Is Mark Recchi a First-Ballot HOFer?

[PALE PWNR]

By smoke and mirrors, I mean if you look at all empirical evidence from his career, he looks like an absolute all-time great, but having watched the NHL the past twenty years, you probably wouldn't have thought he was quite as good as the record books indicate on a year to year basis, nor was he that big of a superstar.

Played 1652 games, scored 577 goals, 1533 assists, which is good for 12th all time, better than luminaries like Lafleur, Trottier, even Hull and Selanne, who were way more dominant wingers from the same era, amongst many others.

Won 3 Stanley Cups, one near the beginning of his career, one near the end and one to close out his career in storybook fashion.

Compiled most of his stats during the dead puck era, but somehow managed to sneak in a career high of 53 goals, 123 points, which is tops for Philadelphia Flyers individual scoring by season, topping way more dominant players in Eric Lindros and Bobby Clarke.

Traded for John Leclair and Eric Desjardins, which looks like a king's ransom, before you realize it was before Leclair broke out as a 50 goal man on Lindros' wing.

And yet, he has zero individual awards and was only once named to the NHL's Second All-Star Team, and on the teams he played during his prime, he was seldom ever head and shoulders above anyone on his team, including guys like Vinny Damphousse, Pierre Turgeon, Keith Primeau, Saku Koivu, Jeremy Roenick, etc.

Are there any other comparables in history of a guy who did so much on paper, that might have exceeded his actual impact on a year to year basis as a player?

He wasn't overlooked by any one in Flyer Nation I'll tell you that much. For a lot of people he was the favorite on the team for a long long time. LeClair, Recchi, and Lindros were the big 3 names for a long while.

 

[PB37]

Anyways, I think Recchi gets in. He was good for a long period of time, as well as being one of the most durable players in NHL history... remarkable when you look back at it considering his size and style of play. Add that to his 3 Cup wins and like you said, the storybook element in ending his career, and I think he's got a damn good resume.

 

[Stephen]

I think he's a Hall of Famer, just that somehow it seems like if you were adding up all the pieces of his career you end up with more than you thought you would, if that makes sense.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Are there any other comparables in history of a guy who did so much on paper, that might have exceeded his actual impact on a year to year basis as a player?

Mats Sundin, Mike Modano, Mike Gartner, Bernie Nicholls...there are many players who accumulated big point totals despite not being among the game's very best.

Being good for a long time < Being one of the very best for short time.

 

[seventieslord]

bumping to merge

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Mats Sundin, Mike Modano, Mike Gartner, Bernie Nicholls...there are many players who accumulated big point totals despite not being among the game's very best.

Being good for a long time < Being one of the very best for short time.

Mike Modano sticks out like a sore thumb here. He was among the game's best, playing for Dallas in the dead puck era.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

having watched recchi, who played the game as honestly as anyone of his generation, it seems very strange to characterize his career as "smoke and mirrors."

seems to me, and i said this upthread, that he was very underrated, often overshadowed by a better player (mario, lindros), but leading his teams like the difference-making star he very quietly was when they were out of the lineup (penguins in '91, flyers in '00).

another guy who gets a bad rap around here, robitaille, might be said to have had a "smoke and mirrors" career under the definition given above. but recchi was a far more impactful player than robitaille was-- robitaille gets full marks from me for leading the kings along with kurri in '93 when gretzky was hurt though.

 

[seventieslord]

having watched recchi, who played the game as honestly as anyone of his generation, it seems very strange to characterize his career as "smoke and mirrors."

seems to me, and i said this upthread, that he was very underrated, often overshadowed by a better player (mario, lindros), but leading his teams like the difference-making star he very quietly was when they were out of the lineup (penguins in '91, flyers in '00).

another guy who gets a bad rap around here, robitaille, might be said to have had a "smoke and mirrors" career under the definition given above. but recchi was a far more impactful player than robitaille was-- robitaille gets full marks from me for leading the kings along with kurri in '93 when gretzky was hurt though.

I can't help but agree, and what makes that so remarkable is that Robitaille managed to be an 8-time all-star and Recchi just turned the trick once. Both wingers.

 

[bruins309]

If you were to make a movie of the recent history of the NHL using the same "technique" as the movie Forrest Gump, then Mark Recchi would have to be Gump, right? Put aside the numbers and consider the stuff he was a part of first-hand:

- Played with Mario when he was approaching his apex in 90-91
- Traded to Philly and then plays with a young Eric Lindros for a few years
- Traded to Montreal where he gets to watch Patrick Roy come to the bench and demand to be traded.
- Was on the 1998 Team Canada in the Olympics that ended up disappointing in Nagano.
- Traded back to Philly where he gets to be a part of the end of the Lindros era there with his concussion in game 7 with Philly blowing a 3-1 series lead to the Devils in the '00 ECF.
- Post lockout he comes back to Pittsburgh and gets to play with Mario at the end of his run and with Sidney Crosby at the start of his. Comes back after winning a Cup in Carolina as a rental and plays with Malkin in his rookie year.
- In late '07 he gets waived and ends up in Atlanta and Tampa Bay (08-09), two southern US markets that have gotten people worked up over the last two decades.
- Goes to the Bruins at the '09 deadline and gets both ends of the spectrum: blowing a 3-0 lead in '10 to Philly and winning a Cup in '11

Makes for a helluva story, right?

Anyway, I think he's pretty underrated because he was putting up 60-70 points in the dead puck era, and even had 61 points in 08-09 too at age 40/41.

 

[arrbez]

I think he's a Hall of Famer, just that somehow it seems like if you were adding up all the pieces of his career you end up with more than you thought you would, if that makes sense.

That's pretty much it. My brain says he's obviously a Hall of Famer, and that's what I'll go with. But man, at no point did I ever say to myself "wow, that's a superstar right there". It wasn't even about flashy goals, he just never seemed to dominate a game but apparently ended up on the scoresheet in most of them.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Mike Modano sticks out like a sore thumb here. He was among the game's best, playing for Dallas in the dead puck era.

Not really. Modano is the American Sundin. Modano was always behind Sakic, Forsberg, Messier, Fedorov, Yzerman, Oates, Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Hull, Selanne, and probably a half dozen others I am forgetting right now.

Modano was not one of the greats, he was just good for a long time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not really. Modano is the American Sundin. Modano was always behind Sakic, Forsberg, Messier, Fedorov, Yzerman, Oates, Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Hull, Selanne, and probably a half dozen others I am forgetting right now.

Modano was not one of the greats, he was just good for a long time.

Sundin played for an offense-first team and was adequate defensively.

Modano played for probably the most stifling defensive team in the league, led that team in scoring by wide margins year after year (as did Sundin in Toronto for his more offensive team), and was spectacular defensively during this time.

He was one of the great playoff performers of the era.

Always behind Hull? LOL. They played on the same freaking team for most of the dead puck and Modano regularly outscored him by wide margins.

 

[seventieslord]

Not really. Modano is the American Sundin. Modano was always behind Sakic, Forsberg, Messier, Fedorov, Yzerman, Oates, Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Hull, Selanne, and probably a half dozen others I am forgetting right now.

Modano was not one of the greats, he was just good for a long time.

Wow, you really give no credit at all for being top-25 in scoring in the post-euro era year after year, do you?

Modaon, Sundin, Turgeon... all very strong and very consistent offensive performers. Other recent players may have had a season better than they did, but not many had a "best 5" seasons better than their best 5.

 

[Epsilon]

A few comments that may have already been made (I've read the past few pages but I'm not going all the way back through the thread to the last time I posted):

1. If Nieuwendyk made the Hall of Fame on the 2nd year of eligibility, I'd say it's very likely that Recchi gets in just as quickly, if not more so. I really don't see a single compelling argument for considering Nieuwendyk even close to Recchi in terms of all-time status.

2. I personally don't like this question ("Is Recchi a 1st Ballot HOFer?") because it's asking a relative question in an absolute sense - the answer depends partly on the other players who are eligible. To me, there are only 4 "1st ballot HOFers" in the sense of "if everyone who was nearing retirement all retired at the same time and made a huge super-class, who would be inducted?", namely Hasek, Lidstrom, Jagr, and Brodeur (next is probably Chelios unless I've forgotten someone or his waiting clock is already ticking).

 

[Stephen]

A few comments that may have already been made (I've read the past few pages but I'm not going all the way back through the thread to the last time I posted):

1. If Nieuwendyk made the Hall of Fame on the 2nd year of eligibility, I'd say it's very likely that Recchi gets in just as quickly, if not more so. I really don't see a single compelling argument for considering Nieuwendyk even close to Recchi in terms of all-time status.

It's really weird that you bring up Joe Nieuwendyk, because if I didn't go back and look at their careers on a year to year basis, in my mind, Nieuwendyk was always a better player than Mark Recchi: he was a two time 50 goal scorer at a young age, played a big role in the Flames cup win in 1989, was their captain/franchise player for a long time, and was a Conn Smythe winning addition to the Stars that cost them Jarome Iginla, yada yada yada. You'd figure Nieuwendyk was a much better player.

But then you realize Recchi played longer, scored a ton more, had a better statistical peak, won more cups. Can't look at Recchi and not think "how the f?"

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's really weird that you bring up Joe Nieuwendyk, because if I didn't go back and look at their careers on a year to year basis, in my mind, Nieuwendyk was always a better player than Mark Recchi: he was a two time 50 goal scorer at a young age, played a big role in the Flames cup win in 1989, was their captain/franchise player for a long time, and was a Conn Smythe winning addition to the Stars that cost them Jarome Iginla, yada yada yada. You'd figure Nieuwendyk was a much better player.

But then you realize Recchi played longer, scored a ton more, had a better statistical peak, won more cups. Can't look at Recchi and not think "how the f?"

what?

recchi finished fourth in league scoring at a young age-- behind only gretzky, hull, and oates. he played a MUCH bigger role in his first cup win than nieuwendyk did in his. nieuwendyk was rarely a captain and NEVER a franchise player. he was always behind at least macinnis, plus mullen and loob early on, fleury later. and probably gilmour too, to say nothing of vernon. i think this goes to show that how some people remember nieuwendyk now has very little relation to how he was perceived at the time.

in fact, i'd venture to say that, excluding recchi's handful of montreal years (which to be fair line up with some pretty average calgary years from nieuwendyk), recchi was at all points very clearly the better player.