Which HOF members do you think should not be there?

[Hardyvan123]

He was the leading playoff scorer of a dynasty. And yes, captain as vadim says. He was a great defensive player, but not as great as some who aren't in the Hall. But put it all together, and it's a pretty easy choice to induct him IMO.

Nieuwendyk really only had one outstanding playoff performance. They might be comparable if the Stars become a quasi-dynasty like the Wings, with Joe their overall leading playoff scorer (or quite close to leading).

Look in the 06 NHL it wasn't really as hard for a team to buiold a dynasty compared to say post 1980 where the NHL has had 21 oplus teams. And its the Hall of fame for everything, if he playes on the Rangers he never sees the amount of cups or games so is hte time and place and chance the best way to judge him? In the regular season there is nothing to suggest that he is even close to HHOF caliber, except longevity.

59-64 playoffs

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

Best individual playoff season in terms of points in same time epriod is 17th, 25th and 38th.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

Regular season same time period total he is 20th

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


all in all, considering it was a 6 team league he would have to be the best defensive player of all time to offset his offensive ordinariness IMO, just to get consideration nevermind being in the Hall.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

He is one of the first to use the wrist shot, innovation, which the HHOF always considers. An excellent skater who managed to draw attention to himself and the sport by racing against a horse.

You can rationalize Seibert's selection all you like, but the fact remains that you made two statements in the above quote, one of which is flat-out false, and the other which has no evidence supporting it.

No selection is above criticism. Rationalizing by saying "what's done is done" doesn't change the fact that a mistake was made. No one is under the illusion that they will reverse the decision; that's not the point. But any selection is open to criticism, and discussing selections is interesting. I don't know why the selection committee should be above criticism.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

This thread is about members yet inevitably such threads degenerate into a bash fest of certain players.builders, officials are not subject to the same scrutiny.

You're free to provide examples of poor selections among builders and officials. This thread would be appropriate for that.

It does not differentiate in terms of skill, level of contribution, importance or whatever criteria others wish to impose.

So selections are completely arbitrary then? I believe they should be differentiating on skill, level of contribution and importance, among other things. How else could they decide who deserves the honour?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Look in the 06 NHL it wasn't really as hard for a team to buiold a dynasty compared to say post 1980 where the NHL has had 21 oplus teams. And its the Hall of fame for everything, if he playes on the Rangers he never sees the amount of cups or games so is hte time and place and chance the best way to judge him? In the regular season there is nothing to suggest that he is even close to HHOF caliber, except longevity.

No kidding, it's tougher to have a dynasty now. Read what I actually typed. I didn't say Dallas had to be a dynasty. I said "quasi-dynasty" like Detroit or New Jersey. Something not uncommon at all in the era (Pittsburgh early 90s and Colorado could qualify, as well). I also didn't say Joe N needed to lead that hypothetical quasi-dynasty in points (like Armstrong actually did), I said be close to the leaders.

So I already accounted for the difference in era, something you chose to ignore. And even after doing so, Nieuwendyk doesn't come close to George Armstrong's significance to winning teams.

all in all, considering it was a 6 team league he would have to be the best defensive player of all time to offset his offensive ordinariness IMO, just to get consideration nevermind being in the Hall.

What on Earth does league size have to do with anything? Do you think the Hall should induct 5 times as many players per season now that there are 5 times as many teams? Up to 20 players inducted per year now? Or was the 4 player limit too big back then?

 

[Hardyvan123]

No kidding, it's tougher to have a dynasty now. Read what I actually typed. I didn't say Dallas had to be a dynasty. I said "quasi-dynasty" like Detroit or New Jersey. Something not uncommon at all in the era (Pittsburgh early 90s and Colorado could qualify, as well). I also didn't say Joe N needed to lead that hypothetical quasi-dynasty in points (like Armstrong actually did), I said be close to the leaders.

So I already accounted for the difference in era, something you chose to ignore. And even after doing so, Nieuwendyk doesn't come close to George Armstrong's significance to winning teams.




What on Earth does league size have to do with anything? Do you think the Hall should induct 5 times as many players per season now that there are 5 times as many teams? Up to 20 players inducted per year now? Or was the 4 player limit too big back then?

Size of the league points out Armstrong average and very ordinary regular season performances. In fact butch goring was a more productive player in the regular season if we adjust for league size and better in the playoffs too. Last time i checked no one, except maybe I was making any arguments for Goring going into the Hall.

And now that you brought it up I think the Hall should be adjusted somewhat for the amount of players in the NHL. Not a hard and fast rule but as a baseline it makes sense given the expansion of the talent and population base that the NHL is getting it's players from.

If the HHOF had say 100-125 players in it in the late 90's then the 4 maximum rule would be fine but as time goes on the quality of HHOF players pre 2000 to post 2000 is very wide indeed, especially if we look at borderline players discussed in this thread compared to guys like Bure and Oates that are still waiting to get in.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Size of the league points out Armstrong average and very ordinary regular season performances. In fact butch goring was a more productive player in the regular season if we adjust for league size and better in the playoffs too. Last time i checked no one, except maybe I was making any arguments for Goring going into the Hall.

Armstrong was captain and the leading playoff scorer of the Maple Leafs dynasty Goring was not captain and wasn't close to leading playoff scorer. How was he better in the playoffs?

And now that you brought it up I think the Hall should be adjusted somewhat for the amount of players in the NHL. Not a hard and fast rule but as a baseline it makes sense given the expansion of the talent and population base that the NHL is getting it's players from.

If the HHOF had say 100-125 players in it in the late 90's then the 4 maximum rule would be fine but as time goes on the quality of HHOF players pre 2000 to post 2000 is very wide indeed, especially if we look at borderline players discussed in this thread compared to guys like Bure and Oates that are still waiting to get in.

I mean, it would kind of make sense if the goal was to get the absolute "best" players in the Hall. But it's always about historical significance too (which is why I have no problem with Hobey Baker being in, even though he clearly wasn't accomplished enough on the ice).

 

[Canadiens1958]

George Armstrong 1966-67

Size of the league points out Armstrong average and very ordinary regular season performances. In fact butch goring was a more productive player in the regular season if we adjust for league size and better in the playoffs too. Last time i checked no one, except maybe I was making any arguments for Goring going into the Hall.

And now that you brought it up I think the Hall should be adjusted somewhat for the amount of players in the NHL. Not a hard and fast rule but as a baseline it makes sense given the expansion of the talent and population base that the NHL is getting it's players from.

If the HHOF had say 100-125 players in it in the late 90's then the 4 maximum rule would be fine but as time goes on the quality of HHOF players pre 2000 to post 2000 is very wide indeed, especially if we look at borderline players discussed in this thread compared to guys like Bure and Oates that are still waiting to get in.

At the end of the O6 era - 1966-67 season George Armstrong was 15th in all time NHL scoring since the start of the NHL:

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

Armstrong was 20th in goals.

In the post expansion NHL era Butch Goring was 85th in points and goals:

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

Armstrong played RW in a six team league while Goring played center in basically a 12 - 21 team league.

Historically centers score more than wingers. Relative to league size Armstrong out performed Goring significantly as Goring would have to slot between 30th and 45th relative to his peers.

By position, Armstrong ranked 7th in scoring relative to other NHL RWs:

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

While Goring ranked 34th.

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

So again Goring falls significantly short as relative to position he should rank 12th - 21st. To give you a striking example of how Goring ranks versus O6 centers look at his numbers vs a post expansion Stan Mikita who after 1970 was a shadow of his O6 performance. Goring 888 pts vs Mikita 883 points yet Mikita played app 260 fewer games.

Furthermore George Armstrong played against the elite LWers of the O6 era - Lindsay, Moore, Hull with solid defense. Goring does not have such a pedigree.

Rather obvious why Armstrong is in the HHOF while Butch Goring is not and chances are never will be.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Armstrong was captain and the leading playoff scorer of the Maple Leafs dynasty Goring was not captain and wasn't close to leading playoff scorer. How was he better in the playoffs?



I mean, it would kind of make sense if the goal was to get the absolute "best" players in the Hall. But it's always about historical significance too (which is why I have no problem with Hobey Baker being in, even though he clearly wasn't accomplished enough on the ice).

Armstrong is the classic example of why I'm not sure how to rate any players playoff record (compared and in addition to their regular season accomplishments).

In the regular season every player has the chance to play in the same number of games and in the playoffs every player has to rely on simple luck as even the best player ever conceivably could miss the playoffs every year if they didn't play on the right team.

Sure playoff performance has to be weighed and considered but when we say that Armstrong was the "leading scorer for a dynasty" we are really overemphasizing on what his statistical record really was both in the playoffs and in the regular season (which has a larger sample size and should carry more weight as well IMO).

At the end of the day we can say that Armstrong was captain of a very strong team and had a good showing in that 6 year run and also the year before it. He also had longevity on his side, although some of the last years might have only happened because of expansion.

Outside of that the fact is that for the rest of the playoffs he was less than average offensively and was at best average offensively at his peak. None of his seasons could be referred to as HOF like, and its not even really close.

As to your last point, too many players are often granted an easy pass into the hall as players when historical significance perhaps would have either a special category or maybe the significance of what they were 1st at or the "special event as in Paul Hendersons case" should be celebrated and the player section should be reserved truly for the all time greats.

Then again if the HHOF had done that there would be less to discuss here.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Look in the 06 NHL it wasn't really as hard for a team to buiold a dynasty compared to say post 1980 where the NHL has had 21 oplus teams. And its the Hall of fame for everything, if he playes on the Rangers he never sees the amount of cups or games so is hte time and place and chance the best way to judge him? In the regular season there is nothing to suggest that he is even close to HHOF caliber, except longevity.

Armstrong is the classic example of why I'm not sure how to rate any players playoff record (compared and in addition to their regular season accomplishments).

In the regular season every player has the chance to play in the same number of games and in the playoffs every player has to rely on simple luck as even the best player ever conceivably could miss the playoffs every year if they didn't play on the right team.

Oh! Blessed rage for order

i see what you're saying. but the other thing is, armstrong was lucky to be on the leafs and not the rangers, sure. but he wasn't lucky to be their captain and leader. he wasn't lucky to be a constant in that organization for twenty years. he was placed in favourable circumstances and then made all the other stuff happen by his own ability and hard work.

that dynasty team had plenty of all-time greats in front of bower: keon, horton, kelly, mahovlich, and to a lesser extent brewer and stanley. armstrong is generally known as their leader, their heart and soul, and as important to that team as any other skater. that indicates that he meant something beyond what his regular season finishes show, right?

 

[Hardyvan123]

i see what you're saying. but the other thing is, armstrong was lucky to be on the leafs and not the rangers, sure. but he wasn't lucky to be their captain and leader. he wasn't lucky to be a constant in that organization for twenty years. he was placed in favourable circumstances and then made all the other stuff happen by his own ability and hard work.

that dynasty team had plenty of all-time greats in front of bower: keon, horton, kelly, mahovlich, and to a lesser extent brewer and stanley. armstrong is generally known as their leader, their heart and soul, and as important to that team as any other skater. that indicates that he meant something beyond what his regular season finishes show, right?

Leadership and longevity have their virtues and importance and would bring a guy into the Hall if he was a borderline case but he isn't even close to the border without the dynasty thing going on IMO.

Taken in each season he was an average player and he had a good solid 5 seasons in the and 9 as a role player.

He did play for a long time and on a very good team in a time before it was common but he just never passed the gut test of greatness and nothing in his resume shows us any different.

The highlighted part is very questionable indeed are we going to give an equal share to all involved in a dynasty?

The 1st four position players listed have a much stronger resume than Armstrong and I really don't understand why guys can have Armstrong in and say that Nieuwendyk was a poor selection.

I think Joe is borderline but his case is way better than George's.

 

[MS]

Amongst post-1930 players/inductions :

1) Dick Duff - by far the worst player in the HHOF. Spent most of his career as a middling 2nd/3rd line player who wasn't great defensively. Had 2 excellent playoffs and that's about it. Can draw a not-unreasonable comparision between him and Ruslan Fedotenko. Easily a worse player with a worse career than Butch Goring, which is really all you need to know about this induction.

2) Edgar Laprade. Not a bad player, and was probably the best player on the Rangers for 3 or 4 years, but not a very good player either. Very short prime, low peak value, no team success. Seems to have been inducted largely as a result of Allan Cup play, which is sub-AHL level hockey and absolutely ridiculous.

3) Leo Boivin - one of a few guys who benefitted by playing lots of games in the O6 era. Easily the worst defender from the modern era in the HHOF. A solitary 5th place in Norris voting for a player who never won a Cup. Shouldn't have been anywhere near induction.

4) Dino Ciccarelli - worst induction of a post-1980 player. Pure compiler who never won anything, was continually left off Canada Cup teams, and was an asshat off the ice. Also a poor defensive player whose value to a team was less than his totals would indicate.

5) Harold Ballard - worst induction of all, and the only one I'd say should actively be removed. Worst owner in NHL history, one of the worst people in NHL history, spent 20 years destroying a franchise. Absolute disgrace that someone who represents the worst of the sport is in the HHOF.

6) Andy Van Hellemond - referee with a gambling problem who brought the sport into disrepute with his actions as the NHL head of officiating. Will never be able to prove it, but it's difficult not to think he was betting on games as a referee. Quebec-NYR game in 1995 looks especially suspect in hindsight.

_________

I think guys like Gillies and Federko were weak, but not really all that terrible and certainly not disgraceful.

Gillies was considered the best at his position for awhile, two First Team All-Star selections and a key part of a dynasty. Federko scored 1000 points with one team and would probably be better remembered if he'd played for a more glamour franchise - really there isn't that much of a difference between his career and Sittler's.

George Armstrong clearly belongs. Captain of a dynasty is simply a no-brainer.

A lot of the pre-NHL guys are pretty suspect, obviously, but it was a bit of a different era in terms of inductions.

I don't like the Glenn Anderson induction much, but understand why 200+ playoff points merits serious consideration.

 

[Fire Sweeney]

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.



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

That's the point I was making. Facts and stats show they somewhat had a much easier job than the average NHL goaltender, but unlike Cheevers and Giacomin, they elevated their game when they needed to. I'm not a fan of these guys but they should all be in before Cheevers and Giacomin with the blink of an eye.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

6) Andy Van Hellemond - referee with a gambling problem who brought the sport into disrepute with his actions as the NHL head of officiating. Will never be able to prove it, but it's difficult not to think he was betting on games as a referee. Quebec-NYR game in 1995 looks especially suspect in hindsight.

Was watching classic series recently, and I noticed that it was Van Hellemond that didn't award a penalty shot to Jeremy Roenick when he was hauled down on a breakaway in OT against Colorado in the '96 playoffs. (That's the play that led to the Roy "Cup rings in my ears" quote.)

Back to back years where Van Hellemond is at the center of the most controversial call of the playoffs. I really wish some investigative journalist would do some digging and put together an expose on this, and the way the NHL very quickly and quietly brushed it under the rug.