Hall or no Hall part 4

[Big Phil]

Another new crop of borderline HOFers whether they are in or not in. Have fun


Brian Propp - 1004 career points. Point totals were 97, 97, 92, 91. No Cups yet played in 5 Cup finals. 425 career goals.

Verdict: To me Propp is not a Hall of Famer. Some might have suggested it but he's far off IMO. Some have suggested he was as good as Barber, which I disagree. He never had a post season all-star selection and was never even close to the top ten in scoring. A guy you'd want on your team no doubt, but not great.


Claude Provost - 9 Cups in his 15 seasons. 589 career points. had a career high 33 goals one year and 64 points another year. Good checker. First team all-star in '65.

Verdict: Its funny how he played on two of Montreal's dynasties. Yet he's forgotten very much. He was a good checker who was known for shutting down Bobby Hull in the playoffs and was a valuable player on those teams. But my question is, would the Habns have won thpose Cups without him. In the 50s yes. But the 60s? That's hard to say. Let's just say the reason Provost's name gets mentioned is the 9 Cups. It is hard to ignore. Much like Anderson's 6. So I'm somewhat undecided on this one, although I'm inclined to say no, but I wont make a federal case about it.


George Armstrong - The "chief" captained and won 4 Cups with the Leafs. he played 20 years for them. 713 career points. Career high 53 points in a season.

Verdict: Although he has a low PPG average and no post season all-star selections I never have argued about him being in the Hall. Why? Whats' the difference betweeen him and Pulford, or Provost. Well first off, he was the captain, second he was an integral part of the Leafs championships. that makes him great. He also scored the famous goal in the '67 Cup final into the empty net in game 6 to put a nail in the coffin to the Habs. So to me he's a HOFer.


Ken Hodge - 800 career points, two Cups, two first team all-stars ('71, '74) two 100 point seasons. One 50 goal season.

Verdict: I don't know why he never gets mentioned in these debates but I thought I'd bring him up. I'm not saying he should be in but before you dismiss him just think for a second he's not that far off IMO. His single season point totals go like this 105, 105, 90, 81. That's pretty good. And was he an integral part of the Bruins Cups? Yes. In '70 he had 13 playoff points. In '72 he had 17. Even in '74 he had 16 points on their march to the final. Yes its true that playing with Orr and Espo padded his stats, but it happened to Bucyk too. Maybe Hodge's prime was too short for him to get inducted but he was in the Top 5 in scoring three times. Not saying he's in there but he should at least have his name thrown around.


Alex Mogilny - Over 100 points in his career so far, career high of 76 goals, then next highest is 55. Second all-star team in '93 and '96. Cup win in '00.

Verdict: His career might not be over yet but it's safe to debate him now. Mogilny was a trailblazing Russian in the NHL in 1989. He led the league in goals in '93 with Selanne. But has never come anywhere near that total. His point totals are 127, 107, 84, 83, 79, 79. Not too shabby. But his playoff stats arent that impressive. In his Cup win in '00 he had only 7 points in 23 games. The knock I have with Mogilny is that he was terribly in consistent. he had 127 point, then the next year had 79. Then he had 107 points and the next year he had 73. Then he had three straight seasons of well under a point per game. The question is: was his great seasons able to overshadow his mediocre ones. He also had a rep of not playing hard unless it was contract time. That might hurt him.

Click to read more...

 

[MS]

Mogilny should make it IMO. Will have 500 career goals, well over 1000 points playing primarily in a defensive era. One of the few players to win a Stanley Cup, WJC Gold, World Championships Gold, and Olympic Gold - basically everything a hockey player can win. Won a Byng and would have won a Richard had it been awarded at the time, and has two post-season All-star berths. One of the greatest Russians ever. A lot of his inconsistency can be attributed to injuries - of course he slumped in 1993-94 after breaking his leg in the 93 playoffs, and he suffered serious injuries for several consecutive years in Vancouver as well - and awful linemates in Vancouver ... he spent most of one season alongside a washed-up Peter Zezel. Personally I loved him as a Canuck.

Provost is a guy who seems to me like a HHOFer, although I'm too young to comment properly. Seems that everyone agrees he was the league's top defensive forward in the 1960s, won 9 Cups, and was a first-team All Star one year. Much better resume than guys like Pulford. If the Selke had existed in the 1960s, and if he'd won a few of them (as I gather he would have) he'd probably be in the HHOF.

Armstrong was one of the defining players of a franchise for 20 years. That gets you in, regardless of statistics. Intangibles off the charts in this case.

Hodge had too short a prime, and too much of his success can be attributed to linemates.

Propp was a fine player, but failed to score 50 goals or 100 points in the league's highest-scoring era, never won a Cup, never was a post-season All-Star, never won a major award. Nothing there to define him as an HHOF guy.

 

[reckoning]

Brian Propp- Outstanding player; very consistent offensively (usually set up Tim Kerr for his 50 goal seasons) as said he never had a 50 goal or 100 pt season but he hit 40 goals and 90 pts 4 times,solid playoff player- never won a Cup but made the Final 5 times, was a force in the `87 Final singlehandedly bringing the Flyers back from a 3-1 deficit midway through Game 5, very responsible defensively, nothing bad to say about him. However in my opinion he`s just missing that one thing that would put him from very good to great. I say no, but he`s more deserving than some others who are often mentioned (Nicholls, Ciccarelli).

Claude Provost- Since he`s before my time I can only go on what I`ve read and researched, but he seems to qualify. He didn`t just play on 9 Cup winners, he was an integral part of them, especially the late 60s dynasty which didn`t have all the superstars of the 50s version. Would`ve won a few Selkes if they existed then but was also a fair offensive player as well. Checking forwards are rarely recognized by the Hall, something that should change. I vote yes.

George Armstrong- Once again is before my time but seems to be in because of his popularity rather than accomplishments. Don`t think he was ever considered a top 10 player. May well have been the face of the franchise in the 60s but what does that count for? As I said, I didn`t see him in his prime and would love to hear the opinions of those who did. How great could he have been when his most-talked about accomplishment was an empty-net goal?

Ken Hodge- The perfect example of a player who benefitted from elite treammates. As Phil mentioned his prime was too short. A good scorer but soft defensively, had a reputation of caring more about his point totals than if the team won or lost. I say no.

Alexander Mogilny- I respect him for becoming a complete player on New Jersey (wish he could`ve played like that in Buffalo) but falls just short for me. Nothing that sets him apart and as mentioned there were several years where the effort seemed to be lacking. I say no.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Brian Propp - 1004 career points. Point totals were 97, 97, 92, 91. No Cups yet played in 5 Cup finals. 425 career goals.

Verdict: To me Propp is not a Hall of Famer. Some might have suggested it but he's far off IMO. Some have suggested he was as good as Barber, which I disagree. He never had a post season all-star selection and was never even close to the top ten in scoring. A guy you'd want on your team no doubt, but not great.

Propp vs. Barber ... Very very comparable, and I would give Propp the very slightest of edges. Two things that have kept Propp from the Hall of Fame:

No Stanley Cup. Never played with an elite center.

I'll take Propp over the following Hall of Famers: Neely, Gillies, Federko, Mullen and Goulet. If I was playing a game that my life depended on it tomorrow, I'd also take him over Mike Gartner.

Propp remaing the all-time leading playoff scorer among left wings.

 

[isles52480]

Let me beat everyone to the punch...

...if Clark Gillies is in the hall of fame then everyone who ever played the game or thought about plaing the game deserves to be in.

This is a public service announcement.

 

[arrbez]

Let me beat everyone to the punch...

...if Clark Gillies is in the hall of fame then everyone who ever played the game or thought about plaing the game deserves to be in.

This is a public service announcement.

Except for Steve Shutt, of course. Instead, Lafleur should be in twice

 

[chooch*]

Except for Steve Shutt, of course. Instead, Lafleur should be in twice

lol

Propp better than Goulet? I remember Propp plastered by Chelios in 87, cut open.

Goulet up to 87 was an amazing player. At the Canada Cup that Sept suddenly I realized he was playing more like Bob Gainey than the new Guy Lafleur.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Propp vs. Barber ... Very very comparable, and I would give Propp the very slightest of edges. Two things that have kept Propp from the Hall of Fame:

No Stanley Cup. Never played with an elite center.

I'll take Propp over the following Hall of Famers: Neely, Gillies, Federko, Mullen and Goulet. If I was playing a game that my life depended on it tomorrow, I'd also take him over Mike Gartner.

Propp remaing the all-time leading playoff scorer among left wings.

Propp better than Goulet? No. Goulet was the best left winger of the 1980s. Propp was not. Propp better than Neely? No bloody way. Neely was one of the all-time combinations of goals and physical play. Propp was not.

I'm a big Propp fan. He's a Sask. boy and an SJHL alum. He had some fantastic playoffs. But he's not an HHOF. I believe the playoffs are a critical evaluating point for the HHOF, as that's when legacies are made. But Propp just doesn't have enough from the regular season to get in. Had Minnesota won the Cup in 1991, with Propp a Conn Smythe candidate, this conversation might take a different turn.

Mogilny? No way. He had what, two or three top-notch years? Nothing else that jumps out to me. He was a secondary player for NJ in 2000, and had several very forgettable playoffs. MS mentioned his leg injury in 1993. Mogilny tried to rehab that injury on the golf course, not in the weight room. He was terrible in Vancouver after about game 60 of his first year because he developed an apathy complex. He wasn't very physical, and unlike Fedorov, Mogilny could be a liability defensively.

Ken Hodge? No way. Shouldn't even be in the debate.

 

[MS]

Mogilny? No way. He had what, two or three top-notch years? Nothing else that jumps out to me. He was a secondary player for NJ in 2000, and had several very forgettable playoffs. MS mentioned his leg injury in 1993. Mogilny tried to rehab that injury on the golf course, not in the weight room. He was terrible in Vancouver after about game 60 of his first year because he developed an apathy complex. He wasn't very physical, and unlike Fedorov, Mogilny could be a liability defensively.

Aside from two seasons in Vancouver (1997-99) where he was injured, playing with scrubs, and on one of the worst teams in the league, Mogilny has been consistently excellent throughout his career.

His 1993-94 season (the one after the leg injury) he still scored at a 100-point clip in 66 games. Scored at a 100-point clip in 67 games in 1991-92. Scored at a 90-point clip in the lockout year. Between 1990-97 he was *way* over a PPG.

97-98 and 98-99 he struggled, no doubt. He was also playing with Peter Zezel, Mike Ridley, and Mike Sillinger. He never had a decent center after Ronning was released in 1996. I take huge issue with people calling him a defensive liability - IMO he was always one of the team's top defensive forwards, and one of the most under-rated players in history in that regard. But yes, he did look under-motivated for a spell, which isn't totally surprising given the team he was on.

He looked re-motivated in 1999-00 and was scoring at nearly a 40-goal clip before being injured and then traded. Since then, the 'lazy' tag he aquired in Vancouver hasn't come up again. 2000-2004, he was again a PPG player at a time where very few players can say that. Would have been top-10 in scoring in 2001 and 2003 if not for missing ~10 games with injuries both years. Was an impact player for Toronto and New Jersey, despite injury troubles, despite being past his prime.

His only real 'forgettable playoff' was the year NJ won the cup. He had 14 goals in 19 games his last three playoffs in Buffalo. 9 points in 6 games for Vancouver. 16 points in NJ's run to the finals in 2001. Toronto's leading playoff goalscorer in 2002 and 2003.

I don't think you can let two rotten, injury-riddled years on a garbage team define his career. He's been an elite player for a very long time, he has the individual numbers, has the team success, has the individual awards. To me, he's a HHOFer.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Aside from two seasons in Vancouver (1997-99) where he was injured, playing with scrubs, and on one of the worst teams in the league, Mogilny has been consistently excellent throughout his career.

His 1993-94 season (the one after the leg injury) he still scored at a 100-point clip in 66 games. Scored at a 100-point clip in 67 games in 1991-92. Scored at a 90-point clip in the lockout year. Between 1990-97 he was *way* over a PPG.

97-98 and 98-99 he struggled, no doubt. He was also playing with Peter Zezel, Mike Ridley, and Mike Sillinger. He never had a decent center after Ronning was released in 1996. I take huge issue with people calling him a defensive liability - IMO he was always one of the team's top defensive forwards, and one of the most under-rated players in history in that regard. But yes, he did look under-motivated for a spell, which isn't totally surprising given the team he was on.

He looked re-motivated in 1999-00 and was scoring at nearly a 40-goal clip before being injured and then traded. Since then, the 'lazy' tag he aquired in Vancouver hasn't come up again. 2000-2004, he was again a PPG player at a time where very few players can say that. Would have been top-10 in scoring in 2001 and 2003 if not for missing ~10 games with injuries both years. Was an impact player for Toronto and New Jersey, despite injury troubles, despite being past his prime.

His only real 'forgettable playoff' was the year NJ won the cup. He had 14 goals in 19 games his last three playoffs in Buffalo. 9 points in 6 games for Vancouver. 16 points in NJ's run to the finals in 2001. Toronto's leading playoff goalscorer in 2002 and 2003.

I don't think you can let two rotten, injury-riddled years on a garbage team define his career. He's been an elite player for a very long time, he has the individual numbers, has the team success, has the individual awards. To me, he's a HHOFer.

You're looking at the stats, not how Mogilny actually played. The people in Buffalo were livid with Mogilny after the 1993-94 season, when he improperly rehabbed his broken leg. When he came back, he was a non-factor on many nights. The trade rumours started after that year, and grew after the lockout shortened season, when his play was even worse than in 93-94.

I remember he was at 50 goals for the Canucks after about the 60-game mark in 95-96, and was virtually invisible when they needed him in the last 20 games. His playoff that year wasn't one to remember. While he was hurt at times the next four years, those seasons were marred by moodiness, inconsistent play and, at times, outright apathy.

Esa Tikannen (who I would be tempted to vote for the HHOF ahead of Mogilny, thanks to Tik's playoff record) once said that Mogilny is the most talented player in the league. I wouldn't go that far, but with Mogilny's speed, his shot, his goal scoring instincts, his very underrated playmaking ability, his stickhandling, it was all there. But he's barely over a PPG. Don't give me the "dead puck era" excuse. A player of that talent should have been a perennial threat for the Art Ross Trophy in his prime, not a guy with three 40-goal seasons.

And here's the kicker on Mogilny's HHOF argument: playoff success. For a guy with all his potential, it took him until his fourth playoff to register a goal, and he's well under a PPG. Yes, he has a Cup, but it came in a secondary role on New Jersey. He was a passenger the following year on New Jersey, when they lost in seven to the Avs in the final, as Mogilny went through a double-digit goal scoring slump. For a player of his magnificent talent to have that long of a goal drought when the games really count is incomprehensible.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

None of the above, but I would rate Mogilny as having the best chance depending upon on he finishes his career.

My ranking based on probability:

Mogilny - less than 50/50
Propp - maybe, but guys like Damphousse, Bellows and Bobby Smith deserve as much consideration and I don't see them getting in either. I saw him for all his career, and wasn't impressed.
Armstrong - if he hasn't got in yet, I don't see it happening
Provost - ditto Armstrong
Hodge - no chance

 

[Big Phil]

None of the above, but I would rate Mogilny as having the best chance depending upon on he finishes his career.

My ranking based on probability:

Mogilny - less than 50/50
Propp - maybe, but guys like Damphousse, Bellows and Bobby Smith deserve as much consideration and I don't see them getting in either. I saw him for all his career, and wasn't impressed.
Armstrong - if he hasn't got in yet, I don't see it happening
Provost - ditto Armstrong
Hodge - no chance

Armstrong is already in there. I was just debating if he should be or not