Is Barkov already a lock for the HHOF?

[x Tame Impala]

Team success is not an individual achievement

If that's the case then every 4th line plug on a Cup winner would automatically have to be considered for the HHOF- however fleeting.

And his offensive stats leave a lot to be desired- even by HHOF standards

Is he a potential HHOF candidate? Maybe

A lock? Meh

If you don’t think Cups count when deciding HoF entry or not you’re wild. Kopitar, Barkov, Toews, Bergeron, and Zetterberg are all getting in. Dominant, two-way, 1C’s while being huge difference makers for one or more Cup wins. It’s undeniable.

Plain obtuse to read that and think anyone seriously believes that means Pat Maroon or Daniel Carcillo deserve HoF consideration for playing on a cup contender. No one thinks that. Why does that rebuttal keep getting burped up around here all the time??

 

[PistolPete]

If you don’t think Cups count when deciding HoF entry or not you’re wild. Kopitar, Barkov, Toews, Bergeron, and Zetterberg are all getting in. Dominant, two-way, 1C’s while being huge difference makers for one or more Cup wins. It’s undeniable.

Plain obtuse to read that and think anyone seriously believes that means Pat Maroon or Daniel Carcillo deserve HoF consideration for playing on a cup contender. No one thinks that. Why does that rebuttal keep getting burped up around here all the time??

Because that's where rhe logic extends when you take a team accomplishment and attribute it to a specific player as a means if making a case for him.

There's a difference between saying "He was a catalyst in his team's Cup victory " than simply saying "He won a Cup."

And given how the latter is used so flippantly, I'm not about to give anyone using it the assumption that they really mean the former.

And even the latter is qualified because it is utterly subjective to just how mich of a role any player has in a team accomplishment so to use it in a HHOF debate or "Greatest..." debate is thus nothing more than an attempt to use team success for individual success.

 

[Pip]

He's still fairly young at 29 and still have many years left in his prime. Will likely finish around 1400pts in his career and at least a few more Selkes.

I’d consider him a lock but I don’t think it’s likely he reaches 1400 points…

 

[x Tame Impala]

There's a difference between saying "He was a catalyst in his team's Cup victory " than simply saying "He won a Cup."

Exactly. So it shouldn’t be difficult to understand the context when talking about a player like Barkov. Patrick Sharp won 3 Cups as a top 6 player and not a soul in the hockey world would suggest or reasonably expect him to ever make it. Jesper Boqvist isn’t getting in if he wins two cups with Florida.

You really have to be trying to miss that distinction. I’m not sure why you or others have such a hard time with it.

And even the latter is qualified because it is utterly subjective to just how mich of a role any player has in a team accomplishment so to use it in a HHOF debate or "Greatest..." debate is thus nothing more than an attempt to use team success for individual success.

I think duties and responsibilities are pretty obvious when you look at position and where they are on the depth chart. Not to mention Barkov’s statline and actually watching him play it’s crystal clear how impactful he is.

You guys want to pretend like we’re using some totally arbitrary criteria. We’re watching Barkov in real time captain and 1C his team to 3 SCF’s in a row, with a chance to repeat. Can you honestly say his play has been anything other than great these past 3 playoff campaigns?

 

[PistolPete]

Exactly. So it shouldn’t be difficult to understand the context when talking about a player like Barkov. Patrick Sharp won 3 Cups as a top 6 player and not a soul in the hockey world would suggest or reasonably expect him to ever make it. Jesper Boqvist isn’t getting in if he wins two cups with Florida.

You really have to be trying to miss that distinction. I’m not sure why you or others have such a hard time with it.

I think duties and responsibilities are pretty obvious when you look at position and where they are on the depth chart. Not to mention Barkov’s statline and actually watching him play it’s crystal clear how impactful he is.

You guys want to pretend like we’re using some totally arbitrary criteria. We’re watching Barkov in real time captain and 1C his team to 3 SCF’s in a row, with a chance to repeat. Can you honestly say his play has been anything other than great these past 3 playoff campaigns?

This! This is the argument!

Now save this and anytime someone wants to use team success in lieu of individual success, tell them this is how to do it properly.

It's still subjective but it is a lot better than merely saying "He won a Cup..."

Ya got me seriously thinking there may je something to this Russian dude after all
(Note the emoji, I know he's Finnish and his dad played and stayed in Finland)

 

[jitterbug]

I don't see it that way at all, over 8000 players have played in the NHL, Barkov is easily top 100 basically putting him in the top 1% of players. He has won 3 Selkes joining 5 other players who have done so (still has time to rack up way more), as of today he is 205th in points all time, 84th all time in ppg, he has a cup (only 1300 have won one) and 3 finals, first Finnish captain to win a cup, brought the first cup to Florida.

Maybe for some HHOF should be 10 guys and then the rest are scrub dusters, but I personally like the way it's constituted now, not to say every single pick is perfect, but Barkov has an amazing career so far, many unique firsts and some extremely rare accomplishments as well.

??? he is absolutely not easily top 100, most don't have him anywhere near it

 

[Plural]

??? he is absolutely not easily top 100, most don't have him anywhere near it

Probably not yet, but most recent top-100 list from the History Forum has the following names rounding out the top-100:

90: Bill Gadsby
91: Joe Thornton
92: Nels Steward
93: Patrick Kane
94: Duncan Keith
95: Mark Howe
96: Eric Lindros
97: Bryan Leetch
98: Martin St.Louis
99: Dave Keon
100: Sid Abel

And the top-200 started off with guys:

101: Norm Ullman
102: Alexandr Maltsev
103: Jarome Iginla
104: Vladimir Martinec
105: Eddie Gerard
106: Henril Lundqvist


Now, I don't know if Barkov has passed any of those guys in an all-time comparison. But he most likely is a better player than a significant amount of the guys howering around both sides of the tail-end of top-100 list.

 

[BB88]

Probably not yet, but most recent top-100 list from the History Forum has the following names rounding out the top-100:

90: Bill Gadsby
91: Joe Thornton
92: Nels Steward
93: Patrick Kane
94: Duncan Keith
95: Mark Howe
96: Eric Lindros
97: Bryan Leetch
98: Martin St.Louis
99: Dave Keon
100: Sid Abel

And the top-200 started off with guys:

101: Norm Ullman
102: Alexandr Maltsev
103: Jarome Iginla
104: Vladimir Martinec
105: Eddie Gerard
106: Henril Lundqvist


Now, I don't know if Barkov has passed any of those guys in an all-time comparison. But he most likely is a better player than a significant amount of the guys howering around both sides of the tail-end of top-100 list.

It’s pretty crazy to think that we can realistically say he’ll have a better career than Martin St Louis and Jarome Iginla

I remember being a big fan of Iginlas game but if you have to start a franchise with what we know you take Barkov before the 2

In a few years time you can start making a case for over Thornton

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

It’s pretty crazy to think that we can realistically say he’ll have a better career than Martin St Louis and Jarome Iginla

I remember being a big fan of Iginlas game but if you have to start a franchise with what we know you take Barkov before the 2

In a few years time you can start making a case for over Thornton

No way you can convince me Joe Thornton is better than Barkov

 

[Duffy13]

as of right now, if he stopped playing and that was it, I would say he is not a lock, to make the HOF, but he is good enough and stills a chance to probably make it. I think he becomes an absolute lock after a bit more time.

 

[freecheese]

Captained 2 cups, 3 SCFs, 3 Selkes, a Lady Byng & King Clancy. Easy 1st ballot HOF if he retired right now.

 

[Russian_fanatic]

I’d say if his career ended today, he would have enough to squeak in. Just enough of a track record, a cup, 2 selke’s.

2 cups

 

[PistolPete]

Captained 2 cups, 3 SCFs, 3 Selkes, a Lady Byng & King Clancy. Easy 1st ballot HOF if he retired right now.

Captained two Cups.

This is why I can't take the HHoF seriously

 

[Hollowmoon]

yes.

 

[QJL]

I think he may be the best player in the NHL. Yes.

 

[jonlin]

Captained two Cups.

This is why I can't take the HHoF seriously

More like 1st European player to captain a team to 2 Stanley Cups. Then his 3 selkes and the fact that he is the heart and soul of the team and make every player he plays with better. Easy 1 ballot HHoF.

 

[wetcoast]

Captained 2 cups, 3 SCFs, 3 Selkes, a Lady Byng & King Clancy. Easy 1st ballot HOF if he retired right now.

Barkov has the base of the cake he is just adding the icing (career and longevity) onto his resume.

Basically he is Toews territory circa going into the 16-17 season at age 28.

He is getting in sure.

 

[wetcoast]

Captained two Cups.

This is why I can't take the HHoF seriously

It's only part of the equation along with 3 Selkes and a really good regular season and playoff resume , it all adds up.

 

[D1az]

I don't myself think that he would be there yet. Probably with all his accolades he would be in based on some of the weaker admissions, but I think that he would need to get to 1000 games and prove his worth through them and that he doesn't fall off a cliff after this, even if he wouldn't win any awards anymore.

 

[wetcoast]

I don't myself think that he would be there yet. Probably with all his accolades he would be in based on some of the weaker admissions, but I think that he would need to get to 1000 games and prove his worth through them and that he doesn't fall off a cliff after this, even if he wouldn't win any awards anymore.

I tend to agree but really if he doesn't hit those goals it would be because of something catastrophic , like career ending injury or something and that would actually help his chances.

He is getting into the HHOF no question.

 

[BB88]

Barkov is also the 1st European C to win b2b Cups

Voters love winning, making history, storylines etc

He’s 100% in

 

[PistolPete]

It's only part of the equation along with 3 Selkes and a really good regular season and playoff resume , it all adds up.

But team success shouldn't even be a factor.

With all we know about biases (the cognitive kind not the other kind), I just can't give credence to awards and even the HHoF itself really.

Knowing that the people who vote for it can be swayed by how many Cups a player's team has one just discredits it to me.

Will these biases work in Barkiv's favour? Likely. They'll see captain and two Cups and a couple Selkes and Bam! In the Hall you go, Sasha!

 

[StrangeVision]

It’s a bit crazy to think he’s not a lock at this point. Best defensive forward in the league, with 3 Selkes to back that up (not to mention his legacy of shutting down McDavid in the Cup final…twice), 2 Stanley Cups as captain, good point producer, and he’s a great guy. Barkov is an absolute lock for the hall of fame.

 

[wetcoast]

But team success shouldn't even be a factor.

Funny I never mentioned that in the post eh?

With all we know about biases (the cognitive kind not the other kind), I just can't give credence to awards and even the HHoF itself really.

The voters like winners though so it's important to recognize when talking about the HHOF and possible inductions.

Knowing that the people who vote for it can be swayed by how many Cups a player's team has one just discredits it to me.

Why use discredit, that's too loaded a term don't you think?

Also if winning doesn't atter what does in determining your HHOF ballot?

Will these biases work in Barkiv's favour? Likely. They'll see captain and two Cups and a couple Selkes and Bam! In the Hall you go, Sasha!

Isn't winning 3 Selke's worth, and his 200 foot gam overall, something to the HHOF argument though?

 

[x Tame Impala]

But team success shouldn't even be a factor.

With all we know about biases (the cognitive kind not the other kind), I just can't give credence to awards and even the HHoF itself really.

Knowing that the people who vote for it can be swayed by how many Cups a player's team has one just discredits it to me.

Will these biases work in Barkiv's favour? Likely. They'll see captain and two Cups and a couple Selkes and Bam! In the Hall you go, Sasha!

The HOF shouldn't be just about regular season stats and awards, that's a misleading measurement because of how important winning Championships is. Why does Barkov not deserve HOF praise for giving dominant performances in back to back Cup wins where he helped neutralize the greatest player the league has seen since Crosby and arguably Mario? Why is that not a HOF accomplishment when you factor in the rest of his career: at least 3 Selke trophies, very likely to have over 1000 points minimum upon retirement, etc...

This "Cups don't count" argument is such an automated response and it's complete crap. It entirely misses the point of why people play sports and why fans watch sports. Barkov has been excellent on hockey's biggest stage in the world, three years in a row. That matters a lot. It's a shame people like you trot out this "no team success" argument because it's a disservice to the player's ability to play well at the NHL's highest level when every shift matters the most.

Terrible, terrible, terrible line of thinking