HOF players - take away their best season

[arrbez]

Looking through the recent thread about Lecavalier and seeing some previous threads about Corey Perry on the main boards, it got me thinking about players whose trophy case only looks anything close to HOF calibre due to one big season.

If we took the best season away from every player in the Hall of Fame, who would be hurt the most? Whose career would look the most pedestrian without that one time they led the league in whatever or got whichever award? I guess the easy answer is guys who only played half a career like Lindros or Neely, but I'm more thinking about players who played 15 years of fairly healthy hockey but only peaked high once or twice.

Click to read more...

 

[bobholly39]

Who does it hurt the least - Wayne Gretzky

Who does it hurt the most - Mario Lemieux (maybe not the most - but it hurts a lot).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Cooney Weiland, Punch Broadbent, Harry Howell, Bill Barber

Joe Nieuwendyk without the Smythe... Not really what you are asking for.

 

[unknown33]

Who does it hurt the most - Mario Lemieux (maybe not the most - but it hurts a lot).

I don't see how he is a special case with one outlier season. Is there even agreement what his best season is?

Don't think Martin St. Louis would make it first ballot without his 2003/04 Cup winning year.

 

[arrbez]

I don't see how he is a special case with one outlier season. Is there even agreement what his best season is?

Are we talking about 1989 or 1993 (case in point)?

 

[MXD]

Lanny McDonald. His great season wasn't THAT great in the grand scheme of things, but give him a regular Lanny McDonald season and the most immediate effect is that he retires with 475 goals instead of 500.

Also retires with a single AST-2 and no Hart vote support whatsoever. And his resume looks a lot like Alex Kovalev playing in a higher scoring era with worse playoffs numbers.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Cheevers.

no chance in hell he makes it as a 1x Cup winner (and as a Bruins fan, he shouldn't have ever been inducted in the 1st place)

 

[bobholly39]

I don't see how he is a special case with one outlier season. Is there even agreement what his best season is?

I think Lemieux is often argued as being as good (better?) than Gretzky in terms of ability - and about how with better luck/less health issues he could have rivaled him. I tend to believe that myself.

I don't know which of 1993 or 1989 you consider his best season - but if you remove either one of them - he's down to only 1 such season. Gretzky has...7? I think it might shift the dialogue a bit from "Better health and watch out for Lemieux" to "Well he had this one crazy good season - but doubt he could repeat like Gretz did".

It helps that he has 2 of those. Same thing for playoffs even - it helps that he has 2 such smythe runs. With just 1 - it makes a difference.

 

[unknown33]

I think Lemieux is often argued as being as good (better?) than Gretzky in terms of ability - and about how with better luck/less health issues he could have rivaled him. I tend to believe that myself.

I don't know which of 1993 or 1989 you consider his best season - but if you remove either one of them - he's down to only 1 such season. Gretzky has...7? I think it might shift the dialogue a bit from "Better health and watch out for Lemieux" to "Well he had this one crazy good season - but doubt he could repeat like Gretz did".

It helps that he has 2 of those. Same thing for playoffs even - it helps that he has 2 such smythe runs. With just 1 - it makes a difference.

The idea that he is better than Gretzky isn't that popular on here anyways. A bigger treat would be losing his 4th spot - I could see more people advocating someone else for the Top 4 if you remove one of his Cups or 89/93.

 

[bobholly39]

The idea that he is better than Gretzky isn't that popular on here anyways. A bigger treat would be losing his 4th spot - I could see more people advocating someone else for the Top 4 if you remove one of his Cups or 89/93.

I meant better at his best - not his overall resume. And yes - what you said too.

Basically Lemieux only has 2 (relatively) full seasons and playoffs where he played at that level. If it was just 1 i think it's a big difference.

 

[JackSlater]

Pronger without 2000 doesn't have any trophies, though I suppose to be fair he very likely would have won two other Norris trophies had he been a little healthier. Fedorov is much more of a "what if" player if his 1994 season never happens. Pratt only has a second team all star spot if you remove his Hart winning season. Buddy O'Connor has no awards or all star berths if you remove his Hart winning season.

 

[mrhockey193195]

The way people talk about Carey Price being the best goalie of this generation...take away his best (granted, MVP) season, and he has a pretty mediocre record. He gets a lot of mileage from that one season. Compare that with someone like Lundqvist, who maybe never reached the same heights in one year but had 10+ straight years of excellence...

Historically, I immediately started thinking about 1-time Hart trophy winners/scoring champions/Norris winners. Fedorov & Pronger, mentioned above, are great choices. I'm wondering how much of Rob Blake's HOF induction came down to that 1998 Norris win. Take that away, and is he that much better than Desjardins or Zubov?

Does taking away Johnny Bucyk's 100 point season change his HOF status? He obviously had his best offensive years at the end of his career (as scoring went up and Orr & Espo took over the league), and that 100 point season wasn't his only top-notch season...I'm just curious if hitting that milestone changed people's opinions of him overnight?

 

[wetcoast]

Steve shutt take away 76-77, an already dubious HHOF case goes from

930-424-393-817 plus and turns into
850-364-348-712

It would also turn his playoff resume from

99-50-48-98 plus 46 into
85-42-38-80 plus 28

Clark Gillies, another dubious induction would suffer even worse if his 91 point season didn't happen, but at least he had more intangibles.

 

[VanIslander]

1. Herb Gardiner
2. Cooney Weiland
3. Sergei Fedorov

 

[ESH]

It has to be Buddy O’Connor, doesn’t it?

 

[MXD]

1. Herb Gardiner
2. Cooney Weiland
3. Sergei Fedorov

It has to be Buddy O’Connor, doesn’t it?

All these players arguably had better careers ... (okay, not O'Connor) than Lanny McDonald-with-big-season without their big season!

Though I must admit that both Gardiner and Weiland's case would look bad without their big season (it isn't to say it's bad; it would just LOOK bad). Gardiner's case would, at first glance, look worse than Lionel Hitchman (who isn't in). Or course, Gardiner spent part of his career in the Western leagues, and "Defensive-minded players playing in Western Leagues post the NHA" tended to be not super popular amongst HHOF voters. As for Weiland, I have problems coming up with a contemporary comparable without his big season. Bill Thoms, perhaps?

Fedorov would have the "1A/1B/2" Center of a multiple cup-winning team going for him.

 

[blogofmike]

Howie Morenz might get knocked down a tier.

Eric Lindros and Cam Neely potentially get knocked out with no MVP or 50 in 44 season. Perhaps the same with Rayner's MVP year or Harry Howell's Norris.

Cooney Weiland's 73 point year, Lafontaine's 1993, Hawerchuk's 1985, Rogie Vachon in 75, and Peter Forsberg 2003 were years that were notably better than their best.

Bernie Federko is borderline enough that losing a 100 point year might cost him, even if no year in particular was great.

 

[weaponomega]

Joe Thornton is a future HOFer, but his career without his 05-06 season looks closer to Bernie Federko's though still HOF worthy.

I don't think Rob Blake is a HOFer without his Norris season

Lafontaine is pretty boarderline without his 92-93 season

I think if you take away one of Langway's Norris season's he does't have enough of a resume to be in the HOF.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Lafontaine is pretty borderline even with 1992-93. Take it away and he's almost certainly out.

Lanny McDonald...heck, you don't have to take away the big season. Take away 1988-89, and it's doubtful he gets in. In a similar vein, Andreychuk's 2003-04 probably nudged him across the line.

How about Jean Ratelle without 1971-72? Still would be a HOFer I'm sure, but all of a sudden no major awards, no all-star team selections. Could certainly change perceptions.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I guess the more specific question would be... how many guys wouldn't make the HoF without their single best season?

 

[Nick Hansen]

Would Parent be in without one of 73/74 or 74/75?

 

[VanIslander]

Edit: i just wasted 15+ minutes of my life listing 100+ players who easily would be inducted without their best season.

I had misread an inane question as if it was an insane one!

Ugh.

 

[Captain Bowie]

What kind of list is that? You've got Howe, Hull, Orr, Mikita, ect.

 

[Tarantula]

Lafontaine is pretty borderline even with 1992-93. Take it away and he's almost certainly out.

Lanny McDonald...heck, you don't have to take away the big season. Take away 1988-89, and it's doubtful he gets in. In a similar vein, Andreychuk's 2003-04 probably nudged him across the line.

How about Jean Ratelle without 1971-72? Still would be a HOFer I'm sure, but all of a sudden no major awards, no all-star team selections. Could certainly change perceptions.

Good points particularly the last two. I'd also advance that if Lanny M had played exclusively on US based teams and won there he would have to pay admission to get in, nothing against him. Still remember that wrist shot he scored when the Leafs upset the Isles, before the Isles started their true run, lots of class mates were Leafers

 

[Tarantula]

Does taking away Johnny Bucyk's 100 point season change his HOF status? He obviously had his best offensive years at the end of his career (as scoring went up and Orr & Espo took over the league), and that 100 point season wasn't his only top-notch season...I'm just curious if hitting that milestone changed people's opinions of him overnight?

Good question that has me thinking, he had a long tenure with the Bruins and of course was their captain during their climb out from the basement to the 70's, but he never really was a top line player, look who they had though, but he was no picnic to play against despite the LB trophies. Killed penalties, smart player all around, but I think it would have been harder for him to be inducted without a 50 g 100 plus point season considering the era over all, IMO and that year the Bruins set records for 100 pt players and had the top 4 in scoring IIRC. Even if he didn't hit those milestones that year he would have still had steady numbers, but crossing the Mason Dixie line always helps.