The Kingslayer
Registered User
Which players should not be in the HHOF who have already been inducted and which active players should not make the HHOF who are most likely going to?
murray said:There is a site called Hockey World Wide Hall Of fame where they revoted the selections year by year and none of these guys have made it along with others like Shutt, Sittler, Rod gilbert, laprade and Tony Esposito among others. The WWHOF is my HOF. It is so much more logical and objective,
But choked when it counted. Letting in an easy shot from center ice in the 7th game of the 1971 Stanley cup final is reason enough to keep him out in my book. Unfortunately he did make the official HOFand may yet make the WWHOF (He is close on the veteran list).arrbez said:Tony Esposito isn't in? 3 time first team All-star (two 2nd team), #5 in all time wins, holds modern day record for shutouts in a season...
That's just ridiculous. How many goalies even made it in there?
You have a point. There is no question that Clarke is a deserving HOFer (wether he is in the top ten all time is another debate, there have been a lot of great centermen over the years), However the WWHOF Is much more selective and has stricter rules. You must be retire 5 years to be eligible. Clarke first became eligible in 89. Here is who they selected each year from 89-2001 (Players only, excluding Builders & oldtimers:God Bless Canada said:As stated before in an earlier discussion, the WWHOF is to be commended for their efforts to try something, instead of just complaining about the current HHOF. However, they have ruined their own credibility, and have less credibility than the HHOF. Bobby Clarke is one of the 10 greatest all-round centres ever, a force with offence, defence, leadership, physical play, etc., that is almost unmatched in the history of the game. He was passed over several times. Kurri and Fetisov, who are among the top-10 all-time at their positions, haven't gotten in, either. Decisions like this kill credibility as much as letting in Gillies.
Tony Esposito's record speaks for itself. He had a phenomenal career. His playoff record is what keeps him out of discussion for the top 10 goalies ever, but he's definitely HHOF-worthy.
Grant Fuhr is in the HHOF because he won. Period. Like Cheevers, the GAA, save percentage and awards meant nothing to him. All that meant was wins. He made the saves when they counted. One of the best big game goalies of all-time, and one of the best big-save goalies of all-time.
1989 no onemurray said:You have a point. There is no question that Clarke is a deserving HOFer (wether he is in the top ten all time is another debate, there have been a lot of great centermen over the years), However the WWHOF Is much more selective and has stricter rules. You must be retire 5 years to be eligible. Clarke first became eligible in 89. Here is who they selected each year from 89-2001 (Players only, excluding Builders & oldtimers:
1989
Of the centres selected from 1989 to 2001, the only one I would take ahead of Clarke is Trottier. Perrault was an excellent centre (who didn't even get in on his first attempt), Dionne was not a clutch scorer, Keon was a terrific player but not in Clarke's class, and Stastny was a wonderfully skilled player, but again, not the all-round force that Clarke was.murray said:1989 no one
1990 Tretiak
1991 park
1992 bossy
1993 potvin
1994 Dionne & perrault
1995 Keon
1996 Lafleur, S. savard
1997 Robinson, yakashev
1998 maltsev, salming
1999 trottier
2000 Stasny
2001 Clarke, Gainey
You could argue that Clarke should have made it ahead of some of these.Note that they never select more than one or two a year and some years pick no one, Note that Fuhr hasn't hit the 5 year mark yet & T. esposita is borderline in the Oldtimers vote. Both may very well make it (altough I would disagree on both), I think the WWHOF selection commiittee has every bit as much credibility as the Officail HOF committee.
Agrre that Clarke should have made it earlier but disagree that a long delay on a deserving entry hurts their credibility more than electing non-deserving players as the offical HOF does (gilies, Pulford etc). It should be tough to get elected. It probably hurt Clarl in retrospect because he is an Eagleson kiss ***.God Bless Canada said:Of the centres selected from 1989 to 2001, the only one I would take ahead of Clarke is Trottier. Perrault was an excellent centre (who didn't even get in on his first attempt), Dionne was not a clutch scorer, Keon was a terrific player but not in Clarke's class, and Stastny was a wonderfully skilled player, but again, not the all-round force that Clarke was.
13 attempts for Clarke to get in is more harmful to this organization's credibility than the HHOF inducting Gillies.
murray said:But choked when it counted. Letting in an easy shot from center ice in the 7th game of the 1971 Stanley cup final is reason enough to keep him out in my book. Unfortunately he did make the official HOFand may yet make the WWHOF (He is close on the veteran list).
murray said:Debates about HOf are always interesting because it is so subjective and political. I agree on federko, Giles & Pulford . Also am against Lafontaine (only one great season but a token American like mullen), and Mullen. Also Fuhr (must be dumb and know nothing about hockey per Big Phil). being an average goalie on an offensive power house doesn't cut it. ,
murray said:But choked when it counted. Letting in an easy shot from center ice in the 7th game of the 1971 Stanley cup final is reason enough to keep him out in my book. Unfortunately he did make the official HOFand may yet make the WWHOF (He is close on the veteran list).
El_Scoobo said:What about Fedorov?? Will he make it???
How about Andreychuk, Turgeon and/or Recchi?
--these guys all have quite a few points but I know I never considered any of them to be in the top group of players at any time. I was a bit surprised that Pierre had over 1200 points.
Fedorov is a lock. He wasn't the MVP of any of those Detroit teams that won the Cup, but he played a key role. Despite his Hart Trophy and his superb defensive play, his regular season accomplishments would leave him as borderline. His role on three Cup championship teams gets him in.Metallian said:Fedorov was the 1st russian to get over 1000 points, yes
Andreychuk, shouldnt be, but might make it later. If Cam Neely can get in, Andreychuk can get it. Heck, anyone can get in...
Turgeon....maybe. He has the numbers
Recchi...see: Andreychuk
God Bless Canada said:Mark Recchi's a more interesting debate, but I still say no. He was a better player than Turgeon and Andreychuk were. He brought grit that Turgeon could only dream of, and was more effective five-on-five than Andreychuk. He played a key on-ice role on a Cup-winning team. (1991 Penguins). There is a lot to like in his portfolio. An excellent playmaking winger who boasted a great snap shot, and wasn't afraid to venture into the high-traffic areas. But for some reason, as an HHOF candidate, he leaves me wanting more. Never viewed him as a top 15 player, or top three at his position. Again, I don't think he's any better than Ciccarelli, and Dino's been up for induction since 2002, and likely won't get in until 2010, at the earliest.
God Bless Canada said:Fedorov is a lock. He wasn't the MVP of any of those Detroit teams that won the Cup, but he played a key role. Despite his Hart Trophy and his superb defensive play, his regular season accomplishments would leave him as borderline. His role on three Cup championship teams gets him in.
Fedorov and Lindros are the interesting cases for me.... I believe every Hart winner is in the HHOF, but these two will probably test the theory.El_Scoobo said:What about Fedorov?? Will he make it???
The trend of every Hart winner making the Hall is going to end eventually. Theodore and St. Louis both won Harts, and as of right now, I don't see either of them making it. (They're both 30-ish now, and I don't think they'll but together the necessary string of seasons to crack HHOF balloting. Theodore has had two great seasons. Probably needs four or five more, and at least one lengthy playoff run. St. Louis has had one great season, and two really good post-seasons).jamiebez said:Fedorov and Lindros are the interesting cases for me.... I believe every Hart winner is in the HHOF, but these two will probably test the theory.
If it was up to me, I'd put them both in. The post-Flyers Lindros gets a bad rap, but his first 7 seasons or so, he was one of the top 2 or 3 in the game.
Fedorov has a Hart, 2 Selkes and 3 Cups. I won't even hold it against him that he killed my hockey pool in the 1st half of this season