Hockey Hall of Fame 2017

[K Fleur]

Noticed Keith Tkachuk hasn't gotten any hof love. Dorset he deserve enshrinement?

Nope.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Noticed Keith Tkachuk hasn't gotten any hof love. Dorset he deserve enshrinement?

He deserves it more than Andreychuk, but less than Alfredsson

 

[Canadiens1958]

Understand

- I am not saying that you advocated for Andreychuk in the past - the point was that you pretty much did the opposite. You're only defending the induction now that he was inducted. It gives the reader the impression that you'd still be defending the decision to omit him, if he had indeed been omitted this year.

- What special talent did Roy Conacher have that needed to be recognized? I get that he had the offensive numbers but by most accounts that is all he had, and based on your comments during the wingers project you're not exactly a fan, so I don't see how bringing his case up helps your cause here.

- Your last post simply states what I am saying: You think it was right not to induct Gilmour, and now you think it was right to do so.

You seem to harbour this this idea that this is some battle between right and wrong, challenging some absolute, striving for the perfect HHOF or the perfect player. It isn't.

The HHOF Committee changes constantly bringing new perspectives with each change.

You raise Doug Gilmour. I'll raise Steve Yzerman - played for one team. Regardless of the reason, Gilmour played for 8 teams, Rather obvious that GMs did not agree about his value and he had a short shelf life in most stops on the road. Yzerman was a keeper.

So a diversity of opinions about Doug Gilmour is the norm. Be it as a player on a team or in the hall of fame.

Some of the GMs eventually found their way onto the HHOF Committee. Some may have voted for him some may have voted against. When he was traded some fans may have been for the trade, some against.

I simply understand the process and try to explain it.

 

[HawkNut]

Noticed Keith Tkachuk hasn't gotten any hof love. Dorset he deserve enshrinement?

In my opinion, yes.

 

[Neutrinos]

Noticed Keith Tkachuk hasn't gotten any hof love. Dorset he deserve enshrinement?

Absolutely he should be in the Hall of Fame based on the standard that has been set

From '93 - '09, Tkachuk (522) was 4th in goals behind only Jagr (587), Selanne (579) and Shanahan (535)

He was 8th in points over that same period as well

To put that in perspective, from '81 - '97, Dino Ciccarelli was 5th in goals behind Gretzky, Gartner, Lemieux and Kurri

Dino drops to 14th in scoring over that period


Tkachuk also has a Richard and was twice named a 2nd team all star, while Dino has no such accomplishments

 

[arrbez]

Absolutely he should be in the Hall of Fame based on the standard that has been set

And there's the problem...

 

[Plural]

I'm not sure if I would have too much qualms about Tkachuk getting in. I know LW wasn't particularly strong position when he was playing but his All-Star record is rather good.

2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th

He wouldn't be a strong induction but I could get behind him getting in.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure if I would have too much qualms about Tkachuk getting in. I know LW wasn't particularly strong position when he was playing but his All-Star record is rather good.

2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th

He wouldn't be a strong induction but I could get behind him getting in.

Tkachuk regular season record is good enough to be legit borderline, but his playoff record is terrible. But then, so is Andreychuk's

 

[Sentinel]

FWIW,

I'm in Toronto today. I am going to the Hockey Hall of Fame today around 12pm. If anybody feels like joining me, it would be great. Then we can post a selfie against the Phil Housley's stand.

Also tonight at 7pm I am playing a "singing poetry" show. PM me for more info if you want.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

To put that in perspective, from '81 - '97, Dino Ciccarelli was 5th in goals behind Gretzky, Gartner, Lemieux and Kurri

Dino drops to 14th in scoring over that period


Tkachuk also has a Richard and was twice named a 2nd team all star, while Dino has no such accomplishments

ciccarelli has 17 more playoff goals than tkachuk has points.

ciccarelli has 11 more powerplay goals in the playoffs than tkachuk has goals.

 

[Neutrinos]

ciccarelli has 17 more playoff goals than tkachuk has points.

ciccarelli has 11 more powerplay goals in the playoffs than tkachuk has goals.

141 playoff games for Dino, only 89 for Tkachuk

And Dino didn't have to play his prime years during the DPE

 

[Epsilon]

Dino didn't have to play his prime years during the DPE

The DPE doesn't excuse Tkachuk's absolutely horrendous playoff record (including being the record-holder for appearances on teams that blew 3-1 series leads). Tkachuk's playoff record is so bad it actually should put a negative drag on his candidacy.

That being said, with the direction the HOF is going with the Housley and Andreychuk elections (along with earlier ones such as Ciccerelli), Tkachuk's career is probably good enough to get elected at some point. He was certainly more of an impact player than Andreychuk was.

 

[seventieslord]

141 playoff games for Dino, only 89 for Tkachuk

And Dino didn't have to play his prime years during the DPE

To be fair to Dino here, more playoff games is good. Tkachuk has fewer playoff GP than he could, because he rarely won enough games to advance.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

141 playoff games for Dino, only 89 for Tkachuk

And Dino didn't have to play his prime years during the DPE

even with the discrepancy in era and games played, ciccarelli is many magnitudes better as a playoff performer than tkachuk. i mean, significantly more goals than tkachuk has points. more pp goals than tkachuk has goals, period.

these are astronomical margins. 2.6x the goals, 2.1x the points, in 1.58x the games.

but more importantly, your team has to play well for you to play more playoff games. and for star players you usually have to personally play well to play more playoff games. tkachuk is the only player in NHL history to be on three different teams that lost series after being up 3-1.

dino had 13 career playoff GWGs. tkachuk had one

 

[Epsilon]

Tkachuk was also acquired (at considerable expense) by Atlanta for a playoff run, only to see them flame out in a 4 game sweep with Tkachuk doing mostly nothing. God only knows why they would acquire a notorious playoff underachiever for that reason - oh right, Don Waddell.

 

[Plural]

I never realized just how poor his playoff record is. I think I'm going to have to take back what I said. I usually don't put too high emphasis on playoffs but they do matter some. Tkachuk really smells under Hall standards in that regard.

 

[HawkNut]

Well, I have the unpopular opinion that 500 goals is automatically HOF worthy, but it's more than just that. Unlike Andreychuk, you can't criticize Tkachuk for the era he played in, most of it after the high scoring era. You cannot say he was never a top scorer. He did have the misfortune of leading the league in goals a couple of years before the Rocket Richard trophy's inception. Then there's the two Second All Star team selections.

I believe Keith Tkachuk is qualified for the HOF and this is a snub that I am optimistic the voters will fix in the future.

 

[Killion]

FWIW,

I'm in Toronto today. I am going to the Hockey Hall of Fame today around 12pm. If anybody feels like joining me, it would be great. Then we can post a selfie against the Phil Housley's stand.

Also tonight at 7pm I am playing a "singing poetry" show. PM me for more info if you want.

Nope. Nowhere near Toronto Sentinel but have fun.... "Singing Poetry"?... you some kinda Singin Cowboy Poet? Only genre I'm aware of that does that.

 

[Neutrinos]

Tkachuk had the misfortune of playing his prime on a relatively average team in Phoenix, while at the same time having some major powerhouses like Detroit, Colorado and Dallas all playing in the same conference

 

[Plural]

Anyone remember if at the time when Selanne was traded and Tkachuk stayed it was regarded as mistake by fans and analysts? We all know how it turned out, but how was it thought back then?

 

[Sentinel]

Nope. Nowhere near Toronto Sentinel but have fun.... "Singing Poetry"?... you some kinda Singin Cowboy Poet? Only genre I'm aware of that does that.

Nothing "cowboy" about me. But if you combine Johnny Cash with Tom Waits... you get the idea. . Wish you were here though. Something tells me, I'd enjoy chatting with you greatly.

As terrible as Tkachuk was in playoffs, he played a crucial role in eliminating Russia three times in the best on best tourneys. Especially in 2004. Which is impressive. There was no one else on Team USA that I feared more than him.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Well, I have the unpopular opinion that 500 goals is automatically HOF worthy, but it's more than just that. Unlike Andreychuk, you can't criticize Tkachuk for the era he played in, most of it after the high scoring era. You cannot say he was never a top scorer. He did have the misfortune of leading the league in goals a couple of years before the Rocket Richard trophy's inception. Then there's the two Second All Star team selections.

I believe Keith Tkachuk is qualified for the HOF and this is a snub that I am optimistic the voters will fix in the future.

if rick nash has four more seasons exactly the same as the last two, will he be a hall of famer?

he's the closest comparable to tkachuk that i can think of. maybe the biggest difference is tkachuk had the good fortune to peak when the LW position was weaker, where it was basically kariya and then you pick between tkachuk or john leclair. nash's best seasons were a golden age of the LW: he finished third behind ovechkin and benn; fourth once to naslund, kovalchuk, and elias; fourth another time to ovechkin, parise's best season, and kovalchuk; and fifth behind ovechkin, zetterberg, kovalchuk, and heatley. but otherwise they were the same physically gifted, potentially dominant, disappointing player.

 

[seventieslord]

if rick nash has four more seasons exactly the same as the last two, will he be a hall of famer?

he's the closest comparable to tkachuk that i can think of. maybe the biggest difference is tkachuk had the good fortune to peak when the LW position was weaker, where it was basically kariya and then you pick between tkachuk or john leclair. nash's best seasons were a golden age of the LW: he finished third behind ovechkin and benn; fourth once to naslund, kovalchuk, and elias; fourth another time to ovechkin, parise's best season, and kovalchuk; and fifth behind ovechkin, zetterberg, kovalchuk, and heatley. but otherwise they were the same physically gifted, potentially dominant, disappointing player.

That's way too harsh. It sounds like you're attempting to explain the difference in their all-star voting, which may or may not be a good point, but regardless, Tkachuk was a far superior scorer. Tkachuk's VsX is 16% higher, which is enormous. He's literally had five seasons as good as Nash's best, or better. (96, 97, 01, 02, 04 vs. 15)

And we know Nash was a brutal playmaker so his points suffer, but even just looking at goals, his 1-3-5-10 finishes (with 3 more top-20) don't top 1-6-7-7-10 (with 4 more top-20).

Basically, Tkachuk has the offensive resume that could almost make a player a HHOFer by itself, unless negatives keep him out (which they do), and Nash doesn't, and would need a lot of extra positives (which he doesn't have).

Remember this post that you like? Look where both guys fit in. Two completely different classes.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=126295657&postcount=43

 

[HawkNut]

if rick nash has four more seasons exactly the same as the last two, will he be a hall of famer?

he's the closest comparable to tkachuk that i can think of. maybe the biggest difference is tkachuk had the good fortune to peak when the LW position was weaker, where it was basically kariya and then you pick between tkachuk or john leclair. nash's best seasons were a golden age of the LW: he finished third behind ovechkin and benn; fourth once to naslund, kovalchuk, and elias; fourth another time to ovechkin, parise's best season, and kovalchuk; and fifth behind ovechkin, zetterberg, kovalchuk, and heatley. but otherwise they were the same physically gifted, potentially dominant, disappointing player.

It's possible, though not guaranteed. I do think Tkachuk has a stronger case for the Hall.

 

[Ishdul]

Well, I have the unpopular opinion that 500 goals is automatically HOF worthy, but it's more than just that. Unlike Andreychuk, you can't criticize Tkachuk for the era he played in, most of it after the high scoring era. You cannot say he was never a top scorer. He did have the misfortune of leading the league in goals a couple of years before the Rocket Richard trophy's inception. Then there's the two Second All Star team selections.

I believe Keith Tkachuk is qualified for the HOF and this is a snub that I am optimistic the voters will fix in the future.

He led the league in goals once and was otherwise never top 5. He was a great goal scorer but not so much that he should get in on that alone (the way Selanne or Bure would), and he doesn't have much else going for him. I don't think anyone cares about the Rocket Richard distinction, considering you know exactly who would've won and the general reverence for previous league leading goal scorers.

Two Second All Stars isn't especially impressive for a LW. One of those years featured him being the 25th ranked scorer. LeClair is a 5 time All Star, including being the 1st teamer in both times that Tkachuk was 2nd, and he isn't in.