How come no one ever mentions Steve Larmer?

[delled]

I was a kid when he played and always thought he was great. But maybe it was just because I was a kid that I had fond memories, cause I rarely hear him mentioned when people reminisce about past players. Wasn't he above average?

Click to read more...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Steve Larmer

I was a kid when he played and always thought he was great. But maybe it was just because I was a kid that I had fond memories, cause I rarely hear him mentioned when people reminisce about past players. Wasn't he above average?

Steve Larmer was part of the Peterborough legacy to hockey.Very solid performer in every facet of the game yet not outstanding in any.

He was a sixth round draft choice out of the OHL who surpassed all projections. Larmer was the meat and potatoes to Denis Savard in Chicago and an important support player in the 1994 SC win by the Rangers.

 

[worstfaceoffmanever]

I also find this strange. The guy was the model of year-to-year consistency with Chicago, scored 40 goals five times, and was money in the playoffs, yet has been passed over for the Hall time and time again. Just an odd situation.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

He also had a very long iron-man streak, and was known for chewing gum while he played. Growing up in Chicago in the 80's he was one of my favorite players.

As for the HOF, I don't think he belongs, but he is certainly worth remembering.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i'm curious who would win a larmer vs. gartner poll.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I was a kid when he played and always thought he was great. But maybe it was just because I was a kid that I had fond memories, cause I rarely hear him mentioned when people reminisce about past players. Wasn't he above average?

He was a very good player. I liked him a lot too.

 

[MS]

Falls into the same category as Brian Propp, except Larmer has a Cup ring.

Good first line players who were solid in all aspects of the game, but were never considered 'star' players who whose numbers are inflated somewhat by the era they played in. Never a post-season All-Star, only once top-10 in scoring (10th in 1991).

In terms of career value, pretty similar to Patrick Elias (although Elias' best season is substantially better than Larmer's best) ... does Patrick Elias belong in the HHOF. I'd say definitely not.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd rather induct Elias into the HHOF than Ciccarelli...

 

[MS]

I'd rather induct Elias into the HHOF than Ciccarelli...

Haha, fair enough!

I'd have put Larmer in well before Ciccarelli as well.

 

[WingsFan95]

Rick Middleton>Steve Larmer


As far as the Hall of Fame goes.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Larmer was always overshadowed by his center. He was a very good all-around player, but he wasn't great at anything, and that hurt him because he played next to human highlight-reel Denis Savard and an absolutely explosive young Jeremy Roenick.

 

[Big Phil]

There is a small minority that would put him in the HHOF. I am not part of that group but I wish I were. Larmer is the kind of guy you don't want to speak negative about. He's kind of like John Tonelli in that way that you WISH he was a lock cinch HHOFer

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I'd have put Larmer in well before Ciccarelli as well.

I don't know why you would. Ciccarelli has him beat on pretty much every metric. Ciccarelli might be an extremely marginal Hall of Fame case but that doesn't mean Larmer whose case is even more marginal was any better or more justifiable as far as the Hall is concerned.

Larmer's resume actually reminds me of Brian Bellows who was also a good player but not really a Hall guy.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Rick Middleton>Steve Larmer


As far as the Hall of Fame goes.

Yeah this is certainly true. Middleton was a better both ways than Larmer.

Still Larmer is quite under appreciated.

 

[MS]

I don't know why you would. Ciccarelli has him beat on pretty much every metric. Ciccarelli might be an extremely marginal Hall of Fame case but that doesn't mean Larmer whose case is even more marginal was any better or more justifiable as far as the Hall is concerned.

Larmer's resume actually reminds me of Brian Bellows who was also a good player but not really a Hall guy.

Ciccarelli has him one one metric - career goals.

In terms of offensive peak, they're nearly even :

Ciccarelli's top 5 seasons in adjusted points were 88, 78, 77, 75, 72.
Larmer's top 5 seasons in adjusted points were 90, 75, 74, 72, 72.

Neither ever was a post-season All-Star. Ciccarelli was top-10 in points twice, Larmer once.

So offensively, they're pretty well a wash.

Defensively, Larmer destroys Ciccarelli. Like, not even close. Larmer was a terrific three-zone player who was great on the PK, a real SH threat, and usually the defensive presence on his line for the bulk of his career. Ciccarelli, on the other hand, was below-average defensively, never killed penalties, and was most noted for his PP work.

As players, for the decade that their primes overlapped, Larmer was quite simply the better player. He was basically Ciccarelli's equal offensively while playing a massively more advanced all-around game. A team of Larmers would have slaughtered a team of Ciccarellis.

In terms of playoffs, Larmer was a key player on a Cup winner. Ciccarelli never was.

Ciccarelli was also passed over 3 times in the prime of his career for Canada Cups, while Larmer was one of the top players on the 1991 Team Canada. So Larmer has and edge in international play.

The HHOF is also supposed to recognize class and character, and how a player conducted himself on and off the ice. Larmer was a class act on and off the ice from start to finish. Ciccarelli was a first rate asshat who was jailed for one of the worst stick-swinging incidents in the modern era, and was also jailed off-ice for exposing himself to a female neighbour. Guy was a dirty player and a jerk, and that should have worked against him.

When comparing the two players, the only thing that Ciccarelli has over Larmer is that he played longer. Larmer played his last NHL game at age 33 while still an excellent player as he wanted to move on to new challenges after scoring 1000 points and winning a Cup - if he'd hung on until 39 like Ciccarelli did, he would have matched his 1200 or so career points.

If anything Larmer beats Ciccarelli on almost every metric.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

If you look at just the time period 81/82 to 94/95 to ignore Ciccarelli's compiling at the end - Ciccarelli was 4th in goals for this time span, Larmer 14th and Ciccarelli played less games. Ciccarelli has Larmer beat here on goals per game and points per game. And just to be safe here, it's not unfair either, both guys are around the same age and both players' primes are included in this time span.

Ciccarelli had two 50 goal seasons, Larmer had none. Ciccarelli finished twice in the top five of goal-scoring, Larmer never and his best goal-scoring finish was 10th. Ciccarelli's best scoring finishes were 6th and 9th, Larmer's best was 10th.

The gap isn't huge but Ciccarelli has Larmer beat on offense. And in spite of Dino's character flaws I remember him as a pretty popular player which is probably what counts in the end.

 

[pvr]

I’ve always thought that Steve Larmer was under-appreciated in the game of hockey, for much of the reasons described two posts above by MS.

Recently the NHL Network has been playing a Lanny McDonald segment. Personally, I’ve never understood the McDonald hype. Perhaps he’s so revered because he played for Toronto and Calgary, but I never thought of him as “Hall of Fame-worthy” any more than Larmer.

Their careers overlapped somewhat, and while longevity goes to McDonald (18 years vs 15 years), durability goes to Larmer. Awards are a wash, perhaps with a slight nod to Larmer (Masterton and Clancy to McDonald, Calder to Larmer). Honors are about equal, perhaps with a slight nod to McDonald. Adjusted point totals favor Larmer, while goalscoring favors McDonald. I also believe that Larmer was a much better defensive player than McDonald.

Larmer overall was a better playoff performer. He played a significant role in the cup run, and played one year after his Stanley Cup win. McDonlad however didn't help his team much in getting to the cup, barely contributed to the cup run, and retired after his cup win.

Other metrics are either insignificant or a wash one way or another.

McDonald

Games | Goals | Assists | Points | +/- | EV | PP | SH | GW Career 1111 | 500 | 506 | 1006 | 41 | 350 | 139 | 11 | 53 Adjusted | 350 | 363 | 713 | | | | | | |
Playoffs 117|44|40|84|5|30|14|0|7

Larmer

Games | Goals | Assists | Points | +/- | EV | PP | SH | GW Career 1006 | 441 | 571 | 1012 | 204 | 255 | 162 | 24 | 60 Adjusted | 278 | 491 | 869 | | | | | | |
Playoffs 140|56|75|131|21|32|21|3|7

​

Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why McDonald is in the HOF, and held in higher regard than Larmer.

 

[JT Dutch*]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why McDonald is in the HOF, and held in higher regard than Larmer.

... I think it simply has to do with McDonald being a guy who sought publicity, while Larmer wanted nothing to do with that whatsoever.

 

[seventieslord]

If you look at just the time period 81/82 to 94/95 to ignore Ciccarelli's compiling at the end - Ciccarelli was 4th in goals for this time span, Larmer 14th and Ciccarelli played less games. Ciccarelli has Larmer beat here on goals per game and points per game. And just to be safe here, it's not unfair either, both guys are around the same age and both players' primes are included in this time span.

Ciccarelli had two 50 goal seasons, Larmer had none. Ciccarelli finished twice in the top five of goal-scoring, Larmer never and his best goal-scoring finish was 10th. Ciccarelli's best scoring finishes were 6th and 9th, Larmer's best was 10th.

The gap isn't huge but Ciccarelli has Larmer beat on offense. And in spite of Dino's character flaws I remember him as a pretty popular player which is probably what counts in the end.

That entire argument was based on goal scoring. If you're comparing them as offensive players, then a points-based argument would be a better place to start.

Regardless, the point still stands that goalscoring is the only area in which Ciccarelli has an edge.

 

[Big Phil]

]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why McDonald is in the HOF, and held in higher regard than Larmer.

At his best, McDonald was better - slightly - than Larmer. There are a lot of things to dislike about calling McDonald a HHOFer because there are many things you can hold against him, but truth be told there are some favourable points his way as well. That being said, Middleton is a good example of a player who was at least as good as McDonald and has almost the exact career curve as him (5-6 years of prime, weaker numbers at the beginning and end of their career).

However, McDonald is a weak induction and while he still could have gotten in, I didn't like the idea of him being a first ballot as if the Hall couldn't wait for him to get in. I don't think it hurts that McDonald is recognized by almost anyone in hockey circles, while Larmer has been quietly pushed aside. But I still don't like the idea of using weak inductions like McDonald to say "See, if he gets in Larmer should." I always prefer a near unanimous HHOFer to be compared to. Like for example if someone wanted to compare a potential HHOFer to Guy Lapointe...........or Darryl Sittler to name a few. I'm fine with that. Just not a very, very marginal one like McDonald.

 

[pvr]

At his best, McDonald was better - slightly - than Larmer... But I still don't like the idea of using weak inductions like McDonald to say "See, if he gets in Larmer should."...

I didn't say that Larmer should get in based on McDonald. I was just wondering about the thought process that put him in, vis a vis someone like a Larmer. The McDonald NHL Network segment which has been way overplayed has annoyed me, this thread pops up, and I put the two together in my mind.

I personally didn't think McDonald was anything special during his playing days, and I do think Larmer was a better overall hockey player than him.

And, I agree with the "recognition" factor. Played on Canadian teams, and the big moustache gave him a quirky look. Larmer was a nondescript professional who was very good offensively compared to his peers, and very good to excellent defensively.

 

[WingsFan95]

I didn't say that Larmer should get in based on McDonald. I was just wondering about the thought process that put him in, vis a vis someone like a Larmer. The McDonald NHL Network segment which has been way overplayed has annoyed me, this thread pops up, and I put the two together in my mind.

I personally didn't think McDonald was anything special during his playing days, and I do think Larmer was a better overall hockey player than him.

And, I agree with the "recognition" factor. Played on Canadian teams, and the big moustache gave him a quirky look. Larmer was a nondescript professional who was very good offensively compared to his peers, and very good to excellent defensively.

Aside from the fact McDonald is highly recognized and has perhaps the greatest stash in human history ( only rival is Tom Selleck ).

McDonald had some memorable seasons and games that stand out. It's like Aikman and some of his games or Joe Namath.

McDonald's 83 season where he put up monster goal numbers, he scored 35 goals on the freaking Rockies and as far as I've heard was revered for his never say die attitude, he supposedly played through several injuries.