The HHOF Screws Up Yet Again

Well, the idiots who run the Hockey Hall of Fame inducted Glenn Anderson, Igor Larionov, and two other non-player jabronis (Ed Chynoweth, former WHL president in the Builder Category and Ray Scapinello in the Referee/Linesman Category).

I understand that referees and 'builders' contribute a lot to the game, but the fact is that the PLAYERS make the game, and should be put above the officials and rich businessmen who profit from them.

Why is it that we continue to have so many builders and officials inducted while only two players make the cut?

TWO?

How can these morons induct only two players from the likes of Adam Oates, Phil Housley, Doug Gilmour, Dino Ciccarelli, and the other host of fine players that could have been considered?

*grumble*

Once again, the voters valued playoff exploits heavily as their selection of Glenn Anderson indicates.

Now, Glenn Anderson was certainly a fine player, and his playoff numbers (6 Stanley Cups and 214 points in 225 playoff games) are quite impressive, but was he anything other than a great supporting scorer during his career? Was Anderson ever one of the top players in the game at any one point? Did the HHOF not consider that Anderson is a horrible person who cheats his ex-wife out of alimony, among other lovely character traits?

Glenn Anderson was only ever ONCE in the top ten in scoring in any one season, when he finished with 104 in 1982-83. How many true Hall of Fame forwards, playing on the same frickin team as Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier, would ever not make more Top 10's than that?

Meanwhile, superior players in Adam Oates, Doug Gilmour, and Phil Housley get the shaft. Crikey!

Yes, the same Adam Oates who had SEVEN Top 10 scoring finished, also finished with nearly a point-a-game in the playoffs, and sit 15th on the all-time points scoring list.

W
T
F?

As for Igor Larionov, I don't mind his induction, although not at the expense of more deserving players. I know Igor would make it eventually, anyway.

At least Vladimir Crouton wasn't inducted.

HHOF: Do Makarov and Krutov Make the Cut?

With the Hockey Hall of Fame set to induct some more members into the holy shrine, everyone and their mothers has an opinion on who should be in.

Joe Pelletier, who is quite knowledgeable about the players who are up for nomination, goes out on a limb and proclaims that Sergei Makarov and Vladimir Krutov should also be inducted, after assuming Igor Larionov's induction.

But are there more deserving European candidates than Larionov? We need not look any further than Larionov's own wingers to find two equally deserving Hall of Fame inductees, perhaps even more worthy - Sergei Makarov and Vladimir Krutov.

Igor Larionov was the unselfish and brainy chessmaster of the KLM Line. With his help, both Vladimir Krutov and Sergei Makarov harnessed their near limitless raw talent and became the best players in the world. I am absolutely convinced that both Krutov and Makarov are among the top 5 wingers of the 1980s. I would suggest only Mike Bossy and Jari Kurri would challenge either for top billing, with Michel Goulet maybe rounding out the top 5.

First, let's get it right out there: The Russians were a bunch of professionals in the guise of 'amateur' status that routinely beat up on true amateurs. Yes, they often did well against NHL competition in the rare times they met (Canada Cup), but not enough to get a true measure of their skill level. If we start inducting the likes of Krutov, then how about Milan Novy and Dzurinda? There are plenty of European players who you could make a case for, eh?

Krutov is an easy NO, given that he has a whopping 34 points in 61 NHL Games.

Yes, after doing very well for the Russian team, Krutov came to North America, got fat, and was out of the NHL after one season. He was 29 at the time, and finished off his career playing in the lower tiers of Swedish hockey. What a way to go, eh?

Unless you are Bobby Orr, you don't get inducted after finishing your good playing days at the age of 29. Krutov didn't prove himself to be at all good against NHL competition, and his career was quite short. At least Larionov proved himself worthy against NHL players. Krutov was simply a Russian-league star on a team that Communist government stacked well, and nothing more.

Makarov? At least his brief NHL career showed that he was a pretty good player. From the ages of 31-38, Makarov put up 384 points in 424 games. Showing that he was a point-a-game player after the age of 30, plus his international achievements, and you have a player that you can make a solid case for, if you do your homework.

In the end, I could see Larionov making it, and maybe Makarov in a very slow year, but never EVER Vladimir Krutov.

Holistic Hockey Hall of Fame Selections

Over at his Legends of Hockey site, author Joe Pelletier has a look at the potential candidates to be elected into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 8 eight days time.

Joe has gone so far as to do his own Power Rankings, although I have no idea what criteria he used other than his own encyclopedic knowledge of the game.

Here is his power rankings, with a couple of his comments left in there.
Doug Gilmour
Igor Larionov
Pavel Bure - The Russian Rocket was the game's most electrifying and explosive scorer in the 1990s. But his career was cut short by injuries. If Cam Neely got in, so will Pavel.
Adam Oates
Dino Ciccarelli
Sergei Makarov
Claude Lemieux
Glenn Anderson - Clutch playoff performer is one of the top 5 playoff scorers in most offensive categories. But the squeaky clean selection committee does not like his off-ice reputation.
Boris Mikhailov
Anatoli Firsov
Tom Barrasso
Pat Verbeek
Mike Richter

Others: Mark Howe, Neal Broten, Phil Housley, Mike Vernon, Andy Moog, Rogie Vachon, Wendel Clark, Dale Hunter and Guy Carbonneau.

---

Now, if I had a vote, you can be sure the HHOF would not include the likes of Clark Gillies. I'm not as anal as some Baseball HOF voters, but I think the HHOF should include only the very best. Playoff success is not a great measure of a player given how a guy like Gillies can simply get lucky to be where he was. Poor Marcel Dionne was one of the very best, yet he was stuck on crappy LA Kings teams and never got close to the Stanley Cup.

If I was to pick 3+1 players to get into the HHOF, my picks would be
1. Adam Oates
2. Phil Housley
3. Mark Howe
4. Boris Mikhailov

I add the +1 candidate because I believe the HHOF should keep 'International' players in a separate light, especially if they spent the majority or all of their careers outside of the NHL. Less and less players do so, but it's important to recognize the Mikhailov's.

Now, some explanations

Adam Oates vs. Doug Gilmour - I know the media love Gilmour, and will select him over Oates, but I consider Oates the superior player. Oates ranks higher in career assists, points, and points created per game than "Killer"

Phil Housley - I know the waif-like Housley is easily panned by most hockey fans, but how can the HHOF possibly leave out one of the best offensive defensemen to ever play the game?

He ranks 18th in career assists, 4th among D-men, ranks 36th in points all-time, and, until recently, was the king of all American point scorers.

Mark Howe - Unfortunately, I know that Mark Howe will never make the HHOF, despite his family pedigree.

Howe was simply one of the league's best defensemen back in the mid-early 80s, overshadowed only by the likes of Coffey, Potvin, and Bourque. Those Flyers teams were hard to score against, and Howe was the prime reason.

Oh, as a defenseman, he also ranks 24th(!) all time in shorthanded goals with 28, and ranks 11th all time with a +/- of +400. Howe was a complete defenseman, but barely ever got his due.

Bure - While Neely was voted in, Bure will not. The media love "Sea Bass", but see Bure as nothing short of a 'pouty cherry-picking Russian'. Sorry, Pavel

Larionov - I'd bet on him making it, but I'd rather take Mikhailov as the 'International' pick. Larionov's NHL career wasn't even close to HHOF-worthy, so that is why I'm not exactly keen on voting him in. Still, we can't deny the risks he took and the path he helped pave for other Russians.

Ciccarelli/Anderson - Despite their numbers and skill, the HHOF votes just plain don't like these guys for their off-the-ice exploits. I think Anderson was a good-but-not-great player, while Ciccarelli has the numbers to support his inclusion.

Clod Lemieux - Playoff exploits aside, Lemieux was an above-average player who got far more fame than he deserved. All too often, he'd coast through the regular season. A hall-of-fame forward from his era should do a lot better than only 2 70-point seasons.

So, Why IS Jim Gregory in the Hall of Fame?

by Jes

David Pratt, in his Big Fat Rant, fumed about the fact that Jim Gregory was elected into the Hockey Hall of Fame in the Builder category.

Excuse me, but on Monday night did Jim Gregory, the chairman of the Hockey Hall of Fame's Selection Committee, actually induct himself?

Gregory spent one year as head coach of a pro hockey team.

The Toronto Maple Leafs were so impressed the next season they hired Gregory as an assistant coach and, after missing the playoffs, made him their general manager.

For the next decade, under his leadership, the Leafs never finished higher than third in their division and never went to a Stanley Cup final.

Gregory was rewarded for his failures.

Now, reading Pratt's Rant, you'd probably be thinking, "Hmm, just how the hell did a mediocre GM make the Hockey Hall of Fame as a builder?" The Hockey Hall has made many questionable picks under his tenure, such as Clark Gillies and Dick Duff.

Then, you could go here, or here , or even here, and realize that David Pratt's one-sided argument ignores many facts, and presents all of the facts as well a Michael Moore documentary.

Jim Gregory was not elected to the HHOF for his tenure as a coach or GM, but for his tireless work behind the scenes in the NHL. Responsible for setting up the Central Scouting Service, among other endeavors, Gregory is one of those glue guys that does a lot of work behind the scenes, but rarely gets credit for the stuff he does.

Admittedly, I know little about Jim Gregory, but if you are going to make a case against his (self)-induction, you could present a more convincing argument.

PS: Glen Anderson as a Hall of Famer? No.
PPS: Paul Henderson? This horse has been beaten to dust. One great goal doth not a career make.
PPPS: Mark Messier still is, and will always remain, a giant dick.

Input Sought: The Top 36 Hockey Players of All Time

by Jes

Joe Pelletier, the Legends of Hockey Blogger, is asking for input on the Top 36 Hockey Players of all time.

Now, I can barely rank my favourite Spice Girls, let along hockey players, but I can provide SOME input. Perhaps some of you can as well, so leave comments here or over at Joe's site.

Here is a sample list he provides ...
"

1. The Pantheon - Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr. One could make a good case for any one of these gentlemen to be in the #1 spot, but nobody comes close to these three players.

2. Gordie Howe - Mr. Hockey is a definite #4. Longevity, dominance, and forever changing the way the game was played by introducing the Power Forward concept.

3. Tretiak and Kharlamov are out. The only evidence we have is the games they played on a loaded 'amateur' Russian team against the rest of the world. I realize that this list doesn't have to be exclusively NHL players, but I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to show that these two belong. If we are to add Russians, I'd be more comfortable with the likes of Fetisov and Larionov (Though he is far from the Top 36 of all-time).

4. The list will be skewed towards the current generation. Not only do we have more familiarity with the players of the past 20 years, but the NHL, and hockey world-wide, has expanded over the past 2-3 decades. There are simply a lot more skilled players to choose from.

5. Rank the positions first, and then combine them. If you think Patrick Roy is a better goalie than John Vanbiesbrouck, than Roy shouldn't be behind the Beezer in your master list.

6. I can scratch off a few players easily from the list above: Chris Chelios (good, but not nearly one of the elite), Ted Lindsay (great support player, but not one of the very best), and Bob Clarke, who is notorious and nefarious, but not at all elite.

7. If it doesn't feel right, don't do it. If you make a Top 10 or top list of anything, you better not have any doubts about something belonging there. If you feel that Brett Hull shouldn't be there, automatically scratch him off.

8. Ranking the goalies first, I'd go with Hasek, Plante, Roy, Dryden, Hall, Brodeur, and Bill Durnan.

9. Defenseman? Orr, Bourque, Lidstrom, Harvey, Potvin, Coffey, MacInnis, Stevens, and Red Kelly.

10. Forwards? That's a bit too busy for me, but I would consider Bryan Trottier and Pavol Demitra ;)

Once that is done, start combining and formulating your lists. Everyone has their own opinion, so hardly anyone will agree on the same list of players.

Women in the Hockey Hall of Fame? Sure, Why Not?

by Jes

With news slower than the thought process of your average Telus employee, there has been some debate today whether women players should be in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Let me remind you that this is the year 2007, and we no longer have separate sections on the buses for them coloured people, and we do allow women out of the kitchen to vote in elections.

Don't tell this to Dave Harrison of Prince George, who apparently still pines for the 1930s, and thinks women's hockey has no place in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Women's hockey is just a shade faster than Tai Chi but only half as interesting.

If any event is worthy of an "escape call" early in the first period, it's women's hockey.

As a crowd pleaser it seems to appeal only to other women who have convinced themselves that it's entertaining, feminist promoters of lost causes, anxious sponsors who are about to lose their shirts, milquetoast males who allow their women to choose their clothes (Real Men Don't Eat Quiche), and husbands who nod in agreement if they know what's good for them.

No self-respecting, red-blooded, beer-drinking, Canadian male hockey fan ever takes women's hockey seriously.

I will agree that women's hockey is boring (to me) and it is like comparing the original Iron Chef to the watered-down American version, but the Hockey Hall of Fame is not exclusively for males, in title or in theory.

How could a serious hockey fan ever discount the impact that certain female players have had on the game and on the national consciousness?

Cassie Campbell - Already a member of the Canada Sports Hall of Fame, Campbell was the first woman to ever do colour commentary on HNIC, won 2 gold medals, multiple World Championships, and is one of the best women players in history. She is very high profile and very successful, and definitely has no fans than Bernie Federko ever did. Few hockey women have been as marketable as Campbell, and her mark on the game is quite evident.

Hayley Wickenheiser - Arguably the best female hockey player of all-time, she managed to accomplish the feat of becoming a regular player in the Finnish 2nd division. Compared to her peers, she was head and shoulders above them in talent and ability to compete with men on a physical level.

Now, I am not advocating a dual Hall of Fame where we have 1 woman inducted every year as a 'token' gesture. I believe that the real Hockey Hall of Fame does have room for exceptional woman, such as the two above, and that we shouldn't simply relegate them to their own little Hall of Fame in Medicine Hat (or whatever dinky town they may think of). Simply declaring the Hockey Hall of Fame a male-only zone is not only regressive, but shows a general lack of understanding about our culture and the game we love.