Is Barkov already a lock for the HHOF?

[PistolPete]

Funny I never mentioned that in the post eh?

Oops. I interpreted your post about it being part of the equation was about my post addressing how using Cups makes me not take the HHoF seriously. I have been known to be mistaken.

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

That cognitive bias....icky! Winning is a team accomplishment.....dumb voters

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

Strong? Yeah. But I really don't give awards and accomplishments that are voted on a lot of credit to begin with and knowing that a team accomplishment affects their vote...well, it pushes that sentiment into discredited territory

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

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

For the current standard? I wouldn't be surprised if he gets in.

There could be something said for someone who excels at the defensive game like a Gainey. My only issue is it's very hard to measure and so just goes by eyeballing, which leaves it all entirely to cognitive biases. But I guess ifnyou're going to have a HHoF and try and go beyond the scoring sensations, you make do with what you have

 

[wetcoast]

Oops. I interpreted your post about it being part of the equation was about my post addressing how using Cups makes me not take the HHoF seriously. I have been known to be mistaken.

That cognitive bias....icky! Winning is a team accomplishment.....dumb voters

Strong? Yeah. But I really don't give awards and accomplishments that are voted on a lot of credit to begin with and knowing that a team accomplishment affects their vote...well, it pushes that sentiment into discredited territory


For the current standard? I wouldn't be surprised if he gets in.

There could be something said for someone who excels at the defensive game like a Gainey. My only issue is it's very hard to measure and so just goes by eyeballing, which leaves it all entirely to cognitive biases. But I guess ifnyou're going to have a HHoF and try and go beyond the scoring sensations, you make do with what you have

Okay but what's your criteria and what do you consider for a HHOF inductee?

 

[PistolPete]

Okay but what's your criteria and what do you consider for a HHOF inductee?

Admittedly, my mine is a little more stringent than most.

Even 4 per year is too many in my view. I would go with two max.

And as far as contenders, I see the HHoF as a museum of generational talent over the years. Not necessarily of the Lemieux/Gretzky height, but even- sticking with their generation- Yzerman, Dionne, Stastny, Goulet, Kurri, Messier....players who were perennial top players and would be a top line player on any team they went to (save for when battling each other for such a spot obviously)

Admittedly, I have definitely proof of this but my impression is thst the gap in offensive talent is much greater than any gap in defensive talent. As such, as good as Gainey, Bergeron, Barkov et al are on the defensive side, I have my doubts that there's as much of a great divide between them and the next tier of defensive superstars

 

[freecheese]

^^^ Barkov is near PPG for his career. He's much more than just an elite defensive forward. That has to account for something

 

[PistolPete]

^^^ Barkov is near PPG for his career. He's much more than just an elite defensive forward. That has to account for something

2016 to 2025, 13th in total points; 12th in average per game, min. 480 games.

Very good player? Yup. I'll take him on my team.

Existing HHoF candidate? Likely.

My HHoF. Not even a sniff.

1. Missed a lot of games in that time.(a quick estimate has it at over 100 games)

2. He's 12th. Far from a generational talent. One of the greatest 2 way players? Possibly. But how do you determine that without merely taking thr opinion of Pierre LeBrun et al?

 

[wetcoast]

Admittedly, my mine is a little more stringent than most.

Even 4 per year is too many in my view. I would go with two max.

And as far as contenders, I see the HHoF as a museum of generational talent over the years. Not necessarily of the Lemieux/Gretzky height, but even- sticking with their generation- Yzerman, Dionne, Stastny, Goulet, Kurri, Messier....players who were perennial top players and would be a top line player on any team they went to (save for when battling each other for such a spot obviously)

Admittedly, I have definitely proof of this but my impression is thst the gap in offensive talent is much greater than any gap in defensive talent. As such, as good as Gainey, Bergeron, Barkov et al are on the defensive side, I have my doubts that there's as much of a great divide between them and the next tier of defensive superstars

Okay fair enough so your HHOF would have around 150ish guys s since it started around 1950 or maybe 180ish if we start from the turn of the century then?

Alot of guys would be out and my guess is that only scoring stars would end up in such a HHOF and guys like Bergeron, Kopitar, Toews and Barkov would be squeezed out and that just doesn't seem right.

 

[wetcoast]

2016 to 2025, 13th in total points; 12th in average per game, min. 480 games.

Very good player? Yup. I'll take him on my team.

Existing HHoF candidate? Likely.

My HHoF. Not even a sniff.

1. Missed a lot of games in that time.(a quick estimate has it at over 100 games)

2. He's 12th. Far from a generational talent. One of the greatest 2 way players? Possibly. But how do you determine that without merely taking thr opinion of Pierre LeBrun et al?

13th in total points and a very strong 200 foot game makes him probably at least in the argument for top player over that time period in terms of value one would think?

I haven't actually looked at the list but I think you have too high of a bar but thanks for responding my Hall would be a bit bigger but not as big as the current one maybe 20 or 30 guys less.

 

[OysterForever]

2016 to 2025, 13th in total points; 12th in average per game, min. 480 games.

Very good player? Yup. I'll take him on my team.

Existing HHoF candidate? Likely.

My HHoF. Not even a sniff.

1. Missed a lot of games in that time.(a quick estimate has it at over 100 games)

2. He's 12th. Far from a generational talent. One of the greatest 2 way players? Possibly. But how do you determine that without merely taking thr opinion of Pierre LeBrun et al?

Okay so Barkov not making it who do you have on your list then?

 

[PistolPete]

Okay so Barkov not making it who do you have on your list then?

Just to reiterate: Barkov will make it in the HHoF.

In my version of it? Nope

McDavid, Draisaitl, Kucherov, Ovechkin, Crosby...

 

[PistolPete]

13th in toaol points and a very strong 200 foot game makes him probaly at least in the argument tofr top player over that time perod in terms of value one would think?

I haven't actually lloked at the list but I think you have too high of a bar but thanks for responding my Hall would be a bit bigger but not as big as the current one maybe 20 or 30 guys less.

Can't deny that the 200 foot player is an attractive inclusion....just gets tricky because so much of the back 100 is so subjective....

Perhaps with new data it'll become s little more objective

 

[PistolPete]

Okay fair enough so your HHOF would have around 150ish guys s since it started around 1950 or maybe 180ish if we start from the turn of the century then?

Alot of guys would be out and my guess is that only scoring stars would end up in such a HHOF and guys like Bergeron, Kopitar, Toews and Barkov would be squeezed out and that just doesn't seem right.

I was replying to another poster and realized that my standards may eliminate virtually all defenseman from consideration lol

Yeah.....I may have to suck it up and allow for a bit more subjectivity

 

[Golden_Jet]

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

Ya HHOF is about regular and post season, international play and awards.
Voted not yet, but will be.

 

[wetcoast]

Just to reiterate: Barkov will make it in the HHoF.

In my version of it? Nope

McDavid, Draisaitl, Kucherov, Ovechkin, Crosby...

Is Bergeron in your HHOF?

Kopitar?

 

[PistolPete]

Is Bergeron in your HHOF?

Kopitar?

I am starting to think maybe the 200 foot guys deserve to be....but only the best thereof

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Absolutely. Higher peak than a lot of guys already In the hall, has the cups (as captain) and the hardware (Selkes). He’s a lock.

 

[PistolPete]

Absolutely. Higher peak than a lot of guys already In the hall, has the cups (as captain) and the hardware (Selkes). He’s a lock.

Why does being a captain of a Cup winner get to he considered for an individual honour?

 

[Regal]

Why does being a captain of a Cup winner get to he considered for an individual honour?

I would say being both captain and first line center of a multiple cup winner suggests you’re a strong enough leader/player to win with. Ie. it’s not just empty numbers on your resume. It’s not necessarily an individual accomplishment but it removes question marks about your individual accomplishments, which can be important for the players who aren’t necessarily superstars like a McDavid (who would get in regardless of what his teams end up winning).

 

[PistolPete]

I would say being both captain and first line center of a multiple cup winner suggests you’re a strong enough leader/player to win with. Ie. it’s not just empty numbers on your resume. It’s not necessarily an individual accomplishment but it removes question marks about your individual accomplishments, which can be important for the players who aren’t necessarily superstars like a McDavid (who would get in regardless of what his teams end up winning).

But the issue I see is you're still attributing to that player what is a team accomplishment.

Switch places between McDavid and Barkov. Now what? You say he captained a Cup finalist two seasons in a row as a point on his resume?

Put Barkov in Ottawa, Columbus, Buffalo
...he's not the same kind of player and captain? He needs his captaincy and numbers justified by playing on a team thst wins a Cup?

You've unwittingly made an argument for why the HHoF and anything voted on by people is a flawed system- the Halo Effect is too tempting a trap to fall into

 

[jonlin]

Just to reiterate: Barkov will make it in the HHoF.

In my version of it? Nope

McDavid, Draisaitl, Kucherov, Ovechkin, Crosby...

Okay, so you just value players putting up points. No use of a player that makes every player around him better, shut down theese stars of yours and captains a team to 2 cups and actually puts the whole team to do the dirty work. He is a CAPTAIN. Not a personal trophy hunter. HHoF material.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Why does being a captain of a Cup winner get to he considered for an individual honour?

Ask the HoF voters.

 

[Regal]

But the issue I see is you're still attributing to that player what is a team accomplishment.

Switch places between McDavid and Barkov. Now what? You say he captained a Cup finalist two seasons in a row as a point on his resume?

Put Barkov in Ottawa, Columbus, Buffalo
...he's not the same kind of player and captain? He needs his captaincy and numbers justified by playing on a team thst wins a Cup?

You've unwittingly made an argument for why the HHoF and anything voted on by people is a flawed system- the Halo Effect is too tempting a trap to fall into

No, that’s a strawman argument. Like I said it’s not about giving credit so much as eliminating doubt. When given a good team around him, he’s shown he’s good enough to win with as the 1C. Removing that doubt makes it easier to look at his resume and suggest that he’s good enough. He doesn’t become a worse player if he was on Buffalo or Ottawa but the question lingers if there’s something in his game that we’re not seeing that isn’t leading to success. Proving yourself on the biggest stage matters.

 

[x Tame Impala]

But the issue I see is you're still attributing to that player what is a team accomplishment.

Switch places between McDavid and Barkov. Now what? You say he captained a Cup finalist two seasons in a row as a point on his resume?

Put Barkov in Ottawa, Columbus, Buffalo
...he's not the same kind of player and captain? He needs his captaincy and numbers justified by playing on a team thst wins a Cup?

You've unwittingly made an argument for why the HHoF and anything voted on by people is a flawed system- the Halo Effect is too tempting a trap to fall into

But Barkov and McDavid aren’t switched. In the real world Barkov played great in back to back Cup wins, shutting down the best player in the world. So that, in addition to his likely 1000+pt career and 3+ Selke wins he is absolutely a HoFer.

Why are you minimizing something that actually happened in favor of a nonsense hypothetical? This is the same argument people would make against Toews 10 years ago.

 

[PistolPete]

Okay, so you just value players putting up points. No use of a player that makes every player around him better, shut down theese stars of yours and captains a team to 2 cups and actually puts the whole team to do the dirty work. He is a CAPTAIN. Not a personal trophy hunter. HHoF material.

Captaining a Cup winner isn't even a consideration

But after having discussions with other posters it became clear that I may have to relent and allow for a little more subjectivity; it occured to me as I was typing the list in the quoted post that it would make it very difficult for D to get in by my standards lol

 

[PistolPete]

Ask the HoF voters.

Couldn't care less what a group of cognitively flawed people think

 

[PistolPete]

But Barkov and McDavid aren’t switched. In the real world Barkov played great in back to back Cup wins, shutting down the best player in the world. So that, in addition to his likely 1000+pt career and 3+ Selke wins he is absolutely a HoFer.

Why are you minimizing something that actually happened in favor of a nonsense hypothetical? This is the same argument people would make against Toews 10 years ago.

You ignored the part after about what if he was in Buffalo etc.

It's using the Halo Effect to make a player's subjective assessment. Barkov is the same player even if he plays on a cellar dweller, but by the luck of playing on a Cup winner, his assessment as an individual player shines brighter.

It's not an argument against Barkov per se, it's an argument against using any team accomplishment in an individual player's resume.