The 2022 Hockey Hall Of Fame

[NyQuil]

Yes, just about every season during his time in Winnipeg/Phoenix

Better than Selanne? Better than Roenick? Better than Demitra?

I'm not convinced.

He's Phil Kessel without the Cups.

 

[MXD]

Better than Selanne? Better than Roenick? Better than Demitra?

I'm not convinced.

He's Phil Kessel without the Cups.

...And with an absolutely awful playoff resume.

EDIT : Of course, that's Tkachuk with the awful playoffs resume. Not Kessel.

 

[K Fleur]

Kessel was the best player on those Toronto teams which is a big reason why they sucked.

But the dude was always f***ing money in the playoffs.

Tkachuk was horrible in the playoffs. One of those classic “his game is built for the playoffs” players that never showed up.

 

[MXD]

Yeah, Alfredsson getting in is a really low bar.

During his 20+ year professional career, he was one year selected as a top 12 player (AS-2). That's all. So that means that just during his career there were maybe 150-200 better player seasons than this one season of his. And during the 100+ years of hockey history, there are well over 1000 better seasons by players. With that kind of record, he should be happy that anyone outside of his local clubs remembers him at all. Certainly nothing worthy of being selected as one of the greatest and most famous ice hockey players of all time.

Wow, whopping three top 10 point & goals finishes during a 20+ year career. Again, that means there were about 400 similar achievements during his career. And over 2000 during NHL history. Truly unique, and worth remembering, eh?

And, what an amazing international record, right? Out of 14 international tournaments, the team he was part of, managed to win one whopping time. And during this one sequence of 8 games, his team still managed to lose twice.

And yes, he did manage to score 5 goals in that tournament, while his teammates scored the other 31 goals. So I guess that's good, although nothing out of the ordinary compared to other best teams' first line players in that tournament (couple of whom score more points than him). And going pointless in the final when it mattered most. Whereas guys like Forsberg, Sundin, Lidstrom and Zetterberg actually showed up in the final.

Also during those 14 tournaments, his teams were medalists half the time, so I guess 50 % success rate is sort of an achievement. But to be selected to HHOF based on that, it's not much to stand on.

Would be nothing wrong selecting Alfredsson to local Ottawa Senators Hall of Fame, but anything beyond that is cringeworthy.

Well, as there have been persons with high moral standards and they've declined to accept an Oscar, there is still hope that Alfredsson can show similar character, do the right thing, and turn down the HHOF selection. Would be even better if his parting words would advice HHOF getting rid of some less deserving members like Duff, Lowe etc.

There's an idiom for that post : Jumping the shark over the top.

 

[NyQuil]

Phil was the best player on those Toronto teams which is a big reason why they sucked.

But the dude was always f***ing money in the playoffs.

Tkachuk was horrible in the playoffs. One of those classic “his game is built for the playoffs” players that never showed up.

I tried to delete my analogy because it's not really that fitting.

Kessel was a finesse winger who was always going to be a complementary piece for a strong team.

Tkachuk is similar in terms of being more of a complementary guy than a leading his team into the trenches kind of player but he obviously played a physical game.

 

[K Fleur]

I tried to delete my analogy because it's not really that fitting.

Kessel was a finesse winger who was always going to be a complementary piece for a strong team.

Tkachuk is similar in terms of being more of a complementary guy than a leading his team into the trenches kind of player but he obviously played a physical game.

Nah I get what you’re saying.

You have a real contending team if either of those guys is your 4th best player.

Though I’d rather have Kessel than Tkachuk.

 

[Neutrinos]

Better than Selanne? Better than Roenick? Better than Demitra?

I'm not convinced.

He's Phil Kessel without the Cups.

I tried to delete my analogy because it's not really that fitting.

Kessel was a finesse winger who was always going to be a complementary piece for a strong team.

Tkachuk is similar in terms of being more of a complementary guy than a leading his team into the trenches kind of player but he obviously played a physical game.

Tkachuk lead all skaters on his team in Point Shares in '94, '96, '97, '99, '01, and '02 with St. Louis (despite playing fewer games than Pronger and Demitra, and only 2 games more than MacInnis)

And, yes, your Kessel comparison was a bit off

He's Shanahan without the Cups, and a shorter prime

 

[Michael Farkas]

Point shares...? Booooooooo

 

[jigglysquishy]

Neutrinos is an expert in using junk stats to boost bad arguments.

Point shares? Using hockey reference adjusted stats as definitive? Might as well just use raw stats

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Just so that there's transparency about why nobody takes Point Shares seriously, here's a lengthy thread explaining it's design flaws - Point Shares? (Warning: Thread for stat dorks:))

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

keith tkachuk was brendan shanahan only he sucked in the playoffs? sure

keith tkachuk was phil kessel who never found a 2016-2017 penguins to play on? idts, being that he bounced to a stacked blues team led by macinnis/pronger/demitra/turgeon->weight + other ringers (scott young, mellanby) and scored 8 goals in 41 playoff games. by contrast, kessel scored 18 goals and 45 pts in 49 playoff games as a valuable and pretty clutch contributor in back to back cup runs.

owen nolan with better centers? i can dig it.

but how about, keith tkachuk was a rich man's dave taylor in the exact era where a rich man's dave taylor would have been massively massively overvalued?

one issue with tkachuk, beyond him sucking in the playoffs, is as a big mean guy with really nice hands, in the era of lindros (and chris gratton, keith primeau... remember the meteoric post-draft rise of brad isbister as a hyped prospect?), tkachuk always commanded an outsized share of his team's payroll. and after winnipeg moved, his teams always would spend. phoenix upgraded zhamnov for roenick when chicago wouldn't pay him, added so many ringers: tocchet, gartner, janney, the '94 canucks core of ronning, diduck, and greg adams. st louis was st louis. in a way both teams were less successful versions of the joe thornton sharks. but one reason why they never each took the next respective step to contender and WCF sinner, even pre-cap, was you were carrying tkachuk's contract and even though he was contributing star numbers, especially in phoenix, he was a playmaking center-dependent goal scorer who didn't actually move the needle.

but also, as destructive a force as he often was on the ice (in a good way, because he was an absolute beast at times) he was also a destructive force on his own teams. holdouts in back to back years to renegotiate active contracts (a contract he originally forced his team to match on an offer sheet, no less), encouraging his teammate tverdovsky to holdout with him after tivo's breakout 50 pt season, leading to a culture of holding out that led to the yearlong saga and eventual departure of khabibulin.

i liken winnipeg's decision to trade selanne and build around tkachuk to be a king lear-esque stupid decision that rivals buffalo deciding to run it back with chris drury at the expense of daniel briere and losing both.

just a months ago, keith tkachuk refusing to chuck his hat on the ice to celebrate his own son's playoff hat trick in one of hockey's greatest rivalries tells you everything you need to know about keith tkachuk's priorities.

but i'm seeing a pattern here. keith tkachuk, pierre turgeon, these were players we watched in the 90s and were always disappointed by, despite their immense gifts. they were guys who in the moment were tantalizing talents putting up star numbers but were hyped for what they could be (tkachuk could be cam neely, turgeon could be joe sakic) instead of what they were, which were hall of fame talents laying down hall of very good careers. and it's funny that someone now is looking back and doing the exact same thing, only retroactively imagining what they should have been via mathematical gobbledygook vs what they actually were.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Can someone explain to me the reason for Luongo induction? The guy DOES NOT HAVE A SINGLE VEZINA! That means that at no point in his career he was considered the greatest goaltender in the world!

I'm OK with Zetterberg waiting another year or two. Getting inducted with Datsyuk would be epic.

I have to point out the irony of criticizing one guy for not being voted the best at his position, then saying it would be "epic" if two guys get in who never were voted the best at their position either. Even if you really love awards voting, Luongo has a higher Hart finish than either Datsyuk or Zetterberg, and he has as many Top-3 All-Star finishes at his position as both of them combined. Let's be honest: Do you actually have a problem with Bobby Lou's awards record, or is this really all about his lack of Stanley Cups?

The reason for the Luongo induction is the voters correctly didn't rate goalies solely based on trophies, because that's a very short-sighted thing to do. It is like judging a forest based on the single tallest tree, you are straight-up ignoring the vast majority of the information.

By trophy counting logic, Andrei Vasilevskiy and Philipp Grubauer just had exactly the same season in 2021-22. Neither won the Cup and neither won the Vezina (neither was even nominated), therefore both of them get zero accomplishments points, even though everyone knows that they were about as diametrically opposed as NHL starting goalies could possibly be.

There is a huge difference between a consistently elite, top 3-5ish goalie and even a league average one, it's like 2-3 wins a season. That adds up to a huge amount of value over a long career like Luongo's, but if all you care about is who wins the Vezina then you're unfortunately going to miss that completely.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The reason for the Luongo induction is the voters correctly didn't rate goalies solely based on trophies, because that's a very short-sighted thing to do. It is like judging a forest based on the single tallest tree, you are straight-up ignoring the vast majority of the information.

man it has been a week of handling awful hall of fame hot takes hasn't it?

 

[trentmccleary]

It is a remarkable concidence (everyone does remark it, because it is so clear-cut), but Lindros missed enough game to have some idea what LeClair Lindros less during his prime looked like.

His +/- goes down significantly, assist per game a little, goals stay almost the same, the gap between LeClair with Lindros vs Leclair without Lindros is not that vast in that era.

LeClair usage change completely with the trade, he did not just gain one of the best center of the league, he gain first unit PP time and first line deployment ice time versus being a dept player.

Is eclosion is maybe a bit bigger and later than say Cam Neely, but he is another example of a player that more than double is production after a trade to a different team, if Lecavalier or MacKinnon had been traded to a team with a superstar linemate with a specific timing we could also build that narrative I feel like.

For the reference:

John LeClair HOF?

Isn't it about time to induct John LeClair into the HOF? He was maybe the most dominant LW during the second half of the 1990s after Paul Kariya. LeClair was named to five consecutive NHL All-Star Teams during that period. No other player outside the HOF has been selected so many times. He was a...

hfboards.mandatory.com

LeClair with Lindros:

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Season[/TD]
[TD]Games[/TD]
[TD]Goals[/TD]
[TD]Assists[/TD]
[TD]Points[/TD]
[TD]"+/-"[/TD]
[TD]GPG[/TD]
[TD]APG[/TD]
[TD]PPG[/TD]
[TD]PlusPerGames[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19951996[/TD]
[TD]73[/TD]
[TD]46[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]86[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]0.63[/TD]
[TD]0.55[/TD]
[TD]1.18[/TD]
[TD]0.27[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19961997[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[TD]33[/TD]
[TD]33[/TD]
[TD]66[/TD]
[TD]36[/TD]
[TD]0.63[/TD]
[TD]0.63[/TD]
[TD]1.27[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19971998[/TD]
[TD]63[/TD]
[TD]38[/TD]
[TD]29[/TD]
[TD]67[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]0.60[/TD]
[TD]0.46[/TD]
[TD]1.06[/TD]
[TD]0.38[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19981999[/TD]
[TD]67[/TD]
[TD]38[/TD]
[TD]41[/TD]
[TD]79[/TD]
[TD]31[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.61[/TD]
[TD]1.18[/TD]
[TD]0.46[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19992000[/TD]
[TD]55[/TD]
[TD]27[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]0.49[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sum[/TD]
[TD]310[/TD]
[TD]182[/TD]
[TD]168[/TD]
[TD]350[/TD]
[TD]118[/TD]
[TD]0.59[/TD]
[TD]0.54[/TD]
[TD]1.13[/TD]
[TD]0.38[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

LeClair without Lindros:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Season[/TD]
[TD]Games[/TD]
[TD]Goals[/TD]
[TD]Assists[/TD]
[TD]Points[/TD]
[TD]"+/-"[/TD]
[TD]GPG[/TD]
[TD]APG[/TD]
[TD]PPG[/TD]
[TD]PlusPerGames[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19951996[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.67[/TD]
[TD]1.22[/TD]
[TD]0.11[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19961997[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]31[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.47[/TD]
[TD]1.03[/TD]
[TD]0.27[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19971998[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]0.68[/TD]
[TD]0.37[/TD]
[TD]1.05[/TD]
[TD]0.32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19981999[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.67[/TD]
[TD]1.22[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19992000[/TD]
[TD]27[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.48[/TD]
[TD]0.44[/TD]
[TD]0.93[/TD]
[TD]0.04[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sum[/TD]
[TD]94[/TD]
[TD]53[/TD]
[TD]45[/TD]
[TD]98[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.48[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]0.22[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

They had Lindros, a generational player or superstar. Whatever you want to call him.
What style of play does a team with a generational player play? ... Run'n'gun, high event hockey. It makes the generational player happy and that player can dominate high event hockey.
What happens when that player gets hurt for short periods? They have to keep playing the same way. However, they are no longer able to dominate the way they were, so offense and +/- are negatively affected.
You can't dominate opponents the same way without Lindros and that makes the run'n'gun system dependent on his presence.
What happened when they traded Lindros? Shortly after they hired defensive coach Ken Hitchcock.

 

[Sentinel]

I have to point out the irony of criticizing one guy for not being voted the best at his position, then saying it would be "epic" if two guys get in who never were voted the best at their position either. Even if you really love awards voting, Luongo has a higher Hart finish than either Datsyuk or Zetterberg, and he has as many Top-3 All-Star finishes at his position as both of them combined. Let's be honest: Do you actually have a problem with Bobby Lou's awards record, or is this really all about his lack of Stanley Cups?

The reason for the Luongo induction is the voters correctly didn't rate goalies solely based on trophies, because that's a very short-sighted thing to do. It is like judging a forest based on the single tallest tree, you are straight-up ignoring the vast majority of the information.

By trophy counting logic, Andrei Vasilevskiy and Philipp Grubauer just had exactly the same season in 2021-22. Neither won the Cup and neither won the Vezina (neither was even nominated), therefore both of them get zero accomplishments points, even though everyone knows that they were about as diametrically opposed as NHL starting goalies could possibly be.

There is a huge difference between a consistently elite, top 3-5ish goalie and even a league average one, it's like 2-3 wins a season. That adds up to a huge amount of value over a long career like Luongo's, but if all you care about is who wins the Vezina then you're unfortunately going to miss that completely.

Well, for starters, Zetterberg won the Conn Smythe, so he was the best at ALL positions for the playoff season of 2008. And Datsyuk, in his role of two-way center, was the very best in the world for three years. Plus, Datsyuk lost a Hart to two all-time greats (his countrymen). Other than Brodeur, which historic greats did Luongo lose to?

Being in the top 3-5 goaltenders for a decade plus is nice. But not winning the trophy ONCE is a major dent and not winning the Cup (or at least having a memorable playoff run) is another one. Well, Luongo had a very memorable run, alright, but I'm sure he wishes he could forget it. Hell, even Osgood had two excellent playoffs at the twilight of his career. In fact, he was a win away from a Conn Smythe.

 

[sr edler]

Tkachuk was a limited player. Due to his immobile frame he wasn't very dynamic, but if he had someone elite to dish him pucks he could be an okay complementary player. Like that game with Team USA against Russia where Modano flew around all over the ice and dished pucks, and Tkachuk hovered around the net and scored 4 (?) goals.

 

[Sentinel]

Yzerman was very narrowly (and heavily out-gunned in the first place votes) only voted the best center in the league one time...what's his case for the HOF in the binary land of Sentinel...?

Oh, I dunno... A Conn Smythe, a three time Stanley Cup captain, the third highest offensive season of all time, and one of the most legendary figures in hockey? With a reach like that, you should play goal. Maybe even in soccer.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Small sample size trophy, team awards, let me know when he has the best season of all time (right?).

Needless to say, I know how great of a player Yzerman is. You can disagree about Luongo, but the argument ought to be fair. Saying he was the never absolute best (which is highly debatable in a couple of individual seasons) and all of those other very simplistic, binary arguments don't really advance the conversation any. I mean, do you think the folks having this discussion think he DID win the Vezina...?

 

[sr edler]

Alfredsson was always great for Team Sweden at best-on-best Olympics. I noticed now that he played in all best-on-best era Olympic tourneys (98, 02, 06, 10, 14) and had 27 points in 26 games. Who else played in all of those 5 tourneys? I know Pronger played in 4 (98, 02, 06, 10), Niedermayer for instance only two (02, 10) partly due to injury (06).


Edit: Selänne did obviously, and Jagr

 

[MadLuke]

Who else played in all of those 5 tourneys?

Selanne played in those 5 and in 91-92. Jagr played in those 5 has well.

 

[sr edler]

Niedermayer for instance only two (02, 10) partly due to injury (06).

Another thing I noticed now is that Niedermayer didn't play in the 98 and 06 Olympic tourneys, and Canada didn't even medal. When he played in 02 and 10 Canada won gold.

 

[K Fleur]

How could Yzerman be in the HOF if he never even won the Mark Messier Leadership award?

 

[JackSlater]

keith tkachuk was brendan shanahan only he sucked in the playoffs? sure

keith tkachuk was phil kessel who never found a 2016-2017 penguins to play on? idts, being that he bounced to a stacked blues team led by macinnis/pronger/demitra/turgeon->weight + other ringers (scott young, mellanby) and scored 8 goals in 41 playoff games. by contrast, kessel scored 18 goals and 45 pts in 49 playoff games as a valuable and pretty clutch contributor in back to back cup runs.

owen nolan with better centers? i can dig it.

but how about, keith tkachuk was a rich man's dave taylor in the exact era where a rich man's dave taylor would have been massively massively overvalued?

one issue with tkachuk, beyond him sucking in the playoffs, is as a big mean guy with really nice hands, in the era of lindros (and chris gratton, keith primeau... remember the meteoric post-draft rise of brad isbister as a hyped prospect?), tkachuk always commanded an outsized share of his team's payroll. and after winnipeg moved, his teams always would spend. phoenix upgraded zhamnov for roenick when chicago wouldn't pay him, added so many ringers: tocchet, gartner, janney, the '94 canucks core of ronning, diduck, and greg adams. st louis was st louis. in a way both teams were less successful versions of the joe thornton sharks. but one reason why they never each took the next respective step to contender and WCF sinner, even pre-cap, was you were carrying tkachuk's contract and even though he was contributing star numbers, especially in phoenix, he was a playmaking center-dependent goal scorer who didn't actually move the needle.

but also, as destructive a force as he often was on the ice (in a good way, because he was an absolute beast at times) he was also a destructive force on his own teams. holdouts in back to back years to renegotiate active contracts (a contract he originally forced his team to match on an offer sheet, no less), encouraging his teammate tverdovsky to holdout with him after tivo's breakout 50 pt season, leading to a culture of holding out that led to the yearlong saga and eventual departure of khabibulin.

i liken winnipeg's decision to trade selanne and build around tkachuk to be a king lear-esque stupid decision that rivals buffalo deciding to run it back with chris drury at the expense of daniel briere and losing both.

just a months ago, keith tkachuk refusing to chuck his hat on the ice to celebrate his own son's playoff hat trick in one of hockey's greatest rivalries tells you everything you need to know about keith tkachuk's priorities.

but i'm seeing a pattern here. keith tkachuk, pierre turgeon, these were players we watched in the 90s and were always disappointed by, despite their immense gifts. they were guys who in the moment were tantalizing talents putting up star numbers but were hyped for what they could be (tkachuk could be cam neely, turgeon could be joe sakic) instead of what they were, which were hall of fame talents laying down hall of very good careers. and it's funny that someone now is looking back and doing the exact same thing, only retroactively imagining what they should have been via mathematical gobbledygook vs what they actually were.

The Tkachuk or Turgeon talk reminds me of when Esposito gets overrated every few months here by people who take a look at the numbers and have no real experience watching the player. If only the pesky people who actually remembered the player could get out of the way so that those sweet, sweet numbers could be inducted to the HHOF.

I like the Tkachuk/Kessel comparison. Your team wasn't getting anywhere following Tkachuk or Kessel, despite their physical talents. I'd guess that Tkachuk could have been an elite complementary piece as Kessel was in Pittsburgh, but honestly Kessel is at least a beloved, if lazy, teammate while Tkachuk seemed more like a locker room issue. Tkachuk and Shanahan is also a good comparison, with Shanahan being a better playoff performer and someone that we did see fall in line in as part of a massively successful team. Shanahan had his own issues with management, but at least we know that he could thrive in the role he had with Detroit.

 

[MXD]

Can someone explain to me the reason for Luongo induction? The guy DOES NOT HAVE A SINGLE VEZINA! That means that at no point in his career he was considered the greatest goaltender in the world!

I'm OK with Zetterberg waiting another year or two. Getting inducted with Datsyuk would be epic.

He's kinda like Mark Howe, in that, if you focus on what really matters to assess a player, he's a very obvious slam dunk HHOFer who makes it on his first year of eligibility unless there's a ridiculous first year crop (imagine AO, Crosby, Malkin and Lundqvist or Kane at the same time). Except Luongo became eligible at a time where we became smart enough to do this, while Howe didn't.

(Luongo also should've won a Vezina, but that's another topic)

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Well, for starters, Zetterberg won the Conn Smythe, so he was the best at ALL positions for the playoff season of 2008. And Datsyuk, in his role of two-way center, was the very best in the world for three years. Plus, Datsyuk lost a Hart to two all-time greats (his countrymen). Other than Brodeur, which historic greats did Luongo lose to?

Are you unfamiliar with 2007 Hart voting?

2006-07
HART: Pts. 1st-2nd-3rd-4th-5th
1. Sidney Crosby, PIT 1225 (91-34-14-2-1)
2. Roberto Luongo, VAN 801 (25-46-35-16-6)
3. Martin Brodeur, NJ 763 (21-45-39-12-7)

What's the next argument, "Well, other than Brodeur and Crosby, who did he lose to?" Are we about to break out into a Monty Python sketch here?

Let me get this straight: Being one of the top 3-5 in the world at your position for a decade is merely "nice" and unremarkable, but winning one Conn Smythe makes you a Hall of Famer? There's absolutely no way you consistently believe this to be true.

Being in the top 3-5 goaltenders for a decade plus is nice. But not winning the trophy ONCE is a major dent and not winning the Cup (or at least having a memorable playoff run) is another one. Well, Luongo had a very memorable run, alright, but I'm sure he wishes he could forget it. Hell, even Osgood had two excellent playoffs at the twilight of his career. In fact, he was a win away from a Conn Smythe.

Here we get to the real heart of the matter: You judge goalies almost entirely based on team success. There is no more flagrant admission of this than being the guy that brings up Osgood in a Luongo discussion.

If you want to be stuck in the 1980s and still assign team success to individuals, then go ahead. But we can we at least stop this song-and-dance routine where you try to justify that opinion by pretending that Zetterberg's award recognition is somehow notable while trying to downplay all of Luongo's? If you think the guy shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame because he has no Cups, then just say that.