Is Patrice Bergeron a HOF Candidate ?

[wetcoast]

That's the series Viktor Tikhonov watched when he said Gainey may be "technically, the best player in the world."

I'm fully aware of what Tikhonov said and was a huge fan of Red Army and the Russian national team as a child.

Loved the way they played possession hockey and were clean players.

That being said I think part of the reason he said that was to stir the pot in Canada.

For the record Gainey was tied for 15th in scoring for Canada in that series.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I have read Dryden's great book several times but we and the HHOF committee always need to make our own conclusions based on the evidence at hand.

In the top 100 players project one poster had Lafleur as the 6th best player of all time and part of his argument was that without him the Habs wouldn't have been a dynasty.

It's up to us and other people like the HHOF committee to test those assertions with the information we know.

Was Gainey more integral than Lafleur, Dryden, Robinson, Savard, Lemaire, Shutt ect...

Another poster chiming in for Fetisov claimed that he was integral to their SC wins.

I challenged him on that and he refused to respond, probably because it was an absurd claim.

That's what we need to do when asking was Gainey a secondary or complimentary player for the Habs dynasty, the evidence is there in plain site.

All of those Habs are in the Hall of Fame, correct?

If Bergeron played on that team, his role would most likely have been the same as Gainey's.

This is not to diminish Bergeron at all.

The fact that Gainey was held in such high esteem by teammates, coaches, opponents, media, fans and legendary Soviet coaches of his time seems like pretty good evidence of his worth.

 

[East Coast Icestyle]

Bergeron will go down as first ballot I believe. Multiple Selkes, a cup, will no doubt be captain of O6 team once Chara retires, putting up good numbers later in career to push compiling stats. Good international resume.

Also, he has one of the most esteemed reputations in the entire league.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm fully aware of what Tikhonov said and was a huge fan of Red Army and the Russian national team as a child.

Loved the way they played possession hockey and were clean players.

That being said I think part of the reason he said that was to stir the pot in Canada.

For the record Gainey was tied for 15th in scoring for Canada in that series.

Is that evidence or pure speculation?

 

[wetcoast]

All of those Habs are in the Hall of Fame, correct?

If Bergeron played on that team, his role would most likely have been the same as Gainey's.

This is not to diminish Bergeron at all.

The fact that Gainey was held in such high esteem by teammates, coaches, opponents, media, fans and legendary Soviet coaches of his time seems like pretty good evidence of his worth.

I think the statistical record is the only objective measure and even the people mentioned above would acknowledge that 5 or 6 other players were more important to that Habs dynasty right?

We can go down the list who was more important in the Habs dyansty

Gainey or Lafleur?
Gainey or Dryden?
Gainey or Robinson?
Gainey or Lemaire?
Gainey or Savard?
Gainey or Shutt?
Gainey or Lapointe? Gainey has a case here as Guy missed 9 games out of the 58 games.

Here is the statistical record for the Habs dynasty.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com


So at the end of the day what would we call a player most likely 7th in importance in a dynasty?

We don't know what would happen if Bergeron played on that team, he played for Boston post lockout and that's what we and the HHOF judge him on.

Conversely Gainey today would still be a role player with little or no chance to be part of a dynasty and likely wouldn't make the HHOF but that's irrelevant he should be judged on what he did, not what he could have done.

 

[wetcoast]

Is that evidence or pure speculation?

It's an educated guess given the fact that there was a cold war going on and that we do have the actual statistics for the Canada Cup.

Gainey played a more systematic type of game that the Soviets preferred, not the flashy styles of Orr, Potvin, Perreault or Bobby Hull the stars of that series.

I don't have the exact quote on hand but it has often been paraphrased that Tikhonov called Gainey the best player in the world, which when put to the test we can all agree wasn't true.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The 6th most important player on the Oilers dynasty is in the HOF...but because he has ~500 goals and ~1000 points, do you support him?

 

[Sentinel]

It's an educated guess given the fact that there was a cold war going on and that we do have the actual statistics for the Canada Cup.

Gainey played a more systematic type of game that the Soviets preferred, not the flashy styles of Orr, Potvin, Perreault or Bobby Hull the stars of that series.

I don't have the exact quote on hand but it has often been paraphrased that Tikhonov called Gainey the best player in the world, which when put to the test we can all agree wasn't true.

I don't think Tikhonov cared enough about Canada to "stir the pot" in it. He simply preferred universal two-way players to purely offensive stars. His treatment of Krutov and Makarov vs. Drozdetsky is pretty telling.

And there is more to life than offensive stats. Certainly for purposes of the Hall of Fame. Gainey (who I would probably take over Shutt) and Carbonneau were legends when they played and after they retired. Bergeron is guaranteed to go down the same path... with better offense.

 

[wetcoast]

I don't think Tikhonov cared enough about Canada to "stir the pot" in it. He simply preferred universal two-way players to purely offensive stars. His treatment of Krutov and Makarov vs. Drozdetsky is pretty telling.

And there is more to life than offensive stats. Certainly for purposes of the Hall of Fame. Gainey (who I would probably take over Shift) and Carbonneau were legends when they played and after they retired. Bergeron is guaranteed to go down the same path... with better offense.

Sure there is more to any player than just offensive stats but Gainey and Carbonneau have really average at best offensive resumes.

And if we breakdown defensive importance it goes like this

Goalies




Dmen






Forwards

IMO the HHOF isn't the place for a guy like Gainey or Carbonneau.

Obviously those voting on it disagree.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think the statistical record is the only objective measure and even the people mentioned above would acknowledge that 5 or 6 other players were more important to that Habs dynasty right?

We can go down the list who was more important in the Habs dyansty

Gainey or Lafleur?
Gainey or Dryden?
Gainey or Robinson?
Gainey or Lemaire?
Gainey or Savard?
Gainey or Shutt?
Gainey or Lapointe? Gainey has a case here as Guy missed 9 games out of the 58 games.

imo, it goes

1. lafleur
2. robinson
3. dryden
4. one of lemaire, savard, and gainey
7. lapointe
8. shutt

i'm pretty low on shutt though. he's obviously a great goal scorer and probably puts together a nice HOVG career no matter where he played and whom with. but as the scoring LW on those habs, i can't honestly say he was as important as either of his linemates, not to mention the defensemen, dryden, and here's my argument for gainey over him:

so shutt is injured between game four of the toronto series to game four of the boston series.

and here are gainey's stats in those five games:

Date	Team	G	A	P	+/-	PIM
May 3	@ BOS	0	1	1	0	0
May 1	@ BOS	0	0	0	-1	0
Apr 28	vs BOS	1	1	2	1	0
Apr 26	vs BOS	0	2	2	2	2
Apr 22	@ TOR	0	2	2	1	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

in game four agains the leafs, one of gainey's assists is on a robinson goal that lemaire was the other assist on. in game one against the bruins, one of gainey's assists is on a lemaire goal that lafleur was the other assist on. on the other ES points by lafleur/lemaire in those five games, one was assisted by risebrough, the other by mondou. there is also a lemaire ES goal with lafleur presumably not on the ice, assisted by risebrough and tremblay; and a lafleur ES goal that was only assisted by defenseman brian engblom.

my point isn't that gainey literally took shutt's spot on the first line with lemaire and lafleur and put up seven points in five games. obviously, 5/7 of gainey's points were with other linemates. my point is he ably filled the void left by shutt because on that team, with lafleur up front and lapointe and robinson on the back end, somebody is going to have to score. (and on top of that, gainey did have the versatility to do just fine in the moments he did literally slot into shutt's top line LW spot.)

Sure what you say is true but when you compare Gainey and Carbonneau to this list of 5 guys in terms of offense it's not even close.

Datsyuk- 3 times top 10 in scoring and 3rd in playoff scoring over a 5 year period of time.
Zetterberg- 2 times top 10 in scoring and the leading scorer in the playoffs for a 5 year period
Toews doesn't fare as well in offense with only a 5th place in goals one time but he is 4th in playoff scoring over a 9 year period.
Kopitar has 3 top 10 finishes in assists and once in points and has twice led the playoffs in scoring.
Bergeron has had some injuries but had 79 points in 65 games last year a level of offense neither Gainey or Carbonneau ever matched.

The difference between one group of guys (the 2 Habs) and the other group is that the Habs group were specialists and complimentary players on their teams, the other group of 5 guys were driving the bus on their teams and that should mean something for the HHOF.

It should be comprised of the best players driving teams not complimentary ones that were complimentary specialist role players.

i guess a philosophical question about how we either watch hockey or evaluate it: can defence drive buses? like, did scott stevens do any bus driving in new jersey in 1995 when he posted an identical stat line to tommy albelin?

one of my favourite ever quotes is after the disastrous toronto/calgary trade, cliff fletcher says "the flames thought joe nieuwendyk was their number one center. now they know it was doug gilmour." in the same way, going into the finals everybody thought kirk muller was montreal's best forward. but after the finals, we understood that it was guy carbonneau.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's an educated guess given the fact that there was a cold war going on and that we do have the actual statistics for the Canada Cup.

Gainey played a more systematic type of game that the Soviets preferred, not the flashy styles of Orr, Potvin, Perreault or Bobby Hull the stars of that series.

I don't have the exact quote on hand but it has often been paraphrased that Tikhonov called Gainey the best player in the world, which when put to the test we can all agree wasn't true.

That just happens to fit your scenario.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think the statistical record is the only objective measure and even the people mentioned above would acknowledge that 5 or 6 other players were more important to that Habs dynasty right?

We can go down the list who was more important in the Habs dyansty

Gainey or Lafleur?
Gainey or Dryden?
Gainey or Robinson?
Gainey or Lemaire?
Gainey or Savard?
Gainey or Shutt?
Gainey or Lapointe? Gainey has a case here as Guy missed 9 games out of the 58 games.

Here is the statistical record for the Habs dynasty.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com


So at the end of the day what would we call a player most likely 7th in importance in a dynasty?

We don't know what would happen if Bergeron played on that team, he played for Boston post lockout and that's what we and the HHOF judge him on.

Conversely Gainey today would still be a role player with little or no chance to be part of a dynasty and likely wouldn't make the HHOF but that's irrelevant he should be judged on what he did, not what he could have done.

I think that is absolutely incorrect.

 

[wetcoast]

That just happens to fit your scenario.

It's neither here or there and doesn't really matter so I don't know why people even bother to bring it up.

No one seriously thought Gainey was the best player in the world or even close to it at any time in history...period.

 

[wetcoast]

I think that is absolutely incorrect.

What else is part of the objective record then?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's neither here or there and doesn't really matter so I don't know why people even bother to bring it up.

No one seriously thought Gainey was the best player in the world or even close to it at any time in history...period.

True.

But your educated guess (why bother?) did indeed fit your scenario.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What else is part of the objective record then?

What Gainey's contemporaries thought of his play and value.

5 Cups

1 Conn Smythe

Most Selke's by a winger

 

[wetcoast]

True.

But your educated guess (why bother?) did indeed fit your scenario.

Well it was a response to this post.

That's the series Viktor Tikhonov watched when he said Gainey may be "technically, the best player in the world."

Which was a response or addition to a previous post suggesting that Gainey could have been a better offensive player.

Let's face it alot of posts here are in response to other posts, its the nature of these boards.

Secondly why is there even any discussion what Gainey could have done offensively when it's pretty clear he wasn't an offensive player at all in junior and that it would be pure conjecture.

We have the record of what he did in all aspects of the game and other elite defensive players in his era had no problem providing offense, Craig Ramsay is the prime example.

I remember watching Gainey alot on Saturday nights and he simply lacked offensive skills compared to the rest of the NHL.

 

[wetcoast]

What Gainey's contemporaries thought of his play and value.

5 Cups

1 Conn Smythe

Most Selke's by a winger

Everyone of of these is subjective in nature.

What Gainey's contemporaries thought is entirely subjective.

5 SC's isn't but his importance on the team is extremely subjective, we have his stats but we also know what those same people thought of Lafleur, Dryden, Robinson, Savard, Shutt ect...

Most Selke's by a winger is also an entirely subjective thing since later on the Selke almost by default now goes to a center and that's because it's entirely subjective.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Everyone of of these is subjective in nature.

What Gainey's contemporaries thought is entirely subjective.

5 SC's isn't but his importance on the team is extremely subjective, we have his stats but we also know what those same people thought of Lafleur, Dryden, Robinson, Savard, Shutt ect...

Most Selke's by a winger is also an entirely subjective thing since later on the Selke almost by default now goes to a center and that's because it's entirely subjective.

Everyone except half of them?

How about that Conn Smythe, eh?

 

[sr edler]

one of my favourite ever quotes is after the disastrous toronto/calgary trade, cliff fletcher says "the flames thought joe nieuwendyk was their number one center. now they know it was doug gilmour."

Perhaps Calgary thought Nieuwendyk would become a true 1C (in the happy early 90s), i.e. they made a decision on supposed trajectory. It's a bad/curious trade even on those grounds, but it's still a different scenario than just dumping Gilmour because he's an imagined 2C.

 

[Tarantula]

Bergeron certainly looks HOF to me, and to his linemates.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Perhaps Calgary thought Nieuwendyk would become a true 1C (in the happy early 90s), i.e. they made a decision on supposed trajectory. It's a bad/curious trade even on those grounds, but it's still a different scenario than just dumping Gilmour because he's an imagined 2C.

my uneducated impression as a ten year old when that trade happened:

i never liked nieuwendyk, just wasn't impressed by him. of all of the scary guys on the flames, he was pretty low on the list.

admittedly i didn't think gilmour was as good as he really was either, i saw him as more of a john tonelli than a junior trottier if you know what i mean. but i feel like the prevailing thought was that theo fleury would shift back to the middle and be calgary's first line center.

what's interesting to me is nieuwenydk's first four years were

50 goals, 90 points
50 goals, 80 points
45 goals, 95 points
45 goals, 85 points

then the gilmour trade happens and he never hits 40 goals or 80 points ever again.

 

[wetcoast]

Everyone except half of them?

How about that Conn Smythe, eh?

Conn Smythe is a voted upon trophy so it's subjective.

I fully acknowledge that it was Gainey's best playoff but he wasn't driving the bus really then either, Lemaire is probably the better choice.

In fact Robinson probably should have been the Conn Smythe winner that year.

 

[Pominville Knows]

my uneducated impression as a ten year old when that trade happened:

i never liked nieuwendyk, just wasn't impressed by him. of all of the scary guys on the flames, he was pretty low on the list.

admittedly i didn't think gilmour was as good as he really was either, i saw him as more of a john tonelli than a junior trottier if you know what i mean. but i feel like the prevailing thought was that theo fleury would shift back to the middle and be calgary's first line center.

what's interesting to me is nieuwenydk's first four years were

50 goals, 90 points
50 goals, 80 points
45 goals, 95 points
45 goals, 85 points

then the gilmour trade happens and he never hits 40 goals or 80 points ever again.

I may be an uneducated adult but why would anyone think that midget Fleury without Gilmour's playmaking or defensive game would be a shoe-in 1C?
Nieuwendyk at least had the size for it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I may be an uneducated adult but why would anyone think that midget Fleury without Gilmour's playmaking or defensive game would be a shoe-in 1C?
Nieuwendyk at least had the size for it.

Fleury was a very good playmaker for a winger (though not as good as Gilmour), so that's probably why. Better playmaker than Nieuwendyk. But yes, he was undersized and didn't have a two-way game to speak of.