Does the Hall of Fame still hold significance to you?

[crazy8888]

Not trying to be incendiary here for those passionate, but the thread title says most of what I want to discuss.

• Have you been there? Was it worth it?
• Do you believe the Hall of Fame's qualifications regarding player entry holds up?
  • If yes, do you think it will continue to hold up?
• Does it still have a lot of value in the modern age for everyone?
• Who are the glaring omissions or entries which weaken the quality of the Hall?
  • Which future players do you anticipate might get subbed?

I admit I've never been. If I do go, it would only be as part of another trip through the area and not a specific pilgrimage.

Not all circumstances are created equal for entry (goalies, defensive defencemen vs generational centre's resumes) and some of the greats will never get in or be acknowledged and it will go on this way forever, but that's not even a complete argument for "stinginess".
Conversely if qualifications become more open, it may enter the "Hall of Very Good" status.

I don't know if it holds a lot of value now, or whether it's just a institution for the sake of existing.
Not expecting too many in-depth answers per my questions but I am very curious to hear people's thoughts, especially those who have gone multiple times across different eras of hockey.

I think they dilute the list by having players voted in every year. Im ok with some years going by without anyone getting in. Its the hall of fame not some kind of an award show.

 

[93LEAFS]

Your opinion of his character means nothing. And what he did as a manager doesn't erase what he accomplished as a hitter.

Charlie Hustle all day.


Bonds being roided out ruins it for me.

Bonds was dominating long before he was roided out. He wasn't Sosa, and guys like Rose were taking greenies all day in the 70's. Bond's pre-2001 numbers still absolutely blow Pete Rose's out of the water when looking at everything but pure batting average (more disciplined, better OBP way more power). Like, Rose lasted along time getting a ton of hits and won 3 batting titles, but by that, someone like Gwynn is a better hitter due to batting titles and career average.

 

[jetsforever]

Obviously it's still a great accomplishment even if not all the picks are perfect

 

[Cas]

Bonds was dominating long before he was roided out. He wasn't Sosa, and guys like Rose were taking greenies all day in the 70's. Bond's pre-2001 numbers still absolutely blow Pete Rose's out of the water when looking at everything but pure batting average (more disciplined, better OBP way more power). Like, Rose lasted along time getting a ton of hits and won 3 batting titles, but by that, someone like Gwynn is a better hitter due to batting titles and career average.

There are literally dozens of better hitters. Rose's prime (1965-1979) saw him hit .316/.388/.442, a 130 OPS+, in 10942 plate appearances, topping out with a 152 and 158 in 1968-69 (he won batting titles both years). 401 runs above average, 27 RAA per season. He was mostly a poor to average hitter outside of these years.

That's pretty close to Rod Carew's prime (1969-1983, 397 RAA in 8601 PA, 26 per season). Of course Carew was more valuable per plate appearance, but it's pretty close overall. Rod Carew was a fantastic player, but no one argues he was the greatest hitter of all time, or close to it - in all honestly, he's often forgotten today.

Rose (and Carew) weren't even close to Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Hank Aaron, Rogers Hornsby, Jimmie Foxx, and so on and so on. You can eliminate all of the pre-integration players and he still won't be in the top 40 (Frank Robinson, Frank Thomas, Albert Pujols, Mike Trout, Ken Griffey, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Mike Schmidt, Chipper Jones, Eddie McCovey, Rickey Henderson, Reggie Jackson, George Brett, Gary Sheffield, Carl Yastrzemski, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Murray, etc, etc). You can add players like Oscar Charleston and Josh Gibson and Turkey Stearnes, who won't pick up the same batting runs because their teams played very short seasons, but who were honestly as good as their contemporaries.

Rose got lots and lots of hits. He got hits more often per plate appearances than a lot of guys. Someone like Harmon Killebrew, a near-contemporary, was generating more value at the plate, because his hits, while fewer in number, were simply much more valuable (it takes several singles to equal a home run, and Killebrew hit a lot of home runs), and he was avoiding outs at essentially the same rate (1959-1972, Killebrew had a .385 OBP).

 

[93LEAFS]

There are literally dozens of better hitters. Rose's prime (1965-1979) saw him hit .316/.388/.442, a 130 OPS+, in 10942 plate appearances, topping out with a 152 and 158 in 1968-69 (he won batting titles both years). 401 runs above average, 27 RAA per season. He was mostly a poor to average hitter outside of these years.

That's pretty close to Rod Carew's prime (1969-1983, 397 RAA in 8601 PA, 26 per season). Of course Carew was more valuable per plate appearance, but it's pretty close overall. Rod Carew was a fantastic player, but no one argues he was the greatest hitter of all time, or close to it - in all honestly, he's often forgotten today.

Rose (and Carew) weren't even close to Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Hank Aaron, Rogers Hornsby, Jimmie Foxx, and so on and so on. You can eliminate all of the pre-integration players and he still won't be in the top 40 (Frank Robinson, Frank Thomas, Albert Pujols, Mike Trout, Ken Griffey, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Mike Schmidt, Chipper Jones, Eddie McCovey, Rickey Henderson, Reggie Jackson, George Brett, Gary Sheffield, Carl Yastrzemski, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Murray, etc, etc). You can add players like Oscar Charleston and Josh Gibson and Turkey Stearnes, who won't pick up the same batting runs because their teams played very short seasons, but who were honestly as good as their contemporaries.

Rose got lots and lots of hits. He got hits more often per plate appearances than a lot of guys. Someone like Harmon Killebrew, a near-contemporary, was generating more value at the plate, because his hits, while fewer in number, were simply much more valuable (it takes several singles to equal a home run, and Killebrew hit a lot of home runs), and he was avoiding outs at essentially the same rate (1959-1972, Killebrew had a .385 OBP).

I agree, I was just using easy and prominant examples. Sort of funny though, I see you mention Sheffield (I can see the argument), just would of thought of someone like Miguel Cabrera first.

But, I agree with the premise of what you are saying. Outside of total hits, Rose doesn't have a much of an argument. If you are looking at total package and factoring in OBP's there's a ton of guys such as Bonds or Ted Williams. If you are looking just at getting the bat on the ball, inplay and getting on base while ignoring on-base-percentage and slugging, there are guys like Gwynn. I know pretty much all metrics we now measure value such as OPS+ etc Rose gets blown of the water by guys who have power.

 

[Cas]

I agree, I was just using easy and prominant examples. Sort of funny though, I see you mention Sheffield (I can see the argument), just would of thought of someone like Miguel Cabrera first.

But, I agree with the premise of what you are saying. Outside of total hits, Rose doesn't have a much of an argument. If you are looking at total package and factoring in OBP's there's a ton of guys such as Bonds or Ted Williams. If you are looking just at getting the bat on the ball, inplay and getting on base while ignoring on-base-percentage and slugging, there are guys like Gwynn. I know pretty much all metrics we now measure value such as OPS+ etc Rose gets blown of the water by guys who have power.

Yeah, just expanding on your point.

Of course that's barely relevant to the topic at hand, and the bigger problem with the NBHOF is less not inducting Rose or Bonds (especially since Rose knew what punishment he'd get and deserved it), and more that they did induct Heinie Manush and High Pockets Kelly and Jesse Haines. There are probably fifty members I'd like to replace.

 

[93LEAFS]

Yeah, just expanding on your point.

Of course that's barely relevant to the topic at hand, and the bigger problem with the NBHOF is less not inducting Rose or Bonds (especially since Rose knew what punishment he'd get and deserved it), and more that they did induct Heinie Manush and High Pockets Kelly and Jesse Haines. There are probably fifty members I'd like to replace.

I prefer Baseball Hall of Fame to Hockey. I atleast understand what they value (which is longevity and counting stats). So, I at least understand where they stand on most cases (outside the roid issues). Same with the Pro-Football Hall of Fame, they value year end awards, and 1st and 2nd team all pros (outside SuperBowl QBs) over longevity. Hockey seems to embrace both, and in the end make it impossible to tell on fringe cases.

The other thing is Pro Football Hall of Fame and National Baseball Hall of Fame essentially only focus on the NFL (and the leagues that became the NFL) and MLB (and the leagues that made it up, plus pre-intergration leagues). Whereas, Hockey you get things like their international career factored in. Basketball has the same issue where they factor in college and international.

 

[archangel2]

Not as much as it once did. The bar has lowered but yet yet others who should clearly be in are not because they pissed off the people who make the decisions.

I like Kevin Lowe.. but got in due to lobbying by 99

 

[ItWasJustified]

Does the Hall of Fame still hold significance to you?

Until Theo Fleury is inducted, no.

 

[Cas]

I prefer Baseball Hall of Fame to Hockey. I atleast understand what they value (which is longevity and counting stats). So, I at least understand where they stand on most cases (outside the roid issues). Same with the Pro-Football Hall of Fame, they value year end awards, and 1st and 2nd team all pros (outside SuperBowl QBs) over longevity. Hockey seems to embrace both, and in the end make it impossible to tell on fringe cases.

The other thing is Pro Football Hall of Fame and National Baseball Hall of Fame essentially only focus on the NFL (and the leagues that became the NFL) and MLB (and the leagues that made it up, plus pre-intergration leagues). Whereas, Hockey you get things like their international career factored in. Basketball has the same issue where they factor in college and international.

I can't speak to football or basketball at all, and I'm honestly very underserved in hockey historical knowledge, so I wouldn't try to speak to the HHOF. Baseball, though, is my specialty.

I wouldn't say the NBHOF values anything really consistently. After all, there are a ton of inductees who had shorter careers that didn't really reach significant milestones, and plenty of non-inductees who did but who the voters have, as a body, recognized as undeserving (like Omar Vizquel, Bill Buckner, or Steve Garvey).

Baseball also honestly doesn't have much of a high-level international presence. The World Baseball Classic has had five occurrences. Olympic baseball is not quite a joke. The Baseball World Cup was a joke. There are a few other tournaments. Foreign professional leagues have historically been well below MLB in quality - Japan is now at least reasonably close, and the Cuban League and today's KBO deserve some praise, but otherwise they're all clearly minor league. There just isn't much international baseball to recognize on an equal level.

Domestically, the Pacific Coast League in its best years had few players who would have been stars in the AL/NL and who stayed for more than a couple of years in their prime. The Negro Leagues are finally getting recognition approaching what they deserve, but after the 2006 election, there aren't a whole lot of really strong candidates left - maybe a couple dozen. There are also some 19th century candidates who deserve more attention, but again, it's a dozen or two at most.

 

[93LEAFS]

I can't speak to football or basketball at all, and I'm honestly very underserved in hockey historical knowledge, so I wouldn't try to speak to the HHOF. Baseball, though, is my specialty.

I wouldn't say the NBHOF values anything really consistently. After all, there are a ton of inductees who had shorter careers that didn't really reach significant milestones, and plenty of non-inductees who did but who the voters have, as a body, recognized as undeserving (like Omar Vizquel, Bill Buckner, or Steve Garvey).

Baseball also honestly doesn't have much of a high-level international presence. The World Baseball Classic has had five occurrences. Olympic baseball is not quite a joke. The Baseball World Cup was a joke. There are a few other tournaments. Foreign professional leagues have historically been well below MLB in quality - Japan is now at least reasonably close, and the Cuban League and today's KBO deserve some praise, but otherwise they're all clearly minor league. There just isn't much international baseball to recognize on an equal level.

Domestically, the Pacific Coast League in its best years had few players who would have been stars in the AL/NL and who stayed for more than a couple of years in their prime. The Negro Leagues are finally getting recognition approaching what they deserve, but after the 2006 election, there aren't a whole lot of really strong candidates left - maybe a couple dozen. There are also some 19th century candidates who deserve more attention, but again, it's a dozen or two at most.

From following all 4 spots, but knowing Hockey, Baseball and NFL Hall of Fames the best, I would say the NHL is by far the wildest of the 3. Veteran's committee can occasionally go wild though for baseball. Outside of the juiced guys, Baseball has some pretty clear marks which guarantee you entry or at least did. 300 wins, 3000 hits, 500 home runs, etc. Hockey is way more erratic. If the committee like the guy, they'll give him all the extra intangible and international credit they can. It's too late to go back, but, I'd say it should have been the pro-hockey HHOF, but due to it covering every level of the sport, it also gets jumbled.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

Sundin selected first-ballot was proof of popularity over performance as a HHOF qualifier.

 

[Spargon]

Won't be complete until the final GOAT is in

Agreed....How many years until Toews is eligible?

 

[cowboy82nd]

No. Board members can't even fill out their ballot correctly.

If you list Ovi as a RW rather than a LW, you should have your board seat automatically revoked.

Does it matter how he's listed, as long as he's listed? OVi will get in even if his listed as a G. (Most goals by a goalie.)

 

[cowboy82nd]

Larry Hillman won 6 Stanley Cups...Kevin Lowe making into the Hall of Fame is the biggest crock of "Old Boys Club" crap we have ever seen, and makes a mockery of what was once a sacred club.

TBH, The NHL Hall of Fame used to be similar to the NFL, only the best of the best. The first time they deviated that I remember was Bernie Federko, so that they could get a St. Louis Blue in there. Ever since then it is far too easy, far too many players in there.

But they stooped to an all time embarrassing "Lowe" with Kevin. Shame on them.

But it's not called the NHL hall of Fame but the Hockey Hall of Fame.

 

[Ezekial]

I don't really care that much for Skip Bayless but one thing i do agree with in regards to this view on the NFL hall of fame that carries the same principle to me with the NHL hall of fame is that if you have to think twice he isn't in, in my view.

That's easy for a loudmouth arrogant talking head on the TV to say but harder to implement when it's more than one person's perspective.

 

[Machinehead]

Won't be complete until the final GOAT is in

Well, yes, Toews should be in the Hall of Fame.

Even with some questionable inclusions, it's still the 1% of the 1%.

 

[joestevens29]

Visited the HHOF a few years back and it’s cool, but my son absolutely loved it (at age 10). There’s some cool interactive activities and the exhibits are well done. I wouldn’t necessarily make it the focal point of a trip to TO, but it’s surrounded by a lot of other great stuff to do. Take the family to a Jays game, the CN tower/aquarium and the HHOF. I’m gonna stop now because it sounds like I work for Tourism Toronto.

There is a shoe museum too. Yes I got dragged to it. I mean it was worth it in the end, but at the time I was wondering WTF am I doing.

I was also quite impressed with the aquarium. Did not expect to like it that much

 

[wetcoast]

He'll get in. His local market will be pushing his case, has Hockey Canada credentials, and has key counting stats (500 goals/1000 points). Did I ever watch Marleau and be like this guy is a top 10 talent in the league and he's a must for the hall of fame? No. But, the NHL is a mess. They value high peak players who were destroyed by injuries but didn't reach key point marks, and value guys who put up counting stats. While, I'm not saying which should be valued more, but pick one. The NFL values peak, MLB values longevity, NHL tries to value both and botches the overall standards.

Fair point but nevermind too 10 player in the league was Marleau ever a top 20 player or even forward in the league and if so for how long, maybe one season?

He was a good player who was a compiler and not a very good playoff performer either so no he shouldn't be in the HHOF.

 

[Voight]

Visited the HHOF a few years back and it’s cool, but my son absolutely loved it (at age 10). There’s some cool interactive activities and the exhibits are well done. I wouldn’t necessarily make it the focal point of a trip to TO, but it’s surrounded by a lot of other great stuff to do. Take the family to a Jays game, the CN tower/aquarium and the HHOF. I’m gonna stop now because it sounds like I work for Tourism Toronto.

 

[Davenport]

In the early 1970s, I was just old enough to fully appreciate the Hockey Hall of Fame's snubbing of Doug Harvey. In 1972, he became eligible for induction. Seven times he had been awarded the Norris Trophy. Ten times he was voted on to the First All Star team. He hoisted the Stanley Cup six times. Slam dunk? Nope. Apparently, his fondness for liquid refreshments was being held against him.

A year later - without any indication that he had cleaned up his act - Harvey was inducted. He told the HHOF to shove it. The egg was on the face of the induction committee. Their choice was to induct him on the strength of his hockey legacy - right away - or not induct him because of his bad habits.* That one year delay was ridiculous. I've had zero interest in the HHOF since.

(* it took some cheek - given the reliance on beer money - to look at drinking with askance)

 

[Dicky113]

I would never go to Toronto to visit it but if in Toronto and looking for something to do it’s decent way to kill a couple of hours

 

[12ozPapa]

I personally couldn’t care less. I’m sure for players it’s a big deal but yeah, it could disappear tomorrow and I wouldn’t care.

 

[The Kingslayer]

Absolutely

 

[Voight]

In the early 1970s, I was just old enough to fully appreciate the Hockey Hall of Fame's snubbing of Doug Harvey. In 1972, he became eligible for induction. Seven times he had been awarded the Norris Trophy. Ten times he was voted on to the First All Star team. He hoisted the Stanley Cup six times. Slam dunk? Nope. Apparently, his fondness for liquid refreshments was being held against him.

A year later - without any indication that he had cleaned up his act - Harvey was inducted. He told the HHOF to shove it. The egg was on the face of the induction committee. Their choice was to induct him on the strength of his hockey legacy - right away - or not induct him because of his bad habits.* That one year delay was ridiculous. I've had zero interest in the HHOF since.

(* it took some cheek - given the reliance on beer money - to look at drinking with askance)

To be fair, this is their criteria

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

They likely gave him negative marks in the character department.