the idea, i guess, is that the more you have to talk yourself into it, or the longer that takes (unless extenuating circumstances, e.g. mark howe, makarov, etc), the lower you are on the hall of fame totem pole. i think of it as a HHOF demerit, the inverse to being inducted on the day you retire, like orr, gretzky, etc.
The committee has already inducted a bunch of people from 1980-95 and now they're making very questionable decisions to keep on doing it. Is it really a demerit if the main reason it might happen for some players is because the HHOF can't get past inflated 1980-95 numbers?
maybe not exactly the same thing as you're describing, but there are borderline candidates (relative to my personal HHOF line) that if i would like to see the committee wait on to really evaluate, did this guy matter in a HHOF sense?
i think patrik elias is one, daniel alfredsson is another (ducks), where maybe ten years after they retire you can really ask yourself, was what they did historically good? did it hold up over time?
Alfredsson was 3rd in scoring and 4th in PPG over a 10 year period (00-10). He was 15th in GP among the top-25 scorers and played 89.1% of the games.
For frame of reference, while trying to respect the Gretzky exception:
Denis Savard was 4th in scoring and 5th in PPG during his 9 year peak (82-90). He was 12th in GP among the top-25 scorers and played 91.6% of the games.
Now, I've seen numerous less than flattering comparables for Alfredsson to the likes of guys who were 25th in scoring in their own generation... which I don't always understand. I've seen the Gretzky exception or the Gretzky and Lemieux exception, but not the Gretzky, Lemieux and 25 other guys who could score during an inflated era.
Alfredsson is going to be inducted, probably pretty soon and maybe even as the marquee in a slim 2019.
To me, both of those guys were in from the moment they retired.
Alfredsson because he was the best player on a team with a number of eventual HoFers and players with HoF potential, and had consistently strong offensive performances among his generation of players, and Elias because he put up similar numbers and was the best forward on a dynasty team for most of his career.
The HHOF is going to have a tough time assessing the production of guys who spent the majority of their careers in the dead-puck era unless they take context into account.
I figure you've got generational players, franchise players, elite players (not as good or not as long) and good players. People on this board generally don't mind the first two, but the 3rd one creates uneasiness and the 4th; riots in the streets. Dave Andreychuk was a good player, nothing more at any point in his career. It's almost like the HHOF has been so blinded by the 1980's stats that they also think there was a Gretzky, Lemieux and 20 other guys exception to 1980's greatness.
Meanwhile, goalies who were undoubtedly beneficiaries of that era end up as all-time best goalies. Don't get me wrong, I think Hasek, Roy and Brodeur are pretty close to 1,2,3 (Sawchuk, Brimsek, Plante etc. notwithstanding), but they also put up their best numbers at around the same time which I happen to think can't be a complete coincidence.
This is true, but their careers stretched across a 30 year span. Also, while the midway point in NHL history is 1967; the midpoint for NHL teams (teams per season) occurred in 1991. I think that the underrated era bonus they get buoying their claim for top spots is that goalies started playing a lot during their careers. Long seasons and the virtual elimination of tandem situations mean that most the top goalies IN GP played in the past 25-30 years.
Was Larry Murphy ever the best player on his team? Ciccarelli? Housley? Andreychuk? Marleau? Gartner? Recchi? Rick Middleton?
Axe to grind moment...
I mentioned some unflattering Alfredsson comparables and the general inability of people to put 1980-95 scoring stats into context.
Meet 3 of these comparables used at times (the last number is weighted NHL GPG):
* weighted NHL GPG (season pts multiplied by season GPG, every season added up, total divided by raw point total)
Propp - 1016-425-579-1004, 0.99 ppg / 3.76
Larmer - 1006-441-571-1012, 1.01 ppg / 3.68
Middleton - 1005-448-540-988, 0.98 ppg / 3.71
They basically scored 1,000 points in a 1,000 games in the 1980's.
1009-379-621-1000, 0.99 ppg / 2.82 <-- this is Alfredsson's 1,000th point line. A 1,000 points in a 1,000 games, most of which through the Deadpuck Era.
Kariya = 989-402-587-989, 1.00 / 2.83
Sure, it penalizes players on strong teams but they should be getting in on their numbers in that case.
I see these guys as complementary players, and when I see franchise players sitting on the sidelines, it really makes me wonder what is going through some people's minds.
I agree with you, but to expand:
Malkin is a franchise player despite playing behind Crosby.
Roenick was arguably a franchise player despite moving around, though clearly less than Malkin.
Doan was never a franchise player despite generally being the best player on a team that he never left.
In his career, John LeClair was a first team All Star twice and a second team All Star twice. His selection wouldn't bother me.
He has an elite 5 1/2 year period with a generational talent and basically nothing else. It's possible that 'how good Lindros made Leclair look' was a strong selling point during the Lindros induction vote.
