...it wouldn't be troubled by arguments like the one raised by Eric Duhatschek at GlobeSports.com.
Noting that Bruins' legend Cam Neely was admitted to the Hall last year, Duhatschek suggests that Eric Lindros is having a Hall of Fame career...
Neely was, at times, a dominant physical presence, but he didn't win a Stanley Cup and he didn't win a scoring title, or a major award. Now, compare Neely's stats to another 13-year veteran who was, at times, a dominant physical presence, but has also endured a star-crossed, injury-riddled career. We are talking, of course, about one Eric Lindros, who has undergone something of a renaissance in the early season with the Dallas Stars, his fourth NHL team.
Duhatschek goes on to make a convincing case. But it's not based on Lindros' merits as a player or his impact on the game. It's based on the fact that a man with similar credentials - Neely - already has a plaque under the dome on Yonge Street.
That's the sort of debate the Hockey Hall of Fame has brought on itself by welcoming too many B-list members.
A good-to-occasionally-great player like Eric Lindros is not Hall of Fame material. But if Neely is the standard, how can he be denied? Joining the Hall this year is Dick Duff, who averaged half-a-point per game over his career. So why not a plaque for Bernie Nicholls, who doubled that output?
Duff's record looks good because he won Stanley Cups, while Nicholls did not. But if Duff had spent his entire career (1952 to 1972) with the Rangers, he would have retired without winning a championship. Yet he surely would have been the same player.
If you would rather use personal statistics as the yardstick, how come Dino Ciccarelli and Glenn Anderson remain on the outside, when their numbers are comparable to those of Joey Mullen? Why is Clark Gillies in and Dave Taylor out?
A Hall of Fame that took itself seriously would exclude all of the above, and would maintain more appropriate standards by admitting no more than two players every year (the current maximum is four).
The Class of 2006 will be inducted on Monday. It includes two players, Patrick Roy and the aforementioned Dick Duff. Roy is an easy choice. Duff must be a really nice guy.
Comments
I agree with your general point, and await the admission of dubious american players in the next 10 years for political reasons. I would also place an asterix by eric lindros – his career could last a while longer,, he could yet win the stanley cup, his ppg is still amazing.
However, 2 per year? Patrick Roy, Ron Francis, Stevie Yzerman, Mark messier, brett hull etc. await, with more on the way. Youd have a big backlog, even if you only stuck to men who played in the nhl – which you certainly shouldnt.
the really silly categories are builders and media – yeesh
Stricter limits on admission might create a backlog of great players trying to get in. But isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be? Shouldn’t something called a “Hall of Fame” be extremely hard to get into, with tough choices and plenty of competition for very few spots? If someone like Ron Francis had to wait a few years before he finally squeezed in, the HHOF would be an institution worth taking seriously.
In any case, the looming backlog of strong candidates – Messier, Francis, Hull, Yzerman, MacInnis, etc. – is an exception. They would all get in eventually, because there will be other years when the field is weaker.
From the current Hall, I’d say you could pick 50 or 60 marginal members and toss them aside, replacing them with maybe 20 top-notch European candidates. Then you would have a more exclusive HHOF, but also one with a more well-rounded membership.
How about 2 per year for NHL players, and 1 or 2 from among women, non-NHLers?
One of the problems is reducing it to a particular number. Use the Oscars as an example – how many times does someone get an award who doesn’t deserve it, and how many times does one person get best actor when two or three deserve it? Likewise with the Hockey Hall of Fame. Reducing it to “allow x number to enter per year” has nothing to do with whether someone deserves to enter or not. It ignores standards by changing the determinant to enter the HHOF to numbers instead of abilities, track record, etc., and that’s a fundamental error, imo and subverts the whole idea of the HHOF.