By Snubbing one of the best players to play the game an invite into the HOF, the powers at be have shown their ineptitude once again..

Doug Gilmour and his 1400pts not being invited to the Hall is not only a travesty but a joke.

Igor Larionov is obviously not an NHL HOF , but voted in based on his Russian status.
Glenn Anderson, he of the riding of the coattails of Gretzky,Messier ,Coffey and Fuhr is an ok pick but IMO not a better player than Doug Gilmour.

Gilmour took the game to a higher level and he was the man, as opposed to Anderson who was just riding on a great team..

SHAME ON YOU HOF...SHAME ON YOU

Your true Maple Leaf colors show way too easily.
Doug Gilmour while a great player is not an automatic pick into the HOF IMO.

He is more automatic then Glenn Anderson...

Who by the way was also a Maple Leaf, for 3 years

Larionov is a shoe in.

Bure > Gilmour. There, I said it.

Larionov is a shoe in yes, because what he did for Russian players by paving the way..his numbers were mediocre in the NHL..

Bure should get in for sure if they put Neely in.

I think I'd put Gilmour in. I loved watching him as I grew up on HNIC.

Did only Larionov and Anderson get elected? I thought they did 3 players...

I don't know enough about Glenn, but I was a fan of his growing up as well. Plus, he played for the Leafs, serge.

Dont think there is an actual amount of minimum or maximum amount of players...This year they chose 2

There is a maximum of 4 players allowed in each year.

And for the Larionov arguement - the HHOF isn't supposed to be the NHL hall of fame, though it may appear that way. He's had some great international accomplishments to add to his achievements in his NHL career. I do think Dougy should have a spot in there too though.

I don't even know where to start with this...... let's just say I absolutely despise the 17 dinosaurs that comprise the HHOF elections committee, and believe that they have made the HHOF into a complete joke.
Gilmour should be in.
Larionov should be in but in light of taking his international career into consideration, there are at least 5 other russians who should be in before him.
Anderson? Meh, either way is okay.
Cicarelli? An absolute joke that he's not in.
Bure? 12 NHL seasons, 8 healthy ones. Exactly the same career as Cam Neely and a guy named Bobby Orr. If Bure's career isn't long enough, neither was theirs.
Another travesty? Verbeek. 520 NHL goals. Are you kidding me? NOT even mentioned for election.
I could go on for 73 pages..

This was Tom Barasso's first year of eligibility. I don't know enough about the hockey hall to know whether or not he should be in.

All I do know is that he was a first class prick when it came to the media so I'd say he's gonna have a tough time whether he's deserves it or not.

I agree with your comments..Guys like Makarov, Krutov should be in too or even considered..

Who are the 17 dinosaurs?Just curious, are they elected every year, or is it media??

"Committee members are appointed by the Board of Directors to a three-year term. The terms of the committee members are staggered so that each year there are six newly appointed or reappointed members.

As of June 2008, the selection committee consists of: Chairman James M. Gregory, Scotty Bowman, Colin Campbell, John Davidson, Eric Duhatschek, Jan-Ake Edvinsson, Mike Emrick, Michael Farber, Emile Francis, Dick Irvin, Jr., Lanny McDonald, Yvon Pedneault, Pat Quinn, Serge Savard, Harry Sinden, Peter Stastny and Bill Torrey."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_Hall_of_Fame

cool..

I think there are some great hockey people in that list..I like to see a couple of more recent players , like Gretzky,Lemieux or Yzerman in there...i only see Peter Stastny as a player that played in the last 20 years.

The HHOF had a chance to correct some mistakes this time around and did not.

1. Mark Howe
2. Adam Oates
3. Igor Larionov
4. Sergei Makarov

These should have been the 4 entries. Howe doesn't get in because of the WHA hatred I suppose...but anyways here's my case for him being the most shunned player eligible currently.

1982-83: 5th Hart Trophy voting
1982-83: 2nd Norris Trophy voting
1982-83: 1st Team All-Star

1985-86: 3rd in Hart Trophy voting
1985-86: 2nd Norris Trophy voting
1985-86: 1st Team All-Star

1986-87: 2nd Norris Trophy voting
1986-87: 1st Team All-Star

That's 3 Norris runner-ups to Raymond Bourque. Not a shabby player to lose to. Howe's career in some ways mirrors that of Brad Park in terms of being overshadowed by a top 5 all-time defenseman every step of his career.

Twice Howe led the playoffs in +/- and he has 3 Top 5 finishes in that category during the regular season.

His 3 1st Team All-Star berths are equally impressive considering his competition in any given year was that of Bourque, Langway, Coffey, Stevens and later MacInnis, Murphy, etc.

Unfortunately he could not stay healthy and that ultimately hurt him but I still don't see how voters continuously ignore Howe's accomplishments within that timeframe.

Brad Park's lack of individual awards is always attributed to the Orr factor, while Howe is in a similar situation with Bourque, that never really gets brought up. Mind you, I'm not comparing Howe to Park as Park is obviously the better player and while Park never won a cup, his playoff numbers are among the best by a defenseman in NHL history relatively speaking. However, aside from WHA hatred I still can't figure out why Howe is shunned by voters. He has the resume IMO considering who else is in for sure.

You make very good arguments on your 4 players..However you can make just the same if not better ones for Gilmour and Ciccarelli...Especially Doug Gilmour IMO..But you are definetely right that the HOF election committee has made mistakes that we can see..However its a very subjective process with no clear cut criteria.

In baseball there is certain stats that make players guaranteed like 300 wins, 3000hits and 500 HRs..but it doesnt seem to work in hockey.

I could make the case for Gilmour much more so than one for Ciccarelli. IMO Ciccarelli was a one trick pony goal compiler who had one top 4 goals finish and one top 5 goals finish in his entire career. He was never a 1st or 2nd team all-star and never had a sniff of an award. He never finished in the top 5 in the NHL in points. His playoff resume is mildly pedestrian opposed to say Gilmour's for instance which is dynamite. Gilmour also won a Selke albeit right when the award was starting to be given out for scoring points. Nonetheless...he was a much more complete player. All this being said if say Dave Andreychuk gets in...Ciccarelli deserves to be in then. I don't agree with much of the choices for induction so I prolly shouldn't be voicing my opinion on this topic since it's probably irrelevant anyway.

Maybe the induction committee does this on purpose, so we can debate at length why certain players dont get picked..

As a Leaf fan though I am really pissed off that Larionov and Anderson are considered over a legend in Toronto.

Larionov put up decent numbers in the NHL while 1) not in his playing prime 2) being among the first Russians in the league 3) playing with some average teams before he got to Detroit.

I don't know about Pat Verbeek. The HOF isn't all statistics. I know he was very effective, he was a winner etc, but there was never a point where you would say Verbeek was among the best players in the league / in hockey. You could way that about Bure, Larionov, maybe even Gilmour. Anderson was at least among the best wingers in the league for a stretch of time.

Glenn Anderson was never a leader on any of his teams IMO...Bure and Gilmour at times dominated and were the leaders on their teams.

Anderson had elite playoff numbers, and he will be remembered as a top end player by a lot of people by his skating alone.

I will add that I am absolutely floored that Adam Oates was not inducted this go around. (I have no problem with Francis getting the nod over him last year).

Resume:

Top 5 in the NHL in assists for 6 straight seasons (10 times overall)
Led the NHL in assists 3 times
7 Times Top 10 in the NHL in points (3 Top 5 finishes)
Averaged almost a point per game in 163 playoff games

This is a player who made good goal scorers great and great goal scorers legendary.

I don't understand this one. He is arguably a top 10 playmaker in NHL history. He might be one trick himself, but it's different when you are the absolute best at it relative to your peers. IMO.

Larionov is a makeup for all times guys like Firsov, Vasilliev, Makarov and others were passed over.

This is the problem...We dont know what they look for more

Regular season stats
Playoff wins
Stanley Cups
Leadership qualities
Perseverance and longevity
International competition

Its a combination of all I am sure, but what weighting is given to each.

There is no weighting, and no criteria. A committee member submits a player for consideration, it's seconded, and then voted on. That's how guys like Clark Gillies and Dick Duff get in: and what's worse is that, if you're an enemy of one of the big names on the committee, like Jim Gregory or Pat Quinn, you have no shot of getting in. Likewise, they go to great lengths to ensure that each other and their cronies are all inducted. Have a look at that list again, and look up how many of those people have been inducted.
And, as for Cicarelli? One trick pony? That's idiocy. If what Dino Cicarelli did was unskilled, then everyone would score 600 NHL goals. I have never, in my life EVER seen anyone who could take a position in front of the net, take a beating that would cripple most men, and still get a stick on everything like he did. Tomas Holmstrom (whom I appreciate as a player, and respect) couldnt carry his jockstrap when it came to doing the dirtiest job in the league. You're going to punish a guy because he achieved through hard work as opposed to great skill? Bullshit..

Who is getting snubbed because of Quinn? I know Bure and him have butted heads, but he has always publicly praised Bure's play.

The Hockey Hall of Fame is turning into the sports version of a star on the Hollywood walk of fame.

If I had a vote...

Glen Anderson - meh, I could be swayed either way
Doug Gilmour - I could be swayed either way
Dino Ciccarelli - YES!!!!
Pavel Bure - NO
Cam Neely - NO!!!!
Clarke Gillies - NO!!!!!!!

Keith Tkachuk - YES!!!!

man, I wish I had picked a better post for #7500

It's not that he's unskilled, it's just that he possesses a Mike Gartner-esque career of garbage goals. Nothing exciting, was never a top 10 player in the league and was a top 5 goal scorer twice. Never won anything, individual or team oriented. Was never a top two player at his position (he finished 3rd for the 2nd team All-Star RW berth behind Rick Middleton and Tim Kerr once each in his career). Never elevated his team in the playoffs with the exception of the upstart Minnesota team his rookie year. He took a ton of punishment and I give him a lot of credit for that despite his size he had no fear. However in the grand scheme of things his career was pretty insigificant from a historical perspective. I'm not much for compilers but a lot of folks are and that is their prerogative. Again, I'm terrible with HOFers in that there are a ton of guys who are in who shouldn't be IMO. Ciccarelli should be in the HOF with who is in currently, but it has become a Hall of Very Good anyways.

Doug Gilmour is a Hall of Fame talent and he'll be a Hall of Famer, he has plenty of time.

Even if he somehow doesn't make it, he can take solace in the fact that the FCHL has named one of its divisions (mine) in his honor.

Completely against the will of its star member.

Gilmour is a clown.

these two names shouldn't appear in the same thought.

Of course they should. When the conversation is about the acceptable length of a career to be a HOF candidate. No one is comparing the two as hockey players. Duh.

who annointed this guy the star member?

won a division crown? nope.
won an FCHL title(both of which have been won by Gilmour members)? nope.



I dont recall making a big case for my division to be called Gilmour, but I will certainly take it over "Supreme" and "Tugnutt".
Personally, I wanted Norris or Patrick.

I don't see what Chuck Norris or Patrick Duffy have to do with this.

nah thats silly. One guy got in despite his career being short because hes one of the top handful of players who ever played and changed the game. The other guy is Pavel Bure.

Foolish to think Bobby Orr got in the Hall of Fame only playing 12 years, so anyone can get in having only played 12 years.

Duh.

Really? So what if Bobby Orr only played four years? Or three? Is the conversation about how good a player is, or about how many years makes an acceptable length of career for Hall of Fame inclusion? If Bobby Orr was the best player to ever play the game and he played 12 years, then does the 100th best player of all time get in with 12 years?
Perhaps you should head back to a forum where you understand what you're talking about. You're out of your element.

The answer to the bolded question is no, he doesn't.


Of course longevity counts, but would you agree that longevity is much more important for a Pavel Bure than a Bobby Orr?
Or am I too far out of my element to think such a thing?
Or too far out of my element to expect an answer from someone as great as yourself?

I apologize for daring to disagree with someone as impugnable as yourself.

I'll leave the insults to you.

Have a nice day.

huh?

LOL..... Serge send you a pic of the wall over Kyle Wellwood's bed?