Which of these 5 deserves HHOF Induction

[carjackmalone]

Markus Naslund
Charlie Simmer
Tim Kerr
Rick Martin
Dave Taylor

Click to read more...

 

[Michael Farkas]

None...ish?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

none

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

0-5

 

[DitchMarner]

I don't think any of them really "deserves" HHOF induction. Naslund was the best player of that group and has the best career.

But he's like Lecavalier in that his peak is clearly at a HOF level but his prime isn't long or good enough. A thread for players like this might be a good idea. There are some others. Some might say LaFontaine, though he was inducted already.

Edit: I think Mogilny is a great example of such a player.

 

[Barnum]

Markus Naslund
Charlie Simmer
Tim Kerr
Rick Martin
Dave Taylor

None.

Rick Martin might have made it but his career was way too short, which is the same thought I have for Tim Kerr, these are your only "Hall of Very Good" players in your list. Martin's 2 1st team and 2 2nd team makes an argument but it's not enough when you only play 680+ games. Simmer was way too injury riddled but he never did anything outstanding, he played in the high scoring eras but his stats still lack (considering). Taylor doesn't move the the needle for me at all much like Naslund and I can't think of one argument for the Hall for either of them.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah, none.

I agree with the Naslund - Lecavalier comparison.

And, yeah, Rick Martin is kind of Tim Kerr-ish.

The other guys aren't even close.

 

[MadLuke]

Naslund has a 4 years windows of HHOF level play but

LeClair played like an HHOF for 6, just before Naslund, both were on famous line, LeClair at least had some legendary moment in 93 and made the finals in 97, both are 400 goals-850 pts type without that 500-1000 type of mark they would love.

I am not sure if Naslund is cleanly above LeClair among voters. Naslund peak higher, he could smell that Ross and Hart slip away the last game, but was not elite long, did not win anything or ever got close.

 

[Voight]

Rick Martin should 100% get in seeing as Bill Barber and Steve Shutt, two of his contemporaries, are. He was arguably just as good as the both of them playing on a. less talented team.

 

[Gorskyontario]

All of them are better than Phil Housley.

 

[reckoning]

I'm not saying I'd put him in the Hall, because he comes up short on longevity, but Charlie Simmer's numbers for '80 and '81 are impressive. 112 goals in 129 games. I'd be shocked if anyone scored at that rate over a two-season span, and isn't in the Hall.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Maruk had 110 in '81 and '82. Vaive did 105 in '82 and '83. Not quite, but pretty close because...league.

 

[Felidae]

Damn, what was up with Charlie Simmer those 2 years? Hovered around a 1.60 PPG and a 0.86 GPG, then never really came close to those numbers. Marcel Dionne and Dave Taylor were still on the team after those years and quite productive.

 

[The Panther]

I'm not saying I'd put him in the Hall, because he comes up short on longevity, but Charlie Simmer's numbers for '80 and '81 are impressive. 112 goals in 129 games. I'd be shocked if anyone scored at that rate over a two-season span, and isn't in the Hall.

See Bernie Nicholls' 1988-89 and 1989-90.

 

[Stephen]

Maybe we should just open up a Puckdoku wing of fondly remembered players?

At the rate of dilution the HHOF is going to be worth less than a complete set of Pro Set cards from 1990-91.

 

[VanIslander]

Brind'amour
Elias
Hitchman
Foote
Tikhonov

... the 5 deserved inductees...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Naslund has a 4 years windows of HHOF level play but

LeClair played like an HHOF for 6, just before Naslund, both were on famous line, had some legendary moment in 93 and made the finals in 97, both are 400 goals-850 pts type without that 500-1000 type of mark they would love.

I am not sure if Naslund is cleanly above LeClair among voters. Naslund peak higher, he could smell that Ross and Hart slip away the last game, but was not elite long, did not win anything or ever got close.

i feel like even saying a four year window of HHOF play is a bit of a stretch

two years absolutely. 2002 and 2003 are up there with the majority of hall of fame peaks.

but in a hall of fame prime, even if your two best years are as good as 2002 and 2003, 2001 and 2004 should really be your fifth or sixth best year, even if you have standard hall of fame longevity and a solid playoff record. if they are your third and fourth best year, you better have a buttload of longevity and counting stats and be a legendary playoff performer.

All of them are better than Phil Housley.

honestly i think naslund is about the same

higher peak, much shorter prime and way less longevity

same nonexistent playoff record, same total lack of intangibles and all round game

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

same nonexistent playoff record, same total lack of intangibles and all round game

Manners and appropriate language are intangibles >:-(

 

[JianYang]

See Bernie Nicholls' 1988-89 and 1989-90.

With turgeon and roenick getting in recently, I think Nicholls is now the all time leading scorer out of the retired non hhof players.

I know the line has to be drawn somewhere with respect to hall of fame credentials, and maybe we have reached that point now.

 

[vikash1987]

I'm not saying I'd put him in the Hall, because he comes up short on longevity, but Charlie Simmer's numbers for '80 and '81 are impressive. 112 goals in 129 games. I'd be shocked if anyone scored at that rate over a two-season span, and isn't in the Hall.

Simmer was also breaking NHL records during those couple of seasons. If not mistaken, he was the first left-winger ever to have consecutive 100-pt. seasons, and he was the first player ever to score a goal in 13 consecutive games.

It’s too bad that he got bogged down with injuries (e.g. broken leg) and that his success didn’t carry further into the ‘80s.

I’d say that, while Simmer isn’t a strong candidate for the Hall, the Triple Crown Line that he was on, as a collective unit, was a HoF line. (Not relevant, but I’d also say that his wife at the time was a HoF’er in her own right! )

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm not saying I'd put him in the Hall, because he comes up short on longevity, but Charlie Simmer's numbers for '80 and '81 are impressive. 112 goals in 129 games. I'd be shocked if anyone scored at that rate over a two-season span, and isn't in the Hall.

Not a popular opinion but, I think Simmer was the best of this group.

Could do so much without any foot speed. Too many injuries.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Not a popular opinion but, I think Simmer was the best of this group.

During an earlier discussion of Marcel Dionne, I took a "reading glasses" perusal of with/without production re: Simmer & Taylor- and satisfied myself that Dionne's output took a bigger hit when Taylor was out of the lineup (as opposed to when Simmer was out of the lineup).

I'm not shaken up by the exclusion of ANY of these guys from the Hall. My question is- how many Hall-eligible Forwards are MORE worthy of induction than these five? Ten off the top of my head. Likely 15 or more if I thought about it a little longer.

 

[Moridin]

but in a hall of fame prime, even if your two best years are as good as 2002 and 2003, 2001 and 2004 should really be your fifth or sixth best year, even if you have standard hall of fame longevity and a solid playoff record. if they are your third and fourth best year, you better have a buttload of longevity and counting stats and be a legendary playoff performer.

Well.. Not that I think Näslund had a career anywhere near HHoF, we can not disregard Feb 16th of 2004. After the Steve Moore incident he lost something in his shot, and declined much faster.

 

[Crosby2010]

Markus Naslund
Charlie Simmer
Tim Kerr
Rick Martin
Dave Taylor

None, but for different reasons. Naslund for sure peaked the best out of all of them but he didn't last long. Simmer peaked high as well and was on a famous line but didn't maintain it either. Kerr just didn't have the overall numbers and probably had to have a higher peak. Ditto with Martin. Taylor is the one who probably has the most career value out of any of these guys since he did play for a long time and when he was part of the Triple Crown peaked relatively well. But he still wasn't considered a "great" player. So for me Taylor has the best chance out of all of them followed by Naslund.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

See Bernie Nicholls' 1988-89 and 1989-90.

Broadway Bernie will happily opine on how he deserves to be in the Hall to anyone who will listen.