Speculation: Should Claude Lemieux be in the HOF?

[417]

No my point is more that the standard you set isn't the one set by the committee.
So to you it can be about this or that but you can't use that as an argument because clearly, based on previous selections, this isn't the standard that's applied.

I'm more just answering the thread question of whether or not he should be in the Hall of Fame.

Kinda like the Norris trophy. It seldom is awared to the actual best defensive player, it's moreso given to the best overall. Same with the Selke, it's not about the best defensive center because as soon as the production of a center dips too low, they aren't even considered. So it's more about the best two-way center.

True.

Being selected in the HoF isn't about being the best of your era. It's about the impact you've had on the game, and your contributions.

Sounds like it's all the same to me.

Best of your era vs impact you had on the game...means same to me.

Ken Linseman didn't win 4 cups, a Conn Smythe, finish 4th with most PO games, and 9th in PO goal scoring.
He's got one cup and one silver medal. If you think he's in the same ballpark then you're seriously underplaying Lemieux's accomplishments.

As I said, I never considered Cups an individual accomplishment, same for amount of playoff games played, if so then why isn't Claude Provost in the Hall of Fame?

Those two criterias are team accomplishments and represent that the players played on very good teams throughout their careers.

I don't actually think Ken Linseman is a Hall of Fame level player but his career from an individual accomplishment point of view, compares pretty well to Claude Lemieux.

So if you consider the latter, you almost have to consider the former, which goes back to my original point of the Hall of Fame turning into the Hall of Good or Hall of Sentimentality.

When I think of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s..:Claude Lemieux just doesn't move me.

But that's just me.

 

[JianYang]

Providing names of players who are questionable HoFers, is not a reason to
Include others who are just as questionable, IMO.

It's not a default HoF, or rather it shouldn't be, because that's where you get guys like Gillies and Duff in there.

So saying “average player A got in, so why shouldn't average player B get in”, is not a good argument, for me.

It's not HoF worthy to me, but you make some good points other than the ones referring to other borderline Hall of Fame players, which again, isn't a valid reason for me.

As for Gainey and Carbo, they were the best of their eras at what they did, so its a bit different and I suppose on some level, you could argue that Lemieux’s pest nature and playoff acumen warrants him getting in.

But then you could say the same about Ken Linseman lol.

Just becomes a slippery slope

This is where hall of fame debates typically end up.

One person is arguing based on the precedent set by the committee while the other person argues what the standard for the hall ought to be.

 

[417]

This is where hall of fame debates typically end up.

One person is arguing based on the precedent set by the committee while the other person argues what the standard for the hall ought to be.

Well its just a discussion and answering the topic is this thread which is, should Claude Lemieux be in the Hall of Fame.

I don't think the Hall of Fame has a specific criteria of what makes a player a Hall of Famer, but I certainly do.

And to me, and this is meant as no disrespect to the player or @Kriss E who I was debating with, but Lemieux is not a Hall of Fame level player.

Being good to very good, sometimes is good enough and doesn't need to be rewarded. Furthermore, mentioning other questionable Hall of Fame players is not a reason to include someone IMO.

I.e. Clark Gillies is a HoFer, therefore Claude Lemieux should be.

That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Being good to very good, sometimes is good enough and doesn't need to be rewarded. Furthermore, mentioning other questionable Hall of Fame players is not a reason to include someone IMO.

I.e. Clark Gillies is a HoFer, therefore Claude Lemieux should be.

That doesn't make sense to me.

Definitely agree with this.

Just because Federko, Gillies or Neely are in it doesn’t mean they should be. They were terrible selections.

But that’s the problem with the hockey HOF. An old boys network determines who gets in. It’s arbitrary without any transparency at all.

Claude Lemieux had some great playoff runs but he doesn’t have a HOF career. Pretty clear to me that he shouldn’t be in. But you never know because it’s run the way it is.

Even if we go that way, there are tons of non HOF players who’d have a better case than Lemieux. PK Subban had better playoff numbers here than Claude did. Does that mean he should be in the HOF? He also had a better career overall. Should we penalize him because he was on crappy teams? I don’t think either are HOF players but I’d take Subban way before Lemieux.

 

[Captain97]

I feel like he has to, but maybe we should have a section of the HOF and we call it "weird shit" for players who wouldn't normally be in the Hall but have some weird thig of notice that should be there.

Most games played record with Marleau, Kessel iron man & 1000 consecutive games, Claude Lemieux with the playoffs animal numbers stuff like this.

 

[JianYang]

Well its just a discussion and answering the topic is this thread which is, should Claude Lemieux be in the Hall of Fame.

I don't think the Hall of Fame has a specific criteria of what makes a player a Hall of Famer, but I certainly do.

And to me, and this is meant as no disrespect to the player or @Kriss E who I was debating with, but Lemieux is not a Hall of Fame level player.

Being good to very good, sometimes is good enough and doesn't need to be rewarded. Furthermore, mentioning other questionable Hall of Fame players is not a reason to include someone IMO.

I.e. Clark Gillies is a HoFer, therefore Claude Lemieux should be.

That doesn't make sense to me.

I get where you are coming from, but it doesn't make sense to me if we keep going wishy washy with the standard either.

This is a bit of an extreme example because this is just hockey, but what if our judicial system kept establishing a new standard every few years at their own will rather than relying on the established case law.

 

[417]

Definitely agree with this.

Just because Federko, Gillies or Neely are in it doesn’t mean they should be. They were terrible selections.

But that’s the problem with the hockey HOF. An old boys network determines who gets in. It’s arbitrary without any transparency at all.

Claude Lemieux had some great playoff runs but he doesn’t have a HOF career. Pretty clear to me that he shouldn’t be in. But you never know because it’s run the way it is.

Even if we go that way, there are tons of non HOF players who’d have a better case than Lemieux. PK Subban had better playoff numbers here than Claude did. Does that mean he should be in the HOF? He also had a better career overall. Should we penalize him because he was on crappy teams? I don’t think either are HOF players but I’d take Subban way before Lemieux.

Lemieux, if I recall correctly, wasn't liked by players/coaches/media too much so I agree here, if he was, he'd probably be in based on other Hall of Famers.

I get where you are coming from, but it doesn't make sense to me if we keep going wishy washy with the standard either.

This is a bit of an extreme example because this is just hockey, but what if our judicial system kept establishing a new standard every few years at their own will rather than relying on the established case law.

Well that's exactly what I'm saying with Lemieux...the standard must be higher, even if in the past it was lowered for whatever reason.

 

[Chili]

This is from the HHOF website, the criteria for a player to be considered for induction:

Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and contributions to his or her team or teams and to the game of hockey in general.

Found it interesting too, from that site, although only a committee member can nominate someone, anyone can submit a recommendation to the board of directors who in turn would refer the name to the committee.

Edit: By the player criteria, there are five boxes to tick off. Just as an example, someone who for me, exemplifies the criteria listed, Rod Brind'Amour, isn't in the HHOF either.

 

[Kriss E]

Well its just a discussion and answering the topic is this thread which is, should Claude Lemieux be in the Hall of Fame.

I don't think the Hall of Fame has a specific criteria of what makes a player a Hall of Famer, but I certainly do.

And to me, and this is meant as no disrespect to the player or @Kriss E who I was debating with, but Lemieux is not a Hall of Fame level player.

Being good to very good, sometimes is good enough and doesn't need to be rewarded. Furthermore, mentioning other questionable Hall of Fame players is not a reason to include someone IMO.

I.e. Clark Gillies is a HoFer, therefore Claude Lemieux should be.

That doesn't make sense to me.

Well it's important to agree on a standard, that's why precedent matters. Otherwise we can all just create our own versions and decide whatever. I'm looking at the actual HoF and who's been allowed in, it doesn't make much sense for me after to judge Lemieux without the real context.

The way I look at this discussion is within the sphere of the real HoF, and not your personal standards. We need to look at the actual set standards, if not then it's kinda pointless to discuss buddy.

 

[417]

Well it's important to agree on a standard, that's why precedent matters. Otherwise we can all just create our own versions and decide whatever. I'm looking at the actual HoF and who's been allowed in, it doesn't make much sense for me after to judge Lemieux without the real context.

Statistically, he's not there.

That's a standard.

The way I look at this discussion is within the sphere of the real HoF, and not your personal standards. We need to look at the actual set standards, if not then it's kinda pointless to discuss buddy.

Not sure why you're all bent out of shape here.

But ok

The topic of this thread is asking OUR OPINIONS on if Claude Lemieuz should be in the Hall of Fame.

Don't like my reasoning? Don't post @ me...especially if you're unable to have an actual discussion about it and play this tough guy act, should know by now you got the wrong one lol

You can try to look at it through the sphere of the Hall of Fame, whatever that means, but you're not a Hall of Fame committee member, so good luck with that.

For now, all you're saying is you think he should be in, while I don't.

I promise you I'm good with that conclusion.

 

[GobigorGohome]

No never

 

[Kriss E]

Statistically, he's not there.

That's a standard.

Not sure why you're all bent out of shape here.

But ok

The topic of this thread is asking OUR OPINIONS on if Claude Lemieuz should be in the Hall of Fame.

Don't like my reasoning? Don't post @ me...especially if you're unable to have an actual discussion about it and play this tough guy act, should know by now you got the wrong one lol

You can try to look at it through the sphere of the Hall of Fame, whatever that means, but you're not a Hall of Fame committee member, so good luck with that.

For now, all you're saying is you think he should be in, while I don't.

I promise you I'm good with that conclusion.

I'm not bent out of shape mate..couldn't care less about this.
Yes we are discussing our opinions but again, we need to understand the standard.
I'm sure we agree Douglas Murray sucked badly, but that's based on the understanding we are comparing him to his peers.
So when you talk about Claude Lemieux and a potential induction, right off the bat you opt to remove his 4 rings for some odd reason that it's a team stat, as if not every other aspect of this game is influenced by your teammates, but okay. Then you also decide to not look at how other players were inducted....those also don't count...for inexplicable reasons. 4th all time in PO games? Not bad I supposed. Isn't he like the only player to win 4 cups in 4 different teams?? Oh right, can't count that.
18 seasons? Meh. 1200+ games..Probably the best pest to ever play the game..80 PO goals..only Brett Hull and Wayne Gretzky have more GWG in the POs than Lemieux..He's got a Conn Smythe..oh and he also has 2 Gold and 1 silver medals to boot, but lemme guess, team accomplishment so we don't count those either.

I mean sure ya, if we just decide to sweep things under the rug and ignore the fact other players are in the HoF who weren't the best of their era either, then okay Lemieux shouldn't be inducted.
But when we look at all his body of work, and look at the standard set by the committee through previous inductions, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be considered. Saying winning 4 cups doesn't count isn't an argument buddy.

 

[417]

I'm not bent out of shape mate..couldn't care less about this.

I don't know...you came in pretty hot, for no reason lol

Yes we are discussing our opinions but again, we need to understand the standard.
I'm sure we agree Douglas Murray sucked badly, but that's based on the understanding we are comparing him to his peers.
So when you talk about Claude Lemieux and a potential induction, right off the bat you opt to remove his 4 rings for some odd reason that it's a team stat, as if not every other aspect of this game is influenced by your teammates, but okay. Then you also decide to not look at how other players were inducted....those also don't count...for inexplicable reasons.

That's not true, I brought up Claude Provost and Clark Gillies and Ken Linseman one who's not in and one who is.

4th all time in PO games? Not bad I supposed. Isn't he like the only player to win 4 cups in 4 different teams?? Oh right, can't count that.

You're welcomed to include whatever criteria you want. As I've mentioned before, it's not enough FOR ME.

18 seasons? Meh. 1200+ games..Probably the best pest to ever play the game..80 PO goals..only Brett Hull and Wayne Gretzky have more GWG in the POs than Lemieux..He's got a Conn Smythe..oh and he also has 2 Gold and 1 silver medals to boot, but lemme guess, team accomplishment so we don't count those either.

Odd that you'd chastise me for having my personal standards, yet you bring up him being the best pest to ever play the game, as though that's some kind of standard

I mean sure ya, if we just decide to sweep things under the rug and ignore the fact other players are in the HoF who weren't the best of their era either, then okay Lemieux shouldn't be inducted.
But when we look at all his body of work, and look at the standard set by the committee through previous inductions, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be considered. Saying winning 4 cups doesn't count isn't an argument buddy.

I never said it didn't count, I just said it's a team accomplishment and for me, emphasis on “for me”, there needs to be more and not that he doesn't have more, just don't think he Hall of Fame caliber player.

I thought this was a thread about whether or not he should be in the Hall of Fame...

Didn't know i’d be on trial for it.

Hope he makes it one day and you get your wish!

 

[Kriss E]

I never said it didn't count, I just said it's a team accomplishment and for me, emphasis on “for me”, there needs to be more and not that he doesn't have more, just don't think he Hall of Fame caliber player.

How about this, if you factor in precedence, do you think Claude should at least be nominated?

 

[Tyson]

How about this, if you factor in precedence, do you think Claude should at least be nominated?

19 GWG in the playoffs of the 80 he scored. He scored two less goals in the playoffs than the Rocket (not comparing him to the Rocket).
Habs don't win the Cup in 86 without his clutch play.

 

[MXD]

19 GWG in the playoffs of the 80 he scored. He scored two less goals in the playoffs than the Rocket (not comparing him to the Rocket).
Habs don't win the Cup in 86 without his clutch play.

There are quite a few teams that don't win X cups without the clutch play of a non-HHOFer.

 

[Tyson]

There are quite a few teams that don't win X cups without the clutch play of a non-HHOFer.

I think there are many in the Hall less deserving is the point of many. What did Kevin Lowe accomplish to be noteworthy of the HOF? Lemieux should at least be nominated.

 

[beowulf]

Not imo...cups are a team accomplishment, not an individual one.

Including him would be setting the bar pretty low moving forward

Yet he also has a lot of individual accomplishments. He has a Conn Smythe, got picked over a lot of stars in 87 for the Canada Cup and ten years later at the World Cup. As mentioned 19 GWG in the playoffs which ties him for second highest number with Sakic after Gretzky and Brett Hull. His 80 playoff goals are good for 9th all time.

Going against him is he has none of the big regular season milestones like 400 goals (ended with 369) or 1,000 points (ended with 786). And his style of play and being dirty likely loses him a number of votes.

He is far from a sure thing but imo should get consideration.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

He definitely should be

Not only does he have Cups, a Smythe, and a crazy playoff GWG stat but he is also one of the game’s most unique characters (even if for the wrong reasons)

 

[MXD]

I think there are many in the Hall less deserving is the point of many. What did Kevin Lowe accomplish to be noteworthy of the HOF? Lemieux should at least be nominated.

Lowe shouldn't be the bar to clear to enter the HHOF.

It's almost like the Committee had the absolute obligation to enshrine a Stay-at-Home, Reliable D from those very solid Western Canadian teams ... And in typical fashion they bungled it by going with Lowe instead of the McCrimmon.

(FTR I don't think McCrimmon should be in the HHOF, but he at least does have a case)

 

[the valiant effort]

19 GWG in the playoffs of the 80 he scored. He scored two less goals in the playoffs than the Rocket (not comparing him to the Rocket).
Habs don't win the Cup in 86 without his clutch play.

I realize you clearly said you’re not comparing him to the Rocket, but it’s two less goals in 100 more games played lol

 

[Tyson]

I realize you clearly said you’re not comparing him to the Rocket, but it’s two less goals in 100 more games played lol

80 play off goals I believe was my point. He clearly isn't in the Rocket's stratosphere

 

[Forsead]

I realize you clearly said you’re not comparing him to the Rocket, but it’s two less goals in 100 more games played lol

Yeah, the Rocket goal/per game in the playoffs is one of his mightiest feat IMO.

He compare favourably with Gretzky, Howe, Hull, Bossy, Yzerman, Sakic, Jagr and Ovechkin, especially when factoring era...

 

[417]

How about this, if you factor in precedence, do you think Claude should at least be nominated?

Put it this way.

I wouldn't raise a fuss if he got nominated and got in.

It was never that serious for me.

I certainly don't think he's Hall of Fame worthy, but sure, there are other players I also think who aren't worthy and they're in.

So if that's how guys get in...fit him for a jacket I guess.

 

[417]

Yet he also has a lot of individual accomplishments. He has a Conn Smythe, got picked over a lot of stars in 87 for the Canada Cup and ten years later at the World Cup. As mentioned 19 GWG in the playoffs which ties him for second highest number with Sakic after Gretzky and Brett Hull. His 80 playoff goals are good for 9th all time.

Going against him is he has none of the big regular season milestones like 400 goals (ended with 369) or 1,000 points (ended with 786). And his style of play and being dirty likely loses him a number of votes.

He is far from a sure thing but imo should get consideration.

That's what it comes down to with me...the other stuff you mentioned is nice and all but there's just not enough individual milestones to compliment some of collective team achievements he has.

Making the Canasa Cuo roster isn't really noteworthy for me either but not sure if that's actually a thing the committee considers...

I agree with your general consensus though, that it's not a sure thing and he does deserve some consideration.

Never said otherwise.