The case for or against Pete Mahovlich and others for HHOF

[Big Phil]

Pete Mahovlich is a guy that had a weird career. He hit a great peak in the mid 70s and was on two of the greatest teams of all time ('72 and '76 Canada Cup/Summit Series) not to mention 4 Stanley Cups. But outside of the two big years he was Lafleur's center there is nothing to distinguish him as a HHOFer. What are your pros and cons of him being in the HHOF? He is a name not mentioned often and while it is far from a lock he should be in there I often think his name should get mentioned more

Also debate the pros and cons for:

Ken Hodge
Guy Lapointe (current HHOFer)
Curtis Joseph
Allan Stanley (current HHOFer)

Just a little different form the usual Gillies, Federko, Neely crew

 

[MS]

Mahovlich had two elite seasons, and they were heavily influenced by an all-time great in Lafleur. Outside of those two seasons, he didn't score more than 73 points. Pretty clearly not a HHOFer, IMO.

Hodge is kind of in the same boat. Only three elite seasons, and was very inconsistent, tossing in 50-point seasons in between his great ones. And he was very much a product of Esposito and Orr in terms of his offensive production. Not going to get in.

Joseph never won a Cup, never played in a Finals, was never a post-season All-Star, and was never a Vezina finalist. He doesn't belong.

Stanley is an interesting case. He's one of those guys who IMO is in because he played for a very long time during hockey's 'golden' Original 6 era. Was top-5 all-time in GP when he retired, but spent most of his career as a very average player. Was a middling defender for NYR and Chicago, found himself in the minors at one point, then 'broke out' at age 32 after a trade to Toronto and was a top-5 defender for about 5 years in the early 1960s (in maybe the leanest period ever for blueliners), picking up a couple 2nd-Team All-Star nods. It's not a calamity that he's in there, but IMO he's pretty borderline.

Lapointe is a below-average HHOFer but he belongs. Was an elite player for most of the 1970s, core member of a dynasty, and core member of Team Canada in 1972 and 1976.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Mahovlich had two elite seasons, and they were heavily influenced by an all-time great in Lafleur. Outside of those two seasons, he didn't score more than 73 points. Pretty clearly not a HHOFer, IMO.

Hodge is kind of in the same boat. Only three elite seasons, and was very inconsistent, tossing in 50-point seasons in between his great ones. And he was very much a product of Esposito and Orr in terms of his offensive production. Not going to get in.

Joseph never won a Cup, never played in a Finals, was never a post-season All-Star, and was never a Vezina finalist. He doesn't belong.

Stanley is an interesting case. He's one of those guys who IMO is in because he played for a very long time during hockey's 'golden' Original 6 era. Was top-5 all-time in GP when he retired, but spent most of his career as a very average player. Was a middling defender for NYR and Chicago, found himself in the minors at one point, then 'broke out' at age 32 after a trade to Toronto and was a top-5 defender for about 5 years in the early 1960s (in maybe the leanest period ever for blueliners), picking up a couple 2nd-Team All-Star nods. It's not a calamity that he's in there, but IMO he's pretty borderline.

Lapointe is a below-average HHOFer but he belongs. Was an elite player for most of the 1970s, core member of a dynasty, and core member of Team Canada in 1972 and 1976.

Good points on all fronts.

I wanted to add to Lapointe's resume that he was consistently a top 5 norris voting presence, in an era where he faced Orr, Potvin, Robinson, Salming and Park as competition.

 

[mcphee]

I loved Peter M. He seemed to enjoy playing so much early in his career, he was very charismatic. His good games were great games and tenmd to be remembered as such, but as much of a fan as I was, he's not a hof'er.

It's odd listening to the Mahovlich brothers now. Peter was the free spirit during his playing days while Frank was the brooding enigmatic one prone to bouts of depression.

Listen to them now and Frank's the life of the party and Peter after addiction issues and some health challenges is the sensible soft spoken one.


I think Guy Lapointe is an under rated player. He gets lost in the shuffle of not only his era but his team.

 

[greatgazoo]

Guy Lapointe was a 1st team all-star once and 2nd team all-star 3 times in the 70's which is pretty impressive considering how many great d-men there were at the time.

 

[Chili]

The little M is one of my all time favorite players...he did achieve a high level of play but not for a long enough period to be a hall of famer, imo. He did have some of the qualities of a hof'er though, two examples of his great sportmanship: I believe he initiated the sweater exchange at the end of the first Canada Cup (with Vladimir Dzurilla). Also if you watch the celebration after Paul Henderson's series winning goal in 1972, it was Pete who went over and tapped a dejected Vladislav Tretiak on the pads.