Does the Hall of Fame still hold significance to you?

[JohnnyBerts]

Too many deserving players haven't been inducted because reasons. While others get in because of their connection. That dilutes the value in my opinion because it's not about the game. I used to pay more attention to it, now I don't.

 

[GMR]

I was there in 2005 and would love to return. Back then I followed hockey religiously but knew little about the game's history. Now I'm the other way around. I would get more out of it today.

 

[Il Stugotz]

I value it as a hockey museum.

There's a tension between it being inclusive as a museum and being an exclusive space for elite players.

I'd like to see something like an all-time team of 20 that could be updated when new players get inducted and knock off older players

 

[ps241]

Never been a big HOF person and that got worse when Kevin Lowe made it in as a player?

 

[Xerloris]

The fact they refused to let Turgeon in for like 2 decades because apparently he hurt someones feelings when he was a kid make the entire thing a joke.

 

[zizbuka]

I was in Toronto a few years ago, thought I'd go to the HOF, but just didn't have the interest.

My dad took me to the Baseball HOF when I was a kid (in the 70's), and that was a memory I'll never forget. I just think any HOF these days is based on popularity, or perceived popularity.

 

[Bounces R Way]

The HHoF is really cool to go to and should be on any hockey fans' list to visit. Not sure I would book a flight to Toronto expressly for that purpose but you can definitely find an excuse.

As far as who gets in and who doesn't I don't really care too much beyond making a glib comment or two on these boards. They have a whole board of people a lot more qualified and with much more information than I have to make those calls.

 

[JianYang]

I value it as a hockey museum.

There's a tension between it being inclusive as a museum and being an exclusive space for elite players.

I'd like to see something like an all-time team of 20 that could be updated when new players get inducted and knock off older players

I responded in this thread a while ago but you said it in better words.

Well done.

 

[McVespa99]

Won't be complete until the final GOAT is in

Toews was not that good....

 

[Cup or Bust]

I consider it extremely significant, it's basically the history of the NHL. I would love to go and visit it one day.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Neither Crosby or OV are generational

Mcdavid came and showed that

They are aboe the franchise tier but below Mcdavid

Kucherov, Mack and Matthews can enter that Crosby and OV tier though its very unlikely

Mcdavid is in a tier with the big 4 only

It's post like this that truly highlight how a lot of people don't grasp the impact each individual era has.

Crosby just put up 94 points at 36 years old while Ovie is still managing 30 goal seasons at nearly 40. Back when they were around McDavid's age, they were putting up 100 point and 50 goal seasons in an era where nobody scored. In fact, a quick glance just ten years ago, Crosby put up 104 points. His closest comparison was Ryan Getzlaf with 87.

A 28 year old Crosby would be rivaling McDavid every single season while an equally younger Ovie would have 60-70 goal seasons.

Calling neither of them generational talent is comically ridiculous.

 

[Gaud]

Someone mentioned the HoF as a museum and i think i agree with that. I think politics and popularity play too much of a role in there. I also think that the format of only being able to allow X amount of people in each year leads to certain players being let in "by default". Stanley cup wins also have too much weight in that discussion, IMO.

A hall of fame of the greatest would probably resemble more like a list of those players who had their jerseys retired - more of a "gods of hockey" type thing, with maybe a section for those players who didnt stay with one team their entire career.

Meanwhile, a lot of people just want to remember those people who were exciting to watch, or were great players who also were philantropists or great personalities, or represented the best of their own.

I think dynasties have too many inductees - sure the team won cups, but that doesnt mean all its players are necessarily worthy. Someone mentioned Kevin Lowe, but ill mention a lot of habs that were on the dynasties of the 60s and 70s.

An example is Guy Lapointe, whose jersey was retired 30 years after his retirement, and where most of the comments were about how he deserved it because "he was one of the Big Three" (Gainey and Savard being hte other 2). To me, while im sure he had a great career, this is hte same as saying "he was a #3 defenseman on a stacket team". By the way, Markov had 2nd most points in habs history for a defenseman, and had almost 50 pts more than Lapointe in the same amount of games. He will never be in the HoF though- no cups, no philanthropy and almost no contact with media and fans.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Two examples to clarify where these two Halls are: Cam Neely and Dale Murphy.

Murphy was a 2 x MVP, finished top 12 in MVP voting six times. 9 x top 10 in HRs and had several other stats where he has seasons where he leads or finishes top ten.

Neely was a 4 x 2nd team all-star
4 x top ten in goals (never led the league)
0 x top ten in points or assists

Finished with less than 400 goals and less than 700 points. An MVP finish of 9th in a year he played 50 games. Never even a first team All-star.

Both players are HOF talent at their best. Murphy has a significantly better career than Neely does but doesn’t come close to the HOF while Neely gets in.

All due respect to Neely, he was a great player and injuries derailed what should’ve been a great career. And he was a physical player as well - which is hard to quantify on a stat sheet. But with a career that short it should be spectacular to get into the HOF. Ken Dryden for example has a short career but he won everything under the sun.

There’s no way that Neely should be in. Meanwhile, a two time MVP who garnered consideration on several seasons isn’t near good enough in baseball’s hall. That’s your difference right there.

 

[Chet Manley]

The number of questionable inclusions is pretty darned Lowe. Still way better than the rock & roll hall of fame.

 

[BB79]

The number of questionable inclusions is pretty darned Lowe. Still way better than the rock & roll hall of fame.

Is that a shot at Kevin Lowe?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Now that Foreigner are in, I'm going to go for another visit.

I'm sure it will "Feel Like the First Time".

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

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 don’t even think he was the best hitter in his team if you’re looking at the Phillies. Mike Schmidt got on base more and hit for way more power.

 

[Cas]

I don’t even think he was the best hitter in his team if you’re looking at the Phillies. Mike Schmidt got on base more and hit for way more power.

Oh of course he wasn't.

 

[pth2]

Not really. Too many players who were important to their teams but nothing special, league-wide, have been included.

Plus, the older I get the more I see many such honors in life just go to whoever made the right friends, bought the right influences, and shut up at the right time, and not really people who are deserving.

 

[Crosby2010]

I do love the Hall of Fame as a guest. When you get down to it, the best Hall of Fames are Canton (Football) and Cooperstown (Baseball). I've been to Springfield, Mass. where the Basketball Hall of Fame is, named after James Naismith. That one was still worth seeing, but I think the other three are better. Hockey fits in right around 3rd or so. But it does have something that you have to see and that's the Cup. I know depending on when you go it may not be the real up on display but rather the replica. Honestly, it doesn't matter. You can't tell me the replica doesn't have its own stories and my thought is there has to have been some time where they switched positions. In other words I am willing to bet the replica has been raised on the ice before too. Just a guess. But either way, you still see the original rings from the Cup in the vault section. There is lots of history there to see. I think the only difference is the location is not the same as the other 3 sports halls. Each of the other three basically were put where they were put because of historical reasons like where the sport was invented or first played. My guess is they picked Toronto for the HHOF because of population and being close to the U.S. and in sort of a hub as it is. It is right downtown Toronto, so it doesn't scream Foster Hewitt's birthplace or anything, but it is where it is.

As for players, I would say there are more in the HHOF that shouldn't be in there than ones that aren't in there that should be in.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm a pretty big fan actually.

I think at his best he was the best player in the League. I actually prefer his best seasons to Crosby's (who was injured during his peak). But in terms of overall ranking, I'd have Crosby slightly higher. I do think you can make a "better career" argument for Ovechkin depending on what you value and how you assess careers.

I just picked the one I rank a little higher as the generational player from that gen. To be honest, I am open to hearing the argument that neither is really generational and both are a tier above the next best class.

Just a perspective on this — do you consider Bobby Hull generational?

 

[DitchMarner]

Just a perspective on this — do you consider Bobby Hull generational?

I haven't really thought about this.

I'd say he's younger enough than Howe and Beliveau and older enough than Orr that you can give him the distinction if you really want to. However, I probably wouldn't.

Off the top of my head, I'd say he's in the same group as Ovechkin and Crosby. He is always ranked ahead of Mikita and Esposito, but like Crosby, I don't think he quite holds his own against the likes of Howe, Gretzky and Lemieux well enough that he should be labelled generational unless you have to categorize him as such by default. Put Jagr in his class as well. McDavid seems like he'll make a better case for belonging in that highest class, but time will tell.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I haven't really thought about this.

I'd say he's younger enough than Howe and Beliveau and older enough than Orr that you can give him the distinction if you really want to. However, I probably wouldn't.

Off the top of my head, I'd say he's in the same group as Ovechkin and Crosby. He is always ranked ahead of Mikita and Esposito, but like Crosby, I don't think he quite holds his own against the likes of Howe, Gretzky and Lemieux well enough that he should be labelled generational unless you have to categorize him as such by default. Put Jagr in that class as well. McDavid seems like he'll make a better case for belonging in that highest class, but time will tell.

Ok, simple enough. You have a more restrictive definition of “generational” than most people do, with a focus on the Big 4 and guys who might make it a Big 5. Of course there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just semantics. I think generally people would consider the Hull/Crosby tier to be generational, because their version of generational is more like top 10.

 

[FerrisRox]

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.

You seem to be confusing the people that vote on end of season awards with the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Alexander Ovechkin is an active NHL player. He would not be on any Hall of Fame ballots because he's ineligible for induction.

Too many deserving players haven't been inducted because reasons. While others get in because of their connection. That dilutes the value in my opinion because it's not about the game. I used to pay more attention to it, now I don't.

Please name these deserving players.

 

[Mosby]

Just thinking of the cumulative effect. Player misses out on an award because voters screw up their ballot. Player then misses out on HHOF induction because his hockey resume doesn't have enough awards.