John Tonelli's HHOF chances

[Mayor Bee]

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

I believe he's the only player to have two overtime goals in a playoff game that was the last possible one of a playoff series...(Game 5 of a best-of-five in 1982, Game 7 of a best-of-seven in 1988).

It's also worth pointing out that when he was traded from Quebec, the Nords went from within a game of the Wales Conference Final to out of the playoffs entirely. Besides that, how many teams was Hunter on that could truly be considered "great" or even "very good"? There was always someone better just within the division, let alone the conference.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I believe he's the only player to have two overtime goals in a playoff game that was the last possible one of a playoff series...(Game 5 of a best-of-five in 1982, Game 7 of a best-of-seven in 1988).

That is such a random piece of trivia. Good for hunter, i guess.

Besides that, how many teams was Hunter on that could truly be considered "great" or even "very good"? There was always someone better just within the division, let alone the conference

None I guess. But i dont think we should call what tonelli actually did do in the playoffs meaningless because hunter never got all that much of a chance. I stillndont get the comparison.

 

[Hardyvan123]

That is such a random piece of trivia. Good for hunter, i guess.



None I guess. But i dont think we should call what tonelli actually did do in the playoffs meaningless because hunter never got all that much of a chance. I stillndont get the comparison.

I do get the comparison as winning the Stanley Cup (and the praise that seems to go with it) is sometimes out of a players hands see Dale Hunter or Marcel Dionne.

Hunter is actually pretty close to Tonelli in the comp except for one thing in that Tonelli had an excellent Canada Cup in 85 where Hunter was never considered for the Canada Cup ever.

Like i stated before Tonelli belongs in the Hall of the very good and I'll add Hunter in there any day.

 

[MessierThanThou]

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?

Tonelli had two regular season second all-star team berths, meaning he was one of the best at his position for a spell...Bourne did very little in the regular season and was a second-third liner who had Claude Lemieux-initis. Tonelli contributed in Calgary's '86 Finals run and won the Canada Cup MVP (also won by Orr, Tretiak and Gretzky...). He also broke the 100 point barrier, which Gilles and Bourne never accomplished. Tonelli was a major contributor to the Islanders dynasty in both the regular season and playoffs.

Dale Hunter never broke 80 points, never made any all-star teams and really never did anything of any note to deserve any consideration whatsoever. Name a single Hall-worthy accomplishment for Hunter. Tonelli has Stanley Cups, All-Star team berths, post-season success with other teams and international credentials.

 

[MessierThanThou]

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.

I'll narrow it down to the early-mid 80s, because the entire 80s had Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Bourque, and even Roy, playing their best hockey. But when the Islanders were dominating, you had the merger of the NHL and WHA players, an increase in players from Sweden/Finland, Gretzky at his absolute best and the remnants of the Habs 70s dynasty. I'd say that's a more competitive era than any era that came before it. The most competitive era ever is probably the late-80s to mid-90s because of the inclusion of eastern block players like Hasek.

 

[reckoning]

It should be noted that there was only once in the Islanders 4 year Cup reign that they were facing elimination. 1982 1st round against Pittsburgh. Final game of the series. Do or die.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?O19820034

If not for Tonelli's heroics in that game, the 4 straight Cups turns into 3 in 4 years which isn't nearly as impressive.

I don't think he's quite Hall of Fame quality, but he was certainly more than a passenger on those teams. There was a time circa '84 when he was considered the most complete winger in the game.

And how can anyone think Dale Hunter wasn't a clutch performer? He was the heart and soul of those Quebec teams. He scored. He killed penalties. He drove the opponents to distraction. People need to get over the fact that he was "dirty".

I wouldn't put either of them in the Hall, but I think they were both better players than Dino Ciccarelli.

 

[Ogopogo*]

ZERO...well, unless he makes friends with a bunch of guys on the committe and they vote in another of their buddies.

 

[Big Phil]

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?

To be fair I'll throw a few names out there.

Alex Delvecchio
Dickie Moore
Guy Lapointe
Glenn Anderson

All Hall of Famers. And they are all players who are no better than 5th best on a dynasty. Just saying.

As for Hunter, there is no way he is in Tonelli's camp nor is he HHOF worthy. Never scored more than 28 goals or 79 points. This myth that he was great in the playoffs is smeared based on scoring a couple of clutch goals. Yes, he scored those goals which is nice, but his overall playoff resume reads like this:

118 points in 186 games for 0.63 PPG

In the regular season:
1020 points in 1407 games for 0.72 PPG

Nothing about that screams elite. He was once on a team that made the final at the twilight of his career (0 goals in 21 games in that run) and literally never had more than 12 points in a playoff year. For whatever reason Hunter has aged well in the mind of some people. Not for me.

Last little point, while we don't value the all-star game very much, to add insult to injury Hunter was only in the game once in 1997 and even then he was part of the "commissioner's choice" which they had back then and not sure if they do now. Basically Bettman picked a player every year who had a long career and never played in it.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

All of those guys had individual accomplishments to back their induction though. Moore won two Art Ross, Delvecchio had a ridiculous number of top 10 scoring finishes, Lapointe was a four time post-season all-star and would probably have had a Norris if not for Orr's presence.

Glenn Anderson is a guy I personally wouldn't have in my own Hall for what it's worth, but he is probably more defensible than Tonelli given has three 100 point seasons and two 50 goal seasons and has a very near point per game career average over 1000+ games whereas Tonelli has one 100 point season, no 50 goal season and his average over his career is well below a point per game in spite of playing in the most high-scoring era ever.

Statistically, Tonelli measures up very even against Ray Whitney who spent most of his career in a low-scoring era and many here would scoff at Ray Whitney being a HOFer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I do get the comparison as winning the Stanley Cup (and the praise that seems to go with it) is sometimes out of a players hands see Dale Hunter or Marcel Dionne.

Hunter is actually pretty close to Tonelli in the comp except for one thing in that Tonelli had an excellent Canada Cup in 85 where Hunter was never considered for the Canada Cup ever.

Like i stated before Tonelli belongs in the Hall of the very good and I'll add Hunter in there any day.

John tonelli was top 20 in NHL scoring twice. Dale hunter was never top 30. I don't think they are close.

Edit: there's no way that a guy who was never top 30 in scoring and who was good, not elite, defensively was better than ciccarelli.

 

[MS]

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.

Tonelli was a better offensive player than Duff who easily trumps Duff in terms of adjusted offensive statistics.

Tonelli was a better defensive player than Duff.

Duff had a slightly better playoff record in terms of pure numbers, but Tonelli was playing an important defensive role on those teams with limited PP time, while Duff was getting 1st-line PP minutes next to Beliveau. Given the context, I don't see a lot of difference.

Tonelli's performance in the 1984 Canada Cup also likely trumps anything Duff did during his career.

Tonelli is better than Duff,easily.

That said, Tonelli is definitely not a HHOF player. Excellent all-around player who played an important role on a dynasty, but had 2 seasons over 60 adjusted points and never contended for a Selke.

The fact that a clear non-HHOF player like Tonelli is so obviously better than Duff does nothing but further highlight how catastrophic the Duff induction was.

 

[Big Phil]

Statistically, Tonelli measures up very even against Ray Whitney who spent most of his career in a low-scoring era and many here would scoff at Ray Whitney being a HOFer.

You can call Tonelli a poor choice for the HHOF if you'd like but it's a disservice to him to compare him to Ray Whitney. He was never as highly regarded as Tonelli was in his career. Honestly, what did Whitney ever do in his career that made him remotely relevant in the NHL?

 

[MessierThanThou]

Whitney was never on a post-season All-Star Team or even a consideration. Whitney was never a consideration for Team Canada and Whitney certainly wasn't the fifth best player on a dynasty where the four best are all in the Hall of Fame.

There's no logical foundation for this argument. Maybe if you could provide some valid examples?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I said statistically, which you will surely agree is a major factor, though not the only one obviously. But stats do form the basis of most HOF arguments and most arguments on this forum end up being stat arguments.

Whitney has 1142 games 339 goals 584 assists 923 points 0.81 points per game
Tonelli has 1028 games 325 goals 511 assists 836 points 0.82 points per game

Whitney playing mostly in the low-scoring 90s and 00s, Tonelli in the quite high-scoring late 70s and 80s. I'd say statistically they're at least in dead heat with if anything an advantage for Whitney given the era difference.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I said statistically, which you will surely agree is a major factor, though not the only one obviously. But stats do form the basis of most HOF arguments and most arguments on this forum end up being stat arguments.

Whitney has 1142 games 339 goals 584 assists 923 points 0.81 points per game
Tonelli has 1028 games 325 goals 511 assists 836 points 0.82 points per game

Whitney playing mostly in the low-scoring 90s and 00s, Tonelli in the quite high-scoring late 70s and 80s. I'd say statistically they're at least in dead heat with if anything an advantage for Whitney given the era difference.

What do their per game stats look like if you only look at their primes? It's no surprise that a perimeter player like whitney would be able to maintain a high pace for longer.

 

[JT Dutch*]

... Perhaps at the same time, we can put the entire Islanders team from 79-83 in the Hall! Morrow, Jonsson, Melanson, Langevin, the Sutters, Bourne. Why not?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

What do their per game stats look like if you only look at their primes? It's no surprise that a perimeter player like whitney would be able to maintain a high pace for longer.

Tonelli's 6 best seasons in PPG:
84/85 42 G 58 A 100 Pts 1.25 PPG 19th in PPG, 20th in GPG
81/82 35 G 58 A 93 Pts 1.16 PPG 29th in PPG, 61st in GPG
89/90 31 G 37 A 68 Pts 0.93 PPG 56th in PPG, 42nd in GPG
82/83 31 G 40 A 71 Pts 0.93 PPG 56th in PPG 40th in GPG
85/86 23 G 45 A 68 Pts 0.92 PPG 59th in PPG 88th in GPG
83/84 27 G 40 A 67 Pts 0.92 PPG 57th in PPG 70th in GPG

Whitney's 6 best seasons in PPG
06/07 32 G 51 A 83 Pts 1.02 PPG 27th in PPG, 43rd in GPG
08/09 24 G 53 A 77 Pts 0.94 PPG 26th in PPG 83rd in GPG
02/03 24 G 52 A 76 Pts 0.94 PPG 25th in PPG 69th in GPG
07/08 25 G 36 A 61 Pts 0.92 PPG 29th in PPG 37th in GPG
01/02 21 G 40 A 62 Pts 0.91 PPG 20th in PPG 63th in GPG
99/00 29 G 42 A 71 Pts 0.88 PPG 30th in PPG 38th in GPG

If you go by relative comparison to their peers, Tonelli has a 19th and 29th PPG top two seasons, Whitney a 20th and 25th PPG finish.

Obviously in absolute numbers, Tonelli has those two big seasons above Whitney, but then it evens out. Relatively speaking, Whitney's peak is similar to Tonelli's but Whitney kept it up much longer.

Neither guy's stats look like Hall of Fame numbers to me for what it's worth.

 

[Hardyvan123]

John tonelli was top 20 in NHL scoring twice. Dale hunter was never top 30. I don't think they are close.

Edit: there's no way that a guy who was never top 30 in scoring and who was good, not elite, defensively was better than ciccarelli.

I agree that Tonelli was better than Hunter overall but then again Tonelli for some periods also played with better linemates as well.

For overall career value they just are pretty close in my books.

 

[Mr Atoz*]

If your argument is that he's better than Dale Hunter you have no argument.

I think Tonelli in the HOF is a joke.

 

[Big Phil]

I said statistically, which you will surely agree is a major factor, though not the only one obviously. But stats do form the basis of most HOF arguments and most arguments on this forum end up being stat arguments.

Whitney has 1142 games 339 goals 584 assists 923 points 0.81 points per game
Tonelli has 1028 games 325 goals 511 assists 836 points 0.82 points per game

Whitney playing mostly in the low-scoring 90s and 00s, Tonelli in the quite high-scoring late 70s and 80s. I'd say statistically they're at least in dead heat with if anything an advantage for Whitney given the era difference.

Maybe so, but Whitney didn't really bring anything else to the table. He wasn't physical, he wasn't great defensively, he wasn't tenacious. No way would Ray Whitney have been the MVP of a short high stakes tournament like the Canada Cup while beating out Wayne Gretzky and Mike Bossy among others in the eyes of the voters. Lastly, the biggest difference with Whitney and Tonelli is that Whitney was golfing almost all the time come April. He rarely played in the playoffs and even then was never good at it. When Whitney was sun bathing in Dominican Tonelli was battling in the corners in the Stanley Cup final. Big difference (although I realize they didn't play at the SAME time)

 

[Zil]

Maybe so, but Whitney didn't really bring anything else to the table. He wasn't physical, he wasn't great defensively, he wasn't tenacious. No way would Ray Whitney have been the MVP of a short high stakes tournament like the Canada Cup while beating out Wayne Gretzky and Mike Bossy among others in the eyes of the voters. Lastly, the biggest difference with Whitney and Tonelli is that Whitney was golfing almost all the time come April. He rarely played in the playoffs and even then was never good at it. When Whitney was sun bathing in Dominican Tonelli was battling in the corners in the Stanley Cup final. Big difference (although I realize they didn't play at the SAME time)

How exactly is it Whitney's fault that he didn't play for the dynasty Islanders? The fact that Tonelli played on a dynasty isn't a credit to him so much as to his general manager. Plus, Whitney has a cup ring. Having the luck to play for a great team and managing to perform well in a single, not statistically significant tournament does not a Hall of Famer make. Neither of these guys should sniff the HoF.

 

[Big Phil]

How exactly is it Whitney's fault that he didn't play for the dynasty Islanders? The fact that Tonelli played on a dynasty isn't a credit to him so much as to his general manager. Plus, Whitney has a cup ring. Having the luck to play for a great team and managing to perform well in a single, not statistically significant tournament does not a Hall of Famer make. Neither of these guys should sniff the HoF.

43 points in 83 playoff games? That isn't good regardless of whether or not he was on a dynasty team. Besides, it's one thing to be placed in a good situation and another thing to perform well. Joe Thornton and Dany Heatley are too prime examples of players who have been dreadful in the playoffs despite having things laid out for them on a silver platter. Nabokov can be another guy who was a great goalie with a great team who choked in the playoffs. Not every good player put in a prime situation excels.

Tonelli did however. And it isn't Whitney's fault that he wasn't on a dynasty but it isn't Tonelli's fault that Whitney wasn't either. Whitney has longevity in his favour over Tonelli and that's as far as I'll go. He did win a Cup in 2006 and wasn't a bad contributor either but his playoff career doesn't strike anyone as memorable. He's been in the playoffs 6 times in 20 years if that tells you anything. Tonelli on the other hand had been a big part of continuing and starting a dynasty.

Even if you take away the postseason and regular seasons, when did Whitney ever play at a level as high as the 1984 Canada Cup?

 

[Zil]

43 points in 83 playoff games? That isn't good regardless of whether or not he was on a dynasty team. Besides, it's one thing to be placed in a good situation and another thing to perform well. Joe Thornton and Dany Heatley are too prime examples of players who have been dreadful in the playoffs despite having things laid out for them on a silver platter. Nabokov can be another guy who was a great goalie with a great team who choked in the playoffs. Not every good player put in a prime situation excels.

Tonelli did however. And it isn't Whitney's fault that he wasn't on a dynasty but it isn't Tonelli's fault that Whitney wasn't either. Whitney has longevity in his favour over Tonelli and that's as far as I'll go. He did win a Cup in 2006 and wasn't a bad contributor either but his playoff career doesn't strike anyone as memorable. He's been in the playoffs 6 times in 20 years if that tells you anything. Tonelli on the other hand had been a big part of continuing and starting a dynasty.

Even if you take away the postseason and regular seasons, when did Whitney ever play at a level as high as the 1984 Canada Cup?

I'm not saying that Whitney's better than Tonelli. I'm saying the fact that they're even comparable should tell you all you need to know about Tonelli's Hof Worthiness. As far as regular season numbers go within their eras they are comparable. Claude Lemieux was a great playoff performer too, but nobody's arguing that he should be enshrined in Toronto.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What kind of games threshold are you using for PPG? Tonelli finished 13th and 17th in NHl scoring I think. No other top 30 finishes though. Regardless, even if their offenses are close, the rest of their games sure aren't

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If your argument is that he's better than Dale Hunter you have no argument.

I think Tonelli in the HOF is a joke.

I believe the argument is "better than dick duff" and i agree. But he's not that much better and duff was a horrible induction.