Hockey Hall of Fame - Class of 2011 - Your Call

[eva unit zero 271]

No, I know. But most comments I have read elsewhere have been tearing the Nieuwendyk selection apart.

I was a little too young when Howe was in his prime to really comment on his selection.

Nieuwendyk was better than Gilmour.

Also, he fits in well on this list: Brett Hull, Mike Gartner, Bobby Hull, Dino Ciccarelli, Mike Bossy, Joe Nieuwendyk. The only five players in NHL history who have scored 1000 points and still have more goals than assists.

However, Sergei Makarov deserved the selection ahead of either of them. If any of the four should realistically be bumped for Makarov, it should be Gilmour. And then you have to factor in Oates vs Nieuwendyk.

I don't agree with Belfour in before Barrasso. They had remarkably similar careers in terms of achievement, offset by a few years. This is highlighted for Red Wings fans, of course, by the fact that Barrasso won a Calder ahead of Yzerman and won the Vezina in 1983-84, while Belfour pulled the same trophy combo in Fedorov's rookie year of 1990-91.

[egroen 384]

Nieuwendyk was better than Gilmour.

Also, he fits in well on this list: Brett Hull, Mike Gartner, Bobby Hull, Dino Ciccarelli, Mike Bossy, Joe Nieuwendyk. The only five players in NHL history who have scored 1000 points and still have more goals than assists.

However, Sergei Makarov deserved the selection ahead of either of them. If any of the four should realistically be bumped for Makarov, it should be Gilmour. And then you have to factor in Oates vs Nieuwendyk.

I don't agree with Belfour in before Barrasso. They had remarkably similar careers in terms of achievement, offset by a few years. This is highlighted for Red Wings fans, of course, by the fact that Barrasso won a Calder ahead of Yzerman and won the Vezina in 1983-84, while Belfour pulled the same trophy combo in Fedorov's rookie year of 1990-91.

Joe N. never once finished in the Top 10 in points in his career. He played best as a 2nd line center and was never thought of as a Top 25 player in the game. Gilmour, for at least a two year stretch, was considered a top forward in the world. Joe had one good (not great) playoff run, but not that could compete with Gilmour. Joe was a decent all-around player but Gilmour was a Selke candidate. I fail to see any logical argument for Joe N. over Gilmour.

Agree on Makarov and that Barrasso is long overdue. It's a shame when maybe the 30th best forward from an era is now getting in before a Top 5 goalie. The standards for defensemen and especially goalies are admirably stringent for the HHoF, but they just make some head-scratching inductions when it comes to forwards.

I think Desjardins was a much better player than Joe N, for example, but most do not even consider Desjardins for the Hall, largely because you don't have "lowering of the bar" inductions like Neely, Gartner, Gilles, Ciccarreli, etc. at the defenseman position.

Cheevers and Murphy are the weakest goalie and defenseman inductions in forever, and they are much better players than a lot of the forwards we see inducted.

Edited June 30, 2011 by egroen

[eva unit zero 271]

Joe N. never once finished in the Top 10 in points in his career. He played best as a 2nd line center and was never thought of as a Top 25 player in the game. Gilmour, for at least a two year stretch, was considered a top forward in the world. Joe had one good (not great) playoff run, but not that could compete with Gilmour. Joe was a decent all-around player but Gilmour was a Selke candidate. I fail to see any logical argument for Joe N. over Gilmour.

Agree on Makarov and that Barrasso is long overdue. It's a shame when maybe the 30th best forward from an era is now getting in before a Top 5 goalie. The standards for defensemen and especially goalies are admirably stringent for the HHoF, but they just make some head-scratching inductions when it comes to forwards.

I think Desjardins was a much better player than Joe N, for example, but most do not even consider Desjardins for the Hall, largely because you don't have "lowering of the bar" inductions like Neely, Gartner, Gilles, Ciccarreli, etc. at the defenseman position.

Cheevers and Murphy are the weakest goalie and defenseman inductions in forever, and they are much better players than a lot of the forwards we see inducted.

Gartner is a lowering of the bar? A player with a nineteen year career who averaged 37 goals per season is lowering the bar? What the f*** kind of crack are you on? He didn't score a ton of points, sure. Because he was always the only skilled player on his team.

As for Gilmour vs Nieuwendyk, both players were afterthoughts for pretty much their entire career when it came down to picking the league's elite centers. Both had two years when they made a challenging run at being named to an All-Star Team. So the only actual achievement is Nieuwendyk's Conn Smythe.

[MacK_Attack 108]

As for Gilmour vs Nieuwendyk, both players were afterthoughts for pretty much their entire career when it came down to picking the league's elite centers. Both had two years when they made a challenging run at being named to an All-Star Team. So the only actual achievement is Nieuwendyk's Conn Smythe.

So 127 points while winning the Selke isn't an achievement?

Gilmour was a Hart Trophy runner-up in a year that many felt he should have beat Gretzky.

The only thing Gilmour and Nieuwendyk are guilty of is playing the prime of their careers at the same time as Gretzky & Lemieux.

[toby91_ca 620]

Gartner is a lowering of the bar? A player with a nineteen year career who averaged 37 goals per season is lowering the bar? What the f*** kind of crack are you on? He didn't score a ton of points, sure. Because he was always the only skilled player on his team.

I can understand where he is coming from. I've never, ever seen Gartner as a star player....but at the end of his career, he's sitting at 6th all time in goals scored. With that stat, he's an automatic hall of famer, but if you ignore the goals (I know you can't), he doesn't have much at all. For a guy who was always the only skilled player on his team, he only led his team in scoring 3 seasons out of his total of 19. In those 3 leading seasons, he lead the second leading scorer on his team by a grand total of 13pts (or an average of 4pts per year).

[egroen 384]

I can understand where he is coming from. I've never, ever seen Gartner as a star player....but at the end of his career, he's sitting at 6th all time in goals scored. With that stat, he's an automatic hall of famer, but if you ignore the goals (I know you can't), he doesn't have much at all. For a guy who was always the only skilled player on his team, he only led his team in scoring 3 seasons out of his total of 19. In those 3 leading seasons, he lead the second leading scorer on his team by a grand total of 13pts (or an average of 4pts per year).

Gartner is the king of compilers, and while his career numbers are high enough that I really so not have much of a problem seeing him in the HHoF, he was never a post-season all star, finished 10th in league scoring once at his best and never had a great playoff run. It lowered the bar simply because most of your other career scorers at least have a season or 2 where they were considered a Top 10 player, or at least forward, in the game - Gartner was more like a Top 30 forward, with little outside of speed and offense. His induction opened it up to the rest of the compilers who happened to play a long time in a high scoring era, without ever really having much of a peak to speak of. It's not Gartner I have a problem with, it's the ones who followed him, most recently Nieuwendyk.

I'm not sure I would consider Nieuwendyk a Top 30 forward in his own era - it just seems for forwards at least, it is becoming the Hall of Very Good.

[eva unit zero 271]

So 127 points while winning the Selke isn't an achievement?

Gilmour was a Hart Trophy runner-up in a year that many felt he should have beat Gretzky.

The only thing Gilmour and Nieuwendyk are guilty of is playing the prime of their careers at the same time as Gretzky & Lemieux.

He did beat Gretzky. Gretzky only played 45 games that season. And anyone who felt he should have beaten Lemieux was stupid, because Lemieux scored 160 points in 60 games to lead his team to the President's Trophy. Only one first place vote didn't go to Lemieux; it went to LaFontaine. Lemieux had the other 49 first-place votes and one second place vote. Nobody who actually voted thought Gilmour deserved the Hart more than Lemieux. Not one person. You were technically right about Gilmour over Gretzky; Gretzky didn't receive any votes because he missed 39 games.

I can understand where he is coming from. I've never, ever seen Gartner as a star player....but at the end of his career, he's sitting at 6th all time in goals scored. With that stat, he's an automatic hall of famer, but if you ignore the goals (I know you can't), he doesn't have much at all. For a guy who was always the only skilled player on his team, he only led his team in scoring 3 seasons out of his total of 19. In those 3 leading seasons, he lead the second leading scorer on his team by a grand total of 13pts (or an average of 4pts per year).

Gartner is the king of compilers, and while his career numbers are high enough that I really so not have much of a problem seeing him in the HHoF, he was never a post-season all star, finished 10th in league scoring once at his best and never had a great playoff run. It lowered the bar simply because most of your other career scorers at least have a season or 2 where they were considered a Top 10 player, or at least forward, in the game - Gartner was more like a Top 30 forward, with little outside of speed and offense. His induction opened it up to the rest of the compilers who happened to play a long time in a high scoring era, without ever really having much of a peak to speak of. It's not Gartner I have a problem with, it's the ones who followed him, most recently Nieuwendyk.

I'm not sure I would consider Nieuwendyk a Top 30 forward in his own era - it just seems for forwards at least, it is becoming the Hall of Very Good.

Johnny Bucyk was the king of the compilers before Gartner ever came around. He retired fourth all-time in goals despite never really having been a star. He holds the Bruins record for goals and retired holding the marks for assists and points as well. He was inducted in 1981, and his number was retired by Boston in 1978 when he retired. He was a good scorer, not great, until he started playing with Phil Esposito in Boston. Makes you wonder what Gartner could have done in his prime with a top center, doesn't it?

I wouldn't call Nieuwendyk a compiler. His numbers at the end of his career, mainly after his injuries in the mid-90s, were much worse than his numbers earlier on. Gilmour fits the "compiler" profile more than Nieuwendyk does. Regardless of that, I would have selected Oates and Makarov ahead of them.

[egroen 384]

He did beat Gretzky. Gretzky only played 45 games that season. And anyone who felt he should have beaten Lemieux was stupid, because Lemieux scored 160 points in 60 games to lead his team to the President's Trophy. Only one first place vote didn't go to Lemieux; it went to LaFontaine. Lemieux had the other 49 first-place votes and one second place vote. Nobody who actually voted thought Gilmour deserved the Hart more than Lemieux. Not one person. You were technically right about Gilmour over Gretzky; Gretzky didn't receive any votes because he missed 39 games.

Johnny Bucyk was the king of the compilers before Gartner ever came around. He retired fourth all-time in goals despite never really having been a star. He holds the Bruins record for goals and retired holding the marks for assists and points as well. He was inducted in 1981, and his number was retired by Boston in 1978 when he retired. He was a good scorer, not great, until he started playing with Phil Esposito in Boston. Makes you wonder what Gartner could have done in his prime with a top center, doesn't it?

I wouldn't call Nieuwendyk a compiler. His numbers at the end of his career, mainly after his injuries in the mid-90s, were much worse than his numbers earlier on. Gilmour fits the "compiler" profile more than Nieuwendyk does. Regardless of that, I would have selected Oates and Makarov ahead of them.

Bucyk, like Francis, was definitely a compiler - but these guys at least had a prime where they were talked about as Top 20, even Top 10 forwards. Gartner clearly lacks that.

Bucyk finished Top 10 in the league for points 6 times (as high as 3rd) while Gartner did once (10th).

I don't really have a problem with Gartner being in, but I think it gave an excuse to get in a lot of unworthy candidates - most recently Nieuwendyk.

[eva unit zero 271]

Bucyk, like Francis, was definitely a compiler - but these guys at least had a prime where they were talked about as Top 20, even Top 10 forwards. Gartner clearly lacks that.

Bucyk finished Top 10 in the league for points 6 times (as high as 3rd) while Gartner did once (10th).

I don't really have a problem with Gartner being in, but I think it gave an excuse to get in a lot of unworthy candidates - most recently Nieuwendyk.

Bucyk finished in the top ten twice during the O6 days, and four times during the 12-team days. The last four he also was playing on a line with Phil Esposito and in front of Bobby Orr.

But that stuff aside; I still don't understand how you put Nieuwendyk as a compiler. He was a very good scoring center who ran into some injury troubles that cut short his prime. Nieuwendyk is more like Neely than Gartner, except unlike Neely, Nieuwendyk scored over 500 goals and over 1100 points.