Which HOF members do you think should not be there?

[GreatGonzo]

All the talk about the HOF letting in some pretty borderline players(by borderline i mean talent wise for the hall) so I wanted your guys opinions. Title says it all. Name a player, or players who are members that you feel shouldn't be in there and why.

Click to read more...

 

[canucks4ever]

Bob Pulford and George Amrstrong- Are these guys really any better than dean prentice, kenny wharram or bill hay?

Laparde, Dick Duff- Not even top 15 offensive producers in thier own era, hoorrible inductions.

Dino Cicarelli- Complier, terrible person, below average defensively

Bert Olmstead- racked up a few top 10 scoring finishes in a watered down era, if kariya and middleton aren't going in, he shouldn't either.

Harry Howell and Leo Boivin- lack the overall credentials to be hall of famers

Larry Murphy- compiler, I would take rob blake over him any day of the week.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

NHL-era players who didn't deserve induction:

Leo Boivin - peaked at 5th in Norris voting - just once.

Buddy O'Connor - won a Hart, but never came close to that level again. Henrik Sedin would be a better inductee if he retired today.

Lanny McDonald - Good player, but peaked at 8th and 10th in points. Probably wouldn't have been inducted if he hadn't spent so much time as a Leaf and if he didn't have such an iconic mustache.

Bobby Bauer - for some reason, they wanted to induct the whole Kraut line. His personal credentials just aren't good enough. At least Woody Dumart was an elite defensive player.

Clark Gillies - only player inducted who was possibly worse than Duff. He does have something Duff doesn't have though - he was the best in the league at something - he was the toughest guy in the league with the skill to play on a scoring line even if he wasn't close to being a star.

Dick Duff - Jere Lehtinen if Jere wasn't one of the best defensive player in the league and barely killed penalties. At least Gillies was best in the league at something

Dino Cicarrelli - one-dimensional 80s compiler. Even if he was borderline, his character should have kept him out.

Some questionable NHL-era guys (there are others):

Ace Bailey - very good player, but I don't think he gets inducted if he wasn't crippled during a game. He did win the Art Ross though, so he's not as bad as some others.

Lynn Patrick - very good player, but really short career during a weak era. Doubt he'd get in if he wasn't a member of the Patrick family.

Gerry Cheevers - the NHL usually has strict standards for goalies, but not this time.

Herbie Lewis - I have no problem with him being in, but others might. Very good defense, but offense leaves something to be desired. Part of 2 Cup winners. Patrik Elias level player in my opinion.

Clint Smith - good player, but seems to be inducted because he won two Lady Byngs and set the record for assists in a year. But the season he set the record for assists in a season was 43-44, when scoring went through the roof as most of the NHL's starting goalies and defensemen left to go fight World War 2.

Steve Shutt - probably wouldn't have hit his numbers without Lafleur.

Bernie Federko - kind of an 80s compiler, though he does get points for being the face of a franchise and having good playoff numbers.

Edgar Laprade - the only possible justification for his induction is he was just that good defensively. His offense was quite average. No Cups either.

Mike Gartner - not a HHOF-calibre player, but did have HHOF-calibre numbers (700 goals). IMO, he should have set the standard for the career numbers a guy has to hit before being inducted. But unfortunately, Dino followed.

Joe Nieuwendyk - inducted kind of as a niche player. There is no rational reason to induct him based on his skills. And yet... hockey people loved him (he did represent Canada multiple times in best-on-best tournaments as a center).

Not including Cam Neely because he was a defining player (though Bure should be in for the same reason).

pre-NHL players who are questionable inductees. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it because information is limited and criteria was different:

Scotty Davidson - inducted largely because he died in World War I?

George Richardson - inducted largely because he died in World War I?

Frank Rankin - I have no idea what he did to be inducted.

Oliver Seibert - I have no idea what he did to be inducted

Jimmy Gardner - inducted as much for his part in founding the Canadiens as for his playing career

Billy Gilmour - inducted for being the third member of a famous line? (a Clark Gillies situation?)

Shorty Green - inducted for historical significance of organizing players for the first time?

Tom Hooper - See Billy Gilmour

Jack Laviolette - see Jimmy Gardner

Steamer Maxwell - no idea why he was inducted. And I read an article from the 60s where he had no idea why he was inducted.

Jack Ruttan - no idea why he was inducted

I'm specifically not including Hobey Baker, who is inducted mostly for historical significance (though arguably should be in as a builder, rather than player).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bob Pulford and George Amrstrong- Are these guys really any better than dean prentice, kenny wharram or bill hay?

Bob Pulford was perhaps the only forward in the league strong and fast enough to physically contain Gordie Howe. I believe he won a coach's poll for the best penalty killer of the era. Toronto's ability to contain Howe and their penalty killing were huge parts of their 4 Cup dynasty.

George Armstrong was the leading playoff scoring of that same Toronto dynasty and its captain.

I have no issues with their inductions.

Laparde, Dick Duff- Not even top 15 offensive producers in thier own era, hoorrible inductions.

Agree mostly. Duff is the worst induction ever. Laprade... he was the best player on a horrible Rangers team, and there seems to be a desire to induct the best player of every team from the 6 team era. Supposedly he was an excellent defensively player. Definitely a quesionable induction, but shouldn't be lumped with Duff IMO. Duff was basically a very good role player, but still a role player.

Dino Cicarelli- Complier, terrible person, below average defensively

Agree 100%.

Bert Olmstead- racked up a few top 10 scoring finishes in a watered down era, if kariya and middleton aren't going in, he shouldn't either.

Why the Kariya comparable? Olmstead was the most physically feared forward in the league when he played. Questionable induction, perhaps, but I don't think it's that bad.

Harry Howell and Leo Boivin- lack the overall credentials to be hall of famers

Howell really isn't that bad an induction.

Larry Murphy- compiler, I would take rob blake over him any day of the week.

I would take Rob Blake over him too, but they will both be in the Hall sooner, rather than later. Murphy was a better player than many forwards in the Hall. He only looks weak because standards for defensemen are so much higher for some reason.

 

[finchster]

Bernie Federko - kind of an 80s compiler, though he does get points for being the face of a franchise and having good playoff numbers.

I am probably the only person who didn't have a problem with Federko getting in the HOF. Not an elite player but in a strong era for forwards Federko finished top ten in points five times (8th, 10th, 9th, 9th 9th). He was also somewhat under rated play maker, finishing top 10 in assists seven times, (6th, 4th, 8th, 7th, 5th, 7th, 7th). Like you stated, he has a good playoff resume and he was the face of a franchise. If you want to call him a compiler, I would argue he is at the very high end of the compiler list but his playoffs and the face of the St Louis Blues puts him over the top.

Ace Bailey - very good player, but I don't think he gets inducted if he wasn't crippled during a game. He did win the Art Ross though, so he's not as bad as some others. .

Herb Cain is the only player who won the scoring title that is not in the HOF and he did so during the war. While winning the scoring title, Cain wasn’t even voted as a first team all star that year. It seemed like winning the scoring title once in this era was an automatic trip to the HOF. Being well liked and having a tragic end to his career obviously helped, but unless there is an convincing argument that Bailey was the worst or second worst scoring leader of all time, I don’t think I disagree with his selection.

 

[canucks4ever]

Bob Pulford was perhaps the only forward in the league strong and fast enough to physically contain Gordie Howe. I believe he won a coach's poll for the best penalty killer of the era. Toronto's ability to contain Howe and their penalty killing were huge parts of their 4 Cup dynasty.

George Armstrong was the leading playoff scoring of that same Toronto dynasty and its captain.

I have no issues with their inductions.


Agree mostly. Duff is the worst induction ever. Laprade... he was the best player on a horrible Rangers team, and there seems to be a desire to induct the best player of every team from the 6 team era. Supposedly he was an excellent defensively player. Definitely a quesionable induction, but shouldn't be lumped with Duff IMO. Duff was basically a very good role player, but still a role player.



Agree 100%.



Why the Kariya comparable? Olmstead was the most physically feared forward in the league when he played. Questionable induction, perhaps, but I don't think it's that bad.



Howell really isn't that bad an induction.



I would take Rob Blake over him too, but they will both be in the Hall sooner, rather than later. Murphy was a better player than many forwards in the Hall. He only looks weak because standards for defensemen are so much higher for some reason.

If Bob Pulford and George Armstrong are in the hall, that opens the door for players like Butch Goring and Essa Tikkanen, two guys that played big roles defensively for dynasties.

The issue that I have with Larry Murphy is that he is from the 'Ray Bourque' era. His name doesn't belong in the same sentence as Chelios, Maccinnis, Coffey, Stevens and Leetch, so he kind of sticks out as a defenseman with a lack of peak.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I used to take a pretty hard line on some of the players in there like Neely, Duff, Gillies, Dino..

Now I just believe that the criteria we all think should be used is not the criteria that the committee uses..

I think Neely and Gillies (and hopefully Bure) were inducted because they were unique or rare players.

I think Armstrong was inducted for exactly the reason that tdmm mentioned: because he was the captain of an iconic team and a big time playoff performer.

The point being that they are trying to capture great players, unique players, innovative players, iconic players, the faces of franchises.. the history of the game.

I also firmly believe that we are missing some of the elements the committee and real professional hockey people see in players.

TDMM mentioning Joe Nieuwendyk is a very good example. There was some combination of his leadership/clutch play/overall ability that made him a selection to Team Canada for the Olympics twice in his 30s while playing what has been historically the toughest position to crack in the Canadian lineup. Are we saying we know better than the professionals? Joe Nieuwendyk's resume says no.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The issue that I have with Larry Murphy is that he is from the 'Ray Bourque' era. His name doesn't belong in the same sentence as Chelios, Maccinnis, Coffey, Stevens and Leetch, so he kind of sticks out as a defenseman with a lack of peak.

Murphy had a career long peak.

He definitely isn't as good as those guys you mentioned but he was a very good for a very long time.

4 Stanley Cups don't hurt either.

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Cheevers and Giacomin. They're nothing without a great team in front of them. Unlike other goaltenders who also padded their stats while having the easiest jobs in history (Dryden, Brodeur, Osgood, Fuhr) they were exposed early on and literally sucked in the playoffs.

 

[85highlander]

Orr, Howe, Lemieux, and Gretzky -- these four should have their own building....

 

[seventieslord]

TDMM's list of NHLers is a really good start. I would add the following:

Shorty Green: only there because of fame for striking

Cam Neely: I'm a fan but he's not a HHOFer.

Harry P. Watson: there's lots to like here but he just wasn't a big enough offensive producer.

Bobby Bauer: Not a great producer and was one-dimensional, got in as a member of a powerful line

Woody Dumart: Very good defensively, but like Bauer, not a great producer and even worse offensively in the playoffs.

Glenn Anderson: questionable, at least. Was he good enough individually? Placed 10th-13th in scoring 4 times while playing with Messier. I laughed when TDMM once said, to win an ATD series, that Anderson wouldn't be ATD caliber if not for his playoff resume. But clearly it's the playoff resume that got him in the hall. Five times top-7 in playoff scoring puts him in very elite company. (By comparison, playoff beast Claude Lemieux's five best are 3rd, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th) Is that enough in itself?

Gerry Cheevers - never did anything that showed him to be more than an above average goalie playing on a team with the capability to go deep in a number of playoffs.

Ed Giacomin - very good regular season goalie, but won some 1st ASTs possibly by default. Terrible playoff numbers.

one undeserving HHOF induction possibly coming down the pipe - Chris Osgood.

(cue C1958 to defend every one of these.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I am probably the only person who didn't have a problem with Federko getting in the HOF. Not an elite player but in a strong era for forwards Federko finished top ten in points five times (8th, 10th, 9th, 9th 9th). He was also somewhat under rated play maker, finishing top 10 in assists seven times, (6th, 4th, 8th, 7th, 5th, 7th, 7th). Like you stated, he has a good playoff resume and he was the face of a franchise. If you want to call him a compiler, I would argue he is at the very high end of the compiler list but his playoffs and the face of the St Louis Blues puts him over the top.




Herb Cain is the only player who won the scoring title that is not in the HOF and he did so during the war. While winning the scoring title, Cain wasn’t even voted as a first team all star that year. It seemed like winning the scoring title once in this era was an automatic trip to the HOF. Being well liked and having a tragic end to his career obviously helped, but unless there is an convincing argument that Bailey was the worst or second worst scoring leader of all time, I don’t think I disagree with his selection.

I've been coming around slowly to Federko being a quality selection.

As for Bailey, it's quite clear that Herb Cain was the worst Art Ross winner, and it isn't close. But Bailey might be second worst. He has 2 additional top 10 finishes, but both were quite a number of points away from first. And after a brief time as a scorer, he settled into becoming a low-scoring defensive player, but there is no evidence he was ever good defensively and offensively at the same time.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Orr, Howe, Lemieux, and Gretzky -- these four should have their own building....

cut it to three and i'm with you.

 

[Killion]

Oliver Seibert - I have no idea what he did to be inducted.

Oliver "Babe" Seibert started his career with the Montreal Maroons, joining Hooley Smith & Nels' Stewart on what was then called the 'S' Line, one of hockeys most feared at that time. In his first year, the Maroons won the Stanley Cup in large part thanks to his own & linemates play, something they never achieved again. He was eventually traded to the Rangers, then back to Montreal with the Canadiens where he was Captain.

Siebert retired after the 38-39 season and was then appointed Coach of the Habs, however, tragedy struck & that summer he drowned in a swimming accident. A benefit game was held to help his widow (& children), who earlier had suffered paralysis below the waist. Though Siebert clearly wasnt of "Superstar" caliber, he was extremely well respected & highly regarded in hockey circles, a natural leader, and thus the HHOF will, and certainly did then, induct members who were just plain solid people in addition to being better than average players, taken from the game early for one reason or another.

Reasons for some of the others being inducted can be found at www.hhof.com following the links to the Player Search section as your know doubt aware. Many of your "Why are they inducted" picks I too dont particularly agree with, but Im easy either way about most. Character is important, explaining some but not all of the questionable player selections. If we look at the Builders category, plenty of miscreants still listed beyond Eagleson that give pause for thought.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oliver "Babe" Seibert started his career with the Montreal Maroons, joining Hooley Smith & Nels' Stewart on what was then called the 'S' Line, one of hockeys most feared at that time. In his first year, the Maroons won the Stanley Cup in large part thanks to his own & linemates play, something they never achieved again. He was eventually traded to the Rangers, then back to Montreal with the Canadiens where he was Captain.

Siebert retired after the 38-39 season and was then appointed Coach of the Habs, however, tragedy struck & that summer he drowned in a swimming accident. A benefit game was held to help his widow (& children), who earlier had suffered paralysis below the waist. Though Siebert clearly wasnt of "Superstar" caliber, he was extremely well respected & highly regarded in hockey circles, a natural leader, and thus the HHOF will, and certainly did then, induct members who were just plain solid people in addition to being better than average players, taken from the game early for one reason or another.

Reasons for some of the others being inducted can be found at www.hhof.com following the links to the Player Search section as your know doubt aware. Many of your "Why are they inducted" picks I too dont particularly agree with, but Im easy either way about most. Character is important, explaining some but not all of the questionable player selections. If we look at the Builders category, plenty of miscreants still listed beyond Eagleson that give pause for thought.

Oliver Seibert was different from Babe Seibert.

Oliver Seibert was Albert "Babe" Seibert's brother:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Lege...er.jsp?mem=p196110&type=Player&page=bio&list=

I actually didn't know they were related before now.

Anyway, Albert "Babe" Seibert (the guy you are describing) won a Hart Trophy and was a 1st Team All Star 3 times and absolutely deserves to be in the Hall.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oliver Seibert

Oliver Seibert was different from Babe Seibert.

Oliver Seibert was Albert "Babe" Seibert's brother:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Lege...er.jsp?mem=p196110&type=Player&page=bio&list=

I actually didn't know they were related before now.

Anyway, Albert "Babe" Seibert (the guy you are describing) won a Hart Trophy and was a 1st Team All Star 3 times and absolutely deserves to be in the Hall.

Oliver Seibert was the father of HHOFer Earl Seibert. No relation to HHOFer Albert "Babe" Siebert. Note the difference in the spelling of the last name. Oliver and Earl Seibert, Albert Siebert. Oliver did have a brother named Albert who also played hockey.

The end of the second paragraph in the link:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Lege...?mem=p196110&type=Player&page=bio&list=ByName

explains his contribution to the advancement of hockey.

Oliver Seibert played hockey in the Berlin(Kitchener) area and west to the Sault Ste Marie area. One of the top players from his era.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oliver Seibert was the father of HHOFer Earl Seibert. No relation to HHOFer Albert "Babe" Siebert. Note the difference in the spelling of the last name. Oliver and Earl Seibert, Albert Siebert. Oliver did have a brother named Albert who also played hockey.

The end of the second paragraph in the link:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Lege...?mem=p196110&type=Player&page=bio&list=ByName

explains his contribution to the advancement of hockey.

Oliver Seibert played hockey in the Berlin(Kitchener) area and west to the Sault Ste Marie area. One of the top players from his era.

Duh. I actually did know this at some point. Was confused by the mention of "Albert" in the LOH post I skimmed.

Still doesn't explain why Oliver is in the Hall over some others.

Considering he was inducted in 1961, rather than in the 1962 class which was full of questionable inductees, my guess is he was deserving, but I just have no idea why.

 

[Killion]

Oliver Seibert was different from Babe Siebert.

Well isnt that interesting. Different spelling of the surnames. Having read Oliver the Elders' bio I agree his induction in 1961 is a little tenuous to say the least, however, he's obviously from a "Hockey Royale Family" in the games Southern Ontario heartland of then Berlin at the turn of the 19th century, scoring aplenty, one of the first local products to turn pro with Soo, a move afoot at that time to include late 19th century players in the HHOF.. Also one of the first to use the wrist shot effectively apparently. Perhaps because Conn Smythe was holding sway over much at the Hall in those days, and appreciated nothing more than a totally "amateur professional" (particularly at signing & contract time) with wholesome Wonder Bread innocence, this guy gets in?.

 

[lextune]

Orr, Howe, Lemieux, and Gretzky -- these four should have their own building....

Ha! Well done.


....TDMM's post says it all.

 

[lextune]

The thing many people often forget during these discussions, (not saying anyone has as of yet), is that it is the Hall of Fame.

Not the Hall of Stats, or even the Hall of Best Players.

Which is why the place would be a joke without Cam Neely, and is a joke with players like Duff and Cicarrelli.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1962 Context

If we are going to look at an induction year like 1962 then we should do so within the context of the year.

As of the end of the 1961-62 season only 35 NHL players had scored 200 goals during their regular season NHL career:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

From this group only 3 are not members of the HHOF - Tod Sloan, Herb Cain and Lorne Carr. Conversely there a plenty of HHOFers who had retired before the ens of the 1961-62 season who did not even come close to 200 NHL goals.

Similarly only 32 NHL defensemen had played 500 or more regular season NHL games:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...played&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played

The stay at home defensive dman has always been difficult to evaluate for HHOF consideration.

Similarly only 27 goaltenders had played more than 200 regular season NHL games:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_goalie

Now factor in the following:
1.) The Trail of the Stanley Cup was still a work in progress.
2.) stats for pre Hendy guide NHL and the complete PCHA, NHA and other relevent leagues were rather hit and miss. Took reseearch into the 1980's to complete.
3.) There was a sentiment to grow the HHOF while the former greats were able to enjoy the honour.

Basically given standards of the time in terms of what had been achieved since the recorded history of hockey as it was in 1962, the various enshrinements to that point and beyond are justifiable.

 

[Big Phil]

The issue that I have with Larry Murphy is that he is from the 'Ray Bourque' era. His name doesn't belong in the same sentence as Chelios, Maccinnis, Coffey, Stevens and Leetch, so he kind of sticks out as a defenseman with a lack of peak.

I've never understood the hate Larry Murphy gets. For starters, he was great offensively on par pretty much with Housley. But imagine if Housley was decent defensively and was a key part in 4 championships. Honestly, do the Wings win the Cup in 1997 without him? Maybe, but along with Shanahan he is considered what got them over the hump. He is the only player to be part of both recent teams to win back to back. He may not have the Norris voting in his favour but he did have three 2nd team all-star selections which tells you at least he was there. Although over 20 years I sure would like to see Murphy with more, but nonetheless if he isn't inducted as of now I can guarantee he is a name constantly thrown around among the best not in the HHOF.

Cheevers and Giacomin. They're nothing without a great team in front of them. Unlike other goaltenders who also padded their stats while having the easiest jobs in history (Dryden, Brodeur, Osgood, Fuhr) they were exposed early on and literally sucked in the playoffs.

This one baffles me a bit. I'll agree that Giacomin had some substandard postseasons and no Cup (imagine how we view Luongo today) but is it possible to omit a goalie with Two first team all-stars and three 2nd team all-stars? That's 5 years in a row where he was considered the best or 2nd best goalie in the game. I can't argue with him.

Cheevers is almost the opposite. No Vezinas, no all-star selections but a couple Cups with two more final appearances. It's telling that he probably would have been Canada's #1 goalie to start in the 1972 Canada/Russia series had he not left for the WHA. The problem with Cheevers is that he was inducted too quickly and there wasn't enough time for people to sit back and examine his career. Kind of like Lanny McDonald. It was just an automatic induction where as both players might just well be deserving candidates but they could have used a bit more scrutiny.

I don't get the knocks against Dryden, Fuhr or Brodeur. Between Dryden and Brodeur there are tons of 1st team all-stars between them and tons of championships. They were elite goalies for either their whole short career (Dryden) or their whole long career (more or less Brodeur). It is not an easy task to do that year after year. Fuhr was a dynasty goalie and has a Vezina and almost a Hart. But on further inspection when you view his Vezina finishes other years it is a lot better than we care to remember. Definitely the best goalie in the world post Islander dynasty and pre 1990 Cup.

You are right about Osgood. Terrible Vezina finishes (the less we talk about it the better) and you never got the impression he was altogether that important on the ice when he won the Cup. Would Felix Potvin have done just as good in 1998? I think so, and that hurts. Since the HHOF committee has no one to answer to don't be surprised if he gets in someday though

 

[Killion]

....stats for pre Hendy guide NHL and the complete PCHA, NHA and other relevant leagues were rather hit and miss. Took research into the 1980's to complete.

There was a sentiment to grow the HHOF while the former greats were able to enjoy the honor. Basically given standards of the time in terms of what had been achieved since the recorded history of hockey as it was in 1962, the various inductions to that point and beyond are justifiable.

Indeed, and much of the picks based on anecdotal & eyewitness accounts. Particularly the point about Hendy's Guide as it relates to the early game, its players & their character, the use of statistics almost exclusively with some of the "physicists" here & elsewhere, etcetera..... .

Excellent points & post....

 

[GreatGonzo]

What about Brett Hull? Compiler? One dimensional?

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

What about Brett Hull? Compiler? One dimensional?

Brett Hull was probably one of the Top 5 snipers in history (Bossy, Lemieux, Bure, Hull, Hull). It's impossible to exclude him.