Some Hockey Hall of Fame questions?

Question

1. Did Dino Ciccerelli deserve to get into the HHOF? The good-608 goals and the bad-never a 1st or 2nd team all star!

2. Would you like to see less secrecy/ more transparency and know what is on the voters minds or do you like the secret aspect?

3. Thoughts on women being in the HHOF?

4. There are alot of people who are disappointed that Pat Burns was not inducted this year while he was still alive and kicking. Should compassion or sympathy have been a reason to push him through while he can enjoy the moment?

5. Should there be an eligibility period for induction? i.e- After your waiting period, you have 10 or 15 years to make the cut otherwise you don't get in?!

6. Which of these players (if any) get in?

Doug Gilmour
Mats Sundin
Chris Osgood
Fred Shero
Eric Lindros
Jeremy Roenick
Mike Modano

Answer 1

Great set of questions-



1) Yes- 600 goals is 600 goals.

2) I'm torn on this one- generally I favour transparency but you have to let the folks on the committee do their business. I'd like to see the entire voting breakdown (# votes for each person but not a 'who voted for whom' breakdown).

3) No problem with it...now of course this means LITY will be nominating a certain Ms Mikkelson!

4) Hearing that Burns fell one vote short speaks volumes (assuming this is accurate). I know I'm in the minority but he should have been put in if you ask me.

5) 15 years, unless they gain a majority (at least 11 of 18 votes or at least 60%) in their last year in which they are kept on the ballot for another 3 years.

6) I would have to walk out of the room regarding Gilmour because of my bias. I hope he gets in and I will leave it at that even though I know his body of work doesn't scream out "automatic first-ballot selection". The YES:

-Lindros (what he did from 1992-2000 was off the charts- could take over games, 2002 OLY gold)

-Sundin (career PPG player, never had a truly bad season, 2006 Olympic gold medal)

-Osgood (400 wins and multiple Stanley Cups)



On the fence:

-Roenick (no signature NHL accomplishment- his only team honour was the 1996 World Cup)

-Modano (1 Stanley Cup, was on the 1996 WC team)

-Shero (not a lengthy body of work)

Answer 2

1. I definitely think so...not just because he was a Red Wing. 600+ goals should guarantee a spot.



2. More transparency for sure. Perhaps releasing some criteria, vote totals, and the members of the selection committee, without attaching names to votes.



3. In rare cases such as Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, Hilda Ranscombe, Jenny Potter, or Manon Rheaume...but not every prolific goal-scorer in women's hockey.



4. No...that should never be the criteria, just like fan popularity shouldnt be criterion for selecting an inductee to the HHOF. Thats not to say he isnt HHOF worthy...just that there shouldnt be ulterior motives not pertaining to the game, e.g., one's health. Most Picassos, Van Goghs, and Rembrandts of the world arent appreciated pre mortem anyways...he'd be immortalized if he was inducted post mortem!



5. I dont see any reason why that would be necessary...if somebody is inducted 10 or 15 years after theyre first considered and a case is made for their induction, Im sure the selection committee would have determined some damn good reasons to reach back into hockey history and pluck a select player/coach/GM/whatever from the ranks.



6. Doug Gilmour for sure. No Stanley Cup with Toronto? Not his fault. (LITY - I tend to only think of his years with TML)

Mike Modano would be understandable. I think any player to break the top 20 in all-time goals/points should be a shoe-in, and Mike rounds out the mold at #23...so I think he should at least be considered.

Mats Sundin...eh, I wouldnt put him on the same pedestal as Dougie Gilmour. He's a great, but not necessarily a HHOFer, although his induction wouldnt be surprising necessarily.

Chris Osgood...I think you know my answer. We've had this talk before.

Fred Shero...I think so. It isnt just his winning ways that impress me...its his innovation as a pioneer in NHL coaching strategies. So many "firsts" as a coach...such a great blueprint for his predecessors to follow.

Jeremy Roenick...pfff no, and he'll probably whine about it. relatively low PPG...if Modano is a bubble inductee, Roenick is most certainly out.

Eric Lindros...if Pavel Bure didnt get in, neither will he. Perhaps longevity is a heavily-weighed parameter. While his PPG is noteworthy, so was Bure's. Another talk we've had before, in a roundabout way. I dont think hes in, although Im not sure my selections will get in. Im not on the committee.





Pook S - Im a big Osgood proponent but no way does he have 5 seasons left in him, let alone 10. Id say 2 or 3. Also, playing for numerous teams shouldnt disqualify anybody, i.e., Brett Hull.



LITY - Id appreciate the link...and I revised my comments on Gilmour.

Answer 3

1. Of Course, Dino had 600 goals, not to many players can say they scored 600 goals.

2. Sure, it'd be interesting.

3. I don't mind, I mean it's the Hockey Hall of Fame, it's open to all genders, so why not?

4. Absolutely not, it's almost like inducting a player who is near death and wants to enjoy the moment, it's not right. Pat Burns was a great head coach, the problem was that he was fired from his first 2 jobs, none of the coaches in the HOF have been fired, plus Burns only has 1 Stanley Cup Ring, true he has 3 Jack Adams Trophies but compare him to Al Arbour he has 4 Stanley Cups and has made the playoffs the majority of his coaching career.

5. No, I feel like once your retired, your eligible for the HHOF, if it takes you 50 years so be it.

6. No doubt JR, he's had 500 goals a very successful career to. Osgood is another, he's 10th all time on the winning list and he still has 5-10 years until retirement. Doug Gilmour is another, 450 goals, holds the most points and most assists record in Toronto, the only problem is that he's played for numerous teams.

Answer 4

1) yes- 600 goals is 600 goals no matter how many seasons it took.



2) I like the secret aspect, I don't want to see the selection committe on television explaing why Mats did not get in.



3)Not a problem when they are as talented as those two. They dominated their game. I spent 3 hours in a line for a course change (back before online registration) with Granato at Concordia in 94. She was more than happy to talk about all things hockey for hours.... literally. She would always say Hi or each time I met her afterwards- Class act.



4) I can see compassion as a reason to push him through if he is a lock to make the Hall. The question is - is he worthy? He won the jack adams 3 times, had success with mtl- Toronto and Boston but could not push them over the hump. seemed to have a short shelf life, 3 years and he started losing the players.



5) yes 15 yrs max.



6



Gilmour- better than Sundin's chances but not a lock. If he spent his career in LA he would not get this much consideration. A lot of his hype is a function of where he played.



Sundin- Not HOF worthuy in my opinion, a good player but not hall worthy



Osgood- he has the resume but I am not sold on him.



Shero- meh not big on evaluating coaches/builders. I would rather the Hall be players only.



Lindros- no short on longevity, individual awards /postseason. A victim of the hype to some degree



JR- kinda in the same boat as Sundin



Modano- got the cup, got the stats - let him in.

Answer 5

1. I think so. He was a great Hockey Player and a Little Scraper too haha. I dont think the all-star status or winning a Stanley Cup should matter when it comes to the HHOF, Just how great you did throughout your career.



2.Yes I would like to know what is on the voters minds and how they figure out who is HHOF worthy and who is not. I'd like to know what Criteria Players and Owners need to meet for them to choose who goes in.



3. I think It is okay as long as they meet great level of achievements in their careers. World Championships ,Olympics Medals, Personal Trophies, that kind of stuff.



4. I dont think so. If they inducted somebody like him for his achievements but happend to be very sick at the time, then that is alright. I dont mean to sound harsh, but they should leave the Sympathy card out of it because it wouldn't be fair IMO.



5. I dont think so. What if a great Hockey Player from the 70's/80's decided to become a head coach or GM or something in the next 10-25 years? How would they figure out when the time starts for a waiting period? I think it's fine with no waiting period.



6. Well obviously I Wish Ozzy would get in, I do not see why he honestly wouldnt with his career stats, but he probably wont. Maybe Lindros, Modano and Sundin would get in.

Answer 6

1-Yes

2-Less secrecy

3-It's not NHL-exclusive, so I'm fine with it, as long as they deserve to be in it

4-I think he should be inducted soon

5-No clue

6-Doug Gilmore-If you are around a point per game player AND you wiin the Frank Selke, you should be in the hall of fame

Mats Sundin-Maybe, but I think he's a little overrated

Chris Osgood-Don't think so

Fred Shero-I think so, he was a key part in the Broad Street Bullies

Eric Lindros-Some problems here and there, and if you go by his attitude or his playing style, no. But the fact his, his skills were unmatched by anyone his size, and he would hit and fight. I think he should be inducted.

Jeremy Roenick-Nope. Three season superstar, then a pretty good player for the rest of his career.

Mike Modano-Yeah. He wasn't a three season superstar, but he put up a point per game for a good portion of his career.

Answer 7

1) Yes. He was consistent (you have to be score more than my 43 professional goals I suppose) and prolific and was only the 9th player to reach 600.



2) Since there is only 18 voters, and only 4 people get in (provided they have 14 or more votes) I think the system is fine the way it is (regardless of what drivel Steve Simmons is feeding the masses today). There are rumours that there have been times (2007 for example) where more than 4 people made the cut and they had to scalke back.



3) No problems whatsoever, Angela James should have been there in 2001



4) Burns doesn't deserve the honour. Of the coaches in the Hall of Fame, his winning percentage, # of cups, and # of wins all fall considerably short. Ken Hitchcock has won more games than Burns, lost less than Burns, won as many Stanley Cups as Burns, and has a better record in the playoffs than Burns. He needs to go into the Hall of Fame before Burns. As does Mike Keenan who has more wins, a better winning percentage, as many Stanley Cups, and far more Finals appearances. I didn't see anybody clamouring for Peter Zezel to make the Hall of Fame (one of the best clutch face-off guys ever) or John Ferguson Sr (one of the best enforcers ever) so illness should not enter into it. Remember, Jim Gregory said after the lest election that Burns was on the ballot, but nobody voted for him....and that's fine with me. Pat's a great guy, I'm sorry he's ill, but aside from the unique status of having won 3 Jack Adam's trophies.................his numbers just aren't there.



5) That exists today. After 15 years the veterans committee looks at you....the last person they inducted was Edgar LaPrade in the mid 90s



6. Doug Gilmour - I'm not sure. The last three seasons we've seen Ciccaerelli, Anderson, and Robitaille get in...all with pts/game averages of 0.974....Gilmour is lower at 0.959 and below Dave Taylor (0.962) who had a similar career to Gilmour (with more top 20 scoring finishes and faster to 1000 pts)



Mats Sundin - yes. One of the most consistent players in the big pad era and retired over a pt/game (just above Joe Mullen (who's in the Hall of Fame))



Chris Osgood - not now with Brodeur, Belfour, and Hasek all waiting in the wings and having much better careers, but down the road when it looks like 400 wins will be a high water mark - he may get in during a lean year



Fred Shero - not a chance. Very good for a short period of time but there's a reason that some people like a couple of decades worth of work for coaches.



Eric Lindros - yes - just missed by two votes this year according to people in the know and was the dominant player from 1992 through 2000....and his career numbers are greater than the average career numbers for a Hall of Famer



Jeremy Roenick - no, hung on too long. The only way he makes it (and the guy below him) is if Nationality is taken into account. At a career pts/game average of 0.895 with no hardware (all the people in the Hall of Fame with that pts/game played before 1967 (Dickie Moore, Maurice Richard, Yvan Cournoyer), or have at least 5 Stanley Cups (Steve Shutt) . Roenick can't claim any of that (due to the fan vote nature of the All-Star game since 1980, and the Stanley Cup winner's automatic birth in the game prior to 1967 - the Hall of Fame does not look at All-Star game appearances at all)



Mike Modano - same reasons as Jeremy Roenick. The 0.92 pts/game average and no hardware counts against him. One Stanley Cup helps, but the fact that he hit 90pts only twice in his career (career high of 93), and those were during the high flying early 90s (at least Gilmour and Roenick have multiple 100pt seasons). At least Modano was a 2nd team all-star in 1999-2000 (Yzerman was the 1st team that year because Lemieux and Gretzky were finally out of the picture) but the lack of top 10 scoring finishes (3 in 21 seasons) and 100pt seasons will hurt him.







Dynasty..............Doug Gilmour's name was erased from the 1989 Stanley Cup ring? (He was runner up for the Conn Smythe Trophy that year as well)





Dynasty - the criteria and the 18 voting members of the Hall of Fame are made public and can be found on the Hockey Hall of Fame web site....I'll provide the link once I find it



Dynasty - Bob provided it for us. Thanks Bob.

Answer 8

a million) sure, there are some in there now that have never won a Cup. 2) super gamers make it in there. yet reliable gamers are those that take a wager at being snubbed (now and returned). Mickey Redmond grew to become into reliable. First crimson Wings participant to ever get 50 targets in one season. he have been given injured and not got here back to style. ending his occupation early. He did win 2 Stanley Cups with the Montreal Canadiens however. 3) Mats,,,according to probability. Sakic,,,there is not any question approximately it. He gets in.