Will 2 lockouts in 7 yrs effect HOF eligibility?

[Czech Your Math]

I guess we have to disagree here. I don't care for giving them credit for playing in Switzerland. This isn't the NHL and it doesn't feature the best players in the world. It is a moot point. I have seen a million threads on Gretzky and I'll bet many people don't even remember him playing overseas during the 1994 lockout. Even the players playing overseas now, not only are they scabs for taking someone else's job, but their heart cannot possibly be in it 100% since they are basically over there for one reason and that is to stay in game shape. The second a CBA is signed they are splitting. So to me, it is a "nothing" season. Good for Thornton that he has been succesful over there, but try doing it with the true elite talent.

I guess my knock with rewarding players for lost time with the lockout is that for starters the players are 50% to blame for their own mess and secondly a true HHOFer has the career in spite of the lockout. When you start nickel and diming what a player "might" have done had their been hockey then you're giving them charity for something they never accomplished.

Yes, it appears we'll agree to disagree. Nothing new in that.

I understand not wanting to give as much credit for playing in Switzerland. I see both sides there: It's not one of the best leagues, but North American players are also accustomed to a certain lifestyle that's more easily found in/near Switzerland.

Considering the (lack of) quality of the Swiss league, it looks like Thornton coasted a bit in his 40 regular season games there. He still finished top 10, despite missing 4 games, but he was one point ahead of 33 y/o Oleg "I was in consideration for worst player to ever lead my NHL team in points" Petrov, and would not have caught the scoring champ... Randy Robitaille. Thornton played very well in 14 Swiss playoff games and 15 games of international tourneys. I think he deserves substantial, but not full credit for that season... at least half, but no more than 75% IMO.

I can't believe you have resorted to labeling NHL players as "scabs" for continuing to play hockey at a high level. Seems like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't, in your eyes. Yes, some are just staying in shape, but others are playing in their home countries and even hometowns (Jagr, Malkin, etc.).

I also can't agree with you saying it's just "nickel and diming" when some players may miss two full seasons if the current lockout isn't resolved soon. I agree that the players collectively share the responsibility, at least to some degree, for shortened/canceled seasons. However, I don't agree that they should be penalized as individual players for this. I know it's an absurd situation to most of us, but to me it's irrelevant to evaluating a hockey player's greatness.

As far as chances at the HOF, the lockouts may affect the most those players which aren't near-locks anyway, and who either A) lost more than one good season or B) lost at least one peak season when they or their team may have contended for hardware. That would seem to include:

Thomas- only if one believes his declared absence from hockey was affected by the impending lockout

Kiprusoff- he loses two good seasons, a "peak" season in '05 and what still may have been a very good season currently.

Hossa & Alfredsson- they would have been dark horses for individual hardware, but combined with Ottawa's chance for a deep playoff run, the '05 lockout may have hurt them significantly.

Elias- more of a longshot to contend for hardware, but may lose two prime seasons (plus part of '06 indirectly), which significantly hurts his career totals.

Naslund- if not for Bertuzzi incident already happening before end of '04, I would see him as more of a victim of lockout, since he really needed another strong season to give him a good chance.

Datsyuk- may miss two prime seasons, and his team would have been a strong contender in '05.

I believe Iginla, Thornton, St. Louis and Kovalchuk should all be near-locks by the end of their careers. If not, then the lockouts substantially hurt their chances.

I understand the theory that a really HOF-worthy player will get in anyways, but the NHL is on the verge of a second canceled season and one just never knows what would have happened. It's not so much the career totals, where the affects can be roughly estimated. It's the unknown "what would have been?" While I think St. Louis will probably be inducted, what if the lockout had been in '04 instead of '05? His case looks a lot shakier without a Ross, Hart and Cup included in his record. Same with Thornton: a lockout in '06 turns a highly probable induction into a more questionable one. I would guess Daniel Sedin is glad the lockout wasn't in 2011, as a Ross and SCF appearance actually give him a a decent chance, instead of a very slim one. I'm sure there must be other less recent examples of HOFers, which if you deducted their best (or one of their very best) seasons, would have been much less likely to be inducted... and we're looking at possibly two missed seasons out of nine now. It might be a Norris... or a Cup... or a top 3 finish in goals/points... we will never know who would have been helped substantially if they played the 2005 season (let's just hope this one isn't canceled as well).

 

[Fish on The Sand]

If lockouts survived became a stat. Or games lost due to work stoppage.

Sidney Crosby.
1100 gp, 150 lost to injury, 110 lost to work stoppage.

It's really kind of silly to think about but there's always those what could have been arguments that work stoppage variables will forever be a part of going forward now.

Crosby has not missed over 100 games to work stoppage. He'd have to miss all of this season and about half of next to get to 110 games lost to work stoppage.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't know about HOF eligibility but the two lockouts basically cost Patrick Marleau the opportunity to break the all time games played mark.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't know about HOF eligibility but the two lockouts basically cost Patrick Marleau the opportunity to break the all time games played mark.

He stands at 1117 games played. Howe is the all-time leader with 1767. For the heck of it let's add 160 games (if this season is wiped out). That means Marleau could have been at 1277 at the end of 2013 in a year he turns 34. Hard to say, but even then does he play 490 more games just to tie Howe? This is 6 full seasons which would take Marleau to 40 years old. I guess you never know, but there is no chance for it to happen now.

I can't believe you have resorted to labeling NHL players as "scabs" for continuing to play hockey at a high level. Seems like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't, in your eyes. Yes, some are just staying in shape, but others are playing in their home countries and even hometowns (Jagr, Malkin, etc.).

Playing in your home country is one thing (I have no issue when Jagr did that) and playing overseas because you and your peers share part of the blame in being unable to share $3.3 billion is another thing. With a little elbow grease we have a full NHL season. Instead, someone's job is taken away over in Europe. Greed rolls downhill everytime which is why I choose the word "scabs". Hey, the players would say the same thing about replacement players in the NHL wouldn't they? But that's another story. Back on topic.

I also can't agree with you saying it's just "nickel and diming" when some players may miss two full seasons if the current lockout isn't resolved soon. I agree that the players collectively share the responsibility, at least to some degree, for shortened/canceled seasons. However, I don't agree that they should be penalized as individual players for this. I know it's an absurd situation to most of us, but to me it's irrelevant to evaluating a hockey player's greatness.

As far as chances at the HOF, the lockouts may affect the most those players which aren't near-locks anyway, and who either A) lost more than one good season or B) lost at least one peak season when they or their team may have contended for hardware. That would seem to include:

Thomas- only if one believes his declared absence from hockey was affected by the impending lockout

Kiprusoff- he loses two good seasons, a "peak" season in '05 and what still may have been a very good season currently.

Hossa & Alfredsson- they would have been dark horses for individual hardware, but combined with Ottawa's chance for a deep playoff run, the '05 lockout may have hurt them significantly.

Elias- more of a longshot to contend for hardware, but may lose two prime seasons (plus part of '06 indirectly), which significantly hurts his career totals.

Naslund- if not for Bertuzzi incident already happening before end of '04, I would see him as more of a victim of lockout, since he really needed another strong season to give him a good chance.

Datsyuk- may miss two prime seasons, and his team would have been a strong contender in '05.

I believe Iginla, Thornton, St. Louis and Kovalchuk should all be near-locks by the end of their careers. If not, then the lockouts substantially hurt their chances.

I understand the theory that a really HOF-worthy player will get in anyways, but the NHL is on the verge of a second canceled season and one just never knows what would have happened. It's not so much the career totals, where the affects can be roughly estimated. It's the unknown "what would have been?" While I think St. Louis will probably be inducted, what if the lockout had been in '04 instead of '05? His case looks a lot shakier without a Ross, Hart and Cup included in his record. Same with Thornton: a lockout in '06 turns a highly probable induction into a more questionable one. I would guess Daniel Sedin is glad the lockout wasn't in 2011, as a Ross and SCF appearance actually give him a a decent chance, instead of a very slim one. I'm sure there must be other less recent examples of HOFers, which if you deducted their best (or one of their very best) seasons, would have been much less likely to be inducted... and we're looking at possibly two missed seasons out of nine now. It might be a Norris... or a Cup... or a top 3 finish in goals/points... we will never know who would have been helped substantially if they played the 2005 season (let's just hope this one isn't canceled as well).

I understand what you are saying, but I don't like to penalize players as much as just not rewarding them for lost time. That is where I am going with this. If Alfredsson never plays again and Elias for that matter since both are getting old, then I think neither are HHOF caliber. Close, but no cigar in my opinion. Should sentiment prevail and we let them in anyway? I don't like that because we then start lowering the bar and playing favourites. I don't want guys in the HHOF who are there just because we more or less feel sorry for them. It cheapens the Hall.

The names you mentioned may not have a shot anyway. Kipper is no better than a career Mike Liut with or without a lockout. He had one truly elite full season and one wonderful playoff run. Heck, maybe he's Mike Richter. Either way, if he were a HHOFer at his age, we'd know it by now. Thomas is a very strange case and he was just one year removed from the best goalie in the game, so who knows what more he can do.

Hossa, Elias and Alfredsson would be better served with a full 2005 season under their belt but it didn't happen so the important thing is to look at the rest of their career. All of these players lack a certain degree of "eliteness" that we usually like to see in a HHOFer. Look at the 4 inductees in 2012. All of them hit very high levels of play reserved for the greats (Sundin was more or less very, very good for a long time that it's too hard to ignore). I think Hossa has enough left in the tank to change my mind but the other two who knows? Does Elias have one of his hot and cold seasons that he had plenty of in 2004-'05? We don't know.

I don't know if Naslund gets in either way. A 4th season like the previous three definitely puts him more in the conversation but was he a guy who just flamed out rather fast? Who knows, but if he weren't such a late bloomer and a player who aged so horribly we wouldn't even have to ask whether or not he's a HHOFer.

That leaves Datsyuk. Good call on him. Throw in Zetterberg as well. Both players have some miles left in the tank and we'll see where that leaves them. However, Zetterberg just seems to be too great of a playoff performer especially to be left out of the HHOF when all is said and done regardless of the lockouts. He has a well deserved reputation as a clutch performer and he has the Conn Smythe with another very deep run. Considering he is a great two-way player as well as being able to pad some stats in the coming years, I can see him in there anyway. Datsyuk is a bit older with a worse playoff record. He has come around in the latter half of his career after having a poor playoff reputation. He's won the Cups, he has one Smythe worthy run, he won three Selkes already, he's won 4 Lady Byngs (I don't think it helps a whole lot though) and has averaged a point a game in his career all the while finishing 4th in points twice. Throw in being one of the best talents we've ever seen in NHL history and I can't see him being left out when all is said and done.

I mean, as of right now we're looking at some players that even without a lockout would be marginal selections. We also don't know if they require season ending surgery 10 games into the season either. We just don't have the crystal ball to predict that. You can be a guy like Alfredsson who desperately needed the chance to play that one extra season or you can be a legit future HHOFer like Datsyuk who really doesn't need it. Either way I don't think the HHOF is worse without them.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

I think too many older players are being considered. Guys that are out of the league during this lockout(Kariya, Naslund, etc) or guys who are 30 point players(Arnott, etc.)

Others are likely to be close to sure things down the road like Ovechkin, Iginla, Thornton, Kovalchuk

Some guys that haven't gotten much mention:
Eric Staal: May have missed out on 70 goals and 70 assists.
Jason Spezza: May have missed out on 50-60 goals and 90 assists
Henrik Zetterberg: 50-60 goals, 70-80 assists
Dany Heatley: 70 goals, 75 assists
Rick Nash: 70 goals, 50 assists

Guys like that. Now some of those guys are big reaches but you never know.

 

[Big Phil]

I think too many older players are being considered. Guys that are out of the league during this lockout(Kariya, Naslund, etc) or guys who are 30 point players(Arnott, etc.)

Others are likely to be close to sure things down the road like Ovechkin, Iginla, Thornton, Kovalchuk

Some guys that haven't gotten much mention:
Eric Staal: May have missed out on 70 goals and 70 assists.
Jason Spezza: May have missed out on 50-60 goals and 90 assists
Henrik Zetterberg: 50-60 goals, 70-80 assists
Dany Heatley: 70 goals, 75 assists
Rick Nash: 70 goals, 50 assists

Guys like that. Now some of those guys are big reaches but you never know.

No, they aren't big reaches at all. Staal has a Smythe worthy run, a Cup, a 100 point season where he was among the NHL's elite and a slew of 70-80 point seasons. Spezza as well could have padded his numbers better also. Zetterberg I have a feeling is a HHOFer regardless because he has some gas left in the tank and has probably been the best postseason player post lockout. Nash? No, either way. Heatley is a tough one too. I get the feeling that by the end of his career even if he is close his off-ice stuff will keep him out. There would be a lot of people that would hate him in there.

That's the thing about this lockout, everyone is being robbed of a better career and the players are their own worst enemy in this battle (along with the owners).

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

The HHOF is nothing more then looking at NHL.com statistics and counting cups. Since 1997 Elias has arguably been a top 10 player.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...t&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ps

This doesn't take playoffs into consideration where Elias has 4 finals and 2 cups while captaining a team and captaining a team in the Olympics.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I guess we have to disagree here. I don't care for giving them credit for playing in Switzerland. This isn't the NHL and it doesn't feature the best players in the world. It is a moot point. I have seen a million threads on Gretzky and I'll bet many people don't even remember him playing overseas during the 1994 lockout. Even the players playing overseas now, not only are they scabs for taking someone else's job, but their heart cannot possibly be in it 100% since they are basically over there for one reason and that is to stay in game shape. The second a CBA is signed they are splitting. So to me, it is a "nothing" season. Good for Thornton that he has been succesful over there, but try doing it with the true elite talent.

I guess my knock with rewarding players for lost time with the lockout is that for starters the players are 50% to blame for their own mess and secondly a true HHOFer has the career in spite of the lockout. When you start nickel and diming what a player "might" have done had their been hockey then you're giving them charity for something they never accomplished.

2 things here,

1) How are the players 50% at fault for either lockout?

Especially this current one? Unless you think players should just hand in a signed blank contract and let the owners fill in the details your assertion is absurd.

2) there are quite a few cases where current HHOF players might not be in if they miss 2 of their potential top seasons or prime or even just counting stats.

The cream of the crop or "1st ballot HHOFamer" (a really lousy rip off from baseball and not even applicable to hockey) get in reguardelss but most HHOF inductees are in for a full body of work.

The current group affected by the lockout will need to get some consideration, no doubt like WW2 guys did.

 

[BigFatCat999]

I just wonder how it affects coaches. If you look at the current coaches in the top 20 there is a LOT of coaches on that list who would begin to claim top 10 status. Barry Trotz would have another 164 games coached if it wasn't for lockouts. Coaches who have been coaching before 1995 would have another 200.

 

[DaveG]

No, they aren't big reaches at all. Staal has a Smythe worthy run, a Cup, a 100 point season where he was among the NHL's elite and a slew of 70-80 point seasons. Spezza as well could have padded his numbers better also. Zetterberg I have a feeling is a HHOFer regardless because he has some gas left in the tank and has probably been the best postseason player post lockout. Nash? No, either way. Heatley is a tough one too. I get the feeling that by the end of his career even if he is close his off-ice stuff will keep him out. There would be a lot of people that would hate him in there.

That's the thing about this lockout, everyone is being robbed of a better career and the players are their own worst enemy in this battle (along with the owners).

Prettymuch agree with this. I think Staal, Spezza, and Hank all have very good shots long term even with this lockout. Spezza's 29 and is a career PPG+ player, hard to imagine that he won't keep up enough production to finish with some rather nice career totals. Good post-season runs to date are going to help as well. Same story with Staal at 28, and while he's not PPG+ like Spezza (though aside from his rookie year he's right around there) he actually has a stronger post-season reputation due to two very outstanding playoff runs so far in his career. Likewise he should have no problem putting up some dang solid career totals. That said his teams need to start making the playoffs on a more regular basis to help him keep that reputation. Hank's older but he's regarded as a better two-way player, likewise has some solid playoff runs, and has a cup to his credit. As long as the wheels don't completely fall off the next 3-4 seasons that the league's back he should have a dang good shot. He also has an Olympic Gold to his credit like Staal, right?

Heatley probably gets hurt the most by the lockouts, but as Phil said I think his off-ice problems hurt him even more. Between the wreck in Atlanta, and the way he was in the trade out of Ottawa he's burnt some serious bridges as far as his reputation goes.

Nash. Sorry but not happening. He may have had crap to work with for the most part in Columbus, but he doesn't have any kind of post-season history to date and has never really been regarded as a dominant player. New York would basically have to turn into a dynasty with him there, with him playing a big role in at least 2 or 3 playoff runs, for him to have a legit shot.

I just wonder how it affects coaches. If you look at the current coaches in the top 20 there is a LOT of coaches on that list who would begin to claim top 10 status. Barry Trotz would have another 164 games coached if it wasn't for lockouts. Coaches who have been coaching before 1995 would have another 200.

Trotz has as good a shot as anyone for getting in as a builder that we've seen in a long LONG time. Trotz and Poile will both likely get in if the Preds win a Cup under their watch even if it's only one.

 

[TheNudge]

I think too many older players are being considered. Guys that are out of the league during this lockout(Kariya, Naslund, etc) or guys who are 30 point players(Arnott, etc.)

Others are likely to be close to sure things down the road like Ovechkin, Iginla, Thornton, Kovalchuk

Some guys that haven't gotten much mention:
Eric Staal: May have missed out on 70 goals and 70 assists.
Jason Spezza: May have missed out on 50-60 goals and 90 assists
Henrik Zetterberg: 50-60 goals, 70-80 assists
Dany Heatley: 70 goals, 75 assists
Rick Nash: 70 goals, 50 assists

Guys like that. Now some of those guys are big reaches but you never know.

I'll agree with Heatley,Iginla,Martin St Louis,Briere,Kovalchuk,Nash but the rest I can't.
I feel that giving Zetterberg,Spezz,Staal needed that year to get confident. If you look at closely, you'll find that those 3 came back in 05 on fire. The 1st lock out help more career then it didn't. But the 2nd one (now) it will ruin and end alot more career. I'm sceard that it'S the last we see Selanne,Whitney,Brodeur(I say one more year),Jarg(might be done, still think he'll come back for another 2 year). But I'm telling you this one is bad for hockey.

 

[Big Phil]

2 things here,

1) How are the players 50% at fault for either lockout?

Especially this current one? Unless you think players should just hand in a signed blank contract and let the owners fill in the details your assertion is absurd.

2) there are quite a few cases where current HHOF players might not be in if they miss 2 of their potential top seasons or prime or even just counting stats.

The cream of the crop or "1st ballot HHOFamer" (a really lousy rip off from baseball and not even applicable to hockey) get in reguardelss but most HHOF inductees are in for a full body of work.

The current group affected by the lockout will need to get some consideration, no doubt like WW2 guys did.

Well, I don't want this thread to turn into another lockout debate, but when neither side can come to an agreement both sides are at fault. The players chose a guy with a track record (Fehr) that reads like the obituaries if you remember the work stoppages in baseball. In recent days the players have ticked off who can be labelled "moderate owners" on the other side. So yeah, they are their own worst enemy, just like the owners. Both sides make my stomach churn.

As for the WW2 players. I can see only three guys to discuss here. Laprade, who is a horrible selection with or without the War. Then there is Bobby Bauer and Woody Dumart. I think Dumart had a long enough career coupled with a decent peak to just sneak in anyway. Bauer didn't play long, but was top 10 in points three times and a 2nd team all-star 4 times while being part of the famous Kraut line, like Dumart. The abscence of the War (three years) hurts him for sure. So really these are the guys we are talking about. One of them doesn't deserve it either way and the others had some pretty good peak seasons. But that's it. There aren't really any other "borderline" picks in that time frame.

And yes, there are many players where if you take their best two seasons out of the equation they are not Hall of Famers. Take Darryl Sittler for example. Let's pretend his best two years are gone. It would be hard to make him a HHOFer. But so what? I can probably name 25 guys in that same situation. Again, we actually SAW what Sittler could do in his best year (1978). He actually did it. He wasn't complaining and moaning on Twitter all day because of a lockout. We can reward him simply because he actually accomplished enough for a HHOF career. If Alfredsson or Elias or anyone else end up being players that don't make it and we look at the "what if there was no lockout scenario" then too bad. They don't get in, that's life.

Have we not had some marginal selections in the last 10 years? Do we need more just because in order to induct a few fan favourites we need to lower the bar based on the assumption (highlight that word) that they might have had a great season? Sorry. A guy like Alfredsson has been his own worst enemy here. Saying silly things like advising against a vote from the players is just another thing that will prolong these guys playing hockey. That doesn't help your HHOF status either by collecting dust at home.

 

[seventieslord]

This discusson is heading in a pointless direction. Players like Alfredsson and Elias aren't any worse because there was a lockout. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Compiling Points or even the Hall of Compiling Dominant Seasons. We've seen 1000 games of each; we know how good they were on the ice.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This discusson is heading in a pointless direction. Players like Alfredsson and Elias aren't any worse because there was a lockout. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Compiling Points or even the Hall of Compiling Dominant Seasons. We've seen 1000 games of each; we know how good they were on the ice.

Ideally, I'd agree with you.

But it's also really obvious that the actual HHOF Committee loves their career benchmarks.

And given the fact that it's an open question as to when the HHOF committee finally realizes that hitting certain career benchmarks is largely dependent on era, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't take into account the effect of lockouts on a player's totals either.

There are certain "defining players" who get in without career totals, but I think that career totals have played a role in the inductions of a large number of forwards.

 

[Big Phil]

This discusson is heading in a pointless direction. Players like Alfredsson and Elias aren't any worse because there was a lockout. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Compiling Points or even the Hall of Compiling Dominant Seasons. We've seen 1000 games of each; we know how good they were on the ice.

But were they good enough or are they at best borderline candidates? Elias' name being recited doesn't exactly scream HHOF to me. His regular season numbers leave a lot to be desired and I honestly can't say him getting to 1,000 points would make any difference (894 right now). He definitely has some gaps in his career, sometimes for multiple seasons. You barely ever brought his name up when talking about the HHOF. Alfredsson in my opinion is closer, and the walls wouldn't come down if he got inducted but they wouldn't come down either if he was left out. The fact that these two players lack the true elite seasons we like to see from HHOFers is enough reason for me to say they don't belong, or at least have very strong cases to not belong.

Like I said, without a lockout(s) we might be looking at a better chance for players such as Kipper, Alfie, Elias, Hossa, Naslund, maybe even Brad Richards, and if people think St. Louis is borderline right now then another full season(s) would have put him over the top, although he might be good enough right now. Those are all good players but even without a lockout they aren't lock cinches by any means, other than perhaps St. Louis.

 

[skywarp75]

Sedins

 

[DoubleDose86]

What about the reversal then?

I mean if people are overlooked because of missing 2 seasons. What about when some of the young guys now start playing and retire..do alot of them get more of a free pass? because they wouldnt have the stoppages? I think they will take it into consideration.

 

[Big Phil]

What about the reversal then?

I mean if people are overlooked because of missing 2 seasons. What about when some of the young guys now start playing and retire..do alot of them get more of a free pass? because they wouldnt have the stoppages? I think they will take it into consideration.

I wouldn't count your chickens yet, nothing says there isn't a work stoppage in the next 8-10 years. Don't worry, you can count on the NHL screwing it up somehow. These young players will get their crack at a shortened or entirely missed season.