Does Marleau need a cup to be a hof player

[Rants Mulliniks]

Maybe level of skill is incorporated into playing ability? He's certainly been an above average player throughout his career, but I've never thought of him as a Hall of Fame level player. Of course, I still feel that way about guys like Ciccarelli and Andreychuk, so what do I know? I'm not into the "he was pretty for a long time" crowd, when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

Dino got in despite violating one of the four criteria (character) by having two criminal convictions. Of course so did Harold Ballard and Alan Eagleson (though he stepped down).

Mike Gartner is another guy who falls into the Marleau style debate. Gartner never won the Stanley Cup or played in the Cup Finals, never won an NHL award, and was never named to the postseason All-Star Team.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

I’m far from the only one who thinks what I think. Marleau simply isn’t a strong enough player in his own right.

Again, most have said they personally wouldn't put him there on THEIR criteria but the committee has shown several times that players of his ilk get in.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

That’s the Hall is for the best of the best, and clinging to the few who don’t belong there to boost Marleaus value doesn’t help much.

But the people who actually decide have shown that they believe players of that ilk to fit the criteria.

 

[Dustin]

So your saying Marleau character and sportsmanship are HOF worthy. That he’s on a different level in those regards than most of the league?

All I'm saying is that the requirements are ambiguous enough that a player like Marleau will most likely get enough support to get in eventually.

 

[iginlafan77]

It's cherrypicking because the names you chose are far from the worst players in the Hall.

Federko and Mullen are among the worst. While Federko's numbers look superficially good to us now, he played in the run-and-gun 80s. Look beyond his raw stats. Not a single award. Never a top-2 team all-star. Not even a third team all-star.

Adjust his numbers and he's OBVIOUSLY worse than Marleau. At least Joe Mullen has the cups and one first-team all-star appearance.

There are at least several players in the HOF worse than Marleau. Apart from the above two, we can name Clark Gillies, Dick Duff, Glenn Anderson, Leo Boivin. Dave Andreychuk, Bill Barber and Lanny McDonald borderline.

Awful argument. A couple bad inductions should not mean anyone better than them gets in.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Awful argument. A couple bad inductions should not mean anyone better than them gets in.

Not by default but it does tell us that anyone better than them has a definite shot.

 

[Thenameless]

Mike Gartner is another guy who falls into the Marleau style debate. Gartner never won the Stanley Cup or played in the Cup Finals, never won an NHL award, and was never named to the postseason All-Star Team.

Yeah, I kind of omitted him on purpose. Have a bit of a soft spot for the speedster with 700 goals. Got shafted when he was traded from the Rangers in 94. I know he was traded for more grit, but I'm pretty sure the Rangers would have still won the Cup with him on the roster - they might have won even more easily in fact.

 

[Dustin]

Maybe level of skill is incorporated into playing ability? He's certainly been an above average player throughout his career, but I've never thought of him as a Hall of Fame level player. Of course, I still feel that way about guys like Ciccarelli and Andreychuk, so what do I know? I'm not into the "he was pretty for a long time" crowd, when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

I'm sure it is but using PPG or suggesting the player in question meet certain requirements like be the best player on a team are not ever mentioned. I truly believe the wording is done in such a way that an argument can be made for many different types of players.

We feel similar in terms of who should or should not be in but as I've said before I would rather the Hall err on letting people in as opposed to keeping people out.

 

[Dustin]

Dino got in despite violating one of the four criteria (character) by having two criminal convictions. Of course so did Harold Ballard and Alan Eagleson (though he stepped down).

Mike Gartner is another guy who falls into the Marleau style debate. Gartner never won the Stanley Cup or played in the Cup Finals, never won an NHL award, and was never named to the postseason All-Star Team.

Yup. I feel like Marleau is this generations Gartner in a lot of ways.

 

[GreatGonzo]

All I'm saying is that the requirements are ambiguous enough that a player like Marleau will most likely get enough support to get in eventually.

Can you at least name a player or two that got in based on the “Marleau requirements?”

 

[Dustin]

Can you at least name a player or two that got in based on the “Marleau requirements?”

Any player that has scored as many goals, assists and points as Marleau that is in the Hall. Milestones are milestones regardless of how long it took you to get them.

Gartner is a decent comparable but I would say Gartner was a little better.

 

[Sky04]

Not good enough, hall would be scrapping bottom of the barrel inducting him.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Any player that has scored as many goals, assists and points as Marleau that is in the Hall. Milestones are milestones regardless of how long it took you to get them.

Gartner is a decent comparable but I would say Gartner was a little better.

But there are players that still aren’t in that meet those standards that you have, and they aren’t in for good reason. Why is Marleau special? Your basically giving him a pass for merely being healthy while not being impactful.

Gartner is comparable? The guy has 700 goals, only 7 players have that many goals. He also sits 7th among them. This is a terrible comparison. The minute Marleau is a top 10 all time goal scorer, then you have a better case.

 

[hohosaregood]

Only way I think he could do it is if he gets the game played record. It'd be a special achievement in the NHL and games played is a recognized achievement amongst the players but I can't decide if that would only leave him as an interesting trivia fact or if it should be recognized further. He'd probably have to demolish the record and not just eke past Howe.

 

[Dustin]

But there are players that still aren’t in that meet those standards that you have, and they aren’t in for good reason. Why is Marleau special? Your basically giving him a pass for merely being healthy while not being impactful.

Gartner is comparable? The guy has 700 goals, only 7 players have that many goals. He also sits 7th among them. This is a terrible comparison. The minute Marleau is a top 10 all time goal scorer, then you have a better case.

So top 10 of all time Hall of Fame, 29th and counting all time, lucky to even be in the league.

Gartner played his entire career in the highest scoring time ever in the NHL. Again I like Gartner and I would say he's better than Marleau but in no way was Gartner considered the elite of the elite.

My assumption is that Marleau will sit at 23rd all time in goals by the time this contract ends. If he plays another season after that, probably end his career as the 21st leading goal scorer of all time. Seems worthy to me.

He's currently 53rd all time in points and will most likely finish in the top 50.

Games played he's currently 9th all time and when all is said and done will finished at the very least 5th. All time.

All these seem like good milestones to me. Again I'm not saying Marleau is a first ballot hall of famer but his numbers are good enough that I believe he should be in. The league isn't filled with guys who can keep up for 20 years and still put up decent numbers. If that's Marleau's legacy I think it's worthy enough to be in the Hall.

Edit* So Marleau shouldn't be allowed in just because other lesser players like him have been inducted in the past but on the same hand, players that have not made it should be direct comparables to Marleau. You see the double standard there right? If there are players that have hit similar milestones to Marleau, then I think they should be in the Hall, whether they are or should be.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

But there are players that still aren’t in that meet those standards that you have, and they aren’t in for good reason. Why is Marleau special? Your basically giving him a pass for merely being healthy while not being impactful.

Gartner is comparable? The guy has 700 goals, only 7 players have that many goals. He also sits 7th among them. This is a terrible comparison. The minute Marleau is a top 10 all time goal scorer, then you have a better case.

All that scoring but never an All Star? How come?

I'll give you the answer. He was almost never in the top 10(4 times at 5, 9, 9, 9) and actually not that often in the top 20 (10 times outside the top 20, twice at 19). Several times lower than 30th in goals. So when people talk to you about the importance of adjusting scores for era, perhaps it will make more sense for you and you won't need to throw out "OMG 700 goals".

 

[GreatGonzo]

All that scoring but never an All Star? How come?

I'll give you the answer. He was almost never in the top 10 and actually not that often in the top 20. Several times lower than 30th in goals. So when people talk to you about the importance of adjusting scores for era, perhaps it will make more sense for you and you won't need to throw out "OMG 700 goals".

Even adjusted, Gartner has more top 10 goal finishes than Marleau. But I hate using adjusted stats. They aren’t “real” stats.

So top 10 of all time Hall of Fame, 29th and counting all time, lucky to even be in the league.

Gartner played his entire career in the highest scoring time ever in the NHL. Again I like Gartner and I would say he's better than Marleau but in no way was Gartner considered the elite of the elite.

My assumption is that Marleau will sit at 23rd all time in goals by the time this contract ends. If he plays another season after that, probably end his career as the 21st leading goal scorer of all time. Seems worthy to me.

He's currently 53rd all time in points and will most likely finish in the top 50.

Games played he's currently 9th all time and when all is said and done will finished at the very least 5th. All time.

All these seem like good milestones to me. Again I'm not saying Marleau is a first ballot hall of famer but his numbers are good enough that I believe he should be in. The league isn't filled with guys who can keep up for 20 years and still put up decent numbers. If that's Marleau's legacy I think it's worthy enough to be in the Hall.

Edit* So Marleau shouldn't be allowed in just because other lesser players like him have been inducted in the past but on the same hand, players that have not made it should be direct comparables to Marleau. You see the double standard there right? If there are players that have hit similar milestones to Marleau, then I think they should be in the Hall, whether they are or should be.

I’m not going to touch your opening statement because it’s just a sad attempt to strawman.

So you want to punish Gartner for the era he scored in, even if he was one of the best....while praising Marleau for being mediocre in a lower scoring era? That’s strange.

Which is a great accomplishment. He also has the lowest PPG among the top 50. Even if he continues to climb, once again...it would be just compiling at that point.

Cool, how many of those games/seasons was he actually a top level player? Oh that’s right, that doesn’t matter. Basically the HOF is a tournament and Marleau gets a Participation ribbon, which is treated the same as the tournament MVP.

Never said they weren’t good milestones, but your the one that once to reward any and every player that reaches these milestones. Where is the line? When do the standards actually matter?

Players like him? Like who? Andreychuk? Who still had a more impressive peak and prime with a stanley cup. Sure, he shouldn’t be allowed in....but he still had more reasons to induct than Marleau does. There are players that were better than Marleau who still aren’t in the Hall. Turgeon, Roenick, etc.....But your saying that doesn’t matter, Marleau deserves it because him and Turgeon/Roenick both have 500 goals/1000 points. No context is needed, all the same caliber of players.

 

[ClydeLee]

Even adjusted, Gartner has more top 10 goal finishes than Marleau. But I hate using adjusted stats. They aren’t “real” stats.

I’m not going to touch your opening statement because it’s just a sad attempt to strawman.

So you want to punish Gartner for the era he scored in, even if he was one of the best....while praising Marleau for being mediocre in a lower scoring era? That’s strange.

Which is a great accomplishment. He also has the lowest PPG among the top 50. Even if he continues to climb, once again...it would be just compiling at that point.

Cool, how many of those games/seasons was he actually a top level player? Oh that’s right, that doesn’t matter. Basically the HOF is a tournament and Marleau gets a Participation ribbon, which is treated the same as the tournament MVP.

Never said they weren’t good milestones, but your the one that once to reward any and every player that reaches these milestones. Where is the line? When do the standards actually matter?

Players like him? Like who? Andreychuk? Who still had a more impressive peak and prime with a stanley cup. Sure, he shouldn’t be allowed in....but he still had more reasons to induct than Marleau does. There are players that were better than Marleau who still aren’t in the Hall. Turgeon, Roenick, etc.....But your saying that doesn’t matter, Marleau deserves it because him and Turgeon/Roenick both have 500 goals/1000 points. No context is needed, all the same caliber of players.

What outside the NHL accomplishments and accommodations do those guys have?

It's the hockey hof, these things to matter and add to a career. You can say Marleau was just a tagalong didnt matter to win two golds, but he was still good enough to be there. Turgeon wasnt on any pro team. Even if some people say that's from some wjc politics where he was judged to be soft, it factors especially to the mentality of the hockey world. Those two especially have less than glorious old boys club reputations that may have hurt their odds. But in turn a guy like Marleau will have the supposed good character & leadership claims to boost him.

The question of will, not any relevance to should, a guy make the hof absolutely needs to be focused on the views and mentalities of voters of this unless you think within 10 years the HHoF voter mentality is changing, I don't get how one could ignore the how qualities like leadership, winning, and stat compiling get treated. You can call these things BS, but to hockey players they count.

 

[Dustin]

Even adjusted, Gartner has more top 10 goal finishes than Marleau. But I hate using adjusted stats. They aren’t “real” stats.

I’m not going to touch your opening statement because it’s just a sad attempt to strawman.

So you want to punish Gartner for the era he scored in, even if he was one of the best....while praising Marleau for being mediocre in a lower scoring era? That’s strange.

Which is a great accomplishment. He also has the lowest PPG among the top 50. Even if he continues to climb, once again...it would be just compiling at that point.

Cool, how many of those games/seasons was he actually a top level player? Oh that’s right, that doesn’t matter. Basically the HOF is a tournament and Marleau gets a Participation ribbon, which is treated the same as the tournament MVP.

Never said they weren’t good milestones, but your the one that once to reward any and every player that reaches these milestones. Where is the line? When do the standards actually matter?

Players like him? Like who? Andreychuk? Who still had a more impressive peak and prime with a stanley cup. Sure, he shouldn’t be allowed in....but he still had more reasons to induct than Marleau does. There are players that were better than Marleau who still aren’t in the Hall. Turgeon, Roenick, etc.....But your saying that doesn’t matter, Marleau deserves it because him and Turgeon/Roenick both have 500 goals/1000 points. No context is needed, all the same caliber of players.

There's not really any more point to our conversation. It's clear that we don't agree on what defines a Hall of Fame player. If it were up to me Roenick and Turgeon would absolutely be in the Hall. Either way I'm not going to hold previous players not making it against future players.

I respect your opinion and I'm certainly not going to get into an argument over whether Marleau is a HHoF player or not. I personally think that after a career if you are top 50 point player in the league your a HHOF regardless of how long it took.

 

[GreatGonzo]

What outside the NHL accomplishments and accommodations do those guys have?

It's the hockey hof, these things to matter and add to a career. You can say Marleau was just a tagalong didnt matter to win two golds, but he was still good enough to be there. Turgeon wasnt on any pro team. Even if some people say that's from some wjc politics where he was judged to be soft, it factors especially to the mentality of the hockey world. Those two especially have less than glorious old boys club reputations that may have hurt their odds. But in turn a guy like Marleau will have the supposed good character & leadership claims to boost him.

The question of will, not any relevance to should, a guy make the hof absolutely needs to be focused on the views and mentalities of voters of this unless you think within 10 years the HHoF voter mentality is changing, I don't get how one could ignore the how qualities like leadership, winning, and stat compiling get treated. You can call these things BS, but to hockey players they count.

Being a part of two stacked Canadien teams is a Huge accomplishment I’m sure....but again do we really want to turn a blind eye to that and just focus on two gold medals?

Marleau has little to no intangibles to work off of though. I might be alone in this, but if he would have spent the rest of his career in SJ, that MIGHT have counted for something ....but outside of that, what does he have?

Again. He’s a hall of very good. almost have been a fan of Marleau. But his abilities and skillsets in general are being greatly overrated. What he has accomplished might “woo” voters in his favor, but they will have to create a pretty picture like they did Andreychuk in order for it to sound convincing.

 

[GreatGonzo]

There's not really any more point to our conversation. It's clear that we don't agree on what defines a Hall of Fame player. If it were up to me Roenick and Turgeon would absolutely be in the Hall. Either way I'm not going to hold previous players not making it against future players.

I respect your opinion and I'm certainly not going to get into an argument over whether Marleau is a HHoF player or not. I personally think that after a career if you are top 50 point player in the league your a HHOF regardless of how long it took.

Let me ask you think then. If you were looking at Marleau and Roenicks careers and compared them. Do you see Marleau as “equal” to Roenick in terms of HOF worth because they both have 500+ goals and 1000+ points? Is that why both belong in the Hall?

 

[Dustin]

Let me ask you think then. If you were looking at Marleau and Roenicks careers and compared them. Do you see Marleau as “equal” to Roenick in terms of HOF worth because they both have 500+ goals and 1000+ points? Is that why both belong in the Hall?

I'm a big Roenick fan so my bias would hard to ignore but Roenick was an amazing player and should be in the Hall. I feel that the things that kept him out were less about on ice and more about off ice. Sucks though.

Off topic he was in Toronto on air on Fan 590 and I go to talk to to him. I basically said I thought he was great and that I wished he had played for the Leafs and he said that he would have loved to play for them and teams with such passionate fans are what he basically played for. It was awesome.

 

[Fantomas]

Awful argument. A couple bad inductions should not mean anyone better than them gets in.

I never said Marleau definitely gets in. And it's more than a couple.

 

[SladeWilson23]

And even fewer that played in the 200's have 550. It works both ways. As I said 550 goals in the era Marleau played most of his career in is better than 640 when Andreychuk played.

Correct. If you go by adjusted goals, Marleau has more.

He wouldn't be in the Hall by the standards most think. Most think they're too low. Personally, I think he should be fringe, potentially out, by what the standards SHOULD be. But I agree, he belongs with the players that ARE there.

Most people have unrealistically high standards for the HOF.

right. It's not your first sentence I take issue with. It's the second. I think you SHOULD have to be an elite player to make it.

Of course, that opens up a whole new can of worms.... what defines "elite"?

Yeah, and again, if I could set the standards, which I can't, because I don't matter, I'd set them higher.

We really don't disagree.

Completely understood. To me, a great career is a great career no matter how good a player you were.

 

[SladeWilson23]

The only reason Andreychuk hit 640 goals is because he was able to stick around for another 10 years, remain healthy, and score 20 or so goals. But he never hit 30 goals again.

Staying around and playing for a long time is a SKILL. Playing a lot of games is NOT a negative. It's a positive because it's a SKILL to play a lot of games.

From ‘96-‘06 he had 192 goals in 714 games. That’s an average 22 goals and only 45 points. He was the definition of compiler, and he was able to ride the coat tails of a great Tampa team to a cup. That was his ticket. His 640 goals isn’t nearly as impressive as you make it out to be.

Guess what, his 640 goals is still top 15 ALL TIME, and it was 13th all time when he retired. You don't seem to understand context is not needed at all when you score that many goals.

Any player who scores 600 goals is a HOF'er. PERIOD.