Was Doug Harvey snubbed by the HHoF?

[Davenport]

I'm firmly in the "yes, he was" camp. If the story of Doug Harvey's induction in to the Hockey Hall of Fame, and - in particular - his decision to decline to show up, is new to you read the article below. Decide for yourself.

Remember - at the time of his induction - Harvey was regarded as the greatest defenseman in the history of the NHL.

This Day in Hockey History – August 23, 1973 – In the Doug Outs

Click to read more...

 

[Theokritos]

Interestingly, Harvey himself did have something to say about it in 1972:

If you wonder why Henri Richard wasn't a first ballot Hall of Famer, how about Doug Harvey? Retired 1969, eligible 1972, voted in 1973.
Instead of Harvey, the selection committee went with Gordie Howe (retired 1971, three-year-rule waived), Jean Beliveau (retired 1971, three-year-rule waived), Hooley Smith (retired 1941) and Hap Holmes (retired 1928) in 1972. Pretty insulting to select Beliveau ahead of time and let Harvey wait an additional year. Seems Harvey was out of sorts with the selection committee, he told the newspapers: "I don't want any part of an outfit that bends the rules for their own convenience - where you have to be one of the establishment or you don't qualify."

Some of the replies:

He was trying to get a union going for the players. That equals not being a part of the establishment.

Yeah, Doug Harvey having to wait a year was a slap in the face for

1) His efforts at starting the union
2) Becoming quite the drunk at the end of his career (back when "character" was a big thing to the committee and alcoholism was considered a character flaw).

 

[Davenport]

In the eyes of the folks at the Hockey Hall of Fame, Harvey had another big strike against him - beyond those mentioned by TheDevilMadeMe. In 1973, he began working with the WHA's Houston Aeros - a team looking to draft the underage Howe brothers.

 

[Habsfan18]

 

[Big Phil]

No doubt the HHOF can be political. Sounds like they were with Harvey for sure. I can think of players from an all-time sense that seemed to purposely have to wait to get in. Doug Gilmour, Glenn Anderson and Adam Oates are all legit HHOFers, and yet for different reasons the HHOF definitely made them wait. With the first two it would definitely be off-ice stuff. With Oates my only guess is that he just wasn't terribly open with the press and for a while his old GM Harry Sinden was on the committee and I have to wonder how much of a delay that was.

I can see in a way how Harvey might be a little stung about the 3-year wait not being waived for him. It honestly should have been..................but, you can sort of overlook the fact that Howe and Beliveau deserved it just as much if not more, so if that is the worst thing, then alright. But not putting him in for his first year? Why? I guess the union thing comes to mind. I can definitely see there being bad blood about that. Ted Lindsay got some of the same treatment, I think. Retired in 1960, definitely out of the game for at least three years, then comes back to the NHL for one final season in 1964-'65. Then is inducted in 1966. I would love to know what made them wait for him too. If you look at the lists of those years from 1963 onwards they are long and I guess the backlog is what they would be saying it is, but come on, it is Ted Lindsay, I think you can find room for him pretty easily......................unless the establishment didn't want to. I can see that sort of bitterness surrounding it and I can see Lindsay shaking his head the same way Harvey did.

Henri Richard too. What gives? Why not induct him right away? Why wait a year extra?

 

[Davenport]

Further irony. In the Summer of 1972, Gordie Howe is inducted in to the Hockey Hall of Fame - with the three-year wait waived. Gordie - unlike Harvey - was an NHLer in good standing. Never made a stink at contract time. Stayed away from the union nonsense.

Just a year later, Howe is signing with the Houston Aeros of the WHA, along with his sons - who were signed under-age (according to NHL rules).

The folks at the HHoF had that egg and the egg of Harvey's no-show on their faces that glorious Summer of 1973. Memories...

 

[Staniowski]

View attachment 434567 View attachment 434569

Milt Dunnell's comment about the nomination process is interesting...

I've often wondered exactly how it works....I assume that the committee members are all notified of a nominee as soon as a member submits their nomination. This would ensure there are no duplications, and ensure nobody is "forgotten".

But we don't know for sure that this is how it works. And even if it does now, it might not have always worked that way.....maybe multiple committee members were able to nominate the same player, and players could therefore be forgotten.
------------------------
There have been many great players who weren't inducted in their first year of eligibility.

 

[Moose Head]

Fine, waive the rule for Howe and Beliveau, but I think the world would have gone on just fine if Hooley Smith or Hap Holmes had to wait another year to get Harvey in in 1972.

 

[psycat]

I don't know but I do know Harvey is by far the player in the history of the game who got most mileage in terms of all time ranking out of a grand total of 8 playoff goals while playing on the greatest team of all time!

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't know but I do know Harvey is by far the player in the history of the game who got most mileage in terms of all time ranking out of a grand total of 8 playoff goals while playing on the greatest team of all time!

Evaluating Harvey's playoff contributions based on his goals total =

 

[psycat]

Evaluating Harvey's playoff contributions based on his goals total =

Nah it's just a joke, and not a really funny one either, when people rank him ahead of players like Bourque or Lidström(which I see here quite often). Of course I don't rank him solely based on goals and you understand that.

 

[The Panther]

Nah it's just a joke, and not a really funny one either, when people rank him ahead of players like Bourque or Lidström(which I see here quite often). Of course I don't rank him solely based on goals and you understand that.

Dude. There are many, many people who saw Harvey play in his prime and then saw Bourque and Lidstrom play, and who rank Harvey the highest of them. The number of goals Harvey scored in short playoff rounds is not going to change that.

 

[psycat]

Dude. There are many, many people who saw Harvey play in his prime and then saw Bourque and Lidstrom play, and who rank Harvey the highest of them. The number of goals Harvey scored in short playoff rounds is not going to change that.

Habs homers are the worst kind of homers. No way to justify that ranking rationally though. Show me another non goalie inside of a top 100 ranking with less than 8 playoffs goals(I suppose there is Eddie Shore but atleast he got a couple of Harts and way fewer playoff games), refuse to believe he was so superior to Lidström defensively it makes up for being a black hole, relatively speaking, offensively for example. Lidström is often downplayed for playing in a "weak era on a strong team", now Harvey played in a semi beer league on arguably the most dominant team of all time.

 

[MadLuke]

I don't know but I do know Harvey is by far the player in the history of the game who got most mileage in terms of all time ranking out of a grand total of 8 playoff goals while playing on the greatest team of all time!

Defenseman goal scoring was not high in that era:

8 is the most any of them scored during Harvey time I think (center-D Red Kelly aside).
NHL Stats

it makes up for being a black hole offensively

Strong and strange statement for the D with the most playoff point of the era and the same ppg to Red kelly.

 

[psycat]

Defenseman goal scoring was not high in that era:

8 is the most any of them scored during Harvey time I think (center-D Red Kelly aside).
NHL Stats



Strong and strange statement for the D with the most playoff point of the era and the same ppg to Red kelly.

So in short offensively inadequate players of that era became defencemen? Other and more likely interpration would be that they werent expected to participate in the offense as much but(in that case)how can someone from that era possibly be ranked ahead of someone who is amongst the very best of all time defensively while contributing offensively regulary? Just curious do you believe the Habs would lose out on any of their cups with a prime Pronger on the team instead of Harvey?

Adding to the mystery I often see people rank Harvey above Lidström due to team success and trophies but at the same time rank Bourque ahead of Lidström due to points and for playing on worse teams, makes zero sense and is a highly suspicious shift of narratives.

 

[MadLuke]

So in short offensively inadequate players of that era became defencemen?

.55 points per game in that era, I am not sure I would say that was being offensively inadequate or not participating.

Has for the Pronger question, I never saw Harvey play I was born in the 80s not sure how I would answer that.

 

[The Panther]

Habs homers are the worst kind of homers.

Have you been to a game at Madison Square Garden??

(Just joking. I actually like the Rangers.)

No way to justify that ranking rationally though. Show me another non goalie inside of a top 100 ranking with less than 8 playoffs goals(I suppose there is Eddie Shore but atleast he got a couple of Harts and way fewer playoff games), refuse to believe he was so superior to Lidström defensively it makes up for being a black hole, relatively speaking, offensively for example. Lidström is often downplayed for playing in a "weak era on a strong team", now Harvey played in a semi beer league on arguably the most dominant team of all time.

These are ravings.

 

[Weztex]

Habs homers are the worst kind of homers. No way to justify that ranking rationally though. Show me another non goalie inside of a top 100 ranking with less than 8 playoffs goals(I suppose there is Eddie Shore but atleast he got a couple of Harts and way fewer playoff games), refuse to believe he was so superior to Lidström defensively it makes up for being a black hole, relatively speaking, offensively for example. Lidström is often downplayed for playing in a "weak era on a strong team", now Harvey played in a semi beer league on arguably the most dominant team of all time.

So in short offensively inadequate players of that era became defencemen? Other and more likely interpration would be that they werent expected to participate in the offense as much but(in that case)how can someone from that era possibly be ranked ahead of someone who is amongst the very best of all time defensively while contributing offensively regulary? Just curious do you believe the Habs would lose out on any of their cups with a prime Pronger on the team instead of Harvey?

Offensive black hole? On the 11 seasons consecutive seasons he was an all-star, Harvey was at 0,55 P/GP. Prime Zdeno Chara (2003-2014), who was pretty was from an offensive black hole himself is at 0,56. If you adjust for the fact that they give 5% more assists today, Harvey actually comes out on top. All that in a time where game plans weren't relying on the defense at all to create offense. Nothing to do with the players ability to do so.

I don't have Harvey as the defacto #2 d-man like most people here but the angle you're using to compare him and Lidstrom seems a little convoluted and anachronistic.

 

[danincanada]

Offensive black hole? On the 11 seasons consecutive seasons he was an all-star, Harvey was at 0,55 P/GP. Prime Zdeno Chara (2003-2014), who was pretty was from an offensive black hole himself is at 0,56. If you adjust for the fact that they give 5% more assists today, Harvey actually comes out on top. All that in a time where game plans weren't relying on the defense at all to create offense. Nothing to do with the players ability to do so.

I don't have Harvey as the defacto #2 d-man like most people here but the angle you're using to compare him and Lidstrom seems a little convoluted and anachronistic.

Psycat went overboard with some of his comments but there is so much hyperbole when it comes to Doug Harvey so maybe it's just an overcorrection. People like to compare him to Orr and claim he "controlled the gane" more than anyone other than Orr, but the offensive numbers simply don't stack up at all. Can anyone envision Orr producing so little in any era? I can't. Then add that Harvey was on arguably the most stacked team ever for era and got to play on the top PP unit.

Lidstrom and Harvey are so easy to compare with each other because there are so many similarities. Neither should really be compared with Orr too much because he was a much different player than either. Yet people like to pretend that there's Orr, then Harvey. Never made any sense to me.

 

[reckoning]

View attachment 434567 View attachment 434569

Thank you Habsfan18 for those articles. Interesting stuff. Surprised to see Harvey's drinking problems mentioned; I thought the media would have been reluctant to talk about stuff like that in print back then.

According to the first one, the selection committee was:
Frank Selke
Milt Dunnell
Danny Gallivan
Jimmy Dunn
Ebbie Goodfellow
Marcel Desjardins
Gordon Juckes
Tom Fitzgerald
Cyclone Taylor
Charles Coleman
Ned Dalton

Does anyone know who Ned Dalton was? He's not listed on the HHOF sites list of past committee members.

 

[K Fleur]

“Offensive black hole” Doug Harvey led all defenseman in scoring 5 different times in his career.

Guess how many times Lidstrom did the same.