Recchi already recently proved that doing that can get you into the HHoF.

That's the entire basis to argue that someone like Marleau also could make it.

 

[Rubi]

Kariya is in the HHOF....

Not many people would disagree with you that the list of players you've provided is better than Marleau. That does not mean that they're more HHOF worthy.

The HHOF inducted players based on their contirbutions to the game of hockey. I'd argue that Marleau has contributed more to the game of hockey than any of these players.... Brind'Amour being the closest.

Oops... Forgot he was inducted in 2017. Have fixed my original post. Thanks.

 

[GreatGonzo]

To that last paragraph... Dave Andreychuk and Mark Recchi already recently proved that doing that can get you into the HHoF.

That's the entire basis to argue that someone like Marleau also could make it.

Recchi deserved to be in the Hall and has Marleau beat at basically everything. Marleau isn’t equal to him in terms of HOF worthiness. Marleau has no business being mentioned with him career wise and talent wise.

I already said, Andreychuk got in 10 years after the fact and due to very little talent available to be inducted. They attached his first in PP goals and how he “lead” a young Lightning team to their first ever cup as captain.

But once again, your saying let’s induct WEAKER players because we already got the ball rolling on that, and let’s lower the standards from overall talent and skill to just career achievements without context.

PLEASE ANSWER THESE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, THEY'RE NOT RHETORICAL.

1) How many people have played more games in the NHL than Marleau?
2) How many people have scored more goals in the NHL than Marleau?
3) How many people have scored more game winning goals in the NHL than Marleau?
4) How many people have scored more playoff game winning goals in the NHL than Marleau?
5) How many people have at least 2 Olympic gold medals and at leasts 4 total international gold medals?
6) How many people have had an ironman streak greater than Marleau?
7) How many people have played more games, scored more goals, points, game winning goals, powerplay goals, etc for the San Jose Sharks?

Your answer to these questions is exatly why they are so significant.

Not random, I just looked at players that were nominated in the HHOF 15-20 years ago... which was the timeframe you were talking about. Federko IS in the HHOF, by the way. Why does a player in the HHOF need to have a 'legacy'. Not all of them do. If a player must have a legacy (I'll play your game here), what is wrong with it being how many games he played in the NHL?

The fact your stating that Marleau has little to no defensive game throughout his career goes to show how little you konw about him, in his prime. Also, you keep labelling Marleau as a 'compiler'... whats wrong with being a 'compiler'?

For the 1000th time, nobody is saying Marleau is HHOF worthy for his talent... they are saying he is HHOF worthy for his career acheivments and his contributions to the game of hockey.

- Only a few. Once again why is that significant? His games played is literally his claim to fame. Your basically saying it doesn’t matter how good you are, or how consistent, as long as you play more games your equal to those who did the same.

-28. Bonus question: how many of those players have stronger goal scoring seasons than Marleau?

-that’s a cool stat. Meaningless, but it could produce a nice story for him.

-how many of those players actually have playoff success to go with it?

-while being a passenger

-while once again not being a high level player.

-That’s a stupid question. Of course it’s Marleau, while he has the most points, games, and what have you....he has hardly ever been their best player. Actually I can’t remember a time where he actually was considered our best.


It’s “significant” because your leaving out the context that refutes everything your saying and further shows how unimpressive it is. For example, look at a stat sheet and see Marleaus stats and automatically think “Oh wow! Those are HOF numbers! Definitely should be in!” Except for being such a consistent goal scorer, he was rarely great and made his goal scoring career playing with Thornton.

When’s the last time a player got inducted not for his “talent”, but for his achievements? Andreychuk? And that’s the person you want to compare? Your destroying your own argument.

 

[ClydeLee]

Recchi deserved to be in the Hall and has Marleau beat at basically everything. Marleau isn’t equal to him in terms of HOF worthiness. Marleau has no business being mentioned with him career wise and talent wise.

I already said, Andreychuk got in 10 years after the fact and due to very little talent available to be inducted. They attached his first in PP goals and how he “lead” a young Lightning team to their first ever cup as captain.

But once again, your saying let’s induct WEAKER players because we already got the ball rolling on that, and let’s lower the standards from overall talent and skill to just career achievements without context.

- Only a few. Once again why is that significant? His games played is literally his claim to fame. Your basically saying it doesn’t matter how good you are, or how consistent, as long as you play more games your equal to those who did the same.

-28. Bonus question: how many of those players have stronger goal scoring seasons than Marleau?

-that’s a cool stat. Meaningless, but it could produce a nice story for him.

-how many of those players actually have playoff success to go with it?

-while being a passenger

-while once again not being a high level player.

-That’s a stupid question. Of course it’s Marleau, while he has the most points, games, and what have you....he has hardly ever been their best player. Actually I can’t remember a time where he actually was considered our best.


It’s “significant” because your leaving out the context that refutes everything your saying and further shows how unimpressive it is. For example, look at a stat sheet and see Marleaus stats and automatically think “Oh wow! Those are HOF numbers! Definitely should be in!” Except for being such a consistent goal scorer, he was rarely great and made his goal scoring career playing with Thornton.

When’s the last time a player got inducted not for his “talent”, but for his achievements? Andreychuk? And that’s the person you want to compare? Your destroying your own argument.

"You're saying let's" ... I dont know why these threads and discussions intentionally supposed to be about the HoF that IS and not their personal view of the hof gets so bogged down in people thinking it's a personal view argument.

Thos argument is more about evaluating what the hof voters already have been doing. What things you may say are dumb views or meaningless do not matter as long as the old boy hockey world mentality still does. The mentality of voters that put Toews as top 100 because of leadership and intngables will still be around likely. And boost him from playing so well though the tough scoring eras still putting north of 500 goals and say oh he was a good old Canadian boy winning the gold in Vancouver and Sochi.

So its not my argument to let's weaken the HOF... I'm trying to examine the outcome based on how others think.

 

[DFF]

Ok but what is significant about his contribution? .

He is a Leafs

 

[Dustin]

Recchi deserved to be in the Hall and has Marleau beat at basically everything. Marleau isn’t equal to him in terms of HOF worthiness. Marleau has no business being mentioned with him career wise and talent wise.

I already said, Andreychuk got in 10 years after the fact and due to very little talent available to be inducted. They attached his first in PP goals and how he “lead” a young Lightning team to their first ever cup as captain.

But once again, your saying let’s induct WEAKER players because we already got the ball rolling on that, and let’s lower the standards from overall talent and skill to just career achievements without context.

- Only a few. Once again why is that significant? His games played is literally his claim to fame. Your basically saying it doesn’t matter how good you are, or how consistent, as long as you play more games your equal to those who did the same.

-28. Bonus question: how many of those players have stronger goal scoring seasons than Marleau?

-that’s a cool stat. Meaningless, but it could produce a nice story for him.

-how many of those players actually have playoff success to go with it?

-while being a passenger

-while once again not being a high level player.

-That’s a stupid question. Of course it’s Marleau, while he has the most points, games, and what have you....he has hardly ever been their best player. Actually I can’t remember a time where he actually was considered our best.


It’s “significant” because your leaving out the context that refutes everything your saying and further shows how unimpressive it is. For example, look at a stat sheet and see Marleaus stats and automatically think “Oh wow! Those are HOF numbers! Definitely should be in!” Except for being such a consistent goal scorer, he was rarely great and made his goal scoring career playing with Thornton.

When’s the last time a player got inducted not for his “talent”, but for his achievements? Andreychuk? And that’s the person you want to compare? Your destroying your own argument.

The difference between us here is I'm not deciding who will be in the Hall based on my standards, but based on those that the Hall themselves have already set forth. If Dino and Andreychuk can be in, so can Marleau.

Just because good candidates haven't gotten in (Roenick etc) doesn't change the fact that Housley etc have. If Marleau got in I don't see it diminishing the standards that the Hall has set, I see it as continuing on a standard that is set not by its highest or average player, but it's bottom players. A standard that was set a long time ago.
In fact on HF there was a post back in 2017 discussing just this, the worst possible inductees and Clark Gillies is another player brought up quite often. There is quite a list of players that are in the Hall that probably shouldn't be there and I wouldn't be surprised to see Marleau as one of them.

 

[MyBudJT]

- Only a few. Once again why is that significant? His games played is literally his claim to fame. Your basically saying it doesn’t matter how good you are, or how consistent, as long as you play more games your equal to those who did the same.

-28. Bonus question: how many of those players have stronger goal scoring seasons than Marleau?

-that’s a cool stat. Meaningless, but it could produce a nice story for him.

-how many of those players actually have playoff success to go with it?

-while being a passenger

-while once again not being a high level player.

-That’s a stupid question. Of course it’s Marleau, while he has the most points, games, and what have you....he has hardly ever been their best player. Actually I can’t remember a time where he actually was considered our best.


It’s “significant” because your leaving out the context that refutes everything your saying and further shows how unimpressive it is. For example, look at a stat sheet and see Marleaus stats and automatically think “Oh wow! Those are HOF numbers! Definitely should be in!” Except for being such a consistent goal scorer, he was rarely great and made his goal scoring career playing with Thornton.

When’s the last time a player got inducted not for his “talent”, but for his achievements? Andreychuk? And that’s the person you want to compare? Your destroying your own argument.

You're inability to answer my very simple questions shows me all I need to know. I'm done.

 

[CMDEADLY]

I think he's just below hall of fame but he's had a great career also anyone saying he wouldn't of had 50 goald in the 80's in his prime is full of themself.

 

[GreatGonzo]

The difference between us here is I'm not deciding who will be in the Hall based on my standards, but based on those that the Hall themselves have already set forth. If Dino and Andreychuk can be in, so can Marleau.

Just because good candidates haven't gotten in (Roenick etc) doesn't change the fact that Housley etc have. If Marleau got in I don't see it diminishing the standards that the Hall has set, I see it as continuing on a standard that is set not by its highest or average player, but it's bottom players. A standard that was set a long time ago.
In fact on HF there was a post back in 2017 discussing just this, the worst possible inductees and Clark Gillies is another player brought up quite often. There is quite a list of players that are in the Hall that probably shouldn't be there and I wouldn't be surprised to see Marleau as one of them.

Your once again using bad inductions to justify Marleau maybe getting in...and yet you still have no idea why there is so much wrong with that.

You're inability to answer my very simple questions shows me all I need to know. I'm done.

You want me to answer questions that your leaving huge gaping context out of. It’s not so simple as “how many players have scored more goals than Marleau??” Or “how many people have played more games?!”

Scott Stevens And Marleau have played the same amount of games. Your saying Marleau is equal to his HOF worthiness because he has played the same amount of games. You imply that level of play, skill, and overall impact don’t matter....it’s the fact that he has played those games.

You know who Marleau has more goals than? Tkachuk, Verbeek, and Bondra....while having a lower G/PG. he also has more goals than Mikita, Trottier, Hawerchuk, and Mahovlich. Your basically saying that Marleau is equal to these guys as a goal scorer because he has more goals than them, then his HOF worth is the same....

That’s the problem with how your viewing this whole thing. Just because a player hits 500 goals and 1000 points doesn’t suddenly put him in this elitist category. Just because he was able to play as many games as Stevens doesn’t make his games played were equally as impactful.

Scott Stevens didn’t get into the Hall for his games played, and Francis(who sits a goal above Marleau), didn’t get into the Hall simply because he scored 500 goals and 1000 points. But your saying that those two achievements alone will put him in the Hall, I’m saying that a majority of the Hall did not get inducted on those grounds.

 

[trentmccleary]

He cracked 70 points 6x and 60+ 7x, all while riding shotgun to Joe Thornton in the 9 seasons between 2005-2014. He did nothing to build his legacy outside of that period. In his own prime, he was only 17th in points and tied for 22nd in PPG. He was outscored by players who played 8 seasons and players who missed more than a season's worth of games. At least 20 of the 32 players who had 500 or more points during this period were easily better players than he ever was. If all of those players are inducted into the HHOF, I suppose we could discuss whether there's any merit to Marleau. Thus far however, only 2 of those players have been inducted.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

He could win 10 cups and not be deserving of a HoF induction.