| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Guest6125
( )
|
 Posted - 12/21/2007 : 02:31:38
|
With all that talk about Lindros deserving to be in the Hall, it's time to pick the players who you think should be there.
I'll get it started
608 career goals....Dino Ciccarelli
Moderator edit -
Please post topics in their applicable forums. This was posted in the Fantasy forum. The appropriate forum would be Hockey History
|
Edited by - willus3 on 12/21/2007 09:12:15
|
|
|
hkalirah
PickupHockey Pro
382 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 06:41:45
|
How about 1099 points, 5 stanley cups.....Glenn Anderson.
Go Wings Go! |
 |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 11:06:35
|
Marke Howe
Doug Gilmour
Glen Anderson
Igor Larionov
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
hkalirah
PickupHockey Pro
382 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 11:26:27
|
I don't think Gilmour is eligible as of yet is he? I think he'll be on next year's ballot.
Go Wings Go! |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 11:46:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by hkalirah
I don't think Gilmour is eligible as of yet is he? I think he'll be on next year's ballot.
Go Wings Go!
Should be. He played his last game in 03.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2008 : 07:53:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
Gilmmour will get in, don't you worry. He was a great captain, leader and player. And yeah, a nice guy. 
Habs get number 25 this year
Gilmour had some off ice issues. If these are taken into consideration, as sometimes they are then it could be iffy.
I would put him in, no question.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 10:26:40
|
I don't know if he belongs in the Hall of Fame (maybe he legitimately misses the high standards of the Hall by a nose or two) BUT, take a look at Rogie Vachon's six year stretch in the '70s below:
1972-73 Los Angeles Kings NHL 53 2.85
1973-74 Los Angeles Kings NHL 65 2.80
1974-75 Los Angeles Kings NHL 54 2.24
1975-76 Los Angeles Kings NHL 51 3.14
1976-77 Canada Can-Cup 7 6 1 0 2 1.39
1976-77 Los Angeles Kings NHL 68 2.72
1977-78 Los Angeles Kings NHL 70 2.86
Now try to think of one, just one, really good defenceman on the Kings in the 1970s. I can't think of one. Maybe there were some good ones, but noone that comes even close to the Big Three in front of Dryden, Salming in front of Palmateer, Orr and Park in front of Cheevers...
Actually, Cheesy is in the Hall, which surprises me a bit. I think Rogie at least has a case based on that fact.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 01/08/2008 10:30:25 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 10:33:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
Is that it? You can not tell me that is enough in delaying his entrance to the HHOF
Habs get number 25 this year
No, it had something to do with an underage babysitter. I'll say no more.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 16:43:09
|
Of course the HHOF will consider it. It is the Shrine of Hockey Gods. They have a certain reputation to up hold. They are not putting in players based exclusively on what they did on the ice. Anderson is another perfect example. There were alleged issues with him and Child Support, as well as some rumors of his sexuality. Take those two things away and a guy with 6 rings and the most overtime(teid) and game winning goals in play off history is in without a doubt.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
|
hockster
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
437 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 19:34:23
|
Glen Anderson
Moderator Edit: This is a perfect example of what the rules of the forum ask not to do. This post adds no value to the thread what so ever. So what's the point?? Please focus on posting something with substance and no repeating what has already been said. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 01/09/2008 07:44:53 |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 08:33:34
|
The HHOF is (in my opinion) supposed to be where the best of the best get to be honoured for their hockey triumphs...
When you look at a player’s accomplishments in the era he played in is what needs to be considered.
Just putting any player in the hall is ridicules, there will be so many there that the HHOF will mean absolutely nothing, and it is heading in that direction...
If there happen to be years that there is no player that deserves to be in the hall then no one goes in. Don’t go back 30 years and look for someone who never made it in then, and add them…
Players 238
Builders 97
Media 76
Referee 11
Linsman 2
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 18:47:24
|
How about Rick Middleton? I particularly ask the guys who mentioned Glenn Anderson to consider him. They are pretty similar statistically actually. For a few years there in the early '80s he was one of the best players in the league. If Glenn gets in, I think Rick should too.
The major distinction between them - Stanley Cup Rings. I think this is a good example though of Willus's point in another thread where he said that being on a Cup team should not get a lot of weight when judging greatness. In this case, I don't think it should get a lot of weight in distinguishing Anderson from Middleton. |
|
|
|
MSC
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
601 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 20:05:17
|
I agree , being on a Cup winning team shouldn't be a factor. But I do believe that if you're the leader of teams that win the Cups then it should be a factor. The NHL needs to take a more MLB approach to the HOF. They have a 15 year limit, if you don't make the cut after 15 years then you're not getting in. I personally don't think Anderson or Middleton should be in the HOF. As far as Gilmour goes, I think if he had of retired 10 maybe even 5 years earlier he'd be a first ballott hall of famer. However he played 10 more seasons of mediocre hockey after his last memorable season. Should he be punished for longevity? No. You also can't argue with 1400+ career points. As long as you can look past his last few years and the fact that he was accused of sexually assualting his 13 year old babysitter he should get in.
My personal vote is for Bernie Nicholls. I think people underestimate what he did on the ice because he was moved and traded so many times. |
Edited by - MSC on 01/19/2008 20:40:29 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 15:12:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
MSC touched on something that I would like to elaborate on, the longevity issue. How do you guys feel about that? Personally, I think that a guy like Nicklas Lidstrom who never missed a game (almost) and had a great season every year, or a guy like Sundin who has been around a PPG year in year out, or a guy like Gretzky who never ever had close to a mediocre season, leave us with much more of an impression than say, Gilmour.
This really seems to be a key difference between some of us when measuring "greatness".
It's an interesting point Alex. No question longevity should be given a certain amount of credit. BUT, I think that, except for Sundin, you chose the wrong players as your examples above when posing your question. Some of the best examples of someone who left a very strong impression in a pretty short time are Cam Neely, Eric Lindros and, of course, Bobby Orr. If we put Neely and Lindros in place of Gilmour to represent the "short career" greatness thing, and put guys like Mats Sundin and Ron Francis (great players no doubt) to represent the "long career" greatness thing, your question requires a lot more thought I think (this discussion is better without reference to unusual superduperstars like Gretzky or Orr, or to the best defenseman of his era, like Lidstrom).
So now lets ask the "who left the greater impression" question. And I'm putting this in particular to the guys who saw Neely and Lindros in their primes. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, when you are talking to your grandkids about the "old days", are you going to mention Mats Sundin before you mention Cam Neely? Maybe many of you will say yes, which is fair enough. I'm just trying to make this question a little more focused on the issue.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame 
