John Tonelli's HHOF chances

[Big Phil]

No, he isn't in yet. Maybe never will.

In your opinion, how far is he off an what is he missing to get in there in his career?

Click to read more...

 

[kmad]

He wasn't an elite player at any point in his career. A very good roleplayer/secondary scorer.

 

[seventieslord]

With Gillies and Duff in there - it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[MXD]

Hopefully, none.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

I'd say Hall of Very Good. He made a really nice pass in the spring of 1980, but beyond that...

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Personally, I thought he was a better hockey player than Gillies on those Isles teams. His main claim to fames are being very clutch, a more than solid producer and Canada Cup MVP. Loved seeing him work along the boards.

 

[Sony Eriksson*]

His cartilage-less nose was 2nd to none.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He'd be the Dick Duff the modern era.

At least Gillies was part of a line so famous they got a name (even if he wasn't necessarily on the line for the whole dynasty).

 

[Vladsky]

IIRC, he was the 1984 Canada Cup MVP.

This adds to his strong Isles dynasty resume... He might sneak into HHOF one year.

 

[OrangeZebra]

His wild eyes alone could get him into the hall

 

[BubbaBoot]

I find it difficult to omit him. His numbers are very good. His playoff numbers are very good. He's also one of those "intangible" guys. He's a key member of a dynastic team.

But, there's a ton of guys out there that have similar or better numbers/traits than him. Guys like Adam Oates, Doug Gilmour, Dave Taylor, Rick Middleton, Ken Hodge, Brian Propp, Steve Larmer, Pat Verbeek, Rick Tocchet, Dave Andreychuk, Rick MacLeish, Bernie Nicholls, Joe Nieuwendyk, Gary Roberts, Theo Fleury, Pierre Turgeon, Eric Lindros, Bobby Smith, Alexander Mogilny.....hell, as much as I despise the SOB I'd even include Dale Hunter in this group.

It's a tough omission....

 

[Hardyvan123]

I find it difficult to omit him. His numbers are very good. His playoff numbers are very good. He's also one of those "intangible" guys. He's a key member of a dynastic team.

But, there's a ton of guys out there that have similar or better numbers/traits than him. Guys like Adam Oates, Doug Gilmour, Dave Taylor, Rick Middleton, Ken Hodge, Brian Propp, Steve Larmer, Pat Verbeek, Rick Tocchet, Dave Andreychuk, Rick MacLeish, Bernie Nicholls, Joe Nieuwendyk, Gary Roberts, Theo Fleury, Pierre Turgeon, Eric Lindros, Bobby Smith, Alexander Mogilny.....hell, as much as I despise the SOB I'd even include Dale Hunter in this group.

It's a tough omission....

His intangibles of 35 of 40 playoff goals at even strength make him better than most on this list.

He'd be the Dick Duff the modern era.

At least Gillies was part of a line so famous they got a name (even if he wasn't necessarily on the line for the whole dynasty).

Sorry but he had quite a bit better career than Dick Duff.

Personally, I thought he was a better hockey player than Gillies on those Isles teams. His main claim to fames are being very clutch, a more than solid producer and Canada Cup MVP. Loved seeing him work along the boards.

Tonelli truly is one of those guys who was much more than his stats, and his stats were decent.

Although, IMO, he is better than Gillies and Duff the Hall should be for the great and he really should be in the Hall of the very good.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Better than Dick Duff without a doubt.

 

[JackSlater]

Very good player, very good career, pretty obviously not a HOF player. As far as what his career is missing... I guess you could call it "eliteness". Tonelli was never a top 10 player in the world, and arguably not even all that close at any point. That would basically be a prerequisite for the HOF if I was voting, and if Tonelli was ever all that close to that level he would get in based on the dynasty team he played for.

 

[seventieslord]

Wow, suddenly Duff is a worthless scrub and Tonelli would be a better inductee. They are practically the same player!

Here is a mini-study I did in another thread over a year ago, about some other clutch/dynasty players. What is key for me, is that Duff was five times a top-6 scorer on a cup winner. Tonelli only was once.

Just for fun, I thought I'd take a deeper look at the offensive exploits of some of the players discussed in this thread:

Regular Season

Name | RS Years | Rk-G | Rk-GPG | Rk-A | Rk-APG | Rk-P | Rk-PPG | Pts vs. 10th | Pts vs. 20th | Best-5 G (vs. 20th) | Best-5 A (vs. 20th) | Best-5 G (vs. 10th) | Best-5 A (vs. 10th)
Duff | 56-71 | 12 | 31 | 31 | 45 | 20 | 39 | 0.68 | 1 | 1.44, 1.38, 1.30, 1.13, 1.00 | .82, .80, .80, .76, .76 | 1.08, 1.07, .96, .83, .79 | .67, .67, .66, .58, .56
Anderson | 81-96 | 10 | 28 | 21 | 43 | 15 | 32 | 0.88 | 1.09 | 1.35, 1.32, 1.17, 1.02, .95 , | 1.16, 1.04, .91, .87, .84 | 1.17, 1.15, 1.00, .91, .83 | 1.00, .95, .79, .78, .76
Lemieux | 87-03 | 35 | 48 | 65 | 64 | 46 | 49 | 0.62 | 0.73 | 1.05, 1.00, .87, .84, .75 | .82, .64, .61, .57, .55 | .98, .83, .79, .69, .67 | .68, .59, .52, .49, .47
Goring | 70-85 | 16 | 41 | 16 | 43 | 12 | 38 | 0.96 | 1.14 | 1.06, 1.03, .94, .94, .88 | 1.15, 1.06, 1.02, .80, .78 | .93, .9, .83, .78, .77 | 1.00, .93, .89, .67, .63
Gillies | 75-87 | 23 | 46 | 38 | 50 | 28 | 47 | 0.75 | 0.89 | 1.03, 1.00, 1.00, .97, .95 | 1.17, 1.11, .87, .67, .67 | .92, .88, .88, .79, .76 | .98, .88, .69, .61, .58
Tonelli | 79-92 | 34 | 47 | 28 | 44 | 26 | 45 | 0.78 | 0.91 | 1.02, .88, .78, .76, .76 | 1.07, 1.00, .81, .79, .75 | .91, .69, .67, .65, .57 | .94, .87, .71, .68, .68
Bourne | 75-88 | 50 | 50 | 71 | 70 | 60 | 60 | 0.61 | 0.71 | .90, .86, .86, .68, .55 | .79, .78, .73, .65, .61 | .75, .75, .54, .53, .47 | .71, .63, .58, .54, .52
MacLeish | 73-84 | 16 | 24 | 24 | 34 | 18 | 25 | 0.9 | 1.05 | 1.53, 1.35, 1.06, 1.00, .97 | 1.02, 1.00, 1.00, .87, .82 | 1.36, 1.25, .95, .89, .79 | .91, .87, .87, .68, .68
Pulford | 57-72 | 14 | 33 | 19 | 42 | 15 | 35 | 0.75 | 1.11 | 1.27, 1.20, 1.10, .95, .95 | 1.00, 1.00, .97, .93, .89 | 1.00, 1.00, .85, .76, .75 | .80, .78, .77, .75, .72
Tikkanen | 86-99 | 71 | 68 | 66 | 62 | 71 | 67 | 0.61 | 0.71 | .89, .76, .75, .68, .55 | .93, .85, .85, .79, .77 | .81, .67, .67, .60, .48 | .80, .79, .77, .66, .66
Linden | 89-08 | 32 | 49 | 44 | 50 | 37 | 50 | 0.68 | 0.78 | .85, .83, .82, .80, .79 | .81, .80, .73, .70, .65 | .74, .73, .70, .70, .69 | .70, .69, .63, .58, .56

RS Years = The years that were used in the analysis - I had mercy on any player who had less than 25 games played in a season.

Rk-G, A, P = Where they ranked among all NHL players throughout the span of their careers.

Rk-GPG, APG, PPG = Where they ranked among all NHL players in per-game averages over the span of their careers, among the top-50 in each category. If the player did not make the top-50, then their per-game average is based on the top-(whatever the player's rank was)

Pts vs. 10th/20th = Player's points over this span divided by the player with the 10th and 20th-most over the same span.

Best 5 = The player's best 5 single seasons in terms of their total divided by the 10th and 20th-best in the NHL. 1.00 means you were exactly 10th (or 20th) - .50 would mean you had exactly half what 10th (or 20th) had. Using this instead of raw rankings helps to smooth out the fact that although 10th and 20th can translate to 10th and 20th fairly well between the O6 era and the modern era, a 57th, for example, doesn't translate to a 57th. I used goals and assists as I didn't have an easily accessible spreadsheet for points.

Playoffs

Name | PO Years | Rk-G | Rk-GPG | Rk-A | Rk-APG | Rk-P | Rk-PPG | Best-5 G | Best-5 A | Best-5 Pts | PO PPG | Adj. | Peak PO PPG | Adj. | PO/Reg | Cups | Rk-Cups
Duff | 56-69 | 7 | 18 | 5 | 17 | 6 | 17 | 4, 5, 7, 7, 11 | 3, 3, 5, 6, 8 | 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.92 | 0.99 | 1.23 | 6 | 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 8
Anderson | 81-96 | 4 | 17 | 5 | 19 | 4 | 16 | 2, 6, 6, 7, 7 | 6, 6, 7, 7, 8 | 4, 5, 5, 6, 7 | 0.95 | 0.84 | 1.34 | 1.11 | 0.98 | 6 | 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 11
Lemieux | 86-03 | 2 | 25 | 20 | 30 | 8 | 29 | 1, 1, 3, 11, 20 | 6, 9, 10, 13, 24 | 3, 8, 9, 11, 12 | 0.67 | 0.68 | 1 | 1.01 | 1.03 | 4 | 2, 4, 5, 9
Goring | 74-85 | 16 | 29 | 16 | 28 | 16 | 29 | 5, 6, 16, 24, 28 | 7, 16, 21, 26, 30 | 8, 8, 12, 24, 28 | 0.66 | 0.57 | 1.06 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 4 | 4, 4, 9, 10
Gillies | 75-88 | 9 | 26 | 28 | 30 | 17 | 29 | 3, 6, 18, 20, 20 | 11, 19, 21, 30, 35 | 5, 13, 17, 21, 33 | 0.57 | 0.5 | 0.83 | 0.71 | 0.79 | 4 | 6, 7, 7, 16
Tonelli | 79-91 | 15 | 30 | 14 | 28 | 14 | 29 | 11, 14, 14, 16, 26 | 9, 11, 14, 15, 16 | 11, 11, 12, 15, 28 | 0.67 | 0.57 | 0.83 | 0.69 | 0.83 | 4 | 4, 7, 7, 8
Bourne | 75-88 | 17 | 26 | 19 | 28 | 15 | 27 | 3, 3, 9, 34, 41 | 2, 11, 21, 42, 43 | 4, 6, 11, 42, 44 | 0.69 | 0.59 | 1.07 | 0.89 | 1.15 | 4 | 1, 3, 4, 11
MacLeish | 71-84 | 3 | 9 | 14 | 21 | 10 | 14 | 1, 2, 5, 7, 20 | 5, 6, 8, 8, 26 | 1, 1, 5, 9, 17 | 0.94 | 0.86 | 1.26 | 1.25 | 1.04 | 2 | 1, 1
Pulford | 59-69 | 10 | 14 | 20 | 26 | 14 | 19 | 2, 3, 4, 7, 16 | 1, 8, 15, 19, 31 | 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 | 0.57 | 0.62 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.96 | 4 | 3, 4, 6, 7
Tikkanen | 85-98 | 5 | 26 | 24 | 49 | 11 | 45 | 3, 4, 6, 6, 12 | 4, 12, 28, 64, 72 | 4, 5, 6, 16, 39 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 1.2 | 1.02 | 0.99 | 5 | 4, 4, 8, 9, 19
Linden | 89-07 | 45 | 46 | 30 | 26 | 29 | 38 | 2, 29, 30, 30, 49 | 7, 18, 26, 32, 32 | 5, 20, 23, 44, 45 | 0.8 | 0.84 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 1.27 | 0 | N/A

PO Years = The years used for the study. In all cases it was just full span between the player's first and last playoff, inclusive.

Rk G, GPG, A, APG, P, PPG = Same as above. Except top-30 was used instead of top-50.

Best-5 G, A, Pts = Their five best rankings in the playoff scoring leaders in goals, assists, and points.

PO PPG = Playoff points per game.

Adj. = Playoff Points per game, after adjustment based on an average GAA of 2.89 over the span of 1956-2003. This is based on a weighting of each player's playoff seasons based on how many games they played in each.

Peak PO PPG = Peak playoff points per game. The player's PPG in their three best playoffs, combined.

Adj. = Peak PO PPG, adjusted in the same way that their raw Peak PO PPG was.

PO/Reg = Simply the player's PO PPG average divided by their RS PPG average.

Cups = Stanley Cups Won.

Significant achievements in each category are bolded.

Rk-Cups = Player's ranking in team scoring on all Stanley Cup Wins.

 

[andreydali19]

Reboot the Veterans Committee. Might help.

 

[BubbaBoot]

His intangibles of 35 of 40 playoff goals at even strength make him better than most on this list.

While that is an impressive ratio, I don't think that should be the leading (only?) factor for inclusion....epecially when there is more than a few guys who scored more goals in less games....even more even strength goals in less games....and most of these guys won't be getting in the HoF either.

PLYOF
GMS - G - EV

172 - 40 - 35 - John Tonelli

163 - 42 - 23 - Adam Oates
182 - 60 - 38 - Doug Gilmour
92 - 26 - 14 - Dave Taylor
114 - 45 - 33 - Rick Middleton
97 - 34 - 21 - Ken Hodge
160 - 64 - 34 - Brian Propp
140 - 56 - 32 - Steve Larmer
117 - 26 - 11 - Pat Verbeek
145 - 52 - 35 - Rick Tocchet
162 - 43 - 25 - Dave Andreychuk
114 - 54 - 13 - Rick MacLeish
118 - 42 - 25 - Bernie Nicholls
158 - 66 - 43 - Joe Nieuwendyk
130 - 32 - 23 - Gary Roberts
77 - 34 - 21 - Theo Fleury
109 - 35 - 25 - Pierre Turgeon
53 - 24 - 17 - Eric Lindros
184 - 64 - 40 - Bobby Smith
174 - 54 - 39 - Steve Thomas
124 - 39 - 30 - Alexander Mogilny
143 - 51 - 26 - Brian Bellows
234 - 80 - 60 - Claude Lemiuex
81 - 40 - 19 - Tim Kerr
102 - 32 - 27 - Dave Christian
134 - 53 - 37 - Stephane Richer
135 - 35 - 24 - Neal Broten
139 - 32 - 23 - Tomas Sandstrom
59 - 23 - 19 - Kevin Dineen
113 - 43 - 32 - Ken Linesman
107 - 40 - 32 - Peter McNab
79 - 24 - 19 - Tony McKegney
140 - 41 - 24 - Vincent Damphousse
104 - 35 - 21 - John MacLean
55 - 17 - 13 - Jimmy Carson
81 - 31 - 17 - Ray Sheppard
156 - 39 - 25 - Geoff Courtnall
129 - 39 - 29 - Russ Courtnall
104 - 28 - 21 - Mike Ridley
64 - 35 - 27 - Pavel Bure
66 - 20 - 14 - Anton Stastny
80 - 30 - 17 - Peter Bondra
103 - 46 - 26 - Kevin Stevens
102 - 35 - 18 - Mats Naslund
125 - 38 - 25 - Adam Graves
95 - 37 - 27 - Wendel Clark
124 - 34 - 16 - Trevor Linden
85 - 24 - 14 - Brent Ashton
65 - 21 - 15 - Owen Nolan
64 - 25 - 17 - Danny Gare
89 - 31 - 22 - Ron Duguay
141 - 44 - 29 - Scott Young
118 - 27 - 20 - Murray Craven
41 - 16 - 14 - Stan Smyl
126 - 29 - 20 - Cliff Ronning
186 - 42 - 27 - .....hell, as much as I despise the SOB I'd even include Dale Hunter in this group.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

I'm not really one to get into HOF debates but having watched JT in his prime, I can say that there aren't many players I'd take on my playoff team ahead of him.

 

[MessierThanThou]

Tonelli was a two-time second team All-Star, so he was also one of the best at his position for at least two seasons (1982, 1985). The Islanders are the most dominant dynasty next to the Oilers, in one of the most competitive NHL eras ever. Tonelli was the only member of that dynasty besides Bossy, Trottier, Potvin and Billy Smith to be on a post-season All-Star Team. He was also a big part of Calgary's 1986 trip to the finals. He was a far more consistent contributor in the regular and post-seasons to the Islanders dynastic sucess than both Gilles (whose best performance came after the Islanders 4 cups) and Butch Goring (who won a questionable Conn Smythe and was very inconsistent overall). And...he won the 1984 Canada Cup MVP. He should be in.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How was the early 80s one of the most competitive eras ever? There were Andre dominant teams, and most teams couldn't really compete. Sure it was more competitive than the 70s, but thatbosnt saying much.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I do say that I don't understand why gillies got in over tonelli. He got in for being the third member of the famous line, but apparently the line wasn't together through the whole dynasty?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

If Tonelli why not Dale Hunter?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If Tonelli why not Dale Hunter?

The case for tonelli involves his contribution to a dynasty. I don't understand the comparison. What did hunter contribute to playoff success?

 

[Epsilon]

If Hunter were elected to the Hall of Fame he would easily be the worst post-war player inducted, by an enormous margin.

Reboot the Veterans Committee. Might help.

Dear god no, that would be just awful.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

The case for tonelli involves his contribution to a dynasty. I don't understand the comparison. What did hunter contribute to playoff success?

Well, see one man's contributor to a dynasty is another man's coattail rider. If Dale Hunter is on those Isles who knows what he does?

I think it's pretty weak sauce to give a guy credit for a dynasty when he was maybe the 5th best player on those teams. I mean what about Bob Bourne? 31 goals and 74 points in the playoffs in the Cup years for the Isles. Isn't that more than Tonelli?