How did Sundin get selected while Shanahan was snubbed?
June 28 2012, 10:36 AM
I am surprised at some suggestions and even outrage (see Ken Campbell article in the Hockey News) that is out there regarding Sundin getting in and Shanahan not. I believe Shanahan deserves to be there and have a harder time understanding why Bure and Oates got in ahead of him. The no Stanley cup argument is meaningless. Should Marcel Dionne or Jean Ratelle and others have their memberships in the hall revoked? For me what makes the difference for why Sundin before Shanahan is and feel free to debate this question. How many GM's would have been willing to trade the players one for one as a straight hockey deal?
I would not trade Sundin for Shanahan. Would you?
P.S. Yes Mike Milbury would have made the trade and thrown in several high picks and high end prospects.
Just comparing the two players head to head they have similar points totals with Shanahan having played more games. The reasons that I thought other than Sakic he was the other lock to be selected is 650+ goals and 3 Stanley Cup rings. He should have been a first ballot hall of famer.
While I agree that Shanahan should have gotten in. I believe it wrong to compare stats and cups as the sole criteria. On many of the teams Shanahan played for he was at times the third or fourth best player on the team. Lidstrom, Yzerman, Hasek and company were a wee bit better supporting cast for collecting points and championships than what Sundin had to work with. It would of been nice to see what would have been if Sundin had a winger like Shanahan beside him and a defenceman like Lidstrom feeding the two of them.
It is called the hall of FAME. Not the hall of rings or stats. While both of those aspects are important to evaluating a players career I believe they get in for only two reasons. 1st reason...... How were they perceived by everyone involved in the game? The owners, players coaches writers and last but not least the fans. Sundin stood out on a no name team with limited talent at best. He was admired or vilified by all. Love him or hate him you knew who he was and who he played for. Isn't that the hallmark of fame? The second reason is because he was a Leaf and all Leafs should be in the HALL OF Fame..... Is my team bias showing?
The problem with "perception" is that it isn't usually accurate. Every couple of years, some new player gets a following based on hype. Before he ever plays his first game, his rookie card soars in value and fans/sportswriters will call him the next Gretzky. Many of these players go on to have very disappointing careers due to all of the hype and expectations surrounding them.
The players who live up to their hype, or exceed everyone's expectations, are the ones who should be in the HOF. Many times, stats do play a big part of measuring their career. We have all seen players who were amazing leaders for their team or team players who didn't necessarily have the best stat line, but were still instrumental to their team's success, but stats certainly play a big part of this.
I agree that Mats Sundin was a stand-out player on a mediocre team. That alone shows his greatness, but I remember how great Shanahan could be also. Maybe being a Red Wings fan, I was more aware of him during his years in Detroit. But I was always a fan of his. Either way, I'm not disappointed to see Sundin get in.
I will be extremely disappointed if Lindros ever gets in though!