2022 HHOF Inductees

  • yeah, Carbonneau is a clear “old time hockey” Canadien best writer vote. To me, he is a better version of Mike Eastwood.

  • That’s a little harsh, but he is far more Peca than he is Fedorov. Once you open the door to a player like Carbonneau, in style and production, the two-way player gates are wide open. From McTavish to Lehtinen to …

  • 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.)

    Yeah, I was a bit too removed for his elite offensive years but he never struck me as a Pavel Bure ‘take over a game’ player.

  • I know, I was adding to the agreement!

  • 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.

    Agree 1st paragraph.


    Agree 2nd paragraph.


    Interesting. Never knew that. But couldn't there be that faction of guys who were very popular and made it in, but not really considered HOFers. In that case, what should be done?

  • That’s a very slippery slope and one I wouldn’t base HOF criteria on.


    Reasoning being I’ll give an example.


    Dale Murphy. Great ball player. BELOVED in Atlanta. Guy was THE Braves when the Braves sucked. HUGELY popular. But he’s not a HOFer.

  • yeah, Carbonneau is a clear “old time hockey” Canadien best writer vote. To me, he is a better version of Mike Eastwood.

    That is not fair to Carbonneau.


    Also don't get why defensive minded players should not get in. I still say Keith Hernandez belongs in

  • That is not fair to Carbonneau.


    Also don't get why defensive minded players should not get in. I still say Keith Hernandez belongs in

    Hernandez was great defensively. But, he was a .300 MVP caliber hitter. Hernandez's problem is that if Mattingly isn't in, you can't put Hernandez in as Mattingly was just as good defensively and a better hitter. Both were far more important and valuable players than Harold F'n Baines.

  • Hernandez was great defensively. But, he was a .300 MVP caliber hitter. Hernandez's problem is that if Mattingly isn't in, you can't put Hernandez in as Mattingly was just as good defensively and a better hitter. Both were far more important and valuable players than Harold F'n Baines.

    Hernandez did it for longer. A LOT longer.

  • Agreed. Bure is a way more deserving player in my opinion, even though I am guessing Mogilny has better numbers.

    Obviously longevity played a factor but if you cut 'em both down to their first 700 or so, Bure edges him a bit.


    Bure and Neely are pushing the low bar on 'dominant but short-lived' HOF credentials. Lindros wasn't ever in question.


    Agreed 2-way play deserves higher consideration for allowance, but was Carbo soooo much better than other 2-way specialists? If we're looking to accept the most special of specialists, does Tikkanen get a call for being a great two-way, super disturber with skill role?

  • I never watched him and went “oh my god… one of the best!”

    That's my general metric for any HOF, but there's also a "were you really good for a really long time" metric that applies to many inductees: the Sedins included.


    I'm looking at a list of recent inductees...Guy Carbonneau??? Sergei Zubov???

  • They'll dole out Conn Smythes to goalies and even consider them for the Hart, but damn, are they ever stingy on the HOF.


    Side Q: just how arrogant, anti-media, awful to deal with was Tom Barrasso? I never thought he was great but his body of work screams 'good enough, long enough' to merit consideration as much as the likes of Luongo and Lundqvist.

  • Obviously longevity played a factor but if you cut 'em both down to their first 700 or so, Bure edges him a bit.


    Bure and Neely are pushing the low bar on 'dominant but short-lived' HOF credentials. Lindros wasn't ever in question.


    Agreed 2-way play deserves higher consideration for allowance, but was Carbo soooo much better than other 2-way specialists? If we're looking to accept the most special of specialists, does Tikkanen get a call for being a great two-way, super disturber with skill role?

    And Tikkanen was a big time producer when it mattered most. When the NHL Network was hosting their "Classic Series" show and it showed the Oilers in 1990-1992, Tikkanen was absolutely blistering the net. He did the same thing in 1997 with the Rangers (for whatever reason, I don't remember him scoring much in the 94 run). To me, Tikkanen is more worthy than Carboneau

  • It seems less relevant while it's happening, but how a guy ends his career leaves a certain taste (recent memory bias) in voters' minds. Tikkanen doesn't benefit from the amount of team jumping he did.


    If Gonchar is solely tied to Washington and Pittsburgh, is he in? If Zubov bounces the last 3 years, extending his career and muting his impact, play himself out? Vice versa?


    If Fleury is a career Flame, Mogilny plays through as a Devil, Turgeon sticks with Montreal, Nicholls stops moving as of Edmonton, do they benefit from the boosts that Alfredsson, the Sedins, Kariya, and likely Zetterberg soon as being franchise-defining players?


    Curtis Joseph and Tom Barrasso v Henrik, Luongo, and likely Rinne and Price? We certainly wouldn't even consider Richter if he wasn't a career Ranger.