Jump to content

2021 Around The League Thread


Satans Hockey
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just looked up the four guys we traded at the deadline, thus far no points and +1 for Vatanen, a goal for Plams, a goal for Travis, and Kulikov has yet to play, I assume due to quarantine. 

I hadn’t been paying attention so I was curious. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

So your argument is that he was only the 23rd highest goal scorer in the history of the game because he also was good enough and healthy enough to stick around in the league and play 1700+ games, which is something only 5 players in the history of the game have ever done? That's a pretty weak argument. 

Do I think 500+ goals should get you into the Hall? Maybe not. 23rd highest goal total in the history of the game? Yeah, I think that should be good enough. 

So you're basically in favor of uber-compilers getting in, regardless of whether they ever truly played like Hall-Of-Famers or not.  Doesn't matter how you get to your final numbers, or if it takes you several seasons' worth of more games to get them...just get there.  You're definitely not alone in taking that stance, obviously.  I'll give you that Marleau is a different case because he played in SO many games (this isn't, say, a Shane Doan situation), and more than anyone else...for him to even garner HOF consideration, I think he HAD to break Howe's record.  But the issue I have with that is if he had finished, say, one game behind Howe all time...so now two more games of a guy who clearly has very little left (probably should have called it a career) is enough to put him over?  Because he broke a particular record, in an otherwise good but clearly not great career? 

Just because he did an amazing thing in playing more games doesn't automatically put him on a similar level to others who made the 1700+ GP club.  Everyone else who managed that feat had 1798 points or more.  What's funny about it is Jagr probably wishes he hadn't left and come back...he would've slayed Howe's record AND would not have broken it on fumes...Jagr managed to play 342 regular season games from his Age 41 season on.  He could've made all of this moot...but he didn't.  

Admittedly I've always thought compilers made for interesting debate material...is being merely somewhere between good and very good for a long time enough to get a player into the Hall Of Fame?  Should it be?  Are we starting to better appreciate the steady-for-a-long-time guy as much as the beast who dominates for 10 years or less?  I do think compilers are becoming more respected...especially since so many better talents can't stay healthy or see their abilities fall off a cliff at a relatively young age.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thinking is more that we’re discussing two things, one that only 22 people in history have exceeded Marleau, and one that only 4 have. To me, that is Hall worthy. 

I have a problem with the whole concept of “compilers”, after all, as an individual player, getting as many goals and assists as you can is kind of what the game is all about .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

My thinking is more that we’re discussing two things, one that only 22 people in history have exceeded Marleau, and one that only 4 have. To me, that is Hall worthy. 

I have a problem with the whole concept of “compilers”, after all, as an individual player, getting as many goals and assists as you can is kind of what the game is all about .

Sure, but in general there's rates of piling up those numbers that are considered more Hall-worthy than others...you know the difference between putting up 1100 points or so in about 1000 GP as opposed to 1500 GP.  Taking over 1750 games to accumulate less than 1200 points?  And never really being that much of a standout player (he made the Top 10 list in goals scored all of twice)?  I'll give him kudos for being mostly consistently good for a VERY long time...but he's put up 67 points in his last 193 GP.  Only 30 in his last 111 GP.  He's limped to this record, as far as his performance goes.  I'm thinking a number of players would've called it quits if they had declined that much, record be damned.

Like I've said, curious to see how the voters see it.  Obviously in San Jose I'll expect them to clamor heavily for him to get in.  Not sure about everyone else.  Right now I'm sure there's as much momentum for him going in as there's ever been, due to the record he just broke, but once the fervor from that dies down and people really start examining the numbers outside of GP, it will become less of the slamdunk that it is in some fans' eyes at the moment.

If he does get in, like I said in an earlier post, I think some other cases of guys not getting in will need to be re-examined.  I'd put Pierre Turgeon at the top of that list...he needed 1078 games to put up the same total of points that Marleau has to date.  Not that points are every last thing, and a good chunk of Turgeon's most productive years came during Live Puck, but there's really nothing that should keep him from getting in if Marleau is enshrined.  Check out Tkachuk and Roenick's numbers too...from a goalie standpoint, maybe Curtis Joseph should get another look?  Another guy who didn't get much hardware (did win a King Clancy trophy), but played a long ass time and was also solidly good (and due to longevity is on an number of "All-Time" lists for goalies).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Sure, but in general there's rates of piling up those numbers that are considered more Hall-worthy than others...you know the difference between putting up 1100 points or so in about 1000 GP as opposed to 1500 GP.  Taking over 1750 games to accumulate less than 1200 points?  And never really being that much of a standout player (he made the Top 10 list in goals scored all of twice)?  I'll give him kudos for being mostly consistently good for a VERY long time...but he's put up 67 points in his last 193 GP.  Only 30 in his last 111 GP.  He's limped to this record, as far as his performance goes.  I'm thinking a number of players would've called it quits if they had declined that much, record be damned.

Like I've said, curious to see how the voters see it.  Obviously in San Jose I'll expect them to clamor heavily for him to get in.  Not sure about everyone else.  Right now I'm sure there's as much momentum for him going in as there's ever been, due to the record he just broke, but once the fervor from that dies down and people really start examining the numbers outside of GP, it will become less of the slamdunk that it is in some fans' eyes at the moment.

If he does get in, like I said in an earlier post, I think some other cases of guys not getting in will need to be re-examined.  I'd put Pierre Turgeon at the top of that list...he needed 1078 games to put up the same total of points that Marleau has to date.  Not that points are every last thing, and a good chunk of Turgeon's most productive years came during Live Puck, but there's really nothing that should keep him from getting in if Marleau is enshrined.  Check out Tkachuk and Roenick's numbers too...from a goalie standpoint, maybe Curtis Joseph should get another look?  Another guy who didn't get much hardware (did win a King Clancy trophy), but played a long ass time and was also solidly good (and due to longevity is on an number of "All-Time" lists for goalies).  

All of those guys seem like they should be in to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

All of those guys seem like they should be in to me. 

Here's the 500+ clubbers who currently aren't in (I didn't count Jagr or Ovechkin, as both are obviously going to sail right in...we'll see with Marleau):

Tkachuk - 538 (1201 GP)

Verbeek - 522 (1424 GP)

Turgeon - 515 (1294 GP)

Roenick - 513 (1363 GP)

Bondra - 503 (1081 GP)

Going off the top of my head but I think the knock on Turgeon was that he fattened up big-time in some seasons, making his overall numbers more impressive than they were (still damned good though, regardless of how he got there).  Roenick is just considered to be an a$$hole, though his numbers are impressive.  Bondra was considered kind of one-dimensional (but was pretty damned good at scoring).  Verbeek didn't have great rate numbers for a guy who played most of his career during Live Puck.  Not sure why Tkachuk isn't in...538 goals is a hell of lot given the number of GP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's 👏 not 👏 just 👏 about 👏 points 👏

They're just a bonus in his case.

He played a million games and no one has ever done that before.  That's insane.  I think the guy that plays longer than that should also get in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Crisis said:

It's 👏 not 👏 just 👏 about 👏 points 👏

They're just a bonus in his case.

He played a million games and no one has ever done that before.  That's insane.  I think the guy that plays longer than that should also get in.

Well if you feel that way, surely also being the 23rd overall highest goal scorer also bodes well for him, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Crisis said:

It's 👏 not 👏 just 👏 about 👏 points 👏

They're just a bonus in his case.

He played a million games and no one has ever done that before.  That's insane.  I think the guy that plays longer than that should also get in.

Other players have made it to the 1700+ mark...it’s a select club, but he’s not on some island by himself.  It’s great that he broke the record, but let’s not make it sound like Marty at 691 wins with the next highest guy way behind behind him.

And as far as the HOF goes, let’s not just make it all about games played either, and act like nothing else matters.  Glamour numbers (and the number of games it takes to build them up) do play a role in who gets in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Other players have made it to the 1700+ mark...it’s a select club, but he’s not on some island by himself.  It’s great that he broke the record, but let’s not make it sound like Marty at 691 wins with the next highest guy way behind behind him.

And as far as the HOF goes, let’s not just make it all about games played either, and act like nothing else matters.  Glamour numbers (and the number of games it takes to build them up) do play a role in who gets in.  

There’s 5 guys on that island in the history of hockey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

There’s 5 guys on that island in the history of hockey. 

I said it was a select club.  But Crisis said that no one’s ever done what Marleau’s done.  To use his description, Marleau’s not the only guy to have played “a million games”.  Crisis made it sound like no one else was close.  That’s not accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

I said it was a select club.  But Crisis said that no one’s ever done what Marleau’s done.  To use his description, Marleau’s not the only guy to have played “a million games”.  Crisis made it sound like no one else was close.  That’s not accurate.

You know what word he needed...

49466862712_69fda3954e_b.jpg

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

I said it was a select club.  But Crisis said that no one’s ever done what Marleau’s done.  To use his description, Marleau’s not the only guy to have played “a million games”.  Crisis made it sound like no one else was close.  That’s not accurate.

Name one other player that has played 1768 games.  I'll hang up and listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Crisis said:

Name one other player that has played 1768 games.  I'll hang up and listen.

Well, I think he has you there lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Crisis said:

Name one other player that has played 1768 games.  I'll hang up and listen.

Cmon, you know what my point was.  Like I said, four other players have made it to over 1700 GP.  It's not like Marleau's played in 100+ more games than the next guy trailing him.  You worded it in a way that made it sound like no one else was even close to him.  Yes, if he plays in all of his team's games by season's end, he'll have played in 1779 games.  No one else will have done that, just like no one's reached 1768...but four guys were not far behind him, and in Howe's and Jagr's cases, they easily could've racked up a lot more games had they chose to stay in the NHL, instead of playing elsewhere for a while...Marleau managed to do this because the team that he played for for a long time wasn't trying to win this year and did him a huge favor, and didn't care if Marleau was going to help the team much, or had a whole lot left in the tank (he clearly doesn't...if not for the Sharks, who else was signing him?).  

Like I've said, I respect the fact that he never got hurt and was always able to play and was able to do it for so long that he was able to compile his way into milestone numbers that most H-O-F types put up in a LOT less games.  I respect the hell out of his career...he'll deservedly be Mr. Shark for a long long time, perhaps forever, as he'll have played over 1600 regular season games in that uniform by the time he's done.  I still don't think playing more games than anyone else means you sail on right into the Hall of Fame by default, if you weren't a legit H-O-F talent otherwise.  But like I've said, we'll see what the voters have to say about it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Cmon, you know what my point was.  Like I said, four other players have made it to over 1700 GP.  It's not like Marleau's played in 100+ more games than the next guy trailing him.  You worded it in a way that made it sound like no one else was even close to him.  Yes, if he plays in all of his team's games by season's end, he'll have played in 1779 games.  No one else will have done that, just like no one's reached 1768...but four guys were not far behind him, and in Howe's and Jagr's cases, they easily could've racked up a lot more games had they chose to stay in the NHL, instead of playing elsewhere for a while...Marleau managed to do this because the team that he played for for a long time wasn't trying to win this year and did him a huge favor, and didn't care if Marleau was going to help the team much, or had a whole lot left in the tank (he clearly doesn't...if not for the Sharks, who else was signing him?).  

Like I've said, I respect the fact that he never got hurt and was always able to play and was able to do it for so long that he was able to compile his way into milestone numbers that most H-O-F types put up in a LOT less games.  I respect the hell out of his career...he'll deservedly be Mr. Shark for a long long time, perhaps forever, as he'll have played over 1600 regular season games in that uniform by the time he's done.  I still don't think playing more games than anyone else means you sail on right into the Hall of Fame by default, if you weren't a legit H-O-F talent otherwise.  But like I've said, we'll see what the voters have to say about it.  

I understand what you're saying.  I understand that you are putting a lot of his eligibility into point production, and I disagree with you there.  I think that the fact that without the record, he is still in the conversation of whether or not he is deserving (23rd in goals), is important to think about. It's probably a no, but his record is going to be difficult as hell to break, I don't really see anyone over 1000 games in the league right now touching it.  Maybe Kane?  He's 32 and missed about 46 games in 14 seasons.  He just needs to play about another 10 seasons without missing a game.  It's possible, I guess.

Edited by Crisis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Crisis said:

I understand what you're saying.  I understand that you are putting a lot of his eligibility into point production, and I disagree with you there.  I think that the fact that without the record, he is still in the conversation of whether or not he is deserving (23rd in goals), is important to think about. It's probably a no, but his record is going to be difficult as hell to break, I don't really see anyone over 1000 games in the league right now touching it.  Maybe Kane?  He's 32 and missed about 46 games in 14 seasons.  He just needs to play about another 10 seasons without missing a game.  It's possible, I guess.

Yeah right now it's just too early to predict...when someone reaches 1700 GP and looks like he still can contribute, then I'll feel like it can be discussed.

Marleau comes up short in some other areas too...never won anything (personal or team), unless you want to count the Olympics.  Should that move the needle?  He's really in a category all his own:  The Ultimate Compiler.  A guy who rarely stood out and wasn't a guy who dominated or was feared, but had an insanely long peak...the strongest argument for him is that he played in a ton of games.  The big question is if you look at the peak years only (I posted those numbers), are those numbers truly H-O-F worthy?  I still think they come up a little short (especially given other players who aren't in)...I would still put Elias in ahead of him, given a choice, and I have Elias as borderline...if he gets in, I'll be happy for him; if he doesn't, I won't feel like it's a horrible travesty.  

If Joe Thornton plays in the rest of his team's games this year, that will take him to 1680...I get the feeling he'll just call it quits...even if somehow he decided to keep going and played in all 82 games next year (hasn't done that in a full season since 2015-16), he's still going to need another year beyond that to have a shot...he'll be 43 by then.  Chara will crack 1600 this season, but can't see him playing 1780 games.  Those are the only two even worth mentioning at this point, and both seem like major longshots.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that’s good news, although I don’t know why they wouldn’t just plan to start on time rather than a week late. It’s April. Assuming nothing with COVID changes, you should be good to start on time. What do they gain from that week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I guess that’s good news, although I don’t know why they wouldn’t just plan to start on time rather than a week late. It’s April. Assuming nothing with COVID changes, you should be good to start on time. What do they gain from that week?

I think they are just being extra cautious. I think one thing we’ve all learned over the past year is that you just never know what’s gonna happen. Nothing wrong with being overly cautious, all things considered.

Edited by MadDog2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MadDog2020 said:

I think they are just being extra cautious. I think one thing we’ve all learned over the past year is that you just never know what’s gonna happen. Nothing wrong with being overly cautious, all things considered.

Ok, but how could planning to start a week later 6 months ahead of time accomplish anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I guess that’s good news, although I don’t know why they wouldn’t just plan to start on time rather than a week late. It’s April. Assuming nothing with COVID changes, you should be good to start on time. What do they gain from that week?

They gain an extra week.

Precisely.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.