Will Marleau get into Hall of Fame?

[Pinkfloyd]

I've literally used one criteria. Your problem is that you can't handle any real nuance to this discussion and when the things pointed out to you that is wrong with your overly simplistic reasoning, you project onto others hence why when I have consistently used the same criteria in this context, you move the goal posts then say that I did it. You're totally dishonest and posting raw statistics is only more evidence of that. If you think that's legitimately enough of a comparison then you're either dishonest or ignorant. There are no other alternatives here. Using their stats in the DPE is like using the stats post-2005 lockout. It's just silly reasoning that makes no sense. If you want to continue overly simplistic reasoning and using raw numbers then Marleau has more goals and will have more points by the time his career is over most likely and even if he didn't, the guy that scores more goals tends to get favored in those conversations.

 

[trentmccleary]

Roenick was the better player and had the better career. Compiling a bunch of meaningless low seasons to the end of your career doesn't normally add much to your HHOF chances.

BTW, if you run these comparisons:
Roenick 1994-2004 (minus short 1995)
Marleau 2003-2014 (minus short 2013
You get a comparable sample of these averages:

Roenick = 75-29-41-70, 0.38 GPG, 0.93 PPG (NHL Avg GPG = 2.79)
Marleau = 80-32-37-69, 0.40 GPG, 0.86 PPG (NHL Avg GPG = 2.80)

Which looks pretty close, except Marleau did nothing outside of these seasons and Roenick has 3 seasons beyond this scope that Era adjusted are equal to or better than Marleau's 2 best seasons.

 

[LeafFever]

Roenick's production was never that good. He dropped-off very fast.

 

[ClydeLee]

Roenick was the better player and had the better career. Compiling a bunch of meaningless low seasons to the end of your career doesn't normally add much to your HHOF chances.

BTW, if you run these comparisons:
Roenick 1994-2004 (minus short 1995)
Marleau 2003-2014 (minus short 2013
You get a comparable sample of these averages:

Roenick = 75-29-41-70, 0.38 GPG, 0.93 PPG (NHL Avg GPG = 2.79)
Marleau = 80-32-37-69, 0.40 GPG, 0.86 PPG (NHL Avg GPG = 2.80)

Which looks pretty close, except Marleau did nothing outside of these seasons and Roenick has 3 seasons beyond this scope that Era adjusted are equal to or better than Marleau's 2 best seasons.

That exact type of career is what got 2 guys in who got in last year after some years of waiting.

I would always consider what it is I think he voters judge and think about when actually considering will a player make the HOF, not just some standard of what people on here think the HOF ought to be.

 

[Weztex]

Yuck. Being good for a long time doesn't make you great. It just makes you good for longer.

 

[MartyOwns]

I’m not the one who is constantly changing the criteria. We can’t use Roenicks peak/prime because for you it’s a losing argument for you, so you hide behind the “higher scoring” argument. We can’t use the time frame I suggested because you don’t like how it doesn’t fit your agenda.

Why can’t we use both of their productions in the DPE Zane compare them? Your whole logic was that Marleau was in the DPE where as Roenick was in a higher scoring era, yet Roenick our produced Marleau in the DPE as well. You didn’t like that, and now we can no longer use that info. You then create alternative reasonings as to why we can’t use it, such as “experience” and “physical stature.” Hilarious.

Fair? There is nothing fair about using one players peak/prime and not the others. I don’t understand what’s fair about that. I think it’s more your losing ground and have to constantly change the argument.

Marleau has also played 130 more games than Roenick, yet is trailing by 134 points. Of course your going to stick with the adjusted stats, they benefit your argument than the actual raw statistics.

I actually never included Roenicks ‘96 season.....
‘98-‘04:
Roenick: 455 points in 528 games-0.86
Marleau: 327 points in 558 games-0.58

Pretty big difference, wouldn’t you say? Care to find more excuses?

Let’s try this one.....
‘97-‘04(ages 27-34)
Roenick: 524 points in 600 games-0.87
‘07-‘14(ages 27-34)
Marleau: 518 points in 610 games-0.85

So I took out the ‘06 and ‘96 due to significantly higher scoring. I used the same age comparison, the scoring is very similar.....well will you look at that, Roenick still comes out ahead. Weird.

What’s more interesting is I’m usinf Marleaus peak/prime years, and Roenick still our produces him. What’s even more interesting is that Marleau was on a SC contending team, playing a majority of that time on Thornton’s wing....yet Roenick STILL out produced him.

Dishonest? No im literally just posting raw statistics. And you can’t handle not being right. I’m sure you will find something to complain about so I’ll just wait....

yeah, i give up on this one lol...if you decide to keep going, godspeed to you sir

 

[SharksFan1]

Yuck. Being good for a long time doesn't make you great. It just makes you good for longer.

Usually when people talk about HOFers they refer to HOF careers not a HOF season(s).

 

[Connor McConnor]

No.

 

[Weztex]

Usually when people talk about HOFers they refer to HOF careers not a HOF season(s).

The HOF should be about recognizing the players who were among the very best for a period of time. Those who defined their eras. When talking about the history of the sport don't you want future generations to know about Lindros, Bure, Kariya before the likes of Nieuwendyk, Andreychuk or Marleau? Being healthier didn't make those guys greatest or more impactful players.

 

[DitchMarner]

Roenick was straight-up better than Marleau.

 

[DitchMarner]

Roenick's production was never that good. He dropped-off very fast.

People seem to think he was nothing after 1994, but he put up 72 or more points three years in a row from '99-'01.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I've literally used one criteria. Your problem is that you can't handle any real nuance to this discussion and when the things pointed out to you that is wrong with your overly simplistic reasoning, you project onto others hence why when I have consistently used the same criteria in this context, you move the goal posts then say that I did it. You're totally dishonest and posting raw statistics is only more evidence of that. If you think that's legitimately enough of a comparison then you're either dishonest or ignorant. There are no other alternatives here. Using their stats in the DPE is like using the stats post-2005 lockout. It's just silly reasoning that makes no sense. If you want to continue overly simplistic reasoning and using raw numbers then Marleau has more goals and will have more points by the time his career is over most likely and even if he didn't, the guy that scores more goals tends to get favored in those conversations.

I’ve stuck to my guns the whole argument, your the one who can’t make up his mind.

Overly simplistic? Your deliberately leaving out Roenicks best seasons, while using his DPE stats, all while using Marleaus best seasons against Roenicks weakest, then decided we can’t use his DPE stats because they are some of Marleaus worst.....make up your mind. In the end, Roenick was the better player, with the better peak, prime, and overall career for the most part.

I’m dishonest for posting RAW statistics? Do you know what dishonest means? The way you throw our words without a second thought is a terrible habit FYI, maybe work on that.

Cool, Marleau has 20 more goals while playing 130 more games. That’s definitely superior. Of course Marleau will have more points, because he’s simply compiling....has been for a few years. He was average for a majority of his career, good at his best, and now is simply good enough to be playing.

 

[SabresSharks]

Patrick Marleau epitomizes to me what the game should be about - fast, hard, clean. He's a personal favorite from decades of watching the NHL. I'm sure there are many fans who have no affection for the Sharks or Leafs who feel likewise.

It pains me to say that he doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion into the HoF. He is what some, perhaps unfairly, would call an accumulator. He's had a fantastic career, but the Hall should be reserved for the truly elite.

I won't say there's no chance for him (a Cup would certainly help his resume), and there are several highly questionable HoFers, but I won't feel as if he has been snubbed if he isn't inducted.

 

[SharksFan1]

The HOF should be about recognizing the players who were among the very best for a period of time.

And how long should that period be? One year, two years, five years, a decade? Should someone like Tim Tomas be considered since he was an amazing goalie for a few years?

 

[Daximus]

And how long should that period be? One year, two years, five years, a decade? Should someone like Tim Tomas be considered since he was an amazing goalie for a few years?

Tim should definitely make the HHOF IMO.

1x Stanley Cup
1x Conne Smythe
2x Vezinas
1x Jennings
2x First Team All Star
1x Liiga Best Goalie
1x Liiga Best Player (First Non-Euro to win the award)
1x Best Liiga player as voted by the players
1x Olympic Silver Medal

First Goalie to win a Cup, Vezina and Smythe in the same season since Bernie Parent in 1975. Holds the Record for most playoff saves by a goalie who won a Cup with 798. Holds the record for most saves by a goalie in the Cup finals series with 238.

 

[Weztex]

And how long should that period be? One year, two years, five years, a decade? Should someone like Tim Tomas be considered since he was an amazing goalie for a few years?

Considered? Why not? There's a lot more chance than in 40 years I'm telling my grandchildren about Tim Thomas than about Chris Osgood. To me that's what the HOF should be about. Players who left their mark on the game (which is indeed hard to do in one season...).

At least Thomas was elite for a couple of years. Marleau wasn't for 20.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

More people getting all caught up in analytics and stats.

Marleau will be a first ball entry, without question.

What you think “should” isn’t relevant. The NHL community loves players like Marleau and the hockey people who have the vote won’t give a crap about how his stats compare to JR or anyone else.