Will Kris Letang make the HOF?

[Hockeyholic]

The "3 cups" argument is pretty lame. Letang wasn't even playing for one of them.

And he was like the 4th or 5th D on that first cup win.

Overall, his career isn't HHOF worthy.

But no doubt he will get in.

 

[Toby91ca]

And he was like the 4th or 5th D on that first cup win.

Overall, his career isn't HHOF worthy.

But no doubt he will get in.

Compared to what though? Not HHOF worthy compared to the other "D" that are in the HHOF? If that is the statement then it simply isn't accurate.

 

[Midnight Judges]

And he was like the 4th or 5th D on that first cup win.

Overall, his career isn't HHOF worthy.

But no doubt he will get in.

The bar just isn't all that high. Perhaps it should be higher, but it's not. And it would be unfair to raise the bar at this point. So he's in IMO.

 

[dalewood12]

Yes. I think the Masterson seals it.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Compared to what though? Not HHOF worthy compared to the other "D" that are in the HHOF? If that is the statement then it simply isn't accurate.

Well we get back to the whole "Two wrongs don't make a right" thing.

 

[Turin]

Letang was elite for like a decade, won a Cup as the teams number one dman by far and has been criminally underrated defensively - especially in his younger/prime years. He should have won the Norris in 2013.

 

[Sports2]

A sometimes great player who proably belongs in the Hall of Very Good- flip a coin. But he'll get in.

 

[Kranix]

Kevin lowe is in the hof

 

[Toby91ca]

Well we get back to the whole "Two wrongs don't make a right" thing.

Not really, it’s not just a random guy that’s in , he’s just as good or better than several

 

[Turin]

Not really, it’s not just a random guy that’s in , he’s just as good or better than several

Right this is a guy who’s got longevity being elite plus in an alternate timeline would have a Conn Smythe and a Norris.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

He shouldn’t but he probably will

This. He’s close and shouldn’t get in, but close and shouldn’t get in gets you in with the current era because the HHOF has lowered it’s standards.

 

[norrisnick]

Well we get back to the whole "Two wrongs don't make a right" thing.

But half a dozen wrongs is a trend.

 

[DearDiary]

This. He’s close and shouldn’t get in, but close and shouldn’t get in gets you in with the current era because the HHOF has lowered it’s standards.

That doesn't make sense considering that Letangs career is better than players inducted into the HHOF before the current era. So how is lowered standards relevant?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

That doesn't make sense considering that Letangs career is better than players inducted into the HHOF before the current era. So how is lowered standards relevant?

See, this is my point.

This should never be the standard to get in. Either you had a HOF worthy career or you didn’t. It shouldn’t be about comparing a player to the worst player in the HOF.

 

[Conbon]

So overrated. You could switch him with a ton of other offensive defensemen from his era on that team and get similar if not better results just due to them not missing 40 games a year.

 

[BigEezyE22]

So overrated. You could switch him with a ton of other offensive defensemen from his era on that team and get similar if not better results just due to them not missing 40 games a year.

List that ton of defensemen and then we'll see how wrong you are.

 

[Voight]

Crosby, Malkin and Fleury absolutely belong in the HOF regardless of their Penguins legacy.

MAF is debatable IMO

 

[Big McLargehuge]

The case to keep him out was much easier to make when 1,000 GP seemed impossible.

 

[Janvonpobben]

no norris trophy though.

 

[norrisnick]

See, this is my point.

This should never be the standard to get in. Either you had a HOF worthy career or you didn’t. It shouldn’t be about comparing a player to the worst player in the HOF.

What are the standards of a HOF worthy career? And how are those standards different from comparing players to existing members of the HOF?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

What are the standards of a HOF worthy career? And how are those standards different from comparing players to existing members of the HOF?

I don't care how they compare to existing members. Just because someone got in that shouldn't have doesn't mean current players should get in.

As for the standards, I would say major individual hardware is pretty important, and there are very few situations where a player can get in without it. I don't think an offensive defenseman that has never hit 70 points rises to that level. Great career. If he somehow managed to eke out a Norris one of his best seasons, I'd probably say he gets in, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. And I'd say he's close but probably falls a little short.

 

[norrisnick]

I don't care how they compare to existing members. Just because someone got in that shouldn't have doesn't mean current players should get in.

As for the standards, I would say major individual hardware is pretty important, and there are very few situations where a player can get in without it. I don't think an offensive defenseman that has never hit 70 points rises to that level. Great career. If he somehow managed to eke out a Norris one of his best seasons, I'd probably say he gets in, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. And I'd say he's close but probably falls a little short.

I think the issue is that it's not a matter of someone and more a matter of dozens. And if it is dozens, then clearly the standards you are thinking of are not the standards of the HHOF.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I think the issue is that it's not a matter of someone and more a matter of dozens. And if it is dozens, then clearly the standards you are thinking of are not the standards of the HHOF.

Who are the dozens? I feel like it's probably like 4-5 players that without a doubt shouldn't have gotten in.

 

[norrisnick]

Who are the dozens? I feel like it's probably like 4-5 players that without a doubt shouldn't have gotten in.

If the standard is a major personal award, then it's dozens. And as soon as you name 4 or 5 then 4 or 5 more are out the door via association.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think the issue is that it's not a matter of someone and more a matter of dozens. And if it is dozens, then clearly the standards you are thinking of are not the standards of the HHOF.

It's an interesting question. I think we need to acknowledge that there have been players who have been inducted who are outright mistakes. If we accept the bar as Leo Boivin, Kevin Lowe, Edgar Laprade, Mike Vernon, Clark Gillies, Dick Duff, Dave Andreychuk, Gerry Cheevers etc - there are easily 50 players (maybe closer to 100) who should be immediately inducted using them as precedent. That feels wrong.

I like to ask myself if a player is better than the bottom 10% of the Hall. If the answer is clearly yes, they should be inducted. For me, this includes players like JC Tremblay, Carl Brewer, Jeremy Roenick, Theo Fleury, Henrik Zetterberg, Patrik Elias, John LeClair, Curtis Joseph, etc.

There are a lot of players where the answer is no, or maybe. This includes players like Claude Giroux, Steve Larmer, Peter Bondra, Sergei Gonchar, Kris Letang, Adam Foote, etc. I wouldn't vote to induct them. Yes, you can find 5-10 inductees who they're (arguably) better than. But there should be some recognition that mistakes have been made in the past, so let's not make it worse by inducting 50 defensemen who are more deserving than Leo Boivin.