Does Marleau need a cup to be a hof player

[Fantomas]

I just listed the past 5 inductees...? How is that cherry picking?

And yes, Mullen and Federko deserve to be in the Hall well over Marleau. Did you just pick two names out of a hat that you didn’t recognise?

Federko had 4 100+ point seasons and was over PPG his entire career. One of the truly underrated players of his generation in both the regular season and the playoffs, and it’s a shame it was wasted on a period of shaky ownership for the Blues.

Joey Mullen at his peak was one of the best shooters to ever play the game and was a massive part of two (and a half) Stanley Cup teams, as well as a first team all star.

It's cherrypicking because the names you chose are far from the worst players in the Hall.

Federko and Mullen are among the worst. While Federko's numbers look superficially good to us now, he played in the run-and-gun 80s. Look beyond his raw stats. Not a single award. Never a top-2 team all-star. Not even a third team all-star.

Adjust his numbers and he's OBVIOUSLY worse than Marleau. At least Joe Mullen has the cups and one first-team all-star appearance.

There are at least several players in the HOF worse than Marleau. Apart from the above two, we can name Clark Gillies, Dick Duff, Glenn Anderson, Leo Boivin. Dave Andreychuk, Bill Barber and Lanny McDonald borderline.

 

[Fantomas]

Of players inducted post 1980? Only forwards I can think of that were debatably worse than Marleau off the top of my head are Nieuwendyk and Andreychuk, both of whom...

1) Have more Cups
2) better ppg (though Andreychuk’s numbers are similar when adjusted)
3) are widely considered to be unworthy/controversial selections.

Marleau’s best case scenario is stacking up as “close or equal” to two of the weakest inductees in decades. One mistake does not justify another. Let the bad ones be exceptions, not the new lowered standards.

I'll take Niewendyk over Marleau. Statistically very close, but the man has a Smythe.

Federko is obviously worse than both. A putrid induction. He doesn't even have any cups. His induction has opened the door to arguments for many players. One has to be blind to think otherwise.

 

[Walkingthroughforest]

It's cherrypicking because the names you chose are far from the worst players in the Hall.

Federko and Mullen are among the worst. While Federko's numbers look superficially good to us now, he played in the run-and-gun 80s. Look beyond his raw stats. Not a single award. Never a top-2 team all-star. Not even a third team all-star.

Adjust his numbers and he's OBVIOUSLY worse than Marleau. At least Joe Mullen has the cups and one first-team all-star appearance.

There are at least several players in the HOF worse than Marleau. Apart from the above two, we can name Clark Gillies, Dick Duff, Glenn Anderson, Leo Boivin. Dave Andreychuk, Bill Barber and Lanny McDonald borderline.

What I did was the opposite of cherry picking. I picked the last 5 entrants over the past 3 years.

You really don’t know your history if that’s what you think of Federko. Bernie was very underrated and always the best player on the Blues and was recognized league wide as an elite player. He never got an All Star because during his playing career he had Wayne Gretzky, Marcel Dionne, Bryan Trottier and Mario Lemieux to compete with at centre. He unfortunately played at a time where a handful of the greatest players ever had their primes. And you realise there’s no such thing as a third team all star, right?

And Joe Mullen was never and had never been looked at as a bad selection for the HHOF. This is where you can’t solely use stats with your argument.

And again, you really don’t know your hockey history if you’re using any of those names and saying that Marleau is a better player than them. I’d really encourage you to check out the History Of Hockey forum that we have here. There’s some incredible posters with decades of knowledge and they can help give you the context you need.

 

[FerrisRox]

Does marleau need a cup to be a hof player? Is he one already? Or even with a cup is he still borderline?

I don't think a Cup, at this point in his career, moves the needle because he'd be largely a passenger. He's not a Hall of Famer in my eyes with or without the silverware.

 

[FerrisRox]

Since when are any of this criteria for making the HHOF?

A lot of things have been criteria for being a Hall of Famer for years... Are you seriously unaware that individual awards and being named to All-Star teams and being nominated for awards are among the things looked at?!?

 

[Fantomas]

What I did was the opposite of cherry picking. I picked the last 5 entrants over the past 3 years

In a discussion on whether a player is suitable to be elected into the HHOF, one needs to look at the baseline and not just pick any players that come to mind.

You really don’t know your history if that’s what you think of Federko. Bernie was very underrated and always the best player on the Blues and was recognized league wide as an elite player. He never got an All Star because during his playing career he had Wayne Gretzky, Marcel Dionne, Bryan Trottier and Mario Lemieux to compete with at centre. He unfortunately played at a time where a handful of the greatest players ever had their primes. And you realise there’s no such thing as a third team all star, right

There is such a thing, and the voting results are available on hockey-reference.com

Federko is statistically near the bottom of hall of fame standards, which you can see here: Bernie Federko Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Saying that he had 100-point seasons isn't terribly convincing when taking into account scoring rates in the 1980s. When you look at his numbers relative to league-wide context you will see that not only was he less productive than Marleau, but he was also so for a shorter amount of time.

In other words, if you think Federko is a worthy hall of famer then you have you see Marleau as a hall of famer as well. Ultimately it doesn't even matter if you do or not, because inductions of players like Federko have set the precedent and opened the door to the likes of Marleau into the hall.

And Joe Mullen was never and had never been looked at as a bad selection for the HHOF. This is where you can’t solely use stats with your argument

I don't know what your frame of reference is, but his name has come up in discussions on this board: The Ten Worst Players in the HHOF

And again, you really don’t know your hockey history if you’re using any of those names and saying that Marleau is a better player than them. I’d really encourage you to check out the History Of Hockey forum that we have here. There’s some incredible posters with decades of knowledge and they can help give you the context you need.

I've been posting here since 2000. I know what the History of Hockey forum is.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I'd say Andreychuk definitely is.

640 goals is too many goals to keep out of the HOF.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Bondra and Tkachuk were both among the top goal scorers during the DPE.

Bondra and Tkachuk could get in one day. Tkachuk should be in imo, and Bondra is boererline at worst and a justifiable case can be made for him.

isn’t the victim of any era though. His adjusted goals aren’t any more impressive in any era. Marleau playing longer and being able to maintain a 20 or so goal pace isn’t the same as having multiple 40 or 50 goal seasons. He’s played longer sure, but why reward him for simply being healthy? He hasn’t been a goal scoring threat in any way in 8 years.

Being able to play long enough to amass 550 goals is HOF worthy. It's a skill to be able to play that long, and be that productive.

They were very bad and controversial inductions.....but they still had more reasons to be inducted than Marleau ever will.

So then what is your standard for the Hall? Who’s the last “non elite” player to make the Hall?

Before I answer this, what is your definition of elite?

 

[GreatGonzo]

Bondra and Tkachuk could get in one day. Tkachuk should be in imo, and Bondra is boererline at worst and a justifiable case can be made for him.



Being able to play long enough to amass 550 goals is HOF worthy. It's a skill to be able to play that long, and be that productive.



Before I answer this, what is your definition of elite?

My point was both are clearly superior goal scorers than Marleau. He just played longer.

Ok so at what point does the level of play matter? You do realize Marleau is close to the weakest player in terms of having 500 goals and 1000 points, right? I mean look at the players playing today that will make the HOF one day, Marleau didn’t get any mention amongst them until being in Toronto.

Being a top player in the league, having top notch scoring numbers, being a stand out in one way or another. None of this fits Marleau. Even in his best seasons, he still wasn’t considered a top player. What exactly is your definition of elite?

Again, just because someone scores 500
Goals and 1000 points doesn’t automatically qualify them as the HOF. Outside of Marleau, There are four players with 500/1000 points with a handful of players that have 1000 points but didn’t reach 500 who are not in the HOF right now. Just because Marleau happens to play in a big Canadian market that glorifies his career doesn’t make him more worthy.

 

[GreatGonzo]

640 goals is too many goals to keep out of the HOF.

With nearly half of his career compiling while winning a cup as a bottom liner who contributed little to nothing. It was among one of the weakest inductions in recent years.

 

[Fantomas]

You do realize Marleau is close to the weakest player in terms of having 500 goals and 1000 points, right?

This isn't even close to being true. Weakest 500/1000 guys are those who played in the 80s and 90s.

 

[PensandCaps]

Cups mean nothing

 

[PensandCaps]

This isn't even close to being true. Weakest 500/1000 guys are those who played in the 80s and 90s.

Has to be Pat Verbeek

 

[MyBudJT]

My point was both are clearly superior goal scorers than Marleau. He just played longer.

Ok so at what point does the level of play matter? You do realize Marleau is close to the weakest player in terms of having 500 goals and 1000 points, right? I mean look at the players playing today that will make the HOF one day, Marleau didn’t get any mention amongst them until being in Toronto.

Being a top player in the league, having top notch scoring numbers, being a stand out in one way or another. None of this fits Marleau. Even in his best seasons, he still wasn’t considered a top player. What exactly is your definition of elite?

Again, just because someone scores 500
Goals and 1000 points doesn’t automatically qualify them as the HOF. Outside of Marleau, There are four players with 500/1000 points with a handful of players that have 1000 points but didn’t reach 500 who are not in the HOF right now. Just because Marleau happens to play in a big Canadian market that glorifies his career doesn’t make him more worthy.

Nobody is saying Marleau is the best goal scorer though... What is impressive is that he'll have reached 550+ goals (and >100 GWG)... Not many people can say they've done that.

Nobody is saying that Marleau is as good as the Selanne's, the St. Louis's etc... But Marleau's body of work is just as impressive. Playing 1600+ games shouldn't be a black mark on Marleau's career? It should help him get to the HHOF.

 

[Fantomas]

To get a decent sense of how Marleau fares statistically with players from other eras, see his adjusted stats (under NHL miscellaneous): Patrick Marleau Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Then compare them to those of say...

a) Dave Andreychuk - Dave Andreychuk Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

b) Bernie Federko - Bernie Federko Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

c) Lanny McDonald - Lanny McDonald Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

d) Joe Mullen - Joe Mullen Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Or whoever you please. The point is that Marleau fares quite well. He is not a spectacular offensive producer, but had a strong prime that compares well to some of these guys who are in the hall.

 

[Fantomas]

Has to be Pat Verbeek

Although Verbeek was outstanding in '95-96.

 

[Dustin]

I don't know why people keep bringing up the Leafs as some excuse as to why people are asking this question. A very simple search can show that certain publications were asking this same question in 2016.

Whether you think he should or shouldn't, him playing for Toronto is certainly not going to sway anyone.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Marleau is the definition of a player who belongs in the hall of very good, not fame.

Cup or no cup makes no difference to me.

But you never know with these things. He certainly has a great reputation around the league and rightfully so.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

People really be having toronto on there mind all the damn time, marleaus case is beyond the fact that he plays there.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Nobody is saying Marleau is the best goal scorer though... What is impressive is that he'll have reached 550+ goals (and >100 GWG)... Not many people can say they've done that.

Nobody is saying that Marleau is as good as the Selanne's, the St. Louis's etc... But Marleau's body of work is just as impressive. Playing 1600+ games shouldn't be a black mark on Marleau's career? It should help him get to the HHOF.

I’m not saying that either. But in the end he has little to go off of outside of his career stats, which.....without context are impressive.

It’s the idea of praising someone for simply having a long career. Having a long career and being able to play until he has shouldn’t suddenly be treated more than it actually is.

I don't know why people keep bringing up the Leafs as some excuse as to why people are asking this question. A very simple search can show that certain publications were asking this same question in 2016.

Whether you think he should or shouldn't, him playing for Toronto is certainly not going to sway anyone.

He didn’t start getting that kind of talk until his move to Toronto, before that it was maybe mentioned but barely something to note.

This isn't even close to being true. Weakest 500/1000 guys are those who played in the 80s and 90s.

Like who? Who’s weaker than Marleau who is in the HOF?

 

[Fantomas]

Like who? Who’s weaker than Marleau who is in the HOF?

I've already answered this question in this thread. But every single 500 goal player that played in the 80s and 90s has inflated stats. If you run an adjustment for Mullen, his 502 goals go down to 432. Marleau's go up from 548 to 619.

 

[GreatGonzo]

To get a decent sense of how Marleau fares statistically with players from other eras, see his adjusted stats (under NHL miscellaneous): Patrick Marleau Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Then compare them to those of say...

a) Dave Andreychuk - Dave Andreychuk Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

b) Bernie Federko - Bernie Federko Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

c) Lanny McDonald - Lanny McDonald Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

d) Joe Mullen - Joe Mullen Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Or whoever you please. The point is that Marleau fares quite well. He is not a spectacular offensive producer, but had a strong prime that compares well to some of these guys who are in the hall.

Marleau has no top ten finishes among adjusted points. Which means even in his prime, his offense doesn’t translate well among different eras.

Mullen and Andreychuk have 1 top ten finish, McDonald has 2, and Federko has 5. So offensively they are still ahead. Marleau simply has longevity over all them except Andreychuk.

Not just that, but Marleaus plus/minus is atrocious for the points he has. I know that should be the end all-be all for an argument, but it’s not like he wasn’t on some strong Sharks teams a majority of his career. From ‘06-‘17, the sharks have the most wins out of any team and sit 27th in GA while being 5th in goals for. Marleau between that time has 755 points in 935 games with a -15.

 

[Fantomas]

Marleau has no top ten finishes among adjusted points. Which means even in his prime, his offense doesn’t translate well among different eras.

Mullen and Andreychuk have 1 top ten finish, McDonald has 2, and Federko has 5. So offensively they are still ahead. Marleau simply has longevity over all them except Andreychuk.

Not just that, but Marleaus plus/minus is atrocious for the points he has. I know that should be the end all-be all for an argument, but it’s not like he wasn’t on some strong Sharks teams a majority of his career. From ‘06-‘17, the sharks have the most wins out of any team and sit 27th in GA while being 5th in goals for. Marleau between that time has 755 points in 935 games with a -15.

Something tells me you will die on this hill. Whenever someone pulls out +/-, it's a good sign they will do so.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I've already answered this question in this thread. But every single 500 goal player that played in the 80s and 90s has inflated stats. If you run an adjustment for Mullen, his 502 goals go down to 432. Marleau's go up from 548 to 619.

Your forgetting that stats aside, Mullen retired as the the top American born producer and goal scorer with 3 Stanley cups.

If we really have to build a case for Marleau using adjusted stats, which aren’t real stats but manipulated, then that shows just how weak he actually is. But I mean Mullen’s peak season is still better than any of Marleaus when adjusted....

 

[GreatGonzo]

Something tells me you will die on this hill. Whenever someone pulls out +/-, it's a good sign they will do so.

Again, I acknowledged that it’s not always the strongest, but your saying we should simply ignore that part of his resume....why?