Should team accomplishments ever be considered when inducting a player into the HHOF?
- Thread starter Felidae
- Start date
only to a point.
not winning a cup isn't a big deal. see Dionne.
but you play on the oilers of the last 10 years, and it sure wouldn't help your case.
If you're good enough to be in the hall of fame and supposedly one of the best of all time, you'd think you'd make your team better. at least be in the playoffs on a consistent basis.
Conn Smythes are hard to ignore and only available to the select few who were on great teams, but I think a player who spends their entire career with one team in a meaningful way (Shane Doan) should be considered ahead of someone with lots of team hardware (Justin Williams) despite similar types of numbers.
Huokaus
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2010
- 1,157
- 679
Conn Smythe isn't (fully) a team accomplishment though. You have to have a good enough team to reach the Stanley Cup finals, but you still personally have to be one of the key factors why that team made it there. Those are interesting (not sarcastic) couple of players you chose for sure though. Justin Williams would never be in any kinds of HoF talks if it wasn't for his playoff heroics and cups, but I don't think Doan would be any more qualified just because of sticking with one team and being a good player for them - absolutely qualifies him for his jersey being retired by the team etc., but not necessarily for the HoF. Same with someone like Marleau.
As for the main question: it simply does look better in your résumé if your team has won trophies/championships (whether it was internationally or in the leagues you've played). If nothing else, it means you have been good enough to play in the "best team". Most preferably people should look at the role and stats/games though. If a player been absolute dead weight for great teams that have won cups, of course it's not as important as being a good contributor throughout the team's runs.
BayStreetBully
Registered User
Players worthy of making the HOF will normally contribute to team success. So it's not necessarily that team success should be considered, rather it's often that when you look at the achievements of a hall of fame career player, it usually already includes some measure of team success.
But no. Merely being part of a successful team isn't good enough to get you into the Hall, nor should it. Obviously no to Claude Lemieux, no to Kris Draper, no to Justin Williams.
But no. Merely being part of a successful team isn't good enough to get you into the Hall, nor should it. Obviously no to Claude Lemieux, no to Kris Draper, no to Justin Williams.
Aladyyn
they praying for the death of a rockstar
Appleyard
Registered User
Having a cup or two should not push a player without an individual resume befitting of the Hall into it.
And not having any cups at all should not push a player with an individual resume befitting of the Hall out of it.
And not having any cups at all should not push a player with an individual resume befitting of the Hall out of it.
Last edited:
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,810
- 16,548
... That's true. Unless there's reason to believe a player is actually significantly better than his individual resume DUE TO, well, Cups.
JaegerDice
The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
- Dec 26, 2014
- 25,142
- 9,398
Yes.
Hockey is a team sport. The ultimate goal in every league or tournament is a team achievement.
They should obviously be considered with context however, ie, how significant a role did the player in question play toward the ultimate team goal.
Hockey is a team sport. The ultimate goal in every league or tournament is a team achievement.
They should obviously be considered with context however, ie, how significant a role did the player in question play toward the ultimate team goal.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
A team has 19 players used in a game (20 if the backup goalie is used) and a single player outside of a goalie or a overworked defenseman is off the ice for more then half a game only so much a single player can do. Imagine someone better then Gretzky plays for a team with worse ownership,management,drafting,coaching and so then the Oilers had and he is loyal to the team that drafted him not leaving them. He could be out of the playoffs a lot. Team success in hockey shouldn't be used to judge a player so much it should be how good the player is when on the ice.
Anyone straight up saying yes is now saying Chris Osgood has a good chance to be in the HHOF. Just think about that.
Butch 19
Go cart Mozart
They are. I'd like to see less of it since I feel like many of the weakest inductions were guys getting in as good but not great players on great teams.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
Gil Gunderson
Registered User
BayStreetBully
Registered User
Like who? Clark Gillies is the last one who comes to mind. Everyone else seems to have earned it with their own personal accomplishments.
GreatGonzo
Surrounded by Snowflakes
I feel if them having team accomplishments makes or breaks their chances at the HOF, then it shouldn't really be on the critiera.
People put way to much stock on team awards to reflect an individual's career. Sure it looks good and adds to legacy, but you still need a solid team around you to make it the cup. There is a reason why Gretzky never won a cup after Edmonton. That's how much it doesn't fall on an individual, when the GOAT can't even get a lesser team to a championship. Should that be held against him? No.
You say it's a team sport and a team achievement, yet then question the value of said player he had to winning a championship...
You need your high powered first liners as much as your checking forwards, don't you? You need the depth just as much as you need the scoring, don't you? So why is it that you seem to think that a cup winning roster should be categorized by how important each member was the cup win....when it's an overall team effort anyway?
People put way to much stock on team awards to reflect an individual's career. Sure it looks good and adds to legacy, but you still need a solid team around you to make it the cup. There is a reason why Gretzky never won a cup after Edmonton. That's how much it doesn't fall on an individual, when the GOAT can't even get a lesser team to a championship. Should that be held against him? No.
You say it's a team sport and a team achievement, yet then question the value of said player he had to winning a championship...
You need your high powered first liners as much as your checking forwards, don't you? You need the depth just as much as you need the scoring, don't you? So why is it that you seem to think that a cup winning roster should be categorized by how important each member was the cup win....when it's an overall team effort anyway?
Pip
Registered User
I agree with this. Of course they mean something, but you really have look put team achievements into context when you're assessing a career or comparing players. Personally I think individual accomplishments should mostly determine who gets into the hall.
Crease
Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
- Jul 12, 2004
- 24,107
- 25,577
Because Darren McCarty doesn't score that big goal without first being teammates with Yzerman, Fedorov, and Shanny.
Satastic
Nazi punks **** off
They should be considered, but not the end all be all. Someone not winning a cup shouldn't negate their career if it's worthy of it.
Joe Nieuwendyk could arguably fit that same criteria. I say arguably because he still has a case, but feel it was bolstered by winning the Cup on three different teams.
BayStreetBully
Registered User
Nieuwendyk was borderline enough, but not only did he win 3 cups on 3 teams, but he also won the Conn Smythe, which I would consider a personal achievement.
I also thought of Glenn Anderson. He might not strike you as that typical HOFer, but not only did he win 6 cups, he is also one of the highest playoff scoring leaders of all time. 200 playoff points. I'd consider that a personal achievement too.
Problem with justifying whether or not a player should be inducted by looking just at awards is that they can be extremely misleading. Just evaluate him play, look at his effectiveness and longevity/consistency etc. It's the best way to judge someone, there's plenty of garbage players with multiple cups. And then there's plenty of superstar/HOFers with no cups. You gotta evaluate each player individually and awards alone are never accurate depictions of how good/bad someone is.
GreatGonzo
Surrounded by Snowflakes
Yet the grind line was a huge part of that teams success in the playoffs. You need those kinds of players for a cup run. You could say Yzerman doesn't have 3 cups and the legacy as a leader that he has without the TEAM that surrounded him.
My point is the Stanley cup takes more of a team effort than people want to believe. A single individual doesn't hold more value than the many other factors that are needed.
