You forgot Darren Helm.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 03/03/10 at 10:20 AM ET

You forgot Darren Helm.

You might have made a joke, but get ready for an entirely serious response as to why Darren Helm has not yet had a HoF career.

Posted by Kstewy16 on 03/03/10 at 10:22 AM ET

Oh my god.  I’m so glad that someone NOW considers Crosby a HOF’er.

Posted by ColdWar on 03/03/10 at 10:31 AM ET

So before he was invisible for most of the tournament and scored one timely goal he WASN’T hall of fame worthy, but after he was invisible for most of the tournament and then scored one timely goal he IS?

I’m not saying he is or he isn’t worthy of the hall, I’m just saying that basing it on the Olympics is *#$%@& stupid.

Posted by Garth on 03/03/10 at 10:31 AM ET

Garth

Claiming Canada’s second highest scorer was invisible before scoring the Olympic winning goal is an odd claim.  It makes me wonder if you watched the games.

I assume it is some kind of hyperbole that does not match the facts.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/03/10 at 10:34 AM ET

you forgot osgood.

Posted by some kid from brooklyn on 03/03/10 at 10:34 AM ET

Give us an F ing break… if Cindy the crybaby gets a career ending injury tomorrow, he is NOT a hall of famer.  Longevity goes a LONG way in getting a person into the hall.  Sure, if he keeps up his success for the long hauls then he is certainly in, but he needs a good 10+ years in the league before even being considered.

Posted by Swick on 03/03/10 at 10:35 AM ET

he’s 22 for crying out loud

Posted by Pharazon from England on 03/03/10 at 10:44 AM ET

Freedom of speech, idiot… crosby sucks

Posted by Seriously? on 03/03/10 at 10:53 AM ET

I NOW consider cheeseburgers delicious.

Posted by Incognetis from Delaware... Hi... I'm in... Delaware on 03/03/10 at 10:55 AM ET

It makes me wonder if you watched the games.

That’s funny, because I actually DID watch the game.  I didn’t simply base an opinion on the stats sheets.

He had three points in an 8-0 win.  Fine.  That’s ok, hardly consequential though.  Where was he in Switzerland?  He scored the SO winner?  OK, fine.  On his second attempt.  Good for him for getting a second chance, but he’s no hero if we’re playing NHL rules.  He got the third Canadian goal in a 5-3 loss.  Terrific.  Thanks.  Canada’s fifth goal against Germany?  Hey, nice for him to add another to the pile.

So yes, in the end he scored a goal to beat Switzerland (where was he during regulation and overtime?  You’ve got me…) and he scored a great goal to win the gold medal, but let’s not pretend that he had some dominant tournament that somehow elevates him to being a player he never was or anything like that…

Posted by Garth on 03/03/10 at 11:07 AM ET

Garth

It doesn’t “elevate Crosby to being a player he never was”.  Crosby had a very good tournament.  He has had a very good career to date.  What it does is gives Crosby an extremely strong answer to the question What impact did the player have on hockey history? which is one question that should be considered in any Hall of Fame case.

Crosby scored one of the most important goals in hockey history.  That is added to his role in rebuilding fan excitement toward the NHL after the lockout with his (and Ovechkin’s) performances as “young stars”.

The Olympic tournament was the best in the world playing.  Being the hero in a tournament including the best in the world is a significant achievement.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/03/10 at 11:15 AM ET

Being the hero in a tournament including the best in the world is a significant achievement.

Hey, it worked for Mike Eruzione!

Posted by Incognetis from Delaware... Hi... I'm in... Delaware on 03/03/10 at 11:23 AM ET

If Mike Eruzione had the professional career that Crosby has (Art Ross, Hart Trophy. All Star games, often argued to be best player in the world), he would be in the Hall of Fame.  He falls short by a large margin in that area.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/03/10 at 11:25 AM ET

Crosby will get in independent of this tournament.

Scoring the OT winner will have no impact on that.  The fact that it took that goal for you to realize that he’s a future HOF shows why everybody hates this blog.

And be honest TPSH, up until that goal he was a bit of a dissapointment for Canada.  I think we can call agree on that.

Posted by DetCapC19 from Vancouver, BC on 03/03/10 at 11:43 AM ET

There is a significant difference between “future hall of famer” which are your words - and ones I take to mean that a reasonable projection of the player’s career has him making the Hall of Fame and actually being a Hall of Famer regardless of what happens in the rest of his career - which is my claim today.

Likely, if we project Crosby’s career in any reasonable way he will have a career that if split in half, each half independently is a hall of fame career, but he hasn’t done so yet.  If that happens, obviously you can remove a goal or a season or many seasons and still have one Hall of Fame career, but that hasn’t happened yet.  I am not projecting his career at all.  I am saying that today, I would induct Sidney Crosby to the Hall of Fame and it does not matter what he does beyond today.  He is already good enough.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/03/10 at 11:49 AM ET

Garth, 4 goals and 3 assists and he was invisible? You’re probably a Crosby hater. He had a good tournament and it was obvious. He had maybe 2 games where he wasn’t much of a factor, but even in those games to say he was invisible is ridiculous. He created chances, especially for Iginla in those games, but they didn’t result in goals.

Only Jonathan Toews had more points for Canana. Out of a team full of NHL All-Stars. Crosby was 2nd to Toews, who had 1 more point. So gee, Crosby was invisible! Are you f***ing kidding me?

He played 17 minutes a game, not his usual 20+. Played about 45 seconds of every 2 minute power play because they basically had 3 units. Yet he still gets 4 goals and 3 assists and 2 game winners (shootout goals count at the Olympics). Oh and Babcock juggled his linemates for the first 4 games.

But when they needed him, he scored a huge shootout goal, he got his team back within 1 goal with a big 3rd period goal against the USA in the preliminary round, and oh yeah, he scored the biggest goal of the tournament, the goal most people will remember for decades.

Posted by LGP8771 on 03/03/10 at 11:53 AM ET

And BTW to the author of this post, you don’t say “I” in the title of an article. This is not about you. If you wanna be a serious hockey blogger, you don’t talk about yourself. State your opinions but don’t mention yourself, especially not in the title.

Crosby was a Hall of Famer before that goal by the way. Youngest MVP ever, youngest scoring champ ever, youngest Stanley Cup winning captain ever and youngest ever to 100 points. Those are 4 major accomplishments, and the stats he’s put up in his first 4 seasons at the ages of 18-22, with everything he’s done for the game off the ice, yeah, he’d be a Hall of Famer for sure if he had retired right before the Olympics. He didn’t need that goal to be a Hall of Famer.

Posted by LGP8771 on 03/03/10 at 11:56 AM ET

You’re probably a Crosby hater.

Just because one criticizes your boy Crosby doesn’t mean one is a hater. If he wants to be the next Gretzky or Lemieux as everyone in the NHL, Gatorade, and in some town on the banks of 3 rivers…then he has to show it day in and day out. This tournament, he really didn’t.

Posted by mrfluffy from Long Beach on 03/03/10 at 12:18 PM ET

By his own standards Crosby was average for most of the tournament, as was most of team Canada save Toews and amybe a couple others. This has to do with less ice-time and lack of chemitry. Now, having said he was average by his standards for most of the tournament he was also at his best in the key situations. And that’s what seperates all-stars from Hall Of Famers.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 03/03/10 at 12:19 PM ET

I’m glad Crosby got two game winning goals for Canada as well and do think he will end up in the hall of fame. That said, I agree with Garth and feel like he was largely invisible due to most teams being able to successfully contain him. During the gold medal game, myself and my friends were talking about how much of a non-factor he had been. SO while I agree with the point of your article, it feels like we watched a different tournament. One day, TPSH, we will agree.

Posted by Steve Strowbridge from St. John's, NL, CA on 03/03/10 at 12:32 PM ET

I can’t believe that you’re putting Ovechkin and Crosby in the HOF right now and yet you claimed yesterday that Cam Neely’s 10 year career wasn’t long enough to deserve the Hall.

Posted by HNBCTB on 03/03/10 at 12:45 PM ET

As a Penguin Fan…I have hard time putting Crosby in the hall of fame if his career ended today….He’s 22, despite all of the accomplishments…he hasn’t had long enough of a career….Also, I find it funny on every message board from a Crosby article that the people that comment have so much hatred towards Crosby, that they can’t be rational and sound like complete noobs.

Posted by Jim from PA on 03/03/10 at 12:56 PM ET

The difference between Cam Neely and Sidney Crosby (to date) is not length of career.  It is quality of career.

When did Cam Neely win the Hart Trophy or Art Ross?  When was Cam Neely a serious answer to who is the best hockey player in the world?

If there was a serious answer to when those occurred, Cam Neely would be much more unquestioned as a Hall of Famer.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/03/10 at 01:33 PM ET

That said, I agree with Garth and feel like he was largely invisible due to most teams being able to successfully contain him.

He wasn’t really being contained. The first few games any offensive pressure from his line ended as soon as Nash touched the puck and turned it over, but the pressure was still being created. After that he was creating lots of chances consistently, but not finishing them. Like, not finishing them at all (how many breakaways did he put into pads?). He was still the most consistent source of offensive pressure on Canada, though not its best player, who, starting in game 3, was obviously Toews.

If there’s any legitimate criticizing of Crosby’s performance it’s that he was not good defensively (ex. throwing a hard pass to the point with your goalie pulled is an adult league mistake), had no chemistry with too many sets of linemates, was passing when he should have shot and shooting when he should have passed, and kept putting pucks right into goalie pads or wide of the net. Even so, he was still Canada’s most consistent source of offensive pressure.

His defensive lapses and squandered chances were anything but invisible, as were his two now-historic moments

Posted by steve on 03/03/10 at 01:45 PM ET

so one goal of the “right place, right time” variety cements him in the HOF, after under-performing in the rest of the games?  wow.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 02:06 PM ET

Claiming Canada’s second highest scorer was invisible before scoring the Olympic winning goal is an odd claim.  It makes me wonder if you watched the games.

he scored 3 goals before the gold medal game.  one was in a shootout.  that’s two goals in-game - one of which was in the loss to the US.

so, yeah, invisible.  especially when compared to the EXPECTATIONS and when also considering his defensive play.  on the first goal Latvia scored against Canada…guess who left his defensive responsibility alone behind the net with the puck?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 02:40 PM ET

Crosby had a very good tournament. 

no, no he didn’t.  that’s the point.  he was mediocre at best.  he had two goals that mattered - one was in a shootout and as mentioned, on his second chance.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 02:43 PM ET

being a Hall of Famer regardless of what happens in the rest of his career - which is my claim today.

and the hits just keep on coming.

WOW

so if Crosby tanks the rest of his career, doesn’t win another Cup, scores 10 goals a season for a few years and turns into a journeyman failure…everything he did up until now STILL gets him in the HOF?  absolutely absurd.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 02:44 PM ET

by the way, there’s a reason players don’t get inducted into the HOF until AFTER their hockey career is over.  that reason is so their entire career can be taken into account.

having a couple good years and then tanking WILL NOT get you into the HOF.

having a couple poor years and then tearing it up for the rest of your career WILL.

get it yet?  NOBODY has solidified a HOF induction at the age of 23.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 02:46 PM ET

When was Cam Neely a serious answer to who is the best hockey player in the world?

a person has to be the answer to this question to be in the hall of fame?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 02:48 PM ET

Neely…

- 694 points in 726 regular season games
- 89 points in 93 playoff games
- 3 time 50-goal scorer
- 5-time All Star
- Scored 50 goals in 44 games, second only to WAYNE GRETZKY (although unofficial because Neely missed some games, and achieved this after the TEAM’s 50th game)
- Masterton Trophy (came back after a devastating knee injury)
- 11th in NHL history in goals-per-game over an entire career

not HOF worthy?  really?  considering he IS in the HOF, I’d trust the judgment of the people who put him there over yours.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 02:54 PM ET

Paul

Compare Neely to Bernie Nicholls or Brian Bellows.  It is possible to make a good argument that Nicholls or Bellows were better players who had better careers.

But you default to not HOF worthy?  really?  considering he IS in the HOF, I’d trust the judgment of the people who put him there over yours.   which is equivalent to saying that I don’t have any argument except to say that some other guy who should know something seems to be making my argument.  Think for yourself and do not default to the opinion of the supposed expert.

NOBODY has solidified a HOF induction at the age of 23.

False.  Look at what Crosby has done (or Gretzky or Orr at the same age).

If you don’t accept 23 as an arbitrary age limit, what is your arbitrary age limit and why is it any better?

I argue that age is irrelevant.  It is the total of achievement to date that counts and i don’t care how old or young the player in question is.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/03/10 at 03:12 PM ET

not HOF worthy?  really?  considering he IS in the HOF, I’d trust the judgment of the people who put him there over yours.

-Neely’s 15th in GpG. Don’t know where 11th keeps coming from. His ranking’s deceptive because the other retired guys on that list all played when they were old. Neely didn’t, so he’s higher than he otherwise would have been

-Three other guys, not including Gretzky, scored 50 in 44. In fact, Neely’s 50 in 44 was so rare an accomplishment during the early 90s that it had been matched by somebody in each of the previous two seasons.

-Masterton trophy is usually given to the guy with the most grievous injury the season prior. All it proves is that he was once in bad health and played the next year. Granato’s Masterton is not a HHOF credential. Neither is Koivu’s.

-Bernie Nicholls dwarfs all of Neely’s numbers (other than GpG) six ways from sunday and is not a hall-of-famer playing during roughly the same era

-Neely was not only not the best NHL player at any point in his career, he was never the best winger at any point in his career. It’s arguable that he was even the best power forward at Wing during his prime. Kevin Stevens’ numbers were better right up until the point he cracked his skull in half on the ice. Stevens, as you might have noticed, is not in the HHOF.

-Clark Gillies played in the highest scoring era in NHL history, put up what were, at that time, plugger numbers for most of his career (with a few 80pt seasons) and was inducted. Glenn Anderson, who was a visibly terrible NHL player, was voted in more or less because Gretzky put many, many pucks in off the sides of his feet. May as well have inducted Rob Brown.

Not everybody in the HHOF should be there. It’s rare for me, but I agree with PSH. Neely may be a legend, but he probably shouldn’t be in.

Posted by steve on 03/03/10 at 03:34 PM ET

NOBODY has solidified a HOF induction at the age of 23.

False.  Look at what Crosby has done (or Gretzky or Orr at the same age).

if any of them had gotten to age 23 and then tanked the rest of their career, they wouldn’t be in the HOF.  again, there is a reason players aren’t inducted until AFTER their careers.  that reason is that their entire career is considered.

if just a few seasons of brilliance are enough to get someone into the HOF, then why isn’t Chris Osgood a HOFer in your mind?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 04:07 PM ET

If you don’t accept 23 as an arbitrary age limit, what is your arbitrary age limit and why is it any better?

there is NO age limit.  a person’s ENTIRE CAREER is what you look at.  not what they did by 23, or 25, or 30.  you look at what they did by the END OF THEIR CAREER.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 04:08 PM ET

Bernie Nicholls dwarfs all of Neely’s numbers (other than GpG)

um, hello?!  McFly?!  tha’ts WHY you use an average like goals per game - to take how many games they played out of it.  had Neely played as many games as Nicholls, he would have scored more goals overall, using the same GpG in the formula.  it’s simple math.

Neely had a shortened career due to injury.  he tried to keep going after the injury but simply couldn’t.  therefore it’s reasonable to set aside the fact that he doesn’t have astronomical numbers, and look at what he accomplished while he was playing.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 04:12 PM ET

And once again, it’s the hall of fame, not the hall of stats.

There are probably quite a few younger fans on here who have never heard of Brian Bellows or Bernie Nicholls, while they’ve likely heard of Cam Neely.

Posted by HNBCTB on 03/03/10 at 04:40 PM ET

Paul

if just a few seasons of brilliance are enough to get someone into the HOF, then why isn’t Chris Osgood a HOFer in your mind?

A few seasons where one is brilliant (where brilliant means a generational talent who is arguably the best player in the world) is enough for a Hall of Fame induction.  Anything accomplished after those seasons is no longer necessary fror Hall induction.  When do you figure Chris Osgood had those seasons in his career?  For that matter when was Osgood the ever the best goalie in the NHL?

a person’s ENTIRE CAREER is what you look at.  not what they did by 23, or 25, or 30

Agreed.  This is a hypothetical question.  At what point in a given player’s career has he done enough for Hall of Fame induction?  I argue Crosby just got to that point.  It doesn’t matter what happens from here on in.  Its a Hall of Fame career.  At this point it is a more borderline call than if he has several more top level seasons (as most reasonable projections would predict), but I think he is there.

tha’ts WHY you use an average like goals per game - to take how many games they played out of it.

Averages (as you would have seen by reading these comments) benefit the player who had the short career.  When a player ages and declines, they pull their career per game totals down.  Per game numbers unfairly benefit Neely because of his short career.  Had Teemu Selanne retired as a rookie, he would be the all time leader in goals per game.  Following your per game logic, that makes Teemu a hall of Famer in one year (and for that matter argues very strongly that Sidney Crosby should have been inducted years ago - if only he could be persuaded to not play well into his decline phase and reduce his per game totals).

A player like Bellows or Nicholls played much longer than Neely, had primes that were also all star level and thus scored many more goals or points.  Thus a Bellows or Nicholls should be ranked ahead of Neely (but the Hall of Fame committee messed that one up - based largely on sentimentality it seems).

It is ironic that you argue against Crosby being a Hall of Famer because of his short career and simultaneously argue for Cam Neely because of a slightly longer (but significantly less prominant) short career, using per game numbers that clearly show Sidney Crosby to be better than Cam Neely.

HCBTCB

There are probably quite a few younger fans on here who have never heard of Brian Bellows or Bernie Nicholls, while they’ve likely heard of Cam Neely.

How is that relevant?  The hall of fame is not chosen based on which player young fans have heard of.  Never has been.  If it was a goon like Tie Domi might be there.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/03/10 at 05:03 PM ET

NOBODY has solidified a HOF induction at the age of 23.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach

False.  Look at what Crosby has done (or Gretzky or Orr at the same age).
Posted by PuckStopsHere

if any of them had gotten to age 23 and then tanked the rest of their career, they wouldn’t be in the HOF. 
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach

@ Paul

I’m not so sure about that.
By age 23 Bobby Orr already had a Calder, 4 Norris Trophies, 2 Hart Trophies, An Art Ross (still only d-man to win it) and a Conn Smythe. No to mention the NHL Record for single season goals (37) & points(139) by a d-man and the NHL Record for assists (102). And was fourth all-time in Career Points by a d-man(512) behind only Kelly, Gadsby and Harvey (all HOFer’s).

Gretzky at 23 had 4 Hart Trophies, 3 Art Ross Trophies, 2 Pearson Awards the NHL single season Records for goals (92), assists (3 times-Tops 125) and points (2 times-Tops 212). He also had SCP Records for assists (26) & points (38) in a single playoff season. These are just a few record he set before age 23.

So to say that they wouldn’t be in the Hall with just what they did up til 23 years of age I think is wrong. If they both had quit at that point I believe they would still get in. When you’re talking about Orr & Gretzky you’re not talking about regular HOFer’s you’re talking about the 2 greatest hockey players ever BY FAR imo. Make no mistake these guys were in the Hall way before there careers were over, the ceremony after they retired was a formality. Remember these guys didn’t just have” few seasons of brilliance ” , they actually changed the way the game was played and coached.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 03/03/10 at 05:11 PM ET

A few seasons where one is brilliant (where brilliant means a generational talent who is arguably the best player in the world) is enough for a Hall of Fame induction.  Anything accomplished after those seasons is no longer necessary fror Hall induction.

you are out of your mind.  induction into the HOF is about a CAREER, not a portion of it.

  When do you figure Chris Osgood had those seasons in his career?  For that matter when was Osgood the ever the best goalie in the NHL?

gee, I don’t know…maybe 2008 when he came in cold off the bench in the playoffs for Hasek, rang off 9 straight wins, and won the Stanley Cup.  nah, that doesn’t qualify anyone as “the best goalie” or anything.  what was I thinking?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 10:50 PM ET

Meanwhile, Paul Henderson is waiting for TPSH to write a column inviting him to the Hall of Fame.

Posted by TJ on 03/03/10 at 10:56 PM ET

At what point in a given player’s career has he done enough for Hall of Fame induction?

AT THE END.

  I argue Crosby just got to that point. 

Crosby’s career is over now?

ugh.

why do I bother?

Averages (as you would have seen by reading these comments) benefit the player who had the short career.  When a player ages and declines, they pull their career per game totals down. 

or when their knee is shattered and they can barely play.  you know, like Neely.

Following your per game logic, that makes Teemu a hall of Famer in one year

no, because an intelligent person understands it takes more than one year.  there’s no concrete defined “it has to be this many games” but a smart person can look at each individual case and decide if they’ve played enough.  kind of like how the Supreme Court defines (or doesn’t, actually) pornography - I know it when I see it.

I think this is what you really can’t grasp.  you can’t boil everything down to a number.  you have to look at what a person did, along with who they were, how they impacted the game, their dedication, their performance, and many other things to decide if they belong in the HOF.

Thus a Bellows or Nicholls should be ranked ahead of Neely (but the Hall of Fame committee messed that one up - based largely on sentimentality it seems).

EXACTLY.  it’s about more than just stats.  it’s the hall of FAME, not the hall of STATS (yeah I stole that).

It is ironic that you argue against Crosby being a Hall of Famer because of his short career and simultaneously argue for Cam Neely because of a slightly longer (but significantly less prominant) short career,

you can’t seriously be this dumb.  CROSBY’S CAREER IS NOT OVER.  will he go to the HOF?  probably.  but not if he tanks the rest of his career.  but either way, you can’t decided until you get to see his ENTIRE CAREER.

and, um, I don’t know how much hockey you watched in the 80s, but Neely was pretty damn prominent when he was putting up multiple 50-goal seasons.

the only thing that is ever clear from your posts is this:  you come to conclusions based on your own opinion, then do everything you can to find a way to support those conclusions - including picking and choosing standards, rules, and statistics.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 10:58 PM ET

So to say that they wouldn’t be in the Hall with just what they did up til 23 years of age I think is wrong. If they both had quit at that point I believe they would still get in.

but what if they tanked the rest of their careers and looking at CAREER numbers didn’t end up very good?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/03/10 at 11:00 PM ET

I NOW consider cheeseburgers delicious.

Posted by Incognetis from Exile in Alabama on 03/03/10 at 10:55 AM ET

I NOW consider this the best comment ever

Posted by AxeMaster9 on 03/03/10 at 11:08 PM ET

Paul

You made my argument very well

an intelligent person understands it takes more than one year.  there’s no concrete defined “it has to be this many games” but a smart person can look at each individual case and decide if they’ve played enough.  kind of like how the Supreme Court defines (or doesn’t, actually) pornography - I know it when I see it.

I think this is what you really can’t grasp.  you can’t boil everything down to a number.  you have to look at what a person did, along with who they were, how they impacted the game, their dedication, their performance, and many other things to decide if they belong in the HOF.

You can decide when a player has had a sufficiently good career to be worthy of Halll of Fame induction regardless of any future achievements or lack of achievements.  You do not have to wait until the end of their career as you falsely claim.

I am saying here that even if Sidney crosby tanks the rest of his career, he gets into the Hall of Fame.  It is a borderline call at this point, but he would make it.  a player who was considered by many to be the best in the game for 3 years or so and won a Hart Trophy, Art Ross trophy, scored one of the most significant goals in hockey history, won a gold medal and a Stanley Cup as the number one player on both teams, had the highest point per game (essentially tied with Ovechkin in that period) in 4.5 years is a Hall of Fame player EVEN IF HE TANKS the rest of his career.  He would be a more borderline Hall of Famer if that happens, but he has done enough that he should get there.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/03/10 at 11:14 PM ET

um, hello?!  McFly?!  tha’ts WHY you use an average like goals per game - to take how many games they played out of it.  had Neely played as many games as Nicholls, he would have scored more goals overall, using the same GpG in the formula.  it’s simple math.

Of course. Clearly, Neely would have been scoring at a .54 clip in the clutch and grab 90s while he was in his 30s. Forgot players are immune to depreciation and skill erosion.

I should have remembered that Teemu Selanne, another player immune to erosion and clutch and grab play, continued averaging .9 GpG over his entire career, which is why he’s 1st all time with 1057 career goals.

Point in fact, everybody’s subject to depreciation. Lindros’ GpG, while playing clutch and grab hockey would have buried Neely’s by almost a goal-per-game had he retired when he started having injury problems, as Neely did. Neely’s is higher now. All that says is one guy retired around his peak and another didn’t. It’s more likely if Neely had played a 20 year career that he’d be bumping elbows with Stephane Richer and Peter Klima.

Posted by steve on 03/04/10 at 12:51 AM ET

would have buried Neely’s by almost a goal-per-game

Should have said buried Neely’s by almost .1 goal-per-game.

Posted by steve on 03/04/10 at 03:54 AM ET

but what if they tanked the rest of their careers and looking at CAREER numbers didn’t end up very good?

If you’re saying that at age 23 for some reason they turn into a below average player for the next 10-15 years and then retire, other players probably wouldn’t make the Hall. Jimmy Carson comes to mind . Now obviously he was no Gretzky or Orr but he had 2 great seasons and was one of the very youngest to have a 50 goal season. But after that he became an NHL journyman.Nobody is lobbying for him to get in, so your point is taken.
But…I’m still having a hard time believing that Grezky & Orr wouldn’t make the Hall after in that scenario. Only because of how they changed the game. It truely was a different game before Orr came along. It’s hard to seperate that fact .  I could be wrong though, it wouldn’t be the first time.
Good discussion Paul.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 03/04/10 at 09:25 AM ET

Individual awards don’t amount to shit. Crosby plays as strong, if not stronger than Ovechkin. Crosby shows up for big games, he doesn’t disappear. He doesn’t disappear when he gets hit a few times or hurts his finger. Crosby is a better leader.

Oh yeah, he also has 2 Gold medals and a Stanley Cup. Not that those are important. It’s all about being that MVP, son!

Idiot.

Posted by gafel on 03/04/10 at 04:33 PM ET

Crosby also backchecks and can play defense. Ovechkin likes to chill in the neutral zone when the other team’s got the puck.

Don’t even talk to me about Ovechkin’s hits. He leaves his feet. Knees people. Wreckless.

Posted by gafel on 03/04/10 at 04:34 PM ET

If you look at Crosby’s stats at the Olympics, they are rather amazing.  His line produced 4 or Canada’s 6 game winning goals..2 by Crosby, 2 by Iggy. Both of Crosby’s were clutch, high pressured goals.  He also got a clutch goal in the first usa v canada game, as they pressed to tie it up.  Crosby created at least 8 scoring chances in each game (if Iggy was having a better year with finishing, they would have dominated the tournment IMO).  The Crosby, Stall and Iggy line combined for 20 points..the most in the tourney.  Crosby also led all forwards in ice time in the tourney. His face offs ranked in the top 10, and was around 60% wins for the torney.

I find it interesting that people mention him having a quiet tournemnt…when clearly he was contributing mightly and playing as part of a TEAM….not creating trouble by trying to do everything himself, and also showed great leadership with media responsibilites under intolerable pressure.

Posted by sportsfan871771 on 03/05/10 at 08:51 AM ET