Mats Sundin HHOF worthiness

[JaysCyYoung]

Almost everybody listed there played in a tougher time with stiffer competition. Sundin's two 2nd team AS seasons were very good but pretty unremarkable, and they came during one of the weakest times in recent history.

Everything is relative. I could easily state that the additional attention to physical conditioning, faster speed of play, and increased number of games (necessitating greater fitness and individual fortitude) all point to assorted difficulties in the modern era that were not prevalent before. The fact that Sundin excelled in an era of stiff competition over his compatriots is a plus in his favour, not a negative. Making an All-Star Team in a thirty team league rather than a six or even twenty one team league is substantially more difficult.

Larry Murphy didn't get booed for no reason. It was because he was the highest paid player on the team and didn't play at that level. Same thing with McCabe. Speaking of McCabe, his European defence partner was the furthest thing from alienated when he was here. That's why I don't buy the xenophobia argument.

Larry Murphy put up 61 points in Toronto in his first season and was named to the All-Star Game, all while playing competent defence and being one of the primary catalysts on offence for the Leafs. I distinctly remember his brief tenure in Toronto and the amount of flak that he received from the fanbase was largely unwarranted.

In McCabe's case, his defensive gaffes were taken significantly out of proportion (as they generally tend to be with Leafs defenders) and a high-ranking in the Norris Trophy voting, a Second All-Star Team selection, and his being named to the Canadian Olympic Team did nothing to save him from the scorn and ridicule he received as a Leaf. Not too many, if any defencemen, play 26-28 minutes per game without making errors, and McCabe was no exception.

Lastly, your comment about Kaberle is almost completely without merit. I've been a Leafs fan for close to a quarter of a century, so I'm more than well aware of how each individual player on the team has been perceived, and you are positively nuts if you think that Kaberle did not engender his share of detractors. He was constantly reemed out by the lunch pail element of the Toronto fanbase as being too soft, for not shooting enough for their liking on the power play, and for generally appearing to be play without passion (despite the fact that his cerebral style of play was a large part of what made him so effective). And there was more than enough vitriol directed his way as a "soft Euro" during his time spent in Toronto. Plenty of xenophobia there.

I'm not sure what you mean that goalies only have to be average to get love when it doesn't seem any different than anybody else on the team. Look at the treatment Raycroft, Toskala, and most notably Gustavsson, have received. It doesn't seem like something specific to certain positions.

You're exceedingly misinformed then or clearly not a Leafs fan.

It generally takes the media and fanbase in Toronto a significant period of time to finally turn on a goaltender when they are playing poorly relative to what their performance demonstrates. Generally, the finger is pointed at the defence, despite the fact that in both Toskala and Raycroft's cases they deserved the lion's bulk of the shame for their minor-league play as Leafs. People may eventually come around but I post with a highly knowledgeable group of Leafs fans on a competing site and we were ahead of the curve by over a year in both instances while the mainstream media continued to deep-throat Raycroft for tying the team's wins record (only possible due to the elimination of ties), and Toskala was ranked as the seventh best goaltender in the league by The Hockey News following a season in which he posted a .904 save percentage and got shelled the last two weeks of the season during a post-season push.

The love affair that Toronto fans have with their goaltenders is noteworthy. The only time in my life that I can recall a Leafs goaltender getting a hard time without receiving the benefit of the doubt was Belfour in training camp before the 2002-03 season. That was primarily because he was replacing Joseph in goal, who himself continued to be an object of adoration for the fanbase despite two consecutive sub-par seasons (I wanted him gone before the 2001-02 season) in goal. By the time it was evident that Belfour was clearly finished in 2005-06 he still had his fair share of supporters in the Toronto fanbase and media. Again, the majority of people in this market tend to give goaltenders the benefit of the doubt and harp on the defence, the exact opposite of the scenario that takes place in Detroit (where goalies go to die).

Toronto doesn't seem any different than other big markets. If you don't play up to expectations things can get ugly, but if you do, things can be great. Sundin may not have endeared himself to the fanbase like Gilmour or Clark, but I think that has more to with circumstances and style of play rather than where he was born. In any case, I would most definitely put Sundin in "boosted" category over the "vilified" category.

I couldn't disagree more. Toronto clearly picks favourites with certain types of players: Leafs fans have always loved the Canadian blue collar type players who they can identify with. It's the only market in hockey where Garry Valk could become a pseudo-legend despite playing a non-essential role as a fourth liner, and whose series-winning goal against Pittsburgh in the 1999 Semi-Finals still engenders a fond reaction. Sundin was beloved but I maintain that the fact that he was a European player who replaced a team icon in Gilmour had a deleterious impact on his being fully accepted by the Leafs fanbase in Toronto. Had he been born Matty Sundinchuk from Red Deer, Alberta, I think that he would have been received much more favourably in Toronto. You can choose to disagree, but that is my experience with other Leafs fans and reading the media and print news in this city for as long as I have done. Sundin certainly never received any "boost" playing in Toronto and if anything is regarded more poorly by the idiotic anti-Leaf, anti-Toronto crowd who look at any reason to spew their vitriol against the city and the team.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Everything is relative. I could easily state that the additional attention to physical conditioning, faster speed of play, and increased number of games (necessitating greater fitness and individual fortitude) all point to assorted difficulties in the modern era that were not prevalent before. The fact that Sundin excelled in an era of stiff competition over his compatriots is a plus in his favour, not a negative. Making an All-Star Team in a thirty team league rather than a six or even twenty one team league is substantially more difficult.

I really nope you aren't trying to say that it was easier to be an all-star at center in the 1980s than in the early 00s.

Sundin was beloved but I maintain that the fact that he was a European player who replaced a team icon in Gilmour had a deleterious impact on his being fully accepted by the Leafs fanbase in Toronto. Had he been born Matty Sundinchuk from Red Deer, Alberta, I think that he would have been received much more favourably in Toronto. You can choose to disagree, but that is my experience with other Leafs fans and reading the media and print news in this city for as long as I have done. Sundin certainly never received any "boost" playing in Toronto and if anything is regarded more poorly by the idiotic anti-Leaf, anti-Toronto crowd who look at any reason to spew their vitriol against the city and the team.

While all this might be true, when it comes to Sundin's HHOF case, playing in Toronto is definitely a positive - pretty much everyone in this thread who thinks he should be a slam dunk refer to the Maple Leafs: "led the Maple Leafs in scoring x times," "leading scorer in Leafs history."

 

[Iain Fyffe]

While all this might be true, when it comes to Sundin's HHOF case, playing in Toronto is definitely a positive - pretty much everyone in this thread who thinks he should be a slam dunk refer to the Maple Leafs: "led the Maple Leafs in scoring x times," "leading scorer in Leafs history."

I don't think that's a fair characterization. It's not the Leafs specifically, but a franchise that has been around a very, very long time. If we were talking about the Rangers' all-time leading scorer, it would be phrased that way instead.

Being the all-time leading scorer for a franchise that has existed for more than 80 years (more if you count the pre-"Maple Leafs" years) is a noteworthy accomplishment.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think that's a fair characterization. It's not the Leafs specifically, but a franchise that has been around a very, very long time. If we were talking about the Rangers' all-time leading scorer, it would be phrased that way instead.

Being the all-time leading scorer for a franchise that has existed for more than 80 years (more if you count the pre-"Maple Leafs" years) is a noteworthy accomplishment.

Maybe it didn't sound fair, but still - I don't think you can argue that the fact that Sundin has played for the Maple Leafs hasn't caused his stock to rise - whether it is because the franchise is so old like you said, whether it is because it is a big market with lots of exposure, or whether it is because it is a "Canadian team" as GBC pointed out.

 

[MadLuke]

Making an All-Star Team in a thirty team league rather than a six or even twenty one team league is substantially more difficult.

Yes and no, depends of the stars ranking of the player, in a six team league we could think that 100% of the player able to be on the All-Star team should have a roster spot and ice time, therefore not changing that much the all-stars team result, with execption, maybe Martin St-Louis will never have given the chance or Corey perry would have been on the second line behind an older superstars, but generally speaking I think making the All-Star team could be easier for young player in a 30 teams league.

 

[Big Phil]

George Armstrong and Joe Primeau say hi

George had a long career and his inclusion into the Hall opens up the door to many other complementary players who have long careers IMO and Joe's is very short even for his day.

Sundin easily is more worthy than both of these guys or others listed in your post IMO.

Primeau is a lot like Bobby Bauer on this one. He was the weakest link on a very famous line. He's a close call in my book as well, but I'd have put him in. He led the NHL in assists 3 times. He was also inducted in 1963. Would the fact that he was a Maple Leaf even be a factor anymore? This is 27 years after he retired, about the same time for Duff. I don't think the "Toronto" factor kicks in that long after a player has retired does it?

Armstrong was a captain of a dynasty team and for at least those three straight Cups a grerat scorer in those Cup wins. Hard to argue with that and while he's at the bottom of the HHOF I still think there would be calls for him to get into the HHOF has he not been in there. Lets say he gets a couple of Selke trophies had the award been there (not a stretch) does his career look better?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Couldn't you at least come up with better examples like Dick Duff or perhaps Bob Pulford?

Armstrong and Primeau were no-brainers for the HHOF.

Duff and Pulford don't belong in the Hall and I doubt anyone is going to call their selections no brainers.

Armstrong had the fortune to play on 4 SC winners in a 6 team league and Primeau was the 3rd wheel on his line and had a very short career.

I'm sure this discussion will come up again in the "best centers of all time " when we do it.

Sundin will easily top both of these guys on my list.

 

[asdf]

Everything is relative. I could easily state that the additional attention to physical conditioning, faster speed of play, and increased number of games (necessitating greater fitness and individual fortitude) all point to assorted difficulties in the modern era that were not prevalent before. The fact that Sundin excelled in an era of stiff competition over his compatriots is a plus in his favour, not a negative. Making an All-Star Team in a thirty team league rather than a six or even twenty one team league is substantially more difficult.

But that's the thing; it wasn't stiff competition compared to what it was before and what it is now.

Larry Murphy put up 61 points in Toronto in his first season and was named to the All-Star Game, all while playing competent defence and being one of the primary catalysts on offence for the Leafs. I distinctly remember his brief tenure in Toronto and the amount of flak that he received from the fanbase was largely unwarranted.

In McCabe's case, his defensive gaffes were taken significantly out of proportion (as they generally tend to be with Leafs defenders) and a high-ranking in the Norris Trophy voting, a Second All-Star Team selection, and his being named to the Canadian Olympic Team did nothing to save him from the scorn and ridicule he received as a Leaf. Not too many, if any defencemen, play 26-28 minutes per game without making errors, and McCabe was no exception.

I don't know why Leafs fans are portrayed as some braindead morons that unfairly treated these players poorly with absolutely no rhyme or reason. Murphy was booed because he wasn't very good, especially after Burns was gone. He didn't play up to his contract and/or expectations.

Likewise McCabe started getting the treatement after signing his big-time contract that made him the highest paid player on the team, and then not playing up to it.

Lastly, your comment about Kaberle is almost completely without merit. I've been a Leafs fan for close to a quarter of a century, so I'm more than well aware of how each individual player on the team has been perceived, and you are positively nuts if you think that Kaberle did not engender his share of detractors. He was constantly reemed out by the lunch pail element of the Toronto fanbase as being too soft, for not shooting enough for their liking on the power play, and for generally appearing to be play without passion (despite the fact that his cerebral style of play was a large part of what made him so effective). And there was more than enough vitriol directed his way as a "soft Euro" during his time spent in Toronto. Plenty of xenophobia there.

Maybe you're referring to earlier in his career, but the past number of years Kaberle was not heavily criticised nor did he have a large share of detractors. Look around this board and you will find plenty of people that say Leafs fans overrated Kaberle. After he signed that wonderful cap-friendly contract it's like his stock rose. Conversely, McCabe signed the larger contract with the NMC and it's like his stock took a hit.

McCabe and Kaberle were the top two defencemen on the Leafs, and there is no question that McCabe the Canadian got worse treatment than Kaberle the European. This is why I don't buy the xenophobia argument.

You're exceedingly misinformed then or clearly not a Leafs fan.

It generally takes the media and fanbase in Toronto a significant period of time to finally turn on a goaltender when they are playing poorly relative to what their performance demonstrates. Generally, the finger is pointed at the defence, despite the fact that in both Toskala and Raycroft's cases they deserved the lion's bulk of the shame for their minor-league play as Leafs. People may eventually come around but I post with a highly knowledgeable group of Leafs fans on a competing site and we were ahead of the curve by over a year in both instances while the mainstream media continued to deep-throat Raycroft for tying the team's wins record (only possible due to the elimination of ties), and Toskala was ranked as the seventh best goaltender in the league by The Hockey News following a season in which he posted a .904 save percentage and got shelled the last two weeks of the season during a post-season push.

The love affair that Toronto fans have with their goaltenders is noteworthy. The only time in my life that I can recall a Leafs goaltender getting a hard time without receiving the benefit of the doubt was Belfour in training camp before the 2002-03 season. That was primarily because he was replacing Joseph in goal, who himself continued to be an object of adoration for the fanbase despite two consecutive sub-par seasons (I wanted him gone before the 2001-02 season) in goal. By the time it was evident that Belfour was clearly finished in 2005-06 he still had his fair share of supporters in the Toronto fanbase and media. Again, the majority of people in this market tend to give goaltenders the benefit of the doubt and harp on the defence, the exact opposite of the scenario that takes place in Detroit (where goalies go to die).

You said that goalies only have to play passably to be anointed the next big and I pointed out how that wasn't the case with Raycroft and Toskala and most definitely wasn't the case with Gustavsson. Maybe they were given the benefit of the doubt early on, but they never acheived the level of adulation that the goalies before them did.

Belfour, as you already mentioned, already disproves your point. He had a hard time at first because he came off a mediocre season, he wasn't doing that well early on, and the team came out of the gate slow.

What has been the biggest scapegoat for the Leafs' failures over the past 5-6 years? Goaltending.

Though considering your specious argument that Joseph had two sub-par seasons in the same thread you have been pimping Sundin for his "great" seasons, I'm not really sure what else to say.

I couldn't disagree more. Toronto clearly picks favourites with certain types of players: Leafs fans have always loved the Canadian blue collar type players who they can identify with. It's the only market in hockey where Garry Valk could become a pseudo-legend despite playing a non-essential role as a fourth liner, and whose series-winning goal against Pittsburgh in the 1999 Semi-Finals still engenders a fond reaction. Sundin was beloved but I maintain that the fact that he was a European player who replaced a team icon in Gilmour had a deleterious impact on his being fully accepted by the Leafs fanbase in Toronto. Had he been born Matty Sundinchuk from Red Deer, Alberta, I think that he would have been received much more favourably in Toronto. You can choose to disagree, but that is my experience with other Leafs fans and reading the media and print news in this city for as long as I have done. Sundin certainly never received any "boost" playing in Toronto and if anything is regarded more poorly by the idiotic anti-Leaf, anti-Toronto crowd who look at any reason to spew their vitriol against the city and the team.

Yes Toronto fans may like certain types of players, but that's no different than other markets. Look how Boston fans love Lucic because of the style he plays. This I think has more to do with why Sundin may have never reached god status rather than where he was born. And even though he may have never reached that status, he was still generally loved here.

That's why I don't know how you can say he didn't get a boost by playing in Toronto as opposed to another lower profile market. Look how many Leafs fans champion how awesome he was. He had endorsements with Nike; he did a commercial with Wayne Gretzky for crying out loud.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yes and no, depends of the stars ranking of the player, in a six team league we could think that 100% of the player able to be on the All-Star team should have a roster spot and ice time, therefore not changing that much the all-stars team result, with execption, maybe Martin St-Louis will never have given the chance or Corey perry would have been on the second line behind an older superstars, but generally speaking I think making the All-Star team could be easier for young player in a 30 teams league.

Strongly disagree here.

In the 06 era there were no NHL players being fed from the US or Europe, go have a close look at the top players each year since the league has been a 30 team league.

 

[MeowLeafs]

I think a lot of people hold a very very high standard for what constitutes a hof player. This incredibly high standard might be what the hall was initially about, and still might be today, but it's clear with many of the inductions throughout its history that Mats Sundin is a 100% lock.

Is he worthy? He'd probably be in the bottom half compared to all those currently in, but certainly more worthy then many MANY who are in.

The only way you'd argue against his worthiness is if you also disagree with at least 25% of current hof players.

 

[TML g u n n e R s*]

**** YES!! To me sundin was the greatest leaf. BEAST

 

[MadLuke]

Strongly disagree here.

In the 06 era there were no NHL players being fed from the US or Europe, go have a close look at the top players each year since the league has been a 30 team league.

I was talking about a six team league, not a six team league with no euros.

I was speaking like making the all-star team is harder on a 30 teams league than on a 6 or 7 or 21 teams leagues.

If a player is good enough to be on the all-star team he should have a roster spot on any number of team league, thus doing the all-star team should not be that easier.

Could be harder for very young player imo, having to let ice time to all-stars veterans (and vice versa).

 

[Big Phil]

I was talking about a six team league, not a six team league with no euros.

I was speaking like making the all-star team is harder on a 30 teams league than on a 6 or 7 or 21 teams leagues.

If a player is good enough to be on the all-star team he should have a roster spot on any number of team league, thus doing the all-star team should not be that easier.

Could be harder for very young player imo, having to let ice time to all-stars veterans (and vice versa).

I'm not sure we should compare the eras as one being superior to the other. In a 6 team league the population of Canada was lower, there were only Canadians for the most part. In a 30 team league the talent pool exploded including several more countries. So yes, there are more 3rd and 4th line players but are there more players at the highest level? I don't think there are and I don't think its any easier in 1960s to be an all-star than it is today. The number of teams has corrolated with how many great players there are in the world. Therefore the best have always been the best right?

There are certain years where being selected an all-star look seemingly easy than others due to factors of a combination of injuries to star players, elite players not in their prime yet, former great players not in their primes anymore etc. But that also happens today. By all rights Corey Perry shouldn't have won the Hart right? But it doesn't mean it was easy, just slightly less competition for it. You can definitely count years in the 1960s where winning the Hart trophy was harder than it was in 2011. And vice versa. 2007 is a year where I felt there was loads of competition at the top level.

But the best players are the best players, lets leave it at that. We can't penalize a player for his birthdate, plain and simple.

 

[MadLuke]

Exactly. The numbers of team is not what matter for all-star spot, it is the elite competition you faced.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Primeau is a lot like Bobby Bauer on this one. He was the weakest link on a very famous line. He's a close call in my book as well, but I'd have put him in. He led the NHL in assists 3 times. He was also inducted in 1963. Would the fact that he was a Maple Leaf even be a factor anymore? This is 27 years after he retired, about the same time for Duff. I don't think the "Toronto" factor kicks in that long after a player has retired does it?

Armstrong was a captain of a dynasty team and for at least those three straight Cups a grerat scorer in those Cup wins. Hard to argue with that and while he's at the bottom of the HHOF I still think there would be calls for him to get into the HHOF has he not been in there. Lets say he gets a couple of Selke trophies had the award been there (not a stretch) does his career look better?

Being captain of a dynasty team is overrated, it's the team that was a dynasty not the player and it was a 6 team league accomplishment as well.

As for being a "great scorer" on that 3 year run the rest of his career strongly indicates that he benefited from the players around him, he was hardly the catalyst.

I'm a guy that really favors longevity but even Georges long career won't put him on my list of top centers before a guy like Butch Goring.

As for Joe he had 5 excellent seasons but assists seem to be more readily available in Toronto than the league average so his playmaking abilities in terms of the actual stats can be questioned a little bit.

I will have a more detailed analysis on this when we get to the centers, although to be fair it might just be a statistical anomaly that happened in the stretch of time that Joe was there.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm not sure we should compare the eras as one being superior to the other. In a 6 team league the population of Canada was lower, there were only Canadians for the most part. In a 30 team league the talent pool exploded including several more countries. So yes, there are more 3rd and 4th line players but are there more players at the highest level? I don't think there are and I don't think its any easier in 1960s to be an all-star than it is today. The number of teams has corrolated with how many great players there are in the world. Therefore the best have always been the best right?

There are certain years where being selected an all-star look seemingly easy than others due to factors of a combination of injuries to star players, elite players not in their prime yet, former great players not in their primes anymore etc. But that also happens today. By all rights Corey Perry shouldn't have won the Hart right? But it doesn't mean it was easy, just slightly less competition for it. You can definitely count years in the 1960s where winning the Hart trophy was harder than it was in 2011. And vice versa. 2007 is a year where I felt there was loads of competition at the top level.

But the best players are the best players, lets leave it at that. We can't penalize a player for his birthdate, plain and simple.

this works both ways though and to simply say the best players are always the best players doesn't really mean anything in this context.

To leave it at that is to punish one group over the other due to birth date plain and simple.

The bottom line is that since the 80's the trend has been for more good to elite players coming into the NHL from non traditional feeder systems including Europe, the stats and even provinces like BC that have many more good young players coming into the NHL today than ever in the past.

As always context matters when doing comparisons across different eras.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

But that's the thing; it wasn't stiff competition compared to what it was before and what it is now.

We'll have to agree to disagree as this is such a subjective area that it doesn't really warrant further discussion. There were quite a few elite centres to contend with during the bulk of Sundin's career. To name but a few: Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Lindros, Francis, Oates, Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Modano, Roenick, Turgeon, Damphousse, Brind'Amour, Primeau, Weight, Lecavalier, etc. You cannot claim in any universe to me that that was not stiff competition. There was a good thread a little while ago that gave out "Third All-Star Team" selections to those players unfortunate enough to have played during the Gretzky and Lemieux years in order to give them some credit for having played at a period in which those two were virtually guaranteed locks for year-end award and team recognition.

Sundin's two selections stack up very favourably even under the expanded teams hypothetical that was listed. He was an elite player for fifteen seasons at the position with the most competition. Period.

I don't know why Leafs fans are portrayed as some braindead morons that unfairly treated these players poorly with absolutely no rhyme or reason. Murphy was booed because he wasn't very good, especially after Burns was gone. He didn't play up to his contract and/or expectations.

If you're not a Leaf fan you don't have the experience of contending with them, so you really should defer to me on this one.

As for the bolded part: again, I disagree entirely. Murphy was everything as advertised but did not have the fortune of playing with an elite stay-at-home defensive force like he did with Pittsburgh (Samuelsson) and Washington (Langway). His gaffes stood out in greater contrast with a much weaker club surrounding him coupled with the increased attention and burden of expectations that comes with being a hometown Maple Leaf. The fact of the matter is that Leafs fans are notoriously strict when it comes to judging defencemen and will accept very few errors.

Likewise McCabe started getting the treatement after signing his big-time contract that made him the highest paid player on the team, and then not playing up to it.

McCabe put up two of the best seasons by a Leafs defender in the club's history (particularly offensively) in the first two seasons following the lock-out and was earning a comparable salary to other elite offensive defencemen. He was overpaid in principle but received a market-value contract. There was nothing particularly egregious about a 68 (76 point pace), and 57 point defenceman earning $5.75 million per season in terms of cap hit. Nothing egregious at all. That's comparable to what similar players such as Gonchar, Zubov, and Redden were earning at the time.

Maybe you're referring to earlier in his career, but the past number of years Kaberle was not heavily criticised nor did he have a large share of detractors. Look around this board and you will find plenty of people that say Leafs fans overrated Kaberle. After he signed that wonderful cap-friendly contract it's like his stock rose. Conversely, McCabe signed the larger contract with the NMC and it's like his stock took a hit.

Kaberle was one of the most consistently productive defencemen in the league and was incredibly unheralded until the last couple of seasons of his career in Toronto when opposing fans around the league finally realized him for the value that he brought to the club each night. Czech posters on here were already aware of his talents of course, but sometimes people can be slow to appreciate a player's value. It was only recently in Rod Brind'Amour's career that I began to appreciate him for being the two-way valuable centre that he embodied every game for instance. As for McCabe, the vitriol largely came about as a result of two things: (1) his play in the seventh game of the 2003 playoff series against Philadelphia when he had an admittedly atrocious game (2) scoring on his own goal at home against the Sabres (the points of which would have put the Leafs in the playoffs) back in 2006 or 2007.

McCabe and Kaberle were the top two defencemen on the Leafs, and there is no question that McCabe the Canadian got worse treatment than Kaberle the European. This is why I don't buy the xenophobia argument.

There are plenty of other examples one can point to involving Sundin, Korolev, Karpovtsev, Hoglund, and a whole host of other Europeans that played for the team. The one European guy that Leafs fans always seemed to really like was Dmitry Yushkevich.

You said that goalies only have to play passably to be anointed the next big and I pointed out how that wasn't the case with Raycroft and Toskala and most definitely wasn't the case with Gustavsson. Maybe they were given the benefit of the doubt early on, but they never acheived the level of adulation that the goalies before them did.

But it was in fact the case with those two. Raycroft and Toskala were venerated for their performances in the press (Raycroft particularly for his 37 win season), even as Raycroft appeared to literally throw away the final game of the 2007 season away to Montreal (each time the Leafs scored Montreal got a softie back in a 6-5 Leafs win). Toskala in his first season was considered to have played well "in spite" of the team in front of him, despite being a major reason why the club struggled so much. And they had the full backing of the fanbase. Joseph was given the benefit of the doubt even after he turned in below-average consecutive seasonal performances in the second half of 2001 and most of 2002 simply because he was a local product and venerated for his work in the community.

Belfour, as you already mentioned, already disproves your point. He had a hard time at first because he came off a mediocre season, he wasn't doing that well early on, and the team came out of the gate slow.

No they didn't. They shut out Pittsburgh in the first game of that season 6-0.

What has been the biggest scapegoat for the Leafs' failures over the past 5-6 years? Goaltending.

Because it has?

Leafs Starting Goaltenders


2005-06: Ed Belfour (.892 - 40th)
2006-07: Andrew Raycroft (.894 - 35th)
2007-08: Vesa Toskala (.904 - 31st)
2008-09: Vesa Toskala (.891 - 43rd)
2009-10: Jonas Gustavsson (.902 - 39th)
2010-11: James Reimer (.921 - 12th)*

*Leafs played at a 105 point pace with Reimer in goal.

Though considering your specious argument that Joseph had two sub-par seasons in the same thread you have been pimping Sundin for his "great" seasons, I'm not really sure what else to say.

There's nothing specious about it if you understand hockey.

2000-01: .915 save percentage (11th)*
2001-02: .906 save percentage (T-20th)

*minimum of 20 starts

Joseph was good, but not great relative to his peers, in 2001 (and in fact he had a rough second-half that year). In 2002 he was outright mediocre and was routinely being beaten high on wrist shots because he would go down too soon. Carolina's series-winning goal in game six of the 2002 Eastern Conference Finals was scored on a similar play.

Yes Toronto fans may like certain types of players, but that's no different than other markets. Look how Boston fans love Lucic because of the style he plays. This I think has more to do with why Sundin may have never reached god status rather than where he was born. And even though he may have never reached that status, he was still generally loved here.

That's why I don't know how you can say he didn't get a boost by playing in Toronto as opposed to another lower profile market. Look how many Leafs fans champion how awesome he was. He had endorsements with Nike; he did a commercial with Wayne Gretzky for crying out loud.

There is no objective argument that one can put forward that would actually prove that Sundin ever received any boost because he played in Toronto. For any increase in exposure and marketability that comes with being an elite player in Toronto, there is also a direct correlating increase in scrutiny and fan/media criticism. Sundin handled his failures with the team with remarkable poise, but they were nonetheless a constant element of his tenure with the Leafs. I've followed this team religiously for a long time now. I would know.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Duff and Pulford don't belong in the Hall and I doubt anyone is going to call their selections no brainers.

Armstrong had the fortune to play on 4 SC winners in a 6 team league and Primeau was the 3rd wheel on his line and had a very short career.

I'm sure this discussion will come up again in the "best centers of all time " when we do it.

Sundin will easily top both of these guys on my list.

Duff and Pulford certainly don't merit a spot in the Hockey Hall of Fame under ideal circumstances, but then again you could easily say that about Edgar Laprade and Leo Boivin as well.

 

[overpass]

I understand why they are in but hardly no brainers when one looks at deply IMO, or at the very least holds more recent players to a much higher standard.

Mats Sundin wasn't born when Joe Primeau was inducted into the HHOF, and was four years old when George Armstrong was inducted. What does Sundin or any other "more recent player" have to do with the HHOF induction of Primeau and Armstrong?

Or do you have nothing to say about hockey history that isn't a variation on the theme of "recent players are underrated/old-time players are overrated"?

 

[MJB Devils23*]

Why wouldn't Sundin be in the HOF?! I think this is an easy one.

 

[MadLuke]

Why wouldn't Sundin be in the HOF?! I think this is an easy one.

Say that to the 7 previous page of argumentation on the question

 

[asdf]

We'll have to agree to disagree as this is such a subjective area that it doesn't really warrant further discussion. There were quite a few elite centres to contend with during the bulk of Sundin's career. To name but a few: Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Lindros, Francis, Oates, Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Modano, Roenick, Turgeon, Damphousse, Brind'Amour, Primeau, Weight, Lecavalier, etc. You cannot claim in any universe to me that that was not stiff competition. There was a good thread a little while ago that gave out "Third All-Star Team" selections to those players unfortunate enough to have played during the Gretzky and Lemieux years in order to give them some credit for having played at a period in which those two were virtually guaranteed locks for year-end award and team recognition.

Sundin's two selections stack up very favourably even under the expanded teams hypothetical that was listed. He was an elite player for fifteen seasons at the position with the most competition. Period.

Most of those players were on the decline, retired, or injured by the early 2000's when Sundin made all-star, and this is my point. That was a weak time when the old guard was declining or gone, and the current crop didn't emerge until after the lockout.

If you're not a Leaf fan you don't have the experience of contending with them, so you really should defer to me on this one.

As for the bolded part: again, I disagree entirely. Murphy was everything as advertised but did not have the fortune of playing with an elite stay-at-home defensive force like he did with Pittsburgh (Samuelsson) and Washington (Langway). His gaffes stood out in greater contrast with a much weaker club surrounding him coupled with the increased attention and burden of expectations that comes with being a hometown Maple Leaf. The fact of the matter is that Leafs fans are notoriously strict when it comes to judging defencemen and will accept very few errors.

I am a Leafs fan, and I know that there a number of them that are a little out there, but that's to be expected with a fanbase so large. I just find it tiring how they get looked down upon, especially by other fans, as being completely unknowledgable for booing players for no reason whatsoever.

I agree that the problem was that Murphy didn't have the benefit of a great team like he had in Pittsburgh and Detroit, but that doesn't change my point. The treatment he received may have been a little unfair, but it wasn't completely baseless.

McCabe put up two of the best seasons by a Leafs defender in the club's history (particularly offensively) in the first two seasons following the lock-out and was earning a comparable salary to other elite offensive defencemen. He was overpaid in principle but received a market-value contract. There was nothing particularly egregious about a 68 (76 point pace), and 57 point defenceman earning $5.75 million per season in terms of cap hit. Nothing egregious at all. That's comparable to what similar players such as Gonchar, Zubov, and Redden were earning at the time.

There was nothing crazy about the amount, especially since the cap kept going up, but at the time it made him the highest paid (and second highest cap hit) on the team. I think what made it worse was his partner signed much quicker and for 1.5M less.

Kaberle was one of the most consistently productive defencemen in the league and was incredibly unheralded until the last couple of seasons of his career in Toronto when opposing fans around the league finally realized him for the value that he brought to the club each night. Czech posters on here were already aware of his talents of course, but sometimes people can be slow to appreciate a player's value. It was only recently in Rod Brind'Amour's career that I began to appreciate him for being the two-way valuable centre that he embodied every game for instance. As for McCabe, the vitriol largely came about as a result of two things: (1) his play in the seventh game of the 2003 playoff series against Philadelphia when he had an admittedly atrocious game (2) scoring on his own goal at home against the Sabres (the points of which would have put the Leafs in the playoffs) back in 2006 or 2007.

Kaberle always seemed generally well-liked. This may have increased after the lockout, but so did his play.

Regarding McCabe, I think those things you mentioned magnified things, but mainly I think it had to do with money, just like it did with Murphy.

There are plenty of other examples one can point to involving Sundin, Korolev, Karpovtsev, Hoglund, and a whole host of other Europeans that played for the team. The one European guy that Leafs fans always seemed to really like was Dmitry Yushkevich.

Aside from Sundin, the other players weren't very good. I agree with Yushkevich and mentioning him reminds me of others like Svehla and Markov. This goes to what I was saying about the fans appreciating players that play a certain style.

Grabovski is a current example. Up until last season he was pretty much viewed as a disposable player that didn't have much of a future with the team. Last season he took his game to another level and played the style that would get him in the good books with the fans.

But it was in fact the case with those two. Raycroft and Toskala were venerated for their performances in the press (Raycroft particularly for his 37 win season), even as Raycroft appeared to literally throw away the final game of the 2007 season away to Montreal (each time the Leafs scored Montreal got a softie back in a 6-5 Leafs win). Toskala in his first season was considered to have played well "in spite" of the team in front of him, despite being a major reason why the club struggled so much. And they had the full backing of the fanbase. Joseph was given the benefit of the doubt even after he turned in below-average consecutive seasonal performances in the second half of 2001 and most of 2002 simply because he was a local product and venerated for his work in the community.

I guess we're going to have to disagree because I don't recall this. Fans may have had high hopes for them early on, and in turn given them the benefit of the doubt, but they never received the respect that previous goalies did.

No they didn't. They shut out Pittsburgh in the first game of that season 6-0.

I wasn't only referring to the first game. They won something like 3 of their first 10 and 5 of their first 15 games.

Because it has?

Leafs Starting Goaltenders


2005-06: Ed Belfour (.892 - 40th)
2006-07: Andrew Raycroft (.894 - 35th)
2007-08: Vesa Toskala (.904 - 31st)
2008-09: Vesa Toskala (.891 - 43rd)
2009-10: Jonas Gustavsson (.902 - 39th)
2010-11: James Reimer (.921 - 12th)*

*Leafs played at a 105 point pace with Reimer in goal.

Right, and this is my point that Leafs goalies don't get let off the hook.

There's nothing specious about it if you understand hockey.

2000-01: .915 save percentage (11th)*
2001-02: .906 save percentage (T-20th)

*minimum of 20 starts

Joseph was good, but not great relative to his peers, in 2001 (and in fact he had a rough second-half that year). In 2002 he was outright mediocre and was routinely being beaten high on wrist shots because he would go down too soon. Carolina's series-winning goal in game six of the 2002 Eastern Conference Finals was scored on a similar play.

Save percentage is not the be-all, and even if it was, a .915% is hardly sub-par. That was the same as he had the previous season when he was a Vezina finalist. In 2000-2001 the team as a whole sputtered down the stretch for whatever reason (my theory is constant distractions of the Lindros trade rumours had an effect on them).

He was fine during his time in Toronto. The last season wasn't as good as the others, but he also missed the last two months due to a hand injury.

I'm sorry, but it's just curious that you're knocking Joseph for his play here in a thread where you have been constantly praising Sundin for his "great" seasons. Joseph and Belfour played at just as high a level and were just as important to the team's success as Sundin, if not moreso.

There is no objective argument that one can put forward that would actually prove that Sundin ever received any boost because he played in Toronto. For any increase in exposure and marketability that comes with being an elite player in Toronto, there is also a direct correlating increase in scrutiny and fan/media criticism. Sundin handled his failures with the team with remarkable poise, but they were nonetheless a constant element of his tenure with the Leafs. I've followed this team religiously for a long time now. I would know.

Likewise there is no proof that Sundin suffered playing in Toronto due to some anti-European bias. There is actually more proof that he may have received a boost though. Look at all of the Leafs fans that go to bat for him. Would this be the case if Sundin had spent the bulk of his career on another lower-profile, non-O6 team?

I don't really see the scrutiny that you're describing. The perception I got over the years was, when the team was successul he was the warrior that was largely responsble for the success even though the team failed in surrounding him with adequate talent. When the team was unsuccessful he was still the warrior that could only do so much while the team failed in surrounding him with the adequate talent.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Strongly disagree here.

In the 06 era there were no NHL players being fed from the US or Europe, go have a close look at the top players each year since the league has been a 30 team league.

Which of those Americans or Europeans could beat Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux out for an All Star Team?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Duff and Pulford certainly don't merit a spot in the Hockey Hall of Fame under ideal circumstances, but then again you could easily say that about Edgar Laprade and Leo Boivin as well.

I agree with this, it's too bad out HHOF project on these boards died due to people's perception of who should get in 1st rather than who was worthy.

 

[seventieslord]

Hardvyan... I sure hope you are not planning on having Butch Goring in your top-80 centers! Actually, I am hoping even more that you don't have George Armstrong (a RW) there.

JCY, two things:

1. The McCabe game you are thinking of is game 5, 2004, not game 7, 2003.

2. Toskala may not have truly been the 7th- best goalie in the NHL heading into the 2009 season, but I did expect to see THN rate him high. Yeah, he was bad over the next two seasons, but in the 2008 season (particularly down the stretch, when you say he got shelled) he was winning games for the leafs, often stealing them. That sv% is not stellar, but it also was 10 points better than his predecessor and the best posted by a post-lockout leaf goalie, until Reimer. Overall his tenure in Toronto was frustrating but you are extrapolating 2010 and 2009 back to 2008, denying him the credit that he is due. (For the record, I wanted them to tank hard and felt he was the main reason they weren't)