HOF induction standards for players with 1,000+ points

[Hockey Outsider]

How do the Hall of Fame voters determine if a player with 1,000+ points ends up in the Hall? It's simple - they consult this infallible flowchart:

Click to read more...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Of course, I'm not presenting the table as serious research. But there are some obvious patterns in what the HOF voters apparently look for.

My goal was to put together the chart with as few rules as possible. It wouldn't be difficult to put together a flowchart with, say, 20 steps to fit the data. I also wanted to avoid using arbitrary rules (ie "everyone with more than 1,328 points gets in").

The stats that I reference (600 goals, or 1,100 points) aren't adjusted for era. This is because I'm not convinced that the HOF voters understand why it's important to take the scoring environment into account. Remember, this flow chart doesn't tell us who should be inducted, it describes who has been.

Overall the results make sense to me. The only result I'm certain is wrong is Bergeron (he's obviously going to the Hall - maybe I add a fudge where if you win three or more Selke trophies, you're going in). Remember, the table isn't saying that Kovalchuk is going to the Hall (but it's saying he would of, had he stuck around in the NHL a bit longer and reached the thousand-point threshold - which I think is completely accurate).

If the Hall starts inducting players from the "No Hall for you!" category (the most likely ones would be Elias, Fleury, Marleau, Mogilny, Roenick and Turgeon), the rules can always be tweaked. For example, if Marleau is inducted, as I suspect he will be, the "600 goals" rule can be changed to 550, and everything else will still work. But this flowchart is complete and accurate as of January 2022.

 

[VanIslander]

Elias or Mogilny before projected-by-your-flowchart: Backstrom.

In any universe I care to live in.

And I'm a Caps fan.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

• Players meeting six criteria (4) - Gretzky, Howe, Messier, Yzerman
• Players meeting five criteria (13) - Beliveau, Bossy, Crosby, Dionne, Esposito, Hull sr., Jagr, Kane, Lafleur, Lemieux, Ovechkin, Sakic, Trottier
• Players meeting four criteria (10) - Clarke, Coffey, Hull jr., Iginla, Kurri, Lidstrom, Malkin, Mikita, Selanne, Thornton
• Players meeting three criteria (11) - Bourque, Delvecchio, Fedorov, MacInnis, Mahovlich, Potvin, Savard, Shanahan, Sittler, St. Louis, Ullman
• Players meeting two criteria (16) - Bucyk, Federko, Francis, Hawerchuk, Leetch, Murphy, Nieuwendyk, Oates, Perreault, Ratelle, Recchi, Richard, Robitaille, D. Sedin, H. Sedin, Stastny
• Players meeting one criteria (17) - Alfredsson, Anderson, Andreychuk, Ciccarelli, Gartner, Getzlaf, Gilbert, Gilmour, Goulet, Hossa, Housley, Kopitar, LaFontaine, McDonald, Modano, Mullen, Sundin
• Players meeting none of the criteria (21) - Bellows, Brind'Amour, Damphousse, Elias, Fleury, Hunter, Kovalev, Larmer, Marleau, Mogilny, Nicholls, Propp, Roenick, Smith, Staal, Taylor, Tkachuk, Turgeon, Verbeek, Weight, Whitney

Of the players in the Hall, 76% of them met at least two criteria. That gives me confidence that the criteria aren't (too) arbitrary.

One criteria that I was experimenting with was something about service to a single franchise. Perhaps time spent as captain for one team, or a minimum number of goals or points scored for one franchise. This would capture players like Modano, Sundin, Goulet, and Alfredsson (I'm assuming he'll get in). Ultimately, this proved unnecessary.

 

[VanIslander]

I was looking for Orr... forgot he didn't score 1000 points.

Yzerman in the top category,
Kane, Crosby & OV in the next-most.
Nice.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Elias or Mogilny before projected-by-your-flowchart: Backstrom.

In any universe I care to live in.

And I'm a Caps fan.

Outside of HOH (where he gets his due), Elias is one of the most underrated players of the past 30 years. I'd vote for him, no question. (If he gets inducted, the rules above would need to be modified. Actually, Elias is the one player blocking the "1,000 points + 2 Stanley Cups and you're in" rule - if you think Kopitar will get inducted as well).

Hard to say for Mogilny. Immense talent, and two or three really good seasons, but he was so inconsistent (partly due to effort, partly due to injuries). I wouldn't vote for him strictly as a player, but I'd probably vote for him as a builder (for opening the door for Soviet defections).

 

[VanIslander]

One criteria that I was experimenting with was something about service to a single franchise. Perhaps time spent as captain for one team, or a minimum number of goals or points scored for one franchise. This would capture players like Modano, Sundin, Goulet, and Alfredsson (I'm assuming he'll get in).

It would also give Marleau a category.

Though he still shouldn't be inducted. And I'm a longtime Marleau fan here on HfBoards. The franchise just needs to retire his jersey and the city name a significant road after him.

The litmus test: Would the history of hockey be missing out without a guy profiled when people look back 50 years, 75 years, 100 years from now?

 

[The Panther]

It is amazing how the "No Hall For You!" box is a bunch of guys who did not have killer moustaches.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Last post for today. Here's a list of everyone who's scored 1,000 points for a single franchise:

Getzlaf, Bourque, Bucyk, Esposito, Perreault, Iginla, Francis, Mikita, Hull, Kane, Savard, Sakic, Stastny, Modano, Howe, Yzerman, Delvecchio, Lidstrom, Gretzky, Kurri, Messier, Dionne, Robitaille, Taylor, Kopitar, Lafleur, Beliveau, Richard, Elias, Gilbert, Alfredsson, Trottier, Bossy, Potvin, Clarke, Lemieux, Crosby, Malkin, Jagr, Marleau, Thornton, Federko, H. Sedin, D. Sedin, Ovechkin

I was surprised, but Sundin fell 13 points short. Bergeron and Backstrom are likely to do this soon.

I suspect that the Sedins, Alfredsson, Elias, Getzlaf, Kopitar and Marleau will all be inducted. That only leaves one person - Dave Taylor - who spoils this rule.

 

[Prsut18]

Imagine the feelings of guys like Brind'Amour or Mogilny to discover the only thing hoding you out from the HoF was your shaved face.. active guys like Pavelski or Kessel still have hope to grow one.. there is still hope

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Couple thoughts..

Rod The Bod isn't in the hall of fame yet? I imagine he will have to get in sometime... Two sellers, big part of a cup almost 1200 points

What if you don't hit 1k? Toews isn't hitting 1000 points or 400 goals, at this rate he will be lucky to hit 900 points... Does this factor in? Just a thought but I think we all know he getting in for the hype.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The only result I'm certain is wrong is Bergeron (he's obviously going to the Hall - maybe I add a fudge where if you win three or more Selke trophies, you're going in).

the rule that fits gainey, carbo, and bergeron but not lehtinen seems to be five top 2s in selke voting

but i guess gainey, carbo, and lehts don’t need to be accounted for because of the 1,000 pt threshold

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

with lanny (a hilarious joke btw) i think the operative variable is did you retire before 1990/come up for voting before the clinton presidency

no one retired with 1,000 pts didn’t get into the hall if they retired before the 90s right?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Couple thoughts..

Rod The Bod isn't in the hall of fame yet? I imagine he will have to get in sometime... Two sellers, big part of a cup almost 1200 points

What if you don't hit 1k? Toews isn't hitting 1000 points or 400 goals, at this rate he will be lucky to hit 900 points... Does this factor in? Just a thought but I think we all know he getting in for the hype.

Maybe we need a "good ole Canadian boy" who captained his team to multiple cups category as well.

 

[Wackster]

Bergeron will be in the Hall

 

[decma]

I think Sittler is in the wrong box. He wasn't a 3x Hart finalist, but he was a 5x top 10 scorer.

 

[decma]

Every player who started his NHL career before the merger and reached 1,000 points is in, regardless of Cups, individual awards, top 10 finishes, or any of the other criteria listed above.

For players who started after the merger, and who didn't meet criteria 2 or 3 (major award or 3x Hart finalist), there seem to be separate standards for wingers and centers.

For players who were primarily Cs, all those with 1,400+ points are in, and all those with <1,400 points are out, unless they retired as the leading NHL scorer from their country (Modano, Stastny, and Sundin).

For players who were primarily wingers, the threshold seems to be 1,100. All wingers with 1,100+ points are in, and all those with <1,100 points are out, unless they retired as the leading scorer from their country (Mullen) or won at least 3 cups (Mullen and Anderson).

Of course it's not so much that the voters are explicitly holding Cs to a higher standard, and the difference in thresholds is likely related to it AS selections being easier to get for wingers (or at least requiring lower pt totals).

 

[Theokritos]

Nice work and it really gives active players some hope: some could theoretically still make the HHOF via the mustache clause.

 

[Professor What]

May I say that the mustache criteria is the best one?

Seriously though, it's an interesting concept. One other thing I'd say about Bergeron (who I absolutely believe is and should go in) and Marleau (whose case I'm far less favorable toward) is that since I really think anyone who has or is approaching 1000 points right now is going to get the consideration of "well, he had to play a lot of his career in some sort of dead puck era." As has been discussed in another thread, there are differences between the "true" dead puck era of the late 90s to early 00s and the, shall we say, "mini dead puck era" following the 2012 lockout, but those two eras give a lot of relatively low scoring seasons. I know Alfredsson already makes it on the flow chart, but I suspect the same thought process will end up helping him as well. That might function as another sort of check point, even if its not going to be nearly as inclusive as the others.

 

[Theokritos]

May I say that the mustache criteria is the best one?

It is, but note that @Hockey Outsider is merely trying to determine the really existing voting criteria, not the ones that would actually be fair. Just like the HHOF voters simply look at raw numbers without adjusting for different scoring levels in different eras, they do not adjust for era-related differences in the prevalence of facial hair. The mustache clause is as unfair as the other raw criteria as long as we do not work with era-adjusted beard stats.

 

[MadLuke]

As has been discussed in another thread, there are differences between the "true" dead puck era of the late 90s to early 00s and the, shall we say, "mini dead puck era" following the 2012 lockout,

I wonder how much of it is just relative to us and how much the speed of time change has you get older or that habit at looking at scoring average that include shootout goals.

Average team GF

Real dead puck:
1998: 216
1999: 216
2000: 225
2001: 226
2002: 215
2003: 218
2004: 211
-----

mini dead puck:
------
2008: 223
2009: 234
2010: 227
2011: 224
2012: 218
2013: 217 (pro rated to 82)
2014: 219
2015: 218
2016: 219
2017: 223
-----
goes up again, in the mini dead puck era McDavid and other were winning art ross with low 100s points, when it seem clear they were > 120, 130 points player in regular scoring environment.

The second deadpuck era was much longer and has low 2004 aside. And dead puck era offensive star had 33%+ power play to work with.

Outside a scoring distribution change, the prime between 2008-2017 have been maybe more affected the the previous DPE, 10 season's versus 7.

 

[Professor What]

It is, but note that @Hockey Outsider is merely trying to determine the really existing voting criteria, not the ones that would actually be fair. Just like the HHOF voters simply look at raw numbers without adjusting for different scoring levels in different eras, they do not adjust for era-related differences in the prevalence of facial hair. The mustache clause is as unfair as the other raw criteria as long as we do not work with era-adjusted beard stats.

I'm starting a campaign for the great mustaches to be automatically inducted.

Is somebody really gonna say that mustache shouldn't be in?

Seriously though, some of the laughter we can get out of that sort of thing is rather sad. The fact is, it's hard to have much more respect for the process than a joke like that with the way things have gone in recent years.

 

[Professor What]

I wonder how much of it is just relative to us and how much the speed of time change has you get older or that habit at looking at scoring average that include shutout goals.

Average team GF

Real dead puck:
1998: 216
1999: 216
2000: 225
2001: 226
2002: 215
2003: 218
2004: 211
-----

mini dead puck:
------
2008: 223
2009: 234
2010: 227
2011: 224
2012: 218
2013: 217 (pro rated to 82)
2014: 219
2015: 218
2016: 219
2017: 223
-----
goes up again

The second deadpuck era was much longer and has low 2004 aside. And dead puck era offensive star had 33%+ power play to work with.

The shootout goals do have something of an impact. The thread I started about it a while back came about when I realized how much of a phantom change they were making. There's something of an illusion of scoring getting close to six GPG again when it really wasn't. I suspect that's probably at lest partly clever marketing on the NHL's part, as it's obvious why they'd want to avoid the perception of another DPE.

 

[Weztex]

Good thing Matthews was a Hart finalist. He finally stopped trying to grow a mustache.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Bergeron will be in the Hall

Yes, I'm positive he'll be in the Hall. See my commentary in post #2. When the time comes, we can make a special rule for him (he's the only player with 1,000+ points and 3 Selke trophies, for instance).

I think Sittler is in the wrong box. He wasn't a 3x Hart finalist, but he was a 5x top 10 scorer.

The wording may have been vague, but the third criteria is the player was a Hart finalist (ie finishing 2nd or 3rd) at least once - which Sittler was in 1978.

Couple thoughts..

Rod The Bod isn't in the hall of fame yet? I imagine he will have to get in sometime... Two sellers, big part of a cup almost 1200 points

What if you don't hit 1k? Toews isn't hitting 1000 points or 400 goals, at this rate he will be lucky to hit 900 points... Does this factor in? Just a thought but I think we all know he getting in for the hype.

Brind'Amour would be a borderline selection. He's right around the level of Roenick, Turgeon, or Fleury. If he gets in, you can add a rule - a thousand points and two Selke trophies gets you in - as the only players who qualify are him, Fedorov, and future inductees Bergeron and Kopitar.

The table only works for the 92 players (as of today) with 1,000+ points. I tried expanding this to cover all players post-WWII but it was far too complicated. (Obviously many players under 1,000 points are in the Hall, but it's hard to come up with a consistent set of "rules" that work).

It is, but note that @Hockey Outsider is merely trying to determine the really existing voting criteria, not the ones that would actually be fair. Just like the HHOF voters simply look at raw numbers without adjusting for different scoring levels in different eras, they do not adjust for era-related differences in the prevalence of facial hair. The mustache clause is as unfair as the other raw criteria as long as we do not work with era-adjusted beard stats.

Era-adjusted beard stats. Amazing.

with lanny (a hilarious joke btw) i think the operative variable is did you retire before 1990/come up for voting before the clinton presidency

no one retired with 1,000 pts didn’t get into the hall if they retired before the 90s right?

You're right (I wasn't trying to make fun of McDonald, but I was really struggling to find a rule that captured him, and nobody else, so why not highlight his magnificent mustache?) But you're right - when he retired after 1989, he was 23rd all-time in scoring and everyone above him was (or would soon be) in the Hall. Then you had Bobby Smith (1993), Dave Taylor (1994), Brian Propp (1994) and Steve Larmer (1995) all retire soon after, over a thousand points each, and that number didn't seem quite so exclusive anymore.