today they announced the new hall of famers. glen anderson,igor larionov,(referee) scapinello and (builder)chynoweth.
on the wake of the announcement i was thinking why roggie vachon is not in the hall yet?
i think he was a great goalie in his time deserving to be in the hall. all star/vezina/stanley cup.
can someone tell me why he is not in the hall of fame,it is kind of wierd he is not in there?
I doubt he will ever be inducted because the last player of his generation got into the Hall of Fame 15 years ago. Looks like the Selection Committee forgot about him.
I was always wondering how they select, I mean the order. For instance, why Marcel Dionne being much better player overall was inducted 2 years later than Bill Barber?
I can tell you fellas 1 thing.If Clark Gillies got in then how do you keep Cicarelli,Oates,and Bure out.
Doug Gilmour is a no brianer and will be in soon.
What about Housely and Carbonneau?
I think they have potential as well.
Jon
I still can't believe that Dino Cicarelli is not in the Hall! He has 608 goals and more total points than both Bobby Hull and Mike Bossy!! What else does it take to get in!!
I also agree that Gilmour will be in the Hall one day and hopefully soon than later. I thought he would have been the third "player" to be inducted. The Hall allows a max of 4 players, 1 builder and 1 referee and/or linesman per year or a total of 6 people. They easily could have allowed for Gilmour!
Adam Oates is for sure going to the Hall - he is 15th all-time in points. For me I am 50/50 with Bure.
Phil Housely has to go in! He is 2nd all time in points by an American born player and if Joe Mullen is in then so should Phil Housely! He has more points than Norm Ulman, Jean Beliveu, Bobby Clarke and Bobby Hull!
Phil Housely - just like Mike Modano and Jeremy Roenick have to go to Hall one day!
Carbonneau I am not so sure.
Paul
This message has been edited by shiftintermedia on Jun 18, 2008 4:33 PM
I'm not sure if your statistics is proper here. Bure played 530 less games than Ciccarelli and would only need to score 26 per season in average to surpass that Ciccarelli's 608 mark.
And to compare Dino with Bossy is simply wrong. Bossy has 4 Stanley Cups, 5 awards, 8 all-star teams. What did Ciccarelli get?
"I hope I'll never live to see an induction ceremony for Claude Lemieux."
He might get in, with 4 Stanley Cups/4 different teams.
The NHL needs a lot more hard nosed players like Claude Lemieux in order to increase the excitement level.
My stats are correct! They are directly from the Hockey Hall of Fame press book I have.
Also, just because Bure could have scored more goals or more points does not mean anything. The fact is he did not score more goals due to a knee injuy and "could" have scored more - so what. Same can be said for Mario Lemieux - if Mario was not out due to cancer and Injury he would be very close to Greztky in points!!
We can debate all day about if Bure should or should not be in the Hall. I am still not 100% convinced that he sould be.
As for stating that Dine Cicarelli is better that Bossy - no I did not say that. What I said is that he scored 608 goals and has more points than Bobby Hull and Mike Bossy. What I meant was that he has the stats to go to the Hall of Fame.
I saw Pavel many times live here in Vancouver. There was no player at that time that could bring the fans out of their seats, when he began a rush at his own blue line, like Bure. That's got to count for something
You think of Bure that hign and say that Tretyak shouldn't be in the HOF????
Regardless of what anybody thinks Tretyak had bigger impact on the game than Bure or Henderson....
Ohh..Are we talking about HOF of Hockey or just HOF of NHL (or HOF of the 8 games in 72)?
I've always thought there should be some sort of enduring tribute for supremely talented but underachieving Russians (youtube is a good start).
So maybe someday there will be an "Enigmatic Russian Hockey Hall of Fame" in a place like New Sarepta, Alberta, where players like Bure can be immortalized for their skills without being chastised for their deficiencies, such as passing or backchecking.
Bure, Fedorov, Mogilny, Kovalev, and Morozov are just a few of the charter members that would pave the way for a successive host of player just like them, such as Zherdev, Kovalchuk, and Afinigenov.
This message has been edited by frozencaribou on Jun 18, 2008 11:57 PM
Thanks Nathanael for letting me start the day off with a rather large LMAO. I was wondering what that strange, faint noise was I heard last night, I do believe it was Russian profanity wafting on the breeze all the way from Texas.
I have to agree with Elmar:Tretiak is in the Hall of Fame due to his total contributions to the sport of hockey, not just for a couple of goals in the Summit Series. Henderson could be or is in the Canadian Hall of Fame but was not an elite player in the NHL and not deserving of induction in to the HHOF. As far as other players such as Oates, Gilmour and Vachon, there's no doubt in my mind that they are superior to many of the players already inducted into the Hall. I think that some of the earlier players inducted might have gotten in a little too easily. Look at the roster of the HHOF and you will see a few that might make you scratch your head. I've been a Wing's fan for years and it used to drive me nuts to see Fedorov come out in one game and be unstopable and then the next as a mediocre player. I guess that's another reason Konstantinov's accident hurt so badly. He was a warrior who came to play every game and, he, undoubtedly would have earned his way into the HHOF. That's also why it's such a joy to see Datsyuk play for the Wings. He also plays hard all the time. I think that's another consideration that you have to take into consideration when deciding whether or not a player deserves inclusion into the Hall.
Some wounds never heal on their own, it may take until 2010 before this one stops stinging.
But this thread raises an interesting topic, what the hell is the HHOF ? Is it for world hockey, the NHL, Canada ? This from their "Statement of Purpose" on their website:
"The Hockey Hall of Fame was founded in 1943 to establish a memorial to those who have developed Canada's great winter sport -- ice hockey.
Incorporated in 1983, Hockey Hall of Fame and Museum ("HHFM") exists in order to honour and preserve the history of the game of ice hockey, and in particular, those who have made outstanding contributions and achievements in the development of the game.
HHFM will collect, preserve, research, exhibit and promote all those objects, images and histories which are determined to be significant to the story of ice hockey in Canada, and throughout the world."
Note that the NHL or professional hockey is not mentioned at all. I know the damn thing is in Canada but mentioning the country twice in it's mission statement implies to me that someone who is Canadian or who has had an impact on hockey in this country should be given special consideration. So it seems to me that:
(a) all of you that are getting caught up in statistics, particularly NHL statistics, are missing the mark; and
(b) Paul Henderson HAS to be in there.
Other conclusions can certainly be drawn but those are the two that occurred to me first.
You are entitled to have an opinion which doesn't make you an expert.
You are missing a point or 2, but I'll keep my mouth shut (you'll stick to your opinion, you make your posts to sound like irrefutable facts anyway).
Because you think that you are the center of yhe universe and are listening to yourself only...
I will survive without your apologies. If you "As usual" "have no idea what the hell I am talking about" then simply avoid making comments like "Russian profanity" and do not refer to me in any way in this forum in future.
That should not be a problem. I would suggest though that if you do have an opinion on something you shouldn't be afraid to share it, it's what places like this are for; I mean, honestly, disagreeing with someone and then not providing anything of value to the conversation in support of your view because "you'll (just) stick to your opinion (anyway)" sounds like something an 8 year old would say.
First time poster here. Didn't know this forum existed.
There have been some very HOF worthy players mentioned in this thread. Much, much better players than Clark Gillies, Rod Langway, Bill Barber, Steve Shutt, Dick Duff and a few other guys that have been inducted in the last several years. The Hockey HOF is pretty much a joke.
Thanks. I'll try to be more positive from now on.<g>
Bit strong to call the Hockey HOF a joke when the games best are in fact in there.
Personally, I think Vachon should be there but history seems to show that goaltenders have long been ignored. Lorne Chabot should get hall consideration as well.
Oates should have been a first ballot player. Just look at the prolific goal scorers that owe their numbers to this man.
Phil Housley? No way, no how. Just a real bad defensemen.
If you collect HOFer rookies be sure to nab your Yzerman, Leetch, Hull, and Robitaille because they're all going in next June.
Sure there's a lot of great players in the Hall. There should only be great players in a Hall of Fame. There are just way too many good players in there like the guys I mentioned in my first post. Bob Pulford? Jacques Laperriere? Come on.
For pre-war vintage cards, I can see how the HOF designation elevates collectability and price. Often you will see auctions with the HOF moniker as a selling point. It makes sense, as many people collecting pre-war vintage don't have the first person association with the players in question, and the HOF designation clearly deliniates that player from others.
Back in the early Beckett days in the mid-eighties, HOF would appear next to the names in the price guide. Also, if a player won an MVP award in 1961, then his listed card for that year would have MVP beside it. I have never seen this link from performance in a year to increased value for that years cards in real life, but it is interesting to think that at one time collectors were that specific.
In contemporary collecting terms (70's to present), I think it no longer matters whether a player is in the NHL hall of fame or not. Value has already been established, and the HOF designation is not even a consideration in price. People don't rush out to buy Bill Barber cards, even if he's in the Hall. Maybe in 75 years it will matter in the way it matters now to us for pre-war players, so investing in known HOF players now probably is a sound investment over time.
I think the only thing that drives prices now is the combination of manufacturer, condition and scarcity. Look at all the forgettable players that, in a psa 8 or 9 case, are worth thousands in the right sets. 54-55 topps- I can buy a Howe 8 for $2500, or I could buy a Larry Popien 8. Hmm.
The point is, the actual player depicted on the card is becoming more and more incidental in the post-war vintage card market to the manufacturer, condition, and scarcity of the card.
I didn't mean to pick on Bill Barber. It was just to illustrate that in contemporary terms, people make their own decisions about value largely independant of HOF status.
And, by the way, I think Larry Robinson is undervalued (mostly because I'm a Habs fan).
A lot of investors buy HOF'ers because of the holder they're in. It doesn't matter who the player is. It's a pretty good bet that the guy didn't spend $400 because it was Barber. He spent it on the 9.
Good comments, it's getting crowded here at the center of the universe, ha-ha. I just wanted to say that I agree with Robinson being undervalued and I'm a Bruins fan(atic) so there. But I think (note: the following is opinion only and any resemblance to irrefutable fact should be considered incidental) that defensemen are in general undervalued with a few notable exceptions (mostly Bruins now that I think of it although I admit I am biased).
