Which of these 5 deserves HHOF Induction

[DitchMarner]

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.

I don't think either will or should be inducted, but I don't see how Taylor has a better chance than Naslund.

For a while, Naslund was one of the best players in the game. He was on a commercial with Ilya Kovalchuk and on an NHL video game cover. Silly things to bring up? Maybe. But the point is he was well-known and was legitimately one of the League's top players.

Sure, it was during a period where there was a lack of high-end talent, but Taylor had his best seasons during a weak period for top scorers as well.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Taylor was ever considered anywhere near one of the best scorers or players in the NHL. When people bring up guys like Propp, Middleton and Larmer (who scored just over or under 1000 points but aren't in the Hall), they don't seem too far off from guys like Fleury, Elias and Tkachuk, who were among the better wingers of the Dead Puck Era.

Taylor feels more like... Ziggy Palffy maybe? I think Palffy was more talented as well. But he Taylor are in a group of players I don't think will ever get serious consideration.

 

[buffalowing88]

Rick Martin was talented enough but his career/peak were both too short. That said, I didn't remember he played in the 76 Canada Cup, and played well. His playoff resume is nothing to scoff at, either. I definitely don't think he belongs, but that probably shows how good he was, if even for a brief period.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I may be wrong, but I don't think Taylor was ever considered anywhere near one of the best scorers or players in the NHL. When people bring up guys like Propp, Middleton and Larmer (who scored just over or under 1000 points but aren't in the Hall), they don't seem too far off from guys like Fleury, Elias and Tkachuk, who were among the better wingers of the Dead Puck Era.

i think taylor was basically larmer, only with tkachuk’s playoff career

 

[DitchMarner]

i think taylor was basically larmer, only with tkachuk’s playoff career

And not much star power.

If he hasn't been inducted by now, I don't think he has any shot going forward. Not many people in 2031 will be saying Taylor is a glaring omission.


I really don't want Naslund inducted, either. He had a poor playoff career as well and a short prime. But at least he was a prominent name for a while.

 

[Crosby2010]

Rick Martin was talented enough but his career/peak were both too short. That said, I didn't remember he played in the 76 Canada Cup, and played well. His playoff resume is nothing to scoff at, either. I definitely don't think he belongs, but that probably shows how good he was, if even for a brief period.

Yeah, funny thing is he had an awesome first game at the 1976 Canada Cup against Finland. He had 5 points that game. Then played 3 others and went pointless. I have no idea what happened. Martin must have cashed in against weaker Finland for that 11-2 romp. I assume maybe being shut out the next three games got him in Scotty Bowman's bad book and since there was ample talent on that team Martin was the odd man out. That is what I am guessing happened, but either way, a 5 point night is still 5 points. Hat trick too.

Martin is a guy who just needed 3 or so more seasons of regular play to probably get the numbers required to get in. He'd be above 500 goals had he done this. He also needed at least one or two more elite years, and some huge playoff run (he did alright in 1975). When you look at other left wingers at this time like Barber and Shutt and Gillies that are all in there you might think Martin was just as good as them and I think Barber is probably the best out of that bunch, but Martin doesn't stick out like a sore thumb either.

I don't think either will or should be inducted, but I don't see how Taylor has a better chance than Naslund.

For a while, Naslund was one of the best players in the game. He was on a commercial with Ilya Kovalchuk and on an NHL video game cover. Silly things to bring up? Maybe. But the point is he was well-known and was legitimately one of the League's top players.

Sure, it was during a period where there was a lack of high-end talent, but Taylor had his best seasons during a weak period for top scorers as well.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Taylor was ever considered anywhere near one of the best scorers or players in the NHL. When people bring up guys like Propp, Middleton and Larmer (who scored just over or under 1000 points but aren't in the Hall), they don't seem too far off from guys like Fleury, Elias and Tkachuk, who were among the better wingers of the Dead Puck Era.

Taylor feels more like... Ziggy Palffy maybe? I think Palffy was more talented as well. But he Taylor are in a group of players I don't think will ever get serious consideration.

Yeah, that's fair. Some people focus on the elite play at his best, and Taylor doesn't have that quite like Naslund does. It all depends on what you value. Taylor had a nice long career and at his peak was part of the best line in the NHL. The problem is I think Dionne was the engine on that line and while Taylor was still pretty good I don't think he puts up 100 points in a season without Dionne. But I agree, there just isn't that idea that he's a guy who is being left out in the cold. Larmer has at least as good of a case as he does and he isn't in, and probably is still short himself. And Taylor was a GM for a while too, so when you have a guy with a good career as it is and he's a GM it sort of keeps him in the public eye. I honestly think this is what helped Doug Wilson get in, and if someone like PK Subban stays in the public eye as an analyst then something like that will elevate him, even though it shouldn't and in reality Subban is nowhere near the Hall and Wilson probably was just short himself. That being said Taylor didn't get that bump when he was in the public eye as a GM so he won't now.

 

[JackSlater]

All of them are better than Phil Housley.

Well yes, but the standard should be higher than a regrettable member like Housley. None should get in.

 

[VanIslander]

Well yes, but the standard should be higher than a regrettable member like Housley. None should get in.

Agreed. None of those 5 should get in.

What about these five?

Lionel Hitchman
Vladimir Krutov
Henrik Zetterberg
Sergei Gonchar
& The Beezer

 

[JackSlater]

Agreed. None of those 5 should get in.

What about these five?

Lionel Hitchman
Vladimir Krutov
Henrik Zetterberg
Sergei Gonchar
& The Beezer

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Probably

 

[frontsfan2005]

Naslund at his peak (00-04)
313 GP, 164 G, 189 A, 353 PTS - Playoffs: 27 GP, 8 G, 17 A, 25 PTS
2003 Pearson Winner
Top 10 Hart Votes in 2002 (5th), 2003 (2nd) and 2004 (5th)
He leads the NHL in goals and points during a four-year span. Losing the 04-05 season to a lockout hurts him quite a bit, as even though he was productive in 05-06 (32 goals, 79 points), he definitely lost a step.

As for the playoffs, he was nearly a PPG during a very-low scoring era. Bertuzzi (14 pts and 24 games plus his 2004 suspension) and goaltending were bigger issues than Naslund for the lack of playoff success during this years.

Is a four-year peak leading the league in goals and points enough? As for the rest of his career, Naslund didn't really break out until age 25 and retired at 35, plus missing a prime season due to the lockout, which hurts his overall numbers.

Simmer at his peak (79-81)
129 GP, 112 G, 94 A, 206 PTS - Playoffs: 3 GP, 2 G, 0 A, 2 PTS
League leader in goals in 79-80 (56)

Simmer is an interesting case, as he has these great two seasons, then injuries hurt his 81-82 season to 39 points in 50 games. He has only one other "great" season, as he puts up 44 G, 48 A, 92 PTS in 83-84.

Had he not missed 31 games from 79-81 and kept up his goal pace, Simmer would have flirted with back-to-back 70 goal seasons. Would that be enough to put him in?

Kerr at his peak (83-87)
304 GP, 224 G, 146 A, 370 PTS - Playoffs: 32 GP, 21 G, 12 A, 33 PTS
Led league in PP goals in 1985, 86 and 87.

During his peak, Kerr was 3rd in the NHL in goals behind Gretzky and Kurri and put up four straight years of scoring at least 54 goals. Following injuries in 87-88, Kerr came back and was very productive in 88-89, especially in the post-season, and for half the 89-90 season. Also, Kerr missing the 87 finals due to injury could be the difference as to why the Flyers lost to the Oilers (he put up 8 goals in 12 playoff games that year).

His career stat line of 655 GP, 370 G (149 G on PP), 304 A, 674 PTS is quite similar to Cam Neely (726 GP, 395 G (142 G on PP) , 299 A, 694 PTS).

Rick Martin (71-80)
658 GP, 375 G, 299 A, 674 PTS - Playoffs: 62 GP, 24 G, 29 A, 53 PTS
Before injuries ended his career, from his rookie season, Martin ranked 4th in the NHL in goals from 1971-80, only behind Esposito, Lafleur and Dionne. He had back-to-back 52 goal seasons.

His playoff stats lack a bit, but he did have a nice run in 1975, and not being on the Flyers/Bruins/Canadiens/Rangers in these years are going to hurt your stats.

I think he should easily be in, being a top-5 goal scorer for nearly a decade should be enough.

Dave Taylor (78-82)
289 GP, 166 G, 233 A, 399 PTS
Excellent four year peak, as he ranks 6th in goals and points and 7th in assists, but is 54 goals and 120 points behind his teammate, Marcel Dionne, during these same seasons.

He broke his wrist in 82-83 and never really approaches these numbers again.

Having Dionne so far ahead of him during these years hurts Taylor. When he went down with his injury, Dionne continued racking up points.

I'll say no for Taylor but he did have a great career.

 

[The Pale King]

Taylor's longevity is underrated for that era. He was the longest tenured player from the 1975 draft, lasting through the 93-94 season. The next closest guy, defenseman Mike O'Connell retired after the 89-90 season. That said, DT only appeared in about 80% of the games over that stretch, usually missing a handful of games even in his big seasons. He was chippy, he blocked shots, and those factors lead to a host of lingering injuries that affected his counting stats. Still, not bad for a 15th round pick.

From the games I've watched (80-81 playoff series against the Rangers, 81-82 series against the Oilers and then a smattering of random late 80s Kings playoff games and the 92-93 run), the younger version of Taylor was reasonably defensively engaged for a star winger of that era, certainly the "defensive motor" of the Triple Crown line.

He also picked up a handful of Selke votes, though those were likely as much for the shiny +/- numbers as opposed to being deployed in any kind of shadowing role. I've never seen his 84-85 season mentioned on here... but it's a nice feather in his cap. Still centered by Dionne, but this is clearly post-Triple Crown. 41-51-92 points, and a team-leading +17 for a very average Kings team.

All that said, I'd have Taylor 2nd here. I'd go

1. Rick Martin
2. Dave Taylor
3. Marcus Naslund
4. Tim Kerr
5. Charlie Simmer

 

[The Pale King]

i think taylor was basically larmer, only with tkachuk’s playoff career

Taylor, like Dionne, is a guy people remember differently if he gets better than .853ish SV%* from his revolving door of goaltenders in the postseason.

*I crunched the numbers a couple years back doing a deep dive on Dionne and his supposed playoff falloff. It was something like from 77-85 the Kings goalies in the playoffs put up a combined .853 SV%. I remember the number because it matched up exactly with Fuhr's SV% in the Miracle on Manchester game.

 

[buffalowing88]

Yeah, funny thing is he had an awesome first game at the 1976 Canada Cup against Finland. He had 5 points that game. Then played 3 others and went pointless. I have no idea what happened. Martin must have cashed in against weaker Finland for that 11-2 romp. I assume maybe being shut out the next three games got him in Scotty Bowman's bad book and since there was ample talent on that team Martin was the odd man out. That is what I am guessing happened, but either way, a 5 point night is still 5 points. Hat trick too.

Martin is a guy who just needed 3 or so more seasons of regular play to probably get the numbers required to get in. He'd be above 500 goals had he done this. He also needed at least one or two more elite years, and some huge playoff run (he did alright in 1975). When you look at other left wingers at this time like Barber and Shutt and Gillies that are all in there you might think Martin was just as good as them and I think Barber is probably the best out of that bunch, but Martin doesn't stick out like a sore thumb either.



Yeah, that's fair. Some people focus on the elite play at his best, and Taylor doesn't have that quite like Naslund does. It all depends on what you value. Taylor had a nice long career and at his peak was part of the best line in the NHL. The problem is I think Dionne was the engine on that line and while Taylor was still pretty good I don't think he puts up 100 points in a season without Dionne. But I agree, there just isn't that idea that he's a guy who is being left out in the cold. Larmer has at least as good of a case as he does and he isn't in, and probably is still short himself. And Taylor was a GM for a while too, so when you have a guy with a good career as it is and he's a GM it sort of keeps him in the public eye. I honestly think this is what helped Doug Wilson get in, and if someone like PK Subban stays in the public eye as an analyst then something like that will elevate him, even though it shouldn't and in reality Subban is nowhere near the Hall and Wilson probably was just short himself. That being said Taylor didn't get that bump when he was in the public eye as a GM so he won't now.

Wow! Thanks for the deep dive. Five points against Finland sorta skews those stats.

I really think that Ramsay belongs in over either any of the French Connection wings. And I don't believe Ramsay belongs at all.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

And not much star power.

If he hasn't been inducted by now, I don't think he has any shot going forward. Not many people in 2031 will be saying Taylor is a glaring omission.

i think taylor might have had a brief window but it didn’t happen.

if you’d asked me in the early 90s if dave taylor was a hall of famer, i probably wiuld have said yes, not because of he was great (he wasn’t) but because there was the perception that this guy was a hall of fame guy. the friend of gretzky shine was all over him.

but that’s why they make you wait three years. once he was gone nobody missed him. a very good player, obviously, with a long successful career. but by 97 and 98, it was much easier to draw the line between a taylor and a goulet, let alone a stastny or trottier.

imo, lanny mcdonald squeaked in as probably a sub-HHOF guy on good vibes and friends in high places. you could probably have squinted and fudged taylor, who had a poor man’s version of lanny’s career, in there with him but reason won out that time. if the kings had won the 93 finals, i’m guessing that might have been all he would have needed.

Taylor's longevity is underrated for that era. He was the longest tenured player from the 1975 draft, lasting through the 93-94 season. The next closest guy, defenseman Mike O'Connell retired after the 89-90 season. That said, DT only appeared in about 80% of the games over that stretch, usually missing a handful of games even in his big seasons. He was chippy, he blocked shots, and those factors lead to a host of lingering injuries that affected his counting stats. Still, not bad for a 15th round pick.

From the games I've watched (80-81 playoff series against the Rangers, 81-82 series against the Oilers and then a smattering of random late 80s Kings playoff games and the 92-93 run), the younger version of Taylor was reasonably defensively engaged for a star winger of that era, certainly the "defensive motor" of the Triple Crown line.

upthread i compared taylor to larmer and he definitely was the dirty work guy on the triple crown, just like larmer was on his big line. valuable players who maybe scored more than they should have playing with superstar centers but who also contributed more than their pts totals showed.

not to discount taylor’s longevity, because between the 72 and 78 drafts only gainey and trottier played more games than him, but his longevity does look like more tha it is because he was a bit of a late bloomer. by the time he played his first game in the league, guys in his draft like mel bridgman, dennis maruk, doug jarvis, rick blight, and tim young had already played two whole seasons.

Taylor, like Dionne, is a guy people remember differently if he gets better than .853ish SV%* from his revolving door of goaltenders in the postseason.

*I crunched the numbers a couple years back doing a deep dive on Dionne and his supposed playoff falloff. It was something like from 77-85 the Kings goalies in the playoffs put up a combined .853 SV% in the playoffs. I remember the number because it matched up exactly with Fuhr's SV% in the Miracle on Manchester game.

the dionne years were before my time but mostly i remember taylor being a bit of a slug in the playoffs during the gretzky years.

 

[The Panther]

All that said, I'd have Taylor 2nd here. I'd go

1. Rick Martin
2. Dave Taylor
3. Marcus Naslund
4. Tim Kerr
5. Charlie Simmer

Of course this all comes down to what we each value most, etc., but I am still surprised to see some putting Taylor ahead of Naslund. I can see the case for Rick Martin ahead of him just on account of Martin having several elite / near-elite seasons, but Taylor...? (and I loved Dave Taylor)

What it comes down to, for me personally, is that there was a period of a year or two when Markus Naslund was the best or co-best performer in the entire NHL. For one season anyway, he was voted best player in the League by his peers -- at no time would that have ever come close to happening with Martin or Taylor (or Kerr... or Simmer).

Over a consecutive three-season period, Naslund was the best forward in the NHL, the #1 scorer in the NHL (with the 10th best plus/minus among forwards), and was team captain of a high-profile Canadian franchise that was having great success. During his two peak-season playoffs (2003; 2004), he put up 23 points in 21 games (the next-best Canuck had 16 points, and except for him Naslund more than doubled every other player).

Dave Taylor's top "adjusted" season on Hockey-Ref is 86 points, while Naslund's is 117.

I get that players like Taylor and Martin had more big seasons than Naslund, but ... I dunno, for me being the best (or co-best) guy in the NHL for three straight years is more impressive than eight or nine 75-point-type seasons.

 

[Moose Head]

Markus Naslund
Charlie Simmer
Tim Kerr
Rick Martin
Dave Taylor

Martin was probably better than his contemporaries at LW, Shutt, Barber and Gillies, who are all in. That said, they were pretty mediocre hof choices.

I’d say none of the above, with Martin or Naslund having the best cases.

 

[MXD]

None. Rick Martin could've been had he played, like, 250 more games or something.

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.

Not enough games played.

 

[McPoyle]

None of these 5.

 

[Voight]

None. Rick Martin could've been had he played, like, 250 more games or something.


Not enough games played.

Last I checked, the HHOF doesn't have minimum games played requirement.

Regardless, saying he shouldn't get in because he "doesn't have enough games played" is downright ridiculous. FWIW he has 27 less than Bure, 33 less than Foppa.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Last I checked, the HHOF doesn't have minimum games played requirement.

Regardless, saying he shouldn't get in because he "doesn't have enough games played" is downright ridiculous. FWIW he has 27 less than Bure, 33 less than Foppa.

No but when you factor in how minimal his resume is the games played matters. Let's not pretend he's in Bure's or Forsberg's tier either as a player

 

[MadLuke]

Regardless, saying he shouldn't get in because he "doesn't have enough games played" is downright ridiculous. FWIW he has 27 less than Bure, 33 less than Foppa.

Yes and no, Forsberg played 110 more games or so in the nhl.

Martin..: 748 games
Bure....: 768 games
Forsberg: 859 games

And their international resume are quite different, Bure-Forsberg had quite famous moment on the world stage, junior and senior, Martin HOF case would be almost purely in the nhl.

Playoff resume and different tier of player in the regular season, it add up, sure the Orr-Neely-Bure-Forsberg (McDavid if he would stop to play now) can get in with short career, but the voters will reserve that for players that were in the Top players in the league conversation.

 

[Voight]

No but when you factor in how minimal his resume is the games played matters. Let's not pretend he's in Bure's or Forsberg's tier either as a player

Sure but hes no slouch either. 2x 1st AST and 2x 2nd AST in that amount of seasons is notable.

 

[MXD]

Last I checked, the HHOF doesn't have minimum games played requirement.

Regardless, saying he shouldn't get in because he "doesn't have enough games played" is downright ridiculous. FWIW he has 27 less than Bure, 33 less than Foppa.

He was also less dominant than them.

(Of course, there's no "hard" games criteria; games played is just a proxy for longevity. I have no doubt that, with 250 more games, he reaches hockey card totals that are appropriate for getting voted in the HHOF for players of that time period).

 

[MadLuke]

Sure but hes no slouch either. 2x 1st AST and 2x 2nd AST in that amount of seasons is notable.

His top-10 goal finish as well, but in both case a clear tier below Bure-Forsberg.

Left wing all-star result tend to be a bit inflated... it did beat Cashman, Vickers, Eric Vail for those spots, it is not like fighting with Bossy-Lafleur or Forsberg having to deal with the the center position.

A right wing like Bure faced Selanne-Jagr-Iginla-Neely-Hull-Mogilny-Fleury-Bondra-Palfy, he could put 50 goals-90 points in the dpe and miss the all star team.

 

[MarotteMarauder]

When you look at other left wingers at this time like Barber and Shutt and Gillies that are all in there you might think Martin was just as good as them and I think Barber is probably the best out of that bunch, but Martin doesn't stick out like a sore thumb either.

For my money, while the others mentioned were fine players, I select Rick Martin on my team ahead of any of the others. He was a better player than all of them, stuck on bad teams with injuries to boot.

Put any of those players on Martin's Sabre teams and no one would be remembering them at this point.

 

[Moose Head]

For my money, while the others mentioned were fine players, I select Rick Martin on my team ahead of any of the others. He was a better player than all of them, stuck on bad teams with injuries to boot.

Put any of those players on Martin's Sabre teams and no one would be remembering them at this point.

While I agree Martin was probably better than some of the LW’s in the Hall who played when he did, The Sabres weren’t a bad team during his time there. They went to one final, and were a consistent top 4 or 5 team during that era.