The Puck Stops Here
Next entry: I NOW Consider Sidney Crosby A Hall Of Famer
Previous entry: Men’s Olympic Medal Round
I NOW Consider Jarome Iginla A Hall Of Famer
by PuckStopsHere on 03/02/10 at 10:38 AM ET
Comments (24)
One question I find very interesting is exactly when I think a player is worthy of Hall of Fame induction based on their career to date, with no projection into the future.
I think Jarome Iginla has recently met that standard. Iginla has had considerable individual success. He is a three time First Team All Star on right wing. He is a two time Maurice Richard Trophy winner as top goal scorer in the league (once he tied for the award). He is a onetime Art Ross Trophy winner, Pearson Award winner and a very close Hart Trophy runner up. He was the top goal scorer in the 2004 playoffs and recently the top goal scorer in the 2010 Olympic hockey tournament. All of that individual success is enough to cement a Hall of Fame induction.
Why did it take so long for Iginla to get to that level given that his list of NHL awards and times leading the league statistically? His problem is that his career totals are not that impressive when compared to most Hall of Fame forwards. To date, Iginla has 904 career points (with 436 career goals) in 1004 games played. He is well below point per game level. He is below 500 career goals or 1000 career points, which are significant milestones but in and of themselves are often not enough for Hall of Fame induction. Iginla has never had a 100 point season. He has only four times had a point per game season. Those numbers are a strong contrast to his awards.
Of course there are mitigating circumstances. Iginla played in the “dead puck era” for most of his career. That lowered his career point total. He wasn’t an instant offensive star when he joined the NHL - giving him a few seasons of well below point per game totals to lower career averages. His fifth season was his first point per game year (it was a 96 point season where he won the Art Ross Trophy - that is a low total for an Art Ross win). Iginla lost a season near his statistical peak due to the lockout year (although that would likely not be enough by itself to bring him to 500 goals or 1000 points).
Jarome Iginla’s Hall of Fame case is made by some strong individual success in a lower scoring era. It is rare that an Art Ross Trophy winner or a two time top goal scorer or a three time First All Star Team member does not make the Hall of Fame. It is also rare for a modern era player who plays a full career to have as low offensive totals for his career to make the Hall of Fame. This is in part due to the low scoring era in which he played. It is also due to some well below Hall of Fame seasons at the beginning of his career. There isn’t any easy comparison to Iginla’s situation. Scoring rates were similar in the original six era, but games played totals were lower. There are no clear examples of players who had league leading goal or point totals, as Iginla has, with a similar point per game total in a similar game total. I think there are enough reasons for his low scoring rate and enough individual successes to make up for it. Jarome Iginla has had a Hall of Fame career and likely has several more seasons to come.
This increases the list of my currently active future Hall of Famers to sixteen. Here is the list:
Rob Blake
Martin Brodeur
Chris Chelios
Sergei Fedorov
Peter Forsberg
Dominik Hasek
Jarome Iginla
Jaromir Jagr
Nicklas Lidstrom
Mike Modano
Scott Niedermayer
Alexander Ovechkin
Chris Pronger
Mark Recchi
Teemu Selanne
Joe Thornton
As hockey continues to be played this season, I expect this list to grow. Several players on this list are at the tail-ends of their careers and there exists potential for retirements reducing it as well.
Filed in: | The Puck Stops Here | Permalink
Tags: Jarome+Iginla,
Comments
No Adam Foote. He is a strong defensive defenceman who has represented Canada internationally, but he has never been considered among the top defencemen in hockey. He has never been a Norris Trophy nominee. He has never played in an All Star Game. That makes the claim that he is one of the bets defencemen of all time a hard one to make.
Although it is not necessary (as history clearly shows - Brad Park, Scott Stevens, Guy Lapointe…), each defenceman on my list has won the Norris Trophy at least once. Foote is well below them.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/02/10 at 11:02 AM ET
If Ovechkin is on your list, how is Sidney Crosby not?
Posted by Nathan from BC on 03/02/10 at 11:23 AM ET
How in the world does AO make the list, but Crosby doesnt…
Posted by wearelions on 03/02/10 at 11:24 AM ET
And to be clear - I agree AO should be on the list. Barring catastrophic injury, he’ll have the numbers by the age of 30 to be HoF material. But theres 0 argument against Crosby if you are putting AO there.
Posted by wearelions on 03/02/10 at 11:32 AM ET
The only argument for it is the back to back MVP awards for AO. I’m pretty sure all players who have won multiple MVP awards or back to back have made the HHOF. Not saying I agree, but I would think both would be in as well.
Posted by pens fan in baltimore on 03/02/10 at 11:39 AM ET
Leaving Crosby out of it, it’s offensive enough to already have Ovechkin in, while just coming around to Iginla.
It’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats.
Iginla is a shoe-in, has been for a few years.
Posted by HNBCTB on 03/02/10 at 11:40 AM ET
There isn’t any easy comparison to Iginla’s situation.
How about Cam Neely?
Iginla - .90 PPG for his career
Neely - .95 PPG for his career
Neely’s injuries play a factor much like Iginla living through the clutch and grab days, but they’re comparable.
Posted by HNBCTB on 03/02/10 at 11:48 AM ET
just curious, as I honestly don’t know…does induction into the HOF take into account non-NHL achievements?
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/02/10 at 11:50 AM ET
It’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats.
TPSH doesn’t get this. in his mind, stats are what makes a player great. no stats, no great.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/02/10 at 11:50 AM ET
just curious, as I honestly don’t know…does induction into the HOF take into account non-NHL achievements?
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/02/10 at 11:50 AM ET
I believe it does as Tretriak is in the HOF without ever having played a game in the NHL. Same with Karlamov I believe.
Posted by DetCapC19 from Vancouver, BC on 03/02/10 at 11:52 AM ET
Neely didn’t play a full career. He has almost 300 games played less than Iginla.
Neely is a poor comparison because he is a poor case for a Hall of Famer. He has a shortened career. He was never a Hart Trophy/ Art Ross Candidate. He played in a high scoring era and has a poor points per game for a Hall of Famer.
The kind of player I would look for as an Iginla comparison might be somebody like Bernie Geoffrion, but their games played difference is significant due to the fact there were less games a year in Geoffrion’s day.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/02/10 at 11:52 AM ET
Oh man Geoffrion, yes! I cried when he won that Hart trophy in 1961, he so deserved it! To see such a small man play the way he did. It reminds me so much of today’s Iggy.
And why is Ovechkin on there?
Posted by Nathan from BC on 03/02/10 at 11:57 AM ET
I love how everytime TPSH posts one of these articles, the ‘Why is Ovechkin on here but Crosby isn’t?’ argument gets brought up.
Unfortunately, this season that argument has gained significant momentum. Either way, I’ll wait until another post on that to worry about it. On to Iginla:
Iginla’s case is tough. In a more open era of hockey, I think he’d definitely have the numbers to go along with the skills and the character befitting a HHoFer. The bottom line is that I want him in because of the things he brings to the game other than gaudy numbers.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 03/02/10 at 12:15 PM ET
“ust curious, as I honestly don’t know…does induction into the HOF take into account non-NHL achievements? “
Yeppers. It’s the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame. It just happens there’s a huge bend towards NHLers for obvious - and possibly at times, political - reasons.
And random thought - I’ve never been a big Teemu fan but seriously rooting for him to hit 600 goals before the season is out!
Posted by Shane from Saskatoon on 03/02/10 at 12:22 PM ET
He was never a Hart Trophy/ Art Ross Candidate.
I think Neely finished 3rd for the hart in 91, if that matters.
I have very little disagreement with any of this (don’t think Foote and Neely ar HOFers, but, then again, I think both of them deserve to be there over Gillies or Anderson), but I do think two things are a little strange
1. The whole third paragraph isn’t really needed, as you (correctly) negate it just after with this single statement: “Iginla played in the “dead puck era” for most of his career.”
2. Adding Ovechkin to the HOF list may or may not be premature, but adding him and excluding Crosby is most likely just a disingenuous fish for reaction. If your criteria are awards and statistics (rather than who is the visibly better player), Crosby can’t be left off, having won all major individual and team awards other than the Conn Smythe at 23 months younger than Ovechkin, who still lacks a stanley cup. Heck, Crosby and Ovechkin have the exact same career ppg.
Posted by steve on 03/02/10 at 12:27 PM ET
Neely didn’t play a full career. He has almost 300 games played less than Iginla.
That’s why I gave you PPG. He played for 10 years. Not mythic, but not shabby.
It mirror the Gayle Sayers debates you sometimes see…spectacular player for a short period whose career ended early due to injuries. I definitely think Sayers belongs in the hall of fame in football.
Neely is a poor comparison because he is a poor case for a Hall of Famer. He has a shortened career. He was never a Hart Trophy/ Art Ross Candidate. He played in a high scoring era and has a poor points per game for a Hall of Famer.
Why hold a shortened career against a guy?
He wasn’t going to be an Art Ross winner - pure goal scorer, not an assist guy. Early 90’s wingers had little chance at the Art Ross. C’s were totaling 100 assists back then.
As far as the Hart, that was a hard club to get into in those days. Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier.
Neely is a HOF’er, definitely. Is he one of the handful of best players ever to play the game ala Lemieux, Gretzky, etc.? No. But there’s plenty of guys who aren’t on that level that are in the HOF.
50 goals in 44 games while playing through massive pain? That’s legendary stuff.
And Neely is 11th in NHL history in career goals per game.
Posted by HNBCTB on 03/02/10 at 01:33 PM ET
I’m with PSH on Neely. Legend he may be, but his numbers don’t add up to much considering the era. Induct Neely and you have to induct guys like Brian Bellows and Bernie Nicholls, both of whom have comparable to better numbers in that time-frame.
As for 50 in 44 in one season, is that really more amazing than the year Nicholls put up 70/80/150? The only other guys to have comparable numerical years were Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman and Esposito.
Heck, Kevin Stevens played basically the same style as Neely and well-overproduced the latter during the best period of Neely’s career.
Posted by steve on 03/02/10 at 02:06 PM ET
Seriously PuckStopsHere, I’m interested to know your reasons for having Ovechkin up there while omitting Crosby.
Posted by Nathan from BC on 03/02/10 at 02:28 PM ET
I’m with PSH on Neely. Legend he may be, but his numbers don’t add up to much considering the era. Induct Neely and you have to induct guys like Brian Bellows and Bernie Nicholls, both of whom have comparable to better numbers in that time-frame.
As for 50 in 44 in one season, is that really more amazing than the year Nicholls put up 70/80/150? The only other guys to have comparable numerical years were Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman and Esposito.
Heck, Kevin Stevens played basically the same style as Neely and well-overproduced the latter during the best period of Neely’s career.
Goal per game:
Cam Neely - .54
Kevin Stevens - .45
Bernie Nicholls - .42
Brian Bellows - .40
Once again, Neely is 11th all time in goals per game, and goals are what should be used to rate the quality of a goal scorer, not points.
Posted by HNBCTB on 03/02/10 at 02:36 PM ET
In honor of poor writing skills, here’s my thoughts
Agree with Foote not being in, think you as usual miss the idea that the HOF takes into account additional factors other than stats, think the point of this article is ridiculous that it Iglina has suddenly become a hall of famer (for no apparent reason 3/4 thru this season), think you just said Neely is not a good comparison to someone because he’s not a hall of famer (which makes no sense), and all in all still get quite of a bit of entertainment from this blog.
Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 03/02/10 at 03:15 PM ET
When I hear a players name I think instinctively- Hall of Famer or not. My standards are very lofty though. When you say Iginla I think very good player but not a HOFer.
Howe=HOFer,Gretzky=HOFer, Lemieux=HOFer, Lafluer=HOFer, Orr=HOFer,
Richard=HOFer, see if there’s any kind of thought or debate about whether a player should be in then to me he’s not. It should be cut and dry. Like I wrote,my standards are high for the Hall.
As far as Neely, I never thought so, but there is one interesting stat about him that really puts me on the fence,his goals per game in the SCP. It’s .613, in 93 playoff games he has 57 goals that good for 5th all-time ahead of HOFer’s like Gretzky, Kurri, both Hulls, Lafluer,and more. But like I said,for me it has to be an automatic thought. I’m on the fence so he’s out too.
Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 03/02/10 at 03:53 PM ET
Points per game arguments are biased in favor of people who played short careers and never got old in the NHL. Many players had better points (or goals) per game than Neely through their first 700 or so games played (Neely only played 726 regular season games in his whole career), but fell back as they stayed in the NHL in their mid to late 30’s. When you compare Neely’s points per game with somebody who played a long career, Neely often wins because he had no decline phase of his career in the NHL. That doesn’t make Neely a better player. In fact it makes him a worse player - the player who lasted in the NHL longer positively affected more games.
It means more that Neely is the 86th highest goal scorer all time than the 11th all time in goals per game. Is 86th best ever in a high scoring era enough? Brian Bellows is 45th all time in roughly the same era.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/02/10 at 05:41 PM ET
Once again, Neely is 11th all time in goals per game, and goals are what should be used to rate the quality of a goal scorer, not points.
Neely’s actually 15th, but all that really says is that Neely retired in his prime and the other three played complete career arcs, or, in Stevens’ case, played about six or seven seasons beyond the point he was effective.
I mean, if Selanne retires after his 7th year, he’s good for a comfy 5th, which is higher than Gretzky.
Posted by steve on 03/02/10 at 08:34 PM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Missing Other League All Star Games
Top Defenceman So Far This Season
About The Puck Stops Here
The Puck Stops Here was founded during the 2004/05 lockout as a place to rant about hockey. The original site contains over 1000 posts, some of which were also published on FoxSports.com.
Who am I?
A diehard hockey fan.
Why am I blogging?
I want to.
Why are you reading it?
???
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker
Donate to Kukla’s Korner
No Adam Foote?
Posted by jibblescribbits from Denver, CO on 03/02/10 at 10:58 AM ET