Future HOFers: Judge them

[Bring Back Bucky]

Modano's stats are particularly impressive given he played in the dead puck era, for Ken hitchcock and on Dallas slush. At that exchange rate I'm sure you can overlook not breaking 100.

Of course he does starve poodles.

anastasia priscilla is anything but starved- pets everywhere would love to be as pampered as she is

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I weep for this generation.

Put the numbers down, kids. They all deserve to get in. They all will.

I dunno, moneyp, i just don't recall sundin ever standing out in his generation. Stats Shmats, I think he's on the weak side of a bubble.

 

[Stephen]

I dunno, moneyp, i just don't recall sundin ever standing out in his generation. Stats Shmats, I think he's on the weak side of a bubble.

Sundin's reputation is strange. In North America you have a wide divergence of opinion on him. Some feel that he is a great player while some are hesitant to give him recognition. In Sweden, he's like the face of their nation, as he gets picked for the captaincy over guys like Lidstrom and Forsberg, who are more appreciated here.

 

[Chili]

I wasn't much of a Gilmour fan until he played for the Habs. An average regular season but then came the playoffs...and he was by far the Habs best player one playoff year. Great players can raise the level of their play when it matters most.

I think you really need to see alot of most players to appreciate all that they bring to a team. All four will certainly have their supporters. I could see all 4 making the Hall.

 

[chooch*]

I dunno, moneyp, i just don't recall sundin ever standing out in his generation. Stats Shmats, I think he's on the weak side of a bubble.

Considering your affection for $99, "stats shmats" must be because of your small pencil.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I dunno, moneyp, i just don't recall sundin ever standing out in his generation. Stats Shmats, I think he's on the weak side of a bubble.

Sundin has never been a dominant NHLer that stood out among the crowd. He is like a Mike Gartner. A guy that was a top 20 or 30 player for a long time but didn't really stand out as a top 3 or top 5.

 

[arrbez]

Sundin has never been a dominant NHLer that stood out among the crowd. He is like a Mike Gartner. A guy that was a top 20 or 30 player for a long time but didn't really stand out as a top 3 or top 5.

That's not fair to Mats. He's better than Gartner is pretty much every facet of the game except for goal scoring.

 

[Ogopogo*]

That's not fair to Mats. He's better than Gartner is pretty much every facet of the game except for goal scoring.

True but, neither was a dominant player. Both were good for a long time (Sundin being better) but never dominant.

 

[Bloody Sabbath]

Gilmour, Nieuwendyk, Sundin, Modano?

I'd be willing to bet they all get in.

 

[Stephen]

Sundin has never been a dominant NHLer that stood out among the crowd. He is like a Mike Gartner. A guy that was a top 20 or 30 player for a long time but didn't really stand out as a top 3 or top 5.

Mike Gartner was never really the go-to guy on his teams even when he was scoring 30-50 every year. He was always just a great complimentary guy. Sundin has been THE LEAFS in the same manner that Perreault was the Sabres or Sittler was the Leafs in 70s. What separates those guys from Mat Sundin? And dominance is subjective anyway. Do you mean individually and statistically? Do you mean as a player of equal calibre to Sundin but happened to be on a better team?

 

[MS]

Sundin has never been a dominant NHLer that stood out among the crowd. He is like a Mike Gartner. A guy that was a top 20 or 30 player for a long time but didn't really stand out as a top 3 or top 5.

Totally untrue.

When was Gartner 2nd in the league in goals or 4th in points?

When was Gartner named to a post-season All-star team, never mind doing it twice?

Was Gartner top-10 in league scoring on multiple occasions?

Did Gartner captain an Olympic Gold Medalist or lead the Olympic tournament in scoring?

Sundin has clearly, at various points in the last decade, been a top 5 or so forward in the game. And a top-10 forward for pretty much all of that time. The scoring tables say that, the voters for post-season All-star teams say that, his play in international tourneys says that. To say that he wasn't better than a top 20-30 guy is rubbish.

Gartner had one season where he was 9th in goals and 10th in points. Other than that he was never top-15 in scoring, never a post-season All-star. Their resumes aren't close.

And again, we're getting into your standards for your fictional Hall of Fame. In the real HHOF, he meets the standards easily and is a lock. And so did Gartner.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Considering your affection for $99, "stats shmats" must be because of your small pencil.

If you've got something to add to the thread, please do, but i'd appreciate it if you took your attention somewhere other than myself

 

[Stephen]

And again, we're getting into your standards for your fictional Hall of Fame. In the real HHOF, he meets the standards easily and is a lock. And so did Gartner.

Agreed.

If we go by Ogopogo's fictional standards, there would be roughly 30 players in the Hall. In terms of career achievements, Sundin obviously falls short of being the best of his generation, and doesn't measure up against the Gretzky's and Orr's of the world. But given his high calibre of play on generally averagely talented teams, his relavtively great numbers, intangible worth to his NHL team and to his national program, I think Sundin is a lock for the real Hockey Hall of Fame.

 

[Bluesfan1981]

I would vote for all of them. Sundin will make it, he'll pass 500 goals and 1,200 points next season, and he certainly has several seasons left. Clark Gillies got in, and all these guys are better.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Agreed.

If we go by Ogopogo's fictional standards, there would be roughly 30 players in the Hall. In terms of career achievements, Sundin obviously falls short of being the best of his generation, and doesn't measure up against the Gretzky's and Orr's of the world. But given his high calibre of play on generally averagely talented teams, his relavtively great numbers, intangible worth to his NHL team and to his national program, I think Sundin is a lock for the real Hockey Hall of Fame.

Actually, there would be 104 skaters plus about 20 goalies if I ran things. He real hall has 232 and many of them were much like Sundin, good but never great. Bernie Federko comes to mind.

 

[pappyline]

Actually, there would be 104 skaters plus about 20 goalies if I ran things. He real hall has 232 and many of them were much like Sundin, good but never great. Bernie Federko comes to mind.

Very interesting. I would love to see your list. In absolute numbers it is very close to the "World Wide hall of Fame Site" (128 players & goalies) which I generally agree with.

 

[Big Phil]

Sundin is potentially a legit HOFer, and coudl be in Sittler's class but not in Perreaults. Gilbert Perreault is an all time great, lets not forget that.

 

[arrbez]

Sundin is potentially a legit HOFer, and coudl be in Sittler's class but not in Perreaults. Gilbert Perreault is an all time great, lets not forget that.

He's better than Sittler was, but why is he an all-time great? I would still have him in the same general level as a Sittler or a Hawerchuk, and a tier under guys like Lafleur and Yzerman

 

[Ogopogo*]

Very interesting. I would love to see your list. In absolute numbers it is very close to the "World Wide hall of Fame Site" (128 players & goalies) which I generally agree with.

Check your PMs.

 

[arrbez]

Actually, there would be 104 skaters plus about 20 goalies if I ran things. He real hall has 232 and many of them were much like Sundin, good but never great. Bernie Federko comes to mind.

Do you base it on statistical dominance, or just your oppinion?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Sundin is potentially a legit HOFer, and coudl be in Sittler's class but not in Perreaults. Gilbert Perreault is an all time great, lets not forget that.

I have Perreault at #137 and Sittler at #165.

Depends on your definition of all time greats but, I would say they are definitely a couple of tiers below what I would call "all time greats". Sundin is a tier below these guys.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Do you base it on statistical dominance, or just your oppinion?

Statistical dominance. My opinion of a deserving HOFer is someone that dominated his era not just a guy that was good for a long time.

 

[God Bless Canada]

He's better than Sittler was, but why is he an all-time great? I would still have him in the same general level as a Sittler or a Hawerchuk, and a tier under guys like Lafleur and Yzerman

What's your definition of "a tier?" If a tier is a chasam to you, then you're right.

Guy LaFleur had a six-year run of dominance that was matched by maybe 5-10 players in NHL history. Guy's one of the top 10 forwards of all-time. And in that six-year stretch, he won four Cups, won a Conn Smythe, and had 110 points in 72 games. 36 more points in 11 fewer playoff games than Sundin. Guy also won another Cup in 1974.

Yzerman? Start with being a key player on three Cup champions. Won a Conn Smythe. Many argue he was deserving of the Conn Smythe in 1997 and 2002, too. (Stats weren't there in 1997, but leadership, timely offence and defensive play were). Sundin in the most important hockey? Hasn't had that career-defining, carry his team on his back playoff. Even in years when Detroit didn't win the Cup (1987 and 1996, for example), Yzerman was terrific. Everything Sundin did, Yzerman did better. And oh yeah, Yzerman has a Pearson and nearly 1,800 points.

You're weakening your argument with statements like these.

 

[Murphy]

I have Perreault at #137 and Sittler at #165.

Depends on your definition of all time greats but, I would say they are definitely a couple of tiers below what I would call "all time greats". Sundin is a tier below these guys.

Wow!! These two stand out to me as they're favourites of mine but....wow!

I like your lists Ogopogo, and how you come up with them is facinating to me but...wow

I suppose these two players get hurt in the ratings because of the team they played for at the time. One thing I'd like to see factored in maybe is their international play? When they were actually going head to head with the worlds best. Perrault and Sittler had success in Canada Cups and I think that speaks a bit to what kind of players they actually were.

Hawerchuk, Dionne, Vachon are example of guys that I don't think get the credit they deserve simply because of the teams they played for.

Sundin is a mystery to me also. Obviously he's a god in Sweden and a solid all-around player. I've seen games where he's dominated but I've also seen games where he's invisible. Still think he's Hall of Fame worthy though.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Wow!! These two stand out to me as they're favourites of mine but....wow!

I like your lists Ogopogo, and how you come up with them is facinating to me but...wow

I suppose these two players get hurt in the ratings because of the team they played for at the time. One thing I'd like to see factored in maybe is their international play? When they were actually going head to head with the worlds best. Perrault and Sittler had success in Canada Cups and I think that speaks a bit to what kind of players they actually were.

Hawerchuk, Dionne, Vachon are example of guys that I don't think get the credit they deserve simply because of the teams they played for.

Sundin is a mystery to me also. Obviously he's a god in Sweden and a solid all-around player. I've seen games where he's dominated but I've also seen games where he's invisible. Still think he's Hall of Fame worthy though.

I have Hawerchuk at #85 and Dionne at #29. Goalies are not completed yet. As you can see, team does not have a lot to do with the ratings. The major factor is how much you stood out and dominated during your era. Perreault and Sittler were good but, they did not really stand out like Lafleur, Clarke or Trottier did.