Players who needed another great season to have a legitimate HHOF career

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,212
15,787
Tokyo, Japan
I think Beezer is too well liked for people to remember him for that.
I'm not sure about that. Beezer's comments, as reported anyway, are way beyond forgivable and are precisely the kind of thing that has gotten two (?) NHL coaches fired in the past year and a half. I suggest that if Beezer was anywhere close to being 'on the fence' as a Hall of Fame candidate, his racialized comments have put an end to his chances. That would not surprise me at all.

But I agree with your take on Tim Thomas. Thomas's White House snub is no big deal; I think any rational person can allow a player to not attend such an event if he doesn't want to. As you say, Thomas's problem is that really short career as an elite NHL-er.

I know we're always hard on goalies re: Hall of Fame candidacy, but even so, I cannot really get behind Tom Barrasso. He had -- what? -- maybe 4 elite-level seasons, and in one of those he appeared in only 42 games. Yeah, he had his Calder and 1 Vezina, but... I dunno. I just don't think he was a particularly elite goaltender, by playing ability. I could be wrong, but that's my lingering feeling. (That fact that he's media-unfriendly in the extreme probably isn't helping him either.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: scott clam

scott clam

Registered User
Sep 12, 2018
1,108
532
Fedorov.

Seriously. Take away his ONE great year and he has no Hart, no Pearson, no 1st team all star.

What would he be minus that ONE season. Equivalent to Claude Lemieux. Maybe.

Without that ONE season, Fedorov had one Selke and one runner-up Selke season. Much less than Lehtinen or Peca.

He has a Lemaire, Gilmour, Tikkanen playoff career. Awesome for a few years, granted. HHOF worthy? Take away ONE friggin' Fedorov season (on the most-loaded NHL team since a dynasty Habs) and.. uh, no.

Fedorov was UNDERwhelming the last eleven years of his career. I never bought the hype.

He is a one-hit (super)wonder in my books. And a playoff clutch performer on HHOF-stacked line-ups, like a number of non-HHOF members.

Anyone who thinks Fedorov is a top-100 player all time is myopic or delusional. There is no case for it when you scratch and sniff.

Granted, Fedorov had all-time great skating speed. Full stop. Wait, ... above average defensive responsibility (not elite skill). K.
If you take away Fedorov's best season, his next best season has him as the best player on a 62 win team. With another Selke Trophy and top 10 scoring finish to boot.

Honestly I'm not sure Fedorov was actually any "worse" that year than he was in '94, he just had a little more help.

Speaking of Gilmour, if you take his best year away from him, along with Fedorov's, you still have 2 careers that look very similar. You can say something along the same lines for a lot of HOFers from that era.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yozhik v tumane

Kuljeskelen

Registered User
Jan 2, 2020
149
161
Finland
Not exactly on-topic, but almost: give Tikkanen a Selke and make him not miss against the Wings with Capitals might get him in.
Not really a "season" issue, nor reasons to call his career legitimate HHOF, just little big things changed which could give him some serious consideration, especially nowadays.
I mean, Lowe is in and he should pale in fame comparision with Tikkanen. If Tikkanen was good Canadian boi and Lowe an okay Finnish defensive defenceman, which would they have added in first?
 

Yozhik v tumane

Registered User
Jan 2, 2019
1,828
1,916
Alfie has said in the past that if the Senators won the Cup in 2007, he would've retired. He had a tough start to the 06-07 season (lots of trade rumours, notably to LA for Craig Conroy...) and he wanted to go out on top.

If he does win the Cup and the Smythe in 2007 and he does retire, his career looks like this:

Regular season - 783 GP, 291 G, 467 A, 758 PTS, +125 - Winner of Calder in 96
Playoffs - 99 GP, 43 G, 37 A, 80 PTS, +3 - Winner of Smythe in 07, Stanley Cup Champion in 07, Led NHL in playoff goals in 07

Is that enough to make the HHOF?

Compared to his current career stats:

Regular season - 1246 GP, 444 G, 713 A, 1157 PTS, +155 - Winner of Calder in 96, Clancy in 12, Messier in 13
Playoffs - 124 GP, 51 G, 49 A, 100 PTS, +0 - Led NHL in playoff goals in 07

I had no idea, thank you for this added context.

Well, going out on top like that would be kind of epic, it would grant him folk hero status. I wonder if he actually would have retired, though, it’s reasonable to think that he could have been talked into returning, given that he was literally at the top of his game. He was older by that point than I had realized, though: 35 years old. I remember he was in his forties in Sochi, where he was still a good player, so the maths checks out, but I just had to double check.

But I guess: yes, if he retired following a 2007 Cup win, he’d been just as borderline if not even more, than he is now.


Fedorov.

Seriously. Take away his ONE great year and he has no Hart, no Pearson, no 1st team all star.

What would he be minus that ONE season. Equivalent to Claude Lemieux. Maybe.

Pretty interesting subject for a thread, who’d be out of the Hall if you removed his best season.
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
Can you think of a player that needed just one more great year - or even just one great playoff run or something else happening to them - that would have given them a rightful spot in the HHOF?

Here are a few that come to mind:

Theo Fleury - He might still get in. But if he finishes that 2001 season in where he is flying all over the ice then we are talking about a year where he could have cracked another 100 point year. Instead he unfortunately ended up in rehab. While he did win a Cup as a rookie in 1989, it wasn't "his" team so to speak. Had the Flames won in 1991 we are talking a different story here. Fleury always went above and beyond in the postseason in Calgary, but they got bounced out of the first round all of the time.

Rick Middleton - I don't even know if he needs a great season, because his career was every bit as good as Lanny McDonald's, I think, and Lanny got in on his first try. I would say this, there probably isn't a player who needed a Cup to secure his induction more than him. His final year his Bruins made the Cup final and got swept badly by the Oilers. A year later McDonald, who did less in the playoffs than Middleton did a year earlier in 1988, gets that famous critical goal in the deciding game (not the game winner like everyone thinks though, that was Gilmour the next period) and the vision we always have is him clenching his fist sitting over the Cup and then calling it a day. Look, I'd induct Lanny. He was physical, he was a sniper who scored 500 goals and his career totals are less stellar only because he got a slow start to his career and had a slow ending. His prime he was pretty darn good. And if Lanny isn't in today, I guarantee he is a name we often bring up as to why, similar to Middleton. But let me tell you something, if Middleton won a Cup, he's in there too. And I can trace it not to one season, but to one play that might have made the difference. Game 7 1979 vs. Montreal he has the game of his life, 4 points. He scored the go-ahead goal with a few minutes left. Then the Habs tie it and then in overtime Middleton is coming down the right wing, tries his usual nifty move in between the legs of a defenseman and gets turned away. That defenseman was Serge Savard. He sees it coming, takes the puck away from Middleton rather than have it go between his legs and passes it to centre where Rejean Houle tips it to a streaking Mario Tremblay who passes it to Yvon Lambert and into the net. Game over. I honestly think that singular play is what has kept him out of the HHOF. Think about it, Middleton could have fooled Savard and if he did he is in alone on Dryden who had a very shaky game. Middleton scores and that's his 5th point of the game and he is forever known as the guy who ended the Habs' dynasty. They play the Rangers in the final and they win. Middleton had 12 points that spring for Boston, only trailing Ratelle on the Bruins who had 13. There is a healthy chance he wins a Conn Smythe. Honestly, we are talking about a single play here.

Jeremy Roenick - Another guy who is in had his very good Hawks teams won the Cup. The image of "JR" being the leader on a popular Hawks team would be hard to forget. Sure there is Chelios who probably wins the Conn Smythe in 1992 anyway, but Roenick still makes an impact overall. But either way, his three 100+ point straight seasons lasted until Ovechkin tied it from 2007-'10. Then McDavid tied it in 2019. But still, incredibly no one has surpassed it since Roenick. Call it a perfect storm because we needed lockouts and injuries/retirements from having either one of Mario, Jagr, Gretzky, McDavid, Crosby, to pass it. Even Adam Oates needed one extra point in 1992 in order to have 5 straight 100+ point years, but it is still a big feat. But imagine him with another great season, either in Chicago or Phoenix. All of the sudden his career looks a little different.

Markus Naslund - It is a decent argument that he was the best player in the NHL from the 2001-'04 years. That's three years in a row. He's a first team all-star all three years at LW, he wins the Pearson Award in 2003 over Forsberg and in those three years his Hart voting was 2, 5, 5. Not bad. Is he making a much better case for himself if he has a great season in 2001 or in 2006? He was more or less an afterthought after the lockout and was never the same after Moore hit him, I don't think. Had a wicked wrist shot and I just can't understand how he was such a late bloomer, then had a huge three year peak, and then aged poorly. Does another elite season put him in the conversation?

Pete Mahovlich - While his two big years in 1975 and 1976 are often thought of as Lafleur-induced the truth is he still finished 7th in Hart voting in 1976. Meanwhile he finished 10th in 1971. So his stats aren't always an indicator of how he played. His penalty killing was important, as it was on Team Canada in 1972. Not to mention he comfortably makes Team Canada in 1976 as well. He is a 60-65 point guy with intangibles normally, and then a 105 and 117 point guy playing alongside Lafleur. Early in the 1978 season he is traded out of Montreal though. Does he need one, or maybe two, great seasons to get in? His stats are not terribly different from Steve Shutt, who is in, and who declined coincidentally at the same time Lafleur's constant injuries and shortened seasons kicked in. Big Pete was a strong force in the playoffs as well. I don't think 5 or 6 Cups makes a difference considering he already won 4. But maybe a couple more 100 point years?

Mike Liut - Does the stain of the 1981 Canada Cup forever get held against him? Or is another great season by Liut good enough? As it stands, it is him, not Billy Smith or Grant Fuhr, with the goalie that has the most wins in the 1980s, and these were not always with some very good teams. I could be wrong, but I think only he and Markus Naslund are the two players in NHL history with at least three seasons of being in the top 6 of Hart Trophy voting and not be in the HHOF. His Hart voting looks like this: 2, 3, 6. How many people even realize Liut finished 3rd in Hart Trophy voting behind Gretzky and Bourque in 1987? His Vezina voting looks like this: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7. That's pretty darn good, and he isn't the only goalie that would be in the HHOF with a mediocre playoff record. Then again, if his great seasons are often forgotten, would it be that easy to remember him having a Hart-caliber year in 1988?

Roenick: would still be a hard no from me.
Naslund: would need several more years.
Big Pete: is no where near the Hall.
Liut: is really on a 3 season goalie, as I see him more as a Mike Richter then a HOF type player. Take out Liut's 79/80, 80/81 and 86/87 seasons, his record screams Richter ( actually worse then Richter). Liut's NHL record is this.
Wins: 201
Losses: 216
Ties: 47
Fleury & Middleton: I think Fleury is a bit more deserving then "Nifty", but both should already be in.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,672
18,507
Las Vegas
Might be a stretch but how about Andy Moog

3x Cup (spot play in playoffs, platoon regular season)
Jennings
Vezina finishes: 3,5,5,5
6x Top 10 sv%: 3,4,6,8,8,9
6x Top 10 gaa: 4,4,4,7,9,9
6x Top 10 gsaa: 4,4,5,6,7,9

If he had a season in Boston where he won the Cup and Vezina I think he's in the HOF. That's the only real difference between him and Fuhr, Fuhr has that 1 Vezina (that he didnt at all deserve over Roy). Beyond that Fuhr may have been the starter for the Edmonton Cups, but he was just there (swapped in Ranford and still won). He wasn't why they won or a difference maker. Swap that Vezina season to Moog and he's in the HOF and Fuhr isn't
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,352
5,291
Parts Unknown
Mike Liut...?



I don't see Middleton as a Hall of Famer, either, to be honest. Likeable player and everything, but I think if you're a fairly one-dimensional offensive player (which he was) you need to be a top scorer at least once in your career... which he never was. How many times was Middleton top-10 in points per game, for example? That would be never. Did he won the Cup? Nope. He did have a few nice playoff runs, but he also had a few terrible ones to balance them out.

I'd have to hear the argument for why Middleton should be in the Hall, while Pierre Turgeon (five times top-10 PPG, longer career, similar playoff stats) shouldn't.
Supposedly, Turgeon would be in if he didn't sit on the bench during that brawl. Maybe if he jumped your boy Sergei Fedorov during that moment, he's in.
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
Here's a few:

Bernie Nicholls. One of 5 players in hockey history to top 150 points in a season....and his next best are 112, and 100 point seasons. Big drop off (especially in such a high scoring era, where `100 points is more common). I think if he had one more such season, it's enough to get him in. He doesn't even need to hit quite as high as 150, but if he hit....~135+ points, I think it would power him through - even if it was playing with Gretzky (obviously, he wouldn't hit it without him). His playoffs are also quite lacking. OP says "...or even just one great playoff run". Maybe if Kings had won the cup in 1989 with Nichols being a 1-2 punch with Gretzky - even if he finished behind Gretzky for smythe - the combination of cup + great playoff run would be enough to propel him to HHOF, to go with his 150 point season.

Jose Theodore. He wins Hart, Vezina in 2002...and never again gets a single vezina vote in his career. If he had had a second great season with a second vezina (doesn't even need Hart, as I think that would make it slam dunk) - I think you at least have a conversation. This would be a tricky one - but a hart and 2 vezinas is a great trophy case. If he somehow had a 2nd hart, that's almost a slam dunk.

Corey Perry. Same idea as Theodore - only one great season with his hart. He does have more career longevity/accomplishments than Theodore of course, but at the top end it's very weak. If he had one more season with a hart, or Ross, or even a top 2 - combined with his overall career numbers, it gets him in. It's not impossible that he'll get into the Hall of Fame without that - but to me his case is very very weak. One more great season, and he's an easy in.

Jamie Benn. He won the Ross in 2015, and finished 3rd in hart the next year...but to me he needed one more true great season. Maybe an actual hart win, or at least another Ross. He's declining quickly, no cups yet and weak overall playoffs (not many playoff appearances). But hall of fame is largely based on peak, so give him one more truly great season with an award, and I think he'd get in.

Tim Thomas. He has 2 fantastic seasons - but his longevity is way too lacking. He might get in anyways with his peak, but his lack of longevity hurts him. If instead of those 2 peak seasons with Vezina/high hart voting, he had a 3rd such Vezina season, I think it's enough to make him a slam dunk.

Nicholls: His 150 point season really means nothing since he was a post season AS 8 & 4. Good playoff performer, but the 2nd hlaf of his career really had a lot to be desired.
Theodore: Gotta be kidding, right?
Perry: Same as Theodore with a better resume.
Benn: Not a chance
Thomas: Slightly above Theodore.
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
With Roenick, one more big season certainly would've helped, but I think the biggest factors working against him are 1) how unremarked upon those Phoenix teams were 2) the "what happened to Roenick?!" perception - the idea that he dropped off the planet after those big years in Chicago. Looking at his adjusted stats, the drop off from Chicago to Phoenix is 5-10 points rather than 30.

I'll submit Eric Staal. He has a cup and a great postseason performance to go along with it. He has Olympic gold. He has 1000 points. 500 goals is possible. He was the face of a team for 11 years. Does he have enough elite seasons?

Staal would've needed another 4 to 5 seasons to be considered for the HOF.
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
John LeClair: A lot better resume then Jamie Benn. Has the following to his resume. AS 1,1,2,2,2,3. His 7 year VsX is 81.7, which is better then Modano. His VsX adjusted points is better then Middleton's. His 7 & 10 year Goals VsX is in the upper tier.
 

buffalowing88

Registered User
Aug 11, 2008
4,299
1,742
Charlotte, NC
I am not sure how Perry gets in to be honest. There are lots of players - Mike Richards being another - who "won everything". It is a nice cherry on top to win at every level but doesn't prove greatness. Perry is easily behind Ryan Getzlaf in this argument for the HHOF and I think Getzlaf is in but not a slam dunk. His playoff resume is what will get him over the top. Perry on the other hand has 797 points in 1045 games. Getzlaf 1053 games and 965 points. He'll get 1,000 points. While he could have used another "elite" season in his arsenal I think his entire package will get him in. He had lots of deep playoff runs where he was very good. Plus he has 0.92 PPG, so that's not terribly far off from even a 1.0 PPG. I also think he probably was better than what his stats show, the eye test with Getzlaf was better than his stats. Perry had two good/great seasons, but there are gaps and that is it with him. Twice a 1st team all-star, but then there is a huge gap. Already has 0.76 PPG and that won't improve. Doesn't have anything to counter that with either. Even in the playoffs he is below Getzlaf. I can see him being the rare Hart winner who doesn't get in.



Good call. I don't think Pete will ever get in either, nor should he I guess. He comes across to me as someone you want to see in there, but there is a big points drop off from those two big years that is hard to ignore. But man, did you ever want that guy on your team when the chips were down. On Montreal or Team Canada. Lots to like about him, but a great career? There are just better who aren't in there.

That is a weird era with Naslund too. You have maybe Iginla, Brodeur, Lidstrom and Sakic who are considered the best in that three year span. A bit of a perfect storm too with some things. Mario had some injuries, Forsberg did too. Thornton just was starting to burst out and Crosby and Ovechkin weren't there yet. Jagr had his mid-career slump at that precise time. If Naslund shows he is great outside of those years then we are talking.

I think Liut trumps Miller here though. Miller had that spectacular year in 2010 but a drop off otherwise. Like Liut, he had nothing special in the postseason and wasn't generally on a team who should have won either. He's on the wrong end of the Crosby goal, but then again the U.S. losing was not an upset, if anything had they won it would have been.

Here is an interesting thing. If Mike Liut and Team Canada win in 1981 is he in? I don't mean even by any dramatic way. Let's say it is a 4-2 score against the Soviets. I honestly can see him in there solely because of that and the stigma being gone from the reality of that final.

If Liut wins in 81 he's in for me. I know that's subjective but I also don't think you're being dramatic at all in such a conclusion. I could say, for instance, that there is an objective case to be made against him, but I also know that I would totally let that skew me and he's a different beast with that on his record.

Also, good points about Naslund. I definitely always appreciate reading your perspective and I wonder if it isn't different had he been stronger either earlier in his career or later. One or two more seasons of top-10 offensive play could have shaped his whole career in a different manner.
 

buffalowing88

Registered User
Aug 11, 2008
4,299
1,742
Charlotte, NC
John LeClair: A lot better resume then Jamie Benn. Has the following to his resume. AS 1,1,2,2,2,3. His 7 year VsX is 81.7, which is better then Modano. His VsX adjusted points is better then Middleton's. His 7 & 10 year Goals VsX is in the upper tier.
I think you're going to get push back on Benn but I don't disagree. I'd take LeClair over him. LeClair was simply more impactful as a presence on the ice and I don't know how to quantify that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Professor What

Professor What

Registered User
Sep 16, 2020
2,310
1,958
Gallifrey
I think you're going to get push back on Benn but I don't disagree. I'd take LeClair over him. LeClair was simply more impactful as a presence on the ice and I don't know how to quantify that.

I'd lean toward putting LeClair in now, to be honest, as much for that presence you talk about as the stats and all-star voting. I'd be a much harder sell on Benn. I've just never been as impressed by him.
 

DropTheGloves

Registered User
Sep 18, 2020
2,808
4,635
Actually Mike Richter would also be a good candidate for this list. He doesn't get as much love on this forum as I would expect, would another great season have helped that? He doesn't have a Vezina but he was well respected in the 1990's.

Richter was who I came here to post. Leading his team to two Cups would've made up for not having a Vezina IMO. The only question is, between his injuries and the brief window between Pittsburgh's dynasty and the rise of Detroit/Colorado/NJ, when could he have realistically won another? He had a fantastic playoffs in 96-97 so maybe that's one, and in 94-95 Philly won Games 1 and 2 of the Semis in OT so perhaps there's a path if that series goes differently.

I think it might've taken a trade though. If the Rangers decide to embrace a rebuild in 2000 and flip Richter for a then-up and coming Brian Boucher at the deadline, is he enough to help the Flyers prevail over NJ in the ECF that year?
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,180
927
Richter was who I came here to post. Leading his team to two Cups would've made up for not having a Vezina IMO. The only question is, between his injuries and the brief window between Pittsburgh's dynasty and the rise of Detroit/Colorado/NJ, when could he have realistically won another? He had a fantastic playoffs in 96-97 so maybe that's one, and in 94-95 Philly won Games 1 and 2 of the Semis in OT so perhaps there's a path if that series goes differently.

I think it might've taken a trade though. If the Rangers decide to embrace a rebuild in 2000 and flip Richter for a then-up and coming Brian Boucher at the deadline, is he enough to help the Flyers prevail over NJ in the ECF that year?

His stats were great in 1997 but he benefits from a few foot in crease callbacks in Round 2 against a low voltage Devils offense, before having a rough Round 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DropTheGloves

LeBlondeDemon10

Registered User
Jul 10, 2010
3,729
376
Canada
If Liut wins in 81 he's in for me. I know that's subjective but I also don't think you're being dramatic at all in such a conclusion. I could say, for instance, that there is an objective case to be made against him, but I also know that I would totally let that skew me and he's a different beast with that on his record.

Also, good points about Naslund. I definitely always appreciate reading your perspective and I wonder if it isn't different had he been stronger either earlier in his career or later. One or two more seasons of top-10 offensive play could have shaped his whole career in a different manner.
If Liut wins what? The gold medal game at the Canada Cup?
 

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
If Liut wins in 81 he's in for me. I know that's subjective but I also don't think you're being dramatic at all in such a conclusion. I could say, for instance, that there is an objective case to be made against him, but I also know that I would totally let that skew me and he's a different beast with that on his record.

Also, good points about Naslund. I definitely always appreciate reading your perspective and I wonder if it isn't different had he been stronger either earlier in his career or later. One or two more seasons of top-10 offensive play could have shaped his whole career in a different manner.

Liut: is really on a 3 season goalie, as I see him more as a Mike Richter then a HOF type player. Take out Liut's 79/80, 80/81 and 86/87 seasons, his record screams Richter ( actually worse then Richter). Liut's NHL record is this.
Wins: 201
Losses: 216
Ties: 47
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,895
6,331
Fedorov.

Seriously. Take away his ONE great year and he has no Hart, no Pearson, no 1st team all star.

What would he be minus that ONE season. Equivalent to Claude Lemieux. Maybe.

Without that ONE season, Fedorov had one Selke and one runner-up Selke season. Much less than Lehtinen or Peca.

He has a Lemaire, Gilmour, Tikkanen playoff career. Awesome for a few years, granted. HHOF worthy? Take away ONE friggin' Fedorov season (on the most-loaded NHL team since a dynasty Habs) and.. uh, no.

Fedorov was UNDERwhelming the last eleven years of his career. I never bought the hype.

He is a one-hit (super)wonder in my books. And a playoff clutch performer on HHOF-stacked line-ups, like a number of non-HHOF members.

Anyone who thinks Fedorov is a top-100 player all time is myopic or delusional. There is no case for it when you scratch and sniff.

Granted, Fedorov had all-time great skating speed. Full stop. Wait, ... above average defensive responsibility (not elite skill). K.
If Marleau wins the Stanley Cup in 2021 he is in the HHOF. If not, no. Clear.

You're really stuck on that season, more than anyone else. Fedorov isn't defined by that season by anyone serious. He's defined as a continuous excellent two-way player who was continuously great in the playoffs and who was the leading offensive player on that dominating 95–96 team which chased Roy from Montreal and had a season with 62 wins.

People who like Fedorov aren't constantly pointing out his 93–94 season saying "Wow, look what he did here! Isn't this amazing?!?". It's people who try to discredit Fedorov who are obsessed with this season and always brings it up.

You're saying Patrick Marleau is a HHOFer if he wins a Cup in 2021 (as a passenger or as an actual top 6 contributor?) but Fedorov isn't a legitimate HHOFer because he didn't replicate his 93–94 season? Okay....

Without 93–94 Fedorov still has 9 regular seasons with 30, 31, 31, 31, 32, 32, 34, 36 & 39 goals, and seasons with 79, 83, 86, 87 & 107 points, and the 94–95 lockout season prorated to 90+ points. He still has playoffs with 19, 20, 20, 20 & 24 points.

Lehtinen's best is 52 points in a season. Peca's is 60 points in a season. Peca never hit 30 goals in a season, Fedorov did it 9 times not counting 93–94, the last time with Anaheim as a 33-year old with Vaclav Prospal as the second best offensive guy. Lehtinen & Peca were great defensively but they were never put in a situation were they had to be great defensively and carry any significant offense whatsoever.

You're saying Fedorov played on a great team, but Lehtinen played with Modano and Brett Hull. Playing with Slava Kozlov & Larionov is somehow disqualifying but playing with Modano and Brett Hull is not? Lehtinen had two seasons with 30 goals and in neither of them he managed to hit 20 assists, which means he was assigned as a defensive specialist and a trigger guy on Modano's wing. If you can't hit 20 assists in a season you're not driving a lot of the play offensively speaking, mildly put, but you're assigned as a trigger guy. Even Graves hit 20+ assists in his famous 93–94 season.

Lehtinen & Peca weren't great two-way players, as in great in both directions, they were great defensive players with relatively average offense.
 

GammaAway

Registered User
Jun 24, 2020
325
204
Patrik Elias: Might still make it on a (very) quiet year somehow, but could use one. Specifically, 2002-2003. Replace that season with a production closer to his prime average, he gets around 70-75 points, which probably gives him a top 3 finish at LW on the All-Star Team, making it a pretty giving him a pretty decent streak. On another note, I find it funny that in 2003-2004 he was awarded AS votes at all 3 forward positions.
 

mattihp

Registered User
Aug 2, 2004
20,498
2,980
Uppsala, Sweden
Patrik Elias: Might still make it on a (very) quiet year somehow, but could use one. Specifically, 2002-2003. Replace that season with a production closer to his prime average, he gets around 70-75 points, which probably gives him a top 3 finish at LW on the All-Star Team, making it a pretty giving him a pretty decent streak. On another note, I find it funny that in 2003-2004 he was awarded AS votes at all 3 forward positions.
It was amazing that he got close to 30 goals that season. Is was the most boring season of a pretty talented team during the last 30 years. No way could he have added 10 points then, in that system tweak year.
 

kaiser matias

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
4,721
1,861
Patrik Elias: Might still make it on a (very) quiet year somehow, but could use one. Specifically, 2002-2003. Replace that season with a production closer to his prime average, he gets around 70-75 points, which probably gives him a top 3 finish at LW on the All-Star Team, making it a pretty giving him a pretty decent streak. On another note, I find it funny that in 2003-2004 he was awarded AS votes at all 3 forward positions.

Even if you give him the full 2005-06 season, he likely could have hit 100 points (his prorated totals were 97, so you'd think he could do it if he wasn't recovering from hepatitis), and another top 10 point finish. Might have been enough to sway some more people to his side.
 

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
Kovalev maybe. He was money in 00/01, pretty damn good with the Canadiens, he has the mystique, he has the decent playoff run on a cup winner box sorta checked, but his incomplete seasons 01/02 and 02/03 which should have been great leave his resume feeling underdeveloped. It's quite possible that Kovalev playing all 82 in any of those years makes him a safe bet for the HHoF.
 

MiamiScreamingEagles

Global Moderator
Jan 17, 2004
71,248
48,224
Rick MacLeish could be added to the list as a second-line center who was fluid, skilled and tough. Since the word "if" is monumental in a thread such as this, "if" he remained healthy for the 1976 season (knee; Harold Snepsts) and of course add Bernie Parent's availability, and "if" the Flyers won a third straight Cup and "if" he played as important a role as he did in 1974 and 1975, then sure. He was having a strong 1975-76 season prior to the season-ending injury. A 3-time Cup winner and potentially as the team's leading scorer for three straight successful runs. He was also proficient to varying degrees in the playoffs of 1977, 1978, 1980 and 1981. MacLeish's odd injuries are well known, the torn knee ligaments already mentioned, the near-fatal car accident to the 88-stitch gash across his throat (Marcel Dionne's blade). His skill was compared to many greats including Gilbert Perreault when he was on. His strength, I forget Bob Kelly's exact words but it was praised mightily. It might be a reach for some but MacLeish was a skilled player and perhaps with a rewrite of glory would have been honored as such.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad