Top 5 ommitted HOFers

[Chili]

Another builder who comes to mind is Herb Brooks.

Ivan Hlinka also had a great hockey resume.

 

[Lard_Lad]

Brooks kinda falls into the Henderson category, though - a long "pretty good" career with one great achievement.

Can't see Hlinka ever making it, mostly for the same reason. Maybe as a player, if the HoF ever starts taking European careers seriously.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

.Barber ..i dont know about you but when i think of Barber i think of diving ..heck i remember Leach scoring most of those big goals during the Flyers glory years .

Leach wasn't even on the Flyers first Cup winning team. Barber won game 4 of the 74 Stanley Cup Finals with what Bobby Orr called "the greatest wrist shot I've ever seen."

Barber was a much better all-around player than Leach. barber played the point on the PP, was a big time penalty killer ... played for Team Canada, etc. etc.

 

[reckoning]

Roy and Barrasso should get the nods.

Gilmour waits a year.

Richter and Housley.... sorry, no.

I hate Doug Gilmour with a passion, but even I admit he deserves to be in the Hall. Richter? Well, Giacomin`s in the Hall, and Richter broke all his Ranger records plus won a Stanley Cup which Giacomin never did. Add in that he was THE reason the U.S. won the `96 World Cup and maybe the best goalie ever on breakaways and you have a first-ballot lock.

 

[chooch*]

I hate Doug Gilmour with a passion,

why?

 

[God Bless Canada]

Roy's a gimmie. One of the five best goalies ever, No. 1 in the eyes of some.

Gilmour might take a year or two, but he's a lock to get in eventually. He finished under a point per game, but he was a force in St. Louis, Calgary and Toronto, had some terrific playoffs, played with heart, grit and defensive awareness, and was an effective leader.

Barasso, Housley and Richter are in for battles. Housley put up great numbers, but that's partly reflective of his longevity, and he was terrible defensively. (Was -14 in 1993 when he had 97 points, and on a pretty decent team, too). If he gets in, it'll take a while, when people remember only the numbers, not the defensive ineptitude.

Barasso's close. But he was a jerk, and people have long memories about stuff like that. For a future HHOFer (Bobby Hull), it's not a facotr, but for a player the calibre of Barasso, it will be. If not for injuries, he'd be a lock, because he was a damn fine goalie. But he had a lot of injury-plagued/mediocre seasons mixed with the great years.

Richter had no Vezinas or all-star selections. Had some great years, but some downright mediocre years. Not enough great years to get in. His best save percentage after 1997 was .910, below average in this era. Yes, he played behind some stinker teams, but other goalies behind stinker teams put up better save percentages. If Richter gets in, so should Bill Ranford. (And I've got the proof to back this up).

 

[reckoning]

why?

Would you let your daughter babysit for him?

 

[reckoning]

Richter had no Vezinas or all-star selections. Had some great years, but some downright mediocre years. Not enough great years to get in. His best save percentage after 1997 was .910, below average in this era. Yes, he played behind some stinker teams, but other goalies behind stinker teams put up better save percentages. If Richter gets in, so should Bill Ranford. (And I've got the proof to back this up).

Sorry, I honestly can`t see how Ranford could be considered even close to Richter, so I`m curious about your proof.
Hopefully, this can be a more intelligent debate than some of the other ones on this board.

 

[Chili]

Brooks kinda falls into the Henderson category, though - a long "pretty good" career with one great achievement.

Can't see Hlinka ever making it, mostly for the same reason. Maybe as a player, if the HoF ever starts taking European careers seriously.

"one great achievement"

I think you need to review their achievements as coaches. NCAA and world titles are certainly great achievements to me and they have several.

They are both legends in their home countries (and not for one achievement), devoted their lives to the game and inspired countless people in the sport.

 

[Wisent]

Vsevolod Bobrov. He is considered one of the best hockey players Russia ever had. In international competition he scored 89 goals in 59 games. In the league he had a 243 goals in 230 games. 6 national championships. 2 worldchampionships, Olympic gold, 2 European championships, 2 Worldchampionships as a coach. And apart from that a great soccer and innebandy player as well. A real sportsman.

 

[Snap Wilson]

I hate Doug Gilmour with a passion, but even I admit he deserves to be in the Hall. Richter? Well, Giacomin`s in the Hall, and Richter broke all his Ranger records plus won a Stanley Cup which Giacomin never did. Add in that he was THE reason the U.S. won the `96 World Cup and maybe the best goalie ever on breakaways and you have a first-ballot lock.

Oh, hell no. That Richter broke Eddie G's Rangers records doesn't mean a thing in an era where goalies play a hell of a lot longer. During the early 70s, Eddie G was one of the best goalies in the league, making the postseason all-star team five times. Richter has never been close. Before you get to Richter, you have to go through Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Belfour (all locks), Barrasso, Vanbiesbrouck, Vernon and Joseph. All of them have better resumes than Richter.

 

[Captain Leaf]

"one great achievement"

I think you need to review their achievements as coaches. NCAA and world titles are certainly great achievements to me and they have several.

They are both legends in their home countries (and not for one achievement), devoted their lives to the game and inspired countless people in the sport.

You are correct , thats why Herb will be in the USA Hockey hall of fame ..not the Hockey hall of fame .

 

[Chili]

You are correct , thats why Herb will be in the USA Hockey hall of fame ..not the Hockey hall of fame .

He's already there. Review some of the builders that are in the HHOF and tell me that they have done more for to advance the game of hockey than Brooks. You can start with Harold Ballard.

 

[Darth Milbury]

I'm sure I'll get toasted for this name: Don Marcotte.

I saw this guy in his prime, and I really thought he was every bit as good a defensive player as Bob Gainey. Back when Gainey was winning all those Selke's, there were years when Marcotte was the better player overall. Add that together with 7 or so seasons with 20 goals, a few close to 30, and his entire career with just one team. This guy had a fantastic career.

Another point: Do you guys think that players that excelled in the old WHA (Mark Tardiff, Real Cloutier, Hedberg and Nilson) should get more attention?

 

[DaaaaB's]

My top five:
1. Rick Middleton
2. Cam Neely
3. Rogie Vachon
4. Dino Ciccerelli
5. Lionel Hitchman

 

[Lard_Lad]

Another point: Do you guys think that players that excelled in the old WHA (Mark Tardiff, Real Cloutier, Hedberg and Nilson) should get more attention?

Not really. Except for Tardif, all of those guys moved over to the NHL while they were still in their prime and didn't come anywhere near their WHA totals, which gives you an indication of how much WHA stats should count for.

 

[Big Phil]

First off what is the knock on Barber with all of you people? He only played twelve seasons but he put up 420 goals. Here were his single season goal totals: 50, 45, 43, 41, 40. With another 4 over 30. His points went like this: 112, 89, 85, 80. He won two Cups and played in 4 Cup finals. Plus he was First team all-star in '76 and second in '79 and '81. What's wrong with that? He was a ery good player and shouldnt be criticized for being in there.

As for Mike Richter? What are you people sniffing? Glue? I dont think he should get in at all. Yes he had 301 wins, but he also lost a lot of games too. 258 to be exact. He only had 6 seasons with a winning record, the other eight seasons he had a losing record and he was on some pretty talented but underacheiving teams. I dont' think you should get into the Hall with just one great season ('94). Add the fact that his only other "decent seasons' were '96 and '97 and to me that is not Hall worthy. Yes he won the Cup in '94 and he played brilliantly in the '96 World Cup but he also has no Vezinas or first or second all-star team selections, that matters a lot.

 

[Malefic74]

As for Mike Richter? What are you people sniffing? Glue? I dont think he should get in at all. Yes he had 301 wins, but he also lost a lot of games too. 258 to be exact. He only had 6 seasons with a winning record, the other eight seasons he had a losing record and he was on some pretty talented but underacheiving teams. I dont' think you should get into the Hall with just one great season ('94). Add the fact that his only other "decent seasons' were '96 and '97 and to me that is not Hall worthy. Yes he won the Cup in '94 and he played brilliantly in the '96 World Cup but he also has no Vezinas or first or second all-star team selections, that matters a lot.

I agree. Barrasso had a better career, as did Andy Moog. Both should get in before Richter. More Cups, more wins, better numbers and better careers.

Barrasso had 369 wins and was the first American born goalie to reach 300. He has a Calder, a Vezina and a Jennings, played well for the Team USA when called (84 Canada Cup) and has two Stanley Cups to Richter's one.

Moog has 372 wins, has had 10 20 win seasons, has three Cups and backstopped the Bruins to two more finals appearances. He was named to the All-Star team twice as an Oiler, once as a Bruin and again as a Star. He's played for Canada's National Team and was undefeated in the '88 Olympics.

Richter can't simply be compared to Giacomin because the eras are so different. Against two peers whose careers are in the same era, he is a distant third.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I agree. Barrasso had a better career, as did Andy Moog. Both should get in before Richter. More Cups, more wins, better numbers and better careers.

Barrasso had 369 wins and was the first American born goalie to reach 300. He has a Calder, a Vezina and a Jennings, played well for the Team USA when called (84 Canada Cup) and has two Stanley Cups to Richter's one.

Moog has 372 wins, has had 10 20 win seasons, has three Cups and backstopped the Bruins to two more finals appearances. He was named to the All-Star team twice as an Oiler, once as a Bruin and again as a Star. He's played for Canada's National Team and was undefeated in the '88 Olympics.

Richter can't simply be compared to Giacomin because the eras are so different. Against two peers whose careers are in the same era, he is a distant third.

Why do you say that players cannot be compared when they are from different eras? I believe that they can.

For instance, isn't it the same thing to be considered the best player in the world in 1950 or the best player in the world in 1990? You don't need to worry about eras when you look at it that way. The leading scorer in 1923 and the leading scorer in 1993 are equals (unless one dominates the league during his season more than the other).

Comparisons can be made you just can't take the statistics at face value.

 

[Big Phil]

Just for the record, Richter couldnt hold Giacomin's jock!

 

[Ogopogo*]

This is my list of the top 5 players who arent in the Hall of Fame in the order of most deserving. Oh and by the way, surprise, surprise Neely isnt the 1st!

In order of most deserving:

#1 Rogie Vachon - I have no idea why he inst in the Hall. This may raise a few eyebrows as to him being #1 but think about it. He won the Vezina Trophy in '68, was second team all-star twice, in '75 and '77 and to top it off he had 355 wins. In comparison Terry Sawchuk had 447. He also won three Cups. Plus he played on some mediocre Kings teams and still put up good numbers. And who was in stellar in net for every game for Canada in the '76 Canada Cup? Vachon.

#2 Glenn Anderson - What more does the guy have to do? 6 playoff overtime goals? A known clutch goal scorer. 6 Cups. 498 goals. Scored 50 twice in his career. Had 100 points three times in his career. No all-star selections at Right Wing but that was more because Bossy and Kurri were there. I say put him in there no question.

#3 Rick Middleton - 5 straight years of 90 points or more, another season with 86. Scored 50 goals once, 100 points twice. Good playoff numbers. To me he's above Neely as to a guy who has to be in there. No Cups, but he played in his share of Cup finals.

#4 Cam Neely - Okay everyone stop screaming, this is why he isnt above the rest of them. Look I love Neely, very good player. And if he was in the Hall I wouldnt make a fuss, but what bothers me is the people that are willing to die just to see him in there. Why? He had 4, count them, 4 good seasons in his career. that was '88, '90, '91 and '94. Everything else is nothing to write home about. He had four second team all-star selections all in those years. That's good but is it great? I feel bad that his career was cut short, but if a guy loses his career to injuries do we put him in just because of that? If so why dont we put Geoff Courtnall in? If he gets in its not a big deal, but to all you Homers out there, face it, there are better guys than him not in there.

#5 John Tonelli - He won four Cups fo the Isles, and was the MVP of the Canada Cup in '84. He played two way Hockey very well and was twice named second all-star team. Put up 100 points once and 93 another time. My feeling is that if Clark Gilles got in there ahead of him then Tonelli should be in there. To me he was a better player.

That's it. That is my top 5. Deabte over it all you want and make up your own list.
HM goes to other guys - Dino Ciccarelli, Rick Martin, Dave Taylor, Pete Mahovolich.

I don't put much stock into hall of fame selections. Once they elected players like Gillies, Federko and Lafontaine, they lowered the bar. The Hall is now just a collection of good players not a shrine for the all time greats.

Of the players you listed, I would only consider Rogie for the Hall. The rest are excellent but not Hall worthy.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Mike Richter won a Cup, was MVP of the 1996 World Cup and played strong for the U.S. team at the 2002 Olys. Good career. But, he only won 30 games more than twice, and didn't have a save percentage over .910 (which was still below average) in his final five years. He really only had three or four great years.

Bill Ranford won a Conn Smythe Trophy for Edmonton in 1990, was the top goalie at the 1991 Canada Cup (and the MVP in the eyes of many) and the MVP at the 1994 World Championships, leading Canada to their first gold medal in 33 years. He never had the talent in front of him that Richter did, or his career would have been even better. He was in Edmonton during the end of their run, but that was when Fuhr was there. Of Ranford's 22 wins in 1994, I'd say he single-handly won about 15 of them.

Plus, Bill Ranford never gave up a goal from centre ice with his team up 2-1 against the reigning Stanley Cup champions.

Is Ranford a HHOF player? No. But I think he was every bit as good as Richter. His international career is every bit as impressive as Richter's. Barasso I'd give serious consideration for induction. I'd never give Richter a thought.

 

[Chili]

Here is an article from a couple of years back (Hockey Digest) discussing this topic. Some of the names mentioned here as well as a few others.

 

[Snap Wilson]

Why do you say that players cannot be compared when they are from different eras? I believe that they can.

Yeah, but he's using common sense. Your using the Ogopogo Award Number-Crunching System.

Re That hockey digest article: I have to admit, I didn't know Reay wasn't in the Hall. He should be. Great coach.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Yeah, but he's using common sense. Your using the Ogopogo Award Number-Crunching System.

Re That hockey digest article: I have to admit, I didn't know Reay wasn't in the Hall. He should be. Great coach.

You are a tool.