On the opposite side of the "who's not in but should be" discussion, my question is over who's in but probably shouldn't be. My personal opinion on any Hall of Fame is that it should be for: - The dominant players, who - Had dominant careers, who - Have a very strong case that isn't propped up by "what could have been" I concede to not knowing a heck of a lot of details about the NHL's first 20 years, but when I see things like: 1) In 1917-18 (the NHL's first year), there were 27 skaters who suited up in the entire season. 13 of them are in the HOF. 3 of the 6 goalies who suited up are as well. 2) In 1918-19, 14 of 25 skaters are in the HOF, plus 3/4 goalies. 3) In 1919-20, 13 of 32 skaters are in the HOF, plus 2/6 goalies. 4) In 1920-21, 13 of 32 skaters are in the HOF, plus 2/5 goalies. ....this seems to be a massive overrepresentation. It seems that that, as happened in baseball, there was a certain lack of the big picture. In baseball, the early Veterans Committee (of the 1940s) botched a huge number of their selections, putting in about 20 players who do not meet a reasonable HOF standard while passing over in several who did. In the 1970s, they did it again by putting in another handful of players who don't come close, still avoiding the remaining early players who did. In the case of the HHOF, who are the guys who don't meet a reasonable standard and yet are immortalized? And what's the cutoff?