Why isn't Adam Oates in the HHOF?

[Ishdul]

Downfall. All the bolded names you list have one thing in common. They were the best or amongst the top 2 players on their team(s) year in year out. This is not the case for Oates unless injuries removed a star Oates would be 3rd. Such players unless they contribute to team success are viewed as piggy backing the star players.

He was 3rd in scoring for the league 3 times. He was 2nd to prime Hull on those Blues teams and 2nd to Bourque on those Boston teams, which covers the meaty portion of his career. I don't think many players in history would have been considered the #1 on either of those teams. I think a more important point would be that he's not especially attached to any team; all those guys were super obvious jersey retirements, Oates isn't having his number hanged up anywhere.

 

[seventieslord]

It's arguable that he was 3rd behind Neely on those Boston teams (I don't necessarily agree, but it is arguable) - but yeah, I have to agree with the above poster - Oates was usually a top-2 player on his own team. (Even if you do count Neely as better, he missed all of 1991-92, 1992-93 and half of 1993-94 so it's not like he was propping up Oates)

 

[WingsFan95]

He'll get in like Cris Carter will get in the NFL Hall of Fame.

Just a matter of time.

 

[Foy]

I'm wondering if there's someone influential on the panel who has it in for Oates a bit.

The HHOF selection committee is way too small, and given their backgrounds and personal relationships way too susceptible to the potential of a few strong, respected voices controlling the process.

This. Adam Oates was a great player, but was never the most liked person in the world. There's a reason he bounced around a ton during his career. If a player is as good as he is, and teams are willing to let him go, there are usually non-playing factors involved. I am sure there are political reasons for him not being in.

The best thing anyone can say about Adam Oates is that he managed to get Chris freaking Simon to be the team leader in goals on a division winning team, simply by passing him the puck.

 

[Mayor Bee]

The problem is in the process itself. Baseball's HOF has quite a number of guys who fall below a reasonable standard, and almost all were put there by the Veterans Committee (which is small and physically meets); the BBWAA has mostly done an excellent job. That's a large group that receives and then mails back a ballot, so there should be a minimal bias when it comes to elite players getting in or not.

The HHOF mirrors the Veterans Committee for baseball. There's a lot of arbitrary selections that defy logic, and there are a lot of legitimate selections that aren't made that also defy logic.

 

[WingsFan95]

The HHOF mirrors the Veterans Committee for baseball. There's a lot of arbitrary selections that defy logic, and there are a lot of legitimate selections that aren't made that also defy logic.

I don't know how much emphasis you can put on a lot.

The NHL hall of fame I think has a lot of leeway.

Compilers are more capable of making it.

In my personal opinion there's only about 10 or so players currently out that you can make a strong argument for being in.

I myself will admit the rest are predominantly personal bias. Would I like for Vyacheslav Kozlov to get in? Yes, but aside from him helping the powered Wings offense in the 90s he doesn't have much of a case.

Right now the big contenders that are not in would be:

Mark Howe
Adam Oates
Phil Housley
Doug Gilmour
Eric Lindros
Doug Wilson
Tom Barrasso
Pierre Turgeon
Ron Hextall
John Vanbiesbrouck
Mike Vernon
Nieuwendyk
Andreychuk
Bure
Mogilny
Fleury


That's 16 players. Several of those have been eligible for only a few years and will probably get in. Another chunk of those will get in eventually. And a few there are questionable contenders to begin with.

My point is that there's not very many huge omissions. From that list you should see three, Howe, Housley and Barrasso who have been overlooked for too long.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd rather induct Eric Desjardins than Phil Housley

(Doug Wilson easily over Phil, as well)

 

[hdtrax]

Mark Howe
Adam Oates
Phil Housley
Doug Gilmour
Eric Lindros
Doug Wilson
Tom Barrasso
Pierre Turgeon
Ron Hextall
John Vanbiesbrouck
Mike Vernon
Nieuwendyk
Andreychuk
Bure
Mogilny
Fleury


That's 16 players. Several of those have been eligible for only a few years and will probably get in. Another chunk of those will get in eventually. And a few there are questionable contenders to begin with.

My point is that there's not very many huge omissions. From that list you should see three, Howe, Housley and Barrasso who have been overlooked for too long.

The problem I have is that the HHOF is so ridiculously inconsistent. They go from one incredible year (2009 - Yzerman, Hull, Leetch, Robitaille) to a disappointing one the next (2010 - Ciccarelli, two women). There are clearly a lot of players deserving to be in..what's the hold up? Why only one guy following a year thats one of the greatest of all-time? You're telling me Dino had to be elected alone? That having Oates or Turgeon or Nieuwendyk there with him couldn't have happened?

Point being theres a lot of players that clearly deserve to be in and with a limit of 4 players per year and a lot of upcoming nominees in the next few years, there's gotta be more leeway from the committee.

 

[seekritdude]

Oh boy how sad is it, that now it just seems like a given that makarov never has a chance of getting in. lol

 

[jkrx]

Oates won't get in and I think it's fair. To me, he was a guy who played for himself and never the team. Talented but out of all the center from the same era he had (which is my opinion of him and not cold facts) the least amount of heart.

 

[seventieslord]

Oates won't get in and I think it's fair. To me, he was a guy who played for himself and never the team. Talented but out of all the center from the same era he had (which is my opinion of him and not cold facts) the least amount of heart.

how can a guy who is one of the finest playmaker of all-time be called selfish?

 

[WingsFan95]

Oh boy how sad is it, that now it just seems like a given that makarov never has a chance of getting in. lol

I don't like to pool the NHL players with the great internationals.

Makarov is a lock, only the last few years has the Hall been more open to inducting the Soviet greats, I feel this will continue.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Selfish..........

how can a guy who is one of the finest playmaker of all-time be called selfish?

Not saying that this applies to Adam Oates but your rhetorical question has an answer. Basically it comes down to knowing when to be an elite playmaker and when to make choices for the team by not choosing to be a playmaker by making the winning choice.

Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Bobby Clarke and other elite playmakers who were also elite defensively given the choice would manage the clock if protecting a one goal lead. Would not attempt a high risk pass that had icing potential, especially late in the game.

Watch games today and you will see unnecessary risks taken by playmakers late in a period or game that result in unnecessary defensive zone faceoffs.Passers can be selfish just like goalscorers. Recognizing these tendencies is a function of coaching or in the case of post retirement issues HHOF voters.

 

[Big Phil]

Downfall. All the bolded names you list have one thing in common. They were the best or amongst the top 2 players on their team(s) year in year out. This is not the case for Oates unless injuries removed a star Oates would be 3rd. Such players unless they contribute to team success are viewed as piggy backing the star players.

A couple other guys covered it, but yeah, Oates not among the top 2 on his team? In St. Louis you had Hull who I'll slate ahead of him (although it isn't a lock cinch either, look at how Hull's production dropped and Oates' stayed the same after they parted ways). Other than Hull though who else is better than him in St. Louis? No one. Boston? Bourque for sure, and Neely would be very arguable considering Oates did just fine without him year after year.

Then Washington. Maybe there is Peter Bondra and that's it. Again, that's a big maybe there. So what gives?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Downfall. All the bolded names you list have one thing in common. They were the best or amongst the top 2 players on their team(s) year in year out. This is not the case for Oates unless injuries removed a star Oates would be 3rd. Such players unless they contribute to team success are viewed as piggy backing the star players.

That didn't hurt Glen Anderson, who despite his playoff success, was arguably never one of the top 3 players on his team in any playoffs ever. (Maybe in the top 5 1 or 2 times)

Perception was that Anderson was clutch and that Oates just racked up assists.

IMO Oates is much more worthy than Anderson in being in the Hall.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not saying that this applies to Adam Oates but your rhetorical question has an answer. Basically it comes down to knowing when to be an elite playmaker and when to make choices for the team by not choosing to be a playmaker by making the winning choice.

Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Bobby Clarke and other elite playmakers who were also elite defensively given the choice would manage the clock if protecting a one goal lead. Would not attempt a high risk pass that had icing potential, especially late in the game.

Watch games today and you will see unnecessary risks taken by playmakers late in a period or game that result in unnecessary defensive zone faceoffs.Passers can be selfish just like goalscorers. Recognizing these tendencies is a function of coaching or in the case of post retirement issues HHOF voters.

Can you provide concrete evidence of any players who are guilty of this?

It's not like anyone is scoring empty net points in the Wayne Gretzky range in the 2000's

 

[Hardyvan123]

Oates won't get in and I think it's fair. To me, he was a guy who played for himself and never the team. Talented but out of all the center from the same era he had (which is my opinion of him and not cold facts) the least amount of heart.

Maybe so but he flat out performed huge on the offensive side of the ledger.

His 142 point season in 93 (without Neely) and the way he elevated the goal scoring of both Neely and Hull is more than enough to get him into the HHOF IMO.

During his playing days he was 2nd only behind Wayne is assists, 6th in points as well.

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

In the playoffs during his career he was 4th is assists and 10th in points.

This overcomes any lack of heart issues IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Scott Stevens

A couple other guys covered it, but yeah, Oates not among the top 2 on his team? In St. Louis you had Hull who I'll slate ahead of him (although it isn't a lock cinch either, look at how Hull's production dropped and Oates' stayed the same after they parted ways). Other than Hull though who else is better than him in St. Louis? No one. Boston? Bourque for sure, and Neely would be very arguable considering Oates did just fine without him year after year.

Then Washington. Maybe there is Peter Bondra and that's it. Again, that's a big maybe there. So what gives?

How about Scott Stevens in St. Louis.?

 

[Hardyvan123]

How about Scott Stevens in St. Louis.?

Stevens was a very good player in St. Louis that one year but I'd argue at 1st glance that Oates had more value as he is largely responsible for Hull having his best goal scoring year. Oates also had a very good playoff run that year as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Original List

That didn't hurt Glen Anderson, who despite his playoff success, was arguably never one of the top 3 players on his team in any playoffs ever. (Maybe in the top 5 1 or 2 times)

Perception was that Anderson was clutch and that Oates just racked up assists.

IMO Oates is much more worthy than Anderson in being in the Hall.

The comment was made about a specific list of players that was posted. The players had two things in common. One they never played on a Stanley Cup winning team and they were demonstratably the best or amongst the top two players on their teams for at least five years.

Now then how many Stanley Cup winning teams was Glenn Anderson on? 6 from memory.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The comment was made about a specific list of players that was posted. The players had two things in common. One they never played on a Stanley Cup winning team and they were demonstratably the best or amongst the top two players on their teams for at least five years.

Now then how many Stanley Cup winning teams was Glenn Anderson on? 8 from memory.

Glenn Anderson was very fortunate to have played on those Edmonton teams (5 Cups) and was a role player in the 94 NYR one.

Anderson was still lower on the list of importance on the teams he played on than Oates was for what it is worth.

Federko was more often the best player on his team than Oates but Oates is more deserving of being in the Hall IMO (and they are good comps too).

Ironically they where traded for each other as well.

The above stated list is more trival than anything else, Oates was a damm fine player in his own right and both Hull and especailly Neely should thank him for being in the Hall.

Hull's 3 seasosn with Oates he had 78, 63 and 61 goals (adjusted) with out him his next best 3 are 52, 50 and 44 2 times).

Neely, while a fine scorer before Oates had a much better GPG rate with Oates (even with less health) than with Janney and his defining 50 goals in 49 games would probably not have happened without Oates.

 

[jkrx]

how can a guy who is one of the finest playmaker of all-time be called selfish?

Same way a sniper, grinder or enforcer can be selfish. Just because he played to his strenght (passing) doesnt mean he couldn't be selfish.

Just like someone else said, he would rather make a risky pass to get more points than to protect a lead. Apparently there is some agreement within the HHoF boards or else he would been inducted on stats alone.

I will say this to avoid any misunderstandings. I do not question his skill nor talent. I do however question his heart and his will to win.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

Glenn Anderson was very fortunate to have played on those Edmonton teams (5 Cups) and was a role player in the 94 NYR one.

Anderson was still lower on the list of importance on the teams he played on than Oates was for what it is worth.

Federko was more often the best player on his team than Oates but Oates is more deserving of being in the Hall IMO (and they are good comps too).

Ironically they where traded for each other as well.

The above stated list is more trival than anything else, Oates was a damm fine player in his own right and both Hull and especailly Neely should thank him for being in the Hall.

Hull's 3 seasosn with Oates he had 78, 63 and 61 goals (adjusted) with out him his next best 3 are 52, 50 and 44 2 times).

Neely, while a fine scorer before Oates had a much better GPG rate with Oates (even with less health) than with Janney and his defining 50 goals in 49 games would probably not have happened without Oates.

The Oates / Federko comparison more or less illustrates the league view of Oates. First the trade was not one for one as you present it, rather it was Paul MacLean after a 36 goal season and Adam Oates for Bernie Federko and Tony McKegny. Oates was the prospect, even though he was quite old, in a trade built around three veterans.

With Boston, everyone focuses on the Neely stats but one consideration is overlooked. Ray Bourque. Ray Bourque had his best years without Oates. Even a defenseman with limited offensive skills benefits from a top level offensive center. Yves Racine looked very good playing the point with Yzerman and Lindros. Very weak without.

A top level playmaking center improves the offensive production numbers of all the position players around him.Jean Beliveau, Jean Ratelle, Stan Mikita, Bryan Trottier, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and others improve while sustaining the offense of their RW, LW linemates and support d-men. Oates was basically RW oriented - Hull, Neely, Bondra, at times a LW would show flashes but they were not sustainable and the contribution from the d-men did not change in any appreciable fashion.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Just like someone else said, he would rather make a risky pass to get more points than to protect a lead. Apparently there is some agreement within the HHoF boards or else he would been inducted on stats alone.

Based on stats alone, he should get in, but is not one of the best current candidates - so he'll have to wait his turn. He's only been eligible for four years so far.

I will say this to avoid any misunderstandings. I do not question his skill nor talent. I do however question his heart and his will to win.

He must be a heck of a talent to have no heart or will and playe 1,337 NHL games, plus 163 in the playoffs.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Oates was the prospect, even though he was quite old, in a trade built around three veterans.

If "prospect" can mean a 26-year-old with 3.5 years of NHL experience and coming off a point-per-game season, I don't think the word has much meaning.

With Boston, everyone focuses on the Neely stats but one consideration is overlooked. Ray Bourque. Ray Bourque had his best years without Oates.

When you look at his adjusted points per game, his best season actually came with Oates (1993/94), despite being in the decline phase of his career.

Even a defenseman with limited offensive skills benefits from a top level offensive center.

Obviously; but not nearly to the same degree that said centre's actual linemates benefit. Not everyone on the team benefits, at least not the same degree.

Oates was basically RW oriented - Hull, Neely, Bondra

Are you telling me that if you played with these RWs, you wouldn't be passing to them ahead of the LW? This analysis doesn't consider who his LWs actually were.