Players that should or should not be in the HHOF

[JagerMeister]

Just to be clear here, we are talking about players that are retired or players that are already inducted to the HHOF that should not be in

 

Players that should be considered

 

Sergei Makarov: If Kharlamov can make it, i think Makarov should as well, he was amazing during his time when he was not in the NHL

 

Eric Lindros: just put him in. When not injured, Besides Lemieux. Was probably the most dominant forward.

 

Paul Kariya: he was never the same after his injury, but before his injury, he was kinda like Pavel bure with a bit worse goalscoring but better playmaking.

 

 

 

Players that should not be in the HHOF

 

Cam Neely: one great season shouldnt have u inducted into the HHOF, If thats the case, you might as well add Bernie nicholls.

 

Joe Nieuwendyk: what in the bloody hell is this guy doing here? two 50 goal seasons but this was in the 80s, were it a higher scoring era. He isnt even a ppg, never made 100 points. Was never dominant, this is proven by the fact that he was never top ten in point finishes. its not really fair when far better players like, Roenick, Mogilny, Palffy, Turgeon are not in the HHOF, and i could name way more...

 

Dick Duff: probably the worst player inducted, yup idk either

 

Mats Sundin: im probably in the minority here, but this guy was a complier. like Nieuwendyk, he was never dominant, has ``only`` two top ten point finishes. He is basically a worse version of Ron Francis

 

Glenn Anderson: again, never dominant. Was top ten in points once, and was in one of the greatest teams ever. Didnt do much when he left the oilers

 

Mike Gartner:  I mean, 700 goals is an amazing feat. But he was another complier, once top ten in points, and was never truly great. 

 

 

 

HM

 

Pierre Turgeon: He had 2 amazing seasons but had no intangibles, wasnt that good defensively

 

Tim Kerr: guy was a great goalscorer, but IMO didnt play enough games

 

Alexander Mogilny: prime was to short, he had a few great seasons and was above average defensively, didnt do enough to have a HHOF career imo

 

Jeremy Roenick: uhhh...cant really decide

 

I probably missed a couple players, so what players do you think should or shouldnt be in the HHOF?

[ratskull]

Players that should not be in the HHOF:

 

Cam Neely - Honestly didn't achieve enough to be considered

Bob Gainey - An ordinary player on a great team, way overrated

Scott Stevens - Honestly do not understand why he was even considered 

Scott Niedermayer - Mediocre defenseman who put up some points

 

Players that should be in the HHOF:

 

Mark Recchi - Way past due

Theoren Fleury - Able to consistently produce through a ton of adversity

Eric Lindros - One of the most dynamic players ever who excelled at all aspects of the game

Alexander Mogilny - Borderline, but should be considered

Sergei Fedorov - All-around great player

Rick Tocchet - Will never get in due to off-ice controversy and that's a shame 

Keith Tkachuk - Borderline, but should be considered

Curtis Joseph - Great goalie that made a crappy team respectable for many years 

Teemu Selanne - Goal scoring machine

Brendan Shanahan - Tough all-around good player

Nicklas Lidstrom - He has to already be in right? I must have missed him in the list

[pilldoc]

Good Topic......

 

there was a similiar topic back in June when they announced this years HOF inductees

 

@JR Ewing posted a great response (post #27)

http://www.hockeyforums.net/index.php/topic/62494-forsberg-modano-blake-and-hasek-chosen-by-the-hall/page-2#entry187369

 

I pasted it below for your reference

 

I'm a big fan of the work of baseball writer/thinker Bill James. Back when I was a kid, I bought and/or borrowed everything of his which I could get my hand, including the 1985 Baseball Abstract. In that book, for the first time, I came across The Keltner List, named after Ken Keltner. Keltner was the recipient of a post-career movement which saw some people suggest he would be a good Hall of Fame candidate. Jame took the opportunity to come up with a list of subjective questions you can ask a player's career which can help evaluate how worth he is of being the in HOF an, in reference to Keltner, called it the Keltner Test. By creating a list of common criteria, it helps frame the discussion and give it direction. There's no one single thing that make a player HOF worthy, and so the more relevant questions we ask about a player, the closer we come to having a better idea about him and how qualified he is.

About 25 years ago, I adapted it for hockey, have always found it useful, and maybe others here will like it, too.

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?
2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?
3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?
6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?
7. Was he ever a team Captain?
8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?
9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?
10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)
11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?
12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?
13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?
14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)
15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)
16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)
17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?
18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?


13+ = Best of the best
11-12 = Unquestioned HOFer
9-10 = Great player
5-8 = Belongs in HOF
4 = Borderline
3 = Weak Argument
1-2 = Completely Unqualified

Now, don't take me too literally here. If you run a player through it, and they end up with a 4, that doesn't mean he sucks and is clearly not a HOFer. What it does mean is that, relative to players with higher scores, there is a less effective argument to be made for him being in the HOF. The headings of "Weak Argument" are subjective; are meant to give an idea of his qualifications, and are not to be taken as absolutes.

NOTE: this test is extremely difficult in which to score points. To even get one point shows that a player had a very strong career. To score two or three points and make it into the "weak argument" range is an immense accomplishment.

 

SO (using his Example)... Eric Lindros:

 

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?
Yes, Lindros was commonly in that discussion. (1)

 

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?
Yes, same as above. (2)

 

3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

Too many to list here. (3)

 

4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

Lindros led the league in scoring in 1995. (4)

 

5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?

Yes. Lindros led the playoffs in scoring during the Flyers 1996 Finals appearance. (5)

 

6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?

No.

 

7. Was he ever a team Captain?

Yes, from 1994 to 2000. (6)

 

8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?

No.

 

9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?

Lindros had a very small handfull of Selke votes over the years, but no, he wasn't considered excellent by many.

 

10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)

Absolutely. (7)

 

11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?

No, Lindros' concussion problems meant that he was finished as an impact player by the time he was 29.

 

12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?

1st AS in '95, 2nd AS in '96 (8)

 

13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?

Of the ten most statistically similar players, 7 are in the HOF, and the three who aren't (Thornton, Iginla, St Louis) may well end up there. (9)

 

14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)

Won the Hart and Lindsay in 1995. (10)

 

15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)

No

 

16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)

I see nothing to indicate a point here.

 

17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?

I don't think so. If anything, controversy followed him everywhere, since before he was even a junior.

 

18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?

No, there was nothing new here.

 

---

 

So, Lindros ends up with 10 points (as I see it) using this system, which is a very good case (but IMO he is  on the border of being a HOFer) - my additional comments. Sorry for the confusion.

[ruxpin]

Lindstrom retired in 2012. He's not eligible until next year, but he's a sure thing.

Tocchet is my all time favorite Flyer but if he got in they should just shut it down. He's just not hall of fame.

Selanne isn't yet eligible but I would have to think he's a lock.

And I think I'd vote for Shanny.

The rest are not Hall of Fame to me.

[ruxpin]

@pilldoc

5-8 on that scale "belongs in hall of fame."

And that, I think, is my problem with it. I think the scale is still too low. I think I have way too romantic a notion of the Hall of Fame but my bar would be much higher.

[pilldoc]

@ruxpin

 

I was just reposting what JR posted back in June.  And I forgot to had a few words (I guess I really need to proof read sometimes)

 

JR was using the example of Lindros, I just reposeted it.  IMO, as much as liked Lindros, I just don't think he belongs in the hall.  Close ..yes..but not quite there.

[ruxpin]

Oh, I understand, @pilldoc. I remember that thread and that post.

Definitely worth reposting here. I actually like it for the exercise and makes a nifty standard measuring stick. And it does remove some subjectivity (great in a case like Lindros).

I just don't like the way it's calibrated. I'd slide the categories on the scale higher.

[pilldoc]

I just don't like the way it's calibrated. I'd slide the categories on the scale higher.

 

Yeah totally agree with you there on that point.  At the time I thought the bar was set a bit low.  However, JR did mention it was hard to earn the point.  I lopved the concept though.

[ruxpin]

Yeah totally agree with you there on that point. At the time I thought the bar was set a bit low. However, JR did mention it was hard to earn the point. I lopved the concept though.

Yeah.

I understand my concept of the Hall is a bit romanticised.

I just don't like that someone has to be elected each year. And the way it's set up, you're almost guaranteed to have several. Why? For both hockey and baseball (possibly football, but I don't pay as much attention) it's become a marketing and fundraising thing. You have the HOF game and a weekend of festivities and weeks of call in show and message board debate, etc. So, there's pressure to have someone go in.

But I think it waters it down over time. Enough that someone only needs five points on that scale to get in. Yes, the categories were hard and getting any mean you were a pretty good player.

But,for me, you can be a really good player and not be Hall of Fame. I want that reserved for best of the best of the best.

[JR Ewing]

I don't know what I was doing the day I typed up the above-quoted post. My HOF entry barrier is not 5 but 7, and even then, that's just squeaking in. It is EXTREMELY difficult for a player to finish his career with 7 points on the Hockey Keltner Test. This is my usual scale, and the one I used last night in the Datsyuk/Zetterberg thread:

13+ = Best of the best

11-12 = Unquestioned HOFer

9-10 = Great player

7-8 = Belongs in HOF

--------------------

5-6 = Borderline

3-4 = Weak Argument

1-2 = Completely Unqualified

That borderline range of 5 or 6 means that supporters for the player in question can make arguments, but that they seem to be falling short in a major aspect or two. It takes a lot to get those additional points. Scoring 5 or 6 is more in the range of "that guy was a hell of a hockey player", but probably not great. It's important to remember that we can't take the final number too literally. It's just an attempt to bring some objectivity to the debate, which is usually sorely lacking, and mostly comprised of very abstract ideas about how clutch a player was, etc.

But even then, if a person doesn't like the above range, it can be adjusted to suit his notion of how difficult it should be. We want to make access to the Hall a truly difficult thing, but it's also not fair to make it so that you have to be Wayne Gretzky in order to get in.

[ruxpin]

I don't know what I was doing the day I typed up the above-quoted post. My HOF entry barrier is not 5 but 7, and even then, that's just squeaking in. It is EXTREMELY difficult for a player to finish his career with 7 points on the Hockey Keltner Test. This is my usual scale, and the one I used last night in the Datsyuk/Zetterberg thread:

13+ = Best of the best

11-12 = Unquestioned HOFer

9-10 = Great player

7-8 = Belongs in HOF

--------------------

5-6 = Borderline

3-4 = Weak Argument

1-2 = Completely Unqualified

That borderline range of 5 or 6 means that supporters for the player in question can make arguments, but that they seem to be falling short in a major aspect or two. It takes a lot to get those additional points. Scoring 5 or 6 is more in the range of "that guy was a hell of a hockey player", but probably not great. It's important to remember that we can't take the final number too literally. It's just an attempt to bring some objectivity to the debate, which is usually sorely lacking, and mostly comprised of very abstract ideas about how clutch a player was, etc.

But even then, if a person doesn't like the above range, it can be adjusted to suit his notion of how difficult it should be. We want to make access to the Hall a truly difficult thing, but it's also not fair to make it so that you have to be Wayne Gretzky in order to get in.

Agreed. Nicely said. I'm a little better with 7, but I may go to 9 (arbitrary, and I don't know who will that eliminates. I might not be happy with what that would cause).

I would prefer to eliminate the possibility of Cam Neely getting in and the comparisons that later justify others (i.e. "well if Cam Neely, then...").

[pilldoc]

it makes for great discussion though.......

 

I agree with Rux...I don't think "there has to a HOFcandidate" every year.  Too me a HOF has to be the greatest of the great.  IMO Lindros, as dominate as he was, just does not have the numbers or SC championships.  Outstanding player...no question ..a resounding "YES", but he just falls just short for the HOF.  Again that is just my humble opinion.

[JagerMeister]

Players that should not be in the HHOF:

 

Cam Neely - Honestly didn't achieve enough to be considered

Bob Gainey - An ordinary player on a great team, way overrated

Scott Stevens - Honestly do not understand why he was even considered 

Scott Niedermayer - Mediocre defenseman who put up some points

 

Players that should be in the HHOF:

 

Mark Recchi - Way past due

Theoren Fleury - Able to consistently produce through a ton of adversity

Eric Lindros - One of the most dynamic players ever who excelled at all aspects of the game

Alexander Mogilny - Borderline, but should be considered

Sergei Fedorov - All-around great player

Rick Tocchet - Will never get in due to off-ice controversy and that's a shame 

Keith Tkachuk - Borderline, but should be considered

Curtis Joseph - Great goalie that made a crappy team respectable for many years 

Teemu Selanne - Goal scoring machine

Brendan Shanahan - Tough all-around good player

Nicklas Lidstrom - He has to already be in right? I must have missed him in the list

You wouldnt allow Stevens in the hhof, but you dont mind Rob Blake being in the hhof? 

and Bob Gainey won 4 selke trophies and a conn smythe...

[JR Ewing]

Agreed. Nicely said. I'm a little better with 7, but I may go to 9 (arbitrary, and I don't know who will that eliminates. I might not be happy with what that would cause).

I would prefer to eliminate the possibility of Cam Neely getting in and the comparisons that later justify others (i.e. "well if Cam Neely, then...").

That is probably my least favorite types of arguments that people make for why a certain player should make the HOF. "If A is in then B should be, too". This is a form of logic that turns the debate into a race to the bottom. It's one of the key arguments you get out of most people. The other main ones are

Selective Reasoning Argument

“Who’s the only player to ever record 50 assists in 10 or more consecutive seasons?” This is a perfect example of using very selective statistics to “prove” that a player is more qualified than other players, and it’s biggest failing point is that it’s the player's supposed qualification for the HOF hinges a lot more on the strength of the arguer than the results of the player. This question really only leads to more questions. Did somebody have 45 assists for 10 or more seasons? Did another player have at least 60 assists for 10 or more years?

The Championship Argument

“He won X Stanley Cups. He’s a champion. How can he not go into the Hall of Fame?” This is fine enough, but has to be taken in context with other factors. The Stanley Cups isn’t the heavyweight boxing championship of the world, it’s a team accomplishment. It's important to raise the point of a player being a key member in Stanley Cup victories; however, it can’t be the main thrust of the pro-HOF argument. Similarly, a lack of Stanley Cups cannot be at all fairly used against a player that didn’t play for a club strong enough to win championships. Kelly Buchberger is a repeat Cup winner, but he’s not the player that Marcel Dionne was.

The Clutch Play Argument"

It's the Ace of Spades that’s used when a guy is really in trouble. If he’s been unable to make a fair case (or even if he did), it’s then time to bring out the player’s superior qualities as a clutch player. This is the argument where people will try to make you believe that players aren’t merely NHLers due to their being bigger, stronger, faster and more talented than us, but because they are better people than us, as is “proved” by their ability to “raise their game when it really counts”. A player’s reputation (or lack thereof) is generally based on a very small selection of plays, is greatly trumpeted by hero worshiping media first, and fans second. This idea has not once been shown to have consistency or much evidence of existing, and makes for a poor HOF argument, though many people lean on it heavily. The use of clutch skills as a debating tool is the bridge that people use to span the distance that they can't cover with reason or sensibility.

The Numbers Don't Mean Anything Argument

This argument would have more substance if it went something more like “numbers don’t mean everything”. Statistics DO mean something. They give identity to the unidentifiable and meaning to the abstract, and other than video, photos and memory, are all we have left to tell the story of what happened on the ice. As long as statistics are viewed in their proper light they are completely relevant in a sports conversation, and don’t deserve to be thrown out automatically. When viewed through the correct lens, statistics can take on the meaning of language. I guarantee you that the “numbers don’t mean anything” crowd check their pay stub every two weeks to make sure that the numbers are what they should be.

[JagerMeister]

That is probably my least favorite types of arguments that people make for why a certain player should make the HOF. "If A is in then B should be, too". This is a form of logic that turns the debate into a race to the bottom. It's one of the key arguments you get out of most people. The other main ones are

Selective Reasoning Argument

“Who’s the only player to ever record 50 assists in 10 or more consecutive seasons?” This is a perfect example of using very selective statistics to “prove” that a player is more qualified than other players, and it’s biggest failing point is that it’s the player's supposed qualification for the HOF hinges a lot more on the strength of the arguer than the results of the player. This question really only leads to more questions. Did somebody have 45 assists for 10 or more seasons? Did another player have at least 60 assists for 10 or more years?

The Championship Argument

“He won X Stanley Cups. He’s a champion. How can he not go into the Hall of Fame?” This is fine enough, but has to be taken in context with other factors. The Stanley Cups isn’t the heavyweight boxing championship of the world, it’s a team accomplishment. It's important to raise the point of a player being a key member in Stanley Cup victories; however, it can’t be the main thrust of the pro-HOF argument. Similarly, a lack of Stanley Cups cannot be at all fairly used against a player that didn’t play for a club strong enough to win championships. Kelly Buchberger is a repeat Cup winner, but he’s not the player that Marcel Dionne was.

The Clutch Play Argument"

It's the Ace of Spades that’s used when a guy is really in trouble. If he’s been unable to make a fair case (or even if he did), it’s then time to bring out the player’s superior qualities as a clutch player. This is the argument where people will try to make you believe that players aren’t merely NHLers due to their being bigger, stronger, faster and more talented than us, but because they are better people than us, as is “proved” by their ability to “raise their game when it really counts”. A player’s reputation (or lack thereof) is generally based on a very small selection of plays, is greatly trumpeted by hero worshiping media first, and fans second. This idea has not once been shown to have consistency or much evidence of existing, and makes for a poor HOF argument, though many people lean on it heavily. The use of clutch skills as a debating tool is the bridge that people use to span the distance that they can't cover with reason or sensibility.

The Numbers Don't Mean Anything Argument

This argument would have more substance if it went something more like “numbers don’t mean everything”. Statistics DO mean something. They give identity to the unidentifiable and meaning to the abstract, and other than video, photos and memory, are all we have left to tell the story of what happened on the ice. As long as statistics are viewed in their proper light they are completely relevant in a sports conversation, and don’t deserve to be thrown out automatically. When viewed through the correct lens, statistics can take on the meaning of language. I guarantee you that the “numbers don’t mean anything” crowd check their pay stub every two weeks to make sure that the numbers are what they should be.

wow, great post. Agree with everything you said

[yave1964]

One of the more curious cases to me as always been Tom Johnson who played along with doug Harvey on defense for he Habs teams forty years ago. Absolutely nothing in his statistics make me think Hall of Famer, I really think he got in on a free pass because of his teammates. Fern Flaman, while everything I ever read was a great guy but simply not a HOFer on the best day of his life. And Forgive me Hab fansbut a bit more recent, Jacques Lemaire IMHO spent most of his career centering a second or third line and had a few great years late in life but to me is borderline at best.

[JR Ewing]

wow, great post. Agree with everything you said

Another of the world's problems solved, eh? Well, that just leaves peace in the middle east.

[ruxpin]

wow, great post. Agree with everything you said

@JR Ewing

I'll second this.

[ratskull]

I could see how someone would not agree with Rob Blake. He could be on the bubble. I just think he brought more to the game than guys like Scott Stevens. Scott Stevens was

an intimidating defenseman. No doubt.  But other than injuring a few players, he didn't contribute much else in my opinion. I think his play benefitted greatly from the teams' use of the trap system and not the other way around.

 

In my eyes, Gainey was and will always be an overrated player. I watched him play and every time I would hear about him winning the Selke, I would just shake my head because he was not that dominant of a player. Was he a good defensive player? Yes. Was he the best for four years. I don't think he was. I believe, at the time, the "Montreal dynasty" thing had an effect on the voting. But this is all just opinion, as requested.

[ratskull]

I can see your point on raising the bar and doing so would eliminate some players on my list. Even with the raised bar, in my book, Recchi still has to make it in. To be as productive as he was for so many years, just shy of a point a game average and 12th overall in career points. He would get my vote.  

[JackStraw]

I could see how someone would not agree with Rob Blake. He could be on the bubble. I just think he brought more to the game than guys like Scott Stevens. Scott Stevens was

an intimidating defenseman. No doubt.  But other than injuring a few players, he didn't contribute much else in my opinion. I think his play benefitted greatly from the teams' use of the trap system and not the other way around.

 

In my eyes, Gainey was and will always be an overrated player. I watched him play and every time I would hear about him winning the Selke, I would just shake my head because he was not that dominant of a player. Was he a good defensive player? Yes. Was he the best for four years. I don't think he was. I believe, at the time, the "Montreal dynasty" thing had an effect on the voting. But this is all just opinion, as requested.

I agree about Gainey. Very good defensively but mediocre otherwise. I don't think that's HoF material. When you played the Canadiens, Gainey was not on the list of guys you worried about.

[JagerMeister]

I can see your point on raising the bar and doing so would eliminate some players on my list. Even with the raised bar, in my book, Recchi still has to make it in. To be as productive as he was for so many years, just shy of a point a game average and 12th overall in career points. He would get my vote.  

4 top ten point finishes, was decent defensively and was crazy consistent, borderline HHOFer imo. We will just have to agree to disagree with Steven. His hits could change games and he was decent offensively, but we cant reallly say for sure how much he beneffited from the trap system and he was top 10 in norris votes 16 times. As for Bob Gainey, i didnt watch him play so i cant really say much, his accolades look impressive, but he wasnt even that great offensively...he might as well had been a defenseman....

[J0e Th0rnton]

I could see how someone would not agree with Rob Blake. He could be on the bubble. I just think he brought more to the game than guys like Scott Stevens. Scott Stevens was

an intimidating defenseman. No doubt.  But other than injuring a few players, he didn't contribute much else in my opinion. I think his play benefitted greatly from the teams' use of the trap system and not the other way around.

 

In my eyes, Gainey was and will always be an overrated player. I watched him play and every time I would hear about him winning the Selke, I would just shake my head because he was not that dominant of a player. Was he a good defensive player? Yes. Was he the best for four years. I don't think he was. I believe, at the time, the "Montreal dynasty" thing had an effect on the voting. But this is all just opinion, as requested.

Wha?

Scott Stevens was a beast. Forwards would play a completely different game when he was on the ice. ALWAYS dumping the puck instead of trying to skate it into the zone. When they tried skating it into the zone, they would get crushed half the time. Forwards around the league fessed up that they always kept an eye on when Stevens was on the ice and yelled warnings to teammates when he changed on.

 

Twice the guy scored over 70 points and was runner up for the Norris trophy. He even lead his team in scoring. it was not just physicality and defense, He was often one of the top scoring defensemen in then league before age 30.

[JagerMeister]

Just to be clear here, we are talking about players that are retired or players that are already inducted to the HHOF that should not be in

 

Players that should be considered

 

Sergei Makarov: If Kharlamov can make it, i think Makarov should as well, he was amazing during his time when he was not in the NHL

 

Eric Lindros: just put him in. When not injured, Besides Lemieux. Was probably the most dominant forward.

 

Paul Kariya: he was never the same after his injury, but before his injury, he was kinda like Pavel bure with a bit worse goalscoring but better playmaking.

 

 

 

Players that should not be in the HHOF

 

Cam Neely: one great season shouldnt have u inducted into the HHOF, If thats the case, you might as well add Bernie nicholls.

 

Joe Nieuwendyk: what in the bloody hell is this guy doing here? two 50 goal seasons but this was in the 80s, were it a higher scoring era. He isnt even a ppg, never made 100 points. Was never dominant, this is proven by the fact that he was never top ten in point finishes. its not really fair when far better players like, Roenick, Mogilny, Palffy, Turgeon are not in the HHOF, and i could name way more...

 

Dick Duff: probably the worst player inducted, yup idk either

 

Mats Sundin: im probably in the minority here, but this guy was a complier. like Nieuwendyk, he was never dominant, has ``only`` two top ten point finishes. He is basically a worse version of Ron Francis

 

Glenn Anderson: again, never dominant. Was top ten in points once, and was in one of the greatest teams ever. Didnt do much when he left the oilers

 

Mike Gartner:  I mean, 700 goals is an amazing feat. But he was another complier, once top ten in points, and was never truly great. 

 

 

 

HM

 

Pierre Turgeon: He had 2 amazing seasons but had no intangibles, wasnt that good defensively

 

Tim Kerr: guy was a great goalscorer, but IMO didnt play enough games

 

Alexander Mogilny: prime was to short, he had a few great seasons and was above average defensively, didnt do enough to have a HHOF career imo

 

Jeremy Roenick: uhhh...cant really decide

 

I probably missed a couple players, so what players do you think should or shouldnt be in the HHOF?

Forgot to add Dino ciccarelli, he is just not good enough to be in the hhof imo but he is so....

[blocker]

A while back, while thinking about one of these HHOF threads, I checked the names of the players who've been elected.  I didn't recognize half of them. 

 

Also, some of the "builders" were dam lucky to not end up in jail.