Is Mark Recchi a First-Ballot HOFer?

[BostonAJ]

Recchi's a member of two pretty exclusive, and two pretty well-admired clubs: the 1,500 point club, and the "A Cup with three different rings club." There are 13 members of the former, and I believe it was said during the playoffs that he's the 10th in the latter. And I believe he's the only one in both.

Right on. Compilers always feel like a "less-than" qualification for the HOF, but at some point they become undeniable. Ron Francis absolutely has to be there, as does Mike Gartner. I'm not sure where the line in the sand should be drawn, but it's somewhere after 12th all-time in NHL scoring. Doesn't really matter that he had to play the 4th most games in NHL history to do it, as that's just too big a milestone to dismiss.

Three Cups with three teams looks nice on the resume as well.

 

[Dangler99*]

No Way is he a First Ballot. Come on thats going to far.

 

[Gobo]

Recchi is a strange case.


Sure he's had the numbers, the longevity, and the success. But I can't think of a single season when he was actually a dominant player.

Good player yes, but to rank him with the best of all time? Kinda hard to do.


He was seldom ever the best player on the ice. For such a high scoring player, he was incredibly low-impact for some reason.


For this he was never really in the running for any major hardware.

I would personally leave him off until players like Bure or Lindros get serious consideration. And I really don't believe either of them should be in the hall.

Never was a flashy player. Adapted pre and post-lockout, won 3 cups, 12th in points all time. Definitely a first ballot IMO.

 

[CHGoalie27]

That's a funny joke, Fish. Turgeon having a bigger impact on the league.

anyway... I don't subscribe to this whole "first ballot" thing. You're either a HHOFer or you're not.

And I believe Recchi is.

I can get behind this pretty easy.

 

[Scott1980]

He pretty much was a player that, wherever he went, he was among the best players on the team, until the last few years. I do think he will make the Hall Of Fame, but I'm not sure about the first ballot!

 

[Hardyvan123]

Recchi is a strange case.


Sure he's had the numbers, the longevity, and the success. But I can't think of a single season when he was actually a dominant player.

Good player yes, but to rank him with the best of all time? Kinda hard to do.


He was seldom ever the best player on the ice. For such a high scoring player, he was incredibly low-impact for some reason.


For this he was never really in the running for any major hardware.

I would personally leave him off until players like Bure or Lindros get serious consideration. And I really don't believe either of them should be in the hall.

I agree that he is a strange case but he played long enough and was good enough at a 2nd or 3rd tier level (depending on how one defines these things) 11 seasons of over 75 points (adjusted is nothing to sneeze at).

Just for comparisson sake Bucyk has 4 such seasons, although he has 15 60 plus overall (Recchi has 16).

Bucyk is a pretty good comp for Recchi IMO as well and played slightly longer and ahd more playoff points (part due to the format)

I could agree to keep him off until Bure or Lindros get in but I disagree as thsoe 2 should be in already, 3 wrongs won't make anything right.

Aslo while never a superstar his longevity and productivness puts him on a Ron Francis "light" category and gets him into the hall.

The whole 1st ballot thing is just another silly pet peeve of mine that some guys on here once again copied from baseball.

Either a guy belongs in the Hall or he doesn't. Recchi belongs IMO.

 

[WingsFan95]

Recchi is not first ballot.

And yes there is a difference. It's all nice and dandy to say " Hall of Fame or isn't " but it doesn't work that way.

A first ballot guy is one you don't think twice about, for those guys it's not about whether he's a Hall of Famer, it's about how high he is on an all-time list.

Nobody is gonna discuss Recchi in a Top 20 forwards list, etc.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Recchi is not first ballot.

And yes there is a difference. It's all nice and dandy to say " Hall of Fame or isn't " but it doesn't work that way.

A first ballot guy is one you don't think twice about, for those guys it's not about whether he's a Hall of Famer, it's about how high he is on an all-time list.

Nobody is gonna discuss Recchi in a Top 20 forwards list, etc.

He probably isn't in the top 50 forwards conversation either but the whole 1st ballot thing is a rip off from baseball and I really wonder if the HHOF committee even considers such stuff.

Using your criteria then no of course he would not be a "1st ballot guy"

For that matter who knows what they consider, it seems to be a really wierd way to honour the best of all tiem in hockey he way they do.

Not saying that what baseball does is any better but at least it's transperant.

Just as a side note I heard Ray Ferraro on the radio talking about how some guys were 1 or 2 votes short of making the hall.

Aren't the votes secret?

For the record he mentioned that Oates passed his smell test of a HHOF and Howe (Mark) did not.

 

[WingsFan95]

He probably isn't in the top 50 forwards conversation either but the whole 1st ballot thing is a rip off from baseball and I really wonder if the HHOF committee even considers such stuff.

Using your criteria then no of course he would not be a "1st ballot guy"

For that matter who knows what they consider, it seems to be a really wierd way to honour the best of all tiem in hockey he way they do.

Not saying that what baseball does is any better but at least it's transperant.

Just as a side note I heard Ray Ferraro on the radio talking about how some guys were 1 or 2 votes short of making the hall.

Aren't the votes secret?

For the record he mentioned that Oates passed his smell test of a HHOF and Howe (Mark) did not.

Well Mark Howe to me is a 3rd ballot Hall of Famer.

He should be in and I do think it's a bit of a travesty he isn't already but he's not an end all be all.

I do see how Oates measured further than Howe, but at the same token Howe was a force in getting the Flyers to two Cup Finals whereas Oates aided in one.

 

[Oowatanite]

Definitly a first ballet hall of famer.

 

[sr edler]

recchi is basically turgeon or damphousse with better longevity

fact is when recchi played with turgeon and damphousse for a few seasons in montreal he didn't really stand out from them

1995-96 Montreal Canadiens

Pierre Turgeon 80 38+58 96
Vincent Damphousse 80 38+56 94
Mark Recchi 82 28+50 78

1996-97 Montreal Canadiens

Vincent Damphousse 82 27+54 81
Mark Recchi 82 34+46 80

and how is he so good defensively when he's plus|minus 0?

 

[revolverjgw]

recchi is basically turgeon or damphousse with better longevity

fact is when recchi played with turgeon and damphousse for a few seasons in montreal he didn't really stand out from them

and how is he so good defensively when he's plus|minus 0?

You just made a good case for Recchi, actually. Both Damphousse and Turgeon probably WOULD be HOFers if they had Recchi's longevity, consistency, and versatility.

-Turgeon had too many seasons at the end where he wasn't a factor. He was done as an effective scorer by age 31. But at his best he certainly had seasons typical of an HOFer. If he aged like Recchi did, and had Recchi's versatility and playoff success, he'd have a very good chance of getting in (despite his weak reputation).

-Damphousse also tailed off a bit too much at the end, but for a long time was a great player, more complete than Turgeon, often getting lots of consideration for the Selke while putting up big points. The lockout ended his career prematurely. Before he turned 30, he was on a career trajectory that could have landed him in the HOF if he had unusually great longevity, like Recchi did, but he just didn't.

Recchi is the only one of the three to earn an all-star selection, has double the top-10 finishes as Turgeon (Damphousse had zero), is the only one to lead the league in an offensive category (assists in 2000), has more 10+ point playoffs than the other two put together, won three Cups and was a big part of all of them, had the most 100 point seasons (3, Turgeon had 2 and Damphousse had o), etc. He separated himself from them pretty clearly and decisively.

Plus/minus isn't a measure of defensive ability. A good example of this is Turgeon being a +139, Recchi being a 0... whatever it measures, it ain't defensive play.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Recchi is absolutely deserving of a Hall of fame spot.

The whole "first ballot" thing is dumb. The guy either is, or isn't a Hall of Famer.

Voting should be done for the four most deserving(or less if there aren't 4 deserving candidates in a given year) members each year, whether they are first ballot or not.

 

[BryzyInPhilly]

I would be shocked if Recchi is not a first ballot Hall of Famer. He is 12th all-time in points scored during his career, has won three Stanley Cups, and is an 11-time all-star. If that doesn't make you a first ballot HOFer, then I don't know what does.

 

[Darrelle Lundqvist]

I would be shocked if Recchi is not a first ballot Hall of Famer. He is 12th all-time in points scored during his career, has won three Stanley Cups, and is an 11-time all-star. If that doesn't make you a first ballot HOFer, then I don't know what does.

This. For the fantastic career he had, he kind of flew under the radar. He's no doubt a first ballot HHOFer.

 

[sr edler]

He separated himself from them pretty clearly and decisively

don't know about that

longevity is also pretty overrated except if you do it like sakic or yzerman

 

[BryzyInPhilly]

I agree that he is a strange case but he played long enough and was good enough at a 2nd or 3rd tier level (depending on how one defines these things) 11 seasons of over 75 points (adjusted is nothing to sneeze at).

Just for comparisson sake Bucyk has 4 such seasons, although he has 15 60 plus overall (Recchi has 16).

Bucyk is a pretty good comp for Recchi IMO as well and played slightly longer and ahd more playoff points (part due to the format)

I could agree to keep him off until Bure or Lindros get in but I disagree as thsoe 2 should be in already, 3 wrongs won't make anything right.

Aslo while never a superstar his longevity and productivness puts him on a Ron Francis "light" category and gets him into the hall.

The whole 1st ballot thing is just another silly pet peeve of mine that some guys on here once again copied from baseball.

Either a guy belongs in the Hall or he doesn't. Recchi belongs IMO.

Recchi had 123 points with the Flyers in '92, I believe. He was dominant that year.

 

[revolverjgw]

don't know about that

longevity is also pretty overrated except if you do it like sakic or yzerman

But it's not just longevity, did you read the last paragraph of my post? He was the only all-star, he was the only one with 3 100 point seasons, the only one to lead the league in an offensive category, the only one to score 30 points in the playoffs, the only one with 4 top-10 finishes, etc. He obviously clearly beats them in every tangible way (and certainly beats the pants off Turgeon when it comes to intangibles).

 

[seventieslord]

recchi is basically turgeon or damphousse with better longevity

fact is when recchi played with turgeon and damphousse for a few seasons in montreal he didn't really stand out from them

and how is he so good defensively when he's plus|minus 0?

Who said he was so good defensively? I think with his whole career considered, he was average/adequate for a scoring liner, nothing more.

You could actually say he was a very good hybrid version of Turgeon and Damphousse. In between them defensively, more effective physically, harder working, and a tad more offensively dominant than Turgeon. His career playoff PPG is between theirs, but he did it over more games. Similar peak value to Turgeon, but more valuable being a winger, because he was "rarer" than either player.

Turgeon's best 8 seasons as a percentage of the #2 non-outlier: 93 89 86 85 84 83 83 80
Same for Recchi: 98 97 96 91 87 86 81 81
Damphousse: 83 82 82 81 74 74 68 65

You could say that Turgeon and Recchi had 13 seasons combined, better than any season Damphousse ever had.

Those 1996 and 1997 years that you used for comparison, are Damphousse's 2nd and 3rd-best seasons. They are just Recchi's 7th and 12th-best, to put it into perspective. And 1996 was Turgeon's 7th-best.

So overall, that comparison favoured Damphousse. He just wasn't in their league offensively. At his very best he was able to do what they did in what were run-of-the-mill years for them. He was the best of them defensively, but not a shutdown player or world-class defensive guy. He was 4th in Selke voting one year, never top-15 before or after.

In an all-time draft I would consider Recchi in the 160th range, Turgeon in the 260th range, and Damphousse around 400th.

You just made a good case for Recchi, actually. Both Damphousse and Turgeon probably WOULD be HOFers if they had Recchi's longevity, consistency, and versatility.

-Turgeon had too many seasons at the end where he wasn't a factor. He was done as an effective scorer by age 31. But at his best he certainly had seasons typical of an HOFer. If he aged like Recchi did, and had Recchi's versatility and playoff success, he'd have a very good chance of getting in (despite his weak reputation).

-Damphousse also tailed off a bit too much at the end, but for a long time was a great player, more complete than Turgeon, often getting lots of consideration for the Selke while putting up big points. The lockout ended his career prematurely. Before he turned 30, he was on a career trajectory that could have landed him in the HOF if he had unusually great longevity, like Recchi did, but he just didn't.

Recchi is the only one of the three to earn an all-star selection, has double the top-10 finishes as Turgeon (Damphousse had zero), is the only one to lead the league in an offensive category (assists in 2000), has more 10+ point playoffs than the other two put together, won three Cups and was a big part of all of them, had the most 100 point seasons (3, Turgeon had 2 and Damphousse had o), etc. He separated himself from them pretty clearly and decisively.

Plus/minus isn't a measure of defensive ability. A good example of this is Turgeon being a +139, Recchi being a 0... whatever it measures, it ain't defensive play.

well-said. You are on a roll today.

 

[sr edler]

But it's not just longevity, did you read the last paragraph of my post? He was the only all-star, he was the only one with 3 100 point seasons, the only one to lead the league in an offensive category, the only one to score 30 points in the playoffs, the only one with 4 top-10 finishes, etc. He obviously clearly beats them in every tangible way (and certainly beats the pants off Turgeon when it comes to intangibles).

so he was a second team all star in 92? bill guerin was one year too

as for stats only turgeon has the single best season with 83 58+74 132

 

[camperjr]

Easily.
15 20+ goal seasons
Still playing and producing at 41
1500 points
2 Cups

No question what so ever.

3 cups, won with Pittsburgh, Carolina and Boston

 

[LannysStach]

Yes. A first-ballot inductee.

If it hasn't been posted in the thread, here's the one-and-only sentence the HHoF uses as a basis for induction (as voted on by the 18 revolving members):

"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."

check, check and check.

Other soon to be first ballot inductees (i think next year) — Hasek and Sundin.

 

[revolverjgw]

so he was a second team all star in 92? bill guerin was one year too

And so was Brian Campbell and Jim Carey (the same amount of first all-stars as Yzerman, wow) , but I don't see how that's relevant when comparing Recchi's achievements to Damphousse and Turgeon. It's not like that was the crux of my argument, it's just one of many things Recchi clearly beats them at.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Easily.
15 20+ goal seasonsStill playing and producing at 41
1500 points
2 Cups

No question what so ever.

Gino Odjick scored 20 goals once, that is hardly the standard a HOFer should be measured by. Cups are a team accomplishment so that is not a mark of an HOFer and 1,500 points can be had by playing forever.

You have shown nothing that would prove your case.

Recchi is another good player that played for a long time but really isn't one of the game's all time greats. He is like Modano or Sundin - he will likely get in because of the low bar we have for the HOF but he is certainly not in the class of a Bossy, Lafleur, Gretzky or Beliveau.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Yes. A first-ballot inductee.

If it hasn't been posted in the thread, here's the one-and-only sentence the HHoF uses as a basis for induction (as voted on by the 18 revolving members):

"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."
check, check and check.

Other soon to be first ballot inductees (i think next year) — Hasek and Sundin.

Translation: The bar is VERY low.