Mats Sundin HHOF worthiness

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And I don't find that argument a compelling one in the least bit. Racking up assists to me is less important than being the focal point of an offence with underwhelming line-mates that was one of the most productive in the league largely due to Sundin's individual brilliance in 2001-02.

Seems like the root of our disagreement comes down to two things:

1) You think goals are much more valuable than assists
2) You think Sundin had lesser linemates than Sakic.

As for #1, it's really a judgment call. I agree with you that goals are more valuable than assists on average, but when it comes to an elite playmaker like Sakic (who was 3rd in the league in assists that season and had more assists than any other forward on his team had points!), I think the assist is usually just as valuable as a goal.

As for #2, I just don't see any justification for your position. Hejduk had an injury-plagued 2001-02 and was less effective than usual when he did play, and Tanguay really wasn't that good yet. Sakic did get to play with Rob Blake, but Sundin got to play with Mogilny on the powerplay.

Yes, hence why I used the term scoring and not points.

Usually "scoring" means points, not goals. Sorry for the confusion.

In most seasons it approached or exceeded 55.0%. It's one of the reasons why I feel that Sundin's defensive play is overlooked. I cannot tell you how many face-offs over the years with the Leafs that he won in close and late situations that had a tremendous impact in diffusing an opposition rally or enabling the Leafs to get prime scoring chances to put games away or take leads. It was an extremely overlooked aspect of his game and one in which he was only a step down from the likes of Perreault as tops in the league in that category.

Right, seems like Sundin was a lot like Adam Oates in that regard - not a great player without the puck, but so good at winning faceoffs he had quite a bit of defensive value for that reason alone.

Goaltending is an inexact science and for whatever reason players sometimes just perform better in some seasons than in others. I'm prepared to accept that Roy just had an elite season, even by his Hall of Fame standards, that year. The Avalanche individually did not really impress me that much from a defensive standpoint beyond the likes of Stephane Yelle, Rob Blake, and Adam Foote. They had bought into a system but they weren't New Jersey dominant. Roy was the king-maker that season for Colorado in terms of their defensive ranking.

Roy was definitely the MVP of the Avs that season, both defensively and overall. But they did play a more defensive style that IMO hurt Sakic's offensive numbers. I think it was a continuation of the 01 playoffs - after Forsberg went down, the team tightened up defensively to compensate with obvious success.

Yep. And Sundin is also renown in Toronto for turning Jonas Hoglund into a 30 goal scorer two seasons prior to that. He was legendary for maximizing his talents with minimal line-mates. Even after Mogilny's arrival the two rarely played together and Mogilny was a fixture on the second-line.

As matnor showed, Mogilny didn't play with Sundin that much in the season in question (though he did on the powerplay!), but they were linemates the following season (which doesn't matter for the current discussion).

And are you really going to try and argue that two all-stars in Hejduk and Tanguay (one of whom is a Rocket Richard Trophy winner) really constitute comparable line-mates? Come on. Hedjuk had a close to 100 point season and Tanguay has multiple PPG campaigns under his belt.

Hejduk had an injury-plagued 01-02 and scored 44 points in 62 games, far below his normal per-season average. Tanguay scored 48 points in 70 games.

Again, Sakic outscored his linemates by more than Sundin outscored his that season, though injuries were factors for Sakic's linemates.

Nope. The two rarely played together during their time in Toronto. The first line for the Leafs in 2001-02 was Hoglund - Sundin - Renberg and the second-line was Roberts - Reichel - Mogilny.

Right. They did get to play together on the PP though, correct?

The reason Sakic's 2002 season isn't remembered as fondly as his other campaigns is because he established an exceedingly high standard by which to be judged and he was decidedly mediocre that season in relation to his other years.

Disagree entirely for reasons stated above. 5th in scoring, with 1 point less than Sundin, while playing excellent defense on a defense-first team.

Whether that's fair or not is for the honest observer to judge, but I felt he was a clear step down in performance from his career-best 2000-01 season and his excellent 2003-04 season (which is easily a 100+ point season when adjusted for the minimal scoring numbers of that year).

Oh I definitely agree that Sakic wasn't as good as he was in 00-01, that's for sure.

2002 might have been the best season of Sundin's career when adjusted for scoring. His 41 goals probably translates to in excess of 50 when normalized (I'm not certain), which is rather incredible goal-scoring production from a centre who had minimal help in terms of line-mates.

This is really what it comes down to for you - Sundin's high number of goals in 01-02. And that's a rational argument, but it's really the only one that would put Sundin over Sakic.

The fact that Sakic was playing with two PPG players? The fact that they happened to have poor seasons does not detract from the fact that Hejduk and Tanguay are clearly superior to any player Sundin played with in Toronto. I sincerely doubt anyone would rationally dispute this fact.

Superior for their career, not for the 01-02 season.

Secondly, again, Sundin rarely played with Mogilny on the Leafs until 2002-03. For whatever reason the two never exhibited any significant element of chemistry with one another. Renberg was used as his primary right-winger because of his ability to retrieve loose pucks from the corner and battle along the wall effectively. Mogilny was a pure skill player and complimented the grit and determination of Roberts on the second-line. Roberts often interchanged with Hoglund on the first line as well, especially by the 2001-02 season. Hoglund was used as the primary left-winger with very few exceptions in each of the previous two Leafs seasons.

ok

You're making an incorrect hypothesis from the get-go here, which is why this position is problematic: Quinn's teams were more offensive on average, therefore Sundin had to have benefited from said systems because offensive style has to mean greater offensive production. Right?

The problem with this line of thinking is that, as I have illustrated beforehand, Sundin actually played just as consistently offensively in seasons in which the Leafs were a decidedly average club from a goal-scoring perspective (such as the previous season in 2000-01 when they finished middle of the pack in scoring). The next year they're challenging for the league-lead in scoring and Sundin has a mere six additional points to show for it. How does the data illustrate a correlation between the Leafs style of play and Sundin's offence? Paul Maurice was a notoriously defensive coach and Sundin's numbers remained fairly similar (with a slight boost owing to the post-lockout rulebook designed to increase scoring levels), averaging a 84.75 point pace with him at the helm of the Leafs bench. There is simply nothing to suggest he ever benefited offensively from Quinn's style of hockey.

Disagree. Pat Quinn was one of the few coaches in the NHL to not abandon offense in favor of a defense-first style of play during the dead puck era. I don't think Pat Quinn teams ever used "the trap," like most teams did.

His players were allowed to take chances that players from most other teams simply were not allowed to take at the time.

And again, even taking into account Sakic's defensive advantage I simply don't see any way in which his defensive skill could have mitigated the 15 goal difference between the two players. Had Sakic scored 35 goals that season we would have a different argument, but he didn't.

That's basically it, it comes down to goals for you. It's really a philosophical difference we have - while I think goals are more valuable than assists on the whole - assists from elite playmakers like Sakic are just as valuable.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Anyway, this is getting besides the point. Sundin certainly didn't have to reach Sakic levels to be a legit HHOF.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Seems like the root of our disagreement comes down to two things:

1) You think goals are much more valuable than assists
2) You think Sundin had lesser linemates than Sakic.

Pretty much that's what it boils down to in terms of our disagreement, yeah.

As for #1, it's really a judgment call. I agree with you that goals are more valuable than assists on average, but when it comes to an elite playmaker like Sakic (who was 3rd in the league in assists that season and had more assists than any other forward on his team had points!), I think the assist is usually just as valuable as a goal.

And when it comes to an elite scorer like Sundin was that season (only Iginla scored more) I think that his goal-scoring ability was worth more than Sakic's play-making.

As for #2, I just don't see any justification for your position. Hejduk had an injury-plagued 2001-02 and was less effective than usual when he did play, and Tanguay really wasn't that good yet. Sakic did get to play with Rob Blake, but Sundin got to play with Mogilny on the powerplay.

This is probably the first argument I've ever seen anywhere where someone is actually arguing that Sundin's line-mates were an asset to him rather than a total liability to his production. Hejduk was coming off of a 79 point season and two consecutive All-Star Game selections while Tanguay was coming off of a 77 point season and a 21 point in 23 game post-season performance for Colorado's championship team the year before. Both were young and both were considered bonafide top-end forwards at the time. There is absolutely no merit to the argument that Sakic's line-mates were as poor as Sundin at that point in time. None.

Usually "scoring" means points, not goals. Sorry for the confusion.

No worries. I generally will try to clarify if I'm referring to points.

Right, seems like Sundin was a lot like Adam Oates in that regard - not a great player without the puck, but so good at winning faceoffs he had quite a bit of defensive value for that reason alone.

The two were very different players from a stylistic standpoint. Sundin was more of a scorer and used his massive frame to protect the puck, while Oates was more cerebral and viewed the game through a superior play-maker's lens. You're correct though that both brought underrated defence to the table mainly as a result of their face-off abilities. I recall Oates being quite effective in that regard as well.

Roy was definitely the MVP of the Avs that season, both defensively and overall. But they did play a more defensive style that IMO hurt Sakic's offensive numbers. I think it was a continuation of the 01 playoffs - after Forsberg went down, the team tightened up defensively to compensate with obvious success.

I'll agree with most of this as well: my only disagreement comes in how much of the Avs defensive success can be attributed to Roy's elite play and how much can be attributed to the Avs increased defensive style of play that season out of necessity (with Forsberg mostly out of the picture, Bourque's retirement, etc.). But otherwise we again agree.

As matnor showed, Mogilny didn't play with Sundin that much in the season in question (though he did on the powerplay!), but they were linemates the following season (which doesn't matter for the current discussion).

Like I said, they just didn't click together that well for whatever reason. One might also get the impression based on Mogilny's PPG performance the following season (the only time in Sundin's thirteen seasons in Toronto a different Leaf outscored him points-wise), but even then when one actually watched the two you could see the lack of chemistry they had together.

Hejduk had an injury-plagued 01-02 and scored 44 points in 62 games, far below his normal per-season average. Tanguay scored 48 points in 70 games.

I know that, but again, good players can have poor seasons. One only has to see Selanne and Kariya's underwhelming, forgettable performances in Colorado two seasons later for an understanding of how great talents can provide disappointing production. I still don't think anyone in their right mind would equate Jonas Hoglund and Mikael Renberg to being on the level of either Tanguay or Hejduk, and certainly not collectively.

Again, Sakic outscored his linemates by more than Sundin outscored his that season, though injuries were factors for Sakic's linemates.

But he didn't when you look at the statistics.

Sundin -> Renberg: 28 point advantage.
Sundin -> Hoglund: 33 point advantage.

Sakic -> Hejduk: 35 point advantage (on pace for 58 points -> 21 point advantage)
Sakic -> Tanguay: 31 point advantage.

Sundin outscored Renberg and Hoglund (using the difference between each player's respective point totals compared to Sundin) by 61 points in 2001-02. Sakic outscored Hejduk and Tanguay by 66 points, but Hejduk also missed 20 games that season. If he maintains his pace of 58 points / 82 games played that's merely a 52 point advantage. Relevant to their respective lines Sundin was actually outscoring his line-mates by a greater rate than Sakic was that season.

Right. They did get to play together on the PP though, correct?

They did, but Mogilny also missed a comparable amount of time to injuries that Hejduk did in 2001-02 (16 games to 20 games).


The Leafs top PP unit that season was:

Gary Roberts - Mats Sundin - Alex Mogilny

Bryan McCabe - Tomas Kaberle


The secondary PP unit that season was:

Mikael Renberg - Robert Reichel - Darcy Tucker

Dmitry Yushkevich - Karel Pilar/Jyrki Lumme (after being acquired from Dallas)

Disagree entirely for reasons stated above. 5th in scoring, with 1 point less than Sundin, while playing excellent defense on a defense-first team.

And also 37% less in goal-production with superior line-mates and not being as dominant in the face-off circle. The Leafs were also a better team than Colorado that regular-season in large part due to how good Sundin was for them.

Oh I definitely agree that Sakic wasn't as good as he was in 00-01, that's for sure.

Sakic's 2000-01 season to me is one of the top ten performances from the past two decades by a player.

This is really what it comes down to for you - Sundin's high number of goals in 01-02. And that's a rational argument, but it's really the only one that would put Sundin over Sakic.

And the face-off argument, the importance of which I have already touched on.

Disagree. Pat Quinn was one of the few coaches in the NHL to not abandon offense in favor of a defense-first style of play during the dead puck era. I don't think Pat Quinn teams ever used "the trap," like most teams did.

They didn't use the trap but there is still no measurable data that suggests that Quinn's players, or Sundin specifically, ever benefited from his system on the stats sheet. That's why you err in assuming that it automatically benefited them. If you can't measure it you cannot prove your hypothesis.

His players were allowed to take chances that players from most other teams simply were not allowed to take at the time.

And?

That's basically it, it comes down to goals for you. It's really a philosophical difference we have - while I think goals are more valuable than assists on the whole - assists from elite playmakers like Sakic are just as valuable.

I value goal-scoring more than assists generally-speaking, but everything should also be taken in the context of which it occurred as a rule. No one would consider Jonathan Cheechoo better than Joe Thornton in 2005-06 simply because he scored more goals for instance. The reason Sundin's 2001-02 season was so impressive to me is that he was traditionally first and foremost a play-maker (like Sakic) who made the transition to elite goal-scorer in the absence of any significant forward presence up front for the Leafs (beyond a somewhat disappointing Mogilny who he rarely played with) and willed the offence to be better. Subsequent seasons show a return to his traditional career goal to assist ratio (his career average is 34 goals and 48 assists per season over 82 games), but for 2001-02 he managed to carry the offence by transitioning his offensive game to a different style.

Anyway, this is getting besides the point. Sundin certainly didn't have to reach Sakic levels to be a legit HHOF.

Agreed. We've both made our arguments. If anything though, it does show that at bare minimum it has certainly been proven to a considerable degree that Sundin meets at least one key Hall of Fame test (for the skeptics out there): was the player ever the best at their position in a season? Or could it at least be argued that they were? And the answer to that question is a certifiable yes. To me that's an important consideration in favour of Mats' Hall of Fame credentials, and having a discussion about it to remind people who may have forgotten about his status amongst his peers, and at a very competitive position no less, is a key part to understanding why he deserves to be there in the end.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is probably the first argument I've ever seen anywhere where someone is actually arguing that Sundin's line-mates were an asset to him rather than a total liability to his production. Hejduk was coming off of a 79 point season and two consecutive All-Star Game selections while Tanguay was coming off of a 77 point season and a 21 point in 23 game post-season performance for Colorado's championship team the year before. Both were young and both were considered bonafide top-end forwards at the time. There is absolutely no merit to the argument that Sakic's line-mates were as poor as Sundin at that point in time. None.

I was not arguing that Sundin's linemates were an asset to him (except Mogilny on the PP). I am, however, arguing that Sakic's linemates were not much of an asset to him, either, so you really can't use the "poor Mats didn't get to play with anyone good" argument in this case.

Hejduk and Tanguay were both coming off a great season in 00-01, but neither had a great offensive season in 01-02, whether it be due to injuries, cup hangover, or Colorado's more defensive system that year.

I know that, but again, good players can have poor seasons. One only has to see Selanne and Kariya's underwhelming, forgettable performances in Colorado the next season for an understanding of how great talents can provide disappointing production. I still don't think anyone in their right mind would equate Jonas Hoglund and Mikael Renberg to being on the level of either Tanguay or Hejduk, and certainly not collectively.

In 01-02 specifically, I don't think either Tanguay or Hejduk were any better - they certainly weren't statistically better than Sundin's linemates. It was a down season for both of them.

Renberg had a previous history of complimenting a star center very well, as he did with Lindros, so I'm not sure that it matters that Hejduk and Tanguay were good in previous seasons.

But he didn't when you look at the statistics.

Sundin -> Renberg: 28 point advantage.
Sundin -> Hoglund: 33 point advantage.

Sakic -> Hejduk: 35 point advantage (on pace for 58 points -> 21 point advantage)
Sakic -> Tanguay: 31 point advantage.

Sundin outscored Renberg and Hoglund (using the difference between each player's respective point totals compared to Sundin) by 61 points in 2001-02. Sakic outscored Hejduk and Tanguay by 66 points, but Hejduk also missed 20 games that season. If he maintains his pace of 58 points / 82 games played that's merely a 52 point advantage. Relevant to their respective lines Sundin was actually outscoring his line-mates by a greater rate than Sakic was that season.

Sakic's linemates weren't helping his production when they were sitting in the stands. Seriously though, IMO it's quite obvious that both Sakic and Sundin carried their respective lines that season.

And while Sakic had the advantage of Rob Blake on the point, your PP units show that Sundin had Kaberle and McCabe together, a potent tandem.

And also 37% less in goal-production with superior line-mates and not being as dominant in the face-off circle. The Leafs were also a better team than Colorado that regular-season in large part due to how good Sundin was for them.

The Leafs finished 1 point above Colorado in the standings, so don't get too carried away with the "better team" business. They scored significantly more goals than Colorado because apparently they got better secondary scoring. I think a lot of writers were impressed by how Sakic carried such a large % of Colorado's offense (you can argue whether that should matter to the writers, but I think it does).

They didn't use the trap but there is still no measurable data that suggests that Quinn's players, or Sundin specifically, ever benefited from his system on the stats sheet. That's why you err in assuming that it automatically benefited them. If you can't measure it you cannot prove your hypothesis.

Well, we can certainly measure how almost every player on Colorado how a down season offensively in 01-02, as they played more defensively that year?

And?

Score a bit more often as a result at the expense of goals-against. Quinn was a stubborn man who refused to play the trapping game that almost every other team played during the era.

I value goal-scoring more than assists generally-speaking, but everything should also be taken in the context of which it occurred as a rule. No one would consider Jonathan Cheechoo better than Joe Thornton in 2005-06 simply because he scored more goals for instance. The reason Sundin's 2001-02 season was so impressive to me is that he was traditionally first and foremost a play-maker (like Sakic) who made the transition to elite goal-scorer in the absence of any significant forward presence up front for the Leafs (beyond a somewhat disappointing Mogilny who he rarely played with) and willed the offence to be better. Subsequent seasons show a return to his traditional career goal to assist ratio (his career average is 34 goals and 48 assists per season over 82 games), but for 2001-02 he managed to carry the offence by transitioning his offensive game to a different style.

Okay. I don't agree that Sundin "carried" the offense, when the Maple Leafs had a pretty stacked offense relative to other teams, but it is impressive when a player can change his style to benefit his team.

 

[Your old Jofa helmet]

He's the best performer on the international level. I've witnessed KLM line on their peak, I've seen many great Canadian teams. No one played on his level in the national team. He was unstoppable.

Shows you how well he could play when partnered with great players

 

[connellc]

Neither Adam Oates nor Brendan Shanahan have a single piece of individual hardware to their name either.

Shanny has a King Clancy, but I get your point. You're not trying to convince anyone that Oates and Shanny shouldn't get in before Sundin, right? I mean, I think we can both agree that they were much superior players than Mats ever was career wise and peak.

Center was extremely deep for Canada at the time, and that's the main reason why Oates never got on any international teams. It's the same problem Savard had all those years too. Wayne, Mario,Messier were solidly Canada's centers that nobody would argue with. Hawerchuck could play defense, which is he was picked over Oates. If Hull had played for Canada, you bet Oates would be on the team, but Keenan really like Hawerchuck for his two way play. You can't blame Oates because of that.

I will sagree that Oates doesn't have hardware ,however, what Oates did in the 1990's for helping snipers was too muh to ignore. Second most in assists in the 1990's next to Wayne and he aged very well too. I don't think he's a slam dunk case, but he certainly should be in the hall before Mats.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

I was not arguing that Sundin's linemates were an asset to him (except Mogilny on the PP). I am, however, arguing that Sakic's linemates were not much of an asset to him, either, so you really can't use the "poor Mats didn't get to play with anyone good" argument in this case.

If I mischaracterized your argument I apologize.

As bad as Tanguay and Hejduk performed by their usual high standards that season, Renberg and Hoglund had a combined 27 goals between them. For two supposed first-line wingers that's unfathomably bad.

Hejduk and Tanguay were both coming off a great season in 00-01, but neither had a great offensive season in 01-02, whether it be due to injuries, cup hangover, or Colorado's more defensive system that year.

I think we have a tendency on here, due to the extensive hockey knowledge that exists particular in the History of Hockey section, to over-analyze in certain instances. Sometimes players or teams have down seasons. There might not even be any logical reason for it occurring. It can just happen.

In 01-02 specifically, I don't think either Tanguay or Hejduk were any better - they certainly weren't statistically better than Sundin's linemates. It was a down season for both of them.

Hejduk was on pace to be better than either Renberg or Hoglund (who would be out of the NHL for good in less than two years) point-wise, and both him and Tanguay scored more goals than Sundin's line-mates. Whether that's due to Sakic's play-making skills or some other factor it still lends credence to the fact that Sakic had more to work with than Sundin did, bad seasons for the pair included. Hoglund and Renberg weren't capable of performing at a level much higher than what they did that season. The same cannot be said in the inverse case.

Renberg had a previous history of complimenting a star center very well, as he did with Lindros, so I'm not sure that it matters that Hejduk and Tanguay were good in previous seasons.

Oh come on now: Renberg's best season came as a rookie in 1993-94 and then in the lock-out shortened 1994-94 season as part of the Legion of Doom. He never even approached a PPG rate for the rest of his career, with his next best season coming as a 24 year old in 1997 with Philadelphia. He was certainly on the wrong side of his career by the time he reached Toronto. Certainly not the young star talent that both Tanguay and Hejduk were by that point.

Sakic's linemates weren't helping his production when they were sitting in the stands. Seriously though, IMO it's quite obvious that both Sakic and Sundin carried their respective lines that season.

Agreed, but Sakic generally had the benefit of the doubt in that respect. Sundin carried his line for most of his career as any Leafs fan can attest.

And while Sakic had the advantage of Rob Blake on the point, your PP units show that Sundin had Kaberle and McCabe together, a potent tandem.

True, but the chemistry between Kaberle and McCabe that most observers will recall off-hand occurred primarily in 2005-06 and 2006-07 when they were the best offensive pairing in the NHL. In 2001-02 they weren't nearly the offensive force that they would become in later seasons.

The Leafs finished 1 point above Colorado in the standings, so don't get too carried away with the "better team" business. They scored significantly more goals than Colorado because apparently they got better secondary scoring. I think a lot of writers were impressed by how Sakic carried such a large % of Colorado's offense (you can argue whether that should matter to the writers, but I think it does).

I'm just as impressed by the fact that Sundin scored close to two-thirds of the goals on his line with two clearly non-first line calibre players and the Leafs managed to get to 100 points despite Curtis Joseph posting a below-average performance in goal for them that season. I recall by the end of the playoffs I was thrilled that he was gone from the Leafs goal, having lived off of his reputation for two seasons by that point, and supported the Belfour signing. We never had the luxury of getting a performance like Roy provided to Colorado that season, although Belfour came close the next season with a fantastic regular-season.

Well, we can certainly measure how almost every player on Colorado how a down season offensively in 01-02, as they played more defensively that year?

The Avs went from 192 goals against in their Stanley Cup winning 2000-01 season the year before to 169 goals against in 2001-02, a difference of 23 goals (or less than 0.28 goals per game). That sort of defensive improvement is impressive, but not completely outlandish. There was a far greater drop in goal scoring (minus 58 goals) from the previous season to the next than there was a defensive improvement. I believe that the team was just worse overall sans Bourque and Forsberg than the result of any significant defensive improvement on the part of the coaching staff. Roy's save percentage improved by 12 points for instance: that was likely a greater contributor than any other factor.

Score a bit more often as a result at the expense of goals-against. Quinn was a stubborn man who refused to play the trapping game that almost every other team played during the era.

But again, you still haven't effectively proven that Sundin benefited from Quinn's system. In fact, his best offensive season in Toronto on paper came in 1996-97 with 94 points, two seasons before Pat Quinn arrived. Adjusted for the difference in league-scoring between 1997 and 2002, Sundin's 2002 season would be worth 89 points in 1997 and his 1997 season would be worth 85 points in 2002, a negligible difference. And we have already discussed how Sundin's production with Paul Maurice (a well-known defensive coach), was close to 85 points over 82 games in his two seasons in Toronto. So how come the statistics don't show a boost under Quinn's more wide-open system? It may have benefited certain players but it does not appear to have benefited Sundin on paper.

Okay. I don't agree that Sundin "carried" the offense, when the Maple Leafs had a pretty stacked offense relative to other teams, but it is impressive when a player can change his style to benefit his team.

Fair enough. It's a big reason why I think he was the best centre in the league that season: few players have the ability to recognize a need pressing need and adjust their game to effectively address it, and even fewer still have the talent to actually have a positive impact in that area. In the Leafs case, they always had a balanced offence under Quinn, but Sundin was without question the team's offensive star and always produced despite being the obvious target for opposing defences.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Shanny has a King Clancy, but I get your point. You're not trying to convince anyone that Oates and Shanny shouldn't get in before Sundin, right? I mean, I think we can both agree that they were much superior players than Mats ever was career wise and peak.

I think we all recognize that the King Clancy isn't a performance-related award. It's a nice recognition of community service but how many people tout Curtis Joseph's 1999-00 King Clancy win as an argument in favour of his Hall of Fame viability?

Secondly, I think that Oates should already be in but I also think Sundin is more than deserving of getting in on the first ballot. I don't think that Shanahan was ever a better player than Sundin though, no. They were extremely comparable from season to season. And certainly not career-wise, where Shanahan has greater compiling numbers but Sundin actually has a better resume in terms of year to year production. Shanahan's sub-PPG career mark also is a black mark against him in my mind. Oates had the best peak out of the three players, Shanahan was the most successful in the post-season (win-wise), and Sundin was the most consistent player and best internationally. They all have their warts though.

Center was extremely deep for Canada at the time, and that's the main reason why Oates never got on any international teams. It's the same problem Savard had all those years too. Wayne, Mario,Messier were solidly Canada's centers that nobody would argue with. Hawerchuck could play defense, which is he was picked over Oates. If Hull had played for Canada, you bet Oates would be on the team, but Keenan really like Hawerchuck for his two way play. You can't blame Oates because of that.

I think it's certainly justifiable to question why Oates never made a SINGLE Team Canada though: not picked for the national junior team, not picked for the Canada Cup team in 1991 after being deemed the second-best centre in the game behind Gretzky that season, not picked for the 1996 World Cup of Hockey squad despite a 92 point performance and PPG playoff record the previous season with Boston, and not selected to any World Championships squads throughout the years. Not one. Hell, even for the 2002 Olympics (on one of the best Team Canada's ever assembled) Oates was coming off of an 82 point season and in the midst of another PPG one in Washington. Yet, I never heard him given serious consideration for any of these teams. I buy the strength of position argument absolutely, but only to a point. Some surprising names on Team Canada throughout the years selected in favour of Oates: a 17 year-old Eric Lindros, Dirk Graham, Shayne Corson, Trevor Linden, Keith Primeau, Pat Verbeek, and Rob Zamuner. Not exactly a premier group looking back, is it?

I will sagree that Oates doesn't have hardware ,however, what Oates did in the 1990's for helping snipers was too muh to ignore. Second most in assists in the 1990's next to Wayne and he aged very well too. I don't think he's a slam dunk case, but he certainly should be in the hall before Mats.

If I had my way I would induct all of Oates, Shanahan, Sundin, and Makarov next year. It's one of the strongest induction classes in recent memory.

 

[connellc]

I think we all recognize that the King Clancy isn't a performance-related award. It's a nice recognition of community service but how many people tout Curtis Joseph's 1999-00 King Clancy win as an argument in favour of his Hall of Fame viability? .

Agree

Secondly, I think that Oates should already be in but I also think Sundin is more than deserving of getting in on the first ballot. I don't think that Shanahan was ever a better player than Sundin though, no. They were extremely comparable from season to season. And certainly not career-wise, where Shanahan has greater compiling numbers

Agree except for first ballot on Sundin. He should wait a year because better players are in line ahead of him.

but Sundin actually has a better resume in terms of year to year production. Shanahan's sub-PPG career mark also is a black mark against him in my mind. Oates had the best peak out of the three players, Shanahan was the most successful in the post-season (win-wise), and Sundin was the most consistent player and best internationally. They all have their warts though.

Agree

I think it's certainly justifiable to question why Oates never made a SINGLE Team Canada though: not picked for the national junior team, not picked for the Canada Cup team in 1991 after being deemed the second-best centre in the game behind Gretzky that season, not picked for the 1996 World Cup of Hockey squad despite a 92 point performance and PPG playoff record the previous season with Boston, and not selected to any World Championships squads throughout the years. Not one. Hell, even for the 2002 Olympics (on one of the best Team Canada's ever assembled) Oates was coming off of an 82 point season and in the midst of another PPG one in Washington. Yet, I never heard him given serious consideration for any of these teams. I buy the strength of position argument absolutely, but only to a point. Some surprising names on Team Canada throughout the years selected in favour of Oates: a 17 year-old Eric Lindros, Dirk Graham, Shayne Corson, Trevor Linden, Keith Primeau, Pat Verbeek, and Rob Zamuner. Not exactly a premier group looking back, is it?

This is where I disagee

The exact same can be said of Ron Francis, who was cut from the 1996 team and, to my knowledge, only played in one World Championship in his career. Yes, Canada was that deep and I think that Francis was a better player than Oates.

Canadian teams aren't looking for all-star lineups; rather, teams that are balanced with grit and skill. Most of the players above needed to play a checking role to bang the opposition, kill penalties and do the "mucking." Oates wouldn't have been effective in a third or fourth line position and didn't fit the mold that Canada was looking for and didn't have a prayer to fit in on Canada's top two lines as a center. Like I said, Messier, Wayne, Lemieux were the front runners for Canada from 1987-1996. I"m not exacly sure why he wasn't picked for World Championship teams though. Maybe someone would have more information on those teams because he certainly had the skills to make those lineups.


If I had my way I would induct all of Oates, Shanahan,Sakic, and Makarov next year. Mats needs to wait the until the year after. Chances are, they will forget about Makarov like they always do and induct Sundin anyway...

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Shoot, I can't believe I omitted Sakic from my list of inductees next season (forgot his final season was 2008-09 just like Sundin). He's obviously the deserving choice ahead of Mats, so I agree with your four players. Sundin should wait an additional yyear with that in mind.

I think it will end up being this list though: Sakic, Shanahan, and Sundin. Something tells me that Makarov and Oates will remain on the outside looking in again.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Shoot, I can't believe I omitted Sakic from my list of inductees next season (forgot his final season was 2008-09 just like Sundin). He's obviously the deserving choice ahead of Mats, so I agree with your four players. Sundin should wait an additional yyear with that in mind.

I think it will end up being this list though: Sakic, Shanahan, and Sundin. Something tells me that Makarov and Oates will remain on the outside looking in again.

Basically agree with you here.

I fully expect Sakic, Shanahan, and Sundin to be the class next season.

Eventually Oates will get in; it may be next season; who knows? Unfortunately, Makarov is probably not getting in for a long time.

I don't think Sundin (edit: or Shanahan) is more deserving than Lindros, Bure, Oates, or JC Tremblay (they forgave Mark Howe for the WHA, about time they forgive Tremblay). So I would prefer that they wait in line behind them.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Sundin is a Hall of Famer to me, but I don't know if I'd say he could make it in First Ballot.

 

[Big Phil]

Watching his play on a regular basies and common sense should be enough to pursuade people that he never was an elite player. He's consistent, I give him that but to be honest I don't think he was a HHOF based on his NHL statistics. He's got no hardware whatsoever. It's the International resume that will get him inducted though. In about 20 years, he's going to get looked at like Sittler as a weak induction. He won't be the worst induction, but good gosh, please let him wait at least a year to get in. He certainly should wait behind Sakic, Shanny, Makarov and Oates.

IMO, he squeaks in, but I"m not happy about it.

I think Sittler is a legit induction. That isn't to say he may not be among the bottom 15% or so, but someone has to be there right? I think most of us would NOT turn back the clock and keep Sittler out. He belongs in the HHOF. That being said Sundin was the better player with the better career. There certainly shouldn't be any fuss over him in there by now

 

[connellc]

I think Sittler is a legit induction. That isn't to say he may not be among the bottom 15% or so, but someone has to be there right? I think most of us would NOT turn back the clock and keep Sittler out. He belongs in the HHOF. That being said Sundin was the better player with the better career. There certainly shouldn't be any fuss over him in there by now

Sittler certainly deserves to be in the hall and few people doubt that. But he's certainly lost a lot of the luster he had when he was inducted and as you said, he's one of the weaker forwards in the hall. In my opinion, Sundin would be cut from the same cloth with people looking back 20 years from now the same as people view Sittler now. Is Sundin a better than induction than Sittler? Sure, but that isn’t saying very much.Off the top of my head Federko and Gillies Duff are worse than Sittler though and I don't think any of those three should be in the Hall. I'm torn on if he's a better inductee than Cam Neely.

Lanny Mac, mostly because of the way he retired and his personality off the ice, is in the same vein as Sittler. Certainly a HHOF, but looking back at things, he's a low tier inductee to the hall who had a feel good story and am a bit surprised at how quickly he got in.

I'd tend to think that Mats would be in the same vein as those two. Strong player, HHOF worthy but he's a bottom feeder HHOF. In MY HHOF, he gets in by a hair mostly because of his international resume. On NHL resume alone, he'd get cut.

What scares me is that Mats going in would open the door for discussions of guys like Roenick and Turgeon should only be in the hall if they buy a ticket. Honestly, how much better is Mats than these guys? It's not by a huge margin.

 

[seventieslord]

Shanahan's sub-PPG career mark also is a black mark against him in my mind.

you argued so well, and then this....

If Sundin had played 178 more games, he, too, would have a sub-PPG career mark. Actually, 10 more games is all it would have taken, probably.

Just 18 players in history played over 1200 games and also averaged over a point per game. Shanahan failing to do so, is hardly a "black mark".

 

[Pear Juice]

This gets lost too much in statistics. He may be a tough case arguing only by his numbers. But Mats Sundin retires as arguably the 3rd best player of all-time (at the very least top 5) of one of the most influential hockey countries in the world. Possibly the best player ever to play for Tre Kronor. Surely that places him on a completely different level than players like Pierre Turgeon or Bernie Federko. It's the 'Hall of Fame', not the 'Hall of the top 250 Hockey Players based on statistics and awards'. I don't understand how anyone could argue that Mats Sundin doesn't belong in a Hall of Fame.

I guess the reason this gets debated is because he's discussed from a North American perspective. I'm not playing the old 'Canadian bias' card here, it's just that I genuinely believe it's hard for North Americans to truly appreciate what Mats Sundin means to Swedish hockey. He, along with Börje Salming is the most important figure for increasing the popularity of hockey in general and the NHL in particular in Sweden. He's a national icon and one of the most recognizable faces in all of Sweden.

I would be extremely disappointed if he's not in the Hall of Fame shortly after his eligibility.

 

[Big Phil]

Sittler certainly deserves to be in the hall and few people doubt that. But he's certainly lost a lot of the luster he had when he was inducted and as you said, he's one of the weaker forwards in the hall. In my opinion, Sundin would be cut from the same cloth with people looking back 20 years from now the same as people view Sittler now. Is Sundin a better than induction than Sittler? Sure, but that isn’t saying very much.Off the top of my head Federko and Gillies Duff are worse than Sittler though and I don't think any of those three should be in the Hall. I'm torn on if he's a better inductee than Cam Neely.

Sittler is certainly a better selection than Neely, let's not underrate the guy here. He had a better career, was better in his prime (a 1978 Sittler trumps Neely at any point in his career), had better longevity, and is the player you would pick over the two if you were starting your team from scratch, in my opinion. Surely Sittler is a notch above Barber and Shutt as well, two guys I don't have a problem with getting in but are clearly bottom tier players. I get what you are saying about how Sittler has "aged" since his induction. I think if you look objectively at the 1970s even today then you would think of Sittler as a regular top 10 guy often enough.

What scares me is that Mats going in would open the door for discussions of guys like Roenick and Turgeon should only be in the hall if they buy a ticket. Honestly, how much better is Mats than these guys? It's not by a huge margin.

He definitely beats Roenick. No question. Roenick was hardly consistent his career. In fact he did very little after 1994 that warrants him a HHOF discussion. I heard Roenick in a radio interview once talking about the Hockey News top 20 centers of all-time and was flabergasted how he didn't make the list and Syl Apps did. It was comical that Roenick would be so high on himself like that, but the truth is forget about Apps, Roenick isn't even on the Modano/Sundin level. Those two were consistent offensive players for about 15 years, year in and year out with nary a mediocre year in between. Roenick had plenty of mediocre years post-Blackhawk.

As for Turgeon, yeah there is little question as a GM who you would want on your team, Sundin or him. Mats was healthy, consistent, harder to defend, had a bigger bag of offensive tricks while Turgeon was soft, injury prone, a journeyman and put points up in the most discreet way in NHL history.

I know what you are saying, and I too hate it when a player is inducted and it opens up the door for others (cough, Nieuwendyk). But I just don't see that with Sundin. Who does he open up the door for that wouldn't otherwise be going in? Recchi? Many of us would put him in anyway

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

This gets lost too much in statistics. He may be a tough case arguing only by his numbers. But Mats Sundin retires as arguably the 3rd best player of all-time (at the very least top 5) of one of the most influential hockey countries in the world. Possibly the best player ever to play for Tre Kronor. Surely that places him on a completely different level than players like Pierre Turgeon or Bernie Federko. It's the 'Hall of Fame', not the 'Hall of the top 250 Hockey Players based on statistics and awards'. I don't understand how anyone could argue that Mats Sundin doesn't belong in a Hall of Fame.

I guess the reason this gets debated is because he's discussed from a North American perspective. I'm not playing the old 'Canadian bias' card here, it's just that I genuinely believe it's hard for North Americans to truly appreciate what Mats Sundin means to Swedish hockey. He, along with Börje Salming is the most important figure for increasing the popularity of hockey in general and the NHL in particular in Sweden. He's a national icon and one of the most recognizable faces in all of Sweden.

I would be extremely disappointed if he's not in the Hall of Fame shortly after his eligibility.

I tried to point this out in my post. Unfortunately it was so long it probably got missed for the most part.

 

[connellc]

Sittler is certainly a better selection than Neely, let's not underrate the guy here. He had a better career, was better in his prime (a 1978 Sittler trumps Neely at any point in his career), had better longevity, and is the player you would pick over the two if you were starting your team from scratch, in my opinion. Surely Sittler is a notch above Barber and Shutt as well, two guys I don't have a problem with getting in but are clearly bottom tier players. I get what you are saying about how Sittler has "aged" since his induction. I think if you look objectively at the 1970s even today then you would think of Sittler as a regular top 10 guy often enough.

Agreed.

He definitely beats Roenick. No question. Roenick was hardly consistent his career. In fact he did very little after 1994 that warrants him a HHOF discussion. I heard Roenick in a radio interview once talking about the Hockey News top 20 centers of all-time and was flabergasted how he didn't make the list and Syl Apps did. It was comical that Roenick would be so high on himself like that, but the truth is forget about Apps, Roenick isn't even on the Modano/Sundin level. Those two were consistent offensive players for about 15 years, year in and year out with nary a mediocre year in between. Roenick had plenty of mediocre years post-Blackhawk.

Sure he beats Roenick but it's not by a landslide. Roenick isn’t the only person who wants himself in the Hall though. I know hfboards shouldn't be used as a barometer for inductees, but I think a HHOF poll had most people believing he was getting him in the Hall. To say I was shocked would be an understatement. It's called lowering the bar and Sundin, in my own HHOF, should be the cellar dweller HHOF for the generation I watched.

As for Turgeon, yeah there is little question as a GM who you would want on your team, Sundin or him. Mats was healthy, consistent, harder to defend, had a bigger bag of offensive tricks while Turgeon was soft, injury prone, a journeyman and put points up in the most discreet way in NHL history.

I agree with you but I wanted to state a couple things. Remember, it's not necessarily about the "better player" that gets you in the Hall; we have to look at career accomplishments too. I tend to believe Niewendyke got in because of he got a ton of team hardware during his NHL tenure. He gets a lot of flak because he was never "elite" and rightfully so. Do I think he should be in the Hall? Tough call. But whenever I question an induction that tells you there's doubt. If the HHOF were genuine, there shouldn't be any doubt in any inductee. IMO, there would be doubt on Sundin if he didn't have a very impressive international resume. I'll say it before and I'll say it again: without his international resume, he's not a HHOF'er in my books. Not to mention I always questioned his drive for the cup when he refused to be traded at the deadline in his final year for Toronto. That's a huge character flaw (questioning his hunger for the Lord Stanley) that the commitee should take a long look at when they think about inducting him next year.

This is why I respect the HHOF with regards to Goalies and d-men. I don't have a beef with many inductees of d-men or goalies since 1967 expansion. It's one of the few things the NHL does right. Frankly, I don't want this to change. Whose the "worst" d men inducted since 1967? Larry Murphy? He totally deserves to be there and nobody argues his induction. Worst Goalie in the Hall, most would agree, would be Cheevers. He's not mind-blowing, but he deserves to be there. Let's have the same standard for the forwards, shall we?

 

[JaysCyYoung]

I tried to point this out in my post. Unfortunately it was so long it probably got missed for the most part.

It's a point that thankfully does not appear to be going by the wayside in terms of discussing Sundin's candidacy on here. Most people are well-aware of the instrumental role that Sundin has played in the success and growth of Swedish hockey, likely matched only by another former Leaf in Borje Salming.

I hear the dude on the right is also pretty highly regarded in Sweden too.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Sure he beats Roenick but it's not by a landslide. Roenick isn’t the only person who wants himself in the Hall though. I know hfboards shouldn't be used as a barometer for inductees, but I think a HHOF poll had most people believing he was getting him in the Hall. To say I was shocked would be an understatement. It's called lowering the bar and Sundin, in my own HHOF, should be the cellar dweller HHOF for the generation I watched.

To be honest though, as a previous posted correctly alluded to, I'm not sure that there's much separating Roenick from a lesser-tier Hall of Fame candidate like Pierre Turgeon. In terms of his counting totals and seasonal averages, he's clearly a step down from the Sundin/Modano tier of centres. It may not be a very large step, but most hockey observers would conclude that Sundin and/or Modano were a step up from Roenick over the course of their careers.

Compared to Sundin Roenick has:

51 fewer goals in 17 more games.
82 fewer assists in 17 more games.
133 fewer points in 17 more games.

Never been selected for a seasonal year-end all-star team at any point unlike Sundin (twice) or Modano (once).

Inferior post-season averages (65 points / 82 GP pace in the playoffs) compared to Sundin (74 point pace), or Modano (68 point pace).

Lower seasonal averages in goals (31 / 82 GP as opposed to 34 / 82 GP), assists (43 / 82 GP as opposed to 48 / 82 GP), and points (74 / 82 GP as opposed to 82 / 82 GP).

A comparable record in terms of top ten goal finishes (3rd and 10th) and top ten point finishes (5th and 7th) in comparison to Sundin (2nd, 8th, and 10th) and (4th and 7th) is really what narrows the comparison. The peaks between the two (or three) players were comparable, but Sundin and Modano win out on longevity. Roenick was a marginal player for the full final four seasons of his career whereas Modano has only recently become relegated to a supporting component and Sundin was coming off of PPG campaigns in Toronto and a PPG run in the post-season with Vancouver in his last run of NHL action. To me that's an important distinction: maintaining a high level of performance into his twilight years was more difficult for Roenick than it was for Modano or Sundin.

IMO, there would be doubt on Sundin if he didn't have a very impressive international resume. I'll say it before and I'll say it again: without his international resume, he's not a HHOF'er in my books. Not to mention I always questioned his drive for the cup when he refused to be traded at the deadline in his final year for Toronto. That's a huge character flaw (questioning his hunger for the Lord Stanley) that the commitee should take a long look at when they think about inducting him next year.

The discussion would be a lot more unclear, but I would still put Sundin in the Hall even if one were to exclude his international brilliance.

We're still talking about a man with remarkable consistency, with two year-end all-star team selections at the most competitive position to be named to a team, who was clearly the face of one of the most important franchises in the game for over a decade, who was consistently one of the league's top point-producers, and whose final totals are as impressive as any who have ever played in the game. One does not score 564 goals (and they were not of the "cheap" calibre unlike PP specialists like Andreychuk or Ciccarelli) and close to 1400 points only to be left out of the discussion. Using the adjusted goals feature Sundin fares even better (599 puts him 18th) as one of the top twenty scorers in league history. You cannot convince me that's not Hall worthy.

As for the bolded portion of your statement, one could easily state that Sundin's loyalty to the Leafs and his stubborn refusal to abandon the team with which he had become so indelibly identified is actually commendable rather than a black mark against his candidacy. I know that, while it was frustrating for me as a Leafs fan to watch a potentially valuable commodity be foregone at the 2008 deadline, Sundin felt differently and wasn't prepared at the time to give up on the team's fading post-season aspirations (no matter how remote), and wasn't prepared to jump ship simply for an easier run at the Stanley Cup. His careful consideration of potential suitors for the remainder of the 2008-09 season before selecting Vancouver illustrates this point to me. I never got the impression watching the Leafs for as long as I have that Sundin was ever a passenger in the post-season or that he was anything but fully committed towards bringing a Stanley Cup championship back home to Toronto. People forget that between 1998-99 and 2003-04 the Leafs number of post-season wins was matched only by New Jersey and Colorado. They never took home the ultimate prize but Sundin was always productive in the post-season.

This is why I respect the HHOF with regards to Goalies and d-men. I don't have a beef with many inductees of d-men or goalies since 1967 expansion. It's one of the few things the NHL does right. Frankly, I don't want this to change. Whose the "worst" d men inducted since 1967? Larry Murphy? He totally deserves to be there and nobody argues his induction. Worst Goalie in the Hall, most would agree, would be Cheevers. He's not mind-blowing, but he deserves to be there. Let's have the same standard for the forwards, shall we?

I don't think that Cheevers deserves to be there, personally, and certainly not over a Rogie Vachon. The fact that Tom Barrasso is unlikely to get in any time soon despite a superior individual and team resume (1 First All-Star Team selection, 2 Second All-Star Team selections, 1 Vezina Trophy, 1 Calder Trophy, and 2 Stanley Cups), only highlights the inconsistency of the Hall of Fame with respect to inductees for me. Cheevers is also an example of a player who I think Sundin comfortably slots ahead in terms of the Hall's hierarchy of inductees (as difficult as it is to compare players from different positions).

 

[Iain Fyffe]

As for the bolded portion of your statement, one could easily state that Sundin's loyalty to the Leafs and his stubborn refusal to abandon the team with which he had become so indelibly identified is actually commendable rather than a black mark against his candidacy.

Indeed. One could surely paint almost any decision in either way should one choose to do so. Players are often derided by fans for "abandoning" their teams in a selfish search for personal accomplishment.

 

[karnige]

he will eventually

 

[Pear Juice]

Indeed. One could surely paint almost any decision in either way should one choose to do so. Players are often derided by fans for "abandoning" their teams in a selfish search for personal accomplishment.

How would you say club identity is valued in North America? I've never really got a good picture of how much it matters to supporters over there. If Sundin would've played for Djurgården for 14 years as a captain there's absolutely no way that fans would - in any situation - want him to leave. I get that the situation is different over there with the draft system and all. It's just that I get really confused when the fans discredit their hero because he's not willing to give up on the club. Over here we cherish the players who show loyalty to their club despite getting paid less or having less success.

I know that Average Joe probably does not identify extremely much with the club. Some people even cheer for several teams (which I can't even begin to understand). But there has to be some kind of core supporters as well. How are their relation to the Leafs? Or to Mats Sundin? Are there organized (as in organized by supporters, not by the club) supporter clubs in the NHL?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

How would you say club identity is valued in North America?

It varies wildly by fan. That's how you have some people saying Sundin wasn't Cup-hungry enough, and others saying he was loyal.