Hockey Hall Of Fame 2015 Inductees (who should be in)

[The Panther]

To be honest if Glenn Anderson plays on the North Stars and not the Oilers he doesn't make the HHOF. He's one player who as really influenced by his team.

That's probably true, but so what? He played for the Oilers, not the North Stars.

I don't really understand this line of thinking. Dave Semenko, Dave Lumley, and Ken Solheim also played for the Oilers in the 80s. They weren't major contributors to 5 Stanley Cups. Anderson was. Speculating on what a player might have done for another franchise is irrelevant.

Everyone who watched hockey watched Anderson scoring big goals and making big plays in the Stanley Cup Finals, regularly, for, like, 11 years. It's not like he was sitting on the sidelines, watching other Hall of Famers do the dirty work. The Oilers wouldn't have won the 1987 or 1990 Stanley Cup Finals without him. He was leading the charge to Stanley Cups. This matters.

 

[Epsilon]

See BM67's post up the page. It has an informative excerpt outlined.

And you must have been on vacation every time the worst HOFers thread makes its annual appearance in these parts. The Duff induction is collectively seen as the worst ever and is defended by almost nobody. Gillies is usually the next name mentioned.

Boivin was the worst. I don't agree with the inductions of secondary players on dynasties, but I do understand the rationale. Boivin didn't win anything and was not a great player. It would be like inducting Adam Foote but in an alternate universe where he played for the Capitals rather than the Avs.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Both of these inductions are much worse than Housley one would think.

Gillies was a prominent secondary player on a dynasty, and the third member of a famous line. There was some precedent for electing him, and there are several comparable players enshrined. Housley's induction was worse IMO, given the precedent for defensemen. But there's room for debate.

You'll get no argument from me on Duff. A ridiculous selection. Petr Sykora is probably his modern comparable.

Upthread a poster had Housley scoring finishes among Dmen.

Here it is again,



Those finishes are equaled by a handfull of Dmen in the entire history of the NHL.

All those other d-men actually could play defense though, even Coffey. If you're getting elected entirely because of your offense, and in spite of your dreadful defensive play, you should probably be better than 5th-best in your era at offense. If you're going to let Housley in on this basis, why not let pure defensive blueliners who were only approximately 5th best of their era purely at defense get in then? Derian Hatcher would seem to have just as strong a HOF case as the anti-Housley.

That and being the first American high school player to have his kind of impact in the NHL are the main reasons he is in the HHOF.

It shouldn't be the case, but you're quite right that Housley's American status likely played a prominent role. "Highest scoring American defenseman" were the first words out of John Davidson's mouth during the announcement as I recall.

Some of the earlier arguments and comps up thread are downright embarrassing.

Jan Erixon?

Housley has more top 10 Dman scoring finishes than Jan does NHL seasons (most of his being partial seasons to boot).

There have been some absurd comparisons in this thread, absolutely.

But it doesn't take away from the fact that Housley is a downright lousy induction based on the way defensemen have been judged. JC Tremblay isn't in. Nor are Doug Wilson or Sergei Zubov. And neither are any of the polar opposite but equally valuable defensive guys like Kevin Lowe, Brad McCrimmon, Adam Foote, or Derian Hatcher. These are Housley's peers. For a decade the HOF was content to leave him amongst them on the outside, and suddenly out of left field he gets in. The door is now open to a boatload of guys who weren't previously considered serious candidates, including active guys in Gonchar and Dan Boyle.

 

[tempofound]

The only numbers I've seen are Here

"Set Buffalo single-season record (since broken) for goals by a defenseman with 24 in 1983-84. ... Often played forward during early years in Buffalo. He had 13 points at forward in 1983-84, 37 points at forward in 1984-85, and 18 points at forward in 1985-86. ... Played one game at left wing for Washington in 1996-97."

So that would be 7 of his 31 goals and 13 of his 77 points in 1983-84 at forward, 37 of his 69 points in 1984-85, and 18 of his 62 points in 1985-86. So 68 of his 1232 points as a forward in probably a little less than a seasons worth of games.

Wow, thank you for that! I don't think those numbers are 100% correct though since this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-chance/3abee9ce-ba5f-47ae-8c95-3a04fb8b3978/

has him playing at least two games at forward in 97, not just one. Any way it seems to have been seldom enough to not really matter.

 

[sr edler]

It needs to be pointed out that Housley's point production dropped drastically after he broke his finger in March of 1998, and this was the main cause for his reduced ice time in Washington's playoff run.

Good for WSH he broke his finger then, because otherwise he probably could have stolen some valuable PP time from Gonchar.

Jack Johnson is probably the best equivalent of Housley in the game today. Johnson doesn't have the offensive RS numbers Housley had, even adjusted for era, but he's got some decent numbers and 19 points in 18 playoff games at least. Both Housley & Johnson are in the addition by subtraction category of players. Kings wouldn't have smothered the playoffs in 12 with Johnson playing big minutes instead of Willie Mitchell or Voynov. WSH probably wouldn't have reached the SCF in 98 if Housley did the same.

A defenseman needs to be able to play defense, especially on one of the top pairs! A forward who's a liability you can hide on the third or fourth line and shelter. You can't really shelter a prime Phil Housley, except not playing him very much on the PK. Or at least you shouldn't have to. Housley wasn't Trevor van Riemsdyk.

 

[Sens Rule]

With the last selection it´s obvious that we will see Andreychuk and Turgeon in the hall at one point.

Is there any public topic in newspaper where some hockey columnists doubt the decisions made by HOF comittee?
Is there any public pressure on them to defend their opinions (and voting) publicly?

To me the biggest debate is who is NOT in... And always has been the last 10-15 years. No Mark Howe. No Lindros, no Makarov. Shanahan, Gilmour and others waiting a year or more.

Since that is moreso the debate... Then who got in... At least it seems so to me... The HHOF has to be doing something right and not letting every Tom, Dick and Harry in. You could argue Duff, Anderson, Ciccarelli and now Housley were more debatable the other way... Still I think the bigger media debate is who didn't get in.

 

[Big Phil]

He wasn't a typical Defenceman. He is +876 goals for and against overall. That is similar to the very best of his era. Both forwards and defencemen. And mostly Housley played on
Worse teams (and he didn't PK or face tough defensive assignments too... Important point)

Well that's the thing with looking just at the total goals for and total goals against. It looks a little shinier when you factor in the fact he didn't have power play goals scored against him since he barely killed penalties.

Blake's difference in total goals for and total goals against is +229. I am not a huge advocate for plus/minus but I think it is better than using just total goals.

For example, Paul Coffey has a difference in +973 totals goals for and against. Yet he killed penalties far more than Housley did.

Bourque was on the ice for +1113 more goals than against. This included tons of power play goals against, because like any star defenseman, he killed penalties, more than Coffey who did it far more often than Housley.

So there has to be some context when it comes down to it. Coaches barely trusted Housley on the penalty kill. Yet he is in the HHOF. He's sort of like Mike Green this way, who is also barely a penalty killer. Erik Karlsson a bit better, but still not like the other modern defensemen like Keith, Doughty, Weber, etc.

That's what is part of the problem with Housley, his numbers gloss over a lot of things. Why did barely any coaches trust him on the penalty kill over 21 years?

 

[Big Phil]

okay so i don't like housley in the HHOF one bit.

however, as someone who advocates for gartner, big phil, how can you say well 700 is 700 and then not also hold the door open for housley? housley was much much better at his one thing than gartner was, even if gartner could do more other things.

I think for starters as a defenseman there is less forgiveness for being poor defensively. I wouldn't call Gartner poor defensively. Not great, but alright. Good enough that Mike Keenan saw fit to have him shadow the KLM line in the 1987 Canada Cup. No one calls Gartner "terrible" defensively. Gartner did have year in and year out steadiness. He had a record of 30 goals in 15 straight seasons, plus two more afterwards. In fact, in those years it was never less than 33. That's a 35 goal season you can count on from the get go. 700 is also a bit of a benchmark hard to ignore. Housley might have that too with 1200 points until we realize that a few of those were when he played forward (let's even say it was 150 points over his career) and he was a liability without the puck. That factors into it.

With the last selection it´s obvious that we will see Andreychuk and Turgeon in the hall at one point.

Is there any public topic in newspaper where some hockey columnists doubt the decisions made by HOF comittee?
Is there any public pressure on them to defend their opinions (and voting) publicly?

I remember Colin Campbell specifically writing an article in the Hockey News in 2006 explaining away the Dick Duff selection. Something is wrong when you have to do this. That shouldn't be. Although I'd love to be a fly on the wall to have heard the Housley stuff. My guess is that with Pat Quinn gone it might have influenced it a bit. I have no first hand knowledge but I would speculate that if there was anyone who knew about Housley's defensive deficiencies it would be him. In fact, he would have been trying to exploit them time and time again I would assume as coach of the Canucks. Maybe Quinn was the voice of reason up until now.

I never said they didn't do things other than offense. I said d-men actually separated themselves from the pack back then, as opposed to now. (mod)

I think defensemen today certainly can separate themselves from the pack. What would you say, there are half a dozen noticeably ahead of the rest of the field?

Keith, Karlsson, Doughty, Weber..........maybe Subban.

There were easily a half dozen ahead of Housley back in his day. Sort of like there are at least that many ahead of someone like Letang today.

To be honest if Glenn Anderson plays on the North Stars and not the Oilers he doesn't make the HHOF. He's one player who as really influenced by his team.

But he played for the Oilers and that's how it panned out. It would be interesting to see how the Oilers do without that extra depth and well known clutch scoring without Anderson. Honestly, his regular season is still pretty good, but it is his playoff record that puts him over the top. Why do people have an issue with this? Do people remember him in the playoffs? Or even a quick glance at his stats is enough to make you realize he wasn't a chump. It isn't unusual for the 5th best player from a dynasty to get in, in fact it is unusual for it NOT to happen.

 

[Johnny Engine]

okay so i don't like housley in the HHOF one bit.

however, as someone who advocates for gartner, big phil, how can you say well 700 is 700 and then not also hold the door open for housley? housley was much much better at his one thing than gartner was, even if gartner could do more other things.

Timing is part of it. I don't disagree with what the committee did when Gartner came up for induction. They inducted the 5th highest scoring player in history, a guy who didn't have any major strikes against him (you can argue the overall merit of being a scoring-race tortoise like Gartner*, but you can't dispute that Housley was bad at most aspects of his job.) Now, as guys like Francis, Messier, Hull, etc. wound up their careers and clogged up the leaderboards with 80s players, the shine wore off Gartner's legacy quite a bit, but nobody knew they'd all play until 40 back then.

Housley has had the same reputation every year since he retired, but they decided that this was the year to put his name in lights. There's no explaining that.

* As in the Tortoise and the Hare. Not calling Gartner slow.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

these are his rankings for scoring among defensemen, from year one to year twenty-one:

9, 4, 5, 13, 5, 6, 6, 6, 4, 5, 2, 1, 77 (11th in PPG), 2, 5, 18, 37, 6, 4, 26, 17, 41

I stated earlier in the thread that I think Housley was a poor induction to the HOF, but this line of reasoning is the only one I can think of that's somewhat legitimate.

(The "1,200 points" argument isn't a good one because it's largely due to era. Adjusted for era, using whatever method one favours, Zubov and Gonchar are within 20% of Housley's career totals. Zubov has a somewhat better Norris record and is clearly better in the playoffs, and Gonchar has a much better Norris record and is somewhat better in the playoffs. I'd argue both have other advantages that eliminate this difference).

The only somewhat legitimate argument for Housley is that his offense (basically high level longevity - the ability to play at a high level for an extended period of time) is excellent:

Years in top five in scoring among defensemen (1968-2015)

Player|Seasons
Raymond Bourque | 16
Paul Coffey | 13
Nicklas Lidstrom | 11
Phil Housley | 10
Brian Leetch | 10
Al MacInnis | 9
Denis Potvin | 8
Bobby Orr | 7
Sergei Gonchar | 6
Larry Robinson | 5
Guy Lapointe | 5
Larry Murphy | 5

Years in top ten in scoring among defensemen (1968-2015)

Player|Seasons
Raymond Bourque | 19
Al MacInnis | 15
Paul Coffey | 15
Nicklas Lidstrom | 14
Phil Housley | 14
Larry Murphy | 12
Brian Leetch | 12
Brad Park | 11
Denis Potvin | 10
Sergei Gonchar | 9

Every defenseman listed aside from Gonchar is in the Hall - and Gonchar is 4 & 5 top-five and top-ten seasons behind Housley, respectively.

Still, out of all the defensemen I've listed, Housley is by far the worst in terms of Norris/all-star consideration. He's the worst defensively (arguably `by far`). He had by far the worst team success in the playoffs (and was probably the worst playoff performer from an individual standpoint too).

Basically, one can argue that Housley should be in the HOF based solely on one narrow parameter while ignoring everything else.

 

[Voight]

My guess is that with Pat Quinn gone it might have influenced it a bit. I have no first hand knowledge but I would speculate that if there was anyone who knew about Housley's defensive deficiencies it would be him. In fact, he would have been trying to exploit them time and time again I would assume as coach of the Canucks. Maybe Quinn was the voice of reason up until now.

How does the voting work? Cause if they need 100% approval I can see this being the case, but if its 75% like Cooperstown then I don't know if that works. Still disappointed they didn't induct Recchi, especially with them choosing Housley over him.

 

[Big Phil]

Timing is part of it. I don't disagree with what the committee did when Gartner came up for induction. They inducted the 5th highest scoring player in history, a guy who didn't have any major strikes against him (you can argue the overall merit of being a scoring-race tortoise like Gartner*, but you can't dispute that Housley was bad at most aspects of his job.) Now, as guys like Francis, Messier, Hull, etc. wound up their careers and clogged up the leaderboards with 80s players, the shine wore off Gartner's legacy quite a bit, but nobody knew they'd all play until 40 back then.

Housley has had the same reputation every year since he retired, but they decided that this was the year to put his name in lights. There's no explaining that.

* As in the Tortoise and the Hare. Not calling Gartner slow.

This is true. No one fussed at all when Gartner was inducted. I can remember a quote from Paul Henderson when the Hockey News did that Top 50 players thing in early 1998. He said "How they left off Mike Gartner and his 700 goals, I'll never know." Now, Henderson was giving high praise there, maybe too high of praise, but it goes to show you the respect people had for Gartner's accomplishment and his endurance and longevity.

How does the voting work? Cause if they need 100% approval I can see this being the case, but if its 75% like Cooperstown then I don't know if that works. Still disappointed they didn't induct Recchi, especially with them choosing Housley over him.

I have always been told that there are 17 members in the committee. I believe they need 14 to vote in favour of it. That means there had to have been some opposition to Housley by someone. I said Quinn because he is no longer with us and no longer on the committee within the last year. Is it a coincidence that Housley is inducted a year after Quinn is gone and a year after a person who would have known full well how to exploit him (remember the playoff series Vancouver won against Winnipeg?). Maybe it is, and I for one do not know how Quinn voted on Housley, but it isn't as if his name never came up until now. I am sure they talked about him. Knowing Quinn though, it is a pretty accurate guess that he wouldn't have cared for him since Housley wasn't really a Quinn-type of guy.

 

[Sens Rule]

Everyone on the committee would know of Housley's being weak defensively reputation. Unless there are 20 year old HFers on the panel or something.

Obviously. They voted him in despite all of that.

Just like everyone knew his reputation when he got traded for Hawerchuk... When both were still youngish and still in their primes.. If past their peaks.

I think that actually hockey "people" recognize(d) Housley's unique abilities more then we do on the History board. Many of us demand near perfection and weigh flaws... Even big one's... In a much harsher way then do 14 of 17 on the committee have historically.

Implying that without Quinn around the committee didn't know Housley was not great defensively is silly. One guy on the committee can have a big influence on those selected and can help or hinder a selection. That is pretty likely. Quinn could have been responsible to a large degree in Housley waiting so long. Who knows? But surely quite possible. But to say the committee was just unaware that Housley was not great defensively is kinda ridiculous. Unless we consider the committee to be a bunch of noobs that know nothing... Which is silly because the committee is full of guys that have incredible many decades long experience within hockey.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Everyone on the committee would know of Housley's being weak defensively reputation. Unless there are 20 year old HFers on the panel or something.

Obviously. They voted him in despite all of that.

Just like everyone knew his reputation when he got traded for Hawerchuk... When both were still youngish and still in their primes.. If past their peaks.

I think that actually hockey "people" recognize(d) Housley's unique abilities more then we do on the History board. Many of us demand near perfection and weigh flaws... Even big one's... In a much harsher way then do 14 of 17 on the committee have historically.

Implying that without Quinn around the committee didn't know Housley was not great defensively is silly. One guy on the committee can have a big influence on those selected and can help or hinder a selection. That is pretty likely. Quinn could have been responsible to a large degree in Housley waiting so long. Who knows? But surely quite possible. But to say the committee was just unaware that Housley was not great defensively is kinda ridiculous. Unless we consider the committee to be a bunch of noobs that know nothing... Which is silly because the committee is full of guys that have incredible many decades long experience within hockey.

pretty much this and as mentioned he is in because of his offense, many players in the HHOF were far from complete or total players and the standard on this board and today for that matter is to micro analyze any new inductee against the best of the HHOF players not the average or totality of the HHOF.

The same thing goes on in baseball all of the time, any new inductees tend to be compared to the elite of their hall, not the entirety of it.

One has to winder what would happen if a guy like Babe Pratt came up before this board today and was inducted into the HHOF.

The outrage would be considerable considering the treatment Housley is getting here.

 

[begbeee]

You overrate their knowledge of the game highly.
Certainly they have insight, but their knowledge of the game can be sub-par and it should not surprise anyone.
I´m speaking really generally, but I don´t see average voter (AST or HOF) as a gauge of hockey knowledge.

 

[The Panther]

No Mark Howe. No Lindros, no Makarov. Shanahan, Gilmour and others waiting a year or more.

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding your point here, but Mark Howe is in the Hall of Fame.

 

[Big Phil]

Everyone on the committee would know of Housley's being weak defensively reputation. Unless there are 20 year old HFers on the panel or something.

Obviously. They voted him in despite all of that.

Just like everyone knew his reputation when he got traded for Hawerchuk... When both were still youngish and still in their primes.. If past their peaks.

I think that actually hockey "people" recognize(d) Housley's unique abilities more then we do on the History board. Many of us demand near perfection and weigh flaws... Even big one's... In a much harsher way then do 14 of 17 on the committee have historically.

Implying that without Quinn around the committee didn't know Housley was not great defensively is silly. One guy on the committee can have a big influence on those selected and can help or hinder a selection. That is pretty likely. Quinn could have been responsible to a large degree in Housley waiting so long. Who knows? But surely quite possible. But to say the committee was just unaware that Housley was not great defensively is kinda ridiculous. Unless we consider the committee to be a bunch of noobs that know nothing... Which is silly because the committee is full of guys that have incredible many decades long experience within hockey.

Alright, it is purely speculation on Quinn. I just said it because he would have known the way Housley played and was successful against his teams.

I'm just trying to piece together how someone with a reputation that Housley had can just change to the point where he is sharing the Hall with other members like that? No doubt everyone knew he was unique offensively. In fact it was valued. But time after time no coach wanted him on the ice in a penalty kill for crying out loud!

That has to strike people as odd doesn't it? This is a supposed HHOF defenseman and there is, let's say, 15% of the game that you make sure you never put him on the ice? Even Rod Langway got some power play time for comparison on the other side of the coin.

 

[Pominville Knows]

If Guy Carbonneau aint in, Housley should not be either. In fact Guy was probably better offensively than Housley was defensively, and probably better defensively than Housley was offensively as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If Guy Carbonneau aint in, Housley should not be either. In fact Guy was probably better offensively than Housley was defensively, and probably better defensively than Housley was offensively as well.

So it boils down to this argument for some but let's look at the facts here.

Housley has incredible, indeed all time elite offensive longevity, basically a top Dman scorer for 15 seasons. Goals and assist are rare events in hockey and can be quantified quite easily in how a player helps his team win or lose games.

Carbs is a great defensive forward who played on may teams with either other great defensive forwards or Dmen or goalies or some combination of the 3.

One can say that think or believe that Carbs defensive impact was greater than Housley on offense but the numbers actually back up Housley in that regard and it's not even close.

 

[Sens Rule]

You overrate their knowledge of the game highly.
Certainly they have insight, but their knowledge of the game can be sub-par and it should not surprise anyone.
I´m speaking really generally, but I don´t see average voter (AST or HOF) as a gauge of hockey knowledge.

See that is massive arrogance as a fan of hockey history. If we disagree with a panel of people that forgot more then we will ever know about hockey.... We disparage their knowledge. Like we know crap compiling stats and looking at corsi or something compared to guys that worked in hockey for 30-40 years.

Like there are a few lists of Scotty Bowman ranking a list of players floating around (somewhere on these boards). A few of his ratings seem to be significantly higher or lower then the general rankings on these boards. Also sometimes he seems to contradict himself....

And it is Scotty Freaking Bowman. Who in the entire world has more hockey knowledge over the last 50-55 years? In the world? His lists were criticized. Some questioned his knowledge.... If Bowman rares Fedorov 15th all time (making this up... Whatever as an example) the logical thing to do is not question Bowman's hockey knowledge. Or to immediately change your ranking of that player to coincide with his... It is to go wow! Bowman rates him that high? I wonder why. Is he better then I thought? Let's look more deeply at this... Is Bowman really high on defence? Playoff performance? Comsistency? Is it just because mostly he played for Bowman? Does Bowman really not care about stats much and instead value a Lemaire really highly.... Whatever. The correct thing is not to just say Bowman is ignorant and I or we on this board know better.

Some hockey guys do not even care all that much about awards or stats even. They are like... Cam Neely... He is a HHOFer... He doesn't care how many games he played.

Anyway I see it in all kinds of sports. Big time fans calling out the players, hockey guys... Like they know crap compared to the players.

You see it every year with the voting for the Pearson... Fans say players don't "know" enough about the players in the other conference. Or they don't watch other teams on TV enough... And I am like seriously?

I remember a poll of players from 2005/06 and actual short interviews. Alfresson said Ovechkin was the best player in the world... And that he voted Ovie for the Pearson... And I could imagine so many fans being... OMG... What an idiot Jagr/Thornton is better.. Doesn't Alfredsson look at the stats? He is biased against Thornton because he rarely sees him in the West.... Blah, blah...

I am not meaning to target you.. Heck I am even condemning myself for occasionally doing similar things.

 

[Sens Rule]

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding your point here, but Mark Howe is in the Hall of Fame.

I was saying the media debate over the last 10-15 years is more focused on who has not got elected yet over debate over who was selected.

 

[quoipourquoi]

See that is massive arrogance as a fan of hockey history. If we disagree with a panel of people that forgot more then we will ever know about hockey.... We disparage their knowledge. Like we know crap compiling stats and looking at corsi or something compared to guys that worked in hockey for 30-40 years.

Like there are a few lists of Scotty Bowman ranking a list of players floating around (somewhere on these boards). A few of his ratings seem to be significantly higher or lower then the general rankings on these boards. Also sometimes he seems to contradict himself....

And it is Scotty Freaking Bowman. Who in the entire world has more hockey knowledge over the last 50-55 years? In the world? His lists were criticized. Some questioned his knowledge.... If Bowman rares Fedorov 15th all time (making this up... Whatever as an example) the logical thing to do is not question Bowman's hockey knowledge. Or to immediately change your ranking of that player to coincide with his... It is to go wow! Bowman rates him that high? I wonder why. Is he better then I thought? Let's look more deeply at this... Is Bowman really high on defence? Playoff performance? Comsistency? Is it just because mostly he played for Bowman? Does Bowman really not care about stats much and instead value a Lemaire really highly.... Whatever. The correct thing is not to just say Bowman is ignorant and I or we on this board know better.

Some hockey guys do not even care all that much about awards or stats even. They are like... Cam Neely... He is a HHOFer... He doesn't care how many games he played.

Anyway I see it in all kinds of sports. Big time fans calling out the players, hockey guys... Like they know crap compared to the players.

You see it every year with the voting for the Pearson... Fans say players don't "know" enough about the players in the other conference. Or they don't watch other teams on TV enough... And I am like seriously?

I remember a poll of players from 2005/06 and actual short interviews. Alfresson said Ovechkin was the best player in the world... And that he voted Ovie for the Pearson... And I could imagine so many fans being... OMG... What an idiot Jagr/Thornton is better.. Doesn't Alfredsson look at the stats? He is biased against Thornton because he rarely sees him in the West.... Blah, blah...

I am not meaning to target you.. Heck I am even condemning myself for occasionally doing similar things.

Your head is in the right place, Sens Rule. There's some middle ground, for sure.


We're super-fans who have absorbed a lot of knowledge, and on the one hand, we want to believe that our sponge-like efforts have made us pretty valuable to the conversation of what is and is not in hockey, but on the other hand, we look at others who have made it further professionally in various aspects of the game and we don't want to vehemently disagree with them because of their stature.

The important thing to remember is that from Wayne Gretzky to Brad Bombardir to Scotty Bowman to Dallas Eakins to Don Cherry to Puck Daddy to Doctor No - we're all just regular guys and gals who are passionately right and wrong about things all of the time. None of us are batting 1.000 with our opinions vs. reality. I've been told that I'm a pretty competent person, but if you put me in a conversation about 2015 HOFer Nicklas Lidstrom, then I might as well be drooling out of the side of my mouth while I'm staring off into space and thinking about bears, because I'm ******* useless (he just pokes the puck away from people - give me a player who blocks shots or scores goals. Me a caveman. Me like goals.).


Whether it's a THN list, a HOH list, Daniel Alfredsson's opinion, or an induction into the HHOF - it's only worth the weight we give it. So the real lesson here is to be extra vocal about your individual opinions and to impose your will onto others because you are your own Master Blaster and this is your Thunderdome. Or we can have pride in what we believe while respecting those who may disagree rather than react as though the sky is falling, because someone might be wrong about Phil Housley (and maybe it's you).

 

[Big Phil]

I did see Housley's career. So I can comment on this accurately I think. When we watched him in his prime was there a sense of awe that we were witnessing a future HHOFer? Right now, we know we are with Keith. We are pretty sure we are with Doughty and Weber...........maybe Karlsson too. During Chara's prime you figured you were watching a HHOFer.

Then in Housley's day we all knew Coffey and Bourque were destined for the HHOF. Later on it was Housley, Leetch, Stevens and MacInnis. With all of these players you either would have inducted them after year 10 or knew full well they would get in by the end of their career. The other one is Murphy. He's a step down from that group but a step up from Housley. You could argue we knew we saw a HHOF career by the time he got to Detroit.

With Housley this isn't the case. If this is 1993, 11 years after his career started, you weren't calling him a HHOFer. You didn't necessarily think he was destined for the HHOF. There was lots missing with him. By the end of Housley's career you didn't really think that either. Watching him on Washington in 1998..........those Calgary years later on where he put up 55 or so points. Not bad, but it was Phil Housley, you thought. At a time when we were seeing truly impact defensemen make a difference (Pronger, Stevens, Lidstrom, even Blake to an extent).

 

[quoipourquoi]

I did see Housley's career. So I can comment on this accurately I think. When we watched him in his prime was there a sense of awe that we were witnessing a future HHOFer? Right now, we know we are with Keith. We are pretty sure we are with Doughty and Weber...........maybe Karlsson too. During Chara's prime you figured you were watching a HHOFer.

Then in Housley's day we all knew Coffey and Bourque were destined for the HHOF. Later on it was Housley, Leetch, Stevens and MacInnis. With all of these players you either would have inducted them after year 10 or knew full well they would get in by the end of their career. The other one is Murphy. He's a step down from that group but a step up from Housley. You could argue we knew we saw a HHOF career by the time he got to Detroit.

With Housley this isn't the case. If this is 1993, 11 years after his career started, you weren't calling him a HHOFer. You didn't necessarily think he was destined for the HHOF. There was lots missing with him. By the end of Housley's career you didn't really think that either. Watching him on Washington in 1998..........those Calgary years later on where he put up 55 or so points. Not bad, but it was Phil Housley, you thought. At a time when we were seeing truly impact defensemen make a difference (Pronger, Stevens, Lidstrom, even Blake to an extent).

You're using a lot of "we" and "you" when it would be better to use "I". If you could accurately speak for everyone who saw Phil Housley, then some of the other people who saw Phil Housley wouldn't have put him in the HOF, right?

I mean, in the very same post, you're saying that this nebulous "we" group is giving Karlsson a "maybe". I'm sure not part of that "we". I look at Karlsson, and I say "holy smokes, yes". Different people see things differently. I don't think you can accurately comment on Housley. I don't think any one individual person can (or even a group of 14-17). He's a very polarizing player.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I stated earlier in the thread that I think Housley was a poor induction to the HOF, but this line of reasoning is the only one I can think of that's somewhat legitimate.

(The "1,200 points" argument isn't a good one because it's largely due to era. Adjusted for era, using whatever method one favours, Zubov and Gonchar are within 20% of Housley's career totals. Zubov has a somewhat better Norris record and is clearly better in the playoffs, and Gonchar has a much better Norris record and is somewhat better in the playoffs. I'd argue both have other advantages that eliminate this difference).

The only somewhat legitimate argument for Housley is that his offense (basically high level longevity - the ability to play at a high level for an extended period of time) is excellent:

Years in top five in scoring among defensemen (1968-2015)

Player|Seasons
Raymond Bourque | 16
Paul Coffey | 13
Nicklas Lidstrom | 11
Phil Housley | 10
Brian Leetch | 10
Al MacInnis | 9
Denis Potvin | 8
Bobby Orr | 7
Sergei Gonchar | 6
Larry Robinson | 5
Guy Lapointe | 5
Larry Murphy | 5

Years in top ten in scoring among defensemen (1968-2015)

Player|Seasons
Raymond Bourque | 19
Al MacInnis | 15
Paul Coffey | 15
Nicklas Lidstrom | 14
Phil Housley | 14
Larry Murphy | 12
Brian Leetch | 12
Brad Park | 11
Denis Potvin | 10
Sergei Gonchar | 9

Every defenseman listed aside from Gonchar is in the Hall - and Gonchar is 4 & 5 top-five and top-ten seasons behind Housley, respectively.

Still, out of all the defensemen I've listed, Housley is by far the worst in terms of Norris/all-star consideration. He's the worst defensively (arguably `by far`). He had by far the worst team success in the playoffs (and was probably the worst playoff performer from an individual standpoint too).

Basically, one can argue that Housley should be in the HOF based solely on one narrow parameter while ignoring everything else.

yup, the gartner argument. except housley was way more elite at his one thing than gartner was at his.