Will Marleau get into Hall of Fame?

[Daximus]

Doubt it.

He will one Ross finish, one 2nd in points finish. Plus his international resume. He's more of a lock than Marleau at this point.

 

[LeafFever]

He will one Ross finish, one 2nd in points finish. Plus his international resume. He's more of a lock than Marleau at this point.

He hasn't even hit 600 points yet. You're overrating what an Art Ross can do. Marleau is already there based on points.
What if Benn get less than 1000 points?

 

[GreatGonzo]

lol. cup never had any elite seasons. roenick was never anything special in his entire career. the only thing he was elite at was being a loudmouth jackass.

you're giving those two a pass in exactly what you're criticising marleau for.

Who’s cup?

Righty, says the guy who thinks Marleau is better than Roenick and Alfredsson and that Marleau was more elite than Alfredsson while Roenick was “nothing special.”

Do us all a favor and just stop now. Your embarrassing yourself and trying far to hard.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Roenick's goal scoring prowess came at a time before the dead puck era. The years you're referencing were at a time where the league-wide goals per game number was higher by a decent margin than any season that either Elias or Marleau had played in. That's not really a fair comparison to make.

He still had a peak/prime that Marleau could never match. Marleau didn’t start scoring a lot of goals until after the lock which opened up scoring and being put on Joes wing.

Even in the DPE, he wasn’t bad...not how he used to be, but not bad. 200 goals and 524 points in 600 games at a .87 PPG is good. It’s not like Marleau would have scored at the rate Roenick did if he played in that era.

 

[joe dirte]

Roenick

513-703-1216, 0.89 ppg
3x 100+ pts
2x 50+ G
4x 40+ G


Marleau

532-539-1125, 0.72 ppg
0x 100+ pts
0x 90+ pts
0x 50+ G
1x 40+ G

Roenick played 300 less games than Marleau to date yet has outscored him by 80. Get a clue

a 107 point season good for 15th in scoring.

I wonder if the higher scoring early 90s had anything to do with those point totals.....

marleau >> roenick.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

He still had a peak/prime that Marleau could never match. Marleau didn’t start scoring a lot of goals until after the lock which opened up scoring and being put on Joes wing.

Even in the DPE, he wasn’t bad...not how he used to be, but not bad. 200 goals and 524 points in 600 games at a .87 PPG is good. It’s not like Marleau would have scored at the rate Roenick did if he played in that era.

Roenick's peak/prime is the five years in a highly offensive era that Marleau never played in. You look into their seasons by age and get past that offensive era portion of Roenick's career and the two are comparable. Roenick didn't come close to scoring 40 after he turned 25. It's quite easy to note that his big offensive years were due to the era he was playing in because when the league's offense went down, Roenick's did as well and considerably so. Your last line is completely unprovable so I don't see the point of that.

 

[joe dirte]

Who’s cup?

Righty, says the guy who thinks Marleau is better than Roenick and Alfredsson and that Marleau was more elite than Alfredsson while Roenick was “nothing special.”

Do us all a favor and just stop now. Your embarrassing yourself and trying far to hard.

I never said marleau was more elite than Alfredsson. work on your reading. but there is no question he's had a better career than roenick.

 

[joe dirte]

Roenick's peak/prime is the five years in a highly offensive era that Marleau never played in. You look into their seasons by age and get past that offensive era portion of Roenick's career and the two are comparable. Roenick didn't come close to scoring 40 after he turned 25. It's quite easy to note that his big offensive years were due to the era he was playing in because when the league's offense went down, Roenick's did as well and considerably so. Your last line is completely unprovable so I don't see the point of that.

50 goals.... when the leaders were in the 70s.

roenick wouldn't even be remembered if not for his loud mouth.

marleau has 24 goals with 7 or 8 games left playing on the third line at age 38 as a shell of what he used to be but some of these deluded fools think he was only a low 20s goal scorer without thornton. (although he came close to 30 as a 22 year old without Thornton as well).

 

[Karl Eriksson]

Still and always no

 

[GreatGonzo]

Roenick's peak/prime is the five years in a highly offensive era that Marleau never played in. You look into their seasons by age and get past that offensive era portion of Roenick's career and the two are comparable. Roenick didn't come close to scoring 40 after he turned 25. It's quite easy to note that his big offensive years were due to the era he was playing in because when the league's offense went down, Roenick's did as well and considerably so. Your last line is completely unprovable so I don't see the point of that.

But who is to say or think Marleau would excel in a higher scoring era? His numbers in a lower scoring one aren’t even that impressive, and it isn’t because of the era.

Yes that’s what hurts his legacy, that significant drop off, but he was still productive even in a lower scoring era, much more productive than Marleau was.

I never said marleau was more elite than Alfredsson. work on your reading. but there is no question he's had a better career than roenick.

Ok, you said he was better though.....which is still a laugh.

I don’t see how he has had the better career by anything significant. Care to share?

 

[MartyOwns]

marleau >> roenick.

you can say that over and over again, but it doesn’t make it correct

 

[Pinkfloyd]

But who is to say or think Marleau would excel in a higher scoring era? His numbers in a lower scoring one aren’t even that impressive, and it isn’t because of the era.

Yes that’s what hurts his legacy, that significant drop off, but he was still productive even in a lower scoring era, much more productive than Marleau was.

Who is to say that he wouldn't? The fact that you can't answer either question is why it is a pointless thing to say. It's unprovable and not something to be used in this discussion in any legitimate way. And again, compare their numbers in similar eras at similar ages. You look at Marleau and Roenick from ages 26 through 33 and Marleau's numbers are pretty much in line with Roenick's so if his aren't impressive than neither is Roenick's so that's not a legitimate point to try and make using stats.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

lol. cup never had any elite seasons. roenick was never anything special in his entire career. the only thing he was elite at was being a loudmouth jackass.

Roenick wasn't elite during a four year span where he was 3rd in the NHL in goals (behind only Hull and Robitaille) and 6th in points?

 

[GreatGonzo]

Who is to say that he wouldn't? The fact that you can't answer either question is why it is a pointless thing to say. It's unprovable and not something to be used in this discussion in any legitimate way. And again, compare their numbers in similar eras at similar ages. You look at Marleau and Roenick from ages 26 through 33 and Marleau's numbers are pretty much in line with Roenick's so if his aren't impressive than neither is Roenick's so that's not a legitimate point to try and make using stats.

I don’t see how a player that averages 73 points in his prime would put those kinds of totals....who is to say Marleau has that kind of talent?

Sure, no one knows, but it’s safe to say that a player who only hit the PPG mark 3 times(2 of which after the lockout) in this era wouldn’t be a 100+ point player in a higher scoring era.

Well Roenick still isn’t in the Hall, so your right. But if Roenick isn’t in the Hall yet, I doubt Marleau has a better chance.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don’t see how a player that averages 73 points in his prime would put those kinds of totals....who is to say Marleau has that kind of talent?

Sure, no one knows, but it’s safe to say that a player who only hit the PPG mark 3 times(2 of which after the lockout) in this era wouldn’t be a 100+ point player in a higher scoring era.

Well Roenick still isn’t in the Hall, so your right. But if Roenick isn’t in the Hall yet, I doubt Marleau has a better chance.

Here's how you see that...when you realize that if you compared Marleau's prime to Roenick at the same age and realize that Marleau did roughly equal to or marginally better than Roenick, you may actually see that instead of dismissing it entirely like you are doing.

In reality, it's not safe to say what you did at all because you're not even remotely considering how numbers are altered when offense is increased to the degree that it was in Roenick's best offensive years. A guy that puts out a point per game average in this era could very well put up 100 points during the 80's through the early 90's.

But like I said, Marleau's only real avenue to the Hall is breaking the games played record. Outside of that, he shouldn't get in.

 

[joe dirte]

you can say that over and over again, but it doesn’t make it correct

I don't need that to be the case since it IS correct.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I don't think there is either but I'm pretty sure the Sedins won't get in either.

Sedins are so unique they can't be left out.

Art ross in back to back years by each twin, and a Hart. Top tier players for a decade and a unique ESP playstyle. For a single franchise.

Very special players.



And yeah. This thread should be a poll. So you can see the landslide consensus of people who dont believe Marleau should be in the Hall.

 

[joe dirte]

Roenick wasn't elite during a four year span where he was 3rd in the NHL in goals (behind only Hull and Robitaille) and 6th in points?

from 08/09 to 10/11 marleau was 2nd in goals to only ovechkin. and finished top 10 in selke in 2 of those years.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Here's how you see that...when you realize that if you compared Marleau's prime to Roenick at the same age and realize that Marleau did roughly equal to or marginally better than Roenick, you may actually see that instead of dismissing it entirely like you are doing.

In reality, it's not safe to say what you did at all because you're not even remotely considering how numbers are altered when offense is increased to the degree that it was in Roenick's best offensive years. A guy that puts out a point per game average in this era could very well put up 100 points during the 80's through the early 90's.

But like I said, Marleau's only real avenue to the Hall is breaking the games played record. Outside of that, he shouldn't get in.

How was Marleau equal or better?

I’m fully aware how different eras work. What I’m not understanding is how a different era can make up for the 30 some odd point difference between them. Even if you adjust the eras for scoring, Roenick will still come out better.

Let’s look at their best seasons not including Roenicks prime and Marleaus first 2 seasons after the lock out.

1999: 78-24-48-72/ age 29/ 2.63 GA
2009: 78-38-33-71/ age 29/ 2.91 GA

2000: 75-34-44-78/ age 30/ 2.75 GA
2010: 82-44-39-83/ age 30/ 2.84 GA

2001: 80-30-46-76/ age 31/ 2.76 GA
2011: 82-37-36-73/ age 31/ 2.79 GA

2002: 75-21-46-67/ age 32/ 2.62 GA
2012: 82-30-34-64/ age 32/ 2.73 GA

2014 is the only year Marleau did better than Roenick at the same age, but as you can see, although close, Roenick was better, in a lower scoring era, and on a team significantly worst than the Sharks.

 

[GreatGonzo]

from 08/09 to 10/11 marleau was 2nd in goals to only ovechkin. and finished top 10 in selke in 2 of those years.

How is that better?

 

[MartyOwns]

Who is to say that he wouldn't? The fact that you can't answer either question is why it is a pointless thing to say. It's unprovable and not something to be used in this discussion in any legitimate way.

no shit, weren’t you the one who brought up the different eras nonsense? since we both agree it’s pointless, let’s remove it from the equation.

in their respective time periods, who consistently excelled amongst the other players (who would obviously also playing in their time period)? roenick? or marleau? the answer is roenick. marleau has really impressive durability and decent numbers, but roenick was clearly better in nearly every category.

look i don’t even care if marleau gets in, even if i’m not convinced he’s earned it. but if he does, there are some other players (elias, roenick etc) that need to go first

 

[Pinkfloyd]

How was Marleau equal or better?

I’m fully aware how different eras work. What I’m not understanding is how a different era can make up for the 30 some odd point difference between them. Even if you adjust the eras for scoring, Roenick will still come out better.

Let’s look at their best seasons not including Roenicks prime and Marleaus first 2 seasons after the lock out.

1999: 78-24-48-72/ age 29/ 2.63 GA
2009: 78-38-33-71/ age 29/ 2.91 GA

2000: 75-34-44-78/ age 30/ 2.75 GA
2010: 82-44-39-83/ age 30/ 2.84 GA

2001: 80-30-46-76/ age 31/ 2.76 GA
2011: 82-37-36-73/ age 31/ 2.79 GA

2002: 75-21-46-67/ age 32/ 2.62 GA
2012: 82-30-34-64/ age 32/ 2.73 GA

2014 is the only year Marleau did better than Roenick at the same age, but as you can see, although close, Roenick was better, in a lower scoring era, and on a team significantly worst than the Sharks.

Roenick's age 26 season through his season where he turned 33...189 goals, 288 assists in 538 games...Marleau in that 26-32 age range...234 goals, 269 assists in 559 games. Seven seasons for each of them. Pretty comparable and marginally in favor of Marleau. And no, actually...when you adjust for era, Roenick doesn't actually come out better. Marleau does. You can use hockeyreference as a way to cite that.

no ****, weren’t you the one who brought up the different eras nonsense? since we both agree it’s pointless, let’s remove it from the equation.

in their respective time periods, who consistently excelled amongst the other players (who would obviously also playing in their time period)? roenick? or marleau? the answer is roenick. marleau has really impressive durability and decent numbers, but roenick was clearly better in nearly every category.

look i don’t even care if marleau gets in, even if i’m not convinced he’s earned it. but if he does, there are some other players (elias, roenick etc) that need to go first

It's not really nonsense. You simply don't understand it. You can make adjustments for total points from various people in different eras but you can't definitively say one way or the other if someone not from an era is dropped into a different one succeeds or doesn't. Those are two different conversations to have. Roenick and Marleau were roughly equal in their relative success in their respective eras.

 

[Steve]

Turgeon never made it, so its pretty unlikely.

Also, has anybody ever had as quietly a successful career as Marleau?

This. I don’t think he will make it and he’s anything but flashy/exciting but his numbers are pretty incredible.

 

[Neutrinos]

IMO, he's Ryan Smyth with greater longevity (different style of play, of course, the comparison is based around on-ice impact)

If Thornton had been traded to Phoenix instead of San Jose, we'd be having this conversation about Shane Doan

 

[supsens]

I disagree. He was a great offensive Dman, but nothing more. The numbers are not everything, especially, if a player is a liability on the ice otherwise. No team ever got anywhere in the playoffs with him as their no.1 Dman. His best Norris finish was 3rd (1x). I could easily name 15-20 Dman who played in the same era as Housley who had a better career than him. I will grant you though that his induction was not as bad as Andreychuk's.

Great is the key word used. The guy played for twenty years, how many people should be in the hall of fame? 4?
Longevity and total production count a ton towards the hall, as they should. When people use a lame excuse like, he shouldn’t belong he only got all those points because he played so long.
It’s hard to keep a job in the NHL for extended periods.


The hall is a museum, invented before the internet. When people had no access to, records, points, players, old vids, nothing.
I think you are missing the entire reason for th HOF if you think only trophy winners get in.
Norris finish? What random people vote on/for? Rightttt
From 1981 until 2001 three people won almost every award for forwards. Does that mean only Gretz, Mario and jags should be in?

Third highest scoring American born player, fourth highest scoring d man. That means in over 100 years three guys managed to show up on NHL score sheets more then this guy. He more then belongs.. he is what they built the hall for