Thomas Vanek, Hall of famer????

[yave1964]

Okay not really. 

 

But.

 

Going into this season the 34 year old Vanek has 357 career goals and 756 career points and seems to have settled into a nice complimentary 50ish point a year guy. 

  What has always hurt Vanek is unrealistic expectations. He more or less burst on the scene in Buffalo averaging 40 goals a year from 2007 thru 2009 and then becoming a bit of a mild disappointment as he never replicated those numbers again, slipping to a 25 goal a year guy for the next decade, last year was his typical season, 24-32-56 split between two teams. As usual he split the season with multiple teams, since Buffalo traded him to Minny five years ago he has played for Buffalo, Minnesota, Detroit (twice) Columbus, Florida, Vancouver, the Islanders and Montreal. Nine stops in five years.

  And everywhere he goes, he produces a 20 ish goal 50 ish point season, like punching a clock.

  Which brings me back to the HOF talk at the start of the post.

 357 goals, 34 years old, he is at an age where players can fall off drastically almost overnight but lets say he produces four more years at the current pace, then three more at half of that on his way out. If he does that his final stat line will look something very similar to this:

 

GAMES (aprox) 1300

GOALS (aprox) 450

POINTS (aprox) 1000

 

  I know he has a rep as a bad defensive player but truthfully he isn't bad, an average defensive player for a winger is how I see him. I feel that because he wasn't as good as he first appeared to be that his defense has been a bit unfairly ragged on over the years. An aside, he has this unique style on defense, I like unique players. Bertuzzi for the Wings used to skate backwards with the puck with his big butt poking straight at the defenseman while protecting the puck before passing or shooting, Vanek on defense leaves his stick constantly on the ice and flails it around like the old board hockey games used to, stick on the ice swinging it back and forth looking to deflect a puck. Not saying it is good or bad just unique.

 

  So anyway, he is looking at potentially a 450 goal career with 1000 points and still be seen as a mild disappointment because his first few years came out of nowhere and he was unable to live up to them on a team that was a perennial disappointment. Lets say that in his bouncing around the NHL he somehow manages to end up on a cup winner or two over the next five years. His beginning will be remembered, but so will his ending, a couple of nice bookmarks to his career. The average second liner stuff in the middle will be forgotten.

 

  Now lets say he manages to push it to or near 500 goals scored, already over 350 don't laugh, it very well could happen. I don't think he will get there because the lockout is looming and will possibly wipe out a year at the end of his career and again, he is at an age where players careers regularly suddenly fall off a cliff but anything is possible. If he manages to win a cup or two at the end and come close to 500 goals for his career? 

 

  Let me be clear, I don't see him ever getting into the Hall of Fame without first buying a ticket but longevity may work for him if he manages to stay healthy and stick around. He may compile enough numbers to at least be in the conversation. There are lots of compilers who are in.

[ruxpin]

Not for me. He may measure okay against someone in, but they probably shouldn't be in either. 

[SpikeDDS]

@ruxpin @yave1964

 

That’s a LOT of ifs. I think the best he will do is have HOF-like numbers. An HOF bridesmaid. Never the bride.

 

Being the perennial journeyman does not help, even though his ability to produce consistently even while moving around is peobably more difficult to do than staying in one or two systems. 

 

It might change for me if he does get on a couple of Cup winners and shows himself to be one of the keys to why they won the Cup. But I just don’t see enough to get him there. He’s a good offensive threat that, so far, hasn’t either helped a team to the Cup nor been seen as an indispensable player for any team after his first few years.

 

IF things get significantly better for him over the next few years, mmmaaaaaybeee. But it’s a stretch for me to see it right now. Teams don’t just let HOF talent go. He’s a fine player, and gosh do we need his offense right now. But HOF is tough for me to see right now. 

[ruxpin]

16 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

@ruxpin @yave1964

 

That’s a LOT of ifs. I think the best he will do is have HOF-like numbers. An HOF bridesmaid. Never the bride.

 

Being the perennial journeyman does not help, even though his ability to produce consistently even while moving around is peobably more difficult to do than staying in one or two systems. 

 

It might change for me if he does get on a couple of Cup winners and shows himself to be one of the keys to why they won the Cup. But I just don’t see enough to get him there. He’s a good offensive threat that, so far, hasn’t either helped a team to the Cup nor been seen as an indispensable player for any team after his first few years.

 

IF things get significantly better for him over the next few years, mmmaaaaaybeee. But it’s a stretch for me to see it right now. Teams don’t just let HOF talent go. He’s a fine player, and gosh do we need his offense right now. But HOF is tough for me to see right now. 

This, wrapped up in a nice nut shell. 

[yave1964]

@SpikeDDS @ruxpin

 

 Agreed, like I said at the end the only way he gets into the Hall is if he buys a ticket, I was just looking at his career stats the other day and his age and thought, Holy Crap, he may wind up with 500 goals! He reminds me of Mark Recchi in so many ways, Recchi had a longer career (22 years) had 1500 points in 1600 games and went out on top winning a cup in his final game ever with the Bruins. In fact Recchi came into my mind when I thought of Vanek. I don't believe Recchi on the best day of his life was a HOFer  Like Vanek he had a couple great years early then hung around forever with a bunch of good not great seasons.

 

 Vaneks top comps as far as similarity scores according to Hockey Reference:

 

denis Savard

Gil Perreault

Jeff Carter

Boom boom Geoffrion

Rick Nash

Michel Goullet

Hawerchuk

Zetterberg

 

 Not too shabby.

 

 I mostly wrote this because I was sitting around bored, lol.

[SpikeDDS]

@yave1964

 

I'd put Z in before Vanek. In Z's case numbers don't tell the whole story. His all-around game is his signature, and it's tougher to quanitfy. But he also has a Cup and a Smythe. Having said that, Z probably won't get in. So if he doesn't, Vanek shouldn't either, again, unless things change significantly toward the end of his career. I would love to see Z in there though.

[yave1964]

1 minute ago, SpikeDDS said:

@yave1964

 

I'd put Z in before Vanek. In Z's case numbers don't tell the whole story. His all-around game is his signature, and it's tougher to quanitfy. But he also has a Cup and a Smythe. Having said that, Z probably won't get in. So if he doesn't, Vanek shouldn't either, again, unless things change significantly toward the end of his career. I would love to see Z in there though.

I think Z is a virtual lock. A classy player who spent his entire career with the same organization playing a huge role on a cup winning team who epitomized class and was an ultimate battler. He may not be first ballot, mostly because the Sedin boys are going to be first ballot eligible the same season but he will be there within a year or two of first hitting the ballot.

[SpikeDDS]

@yave1964 

 

I hope you're right.

[Hockey-78]

On 10/25/2018 at 7:35 PM, ruxpin said:

Not for me. He may measure okay against someone in, but they probably shouldn't be in either. 

Sorry yave but me neither. I can't see how he can meet some general criteria outside of points production.

[yave1964]

30 minutes ago, Hockey-78 said:

Sorry yave but me neither. I can't see how he can meet some general criteria outside of points production.

Agreed, it looks like inuries are starting to pile up, he has anoutside shot at 500 goals as a Mike Gartner compiler type of career. Sometimes those guys get in, most times cooler heads prevail, mostly this was just a post defending a guy who is IMHO a bit unfairly railed upon when in truth he has had a decent career. Not a HOFer to be sure, just a goof of a writeup but a solid top liner early, a long time middle six winger after.A lot of people blame him for Buffalo not winning or for not being the same player when he reached Minny but he is what he is. 

[Buffalo Rick]

Vanek is going to be remembered as a Sabre.  He is going to get a golden sword from Buffalo someday.  No doubt.  He is in the Sabres hall of fame for sure.  Not as good as Perrault, Martin or Robert, but no other Sabres are either.

[mojo1917]

I don't think Vanek meets many of our friend @JR Ewing 's criteria for being a hof player. 

 

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

 

 

I think he's got a weak argument at best based on this reasonable criteria.

[radoran]

No.

 

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

 

[Buffalo Rick]

22 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I don't think Vanek meets many of our friend @JR Ewing 's criteria for being a hof player. 

 

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

 

 

I think he's got a weak argument at best based on this reasonable criteria.

Was he on a Cup winner is garbage.  So is Dan Marino deserving of HOF?  Is Gilbert Perrault?  Is it even close in their cases?  Hell no.  

[mojo1917]

21 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

Was he on a Cup winner is garbage.  So is Dan Marino deserving of HOF?  Is Gilbert Perrault?  Is it even close in their cases?  Hell no.  

Gosh Rick, that's one question out of 19...how about this for comparison; Mark Messier doesn't sniff the all-time scoring leaders but he's in the hall in large part because of his leadership, one could argue his stats are B+ not hall of fame worthy, should his stats be all that's considered in his case?

 

When thinking about all-time greats I think these are very good criteria, Vanek might be an all-time Saber in the same way John LeClair is an all-time Flyer. Very good players, but not worth considering as the game's all-time best though

 

[Buffalo Rick]

2 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

Gosh Rick, that's one question out of 19...how about this for comparison; Mark Messier doesn't sniff the all-time scoring leaders but he's in the hall in large part because of his leadership, one could argue his stats are B+ not hall of fame worthy, should that be all that's considered ?

 

When thinking about all-time greats I think these are very good criteria, Vanek might be an all-time Saber in the same way John LeClair is an all-time Flyer. Very good players, but not worth considering as the game's all-time best though

 

Vanek was in 3 Eastern Conference finals with Sabres.  Not his fault they lost.  4 injured D men vs Carolina cost them the Cup.  And a Presidents trophy.  Messier?  Are you kidding?  He has the numbers.  He is a monster of a player.

 

I must add that Rene Robert and Mike Bossy and Richard Martin were three of the best wingers of all time.  But their careers were cut short.  As was Orr's.  They to me are all hall of fame material

[mojo1917]

3 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

Vanek was in 3 Eastern Conference finals with Sabres.  Not his fault they lost.  4 injured D men vs Carolina cost them the Cup.  And a Presidents trophy.  Messier?  Are you kidding?  He has the numbers.  He is a monster of a player.

I forgot Mess had a **** pile of goals, maybe not the best example. He did play for a million years and i didn't know this either was lifetime 1.07 ppg...that's sick...

However, no one outside of Buffalo thinks Are you kidding?  He has the numbers.  He is a monster of a player. about Thomas Vanek.

 

[Buffalo Rick]

Just now, mojo1917 said:

I forgot Mess had a **** pile of goals, maybe not the best example. He did play for a million years and i didn't know this either was lifetime 1.07 ppg...that's sick...

However, no one outside of Buffalo thinks Are you kidding?  He has the numbers.  He is a monster of a player. about Thomas Vanek.

 

Robert and Martin were both better than Thomas but injuries ended their careers early just like Mike Bossy.  And yes, Messier was a horrible example

[mojo1917]

@Hockey Junkie

fair enough- Mess is a horrible example, it doesn't change the fact that Vanek isn't hall worthy. 

 

[Hockey-78]

Obviously just the "numbers" isn't the main focus since there are hall of famers who haven't compiled even as many points as Vanek has goals.

[Buffalo Rick]

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

@Hockey Junkie

fair enough- Mess is a horrible example, it doesn't change the fact that Vanek isn't hall worthy. 

 

But he is not finished yet is he?

[SpikeDDS]

@Hockey Junkie

 

Well, that’s why some of have left the door open a crack. @radoran said it short and sweet, and the odds are he is right. If I’m placing a bet right now on whether Vanek makes the HOF, my money’s on NO, and it’s a pretty safe bet.

 

He should, without a doubt, have his number retired in Buffalo. On the Sabre’s list of career All-Stars, he’s on it. It’s a relatively short list though. And I’m not saying that as a poke (OK, a little  ), as much as I’m saying it as fact.

 

But there are few journeymen who made the HOF without, at some point of their career, being an integral part of a Cup winner or a “dynasty.” On the national level, being on a team that makes a few Conference Finals in a row, but falling short each time, isn’t all that compelling.

 

He’s got the goal numbers. But I think the list of questions above is a good list, and honestly, there aren’t too many yesses. Not zero. But not as compelling as it needs to be.

 

As it stands, and very likely WILL stand. 

[radoran]

 

17 hours ago, Hockey-78 said:

Obviously just the "numbers" isn't the main focus since there are hall of famers who haven't compiled even as many points as Vanek has goals.

 

There isn't a forward in the modern era who has gone in with the stats you suggest (less than 357 points). The last guy to go in with less points was Rod Langway in 2002 and he was a defenceman. Then Fetisov in 2001 (who went in also based on his international play), Bobby Bauer in 1996 (who last played in 1952), and Bun Cook in 1995 (who last played in 1937).

 

Vanek had a great run in Buffalo, cracked 40 goals twice and had 36 in another season. He hasn't scored above 30 since 2011.

 

The last forward to go in with fewer goals than Vanek was Forsberg in 2014 (249) and he only had 135 more points than Vanek in 257 fewer games. You can then look at Adam Oates in 2012 (341 goals) who only managed to average 1.06 points per game over a career that spanned 368 more games than Vanek has while Vanek has a .78 ppg.

 

Not only are the numbers not there, the impact as a player simply isn't there, either.

 

21 hours ago, Hockey Junkie said:

Vanek was in 3 Eastern Conference finals with Sabres.

 

Vanek made the playoffs four times with Buffalo - including two trips to the ECFs (in his first two seasons). It doesn't help a HOF resume to have the team be less successful over the course of your career, and that's what happened to Vanek. It's not entirely "his fault" but that is simply the case.

 

His third ECF was with the Canadiens. And his 36 postseason points in 69 postseason games doesn't help his case, either.

 

He's a Sabres HOFer, not an NHL HOFer.

[Buffalo Rick]

3 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

@Hockey Junkie

 

Well, that’s why some of have left the door open a crack. @radoran said it short and sweet, and the odds are he is right. If I’m placing a bet right now on whether Vanek makes the HOF, my money’s on NO, and it’s a pretty safe bet.

 

He should, without a doubt, have his number retired in Buffalo. On the Sabre’s list of career All-Stars, he’s on it. It’s a relatively short list though. And I’m not saying that as a poke (OK, a little  ), as much as I’m saying it as fact.

 

But there are few journeymen who made the HOF without, at some point of their career, being an integral part of a Cup winner or a “dynasty.” On the national level, being on a team that makes a few Conference Finals in a row, but falling short each time, isn’t all that compelling.

 

He’s got the goal numbers. But I think the list of questions above is a good list, and honestly, there aren’t too many yesses. Not zero. But not as compelling as it needs to be.

 

As it stands, and very likely WILL stand. 

Looking at the greatest Sabres of all time, Gilbert Perrault is without any doubt the best easily.  Its not close.  The you have guys like Robert, Martin, Lafontaine, Mogilny, Peca, Korab, Dudley, Danny Gare, Vanek, Roy, Pommenville, Hasek Miller and gee whiz, the list is much longer than you might think

[JR Ewing]

On 11/13/2018 at 8:18 AM, Hockey Junkie said:

Was he on a Cup winner is garbage.  So is Dan Marino deserving of HOF?  Is Gilbert Perrault?  Is it even close in their cases?  Hell no.  

 

Run through a quiz geared for football, Dan Marino would come out as a Hall of Famer. Run through this quiz, Perreault comes out as a Hall of Famer as well. I don't understand your objection with a single step in the process when it's clear that the process itself would see them as great players.

 

The point of something like this, Rick, is that the more questions we ask about players, the better the idea that we get of them. There isn't a single question on this quiz which automatically includes or excludes a player from HOF discussion. Mark Lamb has a Stanley Cup ring and Gilbert Pererault doesn't, but there isn't a sane human being walking the planet who would make a HOF case for Lamb just the same as nobody would say that Perreault shouldn't be in.

 

Running him through the quiz, I have him with 6 points:

 

3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?
7. Was he ever a team Captain?
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?
 

5-8 = Belongs in HOF

 

Do I think that if Perreault were a Hab or Bruin that he would likely have had a Cup ring to go along with it? Yes. He probably wouldn't have Captain on those teams, so the points kind of even out.

 

And before you say "ONLY 6 POINTS?!?!", please keep in mind that many fine players who were good soldiers with long and productive careers come away with a single point or two at most. To get 6 is amazing.