John Flyers Fan
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I would induct Ed Belfour over any of them but Makarov.
Ed Belfour would be a lock to be first ballot if he was a "good citizen."
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
I think I have to agree with TDMM on this one. Check out Belfour's Vezina, All-Star, and SV% records...
Vezina: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 7, 7, 7
All-Star: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 5, 7, 8
SV%: 1, 1, 3, 5, 8, 10
It's always tough to compare skaters and goalies, but can Gilmour, Oates, and Howe really top this? Belfour had some bad playoff years, but he also had some great ones. For those that think otherwise, what is it that is putting those guys over him?
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
To add to what you said, Belfour accomplished all that playing in probably the toughest era for goaltending ever - both his Vezinas were over prime Patrick Roy, his 2nd place finish was to prime Dominik Hasek. He also faced pre-prime but still excellent Martin Brodeur, among others.
Also, if you are statistically inclined, I have read that Belfour has one of the best playoff peaks of all time in terms of GVT. That certainly fits with what I remember of him in Dallas.
Here are some more fun stats from my Ed Belfour profile in one of the old ATDs:
Disagree on Vachon. Does he have anything that separates him from present-day Roberto Luongo?
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I agree with this.
I would personally also induct Eric Lindros and Pavel Bure over Adam Oates - they were much more famous in their time and much bigger impact players when on the ice. But given the Hall's standards of looking at career accumulative numbers, Oates is well ahead of them. (All 3 men should be inducted sooner rather than later and it's a joke that Ciccarelli got in ahead of them).
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
3 Stanley Cups. 1 as backup, 1 while playing a few games. But he played the majority of the games in the 1969 playoffs and was lights out.
Vachon was also the starter in the 1977 Canada Cup and is credited with playing amazing hockey.
Basically, Luongo's weakness (play in clutch situations) is Vachon's strength. Luongo did win the past Olympics, but nobody can really say goaltending was a strength for Canada in 2010.
I still wouldn't have Vachon as the biggest snub, but he's definitely one of the best goalies not to be inducted.
Oates, Gilmour, Bure, Makarov, Lindros and Howe all are very deserving to go in but not sure if the NHL will ever elect more than 4 guys again.
Frankly I'm surprised that Makarov isn't in already as Fetisov and Larinov are both in.
not sure if the Hall will go back and induct him or Howe, if I was a betting man I would say highly unlikely.
The 3 goalies listed are tough borderline calls.
Edit, this was my gut feeling but when I looked at it deeper Beflour was probably the 4th best goalie during his playing career behind sure HHOF's Roy, Hasek and Broduer and he was very comparable to them.
Vernon and Barraso are never getting into the Hall IMO.
There are 35 goalies in the Hall and all 3 are better than some but not sure if any of the 3 are as good as the average standard for goalies.
Goalies are the toughest to judge because they rely on team success to stand out most of the time, Hasek being the most obvious exception to this.
With Broduer and Hasek going in the Hall within the next 10 years, I'm not sure if any of these guys will make it in.
I don't think that Nilsson will ever get in but if you add up his WHA, NHL and International career it makes for a pretty strong case but in the end he isn't seen as a winner and I think the HHOF committee is going to weigh his NHL time heavily and not really look at the other stuff.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Fetisov and Larionov both had long and productive careers in the NHL. I don't think it's a good reason that they would be in, and Makarov is not, but I think it is why.
I really don't see how Belfour is a borderline call. Top 15-20 goalie of all time in my opinion and the opinions of many others. Great regular season peak, great playoff peak, very good longevity and career numbers.
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
He's overshadowed by Roy, Hasek, and Brodeur in his own era. Seriously, the man would have at least 3 and probably 4 Vezinas if it wasn't for those 4.
I really don't see what makes Frank Brimsek or Johnny Bower better than Belfour.
2nd point I will deal with 1st.
That was my guy feeling on the 3 guys but when I looked at it deeper and gave it some thought it was pretty clear that Belfour is getting in (see my edit above).
Your 1st point I agree with although we see Fetisov (in terms of being productive in the NHL) on different terms.
He had a long NHL career but it was not as productive as one would expect form a guy considered one of the top 5-15 Dmen of all time.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,271
- 2,807
I think so too, and I wonder why. Belfour has an excellent statistical resume, no matter what stats you prefer. He has the Vezina trophies, the Stanley Cup. He was a star player in major markets.
What does a goalie have to do to be considered a slam-dunk HHOFer that Belfour doesn't have? A Conn Smythe? Winning a major international tournament as a starting goalie?
Claude Provost is one guy that really sticks out in the 1st 11 guys in that he doesn't belong with that group.
As I recall being on a Cup team really helps in this monitor (which is actually a pretty good predictor of guys getting into the hall usually) butt he only reason he ranks this high is because he is the player with the most Cups not in the Hall right now.
I think there is a really good argument that the last guy on your list John Tonelli is more hall worthy than Provost but that's for another day.
I think Eddie Belfour's a lock for the first ballot. I'm not a big Belfour fan, but there's little doubt in my mind that he's in that 18-24 list all-time for goalies.
The only thing that'll hold him back is demeanour. He wasn't personality of the year material. He's wasn't King Clancy material. But when you look at it, in the 14 years from his sensational rookie year in 1990-91 until his last strong year in 2003-04, you have a guy who was twice named the best goalie in the league (by the GMs, not the media), had a second-team all-star finish (granted, in a short season), and was, at worst, a top five goalie in the game most years. And here's the kicker: he was the missing piece for Dallas. Once he arrived in Dallas, the complexion of that team changed. With Belfour, they won a Cup, lost a Cup final (Eddie was, for my money, their MVP in 2000), and they lost to Detroit in the conference final in 98 in what was, essentially, the real Stanley Cup final.
There are warts, which will keep him out of the top 20 on a lot of lists. His first few playoffs weren't overwhelming. Even in 1991-92, he wasn't exactly terrific. His departures from Chicago and Dallas were difficult, he was a bust in San Jose and he had an incident late in his career. But there's more than enough on the resume to get him in on the first ballot.
As for the others, Makarov doesn't have a shot. If he was going in, he would have gone in a few years ago with Larionov. Howe doesn't have a shot. If he was going in, he would have gone in during one of the other weak years. Lindros has a big hurdle to clear: if there are more than four people who look at the negatives associated with Eric Lindros, he's screwed. While the small size of the HHOF selection committee will lend itself to some dubious selections, it can also keep players to the outside if you get a few voters who have a serious problem with a player. Lindros is a really polarizing guy; some will look at how he played from 1995 to 1998-99, and all that he brought to a team. Others will look at the Quebec problem, and his play after 1998-99, and the baggage, and snub him. Polarizing guys have a hard time getting in.
I hope Gilmour and Oates get in. They should have gone in before. It's time. Both guys were tremendous, two-way playmaking centres who made the players around them better. At the same time, both have issues, especially when it comes to their respective departures from St. Louis - Gilmour for off-ice issues, Oates for contract reasons. (Oates had the best job in hockey - playing with Brett Hull - before he forced a trade in 1992). And people will have long memories about his disastrous tenure in Philly, and his collapses in the 2001 and the 2002 playoffs.
Gilmour should have absolutely been a first-ballot guy in 2006 - one of the best competitors of his generation, a guy who was a gifted playmaker, a defensive force, a gifted leader and a physical factor who loathed losing. And Gilmour was magnificent in the post-season. Obviously Oates wasn't going to get in on his first ballot, up against Messier, Francis, Stevens and MacInnis. And he wasn't going to get inducted in 2009. But there were opportunities in 2008 and 2010. Time to right the wrongs, and induct both players.
If you can put up 1,400 career points, playing the way Oates did, and certainly playing the way Gilmour did, then you should be in the HHOF.
Joe Nieuwendyk will get in eventually. Not sold on it happening this year, and it shouldn't happen before Oates or especially Gilmour, but it's possible. Hockey people gush when they talk about this guy. The majority of the HHOF selection committee is made up of players, coaches and executives, and they really put a premium on a guy like Nieuwendyk, more than I think we realize. I don't think he's a defining guy for his generation, but he's certainly a guy who helped establish the template for centres in the current NHL - a pivot with really good size, a strong two-way presence, excellent ability in the face-off circle, but most importantly, he was a centre who was more feared as a goal-scorer than a playmaker. There weren't a lot of elite centres for much of his career with that kind of a goal-scorer's mentality, but now, they're a growing number. And he won Cups with three different teams.
I'm pulling for Theo Fleury to get in. We'll see how people view him now that certain truths about Theo have been revealed. But he was a magnificent hockey player, a guy who was a tremendous playoff performer, and every executive, scout and coach is looking for the next Fleury - the ultra-competitive, pint-sized dynamo who's aggressive, fearless, physical and capable of changing the complexion of a game.
The only thing that'll hold him back is demeanour. He wasn't personality of the year material. He's wasn't King Clancy material. But when you look at it, in the 14 years from his sensational rookie year in 1990-91 until his last strong year in 2003-04, you have a guy who was twice named the best goalie in the league (by the GMs, not the media), had a second-team all-star finish (granted, in a short season), and was, at worst, a top five goalie in the game most years. And here's the kicker: he was the missing piece for Dallas. Once he arrived in Dallas, the complexion of that team changed. With Belfour, they won a Cup, lost a Cup final (Eddie was, for my money, their MVP in 2000), and they lost to Detroit in the conference final in 98 in what was, essentially, the real Stanley Cup final.
There are warts, which will keep him out of the top 20 on a lot of lists. His first few playoffs weren't overwhelming. Even in 1991-92, he wasn't exactly terrific. His departures from Chicago and Dallas were difficult, he was a bust in San Jose and he had an incident late in his career. But there's more than enough on the resume to get him in on the first ballot.
As for the others, Makarov doesn't have a shot. If he was going in, he would have gone in a few years ago with Larionov. Howe doesn't have a shot. If he was going in, he would have gone in during one of the other weak years. Lindros has a big hurdle to clear: if there are more than four people who look at the negatives associated with Eric Lindros, he's screwed. While the small size of the HHOF selection committee will lend itself to some dubious selections, it can also keep players to the outside if you get a few voters who have a serious problem with a player. Lindros is a really polarizing guy; some will look at how he played from 1995 to 1998-99, and all that he brought to a team. Others will look at the Quebec problem, and his play after 1998-99, and the baggage, and snub him. Polarizing guys have a hard time getting in.
I hope Gilmour and Oates get in. They should have gone in before. It's time. Both guys were tremendous, two-way playmaking centres who made the players around them better. At the same time, both have issues, especially when it comes to their respective departures from St. Louis - Gilmour for off-ice issues, Oates for contract reasons. (Oates had the best job in hockey - playing with Brett Hull - before he forced a trade in 1992). And people will have long memories about his disastrous tenure in Philly, and his collapses in the 2001 and the 2002 playoffs.
Gilmour should have absolutely been a first-ballot guy in 2006 - one of the best competitors of his generation, a guy who was a gifted playmaker, a defensive force, a gifted leader and a physical factor who loathed losing. And Gilmour was magnificent in the post-season. Obviously Oates wasn't going to get in on his first ballot, up against Messier, Francis, Stevens and MacInnis. And he wasn't going to get inducted in 2009. But there were opportunities in 2008 and 2010. Time to right the wrongs, and induct both players.
If you can put up 1,400 career points, playing the way Oates did, and certainly playing the way Gilmour did, then you should be in the HHOF.
Joe Nieuwendyk will get in eventually. Not sold on it happening this year, and it shouldn't happen before Oates or especially Gilmour, but it's possible. Hockey people gush when they talk about this guy. The majority of the HHOF selection committee is made up of players, coaches and executives, and they really put a premium on a guy like Nieuwendyk, more than I think we realize. I don't think he's a defining guy for his generation, but he's certainly a guy who helped establish the template for centres in the current NHL - a pivot with really good size, a strong two-way presence, excellent ability in the face-off circle, but most importantly, he was a centre who was more feared as a goal-scorer than a playmaker. There weren't a lot of elite centres for much of his career with that kind of a goal-scorer's mentality, but now, they're a growing number. And he won Cups with three different teams.
I'm pulling for Theo Fleury to get in. We'll see how people view him now that certain truths about Theo have been revealed. But he was a magnificent hockey player, a guy who was a tremendous playoff performer, and every executive, scout and coach is looking for the next Fleury - the ultra-competitive, pint-sized dynamo who's aggressive, fearless, physical and capable of changing the complexion of a game.
Last edited:
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,076
- 12,730
Makarov, Lindros, Belfour, Howe
Makarov is clearly long overdue. Lindros was possibly the best player in the world for a time and had a few years where he was at least in the conversation. I agree with the general sentiment in this thread regarding Belfour. Howe is overdue much like Makarov, but his exclusion is not as egregious.
Makarov is clearly long overdue. Lindros was possibly the best player in the world for a time and had a few years where he was at least in the conversation. I agree with the general sentiment in this thread regarding Belfour. Howe is overdue much like Makarov, but his exclusion is not as egregious.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I believe pnep's list takes into account retroactive awards, and Provost has quite a few Retro Selke trophies to his name.
pnep
Registered User
Even with the 4 retro Selke's his name really sticks out in the 1st group of 11.
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
Richter and Barrasso are basically the same age. Barrasso declined the 1991 Canada Cup, where Richter was outstanding. Barrasso was passed over for the 1996 starting job, as well as 1998 and 2002.
It's not like Barrasso's incomplete international resume was a result of bad luck or bad timing.
As far as the postseason, Richter has small blemishes (1995 ECSF and 1996 ECSF), but in essence the Flyers and Pens, respectively, were superior teams to the Rangers.
Barrasso, OTOH, was directly responsible for two major Pens collapses against inferior teams -- the 1993 Patrick Finals and the 1996 ECF, when he single-handedly cost the Pens a 3-2 series lead.
I won't take the two Cups away from Barrasso - he was excellent, but in all honesty, I think it's pretty obvious who benefited from playing on stacked teams for the majority of his career.
IMO, neither of them are Hall of Famers.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Is this an endorsement of Nieuwendyk, or are you just saying you think he will get in?
For allowing an OT goal in 1993? No, it wasn't a great goal, but come on... 6 guys on the ice.
And MS summed up pretty well a month back that Barrasso had a great series against Florida in '96.
Come on, do I need to laundry list the names that Richter played with for extended periods?
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
Nieuwendyk will get in because of the "good guy" factor just like Neely. It's a joke that likability is big reason why you do or don't get into the HHoF.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Just realized that Belfour is actually eligible this year. I thought he played longer in Europe but was done in 2008.
In all honesty Belfour is a lock for the HHOF. He is below Roy, Hasek and Brodeur, but that's hardly an insult. On the flip side he is clearly better than either one of Barrasso, Vernon, Richter, Vanbiesbrouck, Joseph and especially Osgood. I don't think he'll get in in 2011 mainly because he was a jerk and the whole hotel incident for headlocking a security guard and all that (still the funniest off ice incident not involving Patrick Kane that I have heard of). So I think they'll make him wait an extra year much like the way Baseball has done for Roberto Alomar who is now getting in.
Other than that not to beat a dead horse but I have to wonder how they can keep out the obvious ones like Gilmour and Oates unless they rubbed someone the wrong way. Gilmour had an accusation - and I meant that word literally - about 25 years ago in an off ice incident and I think that keeps him out to this day. Oates on the other hand, I have no idea.
I've given up on assuming Vachon can get in though.
And lastly this Nieuwendyk peanut gallery has got to stop. I saw his whole career. There is no evidence of a HHOFer in his career. This is a guy who was a career 2nd line center and not on a dynasty either. This has to stop this attitude that he's a "lock". Eventually people will start believing it
In all honesty Belfour is a lock for the HHOF. He is below Roy, Hasek and Brodeur, but that's hardly an insult. On the flip side he is clearly better than either one of Barrasso, Vernon, Richter, Vanbiesbrouck, Joseph and especially Osgood. I don't think he'll get in in 2011 mainly because he was a jerk and the whole hotel incident for headlocking a security guard and all that (still the funniest off ice incident not involving Patrick Kane that I have heard of). So I think they'll make him wait an extra year much like the way Baseball has done for Roberto Alomar who is now getting in.
Other than that not to beat a dead horse but I have to wonder how they can keep out the obvious ones like Gilmour and Oates unless they rubbed someone the wrong way. Gilmour had an accusation - and I meant that word literally - about 25 years ago in an off ice incident and I think that keeps him out to this day. Oates on the other hand, I have no idea.
I've given up on assuming Vachon can get in though.
And lastly this Nieuwendyk peanut gallery has got to stop. I saw his whole career. There is no evidence of a HHOFer in his career. This is a guy who was a career 2nd line center and not on a dynasty either. This has to stop this attitude that he's a "lock". Eventually people will start believing it
DaveG
Noted Jerk
Eddie's a lock, but IMO he's the only first-time eligible that should get it.
Howe and Makarov both deserve to be there already, highly doubt either gets in this time though. I have zero faith in the selection committee to make the right call.
Oates and Gilmour are the two that are still out there where it's confusing that they're not in. As mentioned, there's nothing proven about the allegations against Gilmour, but that's one of the big things that's keeping him out? I have yet to hear any kind of legitimate argument against him getting in, while there are a plethora of them for him being there. So what's the hold up?
Oates I don't even I rate nearly as highly as I do Gilmour, and it's still prettymuch a no-brainer that he should be there. He was one of the best playmakers in an era that wasn't exactly lacking for talent in that regard. He was a faceoff machine, arguably one of the best in NHL history. He still produced at a pretty high level come playoff time. And while his defense wasn't on the same level as a Francis or a Gilmour, it's not like he was completely lacking in that regard either. Given his point totals and his skill set what's not to like?
Of course, given the selections last year and the failure of any of the ones I listed to make it in 08, I don't have much faith in the voters to not screw it up yet again. Any potential Dick Duff's out there to keep these guys out yet again?
Howe and Makarov both deserve to be there already, highly doubt either gets in this time though. I have zero faith in the selection committee to make the right call.
Oates and Gilmour are the two that are still out there where it's confusing that they're not in. As mentioned, there's nothing proven about the allegations against Gilmour, but that's one of the big things that's keeping him out? I have yet to hear any kind of legitimate argument against him getting in, while there are a plethora of them for him being there. So what's the hold up?
Oates I don't even I rate nearly as highly as I do Gilmour, and it's still prettymuch a no-brainer that he should be there. He was one of the best playmakers in an era that wasn't exactly lacking for talent in that regard. He was a faceoff machine, arguably one of the best in NHL history. He still produced at a pretty high level come playoff time. And while his defense wasn't on the same level as a Francis or a Gilmour, it's not like he was completely lacking in that regard either. Given his point totals and his skill set what's not to like?
Of course, given the selections last year and the failure of any of the ones I listed to make it in 08, I don't have much faith in the voters to not screw it up yet again. Any potential Dick Duff's out there to keep these guys out yet again?
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
NHL 2023-2024 Out of Town: Stanley Cup Playoffs - Sabres bring back Lindy Ruff as HC- Latest: Donnie Shulzhoffer
Upcoming events
-
Tappara Tampere @ Pelicans Lahti - Tappara leads series 2-1Wagers: 3Staked: $134.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Eisbaren Berlin @ Pinguins Bremerhaven - Eisbaren Berlin leads series 3-1Wagers: 3Staked: $95.00Event closes- Updated:
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Bewitch Stakes (Gr. 3) - KEENELAND RACE 8Wagers: 6Staked: $2,300.00Event closes- Updated:
-
