Toews HHOF

[6 Karlsson 5]

Because that's the ultimate goal. To win championships. If you have a big part in your teams doing that, that means something. You get credit for that in my world and most peoples, I think. It's not the only thing that matters when evaluating players and career, but it does matter. In the words of Herm Edwards, "You play to win the game."

its like talking to a brick wall....the Stanley cup is a TEAM ACHIEVEMENT, getting into the hall is an INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT....see the difference

again if toews was on flordia this thread doesnt exist

put geno sid or ovie ( only hall of famers thus far from that age group) on any team they would still be hall worthy

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

its like talking to a brick wall....the Stanley cup is a TEAM ACHIEVEMENT, getting into the hall is an INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT....see the difference

again if toews was on flordia this thread doesnt exist

put geno sid or ovie ( only hall of famers thus far from that age group) on any team they would still be hall worthy

I didn't start the thread and ive said he doesn't get in now.

As for the team achievements having no role in how players should be judged, we will agree to disagree on that.

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

I didn't start the thread and ive said he doesn't get in now.

As for the team achievements having no role in how players should be judged, we will agree to disagree on that.

do you think that toews deserves to be in the hall of fame without any cups?

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

do you think that toews deserves to be in the hall of fame without any cups?

I don't have him in now. But his career isn't over. I don't have him in yet, but am confident he will get there assuming health.

Would he get in without cups? I guess that depends on where his career goes from here. But I think it's pretty reasonable to expect him to finish with around 1000 pts which gets you in the HOF conversation for sure.

 

[Voight]

its like talking to a brick wall....the Stanley cup is a TEAM ACHIEVEMENT, getting into the hall is an INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT....see the difference

again if toews was on flordia this thread doesnt exist

put geno sid or ovie ( only hall of famers thus far from that age group) on any team they would still be hall worthy

Cups really do matter when guys like Clark Gilles are in.

It helps that he had a top 10 scoring finish (9th) and two first all star team spots but he doesn't get in if he's on the Penguins or Devils instead of the Islanders in the 70s/80s. Being on a dynasty team surely helped his case you can't deny that.

 

[Moops]

1,000 points plus lots of Selke votes is a strong HHOF case on its own, especially including a Smythe and a 2nd team all-star behind Crosby.

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

Cups really do matter when guys like Clark Gilles are in.

It helps that he had a top 10 scoring finish (9th) and two first all star team spots but he doesn't get in if he's on the Penguins or Devils instead of the Islanders in the 70s/80s. Being on a dynasty team surely helped his case you can't deny that.

oh agreed forsure, toews's cups will help him im not denying that, i am saying they shouldn't be brought up in the context of arguing him into the hhof or at least it shouldn't be the main argument
ex. sid has multiple individual awards to go along with a Stanley cup, for toews it seems to be the opposite

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

first sentence says its all....his hall of fame argument hinges on being on a good team, you just said it yourself, at least you stay consistent with the kopitar treatment,

You're kind of missing my point here. I believe the role I'm outlining, the first offensive/defensive option at center on a dominant team, requires the sacrifice of certain individual accolades in exchange for team success. As a result, it's hard to untangle the contributions of those players (especially because we have basically no idea how to evaluate individual defense) from their team success, as that is their primary goal. FWIW, when Toews has played alongside other elite players with less advantageous team situations (Team Canada), he's risen to the position of #2 center behind Sid.

i just don't think team play should be involved at all cause like i already said you essinatially negativing players who never had a legit opportunity to win, which i don't think it is fair.

I judge those players by a different criteria. Also, are you talking about guys who never got the opportunity to win Cups (Sabres Hasek), or guys who never got the opportunity to consistently play playoff games at all (you brought up the Panthers).

its funny your bring up arbitrary points, see post #39

Well, at least you're a peak guy rather than a compilation fan, but that view also discounts the phenomenon of players sacrificing to achieve team success.

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

You're kind of missing my point here. I believe the role I'm outlining, the first offensive/defensive option at center on a dominant team, requires the sacrifice of certain individual accolades in exchange for team success. As a result, it's hard to untangle the contributions of those players (especially because we have basically no idea how to evaluate individual defense) from their team success, as that is their primary goal. FWIW, when Toews has played alongside other elite players with less advantageous team situations (Team Canada), he's risen to the position of #2 center behind Sid.


I judge those players by a different criteria. Also, are you talking about guys who never got the opportunity to win Cups (Sabres Hasek), or guys who never got the opportunity to consistently play playoff games at all (you brought up the Panthers).


Well, at least you're a peak guy rather than a compilation fan, but that view also discounts the phenomenon of players sacrificing to achieve team success.

why does one have to sacrifice personal success for team success? Bobby Clarke was a great 2 way player and he still has 3 harts and multiple 100 pts seasons, if toews is really hhof material he should also be able to distinguish himself individually, i'm not saying that he needs 3 harts or even one hart, but maybe a couple ppg season, a top 10 scoring finish, a couple first team all stars just something to show his excellence as an individual, as for defense he is great in that regard but there are still a few players that are right there/arguably better then him in that regard (dats, Z, kopitar, Bergy, Hossa ) so its not like he is really separating himself to a great degree defensively to overcome the lack of offense ( relative to hhof )

As for the second paragraph, most star players get at least a few games in the playoffs, even if there team isn't a cup threat. Ex. you see a lot of threads about giroux vs toews, and common argument for toews is his team success, imo that isn't a viable argument because toews is in a much better situation to win the cup, and giroux has proven that he 'turns up' in the playoffs

definatley a peak guy

also toews never sacrificed anything lets not pretend he changed his game style ala yzerman, hes just never been a threat for any major indivdual awards (besides the conn smythe but this again is somwhat due to being on a great team) and to further add 'less advantageous team situation' and team Canada don't really go together

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

I meant that his teammates were some of those more talent / worse team guys you were alluding to, not that team Canada was a step down for him.

 

[STC]

Toews has never been particularly close to a Hart or a Lindsay. That's what makes it nigh well impossible to elect him for such a theoretically short career.

He was 4th in 2013 and would've won it if he didn't split votes with Kane who also had a great year.

The fact that Tavares got a nomination despite finishing 17th in scoring and playing poor defense means the Hart is a narrative driven joke.

 

[Hawker14]

Absolutely he has.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Cups really do matter when guys like Clark Gilles are in.

It helps that he had a top 10 scoring finish (9th) and two first all star team spots but he doesn't get in if he's on the Penguins or Devils instead of the Islanders in the 70s/80s. Being on a dynasty team surely helped his case you can't deny that.

That's silly. Sure gillies probably shouldn't be in but basing that logic for the fact that he should get in is ridiculous. With that reasoning, there should be more people in the hall. Saying Toews should get in because of one weak nominee just shows how much he shouldn't get in.

 

[Voight]

That's silly. Sure gillies probably shouldn't be in but basing that logic for the fact that he should get in is ridiculous. With that reasoning, there should be more people in the hall.

Not really. He was considered a core player on a team that won 4 straight Stanley Cups [MOD].

The reasoning isn't that he's in because of the championships. Its winning them (especially 4 straight) really did help his otherwise unimpressive case.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Not really. He was considered a core player on a team that won 4 straight Stanley Cups [MOD].

The reasoning isn't that he's in because of the championships. Its winning them (especially 4 straight) really did help his otherwise unimpressive case.

Many still believe that he shouldn't be in the hall, regardless of his 4 cups. Being a core player on a TEAM championship is important, but Gilies has always been known as a weak HOF inductee. If your gonna argue that Toews deserves to get in because of whatever the amount of cups he might win, and say well Gillies is in, why not Toews? Your basing get your argument on another player, not Toews and what he has done.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

I understand what you are saying gonzo, about picking the lowest hanging fruit and only comparing to them. There are guys that get in that maybe shouldn't, and if you use the worst guy as the standard, you keep lowering the bar. I didn't see Giles play much so I can't speak to his deservedness (made up word).

But as for Toews, being the best center, best player arguably (could make a case for Keith and Kane as well) on a team that has "dominated" an era, as much as you can with the cap (obviously the Kings have also "dominated") should count for something. That doesn't mean he's a HOFer as it stands now, but I think it matters. I actually don't understand the argument that it shouldn't.

 

[STC]

w hes just never been a threat for any major indivdual awards (besides the conn smythe but this again is somwhat due to being on a great team) and to further add 'less advantageous team situation' and team Canada don't really go together

You keep omitting his 4th place finish in the Hart, an award he would've won had he not split votes with Kane. I'd say that counts as being a threat to win a major award.

 

[ResilientBeast]

You keep omitting his 4th place finish in the Hart, an award he would've won had he not split votes with Kane. I'd say that counts as being a threat to win a major award.

Who's to say his team would be in the same position without Kane. It's not that simple

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Who's to say his team would be in the same position without Kane. It's not that simple

Agreed. But I don't think it's fair to say Toews hasn't ever been in the Hart conversation when he finished 4th.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I understand what you are saying gonzo, about picking the lowest hanging fruit and only comparing to them. There are guys that get in that maybe shouldn't, and if you use the worst guy as the standard, you keep lowering the bar. I didn't see Giles play much so I can't speak to his deservedness (made up word).

But as for Toews, being the best center, best player arguably (could make a case for Keith and Kane as well) on a team that has "dominated" an era, as much as you can with the cap (obviously the Kings have also "dominated") should count for something. That doesn't mean he's a HOFer as it stands now, but I think it matters. I actually don't understand the argument that it shouldn't.

He definitely is a great player and is on a great team. Should it matter? IMO only in small doses. There have been many great players who contributed to many great teams who went on to win one or more cup, that doesnt mean they deserve to get in the Hall. give him another 8 years and see where he is at...but for now i dont see how he is an absolute lock.

You keep omitting his 4th place finish in the Hart, an award he would've won had he not split votes with Kane. I'd say that counts as being a threat to win a major award.

Unless he pulls a Fedorov, he isnt winning the hart. You can throw as many stats, intangibles, or cups at the argument...he wont.

Agreed. But I don't think it's fair to say Toews hasn't ever been in the Hart conversation when he finished 4th.

which was 2 years ago. and it has happened once in the past 8 years. He isnt consistently in the running nor is he even considered a candidate each year.

I want to know what separates Kane from Toews other than Defense. Kane has just as impressive of a resume as Toews and arguably was a more key factor with both Hawks SCF, where Toews was basically a ghost. Does Kane get into the Hall today?

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

He definitely is a great player and is on a great team. Should it matter? IMO only in small doses. There have been many great players who contributed to many great teams who went on to win one or more cup, that doesnt mean they deserve to get in the Hall. give him another 8 years and see where he is at...but for now i dont see how he is an absolute lock.

Unless he pulls a Fedorov, he isnt winning the hart. You can throw as many stats, intangibles, or cups at the argument...he wont.




which was 2 years ago. and it has happened once in the past 8 years. He isnt consistently in the running nor is he even considered a candidate each year.

I want to know what separates Kane from Toews other than Defense. Kane has just as impressive of a resume than Toews and arguably was a more key factor with both Hawks SCF, where Toews was basically a ghost. Does Kane get into the Hall today?

IMO, neither get in the hall today. But if I had to pick one, I'd pick Toews. There's no doubt in my mind that he means more to the Hawks than Kane. I'm a Hawks fan that watches almost every game in case you couldn't tell. Im not going to bad mouth Kane, but I think Toews is more important.


I agree about the Hart. Toews would have to have a career year (90-100 pts) to win it, and while possible, its not likely.

I've kind of turned this thread into a Toews overrated/underrated thread. That's my fault for not staying on topic. 8 years in, he's not a HOFer. Butt I do disagree with those who seem to think Toews is grossly overrated. There seems to be a decent amount of people who think that. But to your question about Toews/Kane, I do think Toews defense, PKing, faceoffs make him a more valuable player than Kane. But honestly, if they both had similar 2nd 8 years to their 1st 8 years, I think they are both in. That's not a given though, obviously.

Can you explain how Toews was a ghost in either playoff run? I really feel like this is one of the most common beliefs that just isn't true.

Combined 2010/13 cup runs...

Toews
45 GP 10 G 33 A 43 Pts +8

Kane
45 GP 18 G 28 G 46 Pts +5

If I had to pick a Blackhawk that was most likely to make the Hall, it would Keith.

 

[GreatGonzo]

IMO, neither get in the hall today. But if I had to pick one, I'd pick Toews. There's no doubt in my mind that he means more to the Hawks than Kane. I'm a Hawks fan that watches almost every game in case you couldn't tell. Im not going to bad mouth Kane, but I think Toews is more important.

I've kind of turned this thread into a Toews overrated/underrated thread. That's my fault for not staying on topic. 8 years in, he's not a HOFer. Butt I do disagree with those who seem to think Toews is grossly overrated. There seems to be a decent amount of people who think that. But to your question about Toews/Kane, I do think Toews defense, PKing, faceoffs make him a more valuable player than Kane. But honestly, if they both had similar 2nd 8 years to their 1st 8 years, I think they are both in. That's not a given though, obviously.

Can you explain how Toews was a ghost in either playoff run?

I dont watch even games to make that assumption but i did follow both during the playoffs. Kane was arguably more effective IMO. Defense is nice and i do respect guys who do the dirty work, but i feel even Toews defensive game is vastly overrated compared to guys like Berg and Kopitar..all 3 are right there with each other.

thats why i said SCF(stanley cup finals) not through out the playoffs.
2010
Toews: 3a-3points/ -6
Kane: 3g/5a-8points/ -4

2013 was even more interesting seeing how Kane was the stud through out the playoffs but both were identical in the finals
Toews: 2g-2a-4points/ +5
Kane: 3g-1a-4 points/+5

my point is that Toews is supposed to be a lock for the HOF, yet both SC playoffs where his team won, he struggled in the finals, and then through out the whole playoffs

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

5 on 5 since coming into nhl

Toews and Kane Together
3359 TOI 60.3 GF% 57.4 CF%

Toews without Kane
3450 TOI 59GF% 57 CF%

Kane without Toews
4204 TOI 50.6 GF% 53.2 CF%

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=649&withagainst=true&season=2007-14&sit=5v5


Toews is a possession monster.

 

[Voight]

If I had to pick a Blackhawk that was most likely to make the Hall, it would Keith.

Keith is pretty much a lock at this point with two Norris'.

my point is that Toews is supposed to be a lock for the HOF, yet both SC playoffs where his team won, he struggled in the finals, and then through out the whole playoffs

It was stated here before but his goals in the 2013 finals came in Game Four when his team as down in the series and Game 6 when they clinched the series. The goal in Game Four gave his team the lead and the one in Game 6 tied the game and came shorthanded.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

He "struggled in the playoffs" despite his unit being matched against Koivu, Zetterberg, Kopitar and Bergeron in consecutive series, and outscoring those matchups by a 2-1 margin.