The 2022 Hockey Hall Of Fame

[Neutrinos]

Serious Question: What did each Sedin brother do that Markus Naslund or Vincent Lecavalier didn't?

I've never understood the narrative that they were locks for the Hall of Fame

 

[Neutrinos]

I mean, the Art Ross and Hart Trophy (Henrik) for starters.

Henrik won the Hart & Ross because Ovechkin missed 10 games

Ovechkin averaged 1.51 PPG that season

Henrik 1.37

And Daniel was right there with Henrik at 1.35

So, yeah, Henrik has an Art Ross and a Hart, but he wasn't that season's best offensive player, or it's most valuable player - despite the trophies collecting dust on his mantle


I don't think Henrik's 2010 season should be viewed as more impressive than Turgeon's '93 season or Fleury's '96 season just because he got a trophy for it

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Gartner is kind of a weird case if we divide if we look at him purely for his goal-scoring and if we look at him for his overall offense.

Using a rough "back-of-the-envelope" method, looking at his goals scored relative to to median 1st line forward (and compared with Gretzky):

Season​	Median 1st liner goals​	Gretzky​	Gartner​	Gretzky Rel. Goals​	Gartner Rel. Goals​
1980​	35.0​	51​	36​	+16.0​	+1.0​
1981​	35.0​	55​	48​	+20.0​	+13.0​
1982​	37.0​	92​	35​	+55.0​	-2.0​
1983​	35.0​	71​	38​	+36.0​	+3.0​
1984​	38.0​	87​	40​	+49.0​	+2.0​
1985​	35.0​	73​	50​	+38.0​	+15.0​
1986​	36.0​	52​	35​	+16.0​	-1.0​
1987​	33.0​	62​	41​	+29.0​	+8.0​
1988​	38.0​	40​	48​	+2.0​	+10.0​
1989​	35.0​	54​	33​	+19.0​	-2.0​
1990​	34.0​	40​	45​	+6.0​	+11.0​
1991​	31.0​	41​	49​	+10.0​	+18.0​
1992​	33.0​	31​	40​	-2.0​	+7.0​
1993​	37.0​	16​	45​	-21.0​	+8.0​
1994​	32.5​	38​	34​	+5.5​	+1.5​
1995​	17.0​	11​	12​	-6.0​	-5.0​
1996​	31.0​	23​	35​	-8.0​	+4.0​
1997​	28.0​	25​	32​	-3.0​	+4.0​
1998​	25.0​	23​	12​	-2.0​	-13.0​
1999​	27.0​	9​	​	-18.0​	​
TOTAL​	652.5​	894​	708​	+241.5​	+82.5​
Sum of seasons of above avg goals​	​	756​	581​	​	​
“Compiler goals”​	​	138​	127​	​	​
% "compiler"​	​	15.4%​	17.9%​	​	​

Gartner performs decently. If we consider seasons where he (and Gretzky) score more than a median 1st liner as a "significant" season and those where he (and Gretzky) score equal or less as "compiler" seasons, then we can say that about 17.9% of his goals were "compiled".

Looking at points scored relative to a median 1st liner,

Season​	Median 1st liner points​	Gretzky​	Gartner​	Gretzky Rel. Points​	Gartner Rel. Points​
1980​	75.0​	137​	68​	+62.0​	-7.0​
1981​	75.0​	164​	94​	+89.0​	+19.0​
1982​	86.0​	212​	80​	+126.0​	-6.0​
1983​	79.0​	196​	76​	+117.0​	-3.0​
1984​	83.0​	205​	85​	+122.0​	+2.0​
1985​	81.0​	208​	102​	+127.0​	+21.0​
1986​	78.0​	215​	75​	+137.0​	-3.0​
1987​	75.0​	183​	73​	+108.0​	-2.0​
1988​	79.0​	149​	81​	+70.0​	+2.0​
1989​	81.0​	168​	69​	+87.0​	-12.0​
1990​	80.0​	142​	86​	+62.0​	+6.0​
1991​	71.0​	163​	69​	+92.0​	-2.0​
1992​	76.5​	121​	81​	+44.5​	+4.5​
1993​	86.5​	65​	68​	-21.5​	-18.5​
1994​	75.0​	130​	64​	+55.0​	-11.0​
1995​	40.0​	48​	20​	+8.0​	-20.0​
1996​	72.5​	102​	54​	+29.5​	-18.5​
1997​	63.5​	97​	63​	+33.5​	-0.5​
1998​	60.0​	90​	27​	+30.0​	-33.0​
1999​	58.0​	62​	​	+4.0​	​
TOTAL​	1475​	2857​	1335​	+1382.0​	-82.0​
Sum of seasons of above avg points​	​	2792​	529​	​	​
“Compiler points”​	​	65​	806​	​	​
% compiler​	​	2.3%​	60.4%​	​	​

Gartner doesn't fare so well when looking at overall offense. In a 19-season career, he only outscores each season's corresponding median 1st line forward 6 times, and only twice by double digits. Using the aforementioned definition of "significant" and "compiler" seasons, over 60% of Gartner's points were "compiled".

Of course, how much is considered "compiled" depends on how stringent the requirements are. For the History of Hockey board, merely "more than a median 1st line forward" (anywhere from the 32nd to 41st forward during this timeframe) might be considered lenient. However, if more than half of Gartner's points can be considered "compiled" using this lenient definition...

 

[Albatros]

In context, one of those big "compiling" seasons he was the best goal scorer with the Leafs, age 36. Followed by four younger HHoFers.

 

[kcunac]

Henrik won the Hart & Ross because Ovechkin missed 10 games

Ovechkin averaged 1.51 PPG that season

Henrik 1.37

And Daniel was right there with Henrik at 1.35

So, yeah, Henrik has an Art Ross and a Hart, but he wasn't that season's best offensive player, or it's most valuable player - despite the trophies collecting dust on his mantle


I don't think Henrik's 2010 season should be viewed as more impressive than Turgeon's '93 season or Fleury's '96 season just because he got a trophy for it

Wow man, no one is saying the Sedins are sure fire locks for first ballot but they deserve to be in. It’s not their fault the hall may pick them in their first year. And the argument on the Ross/Hart/Lindsey sounds like some sour grapes to me. The same could be said many seasons. The fact is they won the hardware and those awards are a big deal and count for something even if you disagree. Add in international success, 1000+ Points, and unique attributes (I.e. twins and style of play) and they deserve to be in the hall.

Honest question, are there any Hart/Ross/Lindsay award winners with 1000+ points who are not in the hall?

 

[Pominville Knows]

Bro I don't care if he's the face of the Sharks or the compiler points he got he just wasn't a very good player. He's a somewhat decent player, nothing more. He's not even as good as most of the other compilers in the HHOF like Cicarelli and Gartner. Him getting in first ballot would be a slap to the face of every first ballot hall of famer ever.

You can always hope that the three year waiting period will temper the current feelings amongst some regarding Marleau's games played accomplishment.
However; it does clearly bring some of that Fame Factor to his case of also surpassing some important other milestones. It might be what out him over the top, simply put.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Okay, for starters. And... beyond that? I see nothing.

(Naslund would have won the Art Ross in 2003 if not for his fateful collision with Steve Moore. NHL peers still voted Naslund the best player in the NHL that season.)

I agree one tends to lump their achievements together, but how could you not? I don’t get why some have to diminish their impact or quality as players on that basis. Obviously, them being an identical twin duo at whose peak were able to reach the top of a quite strong era in terms of forward talent, I think is HHoF worthy in its spectacle if nothing else. It’s possible they as a duo were considerably greater than the sum of the parts (I know some here have made them out to be two soft bums with nothing but the twin thing), I can see their limits as HHoF players where you lack certain aspects to complete a slam-dunk HHoF resume, and particularly Daniel’s one guy people tend to want to short change (and I do agree he seems the slightly less talented of the two), but they are still remarkably similar and tied to each other throughout their careers. For the 10 seasons between 2006-07 and 2015-16, they’re 5th and 6th in league scoring, behind Ovechkin, Crosby, Thornton, Malkin, and ahead of a ton of HoF talent. I think they’re a clear tier below said all-time talent of their era (plus Kane), but I think they belong squarely in the mix of post-lockout era forwards who peaked high and defined the era. I think they’re on the right side of the borderline.

Versus Näslund, I think the Sedins peaked higher against stronger competition (as in, outscored prime healthy Crosby and Ovie) than Näslund, while putting up an immensely entertaining show. What they routinely executed in their primes were what we call “propaganda hockey”, it’s the dominant possession game reminiscent of the Red Army. They were a unique spectacle in the NHL for a few years. The Sedins also showed up for their national team like ballers, they were actually very good and momentum changing additions for their national teams, which I don’t think Näslund ever was.

 

[K Fleur]

Before McDavid’s 17-18 season came around Henrik Sedin’s 09-10 season was the highest scoring ES season by a player in 20 years.

 

[wetcoast]

I think this has become my favorite part of the announcement. Might as well embrace it at this point.

I'll throw out Pete Mahovlich. Would anyone have really batted an eye if he was inducted 25 years ago, in lieu of Bob Gainey perhaps? This is a name that you used to see get some buzz, particularly when the Summit Series was still in the collective consciousness of the establishment media. Seems to have become a bit of a forgotten man from those great 70s Habs teams over the last 15 years or so. There are worse players in the HOF...

Tonelli has the best case of the guys listed here and in the post you were responding too as he was the MVP at a CC and the leading ES scorer on the dynasty NYI Islander teams.

Not Bossy or Trottier but Tonelli, bet most people would guess that eh?

People talk about the depth that TB has but those NYI teams had guys like Tonelli, Bourne, Nystrom.....

 

[wetcoast]

I'm generally against less than elite players being in the Hall, but I'm (probably) happy to make an exception for Mike Gartner.

Here's the thing: There is no 'X' number of goals or points or Cups that should guarantee anyone an entry in the Hall of Fame. But when you score 700+ NHL goals (and it's even 600+ "adjusted"), and you're really consistent for a really long time, and you're a well-liked / respected player by peers, and you've won the Canada Cup, and you played for some quite good team over the years, I think that's pretty much an "in" regardless.

He's still 8th all time in career goals, and was maybe 5th or 6th all-time when he retired? Pretty hard to explain to someone who's a casual fan of hockey that a well-respected, clean player who's 5th all time in goals isn't a Hall of Famer.

The problem with Gartner is that yes he has over 700 goals all time but that's largely in part to playing in the 80s and early 90s.

Adjusted he is 19th all time (but the adjustment list still seems to lean favorably upon guys post expansion for variosu reasons).

the biggest problem for Gartner is that his single season high adjusted is 44 goals (and 2 more at 40 even), which is 2 goals short of 46 which are the top 270ish seasons for goal scoring all time.

So his best 3 seasons are somewhere in the 300-600 range all time...ya he was a compiler.

 

[Pominville Knows]

The problem with Gartner is that yes he has over 700 goals all time but that's largely in part to playing in the 80s and early 90s.

Adjusted he is 19th all time (but the adjustment list still seems to lean favorably upon guys post expansion for variosu reasons).

the biggest problem for Gartner is that his single season high adjusted is 44 goals (and 2 more at 40 even), which is 2 goals short of 46 which are the top 270ish seasons for goal scoring all time.

So his best 3 seasons are somewhere in the 300-600 range all time...ya he was a compiler.

I saw some NHL All-Star game video on YouTube the other day and he answered to a leading question that he did not view himself as a 'goalscorer', but rather a '200-foot player'.
You can always discuss the merits of the second part but at least he seemed aware that his year to year output in goals did not make him too much of a goalscorer for the era.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Gartner is a standard non descript hall of famer. He had a skill, he was consistent and had some decent moments. He should be in. 700 goals is a lot.

 

[wetcoast]

I saw some NHL All-Star game video on YouTube the other day and he answered to a leading question that he did not view himself as a 'goalscorer', but rather a '200-foot player'.
You can always discuss the merits of the second part but at least he seemed aware that his year to year output in goals did not make him too much of a goalscorer for the era.

That's might be something he said but from his rookie season at age 20 and for the next 8 seasons after that he led the capitals in SOG and that only stopped because he was traded.

He wasn't a mega shooter but most people would instinctively react to him as a goal scorer over a 200 foot player because that's what he was more of.

 

[The Panther]

The problem with Gartner is that yes he has over 700 goals all time but that's largely in part to playing in the 80s and early 90s.

Adjusted he is 19th all time (but the adjustment list still seems to lean favorably upon guys post expansion for variosu reasons).

the biggest problem for Gartner is that his single season high adjusted is 44 goals (and 2 more at 40 even), which is 2 goals short of 46 which are the top 270ish seasons for goal scoring all time.

So his best 3 seasons are somewhere in the 300-600 range all time...ya he was a compiler.

Gartner is one (rare) player where I don't think peaking in the 80s affected his totals much. Remember, he spent the 80s on defence-first Washington, which was not known for goal-scoring. His top centers during the decade were probably Bob Carpenter and Gustafsson.

Anyway, I agree that he is not in the Hall of Fame for individual season peaks. I think we all see that. Thus, if his career had been half as long, he'd be nowhere near the Hall. But, again, in 1998 or whatever, how would you explain to someone that Gartner was 5th or 6th all-time in NHL goals and wasn't a Hall of Famer? That's a difficult justification to make, especially when the player was consistent, clean, and well-liked.

 

[wetcoast]

Gartner is one (rare) player where I don't think peaking in the 80s affected his totals much. Remember, he spent the 80s on defence-first Washington, which was not known for goal-scoring. His top centers during the decade were probably Bob Carpenter and Gustafsson.

Anyway, I agree that he is not in the Hall of Fame for individual season peaks. I think we all see that. Thus, if his career had been half as long, he'd be nowhere near the Hall. But, again, in 1998 or whatever, how would you explain to someone that Gartner was 5th or 6th all-time in NHL goals and wasn't a Hall of Famer? That's a difficult justification to make, especially when the player was consistent, clean, and well-liked.

I think it would be one thing if the league had a fairly consistent number of teams and number of games per season over time but Gartner played in a very high scoring era with the highest number of games for a very long time.

I think the super high numbers have to be taken with context and not at face value.

the highest post season all star finishes he ever had were 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 11 which would be one thing if he was a center but he was a winger.

Also top 10 finishes were at 5,9,9,9 and 10th for goals and once 10th in points.

His playoff resume is like his regular season, some okay performances but NOTHING stands out and that's why he is known as a compiler and rightly so.

 

[Albatros]

The teams he played for were never going to do well in the playoffs. The one time he got to play with Messier and Leetch in New York he led the team with 16 points in 13 games.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Gartner has the most 30-goal seasons in league history. Three more than Gretzky despite a shorter career. Some accuse him of being a "compiler", but either way such longevity and constant high-level performance has to count for something.

i feel like gartner’s 30 goal streak is really more constant good-level performance

which of course is a definition of compiling

In context, one of those big "compiling" seasons he was the best goal scorer with the Leafs, age 36. Followed by four younger HHoFers.

i mean there is also the context that one of those hall of famers was a defenceman, two others were centers who massively outpaced him in points, and the fourth guy missed twenty games.

 

[Albatros]

To me compiling would typically include the notion that you were an also-ran, often padding stats by playing longer than you really should have, but Gartner with some consistency led his teams and quit when he no longer could.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

To me compiling would typically include the notion that you were an also-ran, often padding stats by playing longer than you really should have, but Gartner with some consistency led his teams and quit when he no longer could.

imo compiling is when your career numbers make you look great but in reality you just had a lot of very good that in the end really added up

 

[Albatros]

If one equates peak performance with greatness, but to me there can be greatness in consistency as well. Gartner played until 38 yet his goals per game is still better than Connor McDavid's.

 

[The Panther]

To me compiling would typically include the notion that you were an also-ran, often padding stats by playing longer than you really should have, but Gartner with some consistency led his teams and quit when he no longer could.

I agree. I don't get where some people are coming with their definitions of "compiling".

My interpretation of that term excludes anyone who is (a) in their prime and (b) a 1st-liner / top producer on their team. So, Gartner was not a compiler from 1979 through 1997.

I mean, if you're going to say anyone scoring points for years while their team isn't doing much is a "compiler", then Dale Hawerchuk's entire career is as a compiler, and Connor McDavid's career has been as a compiler. So, then, we're into lunatic territory.

 

[sabremike]

When you look at his accomplishments, remember just how great he was (still remember my dad who was a Rangers fan saying he was the one player he would pay money simply to see) and throw in historical significance it's ridiculous that Mogilny is not in.

 

[pandro]

When you look at his accomplishments, remember just how great he was (still remember my dad who was a Rangers fan saying he was the one player he would pay money simply to see) and throw in historical significance it's ridiculous that Mogilny is not in.

He added virtually nothing to his accomplishments after the 1995-96 season. In the playoffs, he was pedestrian at best, especially so in 2003, when his team actually won.

 

[sabremike]

He added virtually nothing to his accomplishments after the 1995-96 season. In the playoffs, he was pedestrian at best, especially so in 2003, when his team actually won.

Yet he somehow made the list of 100 greatest Leafs even though that was in the back end of his career, but what would those people know about hockey?

 

[sr edler]

Okay, for starters. And... beyond that? I see nothing.

Olympic best-on-best gold, 1,000+ NHL points each (compiling factor if you want), overall more team success (two consecutive Presidents' Trophies plus a SCFs appearance). Even a World Championship. Henrik won two straight 1st team all-star nods against prime Crosby and Stamkos.

For what it's worth, I don't think D. Sedin as a player was that much better than Näslund, but he didn't have as big of a loser aura. Näslund was part of that (in)famous Belarus fiasco in Salt Lake City where he was a complete ghost outside of a pointless round robin game against Germany, and some embarrassing playoff duds too (Minny) in the NHL. When the Sedins lost in the playoffs it was often in hard fought series against very strong teams who then went on to win the Cup (Chicago, LA).

Also, the whole hockey world talked about the Sedins for a few years in the early 2010s, like Madonna around True Blue when she challenged MJ and Prince for the pop star crown. No one really cared about Näslund outside of the Northwest Division.