Should Pavelski be a HHoFer?

[Regal]

scoring is up. Pavelski, has he ever cracked top 10 in one season for points? Great player but not HOF worthy at 1000 points. Too many players will get in for this generation if you only need 1000 points.

He was 8th in points in 13-14 and 6th in 15-16. But it still doesn’t feel like his peak was ever quite at that level of what you’d expect out of top 10 production. Those weren’t the most competitive seasons for top scorers.

 

[account deactivated]

I'm voting yes and I don't give a f*** how biased it is. You can't stop me.

 

[pld459666]

Good player for a long time

I think he falls short

 

[DitchMarner]

I don't really want Marleau in the Hall of Fame, but I know he'll definitely be inducted.

I'm not sure Marleau was a better player than Pavelski if you focus on their respective eight or ten year primes. I feel Pavs has the edge in the playoffs.

Pavelski probably wouldn't be the worst player in the Hall, but he would be in the bottom rung of inductees. I don't think he should or will be inducted, but I won't be shocked if he is..

 

[Lou Sassole]

Roenick got to the magical 500 goal number . It’s stupid and arbitrary but the Hall has numerical milestones they require

I wish they'd remember that when Bondra came up for debate.

 

[Regal]

I wish they'd remember that when Bondra came up for debate.

Bondra had the goals but was lacking in points. Probably needed at least 1000 to get serious discussion. Roenick had over 1200

 

[Lou Sassole]

Bondra had the goals but was lacking in points. Probably needed at least 1000 to get serious discussion. Roenick had over 1200

Agreed, Roenick getting in was well overdue.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Not really in my books but the standards have dropped so much in the past few years that he probably should be in there at this point. You can't really argue that Turgeon, Roenick, Weber, Wilson, or Zubov deserve it that much more than Pavelski.

 

[Satan]

i hope they induct Jumbo Joe, Little Joe, and Marleau in the same year just for the reaction

 

[Arthur Morgan]

I swear we have seen alot of players make it for exceeding 1000 points

 

[TruePowerSlave]

Don't think players like Pavelski should make it. However, the standards to enter the hall keep dropping so maybe he does make it.

 

[MTL Dirty Birdy]

Top scorer of the 2003 draft. Pretty nuts.

So the top scorer of potentially the greatest draft year ever, one of the greatest American players ever and people are saying no?

 

[MK9]

Hard not to like. Very good player, but doesn't make it into the 'great' category. Can't see him getting in. Would be a slight head scratcher. But, with a few of the players that have gotten in over the past few years, it wouldn't be a total shock if he did. Just wouldn't really be justifiable IMO.

 

[DitchMarner]

The perception for what a HHOF player is seems to have drastically changed over the last half dozen or so years on the HF main boards.

In the late 2010s, people used to think a player had to be about a Matthews-level player to have a decent shot at being inducted (with there being some weak/questionable inductees in the Hall already). The actual standard was always lower than many thought.

I think some of the guys inducted recently who are cited as examples of weak inductees (like Roenick, Turgeon and Weber) are better than Pavelski. Roenick and Turgeon would have gotten in sooner if not for factors having nothing to do with playing ability. I would say someone like Joe Mullen (about 1100 career points, American) is a better comparable for Pavelski. I think you can definitely argue Pavelski is better, but Mullen does have three Cups and the HHOF loves Cup-counting.

 

[hamzarocks]

If Shea Weber and Jeremy Roenick are, then absolutely.

Both guys blow Pavalski away for Peak + prime

Pavelski did have longer stretch of career of being a top 6 player but he started worse then them

Roenick was a top 5-10 forward for 3-4 years. Pavelski was jever close to that

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

absolutely not.

1000 points is pretty much a lock.

I don't see Ray Whitney getting in anytime soo. And Neither should Pavelski

 

[Video Nasty]

Not really in my books but the standards have dropped so much in the past few years that he probably should be in there at this point. You can't really argue that Turgeon, Roenick, Weber, Wilson, or Zubov deserve it that much more than Pavelski.

Sure you can, particularly with Weber.

Weber was top 4 in Norris voting 5 times, a 3 time finalist, and 2 time runner-up where he lost by percentage points in back to back years to Lidstrom and Karlsson. He was also a 4 time All-Star. That resume can be classified as much much much more.

Each of the players you singled out have easily arguable cases compared to Pavelski.

Where I agree with you is that it wouldn’t surprise me if he made it, but I also don’t mind letting the doors open a bit more either. I view the Hall of Fame a little differently than most. To me, there’s clear tiers inside the HoF and I’m okay with inducting certain players who were good for a long time and helping make sure they’re not forgotten over time.

 

[Regal]

Sure you can, particularly with Weber.

Weber was top 4 in Norris voting 5 times, a 3 time finalist, and 2 time runner-up where he lost by percentage points in back to back years to Lidstrom and Karlsson. He was also a 4 time All-Star. That resume can be classified as much much much more.

Each of the players you singled out have easily arguable cases compared to Pavelski.

Where I agree with you is that it wouldn’t surprise me if he made it, but I also don’t mind letting the doors open a bit more either. I view the Hall of Fame a little differently than most. To me, there’s clear tiers inside the HoF and I’m okay with inducting certain players who were good for a long time and helping make sure they’re not forgotten over time.

I know there’s a stigma against the idea of compilers who were never really among the very best players but played forever, but I think the ability to be good for a long time rather than elite for a short time is often underrated. Especially if it’s not a guy who was blessed with supreme physical gifts. I think there’s a lot in terms of drive, smarts, adjusting one’s game, learning new skills, etc that comes with being able to be good for a long time thats should be honoured as well. I agree that there’s a place for those players. I’m not sure if Pavelski makes that cut of not, but I wouldn’t be upset by it.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Sure you can, particularly with Weber.

Weber was top 4 in Norris voting 5 times, a 3 time finalist, and 2 time runner-up where he lost by percentage points in back to back years to Lidstrom and Karlsson. He was also a 4 time All-Star. That resume can be classified as much much much more.

Each of the players you singled out have easily arguable cases compared to Pavelski.

Where I agree with you is that it wouldn’t surprise me if he made it, but I also don’t mind letting the doors open a bit more either. I view the Hall of Fame a little differently than most. To me, there’s clear tiers inside the HoF and I’m okay with inducting certain players who were good for a long time and helping make sure they’re not forgotten over time.

Eh, it's marginal at best. Weber was never a franchise altering player, and neither was Pavelski. No team was able to do anything of consequences with them as their best player.

 

[Regal]

Eh, it's marginal at best. Weber was never a franchise altering player, and neither was Pavelski. No team was able to do anything of consequences with them as their best player.

How is a top 5 defenseman not franchise altering? Was Karlsson not franchise altering despite the Sens missing the playoffs several times with him?

 

[trentmccleary]

My first thought was "no", but I'm rethinking that. I'm voting yes.
He has similar playoff production to Hossa and probably Roenick if his numbers are era adjusted.
His teams had playoff outcomes a bit better than Roenick's (2-1 x SCF's appearances and 5-3 x 3rd rounds). Hossa has them beat with lots of deep runs and 3 Cups.

He has a similar Selke voting history to Hossa, which is well above Roenick.

Roenick's 4 year peak is always a strong point for him and Hossa has a similar 4 year peak, but Pavelski's 4 year rankings from 2014-17 are comparable to theirs.
On top of his 4 year peak, Roenick had another 3 season stretch from 99-01 at 11th in points. The other two didn't really have that second peak.
The players all have a roughly 11 consecutive seasons of high level play, also relatively similar rankings with Hossa on top and Pavelski slightly below the other two.
Pavelski is below the other 2 in career totals, but he might not be that far behind when Roenick's are era adjusted.
Hossa's top-10 (season) finishes are slightly better than Pavelski's, which are slightly better than Roenick's.

Hossa and Pavelski have a 2nd AS team to their names, Roenick doesn't.

Pavelski's Olympic production is a hair better than Roenick's, but both were miles behind Hossa.

Pavelski also leads Marleau in all of these categories. The only thing Marleau has is an extra 80 point season.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

He's a generational talent so yes.

 

[BagHead]

I voted yes, because I want him to be. He's an interesting player, with how productive he was at an old age, and very likeable. But I don't actually think they'll put him in. Then again, with Roenick's recent inclusion, you also kind of have to wonder "why one and not the other?" Roenick's career numbers are a bit higher, but he was a player in a different era, and was a hell of a lot less likeable.

 

[KevinRedkey]

He has no awards and his only somewhat notable milestone is hitting 1000 points. Most of the debatable guys have at least a high peak, and Pavelski doesn't even have that. No disrespect (I actually like Pavs) but what's the argument for exactly?

Voted no

 

[HeadLiceHatty]

Hall of very good, they need to make the Hall of Fame exclusive again, it's getting way too easy to get in, no offense to Pavelski, he had a great career.