the case for Rick middleton

[Bohemian93]

ive always wondered why he hasnt been suggested for the hall of fame, he was deffinately one of the best danglers in the game and could beat you 1 on 1

career stats

1005 gp
448 g
540 a
998 p

100 points in 114 playoff games

Click to read more...

 

[Lard_Lad]

Downside: No all-star teams, no cups, only a Lady Byng for individual awards. Prime was in the scoring-inflated early 80s and he was done before scoring went downhill, so his stats are about as inflated as they can be.

Upside: Was productive pretty much his whole career, played on high-visibility teams, was fantastic in the playoffs despite never winning a cup. Good internationally. Media career after retiring, which never hurts HoF chances.

Bottom line, he's one of the "if Gillies and Duff got in..." guys. A decade or so ago, I'd say no way to his chances, but it might happen eventually.

 

[greatgazoo]

I don't know why Middleton never got in. Look at some of his impressive stats like 5 straight years of 40+ goals and 7 straight seasons of 30+ goals. Plus his most impressive stat: 33 points in 17 playoff games in '82-83. Like that's unreal!

The case for him for hall of fame induction should be re-opened, especially after the inductions of Gillies and Duff.

 

[dafoomie]

Downside: No all-star teams, no cups, only a Lady Byng for individual awards. Prime was in the scoring-inflated early 80s and he was done before scoring went downhill, so his stats are about as inflated as they can be.

Nifty was a 3 time All Star, 2nd team NHL All Star in 82. Great 2 way player, probably as good as you can be and not be a Hall of Famer. If he sustained the production he had from 78 to 84 for a little longer, he'd be in.

You can make an argument for him though, since Lanny McDonald is in, Bill Barber is in, Glenn Anderson is in.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Case Against

I don't know why Middleton never got in. Look at some of his impressive stats like 5 straight years of 40+ goals and 7 straight seasons of 30+ goals. Plus his most impressive stat: 33 points in 17 playoff games in '82-83. Like that's unreal!

The case for him for hall of fame induction should be re-opened, especially after the inductions of Gillies and Duff.

His stats from the thread starter:

career stats

1005 gp
448 g
540 a
998 p

100 points in 157 playoff games

Factor out his great 1982-83 play-offs and you have 67 points in 140 games per your post. Less than .5pts a game otherwise just over .6 pts per game. Regular season is almost 1 pt per game.

Dick Duff per hockeydb. Regular season 1030 games 283 goals 289 assists 572 points
BUT play-offs 114 games 30 goal, 49 assists for 79 points almost .7 pts per game, member of six Stanley Cup winners

Clark Gillies per hockeydb. Regular season 958 games 319 goals 378 assists 697 points, above .7 pts per game. Play-offs 164 games 47 goals 47 assists 94 points just under . 6 pts per game, member of 4 Stanley Cup winners.

Look at the overall regular season vs play-off performance. Ask which player had the largest point drop-off and which players were members of multiple cup winning teams
and you will have an idea why some are HOFers.

 

[weaponomega]

His stats from the thread starter:

career stats

1005 gp
448 g
540 a
998 p

100 points in 157 playoff games

Factor out his great 1982-83 play-offs and you have 67 points in 140 games per your post. Less than .5pts a game otherwise just over .6 pts per game. Regular season is almost 1 pt per game.

Dick Duff per hockeydb. Regular season 1030 games 283 goals 289 assists 572 points
BUT play-offs 114 games 30 goal, 49 assists for 79 points almost .7 pts per game, member of six Stanley Cup winners

Clark Gillies per hockeydb. Regular season 958 games 319 goals 378 assists 697 points, above .7 pts per game. Play-offs 164 games 47 goals 47 assists 94 points just under . 6 pts per game, member of 4 Stanley Cup winners.

Look at the overall regular season vs play-off performance. Ask which player had the largest point drop-off and which players were members of multiple cup winning teams
and you will have an idea why some are HOFers.

It's actually 100 points in 114 playoff games. So take away the 33 points in 17 games and its 67 points in 97 games ~ .7 ppg. The OP was looking at the wrong column when stating career playoff games. Middleton has 157 career PIMs.

 

[Crosbyfan]

He probably had the career and talent to be a border line HOFer if he had been on some Cup winning teams. I don't think he will get a look, but he will be remembered as a very good player with an excellent career otherwise.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

If I had my way, he, Mark Howe and JC Tremblay would be in. They are better than a number of the players who are already in.

 

[God Bless Canada]

He's often discussed among the "best players not in the HHOF" by those in the know, those who understand the game, and those who played with him or against him, or those who coached against him. The stats aren't impressive, and those who are swayed by merely the stats and shiny things often wonder why he's considered among the best not in the HHOF.

I laugh when people say "if Gillies is in" or "if Duff is in..." Those people are clueless. Middleton was not a power forward and a cog for four Cup champions. He wasn't an outstanding defensive winger/incredibly clutch scorer on six Cup champions. Next.

You want to argue for Middleton's induction? Find a comparable player who's in the HHOF. I think the best comparison for Middleton might be non-HHOFer/GBC all-time favourite Steve Larmer. Some differences - Middleton was slicker, a better playmaker, and maybe a bit better of a player - but both were very talented players, very smart players, and excellent two-way players who played a clean game, and didn't take penalties.

He was penalized by playing in a tough division. The Adams wasn't always the best division in hockey, but it was the toughest. It had tremendous parity. So that hurt Middleton's numbers. If he was in the Norris, or if he had the advantage of playing Pittsburgh and New Jersey eight times a year, his numbers would have probably been 10-15 points higher each season.

 

[overpass]

Middleton had a very good 7-year prime where he played at a HOF level. Unfortunately for him he didn't have any signature accomplishments on which to rest his HOF candidacy. Without a great peak, 7 years is a little short for a HOF prime.

He may have had a better chance to get in when he originally became eligible. There have been a lot of long-career players since he retired, and his career length and numbers look even less impressive today when compared to recent players.

I wouldn't be against him getting in, but I don't see it happening.

 

[Lard_Lad]

You want to argue for Middleton's induction? Find a comparable player who's in the HHOF. I think the best comparison for Middleton might be non-HHOFer/GBC all-time favourite Steve Larmer. Some differences - Middleton was slicker, a better playmaker, and maybe a bit better of a player - but both were very talented players, very smart players, and excellent two-way players who played a clean game, and didn't take penalties.

Bernie Federko. Different positions and Federko was more of a playmaker, but similar production, playoff record, and individual honors. Federko had a few more points, but Middleton, like you said, was in a tougher division and was better defensively.

 

[arrbez]

I laugh when people say "if Gillies is in" or "if Duff is in..." Those people are clueless. Middleton was not a power forward and a cog for four Cup champions. He wasn't an outstanding defensive winger/incredibly clutch scorer on six Cup champions. Next.

I've gotta ask, do you think those two were better players than Middleton?

And by that I mean: If you were starting a team from scratch, who would you pick first?

This is probably going to end up off topic, but the Hall really shouldn't be for complimentary players. It should be for the true stars of the game. I don't think Middleton deserves to be in there, but I'd say he's closer to that than the two you mentioned.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I've gotta ask, do you think those two were better players than Middleton?

And by that I mean: If you were starting a team from scratch, who would you pick first?

This is probably going to end up off topic, but the Hall really shouldn't be for complimentary players. It should be for the true stars of the game. I don't think Middleton deserves to be in there, but I'd say he's closer to that than the two you mentioned.

your point that the hall shouldn't be for complementary players is well taken by me. that said, the question "if you were starting a team from scratch" is a bit of a red herring. it's tantamount to rewarding players for things they might have done, as opposed to what they did do. by that i mean, nifty put up big totals and the argument seems to imply that he would have done more than gillies and duff if, hypothetically, they were each the primary offensive threat on their teams. this is probably true, but the fact is that gillies did play a major role on four cup winners, and duff did on six. if we put them all in the expansion draft in '92 to see who the senators or lightning would have picked first, and to see which would have the biggest impact, the likely result would be middleton leading the expansion team in scoring, while the others would have struggled as the offensive cornerstone on an expansion team. but this is like comparing brian bradley, who put up great numbers on a bad lightning team in the early-to-mid-90s to, say, claude lemieux, who played a vital, but secondary, role on multiple cup winners in roughly the same period (even in his smythe-winning year, he scored very big goals, but stevens and brodeur were the cornerstones, while broten, johnny mac, and richer were the key pieces up front). claude ('94-'96) is a more HHOF-worthy player than bradley ('92-'94), even though bradley averaged nearly a point per game and claude might have only scored 22 goals 45 points on the 1993 lightning (my estimate is based on sylvain turgeon's totals on the expansion sens).

but then, of course, none of these players should be hall of famers, not gillies and duff, nifty, or claude lemieux. and, of course, not brian bradley. but the point becomes more applicable when comparing, say, a top end offensive talent like denis savard or pat lafontaine to a guy who thrived in a secondary role on multiple cup winners like ron francis or brendan shanahan. even if we discount the latter two's longevity, i would still take francis in the hall before savard, and shanahan over lafontaine.

 

[Big Phil]

I started a thread a while back on Middleton vs. Neely. It was a poll on who deserved the HHOF more (even though Neely is in there). I picked Middleton personally based on career value. Neely won of course, but Middleton was respectably close in the poll.

If I am picking 5 of the best guys NOT in the HHOF, Middleton is on that list.

 

[MS]

You want to argue for Middleton's induction? Find a comparable player who's in the HHOF. I think the best comparison for Middleton might be non-HHOFer/GBC all-time favourite Steve Larmer.

Bernie Federko?
Darryl Sittler?
Lanny MacDonald?
Joe Mullen?

Middleton was very elite for a 5-year stretch from 1979-84, moreso than Larmer ever was. Finished as high as 4th in Hart voting, and was top-10 on two other occasions. Also was one of the top 2 or 3 two-way forwards in the game in the early 1980s, finishing as high as 4th in Selke voting (and this was in an era where it was hard to get votes as a 100-point player).

Now, I'm not saying Middleton should be in there, but you're selling him a little short here. There are clearly guys with nearly identical careers who have made it, and if he scores 12 more points to clear 1000, or if Boston wins the Cup in '88 to give him a MacDonald-like career-capper, I suspect he'd probably have made it. He's very, very close.

I think every player to crack the 1000-point barrier before 1990 is in the HHOF, so if he gets that extra 12 points it would have been a bit of a new standard not to induct him, in any case.

He was penalized by playing in a tough division. The Adams wasn't always the best division in hockey, but it was the toughest. It had tremendous parity. So that hurt Middleton's numbers. If he was in the Norris, or if he had the advantage of playing Pittsburgh and New Jersey eight times a year, his numbers would have probably been 10-15 points higher each season.

Hartford and Quebec were always godawful defensively during that era (and the Norris division didn't hit its low ebb until after Middleton had declined) so I don't think the effect would be as strong as you claim.

Quebec and Hartford weren't that much worse than Toronto and Detroit defensively through that era, and I don't think Chicago/Minnesota/St. Louis were *so* far behind those teams that Middleton would gain an extra 15 points in 16 games against them.

 

[Big Phil]

Bernie Federko?
Darryl Sittler?
Lanny MacDonald?
Joe Mullen?

Hmm interesting, well here's how I look at it in terms of HHOF worthiness.

Middleton > Federko
Middleton > Mullen
Middleton = McDonald
Sittler > Middleton

That's just my two cents. Like I said Middleton is good enough to get in there and he's very comparable to other players in there. Of all the guys NOT in the that don't look like they'll ever get in the HHOF, there's Vachon, Makarov, Howe, Fleury and Middleton pretty much in that order IMO. Look, you could do a lot worse than Nifty Middleton in the Hall (and they have)

 

[trevchar1971]

I've gotta ask, do you think those two were better players than Middleton?

And by that I mean: If you were starting a team from scratch, who would you pick first?

This is probably going to end up off topic, but the Hall really shouldn't be for complimentary players. It should be for the true stars of the game. I don't think Middleton deserves to be in there, but I'd say he's closer to that than the two you mentioned.

I agree.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Hmm interesting, well here's how I look at it in terms of HHOF worthiness.

Middleton > Federko
Middleton > Mullen
Middleton = McDonald
Sittler > Middleton

Having watched all those players pretty much their entire careers, I'd have to agree.

 

[Big Phil]

Having watched all those players pretty much their entire careers, I'd have to agree.

I just hate to say that a player should get in there because another one of lesser value got in. So I won't. But I think Nifty can stand on his own and make a good case for himself