The Ten Worst Players in the HHOF

[Big Phil]

Do not see the board as a competitive debate league as you do.

The standard is constantly evolving to accommodate new league dynamics - salary cap, length in shift changes and emphasis, scheduling nuances, etc. At the same time the standard has to be sufficiently elastic to properly explain and integrate the past. Prime example the emerging data about 3 games in 4 nights and the"sitting at home waiting" phenomena and other factors that change the appreciation of the past.

Prime example visit my Doug Harvey / Lou Fontinato trade
thread which provides newappreciations about the various actors involved.

I don't know about you but when I am off the computer I don't take it with me. In other words, the debates on here STAY on here. I don't dwell over them. Why do you debate? I am going to guess the answer. Is it because, like the rest of us, you love the game? Or that it can entertain you? If you answered any of them with "yes" then congrats, you should have fun on these boards.

Obviously there have been changes to the game, but one thing that doesn't change is that regardless of change you are always judged by the era you played in. The whole idea that a certain player wouldn't thrive in another era is purely hypothetical. A modern player, or a player from the 1950s has the same advantages and disadvantages as his peers and should be judged that way. That's why it isn't too hard to judge some players 50 years apart. Did they stand out the same? Did they dominate? etc.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I don't know about you but when I am off the computer I don't take it with me. In other words, the debates on here STAY on here. I don't dwell over them. Why do you debate? I am going to guess the answer. Is it because, like the rest of us, you love the game? Or that it can entertain you? If you answered any of them with "yes" then congrats, you should have fun on these boards.

Obviously there have been changes to the game, but one thing that doesn't change is that regardless of change you are always judged by the era you played in. The whole idea that a certain player wouldn't thrive in another era is purely hypothetical. A modern player, or a player from the 1950s has the same advantages and disadvantages as his peers and should be judged that way. That's why it isn't too hard to judge some players 50 years apart. Did they stand out the same? Did they dominate? etc.

Love the game and learning.

We diverge about the second bolded. Changes and evolution change perceptions.

I don't judge, rather I evaluate within an on going process. Prime example being how Frank Nighbor has risen in esteem here on the boards.

Not interested in standing out or dominating. The why behind the subtle, the successful, barely noticeable matters.

 

[Habsfan18]

Found this thread after doing a search.

“Weakest” HOF inductees IMO:

Edgar Laprade
Gerry Cheevers
Dick Duff
Leo Boivin
Clark Gillies
Bob Pulford

Those are the six that come to mind for me.

 

[frisco]

I'm going to stay away from pre-1960 players for the most part (although it seems that anyone who was an NHL regular early in the Original Six made the Hall):
(in no order):
Carbonneau
Cheevers
Gainey
Barber
Neely
Giacomin
Duff
Kariya
Gillies
Shutt

My Best-Carey