Jump to content

2016 HHOF Induction


JagerMeister

Recommended Posts

Who do you think should be inducted next year? There wont be many viable options for players atleast, seems like a weak year in 2016.

 

 

Here are the players I believe should be inducted next year.

 

Sergei Makarov

Valeri Kharlamov is in, he should be too. His career outside of the NHL is HHOF worthy.

 

Eric Lindros

What's there to say that hasn't already been said?

 

Paul Kariya

I wont exactly agree if he were to be inducted, but out of all the options available, his induction doesn't seem illogical. HE had a peak worthy of HHOF and was actually among the best players for a brief period of time. like, 5 years atleast...Can't say that about the andreychuk

 

Jeremy Roenick

Yea, he excelled at both offense and defense. Is one of the greatest American born players of all time. Again, wont agree with his induction but rather him then someone like andreychuk...

 

And just because, here are the players I speculate, will be inducted in 2016

 

Mark Recchi

His numbers is why he will be inducted, he has argument for being among the elite, but even then I don't believe him worthy of induction. Well, actually he is arguably a better candidate than Roenick. Idk. His induction wouldn't irritate me.

 

Dave Andreychuk

Another Housley esque induction. Yay 600 goals, he played for more then 20 years throughout the highest scoring era in hockey history. One thing though. He was never, ever, considered among the elite calibre players throughout the entirety of his career. NEVER. But his induction seems most plausible out of the ones I mentioned.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to challenge you on Andreychuk and Recchi. Let's take a look at the Keltner list to see why.

 

I'll borrow some grades I've see JR use.

 

13+ All-Time Great

11-12 Unquestioned HOF'er

9-10 Great Player

7-8 Deserves to be in HOF

5-6 Borderline

3-4 Weak argument

1-2 Unqualified

 

Dave Andreychuk

 

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) and Points (once). (1)
 
4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
No, though he did lead the league in power play goals a couple of times.
 
5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?
Yes, he was nearly a point per game player in Toronto's conference finals run in 1993 and of course was captain of the 2003-04 Lightning. (2)
 
6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?
Yes, as mentioned above, he was captain of the 2004 Lightning. (3)
 
7. Was he ever a team Captain?
Yes, see above. (4)
 
8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?
Yes again. (5)
 
9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?
Not really, though in fairness, his defense was more of note later in his career.
 
10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)
He's a big guy, but I wouldn't really say this.
 
11. Did he play a lot/well after he passed his prime?
The guy captained his team to a Stanley Cup at age 41 and put up 14 points in 23 playoff games that season. This is a definite yes. (6)
 
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?
The list of players on his similarity scores list on hockey-reference.com include names like Bucyk, Ullman, Ciccarelli, Gilmour, Perreault, Savard, and Gartner. Yeah, I'd say that qualifies. (7)
 
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!)
No.
 
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.
 
Plus, I think it deserves to be pointed out that Andreychuk scored more power play goals than anyone in history. Not Gretzky, not Lemieux, not Howe, not Esposito, not Bossy. Andreychuk. That's far from a minor career accomplishment.
 
Mark Recchi
 
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, more than I care to count right now. (1)
 
4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
Yes, assists in 1999-2000. (2)
 
5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?
Yes, a few. (3)
 
6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?
More than one, but 34 points in 24 playoff games in 1991 for the Penguins is an incredible record. (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?
He was good, but I wouldn't say excellent.
 
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, in the 2010-11 season, in which he turned 43, he put up 48 points in 81 games. If that's not enough for you, he put up 61 in 80 just two seasons earlier. (5)
 
12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?
Yes, in 1991-92. (6)
 
13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?
Virtually all are. (7)
 
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!)
No.
 
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.
 
I'll grant that their cases aren't completely overwhelming, but they both score very well, and that suggests that they deserve strong consideration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ScottM

 

7 out of a potential 18 is not exceptional. And truthfully, not much significance should be emphasized on simply being a captain. Many mediocre players can garner a point in that category. Also, all those players that apparently have similarities on hockey reference are all evidently superior to him, excluding Dino. Savard and Perrault reached offensive peaks Andreychuk can only dream of, he is not in their category of greatness and that should be quite patent. Bucyk and Gilmour where adept two way forwards who impacted the game much more then Andreychuk. And Gartner IMO is a borderline HHOF player.

 

Mark Recchi I can tolerate his induction. But anyways, the HHOF has always been known to have low qualifications for induction. Dick Duff and Phil Housley have been inducted :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ScottM

 

7 out of a potential 18 is not exceptional.

 

Not at all true. Look at numbers 1, 16, 17, and 18. Very few players can get a point on any of them. More, but still few can lay claim to having been the best at their position, having won one of the trophies mentioned, or leading the league in key stats. I strongly disagree with you about the importance/credibility of a captain, but we've had that conversation before, I believe, but you're in a small minority there. They don't pin the C on just anyone. Anyway, there are at most 30 captains at any time, and only one can win the Cup in any given year, making that particular point quite difficult to get.

 

When you seriously think about it, a large majority of players would probably fail to score even one point on this test because it is designed to be difficult to score on. Seven of 18 wouldn't be exceptional if that weren't the case, but it is. Ironically, Roenick, whom you specifically said is a better candidate than Andreychuk only manages a six on this scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all true. Look at numbers 1, 16, 17, and 18. Very few players can get a point on any of them. More, but still few can lay claim to having been the best at their position, having won one of the trophies mentioned, or leading the league in key stats. I strongly disagree with you about the importance/credibility of a captain, but we've had that conversation before, I believe, but you're in a small minority there. They don't pin the C on just anyone. Anyway, there are at most 30 captains at any time, and only one can win the Cup in any given year, making that particular point quite difficult to get.

 

When you seriously think about it, a large majority of players would probably fail to score even one point on this test because it is designed to be difficult to score on. Seven of 18 wouldn't be exceptional if that weren't the case, but it is. Ironically, Roenick, whom you specifically said is a better candidate than Andreychuk only manages a six on this scale.

Compare Roenicks stats to Andreychuks, Do you truly believe Andreychuk was a better player then Roenick, Because I think many people on here can attest otherwise. Also, there are two points as to whether a player has been a team captain and then another one stating has he ever been a team captain on a Stanley cup winner. Many mediocre players can garner a point on the first one. That's the one I was referring to. Besides, it seems rather gratuitous to have both those 2.

 

And you are right, not any player can be given the C. But the most well known amongst their team can.... Crosby, Ovechkin, Jagr.

On multiple occasions, the C simply seems like a popularity contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare Roenicks stats to Andreychuks, Do you truly believe Andreychuk was a better player then Roenick, Because I think many people on here can attest otherwise. Also, there are two points as to whether a player has been a team captain and then another one stating has he ever been a team captain on a Stanley cup winner. Many mediocre players can garner a point on the first one. That's the one I was referring to. Besides, it seems rather gratuitous to have both those 2.

 

And you are right, not any player can be given the C. But the most well known amongst their team can.... Crosby, Ovechkin, Jagr.

On multiple occasions, the C simply seems like a popularity contest.

 

The point is that stats don't reflect everything. There are some contributions to a team that don't show up so well on a stat sheet or in award voting, and Andreychuk beats Roenick in those. Plus, Roenick can't claim anything like all-time power plays goal leader like Andreychuk can. All in all, they're pretty close when you look at the whole big picture.

 

Even if a "mediocre player" earns a point from being a captain, his other points will be few and far between if he gets any. I reject the "popularity contest" argument, because if a guy is that popular amongst his teammates, it shows that he has their respect. That has to count for something. That's why it's just one of many criteria on the list. If a guy that's mediocre can get a point in one area, his failure to do so in every other area will overwhelm that.

 

No, I don't believe that the two captain categories are redundant any more than I believe the greatest player/best at position or top 10 in stats/leader in stats are. They allow worthy players to score but allow the most elite to set themselves apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ScottM When referring to other contributions I presume your talking about intangibles. What exactly does Andreychuk have that is superior to Roenick? JR was quite the vocal individual. Perhaps he was a great leader for all we know. My point is that its difficult to quantify intangibles. Even if Andreychuk has superior intangibles, he is literally inferior in most other aspects. And his intangibles cant compensate for JR's evidently superior performance ON the ice.

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...