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

[Big Phil]

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.

Well Karlsson is young, other than that I think we can agree a two-time Norris winner is going to the Hall barring a disaster. So even so, most of us would agree we are watching a future HHOFer in Karlsson right? He is carrying his team better than Housley ever did.

So if you don't like me saying "we" then what is your opinion on Housley? I am just going by what I remember. I can't remember an announcer or a writer saying "Here is sure-fire future HHOFer Phil Housley with the puck............"

When did someone say this?

 

[Sens Rule]

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).

My point is that people with a vast experience playing and coaching for decades may have intuitive beliefs about a player's HHOF worthiness. They may care less about their stats or that they were only great for a half dozen years... Saying that one "questions their hockey knowledge" is kind of absurd.

Like if I was to question Killion's knowledge of hockey goaltending because he thinks Sawchuk is the best goalie ever and I think it is Roy... That would be ridiculous. I can disagree with his choice and still realize he has incredibly vaster knowledge of goaltending then I ever will. And that for whatever reason he believes that he has good reason to. And that he has forgotten magnitudes more about hockey and goaltending then I will ever know.

The post I responded to said this or something similar.. "Question the hockey knowledge". Disagreeing with a vote or a comment or a ranking is far different then questioning a persons mere ability to make a reasonable decision due to lack of knowledge.

We have no idea why someone votes why they do. It could be a player that say Housley as a guy that burned him for a long breakout pass better then anyone ever had? Like his memory is Housley as a good defenceman.. Buy that breakout pass! Wow! Better then Bourque or Coffey or anyone at that! Burned me dozens of times.

We have no idea really unless someone says why they voted a certain way. Bias might be a problem in a panel of only 17 guys. 2 or 3 guys could be angry at Lindros for giving them a concussion? Who knows... But questioning their "knowledge" is ridiculous. You can question their perspectives or decisions but not their "knowledge".

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well Karlsson is young, other than that I think we can agree a two-time Norris winner is going to the Hall barring a disaster. So even so, most of us would agree we are watching a future HHOFer in Karlsson right? He is carrying his team better than Housley ever did.

So if you don't like me saying "we" then what is your opinion on Housley? I am just going by what I remember. I can't remember an announcer or a writer saying "Here is sure-fire future HHOFer Phil Housley with the puck............"

When did someone say this?

You could say quite confidently that about half of the HHOF guys, or perhaps more, we're seldom referred to as sure fire future HHOF guys.

Let's face the reality of the HHOF, most guys are in their as compilers (of things like stats, awards and yes being on SC teams) and aren't what one would normally refer to as sure fire HHOF guys.

 

[Voight]

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

The Gartner hate continues.

He had 15 straight 30 goal seasons and over 700 goals, I would say he's pretty elite at that and arguably more elite there than Housley on offence. Maybe not, but theres definitely an argument.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The Gartner hate continues.

He had 15 straight 30 goal seasons and over 700 goals, I would say he's pretty elite at that and arguably more elite there than Housley on offence. Maybe not, but theres definitely an argument.

Not so sure about that in terms of elite play.

one could make the argument that Gartner had a better career but the elite play argument is really weak with him.

Also the 15 straigjt years of 30 plus goals is trivial nothing more nothing less without context.

 

[Voight]

Not so sure about that in terms of elite play.

one could make the argument that Gartner had a better career but the elite play argument is really weak with him.

Also the 15 straigjt years of 30 plus goals is trivial nothing more nothing less without context.

He was an elite goal scorer.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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

The Gartner hate continues.

He had 15 straight 30 goal seasons and over 700 goals, I would say he's pretty elite at that and arguably more elite there than Housley on offence. Maybe not, but theres definitely an argument.

how can you possibly say gartner's consistency and longevity at RW is more elite than housley's consistency and longevity at D?

10 top fives and 14 top tens vs. gartner's 1 top five and 5 top tens.

how is that hating on gartner?

housley was better offensively easily, and he was good for longer. the only thing gartner has on him is he didn't have an injury-abbreviated season in year 12.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He was an elite goal scorer.

unless they changed the definition of elite, gartner was a good-to-very good goal scorer for a long time with only one dip (during the lockout season).

 

[Hardyvan123]

He was an elite goal scorer.

Sorry but Gartner's best finishes in goal scoring were like this,

5,9,9,9,10

That's not my definition of elite and nor should it be anyone else's.

 

[Sentinel]

Housley over Makarov, Lindros, and Recchi is ludicrous.

I seriously wonder if Makarov pissed someone off. Or maybe Larionov fears nepotism accusations and stifles all talks of Makarov's induction. A continuous multiyear snub of one of the best players to ever play the game (and arguably the best Russian ever) indicates there might be something going behind the scenes we don't know.

I am pleased with Feds and Lids though. Can't take that away from me.

 

[The Panther]

I'm not sure I want to wade-into this 'Housley vs. Gartner' quagmire, but as my position is somewhere in the middle, I think I'll share it:

For Hall of Fame consideration, Garter should be IN and Housley should be OUT. There isn't an overwhelming difference in their respective cases and they're both near the borderline for various reasons, but I do perceive a clear difference between them in favor of Gartner.

Why do I say this? What is this difference based on?

It's based on these 2 factors:

1) Being considered elite / dependable / desirable by peers/coaches/GMs
2) Appropriate style for their positions

I'll explain further:

1) Garter was only occasionally considered top-5 at his position in a given season (three times by All-Star nods), and Housley likewise (four times, but D-men have a little less competition). So they're about even in how they ranked against their peers by All-Star consideration. Likewise, Gartner is 4th-all time in RW goals and Housley is 4th all-time in D-man scoring. But Housley was not a player that coaches/GMs (maybe even his own peers) would have asked to join elite line-ups. (Yeah, I realize Housley played for the US Canada Cup teams, but would he even have been invited to Team Canada's? I don't think so.) I mean, in the 1996 World Cup, he was basically benched, and this was when he was still a 68-point-a-year defenceman. Gartner, however, played for team Canada at the Canada Cup in 1984 and 1987 -- the latter team being arguably the most talented Team Canada ever assembled. There is no chance that a Phil Housley would have made this team.

(I'm aware that this argument can be used against Gartner -- that Housley was still playing for national championships in 1996 and Gartner wasn't. But I honestly don't think Housley would have made any Team Canada line-up from 1981 through 1996, nor that any fans would have missed him. Besides which, the record shows that Gartner's prime production years actually lasted about two years longer than Housley's; i.e., Gartner would still have been a legit choice for a national-team line-up as late as age 37.)

To put this another way: Gartner was good enough to play on two teams with prime Gretzky, Messier, Bossy, Lemieux, Bourque (and he won at both). Would Housley have been good enough to play on those teams? I say 'no'.


2) Housley was the prototypical 80s' offensive defenceman... but he was still a defenceman. At defence, he sucked. (Housley has by far the worst plus/minus of the top-22 scoring defencemen in history.) Gartner was a forward. At playing forward, he was great.


So, while neither guy is prime Hall of Fame material, I think Gartner outpaces Housley in the race for the final dregs of Hall of Fame membership.

 

[begbeee]

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.

Look... there is no question about knowledge of voters in all-star teams (journalists) - to say it mildly - it´s shallow. We would not see Ovechkin in two positions if otherwise.

If you take a look at some quotes of famous players, every next player is Gretzky reincarnation and 2nd Bobby Orr. Is it true? No! Hasek said Svehla was 2nd best defensman of 90s behind Chelios. Should we march here with that as gauge to measure other players?
Gretzky said Selanne was better than him or something like that...whatever.
I´m pretty sure everyone here read at least some biographies of famous players. Those books are filled to roof with quotes about other players, but their evaluating is highly exaggerated.

Heck, I see a lot of retired players who are dumb as chair in my office, should I take their words as a law?
Someone wrote here that some players were not aware of their team standings during regular seasons...

Again, I´m not saying it´s true about everyone, but I don´t have any illusions about knowledge of average player about his peers or followers. Players who became coaches or managers, well that´s another story.

 

[Sentinel]

1) Garter was only occasionally considered top-5 at his position in a given season (three times by All-Star nods), and Housley likewise (four times, but D-men have a little less competition). So they're about even in how they ranked against their peers by All-Star consideration. Likewise, Gartner is 4th-all time in RW goals and Housley is 4th all-time in D-man scoring. But Housley was not a player that coaches/GMs (maybe even his own peers) would have asked to join elite line-ups. (Yeah, I realize Housley played for the US Canada Cup teams, but would he even have been invited to Team Canada's? I don't think so.) I mean, in the 1996 World Cup, he was basically benched, and this was when he was still a 68-point-a-year defenceman. Gartner, however, played for team Canada at the Canada Cup in 1984 and 1987 -- the latter team being arguably the most talented Team Canada ever assembled. There is no chance that a Phil Housley would have made this team.

To put this another way: Gartner was good enough to play on two teams with prime Gretzky, Messier, Bossy, Lemieux, Bourque (and he won at both). Would Housley have been good enough to play on those teams? I say 'no'.

This is a really weak argument. Rick Tocchet and Kevin Dineen made that team and Steve Yzerman didn't. Does this mean they are better than Steve and belong in the HOF over him? That's silly. Also you don't know for a fact if Housely would've never been on that roster. Over Normand Rochefort and James Patrick? Why not?

2) Housley was the prototypical 80s' offensive defenceman... but he was still a defenceman. At defence, he sucked.

Now THIS is a more compelling argument. Although you don't provide any proof that he sucked, but multiple people did.

In all honesty, I am very liberal when it comes to HOF. Theoretically I wouldn't mind inducting Housley and his 1200+ points, although this is as borderline as it gets for me. But inducting Housely over Makarov, Lindros, and Recchi is straight up offensive.

 

[The Panther]

This is a really weak argument. Rick Tocchet and Kevin Dineen made that team and Steve Yzerman didn't. Does they are better than Steve and belong in the HOF over him? That's silly. Also you don't know for a fact if Housely would've never been on that roster. Over Normand Rochefort and James Patrick? Why not?

Fair enough. But I'll tell you why not -- because Team Canada '87 already had Coffey and Bourque. If you already have Coffey and Bourque, you don't want Housley, who isn't going to add anything to the power-play that isn't already there (and better), and is going to be liability defensively (hence, the US team benched him when the games mattered... and they had a Leetch, but no Coffey or Bourque). By contrast, Gartner fit in well with the cast of superstars he played with. (Arguing over who made the team or whatnot isn't really relevant; it's just down to Mike Keenan's general weirdness.)

But inducting Housely over Makarov, Lindros, and Recchi is straight up offensive.

On this we agree (although Recchi can wait -- Makarov and Lindros cannot.)


Here's an open question for anyone -- has there ever been a D-man in the Hall of Fame who was weaker defensively than Housley?

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is a really weak argument. Rick Tocchet and Kevin Dineen made that team and Steve Yzerman didn't. Does this mean they are better than Steve and belong in the HOF over him? That's silly. Also you don't know for a fact if Housely would've never been on that roster. Over Normand Rochefort and James Patrick? Why not?


Now THIS is a more compelling argument. Although you don't provide any proof that he sucked, but multiple people did.

In all honesty, I am very liberal when it comes to HOF. Theoretically I wouldn't mind inducting Housley and his 1200+ points, although this is as borderline as it gets for me. But inducting Housely over Makarov, Lindros, and Recchi is straight up offensive.

Okay, most people will agree that Makarov and Lindros are clearly more HHOF worthy than Housley but Recchi?

Recchi has alot of Turgeon/Gartner on his resume and while I think he will get in he is hardly a lock.

 

[Epsilon]

I don't see any argument that either Gartner or Housley has a better HOF case than Recchi. I'd take Recchi on basically every possible category:

-better player
-more accomplished player
-better peak
-better prime
-better career

 

[Ishdul]

Okay, most people will agree that Makarov and Lindros are clearly more HHOF worthy than Housley but Recchi?

Recchi has alot of Turgeon/Gartner on his resume and while I think he will get in he is hardly a lock.

Recchi was a top 5 scorer 3 times and was also 10th in the loaded 92-93 season, nor was he being carried by linemates or anything like that.

 

[Epsilon]

In Housley's total playoff career he has a 13/43/56 line in 85 games, with no Stanley Cup wins.

In Recchi's three playoffs where his team won the Stanley Cup, he has a 22/42/64 line in 74 games.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Fair enough. But I'll tell you why not -- because Team Canada '87 already had Coffey and Bourque. If you already have Coffey and Bourque, you don't want Housley, who isn't going to add anything to the power-play that isn't already there (and better), and is going to be liability defensively (hence, the US team benched him when the games mattered... and they had a Leetch, but no Coffey or Bourque). By contrast, Gartner fit in well with the cast of superstars he played with. (Arguing over who made the team or whatnot isn't really relevant; it's just down to Mike Keenan's general weirdness.)

On this we agree (although Recchi can wait -- Makarov and Lindros cannot.)


Here's an open question for anyone -- has there ever been a D-man in the Hall of Fame who was weaker defensively than Housley?

Babe Pratt was hardly a defensive rock out there and Bill Gaby ' defensive play or reputation isn't supported by the limited stats we have.

It's more accurate to say this about post expansion guys that we have seen and have game tape and much more information on though.

Thing is that alot of these arguments on what Phil Housley wasn't are narrow, more subjective and probably less indicative of any real value than the counting stats that we do know.

Players aren't in the HHOF because of what they didn't do but rather by what they did and as some have pointed upthread Housley is elite in what he did as a scoring Dman, like single digit elite, and that's why he is the HHOF.

 

[Sens Rule]

Recchi was a top 5 scorer 3 times and was also 10th in the loaded 92-93 season, nor was he being carried by linemates or anything like that.

Also once led the league in assists... That is impressive. And he did it probably not even in his peak seasons. Sure it was a down year for big time offensive guys... But if outside your peak you can lead the league in assists... That is what elite guys do... Not accumulators.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Also once led the league in assists... That is impressive. And he did it probably not even in his peak seasons. Sure it was a down year for big time offensive guys... But if outside your peak you can lead the league in assists... That is what elite guys do... Not accumulators.

Recchi is one those weird guys, like Turgeon or today Giroux, that teams never did or would consider building around.

Even in his top offensive seasons was he ever really seriously considered as a top 10 forward in the world?

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Just an anecdote, but I remember when Canada's lineup for Nagano was announced an HNIC panel was discussing the roster and Red Fisher of the Montreal Gazette was just astounded that Recchi was not named. The Habs were awful at the time but Recchi was playing close to MVP level. May have given his best seasons to one of his worst teams.

 

[Sens Rule]

Recchi is one those weird guys, like Turgeon or today Giroux, that teams never did or would consider building around.

Even in his top offensive seasons was he ever really seriously considered as a top 10 forward in the world?

I think he was. And Montreal traded for him to build around. Totally. Didn't work out really... But they totally did.

And why would you not build around Giroux? Philly is trying obviously.

Recchi is way more like Francis, Oates, Shanahan and Gilmour them he is like Ciccarelli or other more borderline guys. He also was awesome in the playoffs.

I don't consider Recchi a marginal HHOFer at all. He isn't top tier with the Bossy's and Yzerman's... But he sure isn't in the bottom tier in my eyes.

If anything he is a guy that moved around and that lessens the perceptions of him.

He wasn't just a secondary tier guy in Philly or Pittsburgh... He was awesome. But because of Lindros and Mario it seems like he was far more then was the reality.

Recchi took teams on his back for extended periods of time when injuries happened to Lindros or Mario. And in the limelight of his career was still a big game player.

He wasn't a Gartner type in his prime. Quietly putting up points/goals. He kind of always was in the background of hockey conciousness but he was truly great and elite for a significant portion of his career. Not just very good for a long time. And he never wasn't good either. Never had a bad year really. Maybe the year after the lockout in Pittsburgh.. But even then he produced even if he got the Larry Murphy in Toronto treatment a bit that year. Like Murphy he proved right away he was far from done.

1991 Cup he had a near legendary playoff... Taking a backseat to only Mario. 2006 he was a big contributor to a Cup. 2011 a key secondary guy for the Cup.

Recchi should have got in first try. He is a very worthy guy for the HHOF. He has everything that a voter would want to check. High peak, long, long prime, still effective outside his prime, counting numbers, Cups as a big contributor.
Memorable... If only as a Dr. ... Lol.

 

[GMR]

I know they played different positions, but if Housley gets in, Osgood should get in. Much like Housley, he accumulated impressive numbers (as far as wins go). Also, he's had team successes that Housley never had.

 

[Sens Rule]

I know they played different positions, but if Housley gets in, Osgood should get in. Much like Housley, he accumulated impressive numbers (as far as wins go). Also, he's had team successes that Housley never had.

The Hall is so tough on goalies. Way tougher then other positions. Osgood might be in the Hall if they chose goalies like forwards. But he has to be behind a lot of goalies. Vachon, Barrasso, Richter, Joesph, maybe Beezer if he hadn't gone all racist. Luit even. Maybe Luongo eventually if he is not in right away. Maybe Thomas because of his peak.

Osgood has lots of guys to pass that have a better case.

I personally would choose to select more goalies for the Hall then they do. To me the biggest flaw in the HHOF is that goalies are not judged comparably to skaters.