Jump to content

Active Future Hall of Famers


ScottM

Recommended Posts

jagr-of-the-new-jersey-devils-jaromir-ja

 

With Hall of Fame week having just passed, I've been thinking a bit about what players currently active in the NHL will be Hall of Fame bound one day. I decided it might be fun to start a thread to give everyone a chance to offer their thoughts. I'll give a few names to start it off, though I don't intend to try to make it exhaustive, and these guys aren't necessarily listed in order of likelihood.

 

Forwards:

Jaromir Jagr: He's obviously the biggest no-brainer of the whole lot. He's fifth all-time in goals, just two behind Dionne and 12 behind Hull. He's fourth all time in points, just 35 behind Howe. If he's not a first ballot selection, everyone with a vote should be stripped of the privilege.

 

Joe Thornton: People sometimes knock him for his playoff performances, but he's one of only 19 players to surpass 900 assists, and 1,000 doesn't seem out of the question. It's also pretty easy to conceive of him reaching 1,400 or 1,500 points. The positives far outweigh the negatives.

 

Jarome Iginla: He's quickly closing in on 600 goals, and there's only one player that has ever reached that milestone that isn't in (although I think he should be). Playing as well as he is, I think he has a real shot to reach 1,400 points, The only think required will be the drive to stick with the game for long enough.

 

Yes, there are guys like Crosby and Ovechkin too, but I decided to focus on the guys who are closer to the ends of their careers.

 

Defensemen:

Duncan Keith: He's a two-time Norris Trophy winner, and then there's the matter of the three Stanley Cups, of which he was a really big part of winning. He's an absolute shutdown defenseman, and while he's not among the highest scoring defensemen, he can give good offensive contributions too. Who wouldn't want this guy?

 

Erik Karlsson: Yes, he's young at just 25 years old, but it seems hard to imagine a guy with multiple Norris Trophies being left out, especially since he's nearly certain to have several more years among the league's elite blueliners. He may be the best two-way defenseman in the game today.

 

Zdeno Chara: He's a perennial all-star and Norris finalist. He may not have always left you with the feeling that he's the best, but he was been among the best for a very long time, and he has a Norris to boot. I think the tallest man in league history has done enough to be enshrined.

 

Goalies:

Henrik Lundqvist: He doesn't have a Cup, but I blame him a lot less for that than I do the cast around him, because he's been stellar in the postseason for the last few seasons. He's nearly to 350 wins already, and 400 seems like a foregone conclusion since he's only 33, with 500 a distinct possibility. There's no way King Henrik can be left out.

 

Carey Price: He's one of the few goalies to win a Hart Trophy and one of even fewer to deserve it. At 28, he has already won 230 games, and barring disaster will be around for sometime still. He may be the best goalie in the league today. It's difficult for me to imagine him not being enshrined.

 

Roberto Luongo: He has over 400 wins, and he's done that despite not playing on the greatest of teams for much of his career (I'm looking at you, Florida). He has never won a Vezina, but he's been a finalist three times, and was even a Hart finalist in 2007. All in all, I think the resume is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omits Crosby and Ovechkin because he wants to prioritize careers coming to an end. Then talks about Karlsson.. Not trying to be insolent, but are you implying that Karlsson is nearing the end of his career? Lol :P Might be so if he is riddled with more injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I'm gonna go ahead and say Seguin and Benn will both be eventual hall of famers...they will both be top 10 scorers for the next 8 or 9 years. They have to maintain it....but the talent is undeniable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crosby Ovechkin and Malkin are irrefutable HHOF. There is a logical argument to be.made for the Sedins. Toews will most likely be inducted due to adoration from the media and overplayed intangibles. Getzlaf, Perry, Kane might be in consideration for the future. McDavid and Eichel first ballot HHOFs :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omits Crosby and Ovechkin because he wants to prioritize careers coming to an end. Then talks about Karlsson.. Not trying to be insolent, but are you implying that Karlsson is nearing the end of his career? Lol :P Might be so if he is riddled with more injuries.

 

No, I just didn't want the forwards list to get too long, and I think it easily could have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Aa much as I love Elias, he falls into that very good for a long time, but probably not HHOF worthy category for me. 2 Cups, an Olympic Bronze and two bronzes at the World Championship, but no real individual awards, and I don't think he was ever quite elite. Although I've always wondered what his numbers would look like if he hadn't spent his entire career on a team that focused so heavily on defensive play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aa much as I love Elias, he falls into that very good for a long time, but probably not HHOF worthy category for me. 2 Cups, an Olympic Bronze and two bronzes at the World Championship, but no real individual awards, and I don't think he was ever quite elite. Although I've always wondered what his numbers would look like if he hadn't spent his entire career on a team that focused so heavily on defensive play.

 

It depends on what you deem elite. However, I would argue that Elias has been an elite calibre player. he has been among the top ten point producers on three occasions of his career. 3rd in points, 6th in points and 10th. Now that would already be considered elite offensively, but this is while also excelling as a two way forward. And we also have to take into account that Elias has been playing on a offensively insufficient team, Yet managed to be among the top ten point producers.

 

Idk, I'm assuming you watched a considerable amount of his career. So you know more then me regarding Elias or anything devils for that matter. Its simply that among further inspection, he looks better than I anticipated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's put Elias and Hossa to the test. First, Elias.


 


1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?


No.


2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?


No.


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


Yes. Goals (twice), assists (twice), points (three times). (1)


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


No.


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


Yes. He played a key role on three teams that made a run to the Stanley Cup Finals. (2)


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


Yes, two of the above mentioned teams won the Cup. (3)


7. Was he ever a team Captain?


Yes, during the 2006-07 and 2007-08 seasons. (4)


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


No.


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


Yes, as has already been discussed in this thread. (5)


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


No.


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


Yes. At age 37, he posted 53 points in 65 games in the 2013-14 season, and was always consistently effective. (6)


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


Yes, in 2000-01. (7)


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


Virtually everyone on his similarity list on hockey-reference.com is in the Hall. (8)


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


No.


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!)


Arguably, since defensive play is hard to quantify in stats. I'm inclined to give him a point here based on the earlier speculation of what he would have looked like had he been less dedicated to defense. (9)


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


No.


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.


 


Elias scores a nine by my reckoning, which a very impressive score to say the least.


 


Now, let's look at Hossa.


 


1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?


No.


2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?


No.


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


Yes. Goals (four times), assists (once), and points (twice). (1)


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


No.


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


Yes, several. (2)


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


Yes, he has been a key member of the recent run by Chicago. (4)


7. Was he ever a team Captain?


No.


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


No.


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


As of late, absolutely. Certainly enough so to merit a point here, I'd say. (5)


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


No.


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


He has fallen off a bit this year, but through last year, he was still a strong contributor. He definitely gets a point here. (6)


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


Yes, in 2008-09. (7)


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


Most are. (8)


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


No.


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'm not so sure I'd feel comfortable giving a point based on defensive play here. Hossa has taken on a defensive role as part of adapting to his position in the Hawks. He was long a decent defender, but his best work there has been more recent, and in his prime, he was usually viewed as a goal-scorer.


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


No.


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.

 

Hossa gets an eight, so he's very close to Elias. @JR Ewing (who deserves credit for the criteria list) has said in the past that he generally views a guy with a 7-8 as HOF worthy and a 9-10 as a great player. These guys are right on the border of those two groups by my calculations, so I'd have no problem in seeing either of them go into the Hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ScottM

Two vastly underrated players IMO. Hossa received many selke votes during his prime. Tbh, I believe 7-8 is too low of a score to be HHOF worthy IMO.

 

We can run into the dangerous ground of taking things too literally. I don't mean to say that if we total it all up, a 7 or 8 equals a Hall of Famer. I think, though, that in this range, we're talking about a guy for whom there is honest debate. There are impact players with long careers who only have a point or two with this list. It's damned tough. Glenn Anderson scored almost 500 goals and 1,100 points, and scored 4 points. Just look at Mike Gartner:

 

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?

Maybe his mother did. No

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?

This would be a tough argument to make. Gartner was a RW that was used as a sniper, more than anything, but looking at other players used in this fashion, Brett Hull put up much better numbers, as did Jari Kurri. No

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

Yes. Gartner was top 10 in goals 5 times and points once. (1)

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

No.

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

Led his team in playoff scoring a number of times, including outscoring Messier in 92. Yes (2)

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

No

7. Was he ever a team Captain?

No

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

No.

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

He finished 31st in Selke voting once. I don't see a 'yes' here.

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

No.

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

Absolutely. He kept his legs and put up a lot of points in goals in his 30s. (3)

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

No

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

Many? No. About half of the most similar players are in. I'd say 'no' to this one.

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

No.

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!)

Nothing I ever saw.

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

No.

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.
 
Scoring 7 or 8 points on this list is absurdly difficult, and there are HOFers who don't even come close.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We can run into the dangerous ground of taking things too literally. I don't mean to say that if we total it all up, a 7 or 8 equals a Hall of Famer. I think, though, that in this range, we're talking about a guy for whom there is honest debate. There are impact players with long careers who only have a point or two with this list. It's damned tough. Glenn Anderson scored almost 500 goals and 1,100 points, and scored 4 points. Just look at Mike Gartner:

 

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?

Maybe his mother did. No

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?

This would be a tough argument to make. Gartner was a RW that was used as a sniper, more than anything, but looking at other players used in this fashion, Brett Hull put up much better numbers, as did Jari Kurri. No

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

Yes. Gartner was top 10 in goals 5 times and points once. (1)

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

No.

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

Led his team in playoff scoring a number of times, including outscoring Messier in 92. Yes (2)

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

No

7. Was he ever a team Captain?

No

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

No.

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

He finished 31st in Selke voting once. I don't see a 'yes' here.

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

No.

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

Absolutely. He kept his legs and put up a lot of points in goals in his 30s. (3)

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

No

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

Many? No. About half of the most similar players are in. I'd say 'no' to this one.

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

No.

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!)

Nothing I ever saw.

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

No.

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.
 
Scoring 7 or 8 points on this list is absurdly difficult, and there are HOFers who don't even come close.

 

 

I hope I didn't give them impression that a seven is an automatic HOFer. I threw the word "generally" in there hoping to avoid that.

 

I actually ran the numbers on Gartner the other day and came up with the exact same result. Yet, over 700 career goals, 15 consecutive 30+ goal seasons and 17 such seasons altogether make him a "common sense" HOFer in my book even though he doesn't score very well on this test. The same could be said for Marcel Dionne, whom I tested last night. He scored a six by my calculations, yet I can't imagine anyone saying he should be left out of the Hall.

 

I was trying to make the point in another thread about just how tough it is to score on this test. I can't imagine there's anyone with a perfect score, and there are several points that are extremely difficult to earn, and none are particularly easy. When you consider it all, it's pretty clear that a guy who scores a 7 or 8 had a heck of a career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I didn't give them impression that a seven is an automatic HOFer. I threw the word "generally" in there hoping to avoid that.

 

I actually ran the numbers on Gartner the other day and came up with the exact same result. Yet, over 700 career goals, 15 consecutive 30+ goal seasons and 17 such seasons altogether make him a "common sense" HOFer in my book even though he doesn't score very well on this test. The same could be said for Marcel Dionne, whom I tested last night. He scored a six by my calculations, yet I can't imagine anyone saying he should be left out of the Hall.

 

I was trying to make the point in another thread about just how tough it is to score on this test. I can't imagine there's anyone with a perfect score, and there are several points that are extremely difficult to earn, and none are particularly easy. When you consider it all, it's pretty clear that a guy who scores a 7 or 8 had a heck of a career.

Marcel and Gartner's scores are understandable, seeing as 3 points are required to progress far into the playoffs, Which neither of them did. Some points cater to more specific type of players.

 

And I know the points received for being a captain are supposed to be "intangibles points" Yet there will be many "intangibles" players overlooked simply because they didn't wear the C. Perhaps intangibles related compliments from teammates should be considered. Or maybe occurences that displayed a players leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Perhaps intangibles related compliments from teammates should be considered. Or maybe occurences that displayed a players leadership.

 

There are a few problems with that. 1) Generally speaking, most players are going to compliment their teammates any time they're in the news. 2) You have guys like Gretzky that pass out compliments like they're a dime a dozen. 3) (semi-related to the first two) Teammate compliments about a guy stepping up would be a category that virtually anyone of note at all could score a point on. 4) How do you even quantify the last part? Something like Mess guaranteeing a win? Something of that magnitude will get a guy a point on #17, so it's a double count. Plus, then you have guys like Ovi that do the same and don't guarantee, so does that count as displaying leadership? At least when you're dealing with a captaincy, you have a somewhat solid indication of what players truly think without a camera staring at them and people expecting them to give the company line.

 

In the end, there's no perfect test. No one ever claimed this one was, but I'd say it's pretty stinking good. It has a pretty good balance of all aspects of a player's game. I'm going to stick with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few problems with that. 1) Generally speaking, most players are going to compliment their teammates any time they're in the news. 2) You have guys like Gretzky that pass out compliments like they're a dime a dozen. 3) (semi-related to the first two) Teammate compliments about a guy stepping up would be a category that virtually anyone of note at all could score a point on. 4) How do you even quantify the last part? Something like Mess guaranteeing a win? Something of that magnitude will get a guy a point on #17, so it's a double count. Plus, then you have guys like Ovi that do the same and don't guarantee, so does that count as displaying leadership? At least when you're dealing with a captaincy, you have a somewhat solid indication of what players truly think without a camera staring at them and people expecting them to give the company line.

 

In the end, there's no perfect test. No one ever claimed this one was, but I'd say it's pretty stinking good. It has a pretty good balance of all aspects of a player's game. I'm going to stick with it.

You raise valid points.

But truthfully, the points you addressed to my previous comment displays exactly why we shouldn't put so much emphasis on intangibles, because that in itself is difficult to quantify.

 

JR's measurement on potential HHOF candidates is quite balanced. But  seemingly  even players that score low are more deserving then some that score higher. Although none of us can currently conceive of a better alternative for quantification of HHOF players. So yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raise valid points.

But truthfully, the points you addressed to my previous comment displays exactly why we shouldn't put so much emphasis on intangibles, because that in itself is difficult to quantify.

 

JR's measurement on potential HHOF candidates is quite balanced. But  seemingly  even players that score low are more deserving then some that score higher. Although none of us can currently conceive of a better alternative for quantification of HHOF players. So yeah.

 

There aren't many points on the list that deal with intangibles. You could say that the captaincy does, but it's the most concrete way of doing things. You could say that rule #17 does, but again, it's pretty clear when a guy or his story draws a lot of attention to the sport. Huge stardom will do that. A guarantee and delivery that snaps a long championship drought will do that. A guy taking his life into his own hands and defecting for a better life, thus grabbing international headlines will do that.

 

Yeah, the list is balanced, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to bother trying to create a better system. JR is one of the smartest guys here and probably has the best understanding of the game's history of anyone here. Again, no, there's no perfect system, but I don't think anyone is going to top this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't many points on the list that deal with intangibles. You could say that the captaincy does, but it's the most concrete way of doing things. You could say that rule #17 does, but again, it's pretty clear when a guy or his story draws a lot of attention to the sport. Huge stardom will do that. A guarantee and delivery that snaps a long championship drought will do that. A guy taking his life into his own hands and defecting for a better life, thus grabbing international headlines will do that.

 

Yeah, the list is balanced, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to bother trying to create a better system. JR is one of the smartest guys here and probably has the best understanding of the game's history of anyone here. Again, no, there's no perfect system, but I don't think anyone is going to top this one.

 

I've had questions come and go over the years as I've tinkered with the list (after all, nothing is perfect), but it's been like this for a good while now. Among the questions I had considered:

 

"Did the player retire among the top ten in any major categories (G, A, Pts, W) etc?"

-But I found I was usually taken back to the question asking if players with similar statistics are in the Hall of Fame, and I really want to avoid crediting players twice for the same thing. It would probably go some way to helping guys like Gartner: players with counting stats that were never great in any year, but who played a long time and were able to play well past their prime years. Gartner and Glenn Anderson are good examples of the issues we come up against: they score about the same in the quiz, with the difference being tenure in Gartner's favor, and environment (Cups) for Anderson. Switch places, and I believe Gartner would have fit in well enough to be a big part of the 80s Oilers... But that's not what happened, and Anderson WAS a stud in the playoffs.

 

"Did his contemporaries consider him to be a leader?"

-But I was troubled by the issues raised by Scott: guys are always going to big-up their teammates. Being a captain is imperfect, but gets us closer in an objective way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had questions come and go over the years as I've tinkered with the list (after all, nothing is perfect), but it's been like this for a good while now. Among the questions I had considered:

 

"Did the player retire among the top ten in any major categories (G, A, Pts, W) etc?"

-But I found I was usually taken back to the question asking if players with similar statistics are in the Hall of Fame, and I really want to avoid crediting players twice for the same thing. It would probably go some way to helping guys like Gartner: players with counting stats that were never great in any year, but who played a long time and were able to play well past their prime years. Gartner and Glenn Anderson are good examples of the issues we come up against: they score about the same in the quiz, with the difference being tenure in Gartner's favor, and environment (Cups) for Anderson. Switch places, and I believe Gartner would have fit in well enough to be a big part of the 80s Oilers... But that's not what happened, and Anderson WAS a stud in the playoffs.

 

"Did his contemporaries consider him to be a leader?"

-But I was troubled by the issues raised by Scott: guys are always going to big-up their teammates. Being a captain is imperfect, but gets us closer in an objective way.

 

The reason I started using this is that I think it's a great tool, and I think you've got a good balance with it now. But, a dose of common sense has to be used alongside of it. Used together, I think those two are a pretty good combination. I've been trying to work on some ranking lists lately, and I've started over a couple of times because I wasn't really satisfied, but this list has helped a lot. It shouldn't be overblown, of course, but it is highly useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...