What potential future HHOF inductees will possibly have a negative fan reaction?

[MadArcand]

In 2025 we voted in Weber at 47 for defensemen.
In 2024 we voted Lundqvist at 12 for goalies
In 2019 we voted Iginla at 60 for forwards (would fall to about 63 or 64 now).

Definitely feels like it's too harsh on goalies.

Meh, feels about right, it's just that Lundqvist was grossly overrated.

 

[WaifuLoser]

Gartner is the poster child for compiling IMO. Never better than AS-4 and only once finished Top 5 in a statistical category

I can definitely see the argument, but as strange as it might sound, as you said Gartner might be the poster child for compiling, but imo it means he is the best player in that category, his 82 game career average is 41 goals and 76 points, so he averaged 40 goals and close to PPG for 19 seasons. To me that means he was the best of the compilers, alot more impressive than Marleau and others who get that label thrown at them. I think the way I can put it is, someone like Marleau for example was a good player for a long time who dwindled at the end of his career, Mike Gartner was good-very good for almost his entire career, even his second last season as a 37 year old he put up over 30 goals. Imo Gartner is a HHOF, because he is the greatest compiler ever lol, that might sound strange but I hope you get my point.

 

[MadLuke]

Gartner might be the poster child for compiling,

Not sure that fair at all because as you say later on: Mike Gartner was good-very good for almost his entire career.

I think he is a poster child for nearly the opposite, just below the Roy/Bourque/Lidstrom tier.

In 96 and 97 combined Gartner was still an top line forward and 22th in the NHL in goals scored, 61th in points.

The first time he was not a legitimate top tier first liner (he had a Calder consideration in a normal year rookie start) in the nhl was only his last season in 1998 (the year before he was second in goals on his team, nice 32 in the starting early sign of DPE) and retired immediately.

Compiling to me, its accumulating stat for a while without being an impactful top 6 (or first 2 pair D) nhler, Marleau, Joe Thornton last 3 seasons for example. It does not tend to move the needle much outside most game played or reaching round career numbers, as a compiler is not scoring much per definition.

People having him in mind for compiler is just because of how big his number are, which is simply having been really good for a long time in an high scoring era, not because of any actual way he played or his career.

Same would go for a Ron Francis, his godly numbers are not from being a compiler, he retired immediatly after the first season he was not a legit bottom tier first line center in his career (almost lead the Canes in points the year pre-retirement one and started with some calder vote at 18, and was good every single season in between)

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not having Kariya on the basis of floopydoo award points should be a shark jumper for the concept as a whole...

 

[MadArcand]

Mike Gartner was basically (almost) a RW version of Mats Sundin. Consistently very good, just below elite. Extremely reliable in that regard, essentially all career. Infinitely less of a compiler than Marleau, who just hung around actively harming his teams while chasing GP record.

 

[WarriorofTime]

That's the rub for the vibe check super hall of fame. Everyone's ultimately got their own standard, cares about different stuff, weighs compiling or awards differently. It's unlikely to ever really get somewhere with the whole "all of us guys watching agreed he didn't feel like a Hall of Famer" in order to kick out the bottom 20/30/50 percent or whatever of the Hall of Fame, as much as that may "feel" right from time to time.

 

[MadArcand]

That's the rub for the vibe check super hall of fame. Everyone's ultimately got their own standard, cares about different stuff, weighs compiling or awards differently. It's unlikely to ever really get somewhere with the whole "all of us guys watching agreed he didn't feel like a Hall of Famer" in order to kick out the bottom 20/30/50 percent or whatever of the Hall of Fame, as much as that may "feel" right from time to time.

Plus it's more than just kicking someone out. I mean, I like Gartner well enough to keep him as the ultimate border case, but at the same time I'd jettison Mogilny, and yet also at the same time I feel the Hall's missing Fleury... it's way too complicated and a bloody mess.

 

[tabness]

Mike Gartner was basically (almost) a RW version of Mats Sundin. Consistently very good, just below elite. Extremely reliable in that regard, essentially all career. Infinitely less of a compiler than Marleau, who just hung around actively harming his teams while chasing GP record.

That's the thing about these idiosyncratic standards, not only did nobody seriously question Gartner when he got in, I remember when The Hockey News created their top 50 list in the late nineties, on the TV special, Gartner was the most bought up omission after Yzerman, and people were mostly like, why did Jagr get in and not Gartner, and so on. He was a slam dunk, the entire notion of "compiler" as it's understood here is an anachronism back then.

 

[MadArcand]

That's the thing about these idiosyncratic standards, not only did nobody seriously question Gartner when he got in, I remember when The Hockey News created their top 50 list in the late nineties, on the TV special, Gartner was the most bought up omission after Yzerman, and people were mostly like, why did Jagr get in and not Gartner, and so on. He was a slam dunk, the entire notion of "compiler" as it's understood here is an anachronism back then.

Yeah, I never thought of him as a compiler while he played. Neither did I think it about Andreychuk while he played, it only became a thing once his goal totals were used as induction argument. Marleau, OTOH...

 

[WaifuLoser]

Not sure that fair at all because as you say later on: Mike Gartner was good-very good for almost his entire career.

I think he is a poster child for nearly the opposite, just below the Roy/Bourque/Lidstrom tier.

In 96 and 97 combined Gartner was still an top line forward and 22th in the NHL in goals scored, 61th in points.

The first time he was not a legitimate top tier first liner (he had a Calder consideration in a normal year rookie start) in the nhl was only his last season in 1998 (the year before he was second in goals on his team, nice 32 in the starting early sign of DPE) and retired immediately.

Compiling to me, its accumulating stat for a while without being an impactful top 6 (or first 2 pair D) nhler, Marleau, Joe Thornton last 3 seasons for example. It does not tend to move the needle much outside most game played or reaching round career numbers, as a compiler is not scoring much per definition.

People having him in mind for compiler is just because of how big his number are, which is simply having been really good for a long time in an high scoring era, not because of any actual way he played or his career.

Same would go for a Ron Francis, his godly numbers are not from being a compiler, he retired immediatly after the first season he was not a legit bottom tier first line center in his career (almost lead the Canes in points the year pre-retirement one and started with some calder vote at 18, and was good every single season in between)

Just to be clear, I do not think Mike Gartner was a compiler, I was just saying that I could see the argument for it. Personally Mike Gartner is a clear HHOF in my eyes. To further illustrate I do not think hockey has a clear cut definition of a compiler due to the nature of the sport, for example in the NFL a Quarterback who is a compiler is someone who throws for a ton of yards with mediocre completion percentage and yards per attempt. In the NBA a compiler to me is someone who scored a ton of points on mediocre FG percentage. Basically in those sports the raw stats look great on paper, until you do some further digging into how they got those stats. I feel the NHL its hard to indicate who had a career like, like how would that even work, someone who took a shit ton of terrible shots to get a good amount of goals?

I was more responding to the guy before, who said Gartner was a compiler.

 

[WaifuLoser]

That's the rub for the vibe check super hall of fame. Everyone's ultimately got their own standard, cares about different stuff, weighs compiling or awards differently. It's unlikely to ever really get somewhere with the whole "all of us guys watching agreed he didn't feel like a Hall of Famer" in order to kick out the bottom 20/30/50 percent or whatever of the Hall of Fame, as much as that may "feel" right from time to time.

I would say at the very least the player in question should be at least a 1st liner or true top pairing d-man to get a shot at the hall, not a role player who would be maybe a top 4 dman on a stacked team, like Kevin Lowe for example.

 

[MadLuke]

I feel the NHL its hard to indicate who had a career like, like how would that even work

I think Marleau game record or consecutive game for Kessel can be said to have some "compilers" to it.

Joe Thornton compiled his way to 1,500 pts, he was at 1,478 pts before his 40 years old season, the last 61 pts scored at 34 pts by 82 pace in an regular scoring era, super protected in his deployment playing agains the worse nhler still being -23, has a player team would not really play in the playoff.

It would be more like that than a very large part of a career (some could want to say Ovechkin compiled goals, parked on the spot and what not has he aged... but goals are so valuable in hockey that the low efficacity narrative as little bite (and still had a good shooting percentage all along)

Being -33 after 2011.... hard to give it full weight and being a good powerplay player is valuable anyway.

 

[seventieslord]

Marleau and Fleury are the easy answers. Maybe also Perry and Kessel (though I may warm up to them being in) and maybe also Letang (but I don't see him getting in).

 

[JackSlater]

Both Fleurys, though one is liked and the other is.... interesting.

 

[frisco]

History tells me that the HOF is going to induct somebody that isn't close to being on anyone's radar and that'll be the guy that people will rightly complain about. See Lowe, Carbonneau, Duff. Just a guess as coming to a Hockey Hall Of Fame near you...Kirk Muller.

My Best-Carey

 

[WaifuLoser]

Marleau and Fleury are the easy answers. Maybe also Perry and Kessel (though I may warm up to them being in) and maybe also Letang (but I don't see him getting in).

I am gonna go hard no on Phil Kessel, and I like Kessel, thought the typical moronic Toronto media was unfair with him, of course it was absolutely funny and a wonderful story to see him get traded out of Toronto to then win two cups back to back, then the additional one with Vegas was cool, but no, Kessel could be your first liner, but if he was meant to be your star player like in Toronto, then you are not gonna have a good time.

To me Kessel is a tier below a guy like Spezza, and I admit I am might be hugely biased because my mother is in the hospital right now, and her favorite player is Spezza. Spezza had those three years where if he played all the games, good chance he would have hit 100 points in those seasons, he also probably would have hit 1000 career points if he just returned another season, and or had more playing time in Toronto. But absolutely nobody would make the case for Spezza, as much as I like him. I know people are gonna bring up the cups for Kessel as the driving factor, I am just saying as an example that imo Spezza at his best was a better player than Kessel at his best. I might be crazy and biased so you take this with a bucket of salt lol.

 

[carjackmalone]

Kessel came back from a cancer diagnosis and recovery early in his career

That gets him in the hall

 

[MadLuke]

That 2 different claim, Spezza was better at hockey vs an more HHOF career than Kessel.

Kessel feel a bit ahead to me, big part of a back to back, the beloved characther, cancer, 1,064 consecutive games played record.

It is close, but leaving Kessel out of telling the story of first half of 21th century of hockey seem a bit harder than Spezza.

Kessel is not a clear top 4 of his own draft class in line for it.

 

[seventieslord]

It's not that Kessel won 2 cups, It's his individual clutch performances in those playoff runs that is evidence of his worthiness.

Yes, he's also got the all-time games played streak for now, which is neat.

Being top 10 in points in the NHL four times is not easy to do. If Kessel was left out of the Hall of Fame, he would be one of the very very few to ever perform that feat and not be inducted in the hall. I understand that he has some negatives associated with him to the extent that you could see him being that one guy who gets left out despite meeting that benchmark. But then he's also got the playoff performances and the consecutive games streak which you've got to think can outweigh those negatives.

I think it's foolish to hold his time in Toronto against him at all. He was Toronto's best forward in every important way, practically the entire time that he was there. And the team didn't actually have too much of a problem scoring goals, it was simply heinous defensively. And while Kessel himself was heinous defensively, if you're going to cast blame on why a team allowed so many goals, you've probably got to look at coaching/system, goaltending, defense, and the quality of their defensive forwards before you cast blame on a star offensive forward for being extremely one-dimensional. The guy did what he was supposed to do.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Marleau and Fleury are the easy answers. Maybe also Perry and Kessel (though I may warm up to them being in) and maybe also Letang (but I don't see him getting in).

Kessel? Helllll noooo.

Perry is a lock, I mean if he doesn't get in i think you'd have to reject a number of players post lockout who are getting in

 

[seventieslord]

Kessel? Helllll noooo.

Perry is a lock, I mean if he doesn't get in i think you'd have to reject a number of players post lockout who are getting in

Like who?

 

[WaifuLoser]

Kessel? Helllll noooo.

Perry is a lock, I mean if he doesn't get in i think you'd have to reject a number of players post lockout who are getting in

Honestly, I am surprised, when I made the initial post on this thread, I did think about putting Corey Perry on my list, but I thought that his chances of making the HHOF were lower than Letang`s, and overall I never viewed him as HHOF caliber, but I am more curious as to why you think Perry is a lock compared to Kessel? Perry had the higher peak with his 50 goal season, him and Kessel have similar career totals with Kessel having the better PPG, both have cups, Kessel has multiple, Perry won one early on in his career and now as everyone knows has been to several. So I just do not really see the argument of one being that much better over the other.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Greatest LW of his generation, and as you said great talent, a joy to watch. 3x AST-1, 2x AST-2, 2x Byng, Hart runner-up... that's not nothing individually. Team awards and Cups be damned, Kariya is a given for me.

Kariya is a no brainer based on talent, fame, and accomplishments compared to other inductees. Imagine him in today’s game without Suter and Stevens head hunting,

 

[Nick Hansen]

What kind of reaction would Kovalchuk garner?

Eight times top 10 in goals and five times top 10 in points. One of the most electrifying players in the game at his best.

 

[WaifuLoser]

What kind of reaction would Kovalchuk garner?

Eight times top 10 in goals and five times top 10 in points. One of the most electrifying players in the game at his best.

I feel there is a decent consensus that if he did not leave to play in the KHL that his status as a potential HHOF would be more likely.