| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
 Posted - 09/05/2007 : 14:34:53
|
With the retirement of Pierre Turgeon this week, the debate has already began regarding his potential to reach the Hall of Fame. One point of view is that his offensive ability has proven him to belong with the all time greats. Others view him as a good player, but not good enough to be in the HOF.
That being said, what is your opinion of the type of player that should be in the Hall of Fame, and for that regard, who should not be there.
Let the debate begin.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 16:29:20
|
A player should be regarded as an all time great to get in the Hall. Turgeon is not that player. A couple who are in the Hall and who I feel shouldn't be are Darryl Sittler and Joe Mullen.
Mullen made it in largely on the accomplishment of being the first American player to 500 goals. Whoopiddydoo.
I have no idea why Sittler is in there.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
 |
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 16:40:57
|
Let's face it, points are a major component to getting in as a player. You don't have to have personal or team awards but they help your case. Ultimately you have to be great and anyone who says that 500 goals and over a point per game production is not GREAT is jaded by some of the EXCEPTIONALLY GREAT players that have gone before.
The question is...does the bar get raised on the fly? Is it a moving target? Some say yes and others think it should stay fixed. For me, equipment changes, rule changes, amount of games played etc. Each contribute to a moving target. We have to constantly adjust the bar (higher that is) Regardless, for me, Turgeon at over a point a game is a Hall of Famer in my book and I have no doubt that in the next 10 years he'll live the right of passage into the HHOF. |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 17:20:23
|
If you only look at his last five seasons then sure why would you put him in the hall.
But he played 20 seasons, 15 good seasons where he led his teams in scoring and finished in the top ten twice. Late 80's and early 90's saw many players in and out of the top ten in scoring.
It is possible that he may have not been the best player he could have, but that is a matter of opinion...
In the hall for sure...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
|
|
|
Guest5446
( )
|
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 18:24:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
A player should be regarded as an all time great to get in the Hall. Turgeon is not that player.
Turgeon played awesome while in a Habs uni as the captain. Part of the trade the Captain era.
He was great in Buffalo and NYI. He was almost great in Mtl. After the habs, I don't remember much except Colorado.
Based on his early career yep, he's in. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 19:36:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Let's face it, points are a major component to getting in as a player. You don't have to have personal or team awards but they help your case. Ultimately you have to be great and anyone who says that 500 goals and over a point per game production is not GREAT is jaded by some of the EXCEPTIONALLY GREAT players that have gone before.
The question is...does the bar get raised on the fly? Is it a moving target? Some say yes and others think it should stay fixed. For me, equipment changes, rule changes, amount of games played etc. Each contribute to a moving target. We have to constantly adjust the bar (higher that is) Regardless, for me, Turgeon at over a point a game is a Hall of Famer in my book and I have no doubt that in the next 10 years he'll live the right of passage into the HHOF.
The bar moves. In this case it would be moving down to let Turgeon in. The bar has to be fluid though. To take into account the changes that happen. Also to take into account eras played in. Turgeon played his peak years in a very high scoring era.
Answer this then anyone. Is there anyone in the Hall now that you would say Turgeon is better than or even equal to? Maybe the two I mentioned in my first post.
I guess you have to determine what the purpose of the hall is. Is it to recognize great hockey players or merely good ones. If Turgeon gets in open the flood gates cause there are a whole bunch more of his calibre.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 19:50:29
|
Hey Willus, I agree with you on this one. Turgeon, as it sits, will be in the Hall though. Why?? The perception of Hockey "People." You are a rare breed who expects a superstar to do more than throw points on the board. The vast majority of hockey pundits look much more highly upon offensive stats than other things. To prove my point, how many 500 goal guys are not in the HOF?? There are 39 guys who have scored 500 careers goals, and 9 are still active. Out of the guys that are eligable, the only two I see on the list are Ciccarelli and Verbeek as not in the HHOF.
My point, the voters look at stats, Cups, and basically popularity. That's what I see anyway.
And Willus, you are right. Sittler?? Mullen??
And a couple others. I can't understand how Orr and Park got in there?? What about Potvin too?? What's up with that!!!
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 21:49:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Hey Willus, I agree with you on this one. Turgeon, as it sits, will be in the Hall though. Why?? The perception of Hockey "People." You are a rare breed who expects a superstar to do more than throw points on the board. The vast majority of hockey pundits look much more highly upon offensive stats than other things. To prove my point, how many 500 goal guys are not in the HOF?? There are 39 guys who have scored 500 careers goals, and 9 are still active. Out of the guys that are eligable, the only two I see on the list are Ciccarelli and Verbeek as not in the HHOF.
My point, the voters look at stats, Cups, and basically popularity. That's what I see anyway.
That's actually a problem I have with the HHOF. It's all very secretive. A bit of an Old Boy's Club if you will. Why is it so secretive? Less backlash against the committee members I guess.
quote:
And Willus, you are right. Sittler?? Mullen??
And a couple others. I can't understand how Orr and Park got in there?? What about Potvin too?? What's up with that!!!
Yep, not sure how those goons got in there either. One of them didn't even have to wait.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
Edited by - willus3 on 09/05/2007 21:52:09 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 03:27:16
|
Early morning thought.
Just on Sittler. I think he is close to deserving of his HOF status purely on the basis of his general career results (putting aside some of the unique things about his career). He had quite a number of strong seasons in the 70s, both point-wise and leadership-wise. I think he was third to Lafleur and Trottier in scoring one year, but he was pretty consistent for about ten years. More to him than just the points too.
Then, factoring in 3 very special moments in hockey history which he was a part of - the 10 points against Boston (which still amazes me today when I think about it), the 5 playoff goals against Philly (pretty clutch to come up that big in such a tough, heated series) and the '76 Canada Cup clinching overtime goal (let's face it, a cool thing to have on your resume), I think his place in the Hall is, if not as deserved as guys like Trottier and Clarke, still quite understandable.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 09/06/2007 03:30:00 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 11:36:33
|
Sittler was at best slightly above average. He never won any kind of award and managed only 1 second team all star nod. Highest he ever finished in the scoring race was third. Nothing special here at all.
As for his "special moments", they are anomalies. The 10 point game is a complete fluke. The 5 goal game is a nice feat. Hendersons goal in 72 was bigger than Sittler's in 76 and he isn't in the Hall. (rightly so)
So that would mean he would have to be one hell of a leader to make it in the Hall no?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 13:55:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Sittler was at best slightly above average. He never won any kind of award and managed only 1 second team all star nod. Highest he ever finished in the scoring race was third. Nothing special here at all.
As for his "special moments", they are anomalies. The 10 point game is a complete fluke. The 5 goal game is a nice feat. Hendersons goal in 72 was bigger than Sittler's in 76 and he isn't in the Hall. (rightly so)
So that would mean he would have to be one hell of a leader to make it in the Hall no?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
Willus-san,
Regardless of how one feels about Sittler's HOF credentials, I would question "slightly above average" as his category. I'd say something like "quite good but not quite an all-time great". I'd also say that being third leading scorer even once is not too bad, particularly if the guys ahead of you are Lafleur and Trottier.
As for the HOF point, I would agree that the Hall's standards should be pretty high and that Sittler should at best have been considered a 50-50 guy (I know - you think probably much less). The 10 point game? Of course it was fluky and lucky to a degree, but it did happen, it was INCREDIBLE, and it stands as kind of like a mystical memorable event in the history of hockey. Should a player get in based on a a memorable event? No way! BUT, my point was that for a 50-50 guy like Sittler, his THREE memorable events (I think you'd agree, very unique feats too!) certainly go a long way in his favour.
Last (and strongest) point. The "Should Sittler be in the HOF" debate is not even remotely similar to the "Should Henderson be in the HOF?" debate. You may not have been saying that in your post, but I thought I'd just throw this out there in case some people believe there are similarities. Henderson is not anywhere near a 50-50 candiadte before factoring in his feat in '72. I don't think he ever topped 70 points, and I don't think he had any significant playoff success. Sittler's numbers, both regular season and playoffs, are quite solid. They would have been better too had he played without that lunatic (but entertaining) Ballard around. But if there were a second building called the "Hockey Hall of Semi-Fame for Somewhat less than All-Time Great Players", Sittler would be a shoe-in. Henderson, even with his huge '72 series, would not be anywhere near a shoe-in, even for that building. |
Edited by - andyhack on 09/06/2007 14:08:59 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 14:30:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Willus-san,
quote:
Regardless of how one feels about Sittler's HOF credentials, I would question "slightly above average" as his category.
Why?
quote:
I'd say something like "quite good but not quite an all-time great". I'd also say that being third leading scorer even once is not too bad, particularly if the guys ahead of you are Lafleur and Trottier.
Yep it's not too bad. It's also not what I would call great.
quote:
But if there were a second building called the "Hockey Hall of Semi-Fame for Somewhat less than All-Time Great Players", Sittler would be a shoe-in. Henderson, even with his huge '72 series, would not be anywhere near a shoe-in, even for that building.
Then we agree?
Getting in to the HHOF should be a huge accomplishment. Everyone isn't going to make it in. That's what makes it such an honour. If you look at the players that are in there and can honestly tell me that Sittler is an all time great like they are I would be very surprised. He isn't at the same level of say Delvecchio, Esposito, Beliveau, Mikita, Perreault, Schmidt or Stastny. He's a little out of place.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 15:47:18
|
Andy-san,
What about Turgeon then? Do you put him in?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 16:19:48
|
We disagree on Sittler. I think his being in the Hall is not so crazy, but would acknowledge that he only barely makes it and is probably one of the lower ranked players in there - someone has to be.
I agree that the standards should be high but I think acknowledging that he is one of the lower ranked players in there doesn't mean he didn't set a high standard as a player. He was a perennial 80, 90, two times 100 point guy in the 70s who, yes, was a great leader as shown by a couple of great playoffs - with the help of pyramid power remember that? And maybe we're just talking semantics, but I say that if he was just "a slightly above average" player then you are calling pretty good players "average" players.
But my main point by far is to point out the fallacy of the "if Henderson doesn't get in, Sittler shouldn't be in either" way of thinking (which I don't think you were saying but I have heard it before). That reasoning just doesn't compute for me. Sittler is WAY more deserving.
Have to run now so I'll have to get back to you about Turgeon. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 21:19:13
|
We're right on the border here with these type of guys I think. To me Turgeon is another 50-50 candidate. Tough call. Would be a little easier if he had a 10 point game, a 5 goal playoff game and a Canada Cup winning goal on his resume.
I do agree that you have to be careful not to open the floodgates. Personally, I wouldn't put Turgeon in on that basis. But if he gets in, I wouldn't feel the standard is being lowered to a point that it is getting ridiculous. If Rick Vaive were ever to get in I might think that though.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 09/06/2007 21:20:52 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 09:43:21
|
I think this is where the HOF gets it wrong. To me, an all-time great player is a guy who had a great career, not a couple of events. If that was the case, does Lupul get in for being the only guy to score all 4 goals for Ananhiem against Colorado two years ago?? I know it's a far cry from a 10 point game or the 72 winning goal, but I hope you can see the point.
And I agree that Turgeon is borderline. But I would put him ahead of both Sittler and Henderson.
I'm not a fan of a guy going in based on a few events. Offensively, defensively, or both; the guy need to have a solid career. A couple of Cups doesn't hurt either.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 12:05:45
|
Do these guys make the HHOF someday?
Eric Lindros
Pavel Bure
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 13:32:12
|
Each scenario is unique. Some guys get in because they have long careers. Some guys get in because they have glorious moments, Some guys get in because of awards and personal acolades, and some guys get in because they were just the greats and you can't argue them(Gretzky, Orr, Howe etc.)
What no one has mentioned yet is that the sport grows. The NHL started at 6 teams and has grown to 30 teams. Maybe they should raise the amount of players who can enter, after all, the league is 500% bigger now (team-wise and even larger player-wise). There are going to be more athletes who can meet the old standards of elegibility. The trap is that people always have to compare them with players from the past where accomplishments were bigger because less people had attained them. today some of those accomplishments are almost routine.
For the majority of his career Turgeon was a 1st/2nd liner. For a point producing forward a good benchmark for todays HHOF standards should be about a point-a-game. Throw in some personal accomplishments, a few spectacular highlights and he should make it. Although, like I said before, benchmarks need to move with the times and this day and age a point-a-game is still a very elite athlete in the NHL. Only a very small percentage of players even come close to achieving that! It's still very special and should be rewarded. Turgeon's only problem (which isn't a problem for me) is that he did it quietly and without "excessive" style. big whoop.
Please note that I am speaking of point producing elegibility and not defensive prowress etc. I wouldn't compare turgeon to a goalie so please don't compare him to a defensive defensman either. |
|
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 14:04:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Maybe they should raise the amount of players who can enter, after all, the league is 500% bigger now
Just a reminder, kids, "Don't drink and post!"
The Oil WILL make the playoffs. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 06:05:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Do these guys make the HHOF someday?
Eric Lindros
Pavel Bure
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
Willus! You're making me think on a Sunday morning!
Very tough ones! But for injuries and other circumstances (maybe some arrogance) both really should have been no-brainers for making the Hall. But both suffer from a lack of longevity problem, and one can make an argument that only a guy like Orr should be able to overcome that problem to get into the Hall.
On the other hand, Neely got in there based primarily on his performance in about an 8 year period. I think the reason he got in is that when you push all statistics (in particular career totals) aside, you can still say without any hesitation, "This guy was very special, and very special for long enough to leave an indelible impression on the game". "Indelible" - good word. And maybe that's it for me. Lindros and Bure pass that test too. For a time, Lindros was dominant. The time was short, but it was long enough in my books. And, but for some early (pre-concussion) injury and lockout shortened seasons, he probably would have had six or seven 100 point plus seasons at the beginning of his career. I find Bure a bit trickier but, overall, his incredible speed and goal scoring - it too passes the "indelible impression" test.
And that's the difference for me. Turgeon doesn't pass the "indelible impression" test, and his career, though quite impressive, isn't quite grande enough in my opinion for him to get in simply on its merit (though it's quite close I think). The obvious question which you probably have for me then is "Why Sittler and not Turgeon?". The two are actually pretty similar statistically speaking. I see them as basically being in the same category, but Sittler scores much bigger in the "indelible impression" category. Unlike the other guys though, his "indelible impression" is based on specific events as opposed to overall play. I admit that overall play is the stronger basis for this test, but, for me, those events still serve to push him over the edge and into the Hall (but Beans, that does not mean that he is getting in JUST on those events - it means those events are tipping the scales for him - if he doesn't have the very impressive career in the first place, the events mean nothing - i.e. Paul Henderson).
Anyway that's the way things work in AndyHack World, which has often been called a crazy place, so don't worry if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to you!
Oh, also just wondering. Do you question Lanny McDonald at all then? I think he deserves to be in there, but this discussion raises an interesting question. If Sittler's status is questionable, why isn't Lanny's? I am asking myself the question too as, though I think Sittler gets in by a nose, I tend not question Lanny as much. Certainly in the Leaf portion of their careers, there is a strong argument that Darryl was just as valuable to the team, if not more. Is it the Cup in Calgary? Not sure it should be. Is it Lanny being such a key player on three different teams? Maybe. Or is it just the moustache? 
|
Edited by - andyhack on 09/09/2007 07:46:44 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 07:46:51
|
Great post as usual Andy.
I agree with your reasoning on Lindros and Bure. I'd put them in as well. They were great enough for long enough that you knew they were special. Just like Neely.
As for Lanny, well, I always thought it had to have been the moustache as well.
In fact I believe both Darryl and Lanny are in there because of their time spent in Toronto. Favouritism.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 04:56:00
|
Lanny has 500+ Goals and a Cup. Those two things seem to be an automatic pass.
Bure I would put in.
Lindros, not so much. When you think about his antics when he first started, then again with Philly. He basically picked the team he wanted to play for and some could say his stupidity started a lot of crap in hockey that wasn't really around before him. That would be the reason I would keep him out. Talent wise he is there. But his attitude has always been crap.
And I agree Willus. I think there is a favoritism thing to players from TO.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 12:47:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Maybe they should raise the amount of players who can enter, after all, the league is 500% bigger now
Just a reminder, kids, "Don't drink and post!"
The Oil WILL make the playoffs.
I was being facecious you numpty. Obviously it went over your head. My point that there are 5 times as many people vying for roughly the same amount of openings in the hall merely exaggerated my position that the bar MUST be raised, RATHER than trying to compare current candidates with past inductees. And ultimately even after I do this I still think that Turgeon should get in based on his points per game.
Think before you callously insult your fellow forum members. |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 13:28:32
|
Is it possible to develop a mathematical formula to select the next candidates for the HHOF?
Players would be awarded points for their accomplishments through their career.
Cup wins
Scoring titles
Team Captain...Etc...
What do you think, or is there one already?
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 14:10:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Maybe they should raise the amount of players who can enter, after all, the league is 500% bigger now
Just a reminder, kids, "Don't drink and post!"
The Oil WILL make the playoffs.
Think before you callously insult your fellow forum members.
Especially the forum member who started this website. Check out Leigh's profile.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 14:18:37
|
Beans, Sittler had 484 career goals, so I'm not sure if Lanny's slight edge there means much (Lanny finished with exactly 500, which is kind of cool). Certainly the goal difference is not any more significant than Sittler's edge in points over Lanny (about 100 points I think). The Cup - well, I don't disagree that it should be valued, but one has to put it into context. He played a role, yes, but not the type of role that really should be all that significant when comparing the merits of these two guys being in the HHOF.
I know I am belaboring this, but we are sort of on that key border line here, particularly if, as I suspect, there are a number of people, like me in fact, who would say yes to Lanny more quickly than to Darryl. And looking at it in that light, the favoritism angle takes on an interesting twist. Is it possible that Darryl is actually penalized in people's minds a bit because he was in Toronto for the most part (also known as the "Reverse of the Toronto favoritism" theory - Toronto guys aren't known for their skills in naming theories!). But if Darryl would have been traded to Colorado instead of Lanny, and would have gone on to some other Canadian city, played his last game for some Stanley Cup Champ, etc, maybe we'd be having this conversation in reverse.
Hmmm, Toronto guys - we just can't get a break!
|
Edited by - andyhack on 09/14/2007 14:43:53 |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 15:07:46
|
Look at these stats for Sittler.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=4985
The only argument that I can see is that he didn't achieve the cup or any personal NHL awards. But you have to be a hell of a leader to wear the C as long as he did under the biggest microscope in the NHL; that has to be worth something. Throw in the aforementioned personal career highlight moments and you have a hall of famer. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 11:03:57
|
For the matter with Sittler and his numbers but not winning any Cups. What about Glen Anderson? He's got 6 rings, 5 with Edmonton and 1 with NYR. He's got 1099 career points, including 498 goals in 1129 reg season games. Plus, he has 5 playoff overtime goals(tied with M. Richard) and 17, that right, 17 playoff game winning goals. In fact, he's 4th all time in playoff points with 214. Interstingly enough, the top 5 all time play off points scorers are Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Anderson, and Coffey.
One of the clutch play off performers in NHL history, and he's not in the Hall. I have heard that one of the reasons is that he did all of this on the 80's Oilers. Well, so did Gretzky, Coffey, Messier, Kurri, and Fuhr. They are all, or will all be in the Hall. So, why not Anderson too?
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 11:20:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
For the matter with Sittler and his numbers but not winning any Cups. What about Glen Anderson? He's got 6 rings, 5 with Edmonton and 1 with NYR. He's got 1099 career points, including 498 goals in 1129 reg season games. Plus, he has 5 playoff overtime goals(tied with M. Richard) and 17, that right, 17 playoff game winning goals. In fact, he's 4th all time in playoff points with 214. Interstingly enough, the top 5 all time play off points scorers are Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Anderson, and Coffey.
One of the clutch play off performers in NHL history, and he's not in the Hall. I have heard that one of the reasons is that he did all of this on the 80's Oilers. Well, so did Gretzky, Coffey, Messier, Kurri, and Fuhr. They are all, or will all be in the Hall. So, why not Anderson too?
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.
I would put Anderson in ahead of Sittler. That may surprise some because he amassed his points in the 80's. But his points aren't why I'd put him in. I'd put him in for his style of play and performances when they mattered. The guy was a kamikaze and never stopped giving his full effort. Never took shifts off. He was brilliant in the playoffs as Beans pointed out.
There is a rumour that has floated around about Anderson for years. And it's rumoured that, that rumour is why he isn't in the Hall.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 12:18:22
|
I heard that rumor too Willus. I also heard that there was an issue with Child Support to his former wife that has ruffled some NHL feathers. He's pretty much the only one of the big 5 80's Oilers that has fallen off the face of the earth.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 14:32:02
|
Just a thought about the players that are in the hall of fame.
Sittler was inducted in 1989, and for example Anderson was only in his fifth season in the NHL, and was not eligible until the year 1999 that is 10 years after.
What I am getting at is it is important to look at the players in the hall up to the year that they played. You cannot compare a player that played after a player was already inducted...
As players are not inducted in their first year of eligibility it becomes tougher as more players become eligible...
This year Turgeon, now Burke, who will be next...
By the way Anderson should get the nod for the hall…
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
|
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 19:05:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Maybe they should raise the amount of players who can enter, after all, the league is 500% bigger now
Just a reminder, kids, "Don't drink and post!"
The Oil WILL make the playoffs.
I was being facecious you numpty.
Think before you callously insult your fellow forum members.
Terribly sorry. I honestly thought you were serious.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 03:08:40
|
I'd put Anderson in too but I think that all the names which are coming up are "Second Tier Hall Guys". Whether it's Sittler, Anderson, Bure, McDonald, Lindros or Turgeon, none of these guys are quite as clear cut "First Tier Hall Guys" as some of the storied names that Willus mentioned in an earlier post such as Richard, Beliveau, Esposito, Mikita and Perreault. When thrown into that group, these Second Tier Hall Guys may all be "a little out of place" - though Bure did dazzle with the best of any First Tier Guy I guess.
Naturally, some guys in the Hall are going to be more worthy than other guys. No matter where you think you should draw the line for barring entry into the Hall though (I say Turgeon, Beans says Sittler and Lindros, Willus says Sittler, McDonald and Turgeon), I don't think any of these Second Tier Hall Guys is so unworthy that his entry should be drawing too much shock or outrage.
|
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 07:16:17
|
Below is a list of players that saw action in the NHL during Sittlers playing years. The criteria that I used was any player that started his career in 1969 or later, ended his career in 1986 or earlier, and played at least 10 seasons.
In the left column is the HHOF induction year. As far as I can see Sittler was one of the best players in his era...
Hall Pos. Start End serv Player
D 1969 1979 10 Ab DeMarco
D 1973 1983 10 Al Sims
D 1970 1983 13 Andre Dupont
D 1972 1982 10 Barry Long
D 1974 1984 10 Bob Hess
D 1976 1986 10 Bob Lorimer
D 1970 1982 12 Bob Murdoch
1988 D 1968 1985 17 Brad Park
D 1970 1980 10 Brad Selwood
D 1969 1979 10 Brian Glennie
D 1974 1984 10 Bruce Affleck
D 1974 1985 11 Colin Campbell
D 1969 1982 13 Dale Hoganson
D 1970 1980 10 Dale Tallon
D 1971 1981 10 Dave Burrows
D 1974 1984 10 Dave Hutchison
D 1974 1985 11 Dave Maloney
D 1971 1981 10 Dennis Kearns
D 1970 1980 10 Dennis O'Brien
D 1969 1982 13 d*** Redmond
D 1973 1983 10 Ed Kea
D 1968 1980 12 Francois Lacombe
D 1974 1984 10 Frank Bathe
D 1970 1984 14 Fred Barrett
D 1968 1983 15 Gerry Hart
D 1975 1985 10 Gord Lane
1993 D 1968 1984 16 Guy Lapointe
D 1973 1983 10 Ian Turnbull
D 1972 1984 12 Jean Hamel
D 1970 1981 11 Jean Potvin
D 1970 1985 15 Jerry Korab
D 1972 1985 13 Jim Schoenfeld
D 1972 1982 10 Jim Watson
D 1972 1982 10 John Marks
D 1973 1984 11 John Van Boxmeer
D 1969 1980 11 Keith Magnuson
D 1968 1982 14 Paul Shmyr
D 1970 1982 12 Pierre Bouchard
D 1974 1984 10 Randy Holt
D 1970 1980 10 Randy Manery
D 1974 1984 10 Rick Chartraw
D 1975 1986 11 Rick Lapointe
D 1968 1981 13 Rick Ley
D 1968 1981 13 Rick Smith
D 1970 1982 12 Ron Stackhouse
D 1972 1982 10 Terry Murray
D 1970 1981 11 Yvon Labre
F 1973 1985 12 Al MacAdam
1990 F 1972 1984 12 Bill Barber
F 1973 1984 11 Blaine Stoughton
F 1973 1984 11 Blake Dunlop
F 1971 1985 14 Craig Ramsay
F 1973 1984 11 Darcy Rota
F 1970 1981 11 Errol Thompson
F 1975 1986 11 Gary McAdam
F 1972 1984 12 George Ferguson
F 1974 1984 10 Grant Mulvey
F 1974 1984 10 Guy Chouinard
F 1972 1983 11 Jerry Butler
F 1974 1986 12 Mario Tremblay
F 1975 1985 10 Pat Hickey
F 1975 1985 10 Paul Holmgren
F 1971 1985 14 Rick Kehoe
F 1971 1982 11 Rick Martin
F 1972 1985 13 Robbie Ftorek
1993 F 1972 1985 13 Steve Shutt
F 1975 1985 10 Terry Martin
F 1975 1985 10 Tim Young
F 1973 1986 13 Tom Lysiak
FC 1973 1985 12 Andre Savard
FC 1973 1984 11 Andre St. Laurent
FC 1971 1982 11 Bill Clement
FC 1974 1985 11 Bob MacMillan
1987 FC 1969 1984 15 Bobby Clarke
FC 1971 1982 11 Bobby Lalonde
FC 1969 1982 13 Bobby Sheehan
FC 1976 1986 10 Bruce Boudreau
FC 1970 1981 11 Chuck Lefley
FC 1970 1980 10 Curt Bennett
1989 FC 1970 1985 15 Darryl Sittler
FC 1969 1982 13 Don Luce
FC 1969 1981 12 Guy Charron
FC 1970 1985 15 Ivan Boldirev
FC 1972 1983 11 Jacques Richard
FC 1968 1979 11 Jean-Paul LeBlanc
FC 1968 1980 12 Jim Harrison
FC 1968 1978 10 Jim Lorentz
FC 1968 1981 13 Jude Drouin
FC 1973 1985 12 Larry Patey
FC 1972 1982 10 Orest Kindrachuk
FC 1975 1985 10 Pat Boutette
FC 1976 1986 10 Paul Gardner
FC 1970 1982 12 Rene Robert
FC 1969 1985 16 Robert Goring
FC 1972 1983 11 Stan Weir
FC 1970 1980 10 Syl Apps
FC 1972 1984 12 Wayne Merrick
FL 1968 1980 12 Bill Lesuk
FL 1970 1982 12 Bob Kelly
FL 1969 1979 10 Brian Spencer
FL 1970 1982 12 Dan Maloney
FL 1968 1978 10 Garnet Bailey
FL 1972 1984 12 Garry Howatt
FL 1968 1980 12 Gary Croteau
FL 1968 1979 11 Gerry Meehan
FL 1970 1980 10 Greg Polis
FL 1972 1982 10 Gregg Sheppard
FL 1973 1983 10 John Wensink
FL 1969 1983 14 Marc Tardif
FL 1970 1984 14 Rick MacLeish
FL 1972 1982 10 Steve Vickers
FL 1972 1982 10 Yvon Lambert
FR 1968 1979 11 Bill Fairbairn
FR 1972 1984 12 Billy Harris
FR 1972 1986 14 Bob Nystrom
FR 1969 1980 11 Cliff Koroll
FR 1970 1980 10 Hilliard Graves
FR 1969 1980 11 J.P. Bordeleau
FR 1968 1982 14 Jean Pronovost
FR 1971 1983 12 Mike Murphy
FR 1970 1983 13 Reggie Leach
FR 1969 1983 14 Rejean Houle
FR 1968 1981 13 Serge Bernier
FR 1971 1985 14 Terry O'Reilly
FR 1968 1980 12 Tom Webster
G 1972 1986 14 Dan Bouchard
G 1972 1986 14 Denis Herron
G 1976 1986 10 Don Edwards
G 1969 1979 10 Dunc Wilson
G 1975 1985 10 Ed Staniowski
G 1968 1982 14 Gary Edwards
G 1968 1978 10 Gerry Desjardins
G 1969 1983 14 Gilles Gilbert
G 1970 1983 13 Jim Rutherford
G 1973 1983 10 John Davidson
G 1973 1984 11 Michel Larocque
G 1970 1982 12 Michel Plasse
G 1973 1984 11 Mike Veisor
G 1969 1983 14 Phil Myre
G 1972 1985 13 Ron Low
1988 G 1968 1984 16 Tony Esposito
G 1971 1981 10 Wayne Stephenson
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Hall of Fame 
