Jump to content
You are a guest user Click to join the site

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

yave1964

Hall of Fame class announced for 2020

Recommended Posts

  After last years very mediocre at best class this years hall of fame class was announced a bit ago and it is a solid bunch.

 

In the builder category, Kenny Holland got the nod, he was a huge part of the Wings winning four cups in 11 years and as hard on him as i have been for the last few years he is deserving.

 

PLAYERS INDUCTED

 

DOUG WILSON IMHO it has been near criminal that he has been overlooked, a premier defenseman and a Hockey lifer, a booming shot from the point, rugged, a very deserving pick.

 

KEVIN LOWE Truth? I thought he got in a few years ago. Always in Coffey's shadow but a hell of a player.

 

MARIAN HOSSA Went to the SCF with 3 seperate organizations in 3 years, finished his career with 525 goals with five teams. Not sure which sweater he will wear for the induction, just hoping it doesnt itch. 

 

JARONE IGINLA  no brainer, 625 goals, a giant in the game as a consumate power forward. Only blemish was never winning a cup but his career ranks right up there with anybody.

 

KIM ST-PIERRE Goalie extra-ordinaire for Team Canada ladies club, She is arguably the greatest female goalie of all time.

 

A hell of a class, no Vaclav Nedomansky or Guy Carbaneau in sight. Congrats to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's that time of year again: time for the Keltner Test, this time for Kevin Lowe.

 

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, there were always a good number of better defensemen in the league in every year of his career.
 
3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
No

 

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. Numerous times. (1)

 

6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?
Yes. Lowe was a top-pairing and tough-minute defenseman for 5 Cup winners. Won a 6th in NY, but was a depth player by that time. (2)

 

7. Was he ever a team Captain?
Yes. (3)

 

8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?
No (3)
 
9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?
It was never his offense game that brought him to the dance. Yes (4)

 

10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)
Lowe had an extreme tolerance for pain, and consistently played through injuries that would have seen many other players placed on IR, and in that sense was tough. He certainly wasn't intimidating, though. This is a "no" for me. (4)
 
11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?
Lowe's body had a ton of miles, and his impact on his teams really diminished after he was 30 years old, which showed in GP and minutes being drastically reduced. No. (4)

 

12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?
No. (4)

 

13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?
Of the 10 most statistically similar player, not one is a HOFer. (4)
 
14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)
No (4)

 

15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)
No (4)

 

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 don't see it. (4)

 

17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?
The Wayne Gretzky/Babe Ruth question. Almost impossible to get a point here. No. (4)

 

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, but almost nobody ever gets a point on this one, either.

 

Total -> 4 points.

 

The scale which I've been using for many years:

 

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 "he was a clutch player", 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.

 

Anyway... I always had respect for Kevin Lowe as a player, but much of his HOF argument comes down to environment. Three of his points come from being surrounded by some of the greatest players to ever put on a pair of skates, and the fourth comes from being captain for 55 games during a period where every other player from that dynasty had been sold off.

 

I don't think this was a great look for the committee.

 

Edited by JR Ewing
edited for formatting...
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people don't agree that Player A belongs in the HOF, a great amount of extremely heated debate often takes place. This can happen between rabid fans of that player, or even people that, while they weren’t necessarily this guy’s biggest devotee, believe he’s HOF caliber. HOF arguments are many, but generally comprise the following sorts of arguments, and are used on there own or sometimes even all at once. There are probably a million different sorts of arguments that could be made by a million different people, but these are five easily identifiable points of debate that come up again and again.


The Selective Reasoning, or Bernie Federko 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, with its biggest falling point being that it’s the sort of logic that can make ANY player into a HOFer, and tell us as much about the skill of the arguer as it does the player being debated. 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 championship of the world, it’s a team championship. There is nothing wrong with raising the point of a player’s involvement in Stanley Cup victories; however, it can’t carry a lot of weight if it’s the main thrust of the pro-HOF argument. Conversely, 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.

The Clutch Play Wild Card
Here’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 athletic, but because they possess greater character than the rest of the mere mortals. Not only are they better athletes, but 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) as being clutch is generally based on a very small selection of plays, is mostly trumpeted by the media first, and then the fans pick up on it. This idea has not once been shown to have consistency or any real 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, articles and memories, 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. 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.


The Comparative, or Clark Gillies Argument
"Clark Gillies is in the Hall of Fame. How can you not put Player A in?" This debate is centered on how the player in question compares to other players in the HOF. This argument takes form in the use of “X, Y and Z all made the HOF, and A was a better player than them”. This also happens a lot when folks mix in other forms of the above arguments to back up their case.

This is the Clark Gillies HOF doctrine in its purest form, leaving us cursed forever to endure how other players compare to him. There are a number of players more qualified to be in the HOF than Gillies, and we’ll see many more people use the Gillies argument.  The question to ask is this: Should the Gillies example be used to allow easier entry into the HOF, or be accepted for what it is and put an end to comparisons between him and prospective players?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, yave1964 said:

MARIAN HOSSA Went to the SCF with 3 seperate organizations in 3 years, finished his career with 525 goals with five teams. Not sure which sweater he will wear for the induction, just hoping it doesnt itch. 

quality content right here

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JR Ewing

 

As a fellow disciple of Bill James i always love your Keltner list. Looking at Lowe and Wilson i can see a lot of similarities to the Scooter/PeeWee debate that was a subject of one of his better books, Whatever happened to the Hall of fame.

 

  Lowe didnt have spectacular numbers but was a plus/minus monster early in his career, a defensive specialist and PK god early in his career, all things that dont show up in the box score. And he won 5 cups in Edmonton and another later in life with the Rangers and hung around the game forever.

 

  Wilson was never the best player on his own team, always a true star good for 60 points a year with a booming shot and no slouch defensivly. He never won a cup- either as a player or in his long tenure with the Sharks front office. 

 

Both players appeared in 7 all star games, a very high figure.

 

Similarity scores, Wilson has comps of Doug Harvey, Dan Boyle, Rob Blake, Pierre Pilote and Duncan Keith in his top ten all of who are either in the hall or are certain to go. Ryan Suter and Kevin Hatcher are two damn fine players also on the list.

 

  Lowe has no such luminaries among his top ten, Adam Foote, Gordie Roberts and Brad Stuart are among his comps among contemporaries. Nobody in his top ten will ever make the Hall without buying a ticket first.

 

  Lowe played 19 years, 1254 games, had only 83 goals and 431 points.

 Wilson played 16 years, 1024 games, had 237 goals and 827 points.

 

 AGAIN, like Scooter, Lowe has the rings. six for him, zero for Wilson.

 

  So it comes down to how much weight you want to put on a championship. Does Huddy or Lumley get a call next year? Or Don Marshall? 

 

  Lowe getting in doesnt bother me, it is kind of like in the early seventies a stay at home blueliner for the Habs dynasty named Tom Johnson (who later was a fine coach with the Bruins) was selected to the Hall in spite of zero evidence showing he belonged statistically and a lot of people threw a fit, saying he didnt belong. That is kind of Lowe, kind of Scooter, they have the rings, they played forever but the numbers arent there.

 

 Personally i remember lowe and have always felt he was terribly underrated, he did whatever it took to win, all the little things that didnt show up in a box score. Obviously you saw him more than i did but what i saw to me, was a warrior who gave up his own stats to win. 

 Wilson, stuck behind Cheli, was still a beast on the blueline. I was a Norris division fan watching the hated Hawks with envy as they were thje best of a bad division. Wilson won a Norris and was a first team all star a couple of times. Lowe won the Lester Pearson humanitarian award once. 

 

 Wilson shoulda been in long ago-period. Lowe, i have no problem with the pick. Of the two, Wilson is by far the better choice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

@JR Ewing

 

As a fellow disciple of Bill James i always love your Keltner list. Looking at Lowe and Wilson i can see a lot of similarities to the Scooter/PeeWee debate that was a subject of one of his better books, Whatever happened to the Hall of fame.

 

 

Great book.

 

33 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

 Lowe getting in doesnt bother me, it is kind of like in the early seventies a stay at home blueliner for the Habs dynasty named Tom Johnson (who later was a fine coach with the Bruins) was selected to the Hall in spite of zero evidence showing he belonged statistically and a lot of people threw a fit, saying he didnt belong. That is kind of Lowe, kind of Scooter, they have the rings, they played forever but the numbers arent there.

 

 Personally i remember lowe and have always felt he was terribly underrated, he did whatever it took to win, all the little things that didnt show up in a box score. Obviously you saw him more than i did but what i saw to me, was a warrior who gave up his own stats to win. 

 Wilson, stuck behind Cheli, was still a beast on the blueline. I was a Norris division fan watching the hated Hawks with envy as they were thje best of a bad division. Wilson won a Norris and was a first team all star a couple of times. Lowe won the Lester Pearson humanitarian award once. 

 

 Wilson shoulda been in long ago-period. Lowe, i have no problem with the pick. Of the two, Wilson is by far the better choice.

 

I'm really not trying to crap on Lowe; like I said, I have tremendous respect for him as a player. He has 6 Cups, was a key player on 5 of those winning teams, and (according to teammates) was the adult in a room full of boys. More mature than his partying teammates and took everything very seriously. He showed up for every game perpetually in a bad mood and ready to defend his end of the ice to the death. He HATED to lose as much as anybody ever in the history of hockey: once during intermission of a game which was going badly, he threw his stick in the dressing room, and it broke off and embedded itself in the newly renovated ceiling. When his brother Ken (head athletic trainer) gave him sh|t over it, because it's just a game, Kevin was so offended that they ended up in a fist fight over it.

 

Given the changes in the game, I think that Lowe is most likely the last of a dead breed (the defense-only defenseman) to get into the Hall.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 2
      Post
      It's that time of year again: time for the Keltner Test, this time for Kevin Lowe.   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, there were always a good number of better defensemen in the league in every year of his career.   3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc) No   4. Did the pl
    • 2
      Post
      When people don't agree that Player A belongs in the HOF, a great amount of extremely heated debate often takes place. This can happen between rabid fans of that player, or even people that, while they weren’t necessarily this guy’s biggest devotee, believe he’s HOF caliber. HOF arguments are many, but generally comprise the following sorts of arguments, and are used on there own or sometimes even all at once. There are probably a million different sorts of arguments that could be made by a mill
    • 1
      Post
      quality content right here
    • 1
      Post
      @JR Ewing   As a fellow disciple of Bill James i always love your Keltner list. Looking at Lowe and Wilson i can see a lot of similarities to the Scooter/PeeWee debate that was a subject of one of his better books, Whatever happened to the Hall of fame.     Lowe didnt have spectacular numbers but was a plus/minus monster early in his career, a defensive specialist and PK god early in his career, all things that dont show up in the box score. And he won 5 cups in Edmonton and
    • 1
      Post
      Great book.     I'm really not trying to crap on Lowe; like I said, I have tremendous respect for him as a player. He has 6 Cups, was a key player on 5 of those winning teams, and (according to teammates) was the adult in a room full of boys. More mature than his partying teammates and took everything very seriously. He showed up for every game perpetually in a bad mood and ready to defend his end of the ice to the death. He HATED to lose as much as anybody ever in the history o

Game Room 1

    You don't have permission to chat.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...