2013 HHOF Inductees

[Justin]

All this hall of fame hoopla lately has raised the question of who will be inducted in 2013.

First time eligibility:
Rob Blake
Scott Niedermayer
Chris Chelios
Rod Brind'Amour
Paul Kariya
Keith Tkachuk
Owen Nolan

Has already been eligible:
Eric Lindros
Brendan Shanahan
Jeremy Roenick
Markus Naslund
Dave Andreychuk
Theoren Fleury
Vincent Damphousse
Alexander Mogilny
John LeClair
Pierre Turgeon
Paul Henderson
Guy Carbonneau
Phil Housley
Tom Barrasso
Curtis Joseph

---

Niedermayer is a shoo-in, Rob Blake will most likely get in, but it's pretty hard to predict after  that. Chelios had some seriously great seasons in the 80's and 90's, Lindros was the best player in the world for a short time, Curtis Joseph is 4th all time in wins, and Roenick had a good long career. Do they deserve to get in the HHOF though? Who knows. For me, they're all borderline.

I know everyone is clamoring for Shanahan but he's wildly overrated. Despite getting 1354 points  his career PPG is only 0.89 which puts him outside of the top 115 all time, with dignitaries such as Alexei Zhamnov, Tom Lysiak, John Ogrodnick, Rick MacLeish, Brian Propp, and Paul MacLean ahead of him. Shanahan only eclipsed 100 points once, 90 points twice, and 80 points four times in his career. He never won any individual awards (other than the Clancy for leadership), and he was never even the best player on any of teams. He doesn't deserve to be in the HHOF plain and simple.

I also wish the hall would elect Paul Henderson already, who scored the most important goal in Canadian hockey history and created one of the most important moments in Canadian history in general. Herb Brooks was elected to the HHOF, and aside from coaching the 1980 US Olympic team, he didn't accomplish much of anything. Under that precedent Henderson HAS to make it in. Let's please not wait until he dies to inevitably induct him posthumously.

If it were up to me this year's inductions would go to Niedermayer, Blake, Henderson, and obviously Pat Burns.

 

[maplesyrup]

Nieds and Chelios for sure.

Edit: grammar (had two "ands" there.)  :-[

 

[Kin]

I think Chelios is the only real shoe-in. I don't know what the argument would be for Niedermayer or Blake over him. He won 3 Norris Trophies, which is more than Niedermayer and Blake combined, was named to 7 end of year all-star teams(4 each for Niedermayer and Blake) and played well internationally. He won three Stanley Cups. What in the world is the argument against him?

I'd go with Niedermayer also, as well as Lindros and Pat Burns.

I know everyone is clamoring for Shanahan but he's wildly overrated. Despite getting 1354 points  his career PPG is only 0.89 which puts him outside of the top 115 all time, with dignitaries such as Alexei Zhamnov, Tom Lysiak, John Ogrodnick, Rick MacLeish, Brian Propp, and Paul MacLean ahead of him. Shanahan only eclipsed 100 points once, 90 points twice, and 80 points four times in his career. He never won any individual awards (other than the Clancy for leadership), and he was never even the best player on any of teams. He doesn't deserve to be in the HHOF plain and simple.

I think that's wrong on a number of levels. I'm not a big Shanahan booster but I think you're being a little unfair to him. It's impossible to look at his numbers and not see the divide of the clutch and grab era from the earlier years. Just looking at PPG and comparing him to lesser lights from the 70's and 80's is as unfair as saying that Mats Sundin's career PPG is lower than Pierre Larouche, Ziggy Palffy and Tim Kerr. Shanahan's prime was in an era with artificially lowered scoring.

More than that though, anyone who saw Shanahan play knows that a ton of his value came from the physicality and grit he brought to a team, and not just his raw offense. He's legitimately one of the top 10 power forwards in the history of the game.

As for the "best player on his team" argument I think you need to keep two things in mind. One, it's not really true as he was the best player on a lot of his Hartford, St. Louis and New Jersey teams. Secondly, it's a pretty unfair benchmark when he's playing on a team with all-time historic greats like Yzerman, Lidstrom and Fedorov. Shanahan shouldn't get undue credit for being on a great team but he shouldn't be penalized for the fact that he played with great players either. I think he's behind the guys I listed but there's a ton of guys in the Hall of Fame that Shanahan is better than.

I also wish the hall would elect Paul Henderson already, who scored the most important goal in Canadian hockey history and created one of the most important moments in Canadian history in general. Herb Brooks was elected to the HHOF, and aside from coaching the 1980 US Olympic team, he didn't accomplish much of anything. Under that precedent Henderson HAS to make it in. Let's please not wait until he dies to inevitably induct him posthumously.

The problem with that argument is that it's not the Canadian Hockey Hall of Fame. Well, that and you're being unfair to Herb Brooks. He did win three national titles in the NCAA, a Silver medal in Salt Lake and spent thirty years or so in the NHL as a coach, scout and executive. That's not nothing.

I think the argument for Paul Henderson has to be seen similarly to the never-made argument for Petr Svoboda. Both are players who had long but relatively undistinguished NHL careers and both guys scored important international goals(Svoboda scoring the only goal in the Czech's 1-0 gold medal win in Nagano). The only reason to favor Henderson over Svoboda is that you somehow think that
Henderson's goal is more important than Svoboda's which, I'm sure, is true if you're Canadian but probably less so if you're Czech. Looked at objectively, I don't think you can elect a guy on the basis of one goal if the rest of his career doesn't measure up.

 

[Justin]

I think Chelios is the only real shoe-in. I don't know what the argument would be for Niedermayer or Blake over him. He won 3 Norris Trophies, which is more than Niedermayer and Blake combined, was named to 7 end of year all-star teams(4 each for Niedermayer and Blake) and played well internationally. He won three Stanley Cups. What in the world is the argument against him?

I'd go with Niedermayer also, as well as Lindros and Pat Burns.

I know everyone is clamoring for Shanahan but he's wildly overrated. Despite getting 1354 points  his career PPG is only 0.89 which puts him outside of the top 115 all time, with dignitaries such as Alexei Zhamnov, Tom Lysiak, John Ogrodnick, Rick MacLeish, Brian Propp, and Paul MacLean ahead of him. Shanahan only eclipsed 100 points once, 90 points twice, and 80 points four times in his career. He never won any individual awards (other than the Clancy for leadership), and he was never even the best player on any of teams. He doesn't deserve to be in the HHOF plain and simple.

I think that's wrong on a number of levels. I'm not a big Shanahan booster but I think you're being a little unfair to him. It's impossible to look at his numbers and not see the divide of the clutch and grab era from the earlier years. Just looking at PPG and comparing him to lesser lights from the 70's and 80's is as unfair as saying that Mats Sundin's career PPG is lower than Pierre Larouche, Ziggy Palffy and Tim Kerr. Shanahan's prime was in an era with artificially lowered scoring.

More than that though, anyone who saw Shanahan play knows that a ton of his value came from the physicality and grit he brought to a team, and not just his raw offense. He's legitimately one of the top 10 power forwards in the history of the game.

As for the "best player on his team" argument I think you need to keep two things in mind. One, it's not really true as he was the best player on a lot of his Hartford, St. Louis and New Jersey teams. Secondly, it's a pretty unfair benchmark when he's playing on a team with all-time historic greats like Yzerman, Lidstrom and Fedorov. Shanahan shouldn't get undue credit for being on a great team but he shouldn't be penalized for the fact that he played with great players either. I think he's behind the guys I listed but there's a ton of guys in the Hall of Fame that Shanahan is better than.

I also wish the hall would elect Paul Henderson already, who scored the most important goal in Canadian hockey history and created one of the most important moments in Canadian history in general. Herb Brooks was elected to the HHOF, and aside from coaching the 1980 US Olympic team, he didn't accomplish much of anything. Under that precedent Henderson HAS to make it in. Let's please not wait until he dies to inevitably induct him posthumously.

The problem with that argument is that it's not the Canadian Hockey Hall of Fame. Well, that and you're being unfair to Herb Brooks. He did win three national titles in the NCAA, a Silver medal in Salt Lake and spent thirty years or so in the NHL as a coach, scout and executive. That's not nothing.

I think the argument for Paul Henderson has to be seen similarly to the never-made argument for Petr Svoboda. Both are players who had long but relatively undistinguished NHL careers and both guys scored important international goals(Svoboda scoring the only goal in the Czech's 1-0 gold medal win in Nagano). The only reason to favor Henderson over Svoboda is that you somehow think that
Henderson's goal is more important than Svoboda's which, I'm sure, is true if you're Canadian but probably less so if you're Czech. Looked at objectively, I don't think you can elect a guy on the basis of one goal if the rest of his career doesn't measure up.

You have me at Chelios, who was essentially a 6th defensemen when I started watching hockey 10 years ago. I never saw the real Chelios. I'll agree with you there but other than that I fail to see your point of view. 

Shanahan was never the best player on his team (except 1 year on a horrible Hartford team). In New Jersey Kirk Muller and John Maclean outscored him ever year he was there, in St. Louis Brett Hull was the #1 guy. I have a hard time elected a player to the hall who was in the shadow of other players his whole career. Shanahan's playoff numbers are also less than stellar to say the least. And since when did players get inducted for the "physicality and grit" they brought? Cam Neely is the exception, not the rule. The HHOF is for the greatest players of an era and the all-time greats, not .89 guys who played second fiddle their whole career like Shanahan.

As for Herb Brooks, since when did coaches get elected for NCAA championships? It's never been done. He also had a losing record as an NHL coach and never made it past the 2nd round of the playoffs. He was inducted because of the 1980 win. As I said before, you have to elect Henderson under that precedent.

 

[Kin]

You have me at Chelios, who was essentially a 6th defensemen when I started watching hockey 10 years ago. I never saw the real Chelios. I'll agree with you there but other than that I fail to see your point of view.

That's a little unfair to the later years of Chelios' career. He was essentially a top pairing guy until the lock-out in 04(and a first team all NHL defenseman in 01-02) and even after the lockout he was a pretty important part of their defense. As late as 06-07 he was their #5 defenseman in terms of ice time but #1 in short-handed ice-time. Not impressive at a glance, maybe, but he was 45 years old.

Shanahan was never the best player on his team (except 1 year on a horrible Hartford team). In New Jersey Kirk Muller and John Maclean outscored him ever year he was there, in St. Louis Brett Hull was the #1 guy. I have a hard time elected a player to the hall who was in the shadow of other players his whole career.

It seems like you're essentialy using a double standard here. On the one hand, Shanahan wasn't the best player in New Jersey because he wasn't the leading scorer but in other years where he was his team's leading scorer(Detroit in 96-97 and 01-02, St. Louis in 93-94) he still somehow doesn't qualify as those teams' best player.

Whether or not Brett Hull was his team's "#1 guy" as you put it, Shanahan in most of his years in St. Louis  scored basically at the exact same rate but was the far more well-rounded and complete player. A player is more than just his point totals and Shanahan was definitely the better player in those years.

Shanahan's playoff numbers are also less than stellar to say the least. And since when did players get inducted for the "physicality and grit" they brought? Cam Neely is the exception, not the rule. The HHOF is for the greatest players of an era and the all-time greats, not .89 guys who played second fiddle their whole career like Shanahan.

Again, a player can't just be summed up by their point totals or their PPG. Especially not their PPG without context. Especially not a guy like Shanahan whose value is especially poorly summed up via point totals because of everything else he contributed. In theory, the HHOF should be looking at the totality of a player's value and contributions and not just point totals, otherwise they could get the nutty idea that Jason Spezza is a better player than Mats Sundin.

As for Herb Brooks, since when did coaches get elected for NCAA championships? It's never been done. He also had a losing record as an NHL coach and never made it past the 2nd round of the playoffs. He was inducted because of the 1980 win. As I said before, you have to elect Henderson under that precedent.

Regarding Herb Brooks, I just think it's important not to write off 30 years in the NHL and building one of the best NCAA programs as "not accomplishing much of anything". Especially when you add in the other Silver medal. When the HHOF inducts someone it's on the basis of their entire body of work and everything is considered.

But as I said, I'd use Petr Svoboda as a better comparison for Henderson than I would Brooks. If the guy responsible for the "most important" goal in Canadian hockey goes in, does Svoboda for the most important goal in Czech history? Then do we look at who has the most important goal in Swedish history? Russian? German? Do Mike Eruzione and Jim Craig go in?

The HHOF isn't a court and they're not beholden to precedent. If they were, every hockey player who was better than Clark Gillies would have a case to go in. They make mistakes some times and they're not obligated to rectify those mistakes by being more inclusive. I don't know if electing Brooks was a mistake exactly, the 1980 gold medal is a more impressive accomplishment than Henderson's goal in my books, but it doesn't necessarily equal anyone who had a big moment in international hockey getting into the Hall of Fame.

 

[hap_leaf]

Henderson deserves to be in the Hall and should be included based on the 1972 Summit Series alone. 

He is an average player and that is entirely the point. 

He elevated his game in what must have been the most important part of his hockey career for this series.  Playing against the Russians and representing Canada was such an honour for him that he played at levels unheard of, matching the series lead for goals (7) with Esposito and Yakushev.  He inspired a nation, and won the series...one we still talk about 40 years later.   

If ever there was an exception made for a player to enter the Hall for a very specific story...it should be Paul Henderson.  It's a story that should inspire young hockey players that anything is possible.  Every kid visiting the Hall should have a chance to comprehend how this very average player somehow became a household name. 

 

[Kin]

He elevated his game in what must have been the most important part of his hockey career for this series.  Playing against the Russians and representing Canada was such an honour for him that he played at levels unheard of, matching the series lead for goals (7) with Esposito and Yakushev.  He inspired a nation, and won the series...one we still talk about 40 years later.   

If ever there was an exception made for a player to enter the Hall for a very specific story...it should be Paul Henderson.  It's a story that should inspire young hockey players that anything is possible.  Every kid visiting the Hall should have a chance to comprehend how this very average player somehow became a household name.

Again, it's not the Canadian Hockey Hall of Fame. Paul Henderson is not a household name anywhere but Canada and I've never heard a single non-Canadian talk about the summit series unprompted. Paul Henderson is in the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame which is an institution that should consider his particular importance to Canada.

And it's not like the story of the '72 Summit series, including Henderson's contribution, can't be told in the HHOF without inducting Henderson. It can be acknowledged, even celebrated, without necessitating that a mediocre player be enshrined along with Gretzky, Beliveau and Howe. The HHOF should be about rewarding greatness, not arbitrarily judging who has the best "story".

 

[drummond]

Andreychuk deserves to be there, if for nothing else, no-one else scored more power play goals than he did. 5th most games played in NHL history with 1639, 14th most goals scored in NHL history with 640 and 27th in league history with 1,338 points.

I would also consider Alex Mogilny. Won Olympic, Worlds as well as the Cup. 6 times in All Stars game, twice made the NHL All Stars team, 8 season with 30+goals, scored 50 goals in 46 games, first Russian ever to be a NHL captain, 2nd best Russian of all the times. And most of all he would make the most funny speech  8)

 

[OldTimeHockey]

And it's not like the story of the '72 Summit series, including Henderson's contribution, can't be told in the HHOF without inducting Henderson. It can be acknowledged, even celebrated, without necessitating that a mediocre player be enshrined along with Gretzky, Beliveau and Howe. The HHOF should be about rewarding greatness, not arbitrarily judging who has the best "story".

As if you worked there or something:

http://www.hhof.com/htmlNewsPromo/news.shtml

1972 Summit Series
40th Anniversary Tribute

For a limited time only, guests can relive the most famous series in all of hockey. Located in the Esso Theatre, this special 40th anniversary display pays tribute to the 1972 Summit Series between Team Canada and the Soviet Union. Plus, relive the epic series through archival film and video footage on the Esso Theatre?s large projection screen .
Among the artifacts on display are:

Stick used by Paul Henderson to score the game-winning goal in the eighth and deciding game
Pants worn by Soviet goaltender Vladislav Tretiak throughout the series
Stick used by Peter Mahovlich to score a brilliant, short-handed goal in the series' second game
For more on the 1972 Summit Series check out the Hockey Hall of Fame Time Capsule.

 

[Justin]

You have me at Chelios, who was essentially a 6th defensemen when I started watching hockey 10 years ago. I never saw the real Chelios. I'll agree with you there but other than that I fail to see your point of view.

That's a little unfair to the later years of Chelios' career. He was essentially a top pairing guy until the lock-out in 04(and a first team all NHL defenseman in 01-02) and even after the lockout he was a pretty important part of their defense. As late as 06-07 he was their #5 defenseman in terms of ice time but #1 in short-handed ice-time. Not impressive at a glance, maybe, but he was 45 years old.

Shanahan was never the best player on his team (except 1 year on a horrible Hartford team). In New Jersey Kirk Muller and John Maclean outscored him ever year he was there, in St. Louis Brett Hull was the #1 guy. I have a hard time elected a player to the hall who was in the shadow of other players his whole career.

It seems like you're essentialy using a double standard here. On the one hand, Shanahan wasn't the best player in New Jersey because he wasn't the leading scorer but in other years where he was his team's leading scorer(Detroit in 96-97 and 01-02, St. Louis in 93-94) he still somehow doesn't qualify as those teams' best player.

Whether or not Brett Hull was his team's "#1 guy" as you put it, Shanahan in most of his years in St. Louis  scored basically at the exact same rate but was the far more well-rounded and complete player. A player is more than just his point totals and Shanahan was definitely the better player in those years.

Shanahan's playoff numbers are also less than stellar to say the least. And since when did players get inducted for the "physicality and grit" they brought? Cam Neely is the exception, not the rule. The HHOF is for the greatest players of an era and the all-time greats, not .89 guys who played second fiddle their whole career like Shanahan.

Again, a player can't just be summed up by their point totals or their PPG. Especially not their PPG without context. Especially not a guy like Shanahan whose value is especially poorly summed up via point totals because of everything else he contributed. In theory, the HHOF should be looking at the totality of a player's value and contributions and not just point totals, otherwise they could get the nutty idea that Jason Spezza is a better player than Mats Sundin.

As for Herb Brooks, since when did coaches get elected for NCAA championships? It's never been done. He also had a losing record as an NHL coach and never made it past the 2nd round of the playoffs. He was inducted because of the 1980 win. As I said before, you have to elect Henderson under that precedent.

Regarding Herb Brooks, I just think it's important not to write off 30 years in the NHL and building one of the best NCAA programs as "not accomplishing much of anything". Especially when you add in the other Silver medal. When the HHOF inducts someone it's on the basis of their entire body of work and everything is considered.

But as I said, I'd use Petr Svoboda as a better comparison for Henderson than I would Brooks. If the guy responsible for the "most important" goal in Canadian hockey goes in, does Svoboda for the most important goal in Czech history? Then do we look at who has the most important goal in Swedish history? Russian? German? Do Mike Eruzione and Jim Craig go in?

The HHOF isn't a court and they're not beholden to precedent. If they were, every hockey player who was better than Clark Gillies would have a case to go in. They make mistakes some times and they're not obligated to rectify those mistakes by being more inclusive. I don't know if electing Brooks was a mistake exactly, the 1980 gold medal is a more impressive accomplishment than Henderson's goal in my books, but it doesn't necessarily equal anyone who had a big moment in international hockey getting into the Hall of Fame.

Well, I already reneged on Chelios so I don't see a reason to go over him again.

As for Shanahan, I have a hard time putting any stock into him marginally leading the Wings in scoring those two years. He has Yzerman, Brett Hull, Lidstrom, and others around him, he was not the best player on the team. In the 4 years Shanahan was in St. Louis he scored 296 points compared to Hull's 357, a significant 61 point margin which amounts to a 15 point lead for Hull per season. Brett Hull also led the NHL in goals one of those years and finished 2nd in goals another year. He was clearly the best player on that St. Louis Blues team.

I agree that we should be looking at whole careers instead of PPG totals, but that doesn't discount PPG as a measure we can use to contribute to the discussion. Shanahan's PPG is significantly lower than "elite." If you also want to use 80 points as a measure of an elite season, Shanahan eclipsed 80 points only 4 times. His career totals are mainly due to longevity. Offensive totals also count for much, much more than physicality and defense (for forwards). Again, Shanahan was never the best player on his team and I have a hard time inducting him to the HHOF based on that. He'll probably get in, but I see him as borderline rather than the shoo-in everyone thinks he is.

For Brooks, you are counting accomplishments that usually never get counted when looking at coaches for the HHOF. Great NCAA coaches don't get in, they just don't. If that was the case a whole lot more NCAA coaches would be in the HHOF right now. He only coached 7 seasons in the NHL and had a losing record with minimal playoff success. He NEVER would have gotten inducted if not for 1980. Never. If Brooks can get inducted for 1980, Henderson can for 1972.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

If you also want to use 80 points as a measure of an elite season, Shanahan eclipsed 80 points only 4 times.

Sundin only eclipsed 80 points 5 times. Just saying

Carry on.

 

[Justin]

If you also want to use 80 points as a measure of an elite season, Shanahan eclipsed 80 points only 4 times.

Sundin only eclipsed 80 points 5 times. Just saying

Carry on.

Shanahan had Yzerman, Hull, Muller, and Federov on his line. Sundin had Hoglound and Derek King.

 

[Andy007]

If you also want to use 80 points as a measure of an elite season, Shanahan eclipsed 80 points only 4 times.

Sundin only eclipsed 80 points 5 times. Just saying

Carry on.

Sundin had about the same amount of points in almost 200 less games. Granted Shanahan had about 100 more goals but hey we can split hairs all day

 

[OldTimeHockey]

If you also want to use 80 points as a measure of an elite season, Shanahan eclipsed 80 points only 4 times.

Sundin only eclipsed 80 points 5 times. Just saying

Carry on.

Sundin had Hoglound and Derek King.

And Joe Sakic, And Owen Nolan, And Mike Ricci, And Alex Mogilny, And Gary Roberts.

We as leaf fans like to use the lack of wingers as an excuse, but it's not 100% true. Sundin played with some good players in his career as well...Perhaps not to the extent of Shannahan, but that's irrelevant.

But that's getting sidetracked. I'm not arguing that Sundin should be or shouldn't be in the Hall. I brought it up just to poke a small hole in the 80 point 'elite' status.

As for Shanny, I've always felt he was a threat on the ice and made the players around him better. I'd vote him in, but that's just my opinion.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

You remember what lines Sundin played on in Quebec?

 

[Kin]

In the 4 years Shanahan was in St. Louis he scored 296 points compared to Hull's 357, a significant 61 point margin which amounts to a 15 point lead for Hull per season. Brett Hull also led the NHL in goals one of those years and finished 2nd in goals another year. He was clearly the best player on that St. Louis Blues team.

Well, just for starters your math is wrong. Shanahan scored 306 points in his four years in St. Louis, not 296.

More to the point thought, almost the entirety of that 51 point edge comes from their very first season together, where Hull scored 109 points to Shanahan's 69. In the other three years they played on the Blues together, their point totals are relatively equal, with Hull at 248 and Shanahan at 237. Surely Shanahan's physicality and defense in those three years were worth more than the difference of four points per season.

And even if not, given that you're a fan of PPG, then Shanahan still comes out on top. In those three years he had the higher PPG, 1.20 to 1.19. He was the better offensive player in those three years and was the better defensive player.

I agree that we should be looking at whole careers instead of PPG totals, but that doesn't discount PPG as a measure we can use to contribute to the discussion. Shanahan's PPG is significantly lower than "elite." If you also want to use 80 points as a measure of an elite season, Shanahan eclipsed 80 points only 4 times.

The problem is that you're inventing standards that the HHOF simply doesn't have. If physicality and defense counted for as little as you seem to think it did then there's no way that Bob Gainey, with a career PPG of .438, would have been inducted when there are literally hundreds of forwards who outscored him.

And as for your notions of what constitutes an "elite" offensive player or season then, again, you're not actually looking at who the HHOF has inducted over the years.

Shanahan's career PPG, according to hockey reference, is .888. Yvan Cournoyer's is .891. John  Bucyk's is .889. Steve Shutt's is .878. Henri Richard is at .833. Teeder Kennedy is .805. Ted Lindsay is .797. Dave Keon is at .761. And then Clark Gillies, HHOF inductee, is at .728.

Some of those guys, because they played with Mike Bossy or Guy Lafleur or Gordie Howe or Jean Beliveau were never the best players on their teams, unlike Shanahan. If there's a comfortable minimum standard Shanahan has to meet to be HHOF worthy then based on the actual decisions of the hall, as opposed to inventing new standards of "elite" that you think they should, Shanahan comfortably meets and exceeds them.

For Brooks, you are counting accomplishments that usually never get counted when looking at coaches for the HHOF. Great NCAA coaches don't get in, they just don't. If that was the case a whole lot more NCAA coaches would be in the HHOF right now. He only coached 7 seasons in the NHL and had a losing record with minimal playoff success. He NEVER would have gotten inducted if not for 1980. Never. If Brooks can get inducted for 1980, Henderson can for 1972.

I'm not counting those achievements. I'm saying the HHOF does. The HHOF looks at things beyond the NHL level. If they didn't, how in the world would Brian Kilrea have been inducted as a Builder? Kilrea spent the grand total of two years as an NHL assistant coach and the rest of his career in minor hockey.

This is from the HHOF's own website regarding people inducted, as Brooks and Kilrea were, into the Builders category:

Coaching, managerial or executive ability, where applicable, or any other significant off-ice skill or role, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to their organizations and to the game of hockey in general

Right? Nothing about the NHL there. Kilrea's time in the CHL counts, so does Brooks' in the NCAA as well as what he did for USA hockey and as a scout/executive for the Penguins. Did the 1980 Olympics factor in hugely to his election? Sure. Of course. As it should. But he had a long and distinguished career in the game making significant contributions to many different hockey organizations and they're all reasons why he got in, regardless of how you want to weight them.

But, and I'll say this for the third time now, I don't think Brooks is a good comparison. Brooks got in as a builder, a category reserved for coaches, executives and referees. You're saying Henderson should be inducted as a player. That's why I think Petr Svoboda is the comparison. A long, so-so career as a player capped off with a very big goal in international hockey.

 

[Tigger]

You remember what lines Sundin played on in Quebec?

Him and Page, I'm sure some can't forget the Nordiques screaming tree...

Another interesting note/anecdote from earlier in Mats career...

"So we went out and had our practice and he and Mats are practicing and shooting and everything. After a while I see Mats is looking down at Casey and Casey is looking up at Mats and they're obviously talking. So we get in the car and we're driving, so I said, 'Did you talk to Mats?' He said, 'Oh yeah, I talked to him.' I said, 'What did he say?' He says, 'He said he's going to score me a goal tonight.'"

Sundin not only scored Casey a goal that night, he scored him three goals -- the first hat trick of his NHL career. After the game, Sundin didn't forget who helped him snap his drought.

"So after, I'm downstairs in the coaches' office and Casey comes in the room and I said, 'Have you seen Mats?'" Ftorek said. "He says, 'No,' so I said, 'You better go and see him.' And you know how it is in Quebec City -- he's got people all around him. So Casey goes in, cuts his way through the reporters and Mats sees him and says, 'Hey, Casey, come here. I've got something for you.' He gave him a puck. He said, 'This is my hat trick puck. I'm giving it to you.'

....

As painful as those two seasons were, they also were key in Sundin's development.

"There's no question," Ftorek said. "Because he played on the second power-play unit, if not the first. He played on the penalty-killing units, whether he should've or not. And he learned those things, because the coaches could see he had the ability to do things -- great things. What are you going to do? Put an old, old veteran out there who's going nowhere, or are you going to put your future out there to learn? Then it becomes a great learning experience for that individual.

"He took it and he ran with it."

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=645253

 

[Redleaf]

Two Irishmen....

One proud, one befuddled...

 

[Bullfrog]

Agreed with Nik; Chelios and Burns should be guaranteed spots. also agreed about Henderson; he just doesn't deserve it. Wonderful story, but not an elite player. How the hell Burns, a three-time Jack Adams winner, is not already in surprises me.

 

[Joe S.]

I'm not pro Lindros, but i don't see how he can't be included if Cam Neely is in the hhof.