Peter Bondra, hockey hall of fame?

[jcbio11]

Hit 500 career goals while playing pretty much through the whole dead puck era. Two times goal scorer race winner. Amazing in international play. Proven playoff performer. Is he getting in?

Not that I put too much faith in HHOF, they are VERY weird with their selections.

Click to read more...

 

[Dark Shadows]

Absolutely not.

No all star selections. Never top 10 in points scoring. 2 goal scoring titles and a few other top 10 finishes are not impressive in the grand scheme. Even in his best seasons, he was 4th among RW's, which puts him in the vicinity of just on or outside the top 10 players in his best years.

The hall of fame is for guys who were the best. Not very good.

 

[jcbio11]

Absolutely not.

No all star selections. Never top 10 in points scoring. 2 goal scoring titles and a few other top 10 finishes are not impressive in the grand scheme. Even in his best seasons, he was 4th among RW's, which puts him in the vicinity of just on or outside the top 10 players in his best years.

The hall of fame is for guys who were the best. Not very good.

Two goal scoring titles are VERY impressive. And my main argument is that whoever has 500 career goals (also low scoring era) should be at least considered.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Two goal scoring titles are VERY impressive. And my main argument is that whoever has 500 career goals (also low scoring era) should be at least considered.

I think point accumulation means much less to the Hall than the peak level of the players play unless it is a ridiculous longevity. Gartner has 700 goals and I do not think he belongs in the hall.

I am against weaker players, who were never among the elite best of the best in their career getting into the hall.

 

[Big Phil]

Two goal scoring titles are VERY impressive. And my main argument is that whoever has 500 career goals (also low scoring era) should be at least considered.

Yeah but have you ever looked at his assists? It's a worse goals/assists ratio than Cam Neely. Bondra had one weapon and that was scoring goals. He wasn't the best in the NHL at it either and he had very little else to make up for it. He wasn't interested in playing defense, in hitting, he wasn't a good playmaker, he was not a good playoff performer either. Two times he led the NHL in goals is nice but Dany Gare did it once, and had another 46 and 50 goal season to boot. Maybe Bondra is ahead of Gare on the HHOF barometer but it just shows you that he needed a LOT more to accomplish.

 

[revolverjgw]

I love Bondra, and his goal scoring exploits are incredible, just about all his prime was during the wrong era. From the start of his prime in '94 to his last productive season in '05, only Jagr, one of the all-time offensive greats, had more goals. I wonder how many HOF snipers can claim a run like that.

But he lacks the all-around skills (low assist totals) and big playoff success (team and individual), and his longevity wasn't great by the standards of many NHL stars of his era. A one-tool guy that just needed a little extra to put him in the Hall.

 

[Tavaresmagicalplay*]

Hit 500 career goals while playing pretty much through the whole dead puck era. Two times goal scorer race winner. Amazing in international play. Proven playoff performer. Is he getting in?

Not that I put too much faith in HHOF, they are VERY weird with their selections.

Didn't he get like 50 goals and 10 assists?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Peter Bondra's Stats

Peter Bondra by the number's.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bondrpe01.html

 

[revolverjgw]

Didn't he get like 50 goals and 10 assists?

He had 34 goals and 9 assists in his least balanced season, but he wasn't hopelessly one-dimensional or anything. He had 48 assists before his sniper-game really blossomed, and during full seasons in the deadpuck era, he could put up 30+ assists to go with his 45-50 goals to give him pretty good point totals for the era. He finished as high as 11th in scoring.

And he wasn't a cherry picker, either, Bondra had a defensive game in his prime, and later on I remember some Sens fans were surprised that how useful he was without the puck. I always see people lump him in with Bure, and that's just wrong.

 

[pitseleh]

The one thing about Bondra's lack of assists is that he didn't exactly have the best teammates to play with. Here's the ratio between Bondra's goal totals and his next best teammate during his four year peak:

94/95: 2.43
95/96: 2.26
96/97: 2.71
97/98: 2.89

Over those four seaons, he was scoring almost two and a half times as many goals as his next best teammate. Over that stretch, he scored 1.97 goals/assist.

Then later in his career, when Washington got a little talent and he finished top-10 in goals:

00/01: 1.88
01/02: 1.26

Over those two seasons, his goals/assist ratio dropped precipitously to 1.25.

Just look at what teammates did to Bure's G:A ratio: he went from 1.13 goals/assist with the Canucks to 1.54 goals/assist. Obviously I'm not going to try and argue that he was a good playmaker, because he obviously wasn't, nor do I think he should be in the Hall of Fame, but I do think that his raw point totals are skewed because he didn't have much talent to play with during his peak.

 

[MXD]

... To the oldies.

Would Lynn Patrick be a good comparable to Bondra?

 

[Leafs Forever]

... To the oldies.

Would Lynn Patrick be a good comparable to Bondra?

I don't think so..I mean, Patrick has 2 top 10's in assists, and 3 top 5's in points, to go along with his 1st and 5th in goals.. Lynn is a lot more balanced, I think. And he usually had more assists than goals.

 

[MXD]

I don't think so..I mean, Patrick has 2 top 10's in assists, and 3 top 5's in points, to go along with his 1st and 5th in goals.. Lynn is a lot more balanced, I think. And he usually had more assists than goals.

I was more refering to the induction of Patrick...

 

[MS]

I think point accumulation means much less to the Hall than the peak level of the players play unless it is a ridiculous longevity. Gartner has 700 goals and I do not think he belongs in the hall.

I am against weaker players, who were never among the elite best of the best in their career getting into the hall.

And I think Bondra gets shafted a bit in this regard in terms of the recognition he gets.

2 goal scoring titles.
2nd in goals during the 1994-2004 dead puck era.
1st in SHG during the 1994-2004 dead puck era.
Top-10 in goals 6 times in 8 years from 1994-2002.

Is pretty elite.

Anytime a player is 2nd in goals over a decade-long stretch, that player has a pretty solid claim for the HHOF. This player, like it or not, was one of the *dominant* goal scorers of his era.

Yes, he has warts, especially the lack of assists. And he is borderline. But he isn't a guy who should be written off, and compared to Danny Gare of all people earlier in this thread. If he got into the HHOF at some point, I wouldn't have a problem with it, and he would be far from the worst induction in there.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I was more refering to the induction of Patrick...

Aaa, ok.

No, I don't think so. Patrick brought a bit more than just goals- and Bondra never finished top-10 in points to my knowledge. Patrick also has some more post-season success. I would probably say Patrick more deserving.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Bondra had a very nice career and at one point he was most definitely in the class of elite NHL goal scorers of his era. not hhof worty though. personally, i liked him as a player

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i would not induct him and i don't think it is particularly close. but he is solidly in the mix with a large group of players who merit some HHOF consideration. this group has recchi, ciccarelli, sundin, and barasso at the top end (as genuine candidates), fleury and nieuwendyk in the middle, and guys like kerr, turgeon, cujo, and andreychuk, at the bottom (as longshots).

obviously bondra is near the bottom of this group, but i would certainly rank him above a guy like pat verbeek, who can be dismissed as soon as his name comes up.

 

[MXD]

i would not induct him and i don't think it is particularly close. but he is solidly in the mix with a large group of players who merit some HHOF consideration. this group has recchi, ciccarelli, sundin, and barasso at the top end (as genuine candidates), fleury and nieuwendyk in the middle, and guys like kerr, turgeon, cujo, and andreychuk, at the bottom (as longshots).

obviously bondra is near the bottom of this group, but i would certainly rank him above a guy like pat verbeek, who can be dismissed as soon as his name comes up.

Personally, i think it would be an embarassement if your top end group (with the notable exception of Recchi) would make it and Fleury wouldn't.

 

[Dissonance]

Anytime a player is 2nd in goals over a decade-long stretch, that player has a pretty solid claim for the HHOF. This player, like it or not, was one of the *dominant* goal scorers of his era.

This is pretty compelling, though it's worth noting that Keith Tkachuk was very close behind Bondra as the #3 goal-scorer during this period—he had just 17 fewer goals in 35 fewer games, and their goal-per-game numbers were identical. And Tkachuk was the better player overall (both were pretty mediocre in the playoffs). Not sure I'd induct either of them, but it'd be hard to make a case for Bondra while keeping Tkachuk out.

 

[Canadiens1958]

500 Goals

This is pretty compelling, though it's worth noting that Keith Tkachuk was very close behind Bondra as the #3 goal-scorer during this period—he had just 17 fewer goals in 35 fewer games, and their goal-per-game numbers were identical. And Tkachuk was the better player overall (both were pretty mediocre in the playoffs). Not sure I'd induct either of them, but it'd be hard to make a case for Bondra while keeping Tkachuk out.

Keith Tkachuk was the better eater of the two.

In the O6 era 250+ goals by a forward during an NHL career justified HHOF consideration.Today the bar is at 400 before other factors and the totality of a forward's game start being examined.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Personally, i think it would be an embarassement if your top end group (with the notable exception of Recchi) would make it and Fleury wouldn't.

i completely agree. i doubt the committee sees things that way, though.

i don't mean to derail, but i've been thinking this week that fleury's reinstatement will probably end up having no influence on his HHOF chances. there are very uncomfortable facts surrounding fleury's career and why he flamed out, about the institution of major junior hockey in canada, etc., that i doubt the committee would voluntarily revisit in three years time when fleury is eligible again.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hit 500 career goals while playing pretty much through the whole dead puck era. Two times goal scorer race winner. Amazing in international play. Proven playoff performer. Is he getting in?

Not that I put too much faith in HHOF, they are VERY weird with their selections.

HELL NO. Proven playoff performer? The only time he had a deep playoff run, the team was carried by Olaf Kolzig, and an over the hill Adam Oates and one season wonder (and not that season) Joe Juneau led the team in playoff scoring.

Bondra was great at one thing - cherrypicking and waiting for his team that had no other offensive options to pass the puck to him for a scoring chance. His assist totals are more those of a defensive specialist than an offensive winger, and his defense wasn't any thing to right home about.

And when teams actually focused on him in the playoffs, he couldn't deliver.

Worst HOF selection ever? Maybe not. But he would be pretty easily the worst selection among players who played post-expansion.

 

[MS]

This is pretty compelling, though it's worth noting that Keith Tkachuk was very close behind Bondra as the #3 goal-scorer during this period—he had just 17 fewer goals in 35 fewer games, and their goal-per-game numbers were identical. And Tkachuk was the better player overall (both were pretty mediocre in the playoffs). Not sure I'd induct either of them, but it'd be hard to make a case for Bondra while keeping Tkachuk out.

The thing about Tkachuk is that he'd *easily* be a HHOFer had he done anything at all come playoff time.

The guy is one of the best power forwards ever, will end up with 600 goals and 1200 points + 2500 PIMs, multiple-times post-season All-Star, led the league in goals in '97 and was top-10 on 5 other occasions.

In terms of regular-season performance, he's nearly on par with Shanahan.

It's just that he's ... vanished in the playoffs, especially in the final 3/4 of his career after a couple good playoffs early in his career with Winnipeg. His 2001 playoffs where he was aquired to put St. Louis over the top and scored 2 goals in 15 games while Pierre Turgeon carried the Blues to the 3rd round really stands out.

_________

It's funny how nearly every guy who dominated during the dead-puck era seems to get picked apart here :

Tkachuk? No playoff success!
Bondra? No assists!
Bure? Not healthy enough!
Leclair? Product of Lindros!
Sundin? Not elite enough!
Kariya? Prime was too short!
Lindros? Career was disappointing!

And yet these are, what, 7 of the top 12 or so scorers for that era?

The top 15 scorers from the 1980-1990 period are all in the HHOF. You scored, you were inducted. Players didn't seem to be under nearly the microscope then as now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The thing about Tkachuk is that he'd *easily* be a HHOFer had he done anything at all come playoff time.

The guy is one of the best power forwards ever, will end up with 600 goals and 1200 points + 2500 PIMs, multiple-times post-season All-Star, led the league in goals in '97 and was top-10 on 5 other occasions.

In terms of regular-season performance, he's nearly on par with Shanahan.

It's just that he's ... vanished in the playoffs, especially in the final 3/4 of his career after a couple good playoffs early in his career with Winnipeg. His 2001 playoffs where he was aquired to put St. Louis over the top and scored 2 goals in 15 games while Pierre Turgeon carried the Blues to the 3rd round really stands out.

_________

It's funny how nearly every guy who dominated during the dead-puck era seems to get picked apart here :

Tkachuk? No playoff success!
Bondra? No assists!
Bure? Not healthy enough!
Leclair? Product of Lindros!
Sundin? Not elite enough!
Kariya? Prime was too short!
Lindros? Career was disappointing!

And yet these are, what, 7 of the top 12 or so scorers for that era?

The top 15 scorers from the 1980-1990 period are all in the HHOF. You scored, you were inducted. Players didn't seem to be under nearly the microscope then as now.

I think part of the problem is that many of the elite scorers of the dead puck era all got injured. Bure, Lindros, and Kariya would have all likely been 1st ballot guys if it weren't for the injuries. As it is now, I think Lindros and Bure should be no-brainers to be inducted as is, especially since we overlooked Neely's injuries.

Oh and I have Bondra as the worst of the guys you listed. It wasn't just the lack of assists; Bondra was quite the poor playoff performer himself.

I'd rank them:

Should be inducted:
1. Lindros
2. Bure

Could go either way:
3. Kariya
4. Sundin (he'll probably get in, but I'd personally rank him below Kariya)

Doubtful:
5. Leclair (realistically, he has no shot, but he'd be a likely choice if the Flyers had one the Cup even once. Definitely a better player on his own than Clark Gillies, for instance).
6. Tkachuk

No way:
7. Bondra

 

[buffalowing88]

This is pretty compelling, though it's worth noting that Keith Tkachuk was very close behind Bondra as the #3 goal-scorer during this period—he had just 17 fewer goals in 35 fewer games, and their goal-per-game numbers were identical. And Tkachuk was the better player overall (both were pretty mediocre in the playoffs). Not sure I'd induct either of them, but it'd be hard to make a case for Bondra while keeping Tkachuk out.

I was pretty surprised to see that comparison as I always thought of Tkachuk as a big game performer and Bondra as a guy who fell into the shadows, but statistically, Bondras actually a bit better. I guess you could argue the West was a bit tougher in that era and the Blues always seemed to draw the best teams, but that was pretty interesting. I guess it was Tkachuks outspoken demeanor and occasional big game that sort of left him with a bigger reputation. I specifically remember a game against Hasek and the Red Wings in I think 01-02 where he guaranteed victory and followed it up with a hat trick and ran Hasek.