2010 Hall of Fame Inductees

[seventieslord]

Doug Gilmour
Just a threat everywhere he went, I don't think I need to make an argument of his leadership skills either.

Joe Nieuwendyk
Three Stanley Cups with Three different teams would probably be enough but he was also a great contributor to those runs, 564 career goals, lock written all over him.

Dave Andreychuk
A grinder really, his career numbers get him in and he was a pretty good leader, never the standout but always there, long stories career.

Pierre Turgeon
One of the unluckiest guys out there to not win a Cup, but he was a great player.

evidently you think career totals are everything. Let me assure you that they are not. A player's offensive dominance is much more important, not that they played an extra 5 years to add an extra 250 career points to their total.

And of course there is more to a player's game than offense. Gilmour provided plenty, Andreychuk and Nieuwendyk provided some later in their careers, and Turgeon contributed nothing.

From that list, only Gilmour should ever make it. The others were never among the league's most valuable players.

Gilmour has a 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 9th in Hart voting in his career. The other three combined have a 5th and a 13th.

 

[RECsGuy*]

The first set of statistics (regular season plus playoffs) are that of a retired non-Stanley Cup champion, non-Hall Of Famer. The rest of the numbers represent six non-Stanley Cup winning contemporaries (or, at the very least, those whose careers overlapped) that have gained induction into the hallowed shrine. Can you guess who these players are?

---

766 GP - 472 G (51 G/82 GMS AVG.) - 377 A - 849 PTS (91 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

---

1554 GP - 751 G (40 G/82 GMS AVG.) - 677 A - 1428 PTS (75 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

934 GP - 494 G - 581 A (51 A/82 GMS AVG.) - 1075 PTS (94 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

1285 GP - 548 - 960 (61 A/82 GMS AVG.) - 1508 PTS (96 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

819 GP - 452 G (45 A/82 GMS AVG.) - 331 A - 783 PTS (78 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

1070 GP - 483 G - 861 A (66 A/82 GMS AVG)- 1344 PTS (103 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

1181 GP - 587 G - 643 A (45 A/82 GMS AVG) - 1230 PTS (85 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

 

[kmad]

^ can you tell us about other aspects of their play?

Hall of Fame is not for statistic accumulators.

 

[MXD]

The first set of statistics (regular season plus playoffs) are that of a retired non-Stanley Cup champion, non-Hall Of Famer. The rest of the numbers represent six non-Stanley Cup winning contemporaries (or, at the very least, those whose careers overlapped) that have gained induction into the hallowed shrine. Can you guess who these players are?

---

766 GP - 472 G (51 G/82 GMS AVG.) - 377 A - 849 PTS (91 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

---

1554 GP - 751 G (40 G/82 GMS AVG.) - 677 A - 1428 PTS (75 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

934 GP - 494 G - 581 A (51 A/82 GMS AVG.) - 1075 PTS (94 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

1285 GP - 548 - 960 (61 A/82 GMS AVG.) - 1508 PTS (96 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

819 GP - 452 G (45 A/82 GMS AVG.) - 331 A - 783 PTS (78 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

1070 GP - 483 G - 861 A (66 A/82 GMS AVG)- 1344 PTS (103 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

1181 GP - 587 G - 643 A (45 A/82 GMS AVG) - 1230 PTS (85 PTS/82 GMS AVG)

I think you should've mentionned that you mixed playoffs stats with regular season stats, and is that a way to imply that since Peter Stastny is in the HHOF, Pavel Bure should be? Kindof a very bad logical comparable IMO. Even the Goulet comparable doesn't work very well, as both were worlds apart as far as playing style was concerned.

EDIT : You did, nevermind.

 

[MS]

1. Sergei Makarov - simply the best player not in the HHOF by a wide margin. Top-5 player in the world for most of the 1980s. Absolute disgrace he isn't in the HHOF yet.

2. Pavel Bure - one of only 10 players with five 50-goal seasons, one of the most dominant goalscorers ever, maybe the most exciting player ever to lace up skates.

3. Doug Gilmour - has the resume but has been made to wait because of off-ice stuff. Has been a good citizen for 7 years now since retiring, has waited long enough.

4. Mark Howe - best defender not in the HHOF, one of only two players in the modern era (Red Kelly the other) who were elite players at both forward and defense.

__________

Sadly, I suspect that the guys actually getting in will be :

Gilmour
Oates
Nieuwendyk
Housley

Oates is fine, even though I don't think he's the player/competitor that his numbers make him out to be.

Nieuwendyk looks good on paper but was rarely an elite player, especially in the final 15 years of his career.

Housley seems to be getting a media push and because he's a US defender with a ton of points has some pull. Hopefully not.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Joe Nieuwendyk
Three Stanley Cups with Three different teams would probably be enough but he was also a great contributor to those runs, 564 career goals, lock written all over him.

The mainstream media seems to consider Nieuwendyk an amazing playoff performer, but I think that reputation is false. A few points:

1. Most people probably remember his excellent playoffs in 1999, when he won the Conn Smythe, and assumed he played at that level his whole career. He didn't. It was far and away his best playoff performance and is not representative of the rest of his career.

Nieuwendyk was a deserving Smythe winner, though you can make an argument for quite a few players include Hasek, Belfour and Modano.

2. "Three Cups on three teams" in a nice bit of trivia, but he was only a key member of two of those teams, which, although still impressive, is far less exclusive.

In 1989, Nieuwendyk played well. I'd rank him as no better than the sixth best Flame (I feel he was clearly outplayed by MacInnis, Gilmour, Otto, Vernon, Otto and Mullen) -- but he still deserves credit for a very good postseason. It would be a travesty if Nieuwendyk was inducted before Gilmour, his former teammate.

I don't understand why people make a big deal out of his performance in 2003 - he was good while in healthy in 2003, but he was injured partway through the playoffs and ended up with less ice time than Pascal Rheaume, Grant Marshall and Sergei Brylin.

3. Despite his reputation, Nieuwendyk's offense takes a big dive in the playoffs (from 0.90 ppg in the regular season to 0.73 ppg in the playoffs).

Obviously there's more to hockey than stats. Nieuwendyk was one of the best face-off men in the league for his entire career, and he was known as a reliable veteran presence. However, it seems like you'd have to place a huge value on those intangibles to make up for his big drop in scoring. He was an adequate defensive player, which IMO doesn't hurt or help him.

Nieuwendyk played a lot of playoff games past his prime and that skews his average. His stats through 1998-99 (his Smythe year) are 0.99 ppg in the regular season and 0.89 ppg in the playoffs. Scoring usually drops around 10% in the playoffs so even looking at the numbers in an effort to be favourable to Nieuwendyk shows he's basically league average in terms of carrying over his regular season stats into the playoffs.

Nieuwendyk isn't a bad playoff performer, of course. I just thing his reputation far exceeds his accomplishments. I consider him a borderline HOFer.

 

[MS]

The mainstream media seems to consider Nieuwendyk an amazing playoff performer, but I think that reputation is false. A few points:

1. Most people probably remember his excellent playoffs in 1999, when he won the Conn Smythe, and assumed he played at that level his whole career. He didn't. It was far and away his best playoff performance and is not representative of the rest of his career.

Nieuwendyk was a deserving Smythe winner, though you can make an argument for quite a few players include Hasek, Belfour and Modano.

2. "Three Cups on three teams" in a nice bit of trivia, but he was only a key member of two of those teams, which, although still impressive, is far less exclusive.

In 1989, Nieuwendyk played well. I'd rank him as no better than the sixth best Flame (I feel he was clearly outplayed by MacInnis, Gilmour, Otto, Vernon, Otto and Mullen) -- but he still deserves credit for a very good postseason. It would be a travesty if Nieuwendyk was inducted before Gilmour, his former teammate.

I don't understand why people make a big deal out of his performance in 2003 - he was good while in healthy in 2003, but he was injured partway through the playoffs and ended up with less ice time than Pascal Rheaume, Grant Marshall and Sergei Brylin.

3. Despite his reputation, Nieuwendyk's offense takes a big dive in the playoffs (from 0.90 ppg in the regular season to 0.73 ppg in the playoffs).

Obviously there's more to hockey than stats. Nieuwendyk was one of the best face-off men in the league for his entire career, and he was known as a reliable veteran presence. However, it seems like you'd have to place a huge value on those intangibles to make up for his big drop in scoring. He was an adequate defensive player, which IMO doesn't hurt or help him.

Nieuwendyk played a lot of playoff games past his prime and that skews his average. His stats through 1998-99 (his Smythe year) are 0.99 ppg in the regular season and 0.89 ppg in the playoffs. Scoring usually drops around 10% in the playoffs so even looking at the numbers in an effort to be favourable to Nieuwendyk shows he's basically league average in terms of carrying over his regular season stats into the playoffs.

Nieuwendyk isn't a bad playoff performer, of course. I just thing his reputation far exceeds his accomplishments. I consider him a borderline HOFer.

Agreed completely, and I've made the same point in the past.

If anything you're being a bit generous in your description of his 1989 playoffs. He was a total non-factor 5-on-5 in that year. Scored his usual 6 PPG, but other than that was 4-2-6 in 22 games at ES as a front-line player on a Cup-winning team.

I wouldn't even have him as the 6th-best guy on that team. Loob outplayed him as well, and Colin Patterson played the best hockey of his injury-plagued career - 13 ES points while looking like a Selke-calibre defensive forward. Jamie Macoun and Rob Ramage were also outstanding in stepping up when Gary Suter was injured.

After that, Nieuwendyk doesn't win a playoff round for another decade until his Smythe season in 1999.

After that, he scores 24 points in 52 games over the next 4 seasons with Dallas/NJ, but wins another Cup as a depth player on the Devils.

He did turn in a great performance in the first round in 2004 with the Leafs before getting injured, and that was it.

Basically you have that one great year, and really not much else.

__________

Nieuwendyk has the nice career totals, won the right things, and seems like a really good guy away from the rink.

But his resume *really* makes him look better than he actually was.

Never a top-10 player in the game, a 2nd-line player for over half of his career who didn't top 75 points after his 4th season and scored more than 58 points once in his last 13 years. And it isn't like he was a Brind'Amour-type defensive force to mitigate his very average offensive numbers over that very long stretch.

It's amazing that a guy with 5 excellent (but not elite) regular seasons and 1 elite playoff gets treated like he was a consistently elite player for 20 years. He simply wasn't that good.

 

[nik jr]

i agree with HO and MS about nieuwendyk.

never a great player and would be a marginal induction.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Is there a case for putting Turgeon in over Nieuwendyk? I think it can be argued, although maybe not very convincingly.

 

[pnep]

pnep post HOF points please

Player|POS|NHL "HHOF Monitor" PTS
Claude "Secret Agent 14" Provost |RW|1330.50
Tom "Tomcat" Barrasso |G|1282.50
Pavel "The Russian Rocket" Bure |RW|1221.00
Doug "Killer" Gilmour |C|1190.50
Eric "Big E" Lindros |C|1164.00
Joe "Niewie" Nieuwendyk |C|1142.50
Adam "Oatsie" Oates |C|1084.50
John "Johnny Vermont" Leclair |LW|1048.50
Alexander "Alexander The Great" Mogilny |RW|1046.50
Mark Howe |D|1007.15
Paul Thompson |LW|1002.00
Bobby Rousseau |RW|982.00
Jean Guy Talbot |D|981.00
Dave "Davey" Kerr |G|977.50
Mike "Vernie" Vernon |G|960.00
Frank "Flash" Hollett |D|945.80
Theo "Mighty Mouse" Fleury |RW|929.00
Kevin "Artie" Stevens |LW|920.00
Pierre "Turg" Turgeon |C|911.00
Ralph "Ralphie" Backstrom |C|893.50
J.C. "Superstar" Tremblay |D|892.45
Rogie "Bono" Vachon |G|875.50
Guy "Carbo" Carbonneau |C|872.50
Robert "Butch" Goring |C|870.00
Mike "Lootty" Liut |G|868.00
Dave "Octopus" Andreychuk |LW|863.00
Gaye "Box Car" Stewart |LW|858.50
Ceece "Two Gun" Dillon |RW|855.50
Carl "Skitz" Brewer |D|844.90
Herb Cain |LW|843.00
Sid "Muff" Smith |LW|838.50
Rick "Rico" Martin |LW|837.00
Peter "Bonzai" Bondra |RW|830.00
Ken Hodge |RW|826.00
Phil "The Professor" Goyette |C|821.00
Vincent "Vinny" Damphousse |LW|819.75
Nick "Handy Andy" Metz |LW|816.00
Don Marshall |LW|808.50
Kenny "Whip" Wharram |RW|808.00
John "The Greasy Jet" Tonelli |LW|800.00
Don "Slip" Mckenney |C|797.00
Wayne "Cash" Cashman |LW|795.50
Kevin "Vicious" Lowe |D|795.40
Rick "Nifty" Middleton |RW|784.50
Marty "Sabu" Pavelich |LW|766.00
Bernie "Broadway Bernie" Nicholls |C|764.00
Bobby Smith |C|763.00
James R. "Jeems" Thomson |D|753.35
Ron "Hexy" Hextall |G|751.00
Dino "The Dinosaur" Ciccarelli |RW|750.00
Esa "The Grate One" Tikkanen |LW|749.50
John "Beezer" Vanbiesbrouck |G|748.00
Brian "Bells" Bellows |RW|747.50
Lorne "Chabotsky" Chabot |G|746.50
Kenny Mosdell |C|744.50
Reggie "The Riverton Rifle" Leach |RW|739.00
Doug Wilson |D|739.00
John "The Port Perry Woodpecker" Roach|G|736.00
Frank "The Slumbering Romeo" Finnigan |RW|735.50
Ed "The Shadow" Westfall|RW|722.40
Pete "Grumpy" Peeters |G|716.00
Billy Boucher |RW|715.50
Lorne Carr |RW|715.50
Johnny Gottselig |LW|713.50
Steve "Gramps" Larmer |RW|710.00
Camille "The Eel" Henry |LW|694.00
Brian "Propper" Propp |LW|691.00
Rick "Toc" Tocchet |RW|690.50
Edward "Ted" Harris |D|689.00
Tony "T-Bone" Amonte|RW|687.50
Dave "Stitch" Taylor |RW|687.00
Kirk "Captian Kirk" Muller |C|686.00
Terry "Harp" Harper |D|682.50
Glenn "Chico" Resch |G|677.50
Bob "Stretch" Nevin |RW|675.50
Charlie "Twitchy" Hodge|G|673.50
Pat "Little Ball Of Hate" Verbeek |RW|673.50
Pete "Litte M" Mahovlich|C|671.00
Wally "The Whirling Dervish" Stanowski |D|668.20
Tod "Slinker" Sloan |C|666.00
Ed "Litz" Litzenberger |RW|664.50
Mac "Flame" Mackell|C|662.00
Charlie Huddy |D|661.90
Larry "Little Dempsey" Aurie |RW|661.00
Danny "Tickets" Gare |RW|657.00
Dale "Hunts" Hunter |C|657.00
John "Mum" Mowers |G|655.50
Doug "Diesel" Mohns |D|654.30
Brent "Pup" Sutter |C|654.00
Corbett "Corb" Denneny |C|653.50
Phil Watson |C|652.50
Dollard "Dolly" St. Laurent |D|650.95
Roger "Roger The Dodger" Crozier |G|647.00
Jim W. Roberts |RW|645.45
Eric "Rico" Desjardins |D|645.05
Joe "The Duke Of Paducah" Klukay |LW|638.50
Gus "Old Hardrock" Mortson |D|638.40
Dean "The Dynamo" Prentice|LW|638.00
Ogilvie "Odie" Cleghorn |RW|636.50
Elwin "Al" Rollins|G|636.00

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Questions

Player|POS|NHL "HHOF Monitor" PTS
Claude "Secret Agent 14" Provost |RW|1330.50
Tom "Tomcat" Barrasso |G|1282.50
Pavel "The Russian Rocket" Bure |RW|1221.00
Doug "Killer" Gilmour |C|1190.50
Eric "Big E" Lindros |C|1164.00
Joe "Niewie" Nieuwendyk |C|1142.50
Adam "Oatsie" Oates |C|1084.50
John "Johnny Vermont" Leclair |LW|1048.50
Alexander "Alexander The Great" Mogilny |RW|1046.50
Mark Howe |D|1007.15
Paul Thompson |LW|1002.00
Bobby Rousseau |RW|982.00
Jean Guy Talbot |D|981.00
Dave "Davey" Kerr |G|977.50
Mike "Vernie" Vernon |G|960.00
Frank "Flash" Hollett |D|945.80
Theo "Mighty Mouse" Fleury |RW|929.00
Kevin "Artie" Stevens |LW|920.00
Pierre "Turg" Turgeon |C|911.00
Ralph "Ralphie" Backstrom |C|893.50
J.C. "Superstar" Tremblay |D|892.45
Rogie "Bono" Vachon |G|875.50
Guy "Carbo" Carbonneau |C|872.50
Robert "Butch" Goring |C|870.00
Mike "Lootty" Liut |G|868.00
Dave "Octopus" Andreychuk |LW|863.00
Gaye "Box Car" Stewart |LW|858.50
Ceece "Two Gun" Dillon |RW|855.50
Carl "Skitz" Brewer |D|844.90
Herb Cain |LW|843.00
Sid "Muff" Smith |LW|838.50
Rick "Rico" Martin |LW|837.00
Peter "Bonzai" Bondra |RW|830.00
Ken Hodge |RW|826.00
Phil "The Professor" Goyette |C|821.00
Vincent "Vinny" Damphousse |LW|819.75
Nick "Handy Andy" Metz |LW|816.00
Don Marshall |LW|808.50
Kenny "Whip" Wharram |RW|808.00
John "The Greasy Jet" Tonelli |LW|800.00
Don "Slip" Mckenney |C|797.00
Wayne "Cash" Cashman |LW|795.50
Kevin "Vicious" Lowe |D|795.40
Rick "Nifty" Middleton |RW|784.50
Marty "Sabu" Pavelich |LW|766.00
Bernie "Broadway Bernie" Nicholls |C|764.00
Bobby Smith |C|763.00
James R. "Jeems" Thomson |D|753.35
Ron "Hexy" Hextall |G|751.00
Dino "The Dinosaur" Ciccarelli |RW|750.00
Esa "The Grate One" Tikkanen |LW|749.50
John "Beezer" Vanbiesbrouck |G|748.00
Brian "Bells" Bellows |RW|747.50
Lorne "Chabotsky" Chabot |G|746.50
Kenny Mosdell |C|744.50
Reggie "The Riverton Rifle" Leach |RW|739.00
Doug Wilson |D|739.00
John "The Port Perry Woodpecker" Roach|G|736.00
Frank "The Slumbering Romeo" Finnigan |RW|735.50
Ed "The Shadow" Westfall|RW|722.40
Pete "Grumpy" Peeters |G|716.00
Billy Boucher |RW|715.50
Lorne Carr |RW|715.50
Johnny Gottselig |LW|713.50
Steve "Gramps" Larmer |RW|710.00
Camille "The Eel" Henry |LW|694.00
Brian "Propper" Propp |LW|691.00
Rick "Toc" Tocchet |RW|690.50
Edward "Ted" Harris |D|689.00
Tony "T-Bone" Amonte|RW|687.50
Dave "Stitch" Taylor |RW|687.00
Kirk "Captian Kirk" Muller |C|686.00
Terry "Harp" Harper |D|682.50
Glenn "Chico" Resch |G|677.50
Bob "Stretch" Nevin |RW|675.50
Charlie "Twitchy" Hodge|G|673.50
Pat "Little Ball Of Hate" Verbeek |RW|673.50
Pete "Litte M" Mahovlich|C|671.00
Wally "The Whirling Dervish" Stanowski |D|668.20
Tod "Slinker" Sloan |C|666.00
Ed "Litz" Litzenberger |RW|664.50
Mac "Flame" Mackell|C|662.00
Charlie Huddy |D|661.90
Larry "Little Dempsey" Aurie |RW|661.00
Danny "Tickets" Gare |RW|657.00
Dale "Hunts" Hunter |C|657.00
John "Mum" Mowers |G|655.50
Doug "Diesel" Mohns |D|654.30
Brent "Pup" Sutter |C|654.00
Corbett "Corb" Denneny |C|653.50
Phil Watson |C|652.50
Dollard "Dolly" St. Laurent |D|650.95
Roger "Roger The Dodger" Crozier |G|647.00
Jim W. Roberts |RW|645.45
Eric "Rico" Desjardins |D|645.05
Joe "The Duke Of Paducah" Klukay |LW|638.50
Gus "Old Hardrock" Mortson |D|638.40
Dean "The Dynamo" Prentice|LW|638.00
Ogilvie "Odie" Cleghorn |RW|636.50
Elwin "Al" Rollins|G|636.00

Thank you pnep.

Your table raises some interesting points.

If Mark Howe, why not John Leclair, Alexander Mogilny,Paul Thompson, Bobby Rousseau or Jean - Guy Talbot? Cannot make an argument for any of the four although like Mark Howe the careers of John Leclair and Alexander Mogilny were negatively affected by injury.

Gilmour, Bure, Lindros, Nieuwendyk, Oates, throw in Leclair and Mogilny and basically you have a parallel debate. The "Injury Factor". Bure, Lindros, Leclair and Mogilny had similar careers, even though injury plagued, to Gilmour. Oates and Nieuwendyk who played their careers relatively free of injury.Bure's skating while impressive put his knees at risk - rolling style. Lindros played with his head down. Leclair and Mogilny similar to Richard Martin suffered injuries that were not the result of flaws in their game. Should the HHOF account for such instances and if so how are injuries to be considered? Again we are not looking at exceptional, once in a lifetime talents like Bobby Orr.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

If I had a vote I'd correct past wrongs:

M. Howe
R. Middleton
C. Provost
JC. Tremblay

Oates, Gilmour and Makarov, amongst others, are also deserving, but the guys I've listed have waited too long.

 

[seventieslord]

Is there a case for putting Turgeon in over Nieuwendyk? I think it can be argued, although maybe not very convincingly.

I would say yes, there's a case. Turgeon was at least an elite-level scorer for over half of his career.

Thank you pnep.

Your table raises some interesting points.

If Mark Howe, why not John Leclair, Alexander Mogilny,Paul Thompson, Bobby Rousseau or Jean - Guy Talbot? Cannot make an argument for any of the four although like Mark Howe the careers of John Leclair and Alexander Mogilny were negatively affected by injury.

Mark Howe was the 2nd-best defenseman in the NHL three times and voted among the league's five most valuable players twice. Players like the ones you named can't make claims like that.

Gilmour, Bure, Lindros, Nieuwendyk, Oates, throw in Leclair and Mogilny and basically you have a parallel debate. The "Injury Factor". Bure, Lindros, Leclair and Mogilny had similar careers, even though injury plagued, to Gilmour. Oates and Nieuwendyk who played their careers relatively free of injury.[/quote]

I would like to know how you think Bure, LeClair and Mogilny have careers or legacies similar to that of Gilmour and Oates.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Other Seasons

I would say yes, there's a case. Turgeon was at least an elite-level scorer for over half of his career.



Mark Howe was the 2nd-best defenseman in the NHL three times and voted among the league's five most valuable players twice. Players like the ones you named can't make claims like that.

Gilmour, Bure, Lindros, Nieuwendyk, Oates, throw in Leclair and Mogilny and basically you have a parallel debate. The "Injury Factor". Bure, Lindros, Leclair and Mogilny had similar careers, even though injury plagued, to Gilmour. Oates and Nieuwendyk who played their careers relatively free of injury.

I would like to know how you think Bure, LeClair and Mogilny have careers or legacies similar to that of Gilmour and Oates.[/QUOTE]

Mark Howe. Three time first team AS but no other AS selections. Two time top five Hart candidate. Clustered within a five season period. Good five year run but one would expect a bit more during the other years and it did not happen.Very little progress, five year spike upwards then a drop back to the pack. No 2nd team AS, etc.
Comparisons may be made to a Pat Stapleton who played in an earlier era.

Bure, Leclair, Mogilny vs Gilmour and Oates. All had attractive elements to their game that could be used to make a HHOF case. Bure the goal scoring and explosiveness, Leclair the power forward aspect, Mogilny the scoring in a "dead puck" era, Gilmour the leadership and intensity, Oates the playmaking. Conversely a case can be made against each. Bure the individualist, Leclair more of a passenger than a take charge power forward, Mogilny never knew when he would come to play, Gilmour and Oates - a knack for wearing out their welcome. Basically you have a group of players that brought issues as well as talent.

 

[pitseleh]

Mark Howe. Three time first team AS but no other AS selections. Two time top five Hart candidate. Clustered within a five season period. Good five year run but one would expect a bit more during the other years and it did not happen.Very little progress, five year spike upwards then a drop back to the pack. No 2nd team AS, etc.
Comparisons may be made to a Pat Stapleton who played in an earlier era.

Howe's resume is certainly stronger than Stapleton's - Stapleton was never a first-team all-star nor was he ever a Hart candidate.

On the other hand, Howe certainly has a stronger resume than a number of defencemen currently enshrined in the Hall. Babe Pratt is in on the basis of a couple of strong years during the war depleted NHL. Hap Day, Leo Boivin, and Red Horner never made an all-star team. Harry Howell was very consistent but only had one great year. Allan Stanley, Art Coulter, Sylvio Mantha, and Fernie Flaman got in without ever making the first team.

 

[seventieslord]

Mark Howe. Three time first team AS but no other AS selections. Two time top five Hart candidate. Clustered within a five season period. Good five year run but one would expect a bit more during the other years and it did not happen.Very little progress, five year spike upwards then a drop back to the pack. No 2nd team AS, etc.
Comparisons may be made to a Pat Stapleton who played in an earlier era.

As pitseleh said - poor comparison.

Howe didn't just fall back into the pack. Besides his three norris runner-up seasons, he was 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th in Norris voting. He was clearly regarded highly throughout his prime.

overpass' adjusted +/- numbers show that when Howe was in Philadelphia, they were even with him on the bench, but he was +400. And they were an excellent team almost the whole time. That's an on-ice impact that anyone would be hard-pressed to match.

Bure, Leclair, Mogilny vs Gilmour and Oates. All had attractive elements to their game that could be used to make a HHOF case. Bure the goal scoring and explosiveness, Leclair the power forward aspect, Mogilny the scoring in a "dead puck" era, Gilmour the leadership and intensity, Oates the playmaking. Conversely a case can be made against each. Bure the individualist, Leclair more of a passenger than a take charge power forward, Mogilny never knew when he would come to play, Gilmour and Oates - a knack for wearing out their welcome. Basically you have a group of players that brought issues as well as talent.

No GM today, after seeing how their careers turned out, would take Bure, LeClair, or Mogilny over Gilmour or Oates.

 

[Canadiens1958]

True.................

Howe's resume is certainly stronger than Stapleton's - Stapleton was never a first-team all-star nor was he ever a Hart candidate.

On the other hand, Howe certainly has a stronger resume than a number of defencemen currently enshrined in the Hall. Babe Pratt is in on the basis of a couple of strong years during the war depleted NHL. Hap Day, Leo Boivin, and Red Horner never made an all-star team. Harry Howell was very consistent but only had one great year. Allan Stanley, Art Coulter, Sylvio Mantha, and Fernie Flaman got in without ever making the first team.

True but all the defensemen you list played all or a significant part of their careers before Bobby Orr changed the way hockey people appreciate defensemen. Some even played in the pre forward passing or pre red line eras.

Taking contemporaries of Mark Howe - Doug Wilson and Randy Carlyle. Both won Norris trophies, Wilson had some AS selections, Carlyle had one. Are they HHOF quality? Probably not.

Conversely Sylvio Mantha anchored the defense of a few Stanley Cup winning teams. Day was a function of his playing and coaching talents.

Coming full circle to Mark Howe. The comparisons to players who had similar credentials but are not HHOFers is closer amongst contemporaries or prior generation than those players who are HHOFers. Example would be J.C. Tremblay. Numbers and accomplishments look good but Jacques Laperriere was more valuable to the 1960's Canadiens on a game after game basis. Then you look at what Lapointe, Robinson, Savard did afterwards and Jean Guy Talbot did before and during and you can see the why not.

Personally I could live with both Howe and Tremblay being enshrined but I also understand why they have yet to attain the status.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Mark Howe

As pitseleh said - poor comparison.

Howe didn't just fall back into the pack. Besides his three norris runner-up seasons, he was 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th in Norris voting. He was clearly regarded highly throughout his prime.

overpass' adjusted +/- numbers show that when Howe was in Philadelphia, they were even with him on the bench, but he was +400. And they were an excellent team almost the whole time. That's an on-ice impact that anyone would be hard-pressed to match.



No GM today, after seeing how their careers turned out, would take Bure, LeClair, or Mogilny over Gilmour or Oates.

Mark Howe. Well Brad McCrimmon has a slightly better career +/- and he paired with Mark Howe during much of his NHL career.In fact Mark Howe's last AS nomination coincided with Brad McCrimmon's last Flyer season and Mark Howe's performance never reached the same level.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mccribr01.html

So connecting the dots may point in another direction especially given McCrimmon's contribution to the 1989 Flames SC.

Re your GM analogy. Perhaps, although there are a few Mike Milbury clones running teams - Atlanta, Calgary to name two. Regardless your analogy does not make any one of the players a better or worse HHOF candidate. You still have to cover or explain away flaws that each brought to the rink.

 

[seventieslord]

Mark Howe. Well Brad McCrimmon has a slightly better career +/- and he paired with Mark Howe during much of his NHL career.In fact Mark Howe's last AS nomination coincided with Brad McCrimmon's last Flyer season and Mark Howe's performance never reached the same level.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mccribr01.html

So connecting the dots may point in another direction especially given McCrimmon's contribution to the 1989 Flames SC.

McCrimmon was a very solid defenseman. But he did not have the on-ice impact of Howe. Comparinmg career +/- doesn't tell the whole story as it is team-influenced. Adjusted +/-, however, starts to get to the heart of the matter.

McCrimmon had adjusted +/- ratings of 1, -3, 22, 76 and 30 in his five seasons with Philadelphia from 1983-1987. Howe's ratings in those seasons were 27, 13, 17, 79, and 47. I can't say for sure which seasons they played together but based on this it appears that it was the 1985 and 1986 seasons. Howe led McCrimmon by 5 and 3 points these seasons so even if they had influence on eachother (which is very likely) things still went better for the Flyers in the instances where Howe was on the ice and McCrimmon wasn't, compared to the opposite. In the other three seasons, the discrepancies were 27, 16, and 17, always in favour of Howe.

That covers the time they were together. What about the time they were apart? In the three NHL seasons they each spent prior to joining the Flyers, McCrimmon was -18 compared to his average teammate, and Howe was +74. In the seven years following their separation up to the age of 38, Howe was +122 compared to his teammates (about +17 per season), and McCrimmon was +120 over the next ten years (about +12 per season) through to age 37.

This is not to take anything away from Brad McCrimmon, but to show that Howe's excellent on-ice impact on goal differential was before, during, and after his time with McCrimmon, and McCrimmon's numbers were not as good before or after Howe.

Re your GM analogy. Perhaps, although there are a few Mike Milbury clones running teams - Atlanta, Calgary to name two. Regardless your analogy does not make any one of the players a better or worse HHOF candidate. You still have to cover or explain away flaws that each brought to the rink.

Everyone has flaws, even Gretzky and Orr. It's just a matter of how many and how large. Oates and Gilmour didn't have enough flaws to keep them out of the hall forever. Bure might. Leclair and Mogilny certainly did.

 

[MS]

No GM today, after seeing how their careers turned out, would take Bure, LeClair, or Mogilny over Gilmour or Oates.

Agreed for most of those comparisons, but not Bure vs. Oates. I'd put Bure in ahead of Oates every time.

Oates just ... bothers me for some reason. I know he'll get in eventually and with his career assist totals he deserves to, but I've never liked him as a player to the extent that his raw numbers impress.

To me, he was a passionless player and a mercenary (requested trades away from the two most successful stops in his career for money reasons), and never really won anything of significance. Was also never selected to Team Canada for any international tournament. I believe he also declined invites to the WCs several times after early playoff exits, which doesn't help my assessment of his character/competitiveness.

I find him to be a bit of a reverse Bondra in that his numbers become more impressive because they're skewed one way - in Bondra's case lots of goals but no assists, in Oates' case the opposite.

If Adam Oates had 150 fewer assists and 150 more goals over the course of his career, I don't think the difference between he and Pierre Turgeon - a guy few people here think belongs in the HHOF - is very much at all.

___________

Bure was just a flat-out dominant goalscorer, one of the greatest ever. And maybe the most exciting player ever to play the sport.

I'll keep posting the list of players who posted five 50-goal seasons, because when you see the list (to me at least) and the players on it, it makes it crystal-clear what a slam dunk Bure should be :

Mike Bossy
Marcel Dionne
Phil Esposito
Wayne Gretzky
Bobby Hull
Brett Hull
Guy Lafleur
Mario Lemieux
Steve Yzerman
Pavel Bure

One of the most exclusive groups in the game.

 

[pitseleh]

I find him to be a bit of a reverse Bondra in that his numbers become more impressive because they're skewed one way - in Bondra's case lots of goals but no assists, in Oates' case the opposite.

If Adam Oates had 150 fewer assists and 150 more goals over the course of his career, I don't think the difference between he and Pierre Turgeon - a guy few people here think belongs in the HHOF - is very much at all.

Isn't the same also true for Bure? If he had fewer goals and more assists he basically turns in to Ken Wharram.

Oates at least went 3, 3, 3, 7, 10, 10, 10 in points. Turgeon went 5, 7 in points. Bure went 2, 3, 5, 7 in points.

 

[MS]

Isn't the same also true for Bure? If he had fewer goals and more assists he basically turns in to Ken Wharram.

Oates at least went 3, 3, 3, 7, 10, 10, 10 in points. Turgeon went 5, 7 in points. Bure went 2, 3, 5, 7 in points.

The problem for Turgeon is that he got injured and missed 15+ games in 4 of his 6 best seasons, and in each of those seasons he would have cakewalked to a top-5 finish in league scoring if he didn't get hurt. Take 1999-00, where Turgeon scores 66 points in 52 games. If he scores 30 points in the other 30 games, he wins the Art Ross that year.

Now, full credit to Oates for staying healthy and of course Turgeon doesn't get full credit for injured seasons, but the difference there isn't huge. In fact, Turgeon was probably a more dominant offensive player when he was healthy, but that isn't reflected in the top-10 finishes.

When I look at those two players, I see one guy who's been ridiculously over-criticized for being a softish skill player who didn't win anything (especially when you look at his playoff scoring record, which is actually pretty good) and another player who seems to get a total free pass for the exact same thing.

__________

As for Bure, yeah, I guess you could make that point. Although he only played 5 full seasons and was top-10 in scoring 4 times, which is pretty damned impressive even if you even out the goal:assist ratio.

But Bure is a special case to me because of how he played. He transcended the game, and completely re-defined what a player could possibly do with the puck at top speed. 50 years from now, geezers will be sitting on porches marvelling at having had the opportunity to see Bure play and the things he did. He's a legend, one of the most dynamic players ever to play the sport.

The only knock on him is longevity, and my answer to that is the list above - a longevity-based list that puts him in with 10 of the greatest goalscorers the game has ever seen.

 

[Eisen]

Doug Gilmour
Just a threat everywhere he went, I don't think I need to make an argument of his leadership skills either.

Joe Nieuwendyk
Three Stanley Cups with Three different teams would probably be enough but he was also a great contributor to those runs, 564 career goals, lock written all over him.

Dave Andreychuk
A grinder really, his career numbers get him in and he was a pretty good leader, never the standout but always there, long stories career.

Pierre Turgeon
One of the unluckiest guys out there to not win a Cup, but he was a great player.

Of this list I would only take Gilmour.
Everyone loves Nieuwendyk nut was he ever the best player on one of his teams? Yes, he has a Smythe although it wouldn't have been outrageous if someone else won it that year. Always a great addition but never THE go to guy. Somewhat of a compiler too. Same with Andreychuk albeit a bit worse even IMHO. Turgeon is a funny case. Better than both of the beforementioned. His numbers are good but hardly any hardware to back his claim up and his rep is killing him.

 

[MXD]

The Stapleton comparison is not THAT OFF...
It's just that Howe has a thing that Stapleton doesn't really have -- Howe was the leading d-men of a team that failed to win the Cup, but was otherwise very good. Can't exactly say that Stapleton had that much of an impact on the Blackhawks...

Though, the biggest "wow!" about Howe needs some number-crunching, and I don't think the HHOF committee is about number-crunching. If it was the case, Howe would already be in.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Comparing LeClair is Howe is laughable. LeClair has more all-star nods, because of the position he played. Brian Propp was a better player than LeClair and never got an all-star nod.

Howe was the best player, and far and away the most valuable player on the 80's Flyers team (the best ever to not win a Cup).

LeClair was the 4th most valuable player of the 90's Flyers (Desjardins, Lindros, Brind'amour).