Players that are not in the HHOF that should be inducted?

[The Panther]

I think Mogilny was too inconsistent. Amazing talent when he wanted to be though and I agree with what someone else said that him at his best was better than plenty in the HHOF at their best. But did he do enough in his career? He wasn't a strong playoff performer and I think sometimes the fact that Mogilny could have been so much better is held against him.

Yeah, there's no doubt Mogilny had Hall of Fame talent (as did Kent Nilsson, Pierre Larouche, Bernie Nicholls, Alex Kovalev), but I guess the question is---did he perform at Hall of Fame level consistently enough, for long enough? That's where I'm unsure. To put it another way, what did Mogilny do that Bernie Nicholls, say, didn't? They each had a 70-goal season. They each a couple of years with monster peaks that they couldn't sustain. Mogilny was flashier with more razzle-dazzle, but then again Nicholls was better in the playoffs. I don't really see one over the other, to be honest.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% sure Mogilny's getting in very soon --- the Hall of Fame needs their European-player quota and they love a North-American-friendly guy with a nice 'defection' storyline behind him. But I'm not sure he should get in. For me, he's borderline.

As for goalies I don't think there is anyone that has to be in now. Barrasso was a guy I liked, but he's in, and they added Vernon, who I wasn't a big fan of getting in, so I don't think there is anyone on the outside of the goalie category that should be in. Just a lot of ones who are close.

The Hall is crazy. For years, they were way too hard on goalies, letting in about 1 every ten years. Now, they've evidently done a 360 and are letting in average goalies like Mike Vernon. It's just nutty.

Forwards have the most of who should be in. Ones that are already mentioned are Fleury and Middleton. There are lots of guys who the HHOF makes wait if only out of spite.

I've written enough about Fleury in the past, so I won't add more here. Suffice to say, I think he's borderline at best based on his play/career, and then when you factor in his general belligerent insanity and rudeness to everyone he played with /for, he's out.

There seems to be a push for Middleton lately. Not even accounting for how Boston forwards of the 70s-90s tended to have inexplicably inflated stats, Middleton's "adjusted" (by Hockey Ref) peak scoring 5 best seasons are:
83 / 79 / 77 / 77 / 73
For comparison, those peak-5 are ALL below, for example, John Tavares' five best.
(The lower half of MIddleton's career is in the 20s to 50s in points.)
He's well below a point-per-game in the playoffs despite playing in the highest-scoring period, and if you take away his monster 1983 playoff only, he has a middling 67 points in 97 games.

So, I guess the question is: Did Middleton bring a lot more to the table than offense, since his offense doesn't appear (to me anyway) to be enough?

The coaches/builders that did enough but have the wrong people gnashing their teeth would be Cherry, Keenan and Babcock. All three did enough to get in, but they also have some powerful enemies.

I think Keenan needs to be in. Yeah, a bunch of players hate him, but I don't think Keenan did anything truly awful other than mind-games and the usual shouting at players. Through his first ten years in the NHL, he was possibly the most successful coach of all time (incl. Bowman), factoring in internatonal hockey, minor leagues, and NHL.

Cherry? No way. He coached only six NHL seasons, and only four of those were successful. Did some good coaching in the minors, I guess,

Babcock is interesting, mainly for the political / cultural reasons. Based on his track record, he should probably be in.

 

[MadLuke]

Cherry? No way. He coached only six NHL seasons, and only four of those were successful. Did some good coaching in the minors, I guess,

I imagine Cherry was the one of the 3 to be in the builder category, he should be a shoe in.

 

[MS]

Carl Brewer
Krutov, Mikhailov and other Soviet stars
Patrik Elias

Don Cherry as a builder, even though I’m hardly his biggest fan.

 

[Crosby2010]

Yeah, there's no doubt Mogilny had Hall of Fame talent (as did Kent Nilsson, Pierre Larouche, Bernie Nicholls, Alex Kovalev), but I guess the question is---did he perform at Hall of Fame level consistently enough, for long enough? That's where I'm unsure. To put it another way, what did Mogilny do that Bernie Nicholls, say, didn't? They each had a 70-goal season. They each a couple of years with monster peaks that they couldn't sustain. Mogilny was flashier with more razzle-dazzle, but then again Nicholls was better in the playoffs. I don't really see one over the other, to be honest.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% sure Mogilny's getting in very soon --- the Hall of Fame needs their European-player quota and they love a North-American-friendly guy with a nice 'defection' storyline behind him. But I'm not sure he should get in. For me, he's borderline.

What is strange is his 2000 Cup run with the Devils. Here is a guy who is 30 years old, he would have a good year the following year, but it had been several seasons since he had a good year (1996) and he is a guy we are supposed to think of as a Hall of Famer but he gets 7 points in 23 games that spring. Does basically nothing in pretty much every series. Is a passenger at best. There is no way a 30 year old Mogilny should have been that lousy on a team that won the Cup. He did better in their trip to the final in 2001 with 16 points, but he had a 5 point game against the Leafs and 11 points the rest of the time. Didn't do squat against the Avs in the final despite a close 7 game series where they could have used him. He is such a mystery, and I am not sure I like the idea of inducting a guy who had a string of consecutive seasons in Vancouver where he didn't produce.

The Hall is crazy. For years, they were way too hard on goalies, letting in about 1 every ten years. Now, they've evidently done a 360 and are letting in average goalies like Mike Vernon. It's just nutty.

Vernon is probably slightly better than average, I would say has more to like about his career than Chris Osgood for instance, but I get your point. He isn't the first one I would put in who is on the outside. Not sure if I put any in that are eligible right now, but that's the point.

I've written enough about Fleury in the past, so I won't add more here. Suffice to say, I think he's borderline at best based on his play/career, and then when you factor in his general belligerent insanity and rudeness to everyone he played with /for, he's out.

No doubt Fleury angered the establishment. But I don't think he did with his former teammates. He is often at events with his old Flames teammates. I think there is companionship there. If it were some of his peers choosing my guess is that he is in by now. I guess the question is can they just hold a grudge against him if they want?

There seems to be a push for Middleton lately. Not even accounting for how Boston forwards of the 70s-90s tended to have inexplicably inflated stats, Middleton's "adjusted" (by Hockey Ref) peak scoring 5 best seasons are:
83 / 79 / 77 / 77 / 73
For comparison, those peak-5 are ALL below, for example, John Tavares' five best.
(The lower half of MIddleton's career is in the 20s to 50s in points.)
He's well below a point-per-game in the playoffs despite playing in the highest-scoring period, and if you take away his monster 1983 playoff only, he has a middling 67 points in 97 games.

So, I guess the question is: Did Middleton bring a lot more to the table than offense, since his offense doesn't appear (to me anyway) to be enough?

Definitely a defensive forward. That was another one of his strengths. We all know about the nifty goals and stickhandling, but he was a good defensive winger. Finished 4th in Selke voting once. The 1978-'84 seasons are the thing to look at with him. Was there enough in there and was his star shining bright enough? He might be a guy that could have used another season in the NHL to get over 1000 points which was very highly regarded back then. That 988 number probably has hurt him.

I think Keenan needs to be in. Yeah, a bunch of players hate him, but I don't think Keenan did anything truly awful other than mind-games and the usual shouting at players. Through his first ten years in the NHL, he was possibly the most successful coach of all time (incl. Bowman), factoring in internatonal hockey, minor leagues, and NHL.

Cherry? No way. He coached only six NHL seasons, and only four of those were successful. Did some good coaching in the minors, I guess,

Babcock is interesting, mainly for the political / cultural reasons. Based on his track record, he should probably be in.

Cherry as far as I know would have his coaching and Coach's Corner career sort of combined to be inducted as a builder. No way as a coach did he do enough on his own, as impressive as things were in Boston. It just wasn't long enough. But if you are looking at overall impact then it is a different story and that is where the bread and butter is for Cherry, not just his coaching alone.

I agree on Keenan and Babcock with you. Will time be their enemy?

 

[VanIslander]

Tikkanen is one of the greatest defensive forwards ever, fondly remembered by three franchises as clutch in several key historic moments and leaguewide in terms of checking excellence and playoff play.

Versus a consistent quality regular.

Elias belongs where Hejduk belongs: in the TEAM's rafters. Not transcendent by any means.

Reductive and cumulative stat analysis shouldn't equate with a reductive, final judgment.

It ain't all about points.
A calculus of games played to games won, added to a calculus of role played to team success, would do the trick.

 

[Staniowski]

Elias is a very interesting case. He has quite a lot of support right now, so it wouldn't be surprising if he's inducted soon.

But he also might never be inducted. He obviously has team success, which always helps, and he's widely regarded as very good both offensively and defensively. The question is, however, was he good enough at either offense or defense to get attention? His career offensive numbers are good, but he wasn't anything close to a superstar, and he has only one all-star selection. And, on the defensive side, he had very few Selke votes in his career.

He seems like a guy who could be overlooked as time goes on, even though he's pretty highly regarded at the moment.

 

[Staniowski]

Re: Grapes

I think the chances of Cherry being inducted are Zero.

They were already pretty small, but the issues around his firing from Sportsnet/HNIC made it a certainty, I think.

There's a couple things to mention here. The first is Cherry's very controversial image - he has a lot of supporters; he has a lot of detractors.

But also, his job as a commentator fits very awkwardly in the categories for inductees. There are the two media awards (and the winners of these aren't actually inducted as Honoured Members anyway), and he doesn't qualify for either of those. So it has to be as a Builder, and while technically I think anybody could qualify for this, in practice media members are not inducted as Builders, and haven't been for a long time.

 

[Staniowski]

Somebody mentioned Bondra. He's a good example of a player who is highly unlikely to be inducted, but would have been a very easy induction if he were born in the 1880s or 1920s when the talent pools were very small compared to when Bondra was actually born (when the talent pool was very deep).

Same goes for Elias, although he has a much better chance of getting in today than Bondra does.

 

[VanIslander]

Patrik Elias is a Shane Doan and Trevor Linden to their franchises (to cite near contemporaries).

Let the team raise the banner, f the leaguewide all-time induction.

 

[Terrier]

Rick Middleton come to mind, just for his highlight reels. I played against him in alumni games on a handful of occasions(with the MIT alumni), which was a thrill.

 

[Sorry]

Patrik Elias is a Shane Doan and Trevor Linden to their franchises (to cite near contemporaries).

Let the team raise the banner, f the leaguewide all-time induction.

Elias is more like Zetterberg.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

Yeah, there's no doubt Mogilny had Hall of Fame talent (as did Kent Nilsson, Pierre Larouche, Bernie Nicholls, Alex Kovalev), but I guess the question is---did he perform at Hall of Fame level consistently enough, for long enough? That's where I'm unsure. To put it another way, what did Mogilny do that Bernie Nicholls, say, didn't? They each had a 70-goal season. They each a couple of years with monster peaks that they couldn't sustain. Mogilny was flashier with more razzle-dazzle, but then again Nicholls was better in the playoffs. I don't really see one over the other, to be honest.

This particular subject has been on my mind recently, pertaining to Nicholls' case and the HOF.

But instead of Mogilny being the subject of comparison (which I think is also a good one btw), I think Pat Lafontaine is a better one. For the record, I think that Lafontaine should be in the HOF. What I'm having a bit of a problem though, is that when comparing what Lafontaine did throughout his career, I'm having a hard time coming up with reasons as to why Nicholls shouldn't be making the cut also.

Their abbreviated rookie seasons:

Lafontaine

Nicholls

They also came into interesting situations, playing behind All Time great centers (Dionne and Trottier), who would still both be playing at a high level.

Their peak 2-year run:

Lafontaine

Nicholls

I think they both capitalized on their situations. Nicholls' success in that period, will forever be tied to being in a prime spot, playing behind Gretzky. He also played with Robitaille as his full time linemate.

But of the two, Lafontaine's success is tied slightly more closely to his power play production. Isolating Nicholl's time just with the Kings over that span (excluding the Rangers), he and Lafontaine would both score 43 goals on the PP, though Lafontaine did so in 141 games vs Nicholl's doing so in 126 games played. Lafontaine would also register 68 assists on the PP, to Nicholls 50 assists on the PP.

I'm isolating Nicholls time on the Kings, specifically to show how much he benefitted playing with Gretzky on the power play. AFAIK, Nicholls and Gretzky didn't play on the same line; or certainly not as much as people who don't really know might assume.

Luc Robitaille was certainly great in '88-'90, but his peak season - like a lot of other players - came about in the '92-'93 season.

Mogilny's peak season on the other hand, was (probably) in the '92-'93 season.

According to Statmuse, there were 3.74 GPG scored league-wide in the '88-'89 campaign, and 3.68 GPG in '89-90. There were 3.48 GPG scored on average in '91-'92, and 3.63 GPG in '92-'93.

The Kings scored 376 goals in '88-'89. The Sabres scored 335 in '92-'93.

The two examples (GPG and Goals For Team) favor Lafontaine's argument that he was better than Nichols.

Here's both of their production leading up to their breakout performances:

Lafontaine

Nicholls

Lafontaine's '90 campaign is the best one shown (5th in Hart voting), but beyond that, I think Nicholls is right there with him. Lafontaine's the superior goal scorer, but Nicholls is the superior passer. Yet going back to their peak 2-year runs mentioned earlier, we sort of see an inverse of that. Lafontaine registers 95 (!) assists in '93, when he'd mostly been a 40-45 assists per year type of a player, while Nicholls goes nuts in the goals department, basically doubling his standards.

The '87-'88 season was Trottier's last solid PPG season, so Lafontaine's production should go up around that time, which it did. Nicholls was still playing behind Dionne (I would imagine), up until Dionne got traded to the Rangers in '86-'87. Whether it was he or Jimmy Carson centering that first line beyond that, I don't really know.

Now, here's them after their peak seasons:

Lafontaine

Nicholls

On average Nicholls is missing ~20 games per season. Lafontaine is almost only injured at this stage of his career.

I think Nicholls had varying degrees of success with the Rangers, Edmonton, New Jersey, and Chicago. He got quite a bit out of Joe Murphy. Nicholls (finally) became a better two-way player. He also separates himself (IMO) from Lafontaine, with his 3 deepish runs in the post season, with Edmonton, New Jersey, and Chicago.

Lafontaine

Nicholls

I was also thinking about the Hart votes. There's no way Nicholls is getting a Hart vote in '89, because he's being blocked playing with Gretzky. Fine. At the same time, while it's understandable that he wouldn't get any votes, was his season really any less than Lafontaine's '92-'93 campaign?

I was also thinking about if being the 2nd center, playing directly behind Gretzky is so easy, how come no one Gretzky had ever played with registered 150 points before in all of those years in Edmonton? Come to think of it, Gretzky was still only about 29 years old when Nicholls was traded away from the Kings. Nicholls was the last 2C to register more than 100 points in a single season playing behind Gretzky.

What's even stranger when you think about it, Gretzky hadn't had a player on his line, who registered 100 points in a season since Kurri in '87! AFAIK, Robitaille didn't play with Gretzky.

Back to Nicholls, is there an argument that could be made, that he had specific enough talent to be an optimal scoring 2C under the right circumstances, better than anyone else could have? What other 2C put up those kinds of numbers? You'll never hear anyone say that Nicholls was greater than Ron Francis, yet Francis never came close to putting up 150 points playing directly behind Lemieux when they were both near their respective peaks.

I'd also wondered if Steve Yzerman - who's no question greater than Nicholls - could put up the same type of numbers playing directly behind Gretzky in '88-'89. One would assume that he'd get even more in that spot, but would he?

Nicholls career reminds of Roger Maris' career (minus the 2 MVPs), surrounded by Neal Broten's career as book ends; with a splash of Kelly Kisio.

 

[The Panther]

This particular subject has been on my mind recently, pertaining to Nicholls' case and the HOF.

But instead of Mogilny being the subject of comparison (which I think is also a good one btw), I think Pat Lafontaine is a better one. For the record, I think that Lafontaine should be in the HOF. What I'm having a bit of a problem though, is that when comparing what Lafontaine did throughout his career, I'm having a hard time coming up with reasons as to why Nicholls shouldn't be making the cut also.

Their abbreviated rookie seasons:

Lafontaine
View attachment 783060

Nicholls
View attachment 783061

They also came into interesting situations, playing behind All Time great centers (Dionne and Trottier), who would still both be playing at a high level.

Their peak 2-year run:

Lafontaine
View attachment 783068

Nicholls
View attachment 783069

I think they both capitalized on their situations. Nicholls' success in that period, will forever be tied to being in a prime spot, playing behind Gretzky. He also played with Robitaille as his full time linemate.

But of the two, Lafontaine's success is tied slightly more closely to his power play production. Isolating Nicholl's time just with the Kings over that span (excluding the Rangers), he and Lafontaine would both score 43 goals on the PP, though Lafontaine did so in 141 games vs Nicholl's doing so in 126 games played. Lafontaine would also register 68 assists on the PP, to Nicholls 50 assists on the PP.

I'm isolating Nicholls time on the Kings, specifically to show how much he benefitted playing with Gretzky on the power play. AFAIK, Nicholls and Gretzky didn't play on the same line; or certainly not as much as people who don't really know might assume.

Luc Robitaille was certainly great in '88-'90, but his peak season - like a lot of other players - came about in the '92-'93 season.

Mogilny's peak season on the other hand, was (probably) in the '92-'93 season.

According to Statmuse, there were 3.74 GPG scored league-wide in the '88-'89 campaign, and 3.68 GPG in '89-90. There were 3.48 GPG scored on average in '91-'92, and 3.63 GPG in '92-'93.

The Kings scored 376 goals in '88-'89. The Sabres scored 335 in '92-'93.

The two examples (GPG and Goals For Team) favor Lafontaine's argument that he was better than Nichols.

Here's both of their production leading up to their breakout performances:

Lafontaine
View attachment 783112

Nicholls
View attachment 783115

Lafontaine's '90 campaign is the best one shown (5th in Hart voting), but beyond that, I think Nicholls is right there with him. Lafontain's the superior goal scorer, but Nicholls is the superior passer. Yet going back to their peak 2-year runs mentioned earlier, we sort of see an inverse of that. Lafontaine registers 95 (!) assists in '93, when he'd mostly been a 40-45 assists per year type of a player, while Nicholls goes nuts in the goals department, basically doubling his standards.

The '87-'88 season was Trottier's last solid PPG season, so Lafontaine's production should go up around that time, which it did. Nicholls was still playing behind Dionne (I would imagine), up until Dionne got traded to the Rangers in '86-'87. Whether it was he or Jimmy Carson centering that first line beyond that, I don't really know.

Now, here's them after their peak seasons:

Lafontaine
View attachment 783153

Nicholls
View attachment 783154

On average Nicholls is missing ~20 games per season. Lafontaine is almost only injured at this stage of his career.

I think Nicholls had varying degrees of success with the Rangers, Edmonton, New Jersey, and Chicago. He got quite a bit out of Joe Murphy. Nicholls (finally) became a better two-way player. He also separates himself (IMO) from Lafontaine, with his 3 deepish runs in the post season, with Edmonton, New Jersey, and Chicago.

Lafontaine View attachment 783155

Nicholls
View attachment 783156

I was also thinking about the Hart votes. There's no way Nicholls is getting a Hart vote in '89, because he's being blocked playing with Gretzky. Fine. At the same time, while it's understandable that he wouldn't get any votes, was his season really any less than Lafontaine's '92-'93 campaign?

I was also thinking about if being the 2nd center, playing directly behind Gretzky is so easy, how come no one Gretzky had ever played with registered 150 points before in all of those years in Edmonton? Come to think of it, Gretzky was still only about 29 years old when Nicholls was traded away from the Kings. Nicholls was the last 2C to register more than 100 points in a single season playing behind Gretzky.

What's even stranger when you think about it, Gretzky hadn't had a player on his line, who registered 100 points in a season since Kurri in '87! AFAIK, Robitaille didn't play with Gretzky.

Back to Nicholls, is there an argument that could be made, that he had specific enough talent to be an optimal scoring 2C under the right circumstances, better than anyone else could have? What other 2C put up those kinds of numbers? You'll never hear anyone say that Nicholls was greater than Ron Francis, yet Francis never came close to putting up 150 points playing directly behind Lemieux when they were both near their respective peaks.

I'd also wondered if Steve Yzerman - who's no question greater than Nicholls - could put up the same type of numbers playing directly behind Gretzky in '88-'89. One would assume that he'd get even more in that spot, but would he?

Nicholls career reminds of Roger Maris' career (minus the 2 MVPs), surrounded by Neal Broten's career as book ends; with a splash of Kelly Kisio.

Great post!

Yeah, I've started to come around to the idea of Nicholls in the Hall of Fame, though I still would prefer his level of player (which includes many already in) to not be included.

You are quite right that Nicholls and Lafontaine look very close.

 

[VanIslander]

Everyone knew Laffy was an all-time great talent. Buffalo actually won more when he was injured because the players said they each had to stop relying on him and contribute something.

 

[MadArcand]

I'd easily take Elias and Bondra over someone like Glenn Anderson. But the Hall likes its 5th+ wheels on dynasties, alas.

Joseph over Vernon is beyond non-brainer, but so is a whole slew of other goalies (I wouldn't have put Vernon in top-30 goalies outside the Hall at the time of his induction).

Cherry belongs in a Hall of Fame the same way a Theo Fleury belongs. But that doesn't seem to be the definition the Hall itself uses (what 'fame' does a Lowe have?).

 

[The Panther]

Everyone knew Laffy was an all-time great talent. Buffalo actually won more when he was injured because the players said they each had to stop relying on him and contribute something.

I think it was more like: "Lafontaine's out. From now on, we're gonna build the whole club around Hašek."

 

[The Panther]

I'd easily take Elias and Bondra over someone like Glenn Anderson. But the Hall likes its 5th+ wheels on dynasties, alas.

Anderson was indeed (usually) the 5th-best Oiler player, but he wasn't exactly chopped liver. His playoff clutch scoring is legendary, especially in 1987 and 1990 (post-Gretzky). He was still scoring playoff overtime winners in 1993 with Toronto, and in the 1994 Finals, when he was basically washed-up, he still came up with back-to-back game-winning goals in the Finals. I'm not aware that Elias or Bondra had so many big moments on big stages, though, of course, that partly depends on opportunity.

Joseph over Vernon is beyond non-brainer...

I agree.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

I'd easily take Elias and Bondra over someone like Glenn Anderson. But the Hall likes its 5th+ wheels on dynasties, alas.

Joseph over Vernon is beyond non-brainer, but so is a whole slew of other goalies (I wouldn't have put Vernon in top-30 goalies outside the Hall at the time of his induction).

Cherry belongs in a Hall of Fame the same way a Theo Fleury belongs. But that doesn't seem to be the definition the Hall itself uses (what 'fame' does a Lowe have?).

Before the induction I used to be like, yeah I really like Vernon, wouldnt it be cool if he got in, maybe if I squint at it just right...

And now that hes actually in I cringe and have to admit there is no way on this earth he should have been inducted. Its almost lowe-tier bad. Joseph should have been in first no question.

Cherry and Fleury are two different cases. Fleury is a HHOF lock that absolutely should be in based on the busher jackson principle

Cherry is more difficult because his impact is across multiple careers, and the hhof doesnt want to promote him anymore, but with the purpose of the hhof being about history, there has to be some sort of exhibit for future generations to know who Ron & Don were.

 

[Dhockey16]

None. The HHoF is, comparatively, much easier to get into than Cooperstown or Canton.

 

[Winged Wheel Willy]

Let’s be real: Kevin Lowe induction f***ed it up

Just my two cents on some names:
Zetterberg>Elias>Hejduk>Linden>Doan
Zetterberg will get in, Elias should, the rest not.

If you join the 500 goals club you should basically be a lock. It’s a lofty threshold and I think the museum of our sport should acknowledge them.
Which means Bondra, Roenick etc all belong.
And some members of the 400 goal club should be in as well. If you’re near the top of most prolific goal scorers in your prime. Kovalchuk is a Hofer imo, Leclair should be in as well.

 

[Neutrinos]

Keith Tkachuk


From '93 - '09, Tkachuk (522) was 4th in goals behind only Jagr (587), Selanne (579) and Shanahan (535)

He was 8th in points over that same period as well

To put that in perspective, from '81 - '97, Dino Ciccarelli was 5th in goals behind Gretzky, Gartner, Lemieux and Kurri

Dino drops to 14th in points over that period

Tkachuk also has a Richard and was twice named a 2nd team all star, while Dino has no such accomplishments

 

[DRW895]

Induction of P. Turgeon in 2023 with one more dropping Mogilny - natural cringe

 

[Voight]

Let’s be real: Kevin Lowe induction f***ed it up

Just my two cents on some names:
Zetterberg>Elias>Hejduk>Linden>Doan
Zetterberg will get in, Elias should, the rest not.

If you join the 500 goals club you should basically be a lock. It’s a lofty threshold and I think the museum of our sport should acknowledge them.
Which means Bondra, Roenick etc all belong.
And some members of the 400 goal club should be in as well. If you’re near the top of most prolific goal scorers in your prime. Kovalchuk is a Hofer imo, Leclair should be in as well.

So should Pat Verbeek be in then?

 

[GMR]

Elias is more like Zetterberg.

Zetterberg has a higher peak and was a more impact player on both sides. He also has that 2008 season and Cup run. Elias is not remembered much for the Cup runs. It's always Brodeur/Stevens before any other names are mentioned.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

If Zetterberg didn't have that 2008 peak season, I'd be inclined to leave him out of HHOF as well. That's how high I think the bar should be.