Is Toews deserving of the HHoF?

[Varan]

Im just the messenger lol. I didn't say Toews deserves to be in. I just know he will get in because of what people around the NHL perceive his career to be.

looool my bad

 

[biturbo19]

None of that has any significance.

He had a HOF worthy career based mainly on his intangibles, but he isn’t a HOF talent. He was a media darling who had 2 great years, and the media kept him relevant after the fact.

So is he “famous?” Yes, but not for his play.

I mean, you've pretty much entirely shot your own entire argument down. You literally just said, he had a HOF-worthy career. Based on intangibles, fame, etc sure...but that's what the HOF is about. After all, i reiterate, it's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Scored lots of points. If you're looking for the latter, it can be found at hockeydb the website, and it is very boring and joyless, albeit the most sacred honour a box score stat watching honour a player can receiver.

It's one thing to score a lot of points. That can be a noteworthy reason for inclusion in its own right, but it's not the entirety of what the HOF is about. Guys like Toews are "famous" because they scored the big points; the memorable points. They came up big and basked in the spotlight at the biggest moments on the biggest stages. They become central figures in hockey history, which is what the HOF is really about.

It's not some grand conspiracy from the beginning of Toews career to build this huge illusion and sneak him into the HOF. Sure, the NHL took a promising young player and made him a poster boy, but he took that and all the pressure accompanying it...and he won. A lot. He didn't shrink away from that role, he shone in that spotlight in pretty much every way possible, short of winning a Richard or Art Ross, which was never the type of player he was. Those two ultimately individualistic trophies aren't the sole indicator of HOF-worthiness. Not by a longshot.

Ultimately, he is famous for his play. He's famous for the way he played up to the "Toews mythos" or whatever you want to call it. Famous for the way he played as a leader and in a way that time and again helped his teams win the big prizes. The team prizes. That's easily HOF-worthy.

 

[DrJustice]

Toews, Kane and Keith should all make it from that team.

Hossa too but I assume most already have him as a lock.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I mean, you've pretty much entirely shot your own entire argument down. You literally just said, he had a HOF-worthy career. Based on intangibles, fame, etc sure...but that's what the HOF is about. After all, i reiterate, it's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Scored lots of points. If you're looking for the latter, it can be found at hockeydb the website, and it is very boring and joyless, albeit the most sacred honour a box score stat watching honour a player can receiver.

It's one thing to score a lot of points. That can be a noteworthy reason for inclusion in its own right, but it's not the entirety of what the HOF is about. Guys like Toews are "famous" because they scored the big points; the memorable points. They came up big and basked in the spotlight at the biggest moments on the biggest stages. They become central figures in hockey history, which is what the HOF is really about.

It's not some grand conspiracy from the beginning of Toews career to build this huge illusion and sneak him into the HOF. Sure, the NHL took a promising young player and made him a poster boy, but he took that and all the pressure accompanying it...and he won. A lot. He didn't shrink away from that role, he shone in that spotlight in pretty much every way possible, short of winning a Richard or Art Ross, which was never the type of player he was. Those two ultimately individualistic trophies aren't the sole indicator of HOF-worthiness. Not by a longshot.

Ultimately, he is famous for his play. He's famous for the way he played up to the "Toews mythos" or whatever you want to call it. Famous for the way he played as a leader and in a way that time and again helped his teams win the big prizes. The team prizes. That's easily HOF-worthy.

My point was more “on paper” resume, but I worded it career. Which is why I then said he isn’t a HOF talent. A lot of people would agree Toews has had a better career than let’s say Lindros or Bure.....doesn’t mean he is at their level of being HOF worthy. I can see why you got confused though.

You mock the “score a lot of points” reference which ultimately proves my point...and that’s that Toews doesn’t have HOF numbers in any way shape or form, and it’s rather rare for a player to be a lock without having more individual success. You
Can manipulate his point production any way you would like, but saying he scored the “big” points only adds to the ridiculous hype. He didn’t score the “big points” and there is no way of anyone proving that he did, it just sounds nice and somewhat makes up for his lack of offense.

I never said such a thing. I said he got hyped up by the media for winning cups, not individual awards. The Hart and Art Ross alone are pretty good indicators of a persons talent. Sure you can win one, or the other, or both, and not be a HOFer, but in the end it is reserved for the best of the best, and Toews was never in the running to get either, which is why you say what you say.

He’s famous for his “leadership”, not play. Sure he has had his moments, but they are glorified to a level that makes him appear better than he is. Toews was never that much better than Kopitar or Bergeron, but he got more coverage, had a big Olympic run, and was captain all three cup wins. He can’t “play” as a leader. Being a leader is so subjective. I’ve never thought of Toews as a bad leader, but let’s not act like the Hawks wouldn’t have won 3 cups if, let’s say, Keith wore the C.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

By the GMs, league executives, the media and his peers?

He was voted as one of the greatest 100 players of ALL TIME.

The NHL 100 was selected by a 58-person panel of league executives, former players and media members.

The only other active players on that list at the time is Ovechkin, Crosby, Keith and Kane.

Seriously, click the link below and ctrl+f Toews. Look at the company he is with.

100 Greatest NHL Players

He was ranked second best player in the world in the 2013 and 2014 season by TSN.

https://www.tsn.ca/crosby-tops-tsn-hockey-s-top-50-nhl-players-1.94060

https://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-s-top-50-players-list-facts-and-figures-1.369222


Hes a lock for the HOF.

There is a culture in hockey of creating feel good stories. Toews was, and never will be, a top 100 player all time. Even with the team success he captained.

 

[Sensinitis]

If he plays out the rest of his career as a 50 point player or less, then I don't think he should get in.

If he can rebound and return to his 65+ point, Selke form, then he'll probably have accomplished enough that I won't be too against it (though I do think the HoF should have higher standards, but that door has already been opened with some of the names in it now).

what? so if a formerly star selke center, 1C on 3-cup winners, great playoff performer, goes back to selke form for the rest of his career after a few down seasons, you "won't be TOO against" him making the HOF? That's one hell of a take there, thanks for the laughs.

 

[Sensinitis]

A Conn Smythe, a Selke win with three more years as a finalist, and another three top 5 finishes. One 2nd team all-star.

All in all yeah, that's enough to get him in so long as he doesn't go completely off a cliff in his 30's.

I think this is an answer to the question "will Toews get in", which isn't the question asked here.

 

[Sensinitis]

the reading comprehension on here...OP asks specifically posters NOT to answer if he gets in, but whether he will be deserving.
Like half the posters "he'll get in". Jesus.

I'll bypass my hardly avoidable frustration with people and answer the question - if he gets back to the player he's been for the majority of his career, I think he is deserving. As much as his regular season point totals may sometimes appear underwhelming, he's matched up and even sometimes outplayed quite clearly other elite centres in his conference. That's already a significant enough accomplishment for me. it's the more significant considering the Hawks mostly didn't have great center depth. They've had solid D but again, on some years they lacked depth down there either, playing basically 2 pairings during one of their cup runs.
For me, if Getzlaf, Kopitar, Thornton are HOFers, then so is Toews (if he bounces back), as he's been just as good or better than them in the playoffs.
If Toews remains at the level he is today, then it's tough to put him in just based on basically what is about half-a-career, if I can put it that way. I think at that point he's just not good enough to DESERVE it. (deserve)...

 

[ClydeLee]

the reading comprehension on here...OP asks specifically posters NOT to answer if he gets in, but whether he will be deserving.
Like half the posters "he'll get in". Jesus.

I'll bypass my hardly avoidable frustration with people and answer the question - if he gets back to the player he's been for the majority of his career, I think he is deserving. As much as his regular season point totals may sometimes appear underwhelming, he's matched up and even sometimes outplayed quite clearly other elite centres in his conference. That's already a significant enough accomplishment for me. it's the more significant considering the Hawks mostly didn't have great center depth. They've had solid D but again, on some years they lacked depth down there either, playing basically 2 pairings during one of their cup runs.
For me, if Getzlaf, Kopitar, Thornton are HOFers, then so is Toews (if he bounces back), as he's been just as good or better than them in the playoffs.
If Toews remains at the level he is today, then it's tough to put him in just based on basically what is about half-a-career, if I can put it that way. I think at that point he's just not good enough to DESERVE it. (deserve)...

Deserve it on what conparbles?

You can criticize posters but theres plenty wiggle room to interpret the OP because he doesn't specify things much with that phrasing. Deserving on the basic sense can be that anyone gets in is a deserving case. I dont see a case to get on people when we will all take a phrase worded that way differently

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

That's fair.

I guess I look at it that Toews' PPG has been trending down, while Bergeron's has improved over the last 3 years. Despite Bergeron being 3 years older, he seems to have gotten better with age while Toews has slowed down a bit. Extrapolating for their current trends, I have a hard time seeing Toews being considered the better offensive player when both careers are done.

It's interesting to look at all 3 the last 2 years.

2017
Toews 58 pts 10.6 sh% (career low)
Kopitar 52 pts 8.0 sh% (career low)
Bergeron 53 pts 7.0 sh% (career low)

2018
Toews 52 pts 9.5 sh% (new career low)
Kopitar 92 pts 17.0 sh% (career high)
Bergeron 64 pts 13.4 sh% (career high)

Both Kopi and Bergy went from career lows in sh% to career highs, basically doubling their %s. Does Toews have a similar bounce back coming? SH% is only one number obviously and doesn't explain everything. But it's not hard to imagine a scenario were Toew's sh% reverts to the mean or even above that and he's back to 60+ points next year.

 

[MaxV]

I am mostly on the opposite team of these Team Overrated vs Team Toews threads (it’s not like there have been that many of them, right ), but in this case I’m Team Toews.

As I’ve said before many times, if you judge modern players based on historic stats, you will run out of HHOF worthy players very quickly. We just had multiple 100-point players for the first time in awhile. Take a look at stats from early 80s (or just 80s in general), previous statement is laughable.

His career stats are comparable, relative to his era, to plenty of players that are already in.

 

[GreatGonzo]

the reading comprehension on here...OP asks specifically posters NOT to answer if he gets in, but whether he will be deserving.
Like half the posters "he'll get in". Jesus.

I'll bypass my hardly avoidable frustration with people and answer the question - if he gets back to the player he's been for the majority of his career, I think he is deserving. As much as his regular season point totals may sometimes appear underwhelming, he's matched up and even sometimes outplayed quite clearly other elite centres in his conference. That's already a significant enough accomplishment for me. it's the more significant considering the Hawks mostly didn't have great center depth. They've had solid D but again, on some years they lacked depth down there either, playing basically 2 pairings during one of their cup runs.
For me, if Getzlaf, Kopitar, Thornton are HOFers, then so is Toews (if he bounces back), as he's been just as good or better than them in the playoffs.
If Toews remains at the level he is today, then it's tough to put him in just based on basically what is about half-a-career, if I can put it that way. I think at that point he's just not good enough to DESERVE it. (deserve)...

Thornton is more of HOFer than Toews ever would be. And all without a cup, which Toews clearly needs to keep him in the running. So no, one is not like the other.

Being better in the playoffs doesn’t make him the better player or their equal, that’s the problem with all this. Many pick one aspect and make it appear to be the end all, be all, of the argument. Justin Williams and Phil Kessel are arguably better playoff performers as well, doesn’t make them better.

Center depth obviously didn’t matter. They had the winger depth, great bottom defensive guys, and solid defensive depth from top to bottom. Toews had all the advantages many don’t have, and his skills further complimented the team.

Of cours he doesn’t deserve it, but what’s done is done. Whether or not he deserves it doesn’t really matter because he will get in, and they will continue to find ways to keep him relevant until then. His name is already cemented in Canadien glory. He is considered by the “experts” a top 100 player of all time, and he’s the captain of a team
That won 3 cups in 6 years.

 

[Zuluss]

One reason why Toews might get in is that drafts a few years after his very pretty low in top talent. I looked at everyone drafted between 2006 and 2010 and this is what I got in terms of who I think are clearly better than Toews:

F: Kane Benn Stamkos Tavares Hall Giroux
D: Karlsson Doughty Subban Hedman
G: Holtby

That's 11 people, and they induct at least 3 players per year. There will be probably folks waiting in the sidelines from 2001-2005 drafts that had more top level talent (Kovalchuk? Eric Staal? Kopitar?), but still, there is room left

So here are Toews competitors for 1-3 spots left (assuming some spots go to players drafted in 2001-2005)

F: Marchand Backstrom Kessel Tarasenko
D: Carlson
G: Varlamov Mason

So who are, say, three guys that go ahead of him and keep him out? The answer does not seem to be clear-cut.
I still voted no, but it is easy to see why someone would think it out and vote the other way.

 

[chewbaccaman]

I say no but one or two more trophies could change that.

 

[Regal]

He's a borderline Hall of Fame talent. There's some guys who are in I would clearly take Toews over, but a lot of them are in for reasons outside of their ability (like team success, high totals in a high scoring era). And like those guys, Toews' playoff history and status as a winner will get him in, and I agree with it. He's had a Hall of Fame career. The fact that he may not have had one if he was on a different team doesn't change that.

 

[The Red Line]

Should I have listed his Conn Smythe separately, too? It's a stupid standard and it's odd that you take issue with me deviating from it.

No. Whenever 1000 point player is brought up, it is ALWAYS referring to regular season. Talking about player getting to 1000 points is an established milestone when discussing NHL players, and it has never, ever included playoff points. You can talk about playoff points all you want, but yes, they are discussed seperately and never included when saying someone will get to 1000 career points.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Yeah. A Conn Smythe, two-time Olympic Gold Medalist (and a standout in both tournaments), captain of three Stanley Cups. Plus, for a few years he was regularly grouped with the top few players in the game. Although statophiles may not agree, he's pretty much in.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yeah. A Conn Smythe, two-time Olympic Gold Medalist (and a standout in both tournaments), captain of three Stanley Cups. Plus, for a few years he was regularly grouped with the top few players in the game. Although statophiles may not agree, he's pretty much in.

-the same Smythe where he completely dropped the ball in the finals and was a liability on both ends? Where Kane bailed him out? Oh, but scoring isn’t as imortant though....
-He didn’t even make AS honors in 2014. Definitely wasn’t a stand out, while Kessel won toward MVP.
-Him being captain shouldn’t really count for anything. Being a captain doesn’t give you more of a chance of winning.
-Yes, all media based. He was rarely as good as the top talents in the league.
- if you have to devalue offensive stats to make a case for Toews, your already losing. Toews has never been elite offensively, and his numbers show this. The whole idea “there is more to hockey than scoring” gets romanticized to further claim Toews as better than he is.

Take Kane’s offense away from the Hawks, and you would be preaching a different story, because his offense was the difference maker many times in the playoffs. Including the 2010 finals.

Toews May have been a “winner”, but just because your a part of a lot of winning teams doesn’t make you the most significant player, especially when it comes to leadership. Just because TSN and other media sources have Toews among the top talents doesn’t mean he was actually among the top players.

 

[X66]

C'mon HFboards, is this honestly a question?

Lol, he's a slam dunk hall of famer.

I know some people like to rag on the guy, but if you look at his numbers, they're right up there on the high end with other defensive forwards.

Add to that, 3 Cups, 2 gold medals, WJC gold, Selke, Conn Smythe...

He has a higher ppg average than guys like

John Leclair
Eric Staal
Jarome Iginla
Brad Richards
Patrik Eliáš
Peter Bondra
Dave Andreychuk
Phil Kessel
Sedins
Corey Perry
Vincent Lecavalier
Patrice Bergeron

And outside of Bergeron, he's on another planet defensively compared to those guys.

Toews is a slam dunk hall of famer.

People get bent out of shape always seeing him with Crosby and those other legends, that was obviously way too much, but he's had a tier 1 career.

 

[Captain Bowie]

C'mon HFboards, is this honestly a question?

Lol, he's a slam dunk hall of famer.

I know some people like to rag on the guy, but if you look at his numbers, they're right up there on the high end with other defensive forwards.

Add to that, 3 Cups, 2 gold medals, WJC gold, Selke, Conn Smythe...

He has a higher ppg average than guys like

John Leclair
Eric Staal
Jarome Iginla
Brad Richards
Patrik Eliáš
Peter Bondra
Dave Andreychuk
Phil Kessel
Sedins
Corey Perry
Vincent Lecavalier
Patrice Bergeron

And outside of Bergeron, he's on another planet defensively compared to those guys.

Toews is a slam dunk hall of famer.

People get bent out of shape always seeing him with Crosby and those other legends, that was obviously way too much, but he's had a tier 1 career.

To be fair, you are comping a 30-year old to a bunch of guys whole played full, long careers. Toews has not experienced the late career dip in production that most of those guys have. The ones who are active haven't yet, but Kessel and Staal are unlikely to make the Hall anyways. Like Toews, they still have some work to do in their 30's.

Interesting, seemingly cherry picked list of names. Half of those guys won't make the HOF anyways.

 

[b in vancouver]

I'm not a massive Toews fan and thought he got over-rated for a lot of years but - yes, he deserves to get into the HHOF. Forget the Selke, Conn Smythe, 2nd team all-star
The guy captained his team to three Stanley Cups, has one of the best international resumes, and was one of the most influential players in the game.
Hopefully his game comes back to him as I don't want to see him get the Eric Staal treatment (prior to this past season) where people forget how good he was (and think that he was worse) because he was over-hyped and not as good afterwards.

Much of the idea we have of this modern 200 ft. centre is based around Bergeron and Toews. (and Mike Richards)
Toews is younger than Bergeron but has to do more to catch-up to him at the moment but both should be first ballot guys.

 

[GreatGonzo]

C'mon HFboards, is this honestly a question?

Lol, he's a slam dunk hall of famer.

I know some people like to rag on the guy, but if you look at his numbers, they're right up there on the high end with other defensive forwards.

Add to that, 3 Cups, 2 gold medals, WJC gold, Selke, Conn Smythe...

He has a higher ppg average than guys like

John Leclair
Eric Staal
Jarome Iginla
Brad Richards
Patrik Eliáš
Peter Bondra
Dave Andreychuk
Phil Kessel
Sedins
Corey Perry
Vincent Lecavalier
Patrice Bergeron

And outside of Bergeron, he's on another planet defensively compared to those guys.

Toews is a slam dunk hall of famer.

People get bent out of shape always seeing him with Crosby and those other legends, that was obviously way too much, but he's had a tier 1 career.

You really think it’s inpressive to have a better PPG than those players, especially when a majority of them have played longer careers? Toews PPG won’t be close to what it is right now by the time he retires.

High end for defensive forwards? What’s the standard? He still lacks the numbers to even be competitive for the Hall, it’s his team trophies that are souly responsible for even talk of him getting in.

LeClaire, Staal, Richards, Bondra, Lecavalier, and Kesssl will probably never make the Hall as well. While guys like Elias and Perry are in debate with the Sedins and Iginla being future HOFers.

I'm not a massive Toews fan and thought he got over-rated for a lot of years but - yes, he deserves to get into the HHOF. Forget the Selke, Conn Smythe, 2nd team all-star
The guy captained his team to three Stanley Cups, has one of the best international resumes, and was one of the most influential players in the game.
Hopefully his game comes back to him as I don't want to see him get the Eric Staal treatment (prior to this past season) where people forget how good he was (and think that he was worse) because he was over-hyped and not as good afterwards.

Much of the idea we have of this modern 200 ft. centre is based around Bergeron and Toews. (and Mike Richards)
Toews is younger than Bergeron but has to do more to catch-up to him at the moment but both should be first ballot guys.

What’s so significant about captaining a team to a cup? Why is that being constantly brought up to raise his stock in the Hall? Wearing a “C” for a cup run is not something you can measure or add to a skillset, it’s simply an honor and adds to a players legacy. Toews being a captain of 3 stanley cups shouldn’t be the one reason why he should be inducted.

Influential player? In what? Intangibles?

 

[b in vancouver]

What’s so significant about captaining a team to a cup? Why is that being constantly brought up to raise his stock in the Hall? Wearing a “C” for a cup run is not something you can measure or add to a skillset, it’s simply an honor and adds to a players legacy. Toews being a captain of 3 stanley cups shouldn’t be the one reason why he should be inducted.

Influential player? In what? Intangibles?[/QUOTE]

It's not the only reason but - ? I have to question your argument of 'What's so significant about captaining a team to a cup?' and 'Toews being a captain of 3 stanley cups' - if you don't see the significance of that I'm not sure what to say.
And what's you definition of 'legacy' - if it's not captaining your team to three cups and being a great international player.
And 'Influential player?' - Yes. Extremely so.

Once again I'm not a die-hard Hawks nor Toews fan but there's no argument really to be made for him not to be going to the Hall.

Is he a top 10 player in the last 10 years? Probably not. Is he a top 10 Hall Of Fame worthy player in the last 10 years - yep.

 

[GreatGonzo]

@b in vancouver

That’s not an expalantion. Saying “if you don’t see it, then I don’t know what to tell you” is such a scapegoat statement for someone who can’t truly, and easily explain it. What was so special about his captaincy? Was it that unique? That revolutionary? No. Dustin Brown captained his team to two stanley cups, with your logic...he’s not far from Toews, who only has one more.

Your defining the term “influential” as being just an overall good player. They aren’t the same. Toews was in no way “influential” to anyone than maybe outside of his team(he is the captain). But his influence isn’t some league wide or international phenomenon. If he had never won a cup, we wouldn’t even be talking about this....that’s how influential he is.

The last ten years? Maybe....but the difference is tier couldn’t be any more noticeable....

Jagr
Thornton
Iginla
Crosby
Malkin
Ovechkin
Hossa
MSL
Datsyuk
Sedins

That’s 10 who are very much so future HOFers, then you have guys like Chara and Lundqvist.

Is there an argument? Absolutely....but it really doesn’t matter. He already made his mark in the hockey world and they will always remind us of how he “lead” a team to 3 stanley cups. That will always be his ticket into the Hall. It’s a weak argument, but it looks and sounds nice.

 

[HanSolo]

On talent alone? No. In terms of talent analysis I have always felt Toews was painfully overrated among the media and fans. And even some players.

But being such a key figure in the Hawks pseudo dynasty era, I cannot deny what a key component he was. It's a tough question because if that's enough for the Hall then why not extend inductions to Crawford, Keith, Seabrook, Kane, Hossa, and Coach Q wholesale? I think there's a fair argument for Kane and Keith on talent and individual awards on top of their key contributions to such a dominant stretch of success. Toews does lack in the awards category, and some will cite "oh but Selke finalist numbers"

I think the Selke is a media driven reputation award and at least has been for as long as I've been a fan. Toews has never been much more than a good two way star that is a key cog in the Chicago machine. That being said however, I do think his leadership and two way play were huge in the run of success Chicago had. Do I think he was the biggest part? Not at all. The most annoying argument for Toews supposed "elite" or "GOAT" status from his supporters is "can't argue with three cups." He didn't do it by himself. You strip away one single name from the list of guys I mentioned above and MAYBE Chicago is a one cup team. But certainly not three. Chicago won cause they were stacked and well coached. Not because Toews put the team on his back and carried them to three championships. Sure, you take Toews out of the roster and again, Chicago is probably only a one cup team. But that doesn't make Toews some hockey deity because Chicago's success was a sum of parts situation. But, that being said, Toews was the guy leading the pack and there's no denying how remarkable their run of success was and that run is indeed iconic to an era of hockey and Toews was the face of that.

So on those grounds I think he deserves to get inducted, but I've always had lower standards for HHOF inductions and have felt for a long time if we were to base induction on HF standards, eventually we'd run out of elite, legendary players to induct. In my view, Toews is not elite and never has been. And by talent standards, he's just not a legend. But, he is an important part of hockey history and I think that's good enough.