Why isn't Adam Oates in the HHOF?

[Canadiens1958]

I See................

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.


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.


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.


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.

Prospect within the context of the other three were proven veterans with established portfolios in the NHL. Oates offered no certainty that he would sustain his performance.

Adjusted. Well if we adjust to the talent level of Oates compared to the centers Bourque played with in the 1980's or pre Oates then the opposite point may be supported. After all you clearly state that not everyone benefits to the same degree.

Actual LWs. Elite centers will make both wingers more productive and will sustain the level of production from both positions. Trottier did it with Bossy and Gilles. Henri Richard was a major part of the transformation of Dickie Moore centering him and Maurice Richard. Beliveau would get production from both sides - Olmstead,Bonin, Gilles Tremblay, Duff, Frank Mahovlich, Ferguson all would produce from the LW while Geoffrion, Rousseau, Cournoyer, Roberto would produce from the RW. Same for all the great centers Clarke, Mikita, Esposito, Perreault, Gretzky, Lemieux etc.both wings benefited. Rene Robert was a journeyman without Perreault,


D-men.1958-59 when Doug Harvey played injured most of the season both Beliveau and Richard made Bob Turner a very productive d-man. Mikita spiked upwards the offensive game of Pilote and Stapleton. Clarke made d-men like Bladon and Goodenough effective offensively for a short spell. Yet Oates could not do in a similar fashion with Bourque what Mikita did with Pilote and Stapleton,

 

[Trollmark*]

The answer is... Not enough assists.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Adjusted. Well if we adjust to the talent level of Oates compared to the centers Bourque played with in the 1980's or pre Oates then the opposite point may be supported. After all you clearly state that not everyone benefits to the same degree.

You claimed Bourque produced better when Oates was not on the team. I provided evidence against that point, despite the fact that he was in the decline phase of his career at the time. If you wish to continue putting it forward, you'll need to supply some evidence of your own.

Actual LWs. Elite centers will make both wingers more productive and will sustain the level of production from both positions.

This is generally true, depending on how you define "elite". But you can't deny that the identity of the specific left wingers in question enters into it.

Yet Oates could not do in a similar fashion with Bourque what Mikita did with Pilote and Stapleton,

Even if this is true, all it means is that Oates isn't as good as Trottier, Richard, Beliveau, Clarke, Mikita, Esposito, Perreault, Gretzky and Lemieux. But those aren't the only centres in the Hall of Fame; they're not the only standard. Oates doesn't have to be as good as these guys to be a Hall of Famer, so this argument is a red herring. He can compare to LaFontaine and Federko and Denis Savard instead.

 

[seventieslord]

Clarke made d-men like Bladon and Goodenough effective offensively for a short spell. Yet Oates could not do in a similar fashion with Bourque what Mikita did with Pilote and Stapleton,

Goodenough was never demonstrably better offensively than his fellow Philadelphia defensemen. In 1976 when he scored 42 points (which you are obviously referring to since he never topped 23 beyond that), he had just 21 at even strength. Other Flyer defensemen had 32 (Jim), 21 (Joe), 24 (Dupont), 23 (Bladon). Goodenough wasn't good offensively at all - the only difference between his "hockey card stats" and the other defensemen, was that he got the PP time that year. Other years are not really worth discussing with him.

Bladon did have one year where he was very good offensively - 1977, where he had 53 points and 36 were at ES. But I'm not sure how one season of ES production proves that any center "made him productive". His other best years from a "hockey card stats" basis of 42, 37, 35, and 34 points don't prove he was very productive at all, just that he was a PP specialist.

This was just a smokescreen to support your theory about centers making defensemen score more.

Why would Oates be expected to make Bourque better anyway? Bourque was far and away better than Oates; probably a top-5 player in the NHL for a decade. He was exactly the type of player one would expect to be great no matter who he played with - and in fact, he proved that for much of his career. Mikita making Pilote and Stapleton - very good/great players but nowhere near his caliber - better, is to be expected, as he was the far superior player in this case.

In fact, if you wanted to claim that Oates looked better by virtue of having Bourque, that at least makes sense. It is far, far, far, far more believable than saying he's somehow inferior to others because he didn't improve Bourque's play.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Again............

Goodenough was never demonstrably better offensively than his fellow Philadelphia defensemen. In 1976 when he scored 42 points (which you are obviously referring to since he never topped 23 beyond that), he had just 21 at even strength. Other Flyer defensemen had 32 (Jim), 21 (Joe), 24 (Dupont), 23 (Bladon). Goodenough wasn't good offensively at all - the only difference between his "hockey card stats" and the other defensemen, was that he got the PP time that year. Other years are not really worth discussing with him.

Bladon did have one year where he was very good offensively - 1977, where he had 53 points and 36 were at ES. But I'm not sure how one season of ES production proves that any center "made him productive". His other best years from a "hockey card stats" basis of 42, 37, 35, and 34 points don't prove he was very productive at all, just that he was a PP specialist.

This was just a smokescreen to support your theory about centers making defensemen score more.

Why would Oates be expected to make Bourque better anyway? Bourque was far and away better than Oates; probably a top-5 player in the NHL for a decade. He was exactly the type of player one would expect to be great no matter who he played with - and in fact, he proved that for much of his career. Mikita making Pilote and Stapleton - very good/great players but nowhere near his caliber - better, is to be expected, as he was the far superior player in this case.

In fact, if you wanted to claim that Oates looked better by virtue of having Bourque, that at least makes sense. It is far, far, far, far more believable than saying he's somehow inferior to others because he didn't improve Bourque's play.

Again mistating my points. Ask the rather obvious - what happened to Goodenough and Bladon when they were traded to teams without quality centers?

Oates had roughly the same effect on Bourque's offensive play as did previous centers from Janney on back.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Again mistating my points. Ask the rather obvious - what happened to Goodenough and Bladon when they were traded to teams without quality centers?

You haven't provided any evidence that any decline has to do with playing with a quality centre, though, you've just assumed it while ignoring things such as a reduction in PP time and an overall lack of good players around them.

Oates had roughly the same effect on Bourque's offensive play as did previous centers from Janney on back.

Which is to say none? As seventieslord said, Bourque was the best player on the team. Why would you expect the best defenceman in the league to be significantly affected by who plays centre for 20 minutes a game?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Which is to say none? As seventieslord said, Bourque was the best player on the team. Why would you expect the best defenceman in the league to be significantly affected by who plays centre for 20 minutes a game?

Why would you expect it not to affect the conversion of his offensive opportunities in a team game?

Bourque (and any other player) doesn't operate in a vacuum out there. And Bourque was certainly not at the ceiling of production possible for a defenseman.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

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.

Exactly why Brett Hull is the most overrated player ever. Outside of those 3 seasons, playing with the best pure playmaker of the time other than Gretzky, his goalscoring was just really good, not great, and he was always fairly well below average at almost everything else. For instance, if we were to do a Brett Hull vs. Pavel Bure poll on who was the better player (not best career) Hull would likely win, despite the fact that Bure was a better goalscorer, and better overall player.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Why would you expect it not to affect the conversion of his offensive opportunities in a team game?

Please note the "significantly" in my post. It's a matter of degree.

And don't forget that I was the one pointing out that Bourque's best offensive season did come with Oates on the team.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting.............

You claimed Bourque produced better when Oates was not on the team. I provided evidence against that point, despite the fact that he was in the decline phase of his career at the time. If you wish to continue putting it forward, you'll need to supply some evidence of your own.


This is generally true, depending on how you define "elite". But you can't deny that the identity of the specific left wingers in question enters into it.


Even if this is true, all it means is that Oates isn't as good as Trottier, Richard, Beliveau, Clarke, Mikita, Esposito, Perreault, Gretzky and Lemieux. But those aren't the only centres in the Hall of Fame; they're not the only standard. Oates doesn't have to be as good as these guys to be a Hall of Famer, so this argument is a red herring. He can compare to LaFontaine and Federko and Denis Savard instead.

Your evidence about Oates making Bourque better is rather interesting to say the least. Let's assume that your adjusted Bourque stats have some validity. Then we have the following scenario. From the 1992-93 season to the 1993-94 season Oates saw his regular season stats drop by 30 points.1992-93 Cam Neely played 13 games while during the 1993-94 season he played 48 games. During the 1992-93 season Ray Bourques had 330 SOG while during the 1993-94 season Bourque had 386 SOG. Strictly from an offense generating standpoint Neely meant more to Bourque since he was the ideal power forward playing RW providing RAY Bourque with more open ice and shooting opportunities. Yet despite having Neely for 36 extra games producing a more potent Bourque Oates saw his numbers drop by almost 20% yet somehow this is a contribution to Ray Bourque's offense from Oates. Does not make sense regardless of how you spin it. Certainly there was no great defensive contribution from Oates.

No one made the claim that Oates has to be as good as the elite centers but what we do see in Boston is a scenario where Bourque and Nelly did as well or better with the likes of Jannet and Pederson, making it really tough for Oates to compare to the Savard, Lafontaine, Hawerchuk, Federfo etc level of center who is in the HHOF, No red herring just a definitive portrayal of what Oates was not. Now we are left with the lower tier and you have to find evidence that is compelling and shows contribution and not sponging from the skills of others.

Please step up with the other wingers especially LWs that benefitted from Oates.Some d-men would help also.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Please step up with the other wingers especially LWs that benefitted from Oates.Some d-men would help also.

Just going from memory here, but didn't Juneau play left his big rookie year with Oates?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Exactly why Brett Hull is the most overrated player ever. Outside of those 3 seasons, playing with the best pure playmaker of the time other than Gretzky, his goalscoring was just really good, not great, and he was always fairly well below average at almost everything else.

It's often not clear who has the greater effect between two players like this. Maybe it was Hull that made Craig Janney look like a heck of a playmaker, just as Neely had done in Boston? Hull did score 16 times in 19 games after Oates was traded. Unless you consider Craig Janney to be one of the best pure playmakers of all time? He was no slouch, of course, but I don't see any "Why isn't Craig Janney in the Hall of Fame" threads.

For instance, if we were to do a Brett Hull vs. Pavel Bure poll on who was the better player (not best career) Hull would likely win, despite the fact that Bure was a better goalscorer, and better overall player.

Being a lesser player than Pavel Bure is hardly an insult, and says nothing about being the most overrated player ever.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It's often not clear who has the greater effect between two players like this. Maybe it was Hull that made Craig Janney look like a heck of a playmaker, just as Neely had done in Boston? Hull did score 16 times in 19 games after Oates was traded. Unless you consider Craig Janney to be one of the best pure playmakers of all time? He was no slouch, of course, but I don't see any "Why isn't Craig Janney in the Hall of Fame" threads.

I'll say it.

Craig Janney was one of the best pure playmakers of all time. The guy was slick.

He just didn't have enough other stuff and had crazy personal issues courtesy of his teammate.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Certainly there was no great defensive contribution from Oates.

I'm not making the argument that there was, just refuting your simple assertion that Bourque's best offensive production was not with Oates.

There's far more to Bourque's scoring totals than who's the #1 centre. I doubt that the #1 centre has a great deal of effect on the output of a player like Bourque. I'd be happy to be disproven, if you could show some evidence other than naming off three or four players who happen to fit your argument, none of which were anywhere near Bourque's class as a player.

Please step up with the other wingers especially LWs that benefitted from Oates.Some d-men would help also.

I've already responded to your assertion about the best centres elevating everyone's play. It's true that the best do it (to some degree or other), but it's not true that you have to be among this rarified group to be in the Hall, since several players who didn't do it are already in. That's what this thread is about, right? The Hall of Fame, not the "Canadiens1958" personal definition of "elite"?

I posted a link to my Hall of Fame projections earlier in the thread. If you have a look, you'll see it project Oates as a Hall-of-Famer, but not by much. He just barely reached the statistical standards, and he's behind a number of other recently retired players, and active players.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Just going from memory here, but didn't Juneau play left his big rookie year with Oates?

I believe he did.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Adam Oates

I'm not making the argument that there was, just refuting your simple assertion that Bourque's best offensive production was not with Oates.

There's far more to Bourque's scoring totals than who's the #1 centre. I doubt that the #1 centre has a great deal of effect on the output of a player like Bourque. I'd be happy to be disproven, if you could show some evidence other than naming off three or four players who happen to fit your argument, none of which were anywhere near Bourque's class as a player.


I've already responded to your assertion about the best centres elevating everyone's play. It's true that the best do it (to some degree or other), but it's not true that you have to be among this rarified group to be in the Hall, since several players who didn't do it are already in. That's what this thread is about, right? The Hall of Fame, not the "Canadiens1958" personal definition of "elite"?

I posted a link to my Hall of Fame projections earlier in the thread. If you have a look, you'll see it project Oates as a Hall-of-Famer, but not by much. He just barely reached the statistical standards, and he's behind a number of other recently retired players, and active players.

But that has been the Adam Oates dilemma all along. In a vacuum he looks great but the more you see other players over a long period of time the slippage starts, compounded by new additions at the position every year.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

But that has been the Adam Oates dilemma all along. In a vacuum he looks great but the more you see other players over a long period of time the slippage starts, compounded by new additions at the position every year.

Okay, and?

No one's actually put forward the argument you're refuting, which is that he's among the very best centres to ever play the game, an equal to Trottier or Lemieux or what have you.

But that's a false standard for the Hall of Fame, since many players of lesser quality than that are in the Hall.

 

[Canadiens1958]

First Page

Okay, and?

No one's actually put forward the argument you're refuting, which is that he's among the very best centres to ever play the game, an equal to Trottier or Lemieux or what have you.

But that's a false standard for the Hall of Fame, since many players of lesser quality than that are in the Hall.

Reading the first page of this thread does not support your interpretation.

Post #1 Oates is compared to 6th and 7th ranks All- Time assists and PPG certainly an attempt to portray him as being up with the elite.

Post #9 compared to Yzerman.Post #18 speaks for itself. Post #24 compared to Gretzky.

Old debating trick overstate and settle for a lesser compromise which is induction in the HHOF

My point is that being realistic may get you in on true merit without the baggage of acrimony where the people that matter simply become dismissive because the initial claim is way over the top.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Reading the first page of this thread does not support your interpretation.

You can certainly interpret some posts that way, I suppose. I certainly haven't been advancing that argument, and anyone with a more nuanced argument that "he has a whole lot of assists!" isn't either.

Old debating trick overstate and settle for a lesser compromise which is induction in the HHOF

That might be, if I had been advancing that argument. You can't take others' words as my own, though. Can't be a trick if two people are arguing two different things.

 

[canucks4ever]

Your evidence about Oates making Bourque better is rather interesting to say the least. Let's assume that your adjusted Bourque stats have some validity. Then we have the following scenario. From the 1992-93 season to the 1993-94 season Oates saw his regular season stats drop by 30 points.1992-93 Cam Neely played 13 games while during the 1993-94 season he played 48 games. During the 1992-93 season Ray Bourques had 330 SOG while during the 1993-94 season Bourque had 386 SOG. Strictly from an offense generating standpoint Neely meant more to Bourque since he was the ideal power forward playing RW providing RAY Bourque with more open ice and shooting opportunities. Yet despite having Neely for 36 extra games producing a more potent Bourque Oates saw his numbers drop by almost 20% yet somehow this is a contribution to Ray Bourque's offense from Oates. Does not make sense regardless of how you spin it. Certainly there was no great defensive contribution from Oates.

No one made the claim that Oates has to be as good as the elite centers but what we do see in Boston is a scenario where Bourque and Nelly did as well or better with the likes of Jannet and Pederson, making it really tough for Oates to compare to the Savard, Lafontaine, Hawerchuk, Federfo etc level of center who is in the HHOF, No red herring just a definitive portrayal of what Oates was not. Now we are left with the lower tier and you have to find evidence that is compelling and shows contribution and not sponging from the skills of others.

Please step up with the other wingers especially LWs that benefitted from Oates.Some d-men would help also.

His production dropped by 30 points because the scoring league wide also dropped by a large margin. He finished 3rd in scoring and you make it sound like he had a bum year.

No defensive contribution from Oates yet you are hyping up perrault, somone who is considered much worse defensively.

By the way, who's production did denis savard boost? Larmer had his best season when savard got traded and denis's stats plummeted, if anyone is overrated its him.

 

[Big Phil]

How about Scott Stevens in St. Louis.?

Stevens played that singular year in 1990-'91. Oates was a Blue from 1989-'92. I still think Oates had more value to the Blues in 1991 than Stevens. The voters tend to agree as well. Oates was a 2nd team all-star that season.

But if you really, really want to nitpick, then the worst case scenario is that Oates was 3rd on the pecking order behind Hull and Stevens - two lock cinch HHOFers that no one argues about. But in reality, I believe Oates was more integral to that team than Stevens. He was a 2nd team all-star at center and Stevens finished 7th in Norris voting amongst his position. I think the proof is in the pudding.

 

[Big Phil]

Just going from memory here, but didn't Juneau play left his big rookie year with Oates?

Yes he did. From Hull to Neely to Simon to Juneau these are a list of players who never had a better season without Oates. Bondra is debatable as well. I've said it before, but with all due respect to Neely, he can thank Oates for getting him in the HHOF. I truly believe that the 1993-'94 season is what catapulted him in there in the minds of voters. That season made his numbers just a little bit sexier and put him borderline as a HHOFer. Without Oates, that doesn't happen. Yet he's on the outside looking in. Strange.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

His production dropped by 30 points because the scoring league wide also dropped by a large margin. He finished 3rd in scoring and you make it sound like he had a bum year.

No defensive contribution from Oates yet you are hyping up perrault, somone who is considered much worse defensively.

By the way, who's production did denis savard boost? Larmer had his best season when savard got traded and denis's stats plummeted, if anyone is overrated its him.

Denis Savard was a rare right handed offensive minded center who turned some grinder LWs into legit goal scorers. Al Secord in particular

 

[Epsilon]

Reading the first page of this thread does not support your interpretation.

Post #1 Oates is compared to 6th and 7th ranks All- Time assists and PPG certainly an attempt to portray him as being up with the elite.

Post #9 compared to Yzerman.Post #18 speaks for itself. Post #24 compared to Gretzky.

Old debating trick overstate and settle for a lesser compromise which is induction in the HHOF

My point is that being realistic may get you in on true merit without the baggage of acrimony where the people that matter simply become dismissive because the initial claim is way over the top.

There's a big difference between pointing out that Oates is statistically comparable to some of the all-time greats and then using that as an argument that he's a HOFer, and actually claiming he's as good as those players (which no one has done other than with one very specific aspect of his game, passing/playmaking).

 

[Infinite Vision*]

It's often not clear who has the greater effect between two players like this. Maybe it was Hull that made Craig Janney look like a heck of a playmaker, just as Neely had done in Boston? Hull did score 16 times in 19 games after Oates was traded. Unless you consider Craig Janney to be one of the best pure playmakers of all time? He was no slouch, of course, but I don't see any "Why isn't Craig Janney in the Hall of Fame" threads.


Being a lesser player than Pavel Bure is hardly an insult, and says nothing about being the most overrated player ever.

Too small of a sample size 19 games, has to be somewhere close to half a season to draw any conclusions from. It is hard to tell how good he was really during that 3 year stretch, however most people think he is better than Adam Oates, I'm fairly sure he ranks higher on an all-time list, and I think that is just wrong as far as I can see.

Being a lesser player than Bure is not an insult no, but if I were to do a poll stating, "Based on what they actually accomplished, who was the better goalscorer/player?" I have a good feeling Brett would win both 3 to 1, when the reality of it is, Bure was the slightly better player when looking at the bulk of their better/best seasons in proper context. It is fairly close I might add, but when comparing them Hull's career totals will be brought up, which favour him very well for a few obvious reasons. Bure gets flack for his defense, but what did Hull do defensively? What was he capable of doing other than getting open and firing a shot in back of the net? (not like this is a bad thing) What other type of player is going to benefit more from the 2 second best pure playmaker of the time?