Why isn't Mike Keenan in the hall of fame?

[Terry Yake]

because he was an asshole and just downright abusive to his players. but hey, barrasso just got in so there might be hope for keenan getting in eventually

don't think he was a HOF-caliber coach though

 

[Hobnobs]

Shanahan - definitely. Not sure of the extent of their influences but other well-knowns he also made enemies of were Denis Savard, Curtis Joseph, Trevor Linden, Tony Amonte...


Speaking of the 1992 final, three of the four games were one goal losses, but Keenan basically gifted game 2 to the Penguins (3-1) by benching Jeremy Roenick and Steve Larmer for most of the contest in an ill-timed fit of pique.

Embarrassing first-round losses can happen to anyone, but what happened to the Flyers in 1986 and the Blackhawks in 1991 can also be considered black eyes.

As well as lesser players who might not be as influential (but might be indirectly) like Ledyard and Corson.

 

[The Panther]

I sense some "Keenan revisionism" going on here:

He also didn't do shit back-half career. Keenan in Vancouver was a train-wreck.

Was he? The guy before him was 4-13-2, while Keenan was 21-30-12 the rest of that season, a marked improvement. Then, the following season, Keenan was 15-24-6, while Marc Crawford was a dismal 8-23-6. So, Keenan was easily the most successful of the three Van coaches those two seasons.

Also, while Keenan's latter half was unremarkable, he still had back-to-back solid results with Calgary in 2008 and 2009. They replaced him with Brent Sutter and immediately missed the playoffs.

don't think he was a HOF-caliber coach though

As noted, Keenan's coaching results make his career very Mike Richter or Trevor Linden-like, in that most of the success was the first half. But, I mean, what is your criteria for a "HOF-caliber coach"? Nobody has won more titles as a coach than Keenan. 10 seasons into his NHL coaching career, he might have had the best record of any coach, ever.

 

[Voight]

I'm more than okay with him being out. He should have won more than the one Cup with the rosters he inherited or in some cases, partially assembled himself.

That those 90s Hawks teams don't have a Cup (and getting swept with that roster, the game 1 collapse etc.) is a black-eye on his resume, and that's before getting into the inter-personal stuff.

You only have to squint a bit for him to have zero Cup wins as a coach (like say Gelinas' shot goes in or the refs actually apply the rule book to Messier).

Ehh to be fair they ran into the Penguins in the finals and that team was stacked with talent.

 

[LightningStorm]

Excluding people from the HOF for character reasons is always tricky, but I think Keenan is one of the easiest cases. In his case, his character played a major role in the coaching flops he had from his Blues tenure onward. The Dale Hawerchuk and Grant Ledyard stories are despicable.

2 of my favorite stories of players sticking it to Keenan:

When Glenn Healy was with the Rangers, he said he didn't know whether he'd start the next game, He said he didn't know, but would've known if he still played for Al Arbour. The NY Post followed this up with the headline: "Keenan: No Al Arbour." Keenan called Healy in his office and asked him what the difference is between him and Arbour. Healy deflected it at first, saying it was just a newspaper headline, but Keenan kept pressing him. When Healy had had enough, he said "how bout like 6 Stanley Cups?" He then said Keenan started throwing stuff and kicked him out of his office,

This one, told by Adrian Aucoin, is pretty hilarious on how Alexander Mogilny left Keenan speechless:

“(One time) we’re in the locker room and Keenan is all over him. We were like holy shit – normally he’s not on Mogilny like that.

“Mogilny looks up, he’s like, ‘Mike, have you ever heard of how I defected, how they f***ing threatened my family, how they wanted to kill everybody? You think you’re f***ing scaring me?’

“We were like, ‘Holy shit.’ It was pretty crazy. Mike didn’t know what to say – he normally gets the last word.”

 

[Crosby2010]

because he was an asshole and just downright abusive to his players. but hey, barrasso just got in so there might be hope for keenan getting in eventually

don't think he was a HOF-caliber coach though

Barrasso is a mystery. Part of me likes him because he did sort of stick it to the media and as I get older the athletes I always thought were jerks 100% of the time I have learned to sort of sympathize and realize that maybe not everything was how I thought it was. Barry Bonds (yes I mentioned him) comes to mind as someone who may not be the epitome of Mr. Rogers but is also a guy that was intentionally treated like a villain his entire career. Maybe the sports media should share some of that blame too. They create these guys and the perception they wanted people to have. Maybe there is more to this with Barrasso. We know for sure the sports media, and even the HHOF Committee, always seems to keep guys out who were a little surly towards them. There is no reason Adam Oates shouldn't have gotten in right away, but he was the quiet Roger Maris-type that didn't like interviews and I guarantee this is what kept him waiting to get into the HHOF as long as he did. Even if there are real jerky things Barrasso did off the ice and even if he didn't have a sparkling personality, doesn't matter, he performed well enough on the ice to get in.

Same can be said for Keenan. There is a reason he was chosen twice for Team Canada. What other coaches have had this at the top level? Bowman, Quinn and Babcock by my count. Babcock might eventually get in, but he might have the same problem getting in that Keenan is having. You can ask yourself if that's right or not, but do results not matter in this game?

I sense some "Keenan revisionism" going on here:

Was he? The guy before him was 4-13-2, while Keenan was 21-30-12 the rest of that season, a marked improvement. Then, the following season, Keenan was 15-24-6, while Marc Crawford was a dismal 8-23-6. So, Keenan was easily the most successful of the three Van coaches those two seasons.

Also, while Keenan's latter half was unremarkable, he still had back-to-back solid results with Calgary in 2008 and 2009. They replaced him with Brent Sutter and immediately missed the playoffs.

As noted, Keenan's coaching results make his career very Mike Richter or Trevor Linden-like, in that most of the success was the first half. But, I mean, what is your criteria for a "HOF-caliber coach"? Nobody has won more titles as a coach than Keenan. 10 seasons into his NHL coaching career, he might have had the best record of any coach, ever.

1987 and 1991 Canada Cups, it isn't as if we didn't have options for coaches in the NHL for Team Canada. Keenan is picked both times. I will say this about Keenan, he was old school and we are in a very, errr, sensitive time in history right now. Which makes Keenan one of the most recent successful "mean" coaches that contrasts the "hug your top 6 forward" style of coach players want today. But if you look at history how many coaches that had a lot of success were kinder gentler men on the ice/field? I can go down the list, Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, Scotty Bowman, Punch Imlach, Joel Quenneville, Chuck Noll, etc. were screamers on the bench/sidelines. Just to name a few. This was how they coached, how they motivated you. Some players back then liked it. And they weren't normally jerks outside of work. Lombardi was a devout Catholic who attended Mass every morning. Shula was very different from the field to his day to day life and yet he still remains the winningest coach in NFL history. These guys weren't always warm and fuzzy to their players, but they loved them. Tom Landry wasn't a yeller, he barely spoke loud enough for the players, but he could stare you down like none other. To be successful I think you have to have that mean streak in you to an extent. Keenan had this but can we not say it helped make his teams better?

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

Barrasso is a mystery. Part of me likes him because he did sort of stick it to the media and as I get older the athletes I always thought were jerks 100% of the time I have learned to sort of sympathize and realize that maybe not everything was how I thought it was. Barry Bonds (yes I mentioned him) comes to mind as someone who may not be the epitome of Mr. Rogers but is also a guy that was intentionally treated like a villain his entire career. Maybe the sports media should share some of that blame too. They create these guys and the perception they wanted people to have. Maybe there is more to this with Barrasso. We know for sure the sports media, and even the HHOF Committee, always seems to keep guys out who were a little surly towards them. There is no reason Adam Oates shouldn't have gotten in right away, but he was the quiet Roger Maris-type that didn't like interviews and I guarantee this is what kept him waiting to get into the HHOF as long as he did. Even if there are real jerky things Barrasso did off the ice and even if he didn't have a sparkling personality, doesn't matter, he performed well enough on the ice to get in.

It's fascinating how much the media went after Bonds, and did a 180 (IMO) 20 years later by seemingly getting ahead of a story to protect their NBA investment several weeks ago. It was always bad with Bonds and the media, specifically with Rick Reilly; not to mention Skip Bayless in San Francisco.

The media even seems to be setting it up for the future (if these "stories" ever come to fruition), normalizing that it's actually no big deal (convenient) to be doing whatever these days.



Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Garnett saying "Balco" - and sort of catching himself in the process - while praising what LeBron is willing to do/take for longevity?

Back to Bonds, I don't think he did himself any favors along the way either. His opting out of the union in '03 was a really bad decision, especially with everything that was going on at the time. He lost a lot of protection after doing that.

 

[The Panther]

I agree that Keenan was a dick, but my argument would be... who cares? It's about hockey and that's ALL it should be about.

The Hall of Fame supposedly has some criterion to do with character or whatever, but that falls apart quickly when you look at the numerous snakes, head-hunters, anti-players' union capitalists, bullies, and rip-off-the-players managers who have already been in for decades (we pause to remember that if not for Bobby Orr's taking a hardline, Alan Eagleson would probably still be in today).

So, then, we get into the uncomfortable quagmire of having to decide how bad is "bad"? Is it "bad" enough that you were a dick to players at times... bad enough to be excluded? Is it "bad" enough if you hit your wife? Is it bad enough if you shouted a racist epithet at a player while coaching in junior? Is it bad enough if you asked to see your players' smartphones to shame them? Is it bad enough if you ate more than your share of the locker room pizza? Where exactly do we draw the line... and who decides?

Those are uncomfortable questions that I guarantee the keeping-up-appearances and politically conservative Hall of Fame committee does not want to address, let alone answer. And I don't blame them.

I say, you get in if you achieved enough in hockey. Your personal character shouldn't be a consideration.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

So, then, we get into the uncomfortable quagmire of having to decide how bad is "bad"? .

Huey Lewis and the News famously solved this forty years ago.

 

[sr edler]

Was Keenan really that intimidating or was he just a dork on a power trip?

There seem to be examples of people putting cracks in his facade pretty easily?

 

[NordiquesForeva]

Keenan's NHL coaching resume is stronger than that of some coaches already inducted into the HHOF. I personally feel like he should be inducted, but I don't feel like its all that egregious that he isn't. I'm sure he's made plenty of enemies in high places in the hockey world, and wasn't able to adapt his coaching methods when the league changed in the mid-90's (or, better said, the players in the league - and their motivations - changed).

There is also his success in the CHL and KHL that you can point to.

Personally, I feel like he made a hash out of the 1987 Canada Cup roster and Canada could have won the tournament in a much easier/cleaner fashion with someone different constructing the roster. Then, he made an even bigger hash out of the 1991 Canada Cup roster, but that particular tournament lacked the strength of competition that previous tournaments had (look at the Soviet roster in 1991 relative to the talent they had available, but not accessible). I don't think 1987 or (especially) 1991 should necessarily be highlights on his resume.

Having said all that, I feel like his NHL resume is strong enough for induction.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

I agree that Keenan was a dick, but my argument would be... who cares? It's about hockey and that's ALL it should be about.

The Hall of Fame supposedly has some criterion to do with character or whatever, but that falls apart quickly when you look at the numerous snakes, head-hunters, anti-players' union capitalists, bullies, and rip-off-the-players managers who have already been in for decades (we pause to remember that if not for Bobby Orr's taking a hardline, Alan Eagleson would probably still be in today).

So, then, we get into the uncomfortable quagmire of having to decide how bad is "bad"? Is it "bad" enough that you were a dick to players at times... bad enough to be excluded? Is it "bad" enough if you hit your wife? Is it bad enough if you shouted a racist epithet at a player while coaching in junior? Is it bad enough if you asked to see your players' smartphones to shame them? Is it bad enough if you ate more than your share of the locker room pizza? Where exactly do we draw the line... and who decides?

Those are uncomfortable questions that I guarantee the keeping-up-appearances and politically conservative Hall of Fame committee does not want to address, let alone answer. And I don't blame them.

I say, you get in if you achieved enough in hockey. Your personal character shouldn't be a consideration.

I think it just matters more for coaches because people skills are an attribute of their ability to coach whereas a goal scoring winger can be a dick and nobody cares ala ty cobb

The fact that a toe blake or an al arbour rarely lost the room over long tenures & didnt have to ship players out that they couldnt get along with makes them objectively better coaches than a keenan or a burns

 

[The Panther]

I think it just matters more for coaches because people skills are an attribute of their ability to coach whereas a goal scoring winger can be a dick and nobody cares ala ty cobb

The fact that a toe blake or an al arbour rarely lost the room over long tenures & didnt have to ship players out that they couldnt get along with makes them objectively better coaches than a keenan or a burns

Fair points.

 

[Crosby2010]

It's fascinating how much the media went after Bonds, and did a 180 (IMO) 20 years later by seemingly getting ahead of a story to protect their NBA investment several weeks ago. It was always bad with Bonds and the media, specifically with Rick Reilly; not to mention Skip Bayless in San Francisco.

The media even seems to be setting it up for the future (if these "stories" ever come to fruition), normalizing that it's actually no big deal (convenient) to be doing whatever these days.



Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Garnett saying "Balco" - and sort of catching himself in the process - while praising what LeBron is willing to do/take for longevity?

Back to Bonds, I don't think he did himself any favors along the way either. His opting out of the union in '03 was a really bad decision, especially with everything that was going on at the time. He lost a lot of protection after doing that.

Either way, it is time for them to forgive and forget. Bud Selig is in the Baseball Hall. So if the guy who oversaw the steroids era as Commish is in there, why are the players who took it knowing the owners/union/media were purposely looking the other way not in? It is like arresting the cocaine users and keeping the drug dealer out of jail altogether. It doesn't make sense. How do you talk about the history of baseball and not mention Barry Bonds or A-Rod? Among others.

 

[Crosby2010]

I agree that Keenan was a dick, but my argument would be... who cares? It's about hockey and that's ALL it should be about.

The Hall of Fame supposedly has some criterion to do with character or whatever, but that falls apart quickly when you look at the numerous snakes, head-hunters, anti-players' union capitalists, bullies, and rip-off-the-players managers who have already been in for decades (we pause to remember that if not for Bobby Orr's taking a hardline, Alan Eagleson would probably still be in today).

So, then, we get into the uncomfortable quagmire of having to decide how bad is "bad"? Is it "bad" enough that you were a dick to players at times... bad enough to be excluded? Is it "bad" enough if you hit your wife? Is it bad enough if you shouted a racist epithet at a player while coaching in junior? Is it bad enough if you asked to see your players' smartphones to shame them? Is it bad enough if you ate more than your share of the locker room pizza? Where exactly do we draw the line... and who decides?

Those are uncomfortable questions that I guarantee the keeping-up-appearances and politically conservative Hall of Fame committee does not want to address, let alone answer. And I don't blame them.

I say, you get in if you achieved enough in hockey. Your personal character shouldn't be a consideration.

I am all for these Halls being less political and more for on the ice/field type of judgment. Granted, it is written in the bylaws that character is part of it, but there are a lot of nice guys on the outside and there are a lot of "mean" guys on the inside. It doesn't really matter. Harold Ballard is in there. Go figure. I know there is a lot of philanthropy he did behind the scenes that he never talked about and I didn't know the man behind closed doors, but there is a lot of former players that don't speak very highly of him as we know. He's a guy who probably didn't have near the on-ice success that his teams should have had in order to get in, and his cranky nature wouldn't have helped him, so you have to wonder why he's in there.

It is more baseball than hockey that has the greats on the outside that should be in. They have to let things go with the likes of Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, A-Rod, Ramirez, etc. over the gambling/steroid stuff. They were all great players, or in McGwire's case did one thing so good it is hard to overlook. Then there are guys like Curt Schilling who didn't partake in that stuff but just rubs the committee the wrong way. How is he not a Hall of Fame pitcher? As bad as hockey can be with some of their picks I don't think they have a Schilling on the outside who is that good. Nor do they have the other all-time greats sitting on the outside. Their problem is they do hold a grudge against a few and let too many in that don't deserve it. A classic old boys club if there ever was one.

 

[The Panther]

I am all for these Halls being less political and more for on the ice/field type of judgment. Granted, it is written in the bylaws that character is part of it, but there are a lot of nice guys on the outside and there are a lot of "mean" guys on the inside. It doesn't really matter. Harold Ballard is in there. Go figure. I know there is a lot of philanthropy he did behind the scenes that he never talked about and I didn't know the man behind closed doors, but there is a lot of former players that don't speak very highly of him as we know. He's a guy who probably didn't have near the on-ice success that his teams should have had in order to get in, and his cranky nature wouldn't have helped him, so you have to wonder why he's in there.

It is more baseball than hockey that has the greats on the outside that should be in. They have to let things go with the likes of Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, A-Rod, Ramirez, etc. over the gambling/steroid stuff. They were all great players, or in McGwire's case did one thing so good it is hard to overlook. Then there are guys like Curt Schilling who didn't partake in that stuff but just rubs the committee the wrong way. How is he not a Hall of Fame pitcher? As bad as hockey can be with some of their picks I don't think they have a Schilling on the outside who is that good. Nor do they have the other all-time greats sitting on the outside. Their problem is they do hold a grudge against a few and let too many in that don't deserve it. A classic old boys club if there ever was one.

Good points. I mean, Ballard publicly said he was going to "fix lesbians", etc., but he's in the Hall. Is Keenan even more of a dick than that? I just think (I think you agree) that these kind of arbitrary distinctions are pointless. Also, society's standards are constantly shifting in these areas.

 

[Doctor Coffin]

Then, he made an even bigger hash out of the 1991 Canada Cup roster, but that particular tournament lacked the strength of competition that previous tournaments had (look at the Soviet roster in 1991 relative to the talent they had available, but not accessible). I don't think 1987 or (especially) 1991 should necessarily be highlights on his resume.

Having said all that, I feel like his NHL resume is strong enough for induction.

In what way? They won the tournament, they swept the Americans in the final, what's to disparage there? The "grinder" types that he put on the roster, like Brent Sutter, Dirk Graham, Shayne Corson, Rick Tocchet, played well and justified their selections...

 

[LightningStorm]

I think it just matters more for coaches because people skills are an attribute of their ability to coach whereas a goal scoring winger can be a dick and nobody cares ala ty cobb

The fact that a toe blake or an al arbour rarely lost the room over long tenures & didnt have to ship players out that they couldnt get along with makes them objectively better coaches than a keenan or a burns

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Bad character for a coach has an adverse affect on the whole team more than a player lacking character. The examples of Keenan are numerous where him being a terrible person harmed his team.

The thing I find most ironic about Keenan is his lone cup is the season where things started going off the rails for him. Previously in Philadelphia and Chicago he got those teams to punch above their weight. But his lone season with the NYR featured him benching Leetch in the middle of a CS run for him as well as talking to other teams while the finals were going on. Then the next season in St. Louis onward he simply became a caricature of himself and his ugly side started completely rearing itself.

 

[Jumptheshark]

With Hitchcock going in now it has me wondering...Burns, Hitchcock, Quinn all in the hall..why isn't Keenan in?

Maybe not the same shelf life as others but just as much success with a Cup and coaching multiple other finalists.

I mean maybe he gets in after he dies? But why not do it when he is alive?

Because he is viewed as being an egomaniacal individual who screwed with people for the sake of screwing with.

 

[Crosby2010]

Good points. I mean, Ballard publicly said he was going to "fix lesbians", etc., but he's in the Hall. Is Keenan even more of a dick than that? I just think (I think you agree) that these kind of arbitrary distinctions are pointless. Also, society's standards are constantly shifting in these areas.

Ballard said stuff like that casually on a Tuesday. He routinely said much worse things with a smile on his face. Part of it makes me think he knew how to put on a show for the media. I talked once to a guy at the baseball Hall of Fame and we were more or less on the same page when it came to letting the guys into the Hall from the steroid era and such. I asked him about Sammy Sosa, he mentioned obviously not just the steroid stuff but that he's said some crazy things lately. I haven't Googled it too heavily on that issue, so I didn't know what he was talking about. But it just got me thinking, is there anyone in the history of sport that we can't find something wrong with? Is this just permanently the future now that a guy was a great player but he said things that people may or may not agree with and that is enough to keep him out? Because I feel this sort of thing is only going to get worse with the Instagram/Twitter/Facebook type of generation. You can find plenty of quotes from athletes these days without even getting up off your couch. What I am afraid of going forward is that this is the new norm. And coaches like Keenan, from his era, won't age well in the eyes of new fans because we aren't trending in a direction of coaches that held their athletes accountable, we are trending in the direction that coaches need to be ultra-sensitive to a player. So I am afraid Keenan will never get in to be honest.

 

[chrispw1]

perhaps his failures post 1994 weigh in with some, as in five places after his Rangers cup win he only won one more playoff series and didn't last more than 164 games. For whatever reason it seems he lost his magic, if you mention his name to a Blues or Canucks fan you will likely get grumbling and cussing

His first part was really good as in his first nine seasons as a coach, he won a cup, got to three other finals with one being a game seven and two other conference finals and three president's trophies but was mostly a failure after that

 

[Crosby2010]

Two things I am trying to remember. Why did Keenan leave the Hawks after 1992 and why did he leave the Bruins after 2001? The Hawks made the final that year and while they got swept they still were the 2nd best team in hockey that year. I can see and can remember other reasons he got fired from teams but can't pinpoint it from the Hawks. The Rangers it was a clash with management more or less but with Boston he coaches most of the 2001 season after Burns is fired, they narrowly miss the playoffs and he never comes back. I can't recall why that was.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Two things I am trying to remember. Why did Keenan leave the Hawks after 1992 and why did he leave the Bruins after 2001? The Hawks made the final that year and while they got swept they still were the 2nd best team in hockey that year. I can see and can remember other reasons he got fired from teams but can't pinpoint it from the Hawks. The Rangers it was a clash with management more or less but with Boston he coaches most of the 2001 season after Burns is fired, they narrowly miss the playoffs and he never comes back. I can't recall why that was.

Here's a contemporary article about it. Keenan: I was fired by Blackhawks

Seems like it was a power struggle type of situation.

 

[Crosby2010]

Here's a contemporary article about it. Keenan: I was fired by Blackhawks

Seems like it was a power struggle type of situation.

You know, they should have kept him. One underrated thing about Keenan is that when he left a team they quite often got worse. Philly got worse for several years after. The Hawks were still good but never made the final again. Rangers have never won a Cup since. Maybe the 1993 Hawks have a different story otherwise than a sweep at the hands of St. Louis.

 

[The Panther]

My opinion is that about 90% of coach firings are mistakes. Teams do well when there's consistency in leadership / team-structure. Yeah, maybe Keenan could have continued with the Hawks. He was definitely the kind of coach who instilled "his" players / system, and if you weren't on board you were cut out.

The emerging theme is that Keenan "failed" after New York. While he clearly wasn't as successful (I compared him to Linden or Richter, in terms of players' second halves being below the first half), I think the word "failed" is over-stating it.

His first post-New York year with St. Louis (work-stoppage shortened season, 1995) was highly successful. The Blues tied for 3rd overall, and it was their best season in four years, and their third-best season ever. The 1995-96 team couldn't score (and was ancient), but they were one shot away from eliminating mighty-Detroit, whom they gave all they could handle. 1996-97 was going along similarly, but the Blues cut Keenan and eventually brought in Quenneville (a good move). But they were still in competition for a playoff spot with Keenan, and actually the replacement coaches didn't do much better.

The Canucks. Vancouver fans will always view Keenan as the anti-Christ, but as I've mentioned the Canucks in 1997-98 and 1998-99 did considerably better under Keenan than under Renney or Crawford. Again, it's clear in retrospect that hiring Crawford was a good move (or was it?) for the team's emerging identity, but who's to say if Keenan had stuck around he wouldn't have done just as well?

Then, one year in Boston. They failed to make the playoffs, but only missed by 2 points. They were 15 points better than in the previous season. I can't remember why he left...?

If memory serves, the Florida owner headhunted Keenan and paid him a pile. He didn't do well there, but this was that "Bure-and-nobody-else" team.

He did well in Calgary -- .585 and both seasons in playoffs.

So, while his second half wasn't as glorious as the first, it wasn't terrible either. I would guess he was pretty much just cashing paychecks in Florida, but he did fairly well elsewhere (including Van), given the circumstances he was in.