Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 Shanahan Vs. Sundin Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2278 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  12:58:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So Sundin enter the HOF on his first ballot along with Oates Sakic and Bure. Another first year eligible playe will have to wait untill next year to enter the Hall Brendan Shanahan. Personaly I was quite surprised i did not expect Sundin to be a first ballot HOfer, I also feel Shanahan was head and shoulders a better pick among first year eligible players along with a few players still waiting to get in.

sure Sundin has better ppg totals than Shanny, but Shanahan 656 career goals compared to Sundins 564 is huge to me. also is the personal trophy case,

Shanny has: Olympic Gold, King Clancy award, 3 Stanley cups,

Sundin has : Olympic Gold. Messier award,

I dunno it makes no sense to me Sundin over Shanny


Anybody with ability can play in the big leagues. But to be able to trick people year in and year out the way I did, I think that was a much greater feat.
Bob Uecker

fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
899 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  13:06:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think that if Shanny would have made it in, possibly Bure wouldn't have, and that would have been an even bigger injustice in my opinion.

That and the fact that once again Leafs bias rules the world!!!

Kidding of course.......
Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2278 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  13:44:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked

I think that if Shanny would have made it in, possibly Bure wouldn't have, and that would have been an even bigger injustice in my opinion.

That and the fact that once again Leafs bias rules the world!!!

Kidding of course.......



do you mean because Sundin was getting in no matter what FER?? just what are you implying

Anybody with ability can play in the big leagues. But to be able to trick people year in and year out the way I did, I think that was a much greater feat.
Bob Uecker

Go to Top of Page

@valanche
Rookie



Canada
240 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  13:47:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sundin never had that great of a team while shanahan was on a powerhouse. He will get in next year

66 is > than 99
Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2278 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  14:21:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by @valanche

Sundin never had that great of a team while shanahan was on a powerhouse. He will get in next year

66 is > than 99



yeah but Shanny was a huge reason why his team was a powerhouse, no sir i don't buy the good team argument Shanny would have been a winner no matter where he played

Anybody with ability can play in the big leagues. But to be able to trick people year in and year out the way I did, I think that was a much greater feat.
Bob Uecker

Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  14:35:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Shanahan played with the Devils in the late 80's when they were horrible. He then moved to STL who were a playoff team but not nearly a 'powerhouse'. Then he went to Hartford. His final 3 seasons were also not on powerhouse teams.

Granted, 1/2 of his career was with Detroit.

That being said I agree with the whole trophy case comments. But can you fault Sundin for him not playing on a team good enough to win?? If you were to take the 3 Cups away from Shanahan then you would be hard presse to not give the nod to Sundin. Shanahan has more goals but the same number of points in 200+ more games. Sundin did much of what he did without the supporting cast that Shanahan had for at least 1/2 of his career and also had a better international career.

I have no beef with Sundin getting the nod over Shanahan but I also agree if you tip your cap to the guy who won the Cups.

The real horror is Roenick being left off the list. JR was one of if not the most dominant player of his generate. He could do it all and did it all (except win a Cup).

Shanahan and Sundin are both HOFer's, but Roenick should have been the first ballot guy out of those three.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5800 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  15:38:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
While they're both deserving of the honor in my mind, i have no problem with Sundin going in ahead of Shanny. The goals amount to 92 more than Sundin, but also in 178 more GP's. Here's how the numbers shake down....

Shanny - .43 Goals per game (career reg season)
Sundin - .42 Goals per game (career reg season)

Shanny - .89 Points per game (career reg season)
Sundin - 1.002 Poitns per game (career reg season)

Shanny - .73 Points per game (playoffs)
Sundin - .90 Points per game (playoffs)

This is a Sundin who absolutely carried his team at times. Not taking anything away from Shanny, but he had far better players around him and seldom was the guy who had to put his team on his back. He was rarely the "go to" guy during his career. In his early NJ days, it was Muller and Maclean. In St. Louis, Janney, Oates and Hull. In Detroit, i need not mention the skilled guys around him, but i will. Amongst others, Lidstrom, Yzerman, Hull, Fedorov, Larionov, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc, etc. Finally, in NY, he had a guy named Jagr taking most of the spotlight.

To me, the only thing Shanny has on Sundin are the 3 cups, but it's hard to fault Mats for that. I'm not saying he didn't contribute to them or that he was simply along for the ride, but Shanny was on some pretty darn good teams that won the big prize. Had Sundin had half the support that he did, he too might have a ring or two?

Again, Shanny was a great player, and prob deserving of first ballot had he not come up for his due in such a strong year, but i take Sundin over him as i think he did so much with a much lesser supporting cast compared to Shanny.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4793
( )

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  16:17:04  Reply with Quote
I cant say I have a real beef with Sundin being picked over shanahan, although I suspect i would have gone with Shanahan. 3 cups is pretty impressive as is 650 + goals.

However, I am not so sure that either one would be a first ballot hall of famer. I think Oates had more dominant seasons, ditto for Roenick Bure and Lindros. And certainly Hawerchuk did.

I think both are hall of famers, no doubt, but just feel that Sundin got too much of a nod here.

Sundin was a consistently very good player, and certainly didnt have the advantage of a great supporting cast, but what matters to me is how dominant or great was he? Was he really that much better than say Markus Naslund when in their respective primes?

You might conclude yes to any of those comparisons and fair enough, but for me theyre close and too close to give Sundin that accolade.



Go to Top of Page

Lee Marshall
Rookie



Canada
102 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  16:46:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
They BOTH deserve to be in the Hall. No question. It ain't Mats' fault that those voting kind of fouled it up. I was shocked that Shanny missed out THIS time. Won't happen again.

In addition to captaining Sweden to Olympic gold...Sundin was also part of 3 World Championship teams. How many he captained I can't say.

Shows [perhaps] how much MORE he might have accomplished if he had lined up with a few better team-mates while wearing the blue and white.........for ALL those years.

Who the cap fits...Let them wear it.
Go to Top of Page

Guest0611
( )

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  18:58:35  Reply with Quote
Sorry to hijack the thread but Pat Burns still isn't in the Hall for some strange reason. That to me is a bigger error than picking Sundin over Shanny.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4601 Posts

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  21:05:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It's a tough call all around for many of these players, because the criteria is different for all of us, so it becomes arbitrary.

But I will give you the slozo litmus test . . . how to choose one player over another for the HOF:

I start at a 5 year period - choose that player's 5 best years. Compare it to the other player's 5 best years. Now, you are building a team as GM . . . who do you pick? You can pick only one.

Out of this year's HOF eligible ex-players, you may be surprised, but I'd have picked them in this order:


1) Lindros
2) Bure
3) Sakic
4) Sundin
5) Gilmour
6) Roenick
7) Oates
8) Shanahan

Sorry, but I consider Shanahan a "Gartner" type player . . . very high and consistent numbers, but never really one of the very best, and not truly "special" as a player. Valuable, good; but not special.

Those top 5, in their prime, could control and dominate a game against the very best. The rest, IMHO, don't deserve to get in . . . but that's just me.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Guest4793
( )

Posted - 06/26/2012 :  21:15:02  Reply with Quote
I like that type of criteria. I am not always impressed with longevity numbers and couldnt agree more with the Mike gartner example.

Very good player for a long time; never great.

I would say that Roenick and Oates were dominant at times... oates with 148 points for example.

again, perhaps all legitimate HOF candidates, but Sundin was not at the same level as Sakic (and not Hawerchuk as repeated) so I think they got that wrong.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4601 Posts

Posted - 06/27/2012 :  06:27:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4793

I like that type of criteria. I am not always impressed with longevity numbers and couldnt agree more with the Mike gartner example.

Very good player for a long time; never great.

I would say that Roenick and Oates were dominant at times... oates with 148 points for example.

again, perhaps all legitimate HOF candidates, but Sundin was not at the same level as Sakic (and not Hawerchuk as repeated) so I think they got that wrong.



I never saw Roenick or Oates dominate games like Sundin did regularly. The best for me was some of those Olympic and World Championships, where Sundin was literally the best player in the tournament as his team won . . . and that was playing with Forsberg, btw. It blew me away how dominant he could be playing for Sweden.

No, I agree that Sundin is a step below Sakic, and that is why I rank Sakic higher as you see.

And yeah, I think Hawerchuk should probably be in there as well.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Guest9816
( )

Posted - 06/27/2012 :  08:29:26  Reply with Quote
I guess if Sundin is in Alfredsson is in for sure.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 06/27/2012 :  08:58:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Slozo, your comment surprises me a little, especially as Lindros was on the top of your list. Jeromy Roenick was one of the most physically imposing fowards of his generation. Even more impressive is that he is not a huge guy compared to Lindros or the other monsters of the 90's.

Considering your strategy of taking the best 5 years, I think you have Sundin and Shanahan to high on the list. Looking at 90/91 to 95/96 (in know it's 6 seasons but one was shortened with a strike) Roenick had 232 G and 280 A for 512 P in 426 games. Add in 52 pts in 55 playoff games including 2 trips to the Western Conf Finals and a Finals appearance against arguable on of the best hockey teams of all time ('91 Penguins).

Also, Adam Oates didn't dominate? He was the league's best set up man for a decade!! Again, using your best 5 years stretch criteria, Oates had 570 pts in 382 games(1.49 ppg) between 89/90 and 93/94. He also had 74 pts in 47 playoff games in that stretch. How about a 115 pts season with 90 assists playing only 61 games!!

I gotta say, both of those 5 year stretches are better than anything Sundin or Shanahan were able to do. I think you could also argue that Sakic has 2 different 5 year stretches during his career that were better than anything Sundin or Shanahan did in their best 5 years. Looking at 100 pts season alone, Sundin had one. Sakic, Roenick, and Oates not only had multiple but has 5 year stretches where they averaged 100 or nearly 100 pts a season. Based on your 5 year best criteria, my list would be:

1. Sakic
2. Lindros
3. Bure
4. Oates
5. Roenick
6. Sundin
7. Shanahan

PS - Gilmour is in the Hall of Fame. He went in last year.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4601 Posts

Posted - 06/28/2012 :  05:03:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Silly of me to put Gilmour in there, not sure what I was thinking, my bad.

To dominate (slozo's definition):
- impose one's will upon other players in the game
- be the most important, most dangerous person on the ice at all times
- be the player without whom you would have lost

The number of goals and assists matters, sure . . . but it's not the primary factor as you seem to make it. For instance, I remember many games where Forsberg was the dominant player, imposing his total will on the game, and he ended up with only an assist or two while Sakic had a three point night. You get the picture.

And this whole thing is muddied by having other players of great skill on the same team as the player in question. Except that, we don't really have that problem with Sundin, save perhaps for a few years that he played with Mogilny, he was always with nobodies or second tier players.

Shanahan was the worst, I mean - the biggest beneficiary IMHO of playing with great teams and great players. Oates, I count as close behind.

I honestly was never - not even once, in all my thousands of hours of watching hockey in the 80s - NEVER impressed by even one game that Oates played. From all the guys with super high assist totals, he stands out to me as a weird anamoly of a player . . . somehow racked up these incredible totals, but never "dominated". As a comparison, I remember tonnes of times that Thornton dominated, Forsberg (he was the best of the lot), Gilmour, Yzerman (when he became more of an assist guy), even a guy like Brind'amour, and heck, I do remember a few times that Ron Francis did too (although he was another huge beneficiary of playing with greats).

But I cannot come up with any one game - never mind an important one - where Oates was "the man".

So, call that what you will . . . maybe it's selective memory, and maybe I didn't watch enough of him, who knows . . . but I don't have any love for Oates, sorry.

And Lindros I put ahead of Sakic . . . whereas Sakic was probably in his very best years was a top 3 guy (maybe even below his teammate Forsberg), Lindros was a dominant beast at #1 for 2 and a half years. I gotta give him that.

Roenick . . . he did have some great games where he imposed his will, but not at the same level of Sundin IMHO, but certainly ahead of Oates.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 06/28/2012 :  08:06:37  Reply with Quote
quote:

But I cannot come up with any one game - never mind an important one - where Oates was "the man".

So, call that what you will . . . maybe it's selective memory, and maybe I didn't watch enough of him, who knows . . . but I don't have any love for Oates, sorry.

Adam Oates is the equivalent of Nik Lidstrom on offense. No flash, nothing obvious that stands out, just effectiveness at getting the biscuit to the shooters in a scoring position.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 06/28/2012 :  08:39:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Fair and valid points Slozo. I appreciate the thoughts. I think this may just be a situation where we see things differently. Specifically with Roenick and Oates. I agree completely with your take Lindros and I firmly believe that if he had a better reputation off the ice he would be far more heralded off the ice. I also agree that Sakic had a huge benefit from Forsberg and Shanahan had a huge benefit from, well, the entire Red Wings teams. Fedorov and Yzerman specifically.

Back to my two guys. I think guest made a good point with Oates and that he was like Lidstrom. Not a pile of flash but that guy put the puck on the tape of the open guy night after night after night. Definitely not in a spectacular fashion, but nearly 1100 assists is hard to argue. He did play with Neely, Hull, and Bondra in his career but one could argue that he made them better as much as they were great trigger men.

And Roenick was a beast in his early days in Chicago. I can see that the distance of those memories make them fade and he is was a shadow of his former self after multiple concussions in Philly, but back in the early 90's he was a dominant as any forward in the NHL. He played with stank and I love that.

To each their own. I respect and appreciate your opinions. I can't argue that Sundin has a great career. When you consider that the 2nd half of his career was on a team where he basically carried the bag on his own, he truly was a special player.

It's actual a nice debate to have when you have too many qualified players to get inducted into the Hall and no one is really arguing that any of the name we are discussing don't belong.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Guest5052
( )

Posted - 06/28/2012 :  12:18:44  Reply with Quote
Ive got to say, that while we may disagree with some assessments of players, I do appreciate that people dont just look at numbers and longevity. Stats matter, for sure, but to me the Hall should be for great players.

With respect to the Oates assessment, I get your thoughts but for me, the guy was perhaps a litle more subtle, but made unbelievable plays and did dominate. He was all over the ice like a roenick or Sundin, but was very often the difference maker in games.

To each their own.

Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 07/07/2012 :  08:13:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
You never seen Oates and Roenick dominate games. Wow those Blue and white glasses are dark and hard to see thru. In there best seasons they were more dominant on the score sheet and in Roenicks case way more dominant on the ice physically.
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

quote:
Originally posted by Guest4793

I like that type of criteria. I am not always impressed with longevity numbers and couldnt agree more with the Mike gartner example.

Very good player for a long time; never great.

I would say that Roenick and Oates were dominant at times... oates with 148 points for example.

again, perhaps all legitimate HOF candidates, but Sundin was not at the same level as Sakic (and not Hawerchuk as repeated) so I think they got that wrong.



I never saw Roenick or Oates dominate games like Sundin did regularly. The best for me was some of those Olympic and World Championships, where Sundin was literally the best player in the tournament as his team won . . . and that was playing with Forsberg, btw. It blew me away how dominant he could be playing for Sweden.

No, I agree that Sundin is a step below Sakic, and that is why I rank Sakic higher as you see.

And yeah, I think Hawerchuk should probably be in there as well.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 07/07/2012 :  08:40:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I am having a hard time putting Sundin in the class of Sakic, Forsberg, Oates and Roenick. I know he was a great all around player but I wouldn't put him in the class of the best of anything. And the fact that he played a lot of games on one team which couldn't generate a good playoff run save for one year with him as the captain, versus the other players mentioned who consistantly vied for the cup year after year. The fact Sundin never tasted out of the stanely is partially his responsibility.

I also have a hard time with the suggestion that Sundin played with nobodies for most of his career. I will agree at the end of his career for a few years Toronto couldn't attract or develop star offensive players but early in his career he played with many offensive players (and I dont mean offensive like Tucker and Domi) He played with players whom are more deserving of first ballot in Hall of fame consideration or already in the Hall of fame. I dare anyone to suggest Roberts, Neiuwendyck, Gilmore and Mogilny are a bunch of nobodys. From my recollection the were many years were Sundin wasn't even the best player on his team. If I was picking players in there prime and throughout there careers, I might go with all four of those players ahead of Sundin in my rankings.

I dare you suggest Sakic was ever anything but an elite player for his entire career same with Oates. Roenick had some off years due to concussions, but prior to that was in another class of player than Sundin. Post concussion they were more on the same level. I dont think these players deserve being mentioned as "like players" to Sundin. Yes, he was a great all around player and deserving of hall of fame consideration, but first ballot over some of the other candidates, definately some leafs bias in the voting process here

Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 07/07/2012 08:45:06
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4601 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2012 :  05:14:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

You never seen Oates and Roenick dominate games. Wow those Blue and white glasses are dark and hard to see thru. In there best seasons they were more dominant on the score sheet and in Roenicks case way more dominant on the ice physically.
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

quote:
Originally posted by Guest4793

I like that type of criteria. I am not always impressed with longevity numbers and couldnt agree more with the Mike gartner example.

Very good player for a long time; never great.

I would say that Roenick and Oates were dominant at times... oates with 148 points for example.

again, perhaps all legitimate HOF candidates, but Sundin was not at the same level as Sakic (and not Hawerchuk as repeated) so I think they got that wrong.



I never saw Roenick or Oates dominate games like Sundin did regularly. The best for me was some of those Olympic and World Championships, where Sundin was literally the best player in the tournament as his team won . . . and that was playing with Forsberg, btw. It blew me away how dominant he could be playing for Sweden.

No, I agree that Sundin is a step below Sakic, and that is why I rank Sakic higher as you see.

And yeah, I think Hawerchuk should probably be in there as well.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug





And yet, those dark blue shades I wear can somehow see the brilliance of Sakic, Forsberg, Lindros, Bure, and even Hawerchuk.

My dark blue shades are preventing me from seeing, however, your brilliant point?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Edited by - slozo on 07/09/2012 05:14:33
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2012 :  05:44:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The brilliance point was the third line in the post. It says, "In there best seasons they we're more dominant on the score sheet and in Roenicks case more dominant physically."

Although I don't agree with the grammar, I can't argue the point. I agree at both Oates and Roenick deserve the nod into the Hall before Sundin.

That being said, I don't think the lack of credit to those two players from Slozo has anything to do with the shade of his glasses. Although I could see the point of over credited Sundin in the tint of blue. I also think the nominating committee did the same thing. Doug Gilmour and d*** Duff (who? Exactly) are the players inducted into the HOF in the past decade who played for the Leafs in the past decade. Gotta keep the quota up.



Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4601 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2012 :  08:41:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I am having a hard time putting Sundin in the class of Sakic, Forsberg, Oates and Roenick. I know he was a great all around player but I wouldn't put him in the class of the best of anything. And the fact that he played a lot of games on one team which couldn't generate a good playoff run save for one year with him as the captain, versus the other players mentioned who consistantly vied for the cup year after year. The fact Sundin never tasted out of the stanely is partially his responsibility.

I also have a hard time with the suggestion that Sundin played with nobodies for most of his career. I will agree at the end of his career for a few years Toronto couldn't attract or develop star offensive players but early in his career he played with many offensive players (and I dont mean offensive like Tucker and Domi) He played with players whom are more deserving of first ballot in Hall of fame consideration or already in the Hall of fame. I dare anyone to suggest Roberts, Neiuwendyck, Gilmore and Mogilny are a bunch of nobodys. From my recollection the were many years were Sundin wasn't even the best player on his team. If I was picking players in there prime and throughout there careers, I might go with all four of those players ahead of Sundin in my rankings.

I dare you suggest Sakic was ever anything but an elite player for his entire career same with Oates. Roenick had some off years due to concussions, but prior to that was in another class of player than Sundin. Post concussion they were more on the same level. I dont think these players deserve being mentioned as "like players" to Sundin. Yes, he was a great all around player and deserving of hall of fame consideration, but first ballot over some of the other candidates, definately some leafs bias in the voting process here



Welcome to Selective Reading 101, glad you could join us.

Don't bother quoting me, or actually responding to anything I actually said - no no no, just make up arguments you THINK I said and respond to those. Perfect!

I'll make my rebuttal quick, since I don't want to bother wasting my time on your poorly worded argument. Sorry, but it's true.

1) A team wins the Stanley Cup, not a player. Bure never won a cup, and I guess it's partly his fault the Canucks never won that cup, right? 16 goals, 31 points was not enough?

I guess that slacker Sundin - who led his team in points 12 out of 13 years (beaten by Mogilny, 7 points below him in 02/03) just couldn't pull all of those HOFers to the cup, eh? (Of note: Sundin outpointed Gilmour in the only full season they ever played together) just couldn't lead all his Hall of Fame linemates to the promised land, right right.

Sundin never played with Gilmour on the same line, btw. Sundin's major linemates throughout his Toronto years were:
all-star Jonas Hoglund
a young Freddy Modin
a young Antropov
the amazing Alexei Ponikarovsky
a diminished but still very good Alexander Mogilny
an oft-injured and diminished Gary Roberts

Oh yeah baby, take me to the cup.

2) I have always contended that Sakic was a step above, and Bure was a step above. So why are you accusing me of putting him in the same category as they?

3) And lastly, the only time that Sundin did not play with a bunch of nobodies? When he played for team Sweden internationally. There he led a team with Forsberg on it to a gold medal, captaining that team, btw, and leading it to the promised land past all other countries.

Hey, was Shanahan or Oates the captain of the Canadian team that finished behind team Sweden that year? I can't remember.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Edited by - slozo on 07/09/2012 08:43:01
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2012 :  08:44:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
All I meant in my arguement, with poor grammer, was that the list of players he played with early in his career hardly qualify as a bunch of nobody's. The last 5 years of his career he might have played with less star calibre players. But it makes it easier to lead your team on the stats sheet too.

My reference to the players he was being compared to was overall career's. I felt they were all better career players in the prime of there career's. I just dont feel he would have led those players in voting if they had been inducted in the same year. He was a steady good-great player, but not comparable to some of the greatest during that period of time. Sweden's win aside, which is not an NHL award, what did he accomplish great in the NHL, for him to be a first time inducty over some greater players who have yet to receive the honour or didn't make it first ballot.

The one stat that stand out in his career for me, was his tenure as Leafs captain. This high profile position he held with class for an extended period of time. I do not hate Sundin, actually I would have loved it if Alfredson and he had switch careers, and he had been primarily a Senator.

Hopefully my grammer is better. I'd hate to offend with bad punctuality.

Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 07/10/2012 08:48:08
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2012 :  09:55:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Slozo, you do bring up a good point when considering the international careers of these players. Roenick comes close but as far as Sundin vs Shanahan, no contest internationally.

That said, I still think Roenick deserve the nod ahead of Sundin. I do think Sundin is a HOFer. Just not a first ballot guy.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4601 Posts

Posted - 07/11/2012 :  05:48:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

All I meant in my arguement, with poor grammer, was that the list of players he played with early in his career hardly qualify as a bunch of nobody's. The last 5 years of his career he might have played with less star calibre players. But it makes it easier to lead your team on the stats sheet too.

My reference to the players he was being compared to was overall career's. I felt they were all better career players in the prime of there career's. I just dont feel he would have led those players in voting if they had been inducted in the same year. He was a steady good-great player, but not comparable to some of the greatest during that period of time. Sweden's win aside, which is not an NHL award, what did he accomplish great in the NHL, for him to be a first time inducty over some greater players who have yet to receive the honour or didn't make it first ballot.

The one stat that stand out in his career for me, was his tenure as Leafs captain. This high profile position he held with class for an extended period of time. I do not hate Sundin, actually I would have loved it if Alfredson and he had switch careers, and he had been primarily a Senator.

Hopefully my grammer is better. I'd hate to offend with bad punctuality.



The HOCKEY Hall of Fame is not the NHL Hall of Fame. 2 totally different things.

What Sundin has over Roenick is:
1) was the captain and leader of his NHL team, and was an excellent and well-spoken representative in this regard
2) was the captain and leader for his country
3) led his country internationally to a gold medal
4) Excelled internationally, and was the highest scorer in several international tournaments
5) Holds all-time team records for goals, assists by a forward and points on an original 6 club
6) One of only two forwards (Marcel Dinnoe the other) to record at least 20 goals in each of first 17 NHL seasons

You will never convince me about the "he padded his stats by playing with lesser players" argument. In flies in the face of reality. In truth, it is the other way around, and this worked hugely for Roenick's benefit.

Hey - Roenick was a great player back in the day, don't get me wrong. But judge the player at his peak, when playing against the best players . . . and it's no contest. When you look at the overall accomplishments, it's also no contest.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/11/2012 :  10:04:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Let's look at this 'peak 5 year period' for a second.

As I previously posted, if you take Roenick from 90-96 his 512 pts in 426 games coupled with a PPG playoff record including a trip to the finals and 2 trips to the Western conference. How is that no contest compared to Sundin?? I mean, take the 5 best seasons Sundin had (not even consecutively) and he does not match that. Sundin's best 5 seasons (non-consecutive) was 459 pts in 404 games. You can not reasonably say that Roenick loses that 'no contest'.

Secondly, to look at international accomplishments is valid. However, I personally think the annual WC is useless as it happens when NHLers are in the playoffs. So Sundin gets the benefit of all that glory while Roenick was trying to win a Cup? If you remove the WC that Sundin was part of, he had the Olympic Gold. Roenick has an Olympic Silver and a World Cup Silver in 96. Both players were named to the All Star team at the 91 Canada Cup. Again, taking out the WC, Sundin had 40 pts in 35 international games (Olympics, Canada Cup, World Cup) to Roenick's 28 pts in 28 games. No contest?? C'mon....

Also, as I agree that it's not Sundin's fault he did not play with the talent that say a Sakic or an Oates did, you can not fault JR for not being cappy of the US team when other HOFers like Leetch, Modano, and Hull were around.

Please don't take this as a knock against Sundin. Great player. HOFer no doubt. But to make a comment like "But judge the player at his peak, when playing against the best players . . . and it's no contest. When you look at the overall accomplishments, it's also no contest," is short sighted in my opinion. It's a very close contest if you ask me.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  12:38:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree with almost all of this. Hall of famer yes. 1st ballot ahead of players mentioned or others who have yet to receive the honour, not so much. Great player and at the end of the day, Leafs fans 1st ballot hall of famer. I am not all together upset, just think Roenick was more deserving.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Let's look at this 'peak 5 year period' for a second.

As I previously posted, if you take Roenick from 90-96 his 512 pts in 426 games coupled with a PPG playoff record including a trip to the finals and 2 trips to the Western conference. How is that no contest compared to Sundin?? I mean, take the 5 best seasons Sundin had (not even consecutively) and he does not match that. Sundin's best 5 seasons (non-consecutive) was 459 pts in 404 games. You can not reasonably say that Roenick loses that 'no contest'.

Secondly, to look at international accomplishments is valid. However, I personally think the annual WC is useless as it happens when NHLers are in the playoffs. So Sundin gets the benefit of all that glory while Roenick was trying to win a Cup? If you remove the WC that Sundin was part of, he had the Olympic Gold. Roenick has an Olympic Silver and a World Cup Silver in 96. Both players were named to the All Star team at the 91 Canada Cup. Again, taking out the WC, Sundin had 40 pts in 35 international games (Olympics, Canada Cup, World Cup) to Roenick's 28 pts in 28 games. No contest?? C'mon....

Also, as I agree that it's not Sundin's fault he did not play with the talent that say a Sakic or an Oates did, you can not fault JR for not being cappy of the US team when other HOFers like Leetch, Modano, and Hull were around.

Please don't take this as a knock against Sundin. Great player. HOFer no doubt. But to make a comment like "But judge the player at his peak, when playing against the best players . . . and it's no contest. When you look at the overall accomplishments, it's also no contest," is short sighted in my opinion. It's a very close contest if you ask me.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  12:41:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I liked most of your arguement and at the end of the day that is why he is in the Hall of fame. My arguement wasn't that playing with lessor players padded his stats, it was that is was easier to lead his team in the scoring race.
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

All I meant in my arguement, with poor grammer, was that the list of players he played with early in his career hardly qualify as a bunch of nobody's. The last 5 years of his career he might have played with less star calibre players. But it makes it easier to lead your team on the stats sheet too.

My reference to the players he was being compared to was overall career's. I felt they were all better career players in the prime of there career's. I just dont feel he would have led those players in voting if they had been inducted in the same year. He was a steady good-great player, but not comparable to some of the greatest during that period of time. Sweden's win aside, which is not an NHL award, what did he accomplish great in the NHL, for him to be a first time inducty over some greater players who have yet to receive the honour or didn't make it first ballot.

The one stat that stand out in his career for me, was his tenure as Leafs captain. This high profile position he held with class for an extended period of time. I do not hate Sundin, actually I would have loved it if Alfredson and he had switch careers, and he had been primarily a Senator.

Hopefully my grammer is better. I'd hate to offend with bad punctuality.



The HOCKEY Hall of Fame is not the NHL Hall of Fame. 2 totally different things.

What Sundin has over Roenick is:
1) was the captain and leader of his NHL team, and was an excellent and well-spoken representative in this regard
2) was the captain and leader for his country
3) led his country internationally to a gold medal
4) Excelled internationally, and was the highest scorer in several international tournaments
5) Holds all-time team records for goals, assists by a forward and points on an original 6 club
6) One of only two forwards (Marcel Dinnoe the other) to record at least 20 goals in each of first 17 NHL seasons

You will never convince me about the "he padded his stats by playing with lesser players" argument. In flies in the face of reality. In truth, it is the other way around, and this worked hugely for Roenick's benefit.

Hey - Roenick was a great player back in the day, don't get me wrong. But judge the player at his peak, when playing against the best players . . . and it's no contest. When you look at the overall accomplishments, it's also no contest.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Go to Top of Page

Guest2218
( )

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  11:00:55  Reply with Quote
This is a different argument, but I'd have picked Lindros over Bure.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4601 Posts

Posted - 07/18/2012 :  10:33:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2218

This is a different argument, but I'd have picked Lindros over Bure.



Based on highest ever value as a hockey player, no argument - Lindros was above Bure, and based on THAT criteria alone, above everyone we mentioned here, including Sakic.

That's why the HOF is so subjective . . . and why we even have all these debates, with opposing opinions holding very similar degrees of merit. It all depends on what criteria you use.

I mean, I think we all use the criteria of
1) highest level of performance for their time
2) awards, medals, records, cups, achievements
3) # of seasons of high/great performance
4) intangible / unmeasurable traits of greatness (defensive ability, leadership, grit, etc)
5) mitigating factors for points 1, 2 and 3 (injuries, short/long career, played on poor/great teams, played mostly with great/poor players, etc)

but it's just a matter of to what degree or percentage we give to each point. And I have a feeling that when the voting happens for these players . . . they don't use a measurable and accurate system with assigned percentages for each point and sub-point to judge a player's worthiness on.

But it would be fun to do some time!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page