At first thought, I don't know about the Sedins or Luongo being HOF worthy. But then I might be using way too high standards for what I think it should be.
That was my reaction too. I was meh to the list but figured I just didn’t realize how good those guys were. They certainly don’t scream hall of famer to me.
Hockey Hall of Very Good
To me, hockey has one of the most watered down Hall of Fames. There are a significant number of HOFs that I viewed as very productive guys, but to me a Hall of Famer is a guy who carried the team, who was worth the price of admission. Subjective to be sure, but Dave Andreychuk stands out as an example. He was an incredibly productive player for a very long time. But, was he a guy who made his teammates better, carried a team for long stretches, or did incredible things? No. To me, if a player isn't consistently in the conversation for the best in his conference or at his position for at least a five year stretch, he is a very good player, not a HOF. To me, Luongo is probably a HOF player. The Sedins were unique, but if not for the unique nature of being twins, I don't know if they belong.
I know there is a lot of talk about Mogilny. I will qualify this, but he was almost never on TV when he was at his peak in Buffalo and Vancouver, so perhaps I am misjudging him. But to me, he was kind of like a Marion Gaborik or Rick Nash- he had high skill and (in Nash's case) was a very responsible defensive player. But, did he carry a team? I didn't see enough to say I would call him one of the best players of that generation.
I think I take the same view on all sports Hall of Fames like you do Frenchy. Always scratching my head on some of the inductees. In my mind, only 50 guys are truly worthy of HOF status. The rest of the guys, are simply very good to great players.
I think I take the same view on all sports Hall of Fames like you do Frenchy. Always scratching my head on some of the inductees. In my mind, only 50 guys are truly worthy of HOF status. The rest of the guys, are simply very good to great players.
I know they debate Turgeon too. Turgeon before around 1994, he was a guy who was in that elite conversation. Afterwards, he was a complimentary complier guy. He is hard to evaluate.
There are guys who were greats on defense who controlled the game, either in their own end or with their offense- Leetch, Bourque, Stevens, Macinnis, Pronger. Does Larry Murphy fit in that group? Phil Housley? They put up numbers, but were you ever sitting around with your buddies saying "oh man, I hope they can get Larry Murphy!"
The worst inductions over the last few years- Kariya (I know many of you won't agree), Recchi, Lowe, Wilson, Alfredsson, Housley, and Zubov. They are all very good, and should be respected. But, HOF? Eh.
Does Larry Murphy fit in that group? Phil Housley? They put up numbers, but were you ever sitting around with your buddies saying "oh man, I hope they can get Larry Murphy!"
Yes.
To me, hockey has one of the most watered down Hall of Fames. There are a significant number of HOFs that I viewed as very productive guys, but to me a Hall of Famer is a guy who carried the team, who was worth the price of admission.
Basketball is up there too as "watered down".
Basketball is up there too as "watered down".
just saw that Divac, Bosh, Kukoc, and Webber are in. I stand corrected. That is a pretty mediocre group.
Webber in the HOF? I like the guy but no way he is a HOFer.
Webber in the HOF? I like the guy but no way he is a HOFer.
I think they’re counting his Michigan years as “pro” years. 
Of course, busting on Webber’s Michigan career could put me in “timeout”.
I’ll be here all week.
Hmmm, thought I had posted the below hours ago.
Webber had neither. He was a very good player but when I look at the HOF in any sport, I look at All Stars and guys who just dominated the game. They were either top 3-5 at their position while they played or multiple All Star. Maybe too high of a standard but that’s just how I look at it. Championships are nice but it’s not a huge measurement as much for me.
To me, hockey has one of the most watered down Hall of Fames. There are a significant number of HOFs that I viewed as very productive guys, but to me a Hall of Famer is a guy who carried the team, who was worth the price of admission. Subjective to be sure, but Dave Andreychuk stands out as an example. He was an incredibly productive player for a very long time. But, was he a guy who made his teammates better, carried a team for long stretches, or did incredible things? No. To me, if a player isn't consistently in the conversation for the best in his conference or at his position for at least a five year stretch, he is a very good player, not a HOF. To me, Luongo is probably a HOF player. The Sedins were unique, but if not for the unique nature of being twins, I don't know if they belong.
I know there is a lot of talk about Mogilny. I will qualify this, but he was almost never on TV when he was at his peak in Buffalo and Vancouver, so perhaps I am misjudging him. But to me, he was kind of like a Marion Gaborik or Rick Nash- he had high skill and (in Nash's case) was a very responsible defensive player. But, did he carry a team? I didn't see enough to say I would call him one of the best players of that generation.
The argument for Mogilny is they look at some of the other guys who got in and believe he was better. Then, the fact that he was the first player to defect from USSR.
I think I take the same view on all sports Hall of Fames like you do Frenchy. Always scratching my head on some of the inductees. In my mind, only 50 guys are truly worthy of HOF status. The rest of the guys, are simply very good to great players.
So, once they get to 50 players should they stop letting guys in? Remove older players?
I think the issue is people THINK the hall of fame should just be for guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Orr, etc. When new players get elected, that is who people compare them to and claim they do not belong.
My issue with HOF voting is mins and max. Part of the reason why I liked the Baseball HOF's method was because it was simple. 75% of the vote? You in. Less than 75%? Not in. If that meant we had years with only 1 player or 6 players, that was fine. But, even baseball has begun to stretch things a bit.
The argument for Mogilny is they look at some of the other guys who got in and believe he was better. Then, the fact that he was the first player to defect from USSR.
This. He's better than the baseline (but now there are 200 guys likewise) but the cultural component can't be diminished.
This. He's better than the baseline (but now there are 200 guys likewise) but the cultural component can't be diminished.
Also, it is not JUST his NHL numbers that count. Hockey HOF, not NHL HOF.
Also, it is not JUST his NHL numbers that count. Hockey HOF, not NHL HOF.
I... agreed?
He came over at 20 so it's not like he had a ton of pre-NHL experience, like Larionov and Fetisov, nor did he 'defect' a la Kovalchuk (who should be similarly credited as the older, earlier European players). Also, because of the way he left Russia, he didn't play on many Russian national teams, so his case is more the symbolism and trailblazer aspect of defecting.
I was speaking that by your argument, with guys like Carbonneau being in the Hall, then all the Fleurys, Sundins, Mogilnys, Josephs, Turgeons, Roenicks, Zetterbergs, Barrassos, ad nauseum, deserve to make it.
Christ, even Richter should be if Carbonneau is!
This. He's better than the baseline (but now there are 200 guys likewise) but the cultural component can't be diminished.
I agree. And given that I know less about the cultural component, I can only speak to what I saw of him. I never watched him and went “oh my god… one of the best!” He was a reliable productive wing (his best seasons in Buffalo and Vancouver were completely out of my sight.)