Does Perry Need A Strong Finish to His Career to be A HHOF'er?

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

he'll get in, though he wouldn't have that hart if crosby didn't have that devastating injury

 

[DitchMarner]

I mean I know I'm not alone with this opinion, but name dropping somewhat weak to "what are they thinking!" HOF inductees to further a case for Perry, is simply going about it all the wrong ways and further keeps that cycle going.... you know...."well, if player A is in the hall, then why not player B?"

Perrys peak is awesome. No one can deny a Hart and Rocket as prestigious and huge honors. But that was simply one year....

Guys like Andreychuk and Ciccarelli are compilers, which is why they both had to wait a significant amount of time before being inducted. It's partly due to less and less "deserving" players being out of the game, so they dug to the bottom of the barrel.

I don't necessarily agree with Neely but I understand it. Neely had a lot of things going for him. He was a somewhat "unique" player as a power forward who revolutionized the position. Because for many, when you think of THE power forward, you think Neely. At his peak he was one of the best goal scorers, wingers, along with being a physical force. His 50 in 49 paved the way for him as well as building the "mystic" of him as a player because his career was cut short due to injuries. Add good press and his overall persona. But remember he still had to wait 10 years to be inducted.

Joe Mullen was a part of 3 cups, finished his career a PPG with 500+ goals. He has a First team AS honor. What you don't realize as well is that Mullen is also an American, and at the time of his retirement('97), he was first in overall points and second in goals among American players....making him one of the best American players of all time. So sure, Perry peaked higher with a Hart, but Mullen was much more consistent and has better overall stats, especially among American players.

Lanny McDonald finished his career('89) 23rd in points and 14th in goals(5th in goals, 5th in points, and 9th in assists among RWers). He already at the stats to compete for the Hall, but yes his cup win I feel did push him over the edge.

Mullen's stats look better on a season-per-season than Perry's outside of Perry's two big seasons, but they really aren't. They look better because he played in the 80s when players scored a lot more than they do now.

HockeyOutsider made a post that shows Perry's VsX scores versus McDonald, Mullen, Neely and Niuwendyk over seven and ten season stretches. He beats all of them offensively in their respective best seven and ten seasons.


Ten years VsX
Perry - 69.8
McDonald - 68.0
Mullen - 66.6
Neely - 53.7
Nieuwendyk - 66.3

Seven years VsX
Perry - 75.0
McDonald - 74.1
Mullen - 71.6
Nieuwendyk - 70.3
Neely - 63.4


These numbers indicate that Perry finished closer to the second-leading scorer in the NHL on average in his best seven seasons than those Hall of Famers did in their best seven seasons and that he finished closer to the second-leading scorer in the NHL on average in his ten best seasons than any of these did in their respective ten best seasons.

So who was really better offensively?

Another way to look at things is this: Perry has finished in the top for goals five times. That's more than any of these players except Nieuwendyk, who also had five finishes in the top ten for goals. Sure, some of Perry's goal totals may not look that impressive compared to some of their totals in seasons where he was a top ten goal scorer, but that's due to the fact that scoring is much lower now than it was in the past.

The same can be said about his point total compared to theirs.

There are more teams in the NHL than there were in the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

There are more players.

There are more European players.

League scoring averages have been much lower in recent seasons.

You seem like an enthusiastic and knowledgeable fan, so I'm you can realize that the 70s/80s/early 90s effect is the only reason the statistics of these players look better than Perry's on paper. They are inflated because of the time period in which those players played. They do not indicate that these players were better point producers during their best seasons or better seasons than Corey Perry was during his.

Furthermore, none of those players best two seasons came close to touching Perry's two best seasons. He was a first team All-Star twice (whereas Mullen was an AS1 once).

So if these Hall of Famers didn't have Perry's peak or match his production in his best seven or ten seasons or win as many awards (except Nieuwendyk) or have as many first team All-Star selections or have as many finishes in the top ten for goals (except Nieuwendyk) or have as many finishes in the top five in points, what do they have over him offensively aside from era-inflated stats and longevity (except Neely, whose point total Perry has already surpassed and whose goal total he will ultimately eclipse as well)?

Not one of those players was a top ten scorer in the entire League over a ten season stretch. A ten season stretch in NHL history is a significant length of time.

Of course, Perry isn't done playing yet.

He can still wind up with career stats that are as impressive as - if not more impressive than - those of McDonald, Mullen, Neely and Niuwendyk during his era.


And I appreciate your input.

Ultimately, you and I are not on the Hall of Fame selection committee. We can debate whether we want a player in the Hall or think someone is worthy of being there, but ultimately, the committee will doing the selection; and if the past is any indication, Perry should have a strong shot at getting if he finishes his career well enough.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Mullen's stats look better on a season-per-season than Perry's outside of Perry's two big seasons, but they really aren't. They look better because he played in the 80s when players scored a lot more than they do now.

HockeyOutsider made a post that shows Perry's VsX scores versus McDonald, Mullen, Neely and Niuwendyk over seven and ten season stretches. He beats all of them offensively in their respective best seven and ten seasons.


Ten years VsX
Perry - 69.8
McDonald - 68.0
Mullen - 66.6
Neely - 53.7
Nieuwendyk - 66.3

Seven years VsX
Perry - 75.0
McDonald - 74.1
Mullen - 71.6
Nieuwendyk - 70.3
Neely - 63.4


These numbers indicate that Perry finished closer to the second-leading scorer in the NHL in his best seven seasons than those Hall of Famers did in their best seven seasons and that he finished closer to the second-leading scorer in the NHL in his ten best seasons than any of these did in their respective ten best seasons.

So who was really better offensively?

Another way to look at things is this: Perry has finished in the top for goals five times. That's more than any of these players except Nieuwendyk, who also had five finishes in the top ten for goals. Sure, some of Perry's goal totals may not look that impressive compared to some of their totals in seasons where he was a top ten goal scorer, but that's due to the fact that scoring is much lower now than it was in the past.

The same can be said about his point total compared to theirs.

There are more teams in the NHL than there were in the 80s and early 90s.

There are more players.

There are more European players.

League scoring averages have been much lower in recent seasons.

You seem like an enthusiastic and knowledgeable fan, so I'm you can realize that the 80s/early 90s effect is the only reason the statistics of these players look better than Perry's on paper. They are inflated because of the time period in which those players played. They do not indicate that these players were better point producers during their best seasons or better seasons than Corey Perry was during his.

Furthermore, none of those players best two seasons came close to touching Perry's two best seasons. He was a first team All-Star twice (whereas Mullen was an AS1 once).

So if these Hall of Famers didn't have Perry's peak or match his production in his best seven or ten seasons or win as many awards or have as many first team All-Star selections or have as many finishes in the top ten for goals (except Nieuwendyk) or have as many finishes in the top five in points, what do they have over him offensively aside from era-inflated stats and longevity (except Neely, whose point total Perry has already surpassed and whose goal total he will ultimately eclipse as well)?

Not one of those players was a top ten scorer in the entire League over a ten season stretch. A ten season stretch in NHL history is a significant length of time.

Of course, Perry isn't done playing yet.

He can still wind up with career stats that are as impressive as - if not more impressive than - those of McDonald, Mullen, Neely and Niuwendyk during his era.


And I appreciate your input.

Ultimately, you and I are not on the Hall of Fame selection committee. We can debate whether we want a player in the Hall or think someone is worthy of being there, but ultimately, the committee will doing the selection; and if the past is any indication, Perry should have a strong shot at getting if he finishes his career well enough.

Well I never said Mullens stats were better, he was just more consistent. But his stats are better when bringing in the fact that he is an American, and finished his career as the top American point producer. I feel that meant more to the Hall. It's what somewhat separates Perry from him.

I feel Perrys 2011 season is better than most of Mullens, Mullen just had more consistency. 80s and 90s scoring being higher obviously makes the argument of "who's better" offensively more lopsided in Perrys favor, but still....

I understand what your saying, my whole
Opinion is that the HOF career is a body of work. Perry may have that one year that smokes anything Mullen or McDonald did, but those guys still have the body of work to be HOFers. I don't feel Perry has that quite yet, can he? Absolutely....I guess I just don't favor team awards quite as much as most do.

Guys like Neely, Andreychuk, and Ciccarelli...they all still had to wait to be inducted, and rightfully so. Sure, they might be stinkers in more ways than they are honored....but They were still at the end of the line in terms of HOF credentials, talent, and worthiness. I dont think Perry is anything like that, like you have said...his Hart, Rocket, stanley cup, and numerous international achievements make for a solid HOF resume....but does that actually make him a HOF player? I think only time will tell.....we just don't know where his game is heading right now.

It's been a pleasure discussing with you about this as well.