Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... Hockey History
 Rick Middleton Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 10/03/2009 :  08:52:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As we embark on a new season let's pay tribute to one of the golden oldies from the past. An underrated star who is arguably HHOF-worthy (if Glenn Anderson is in, why not this guy?). Anyway, he was loads of fun to watch! Kids out there learning about the history of hockey - get your heads out of those Gretzky and Lemieux books for just a second! There are lots of other fascinating guys out there. Here's one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHquB8KYU8k

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 10/03/2009 :  09:03:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Nicely done Andyhack! It's often surprising how many good players fall into a black hole behind the superduper start. Middleton was a beast for a long long time. Nearly the 500 goal and 1000 point plateau. Very impressive for a smallish guy (5'11" -175 lbs) considering he played a pretty up tempo, take it to the net kind of style.

Unfortunately, I don't see him getting into the Hall. I can see your comparison to Anderson, but there are a couple of things between them. Namely, 6 Cup rings and completely clutch in the playoffs is part of Anderson's resume.
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 10/03/2009 :  20:01:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Nifty was fantastic. I'd vote for him to be in. They tell me I don't have a vote though.
Go to Top of Page

andyhack
PickupHockey Pro



Japan
891 Posts

Posted - 10/10/2009 :  18:55:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[quote]Unfortunately, I don't see him getting into the Hall. I can see your comparison to Anderson, but there are a couple of things between them. Namely, 6 Cup rings and completely clutch in the playoffs is part of Anderson's resume.
[quote]

Hi Beans - long time no talk!

Well, here's the thing. If Glenn is in and Rick is out, I think we have found our BORDER to the HHOF. It must be right between them as their numbers are remarkably similar. Here they are;
GP G A P
Glenn Anderson - 1129 498 601 1099
Rick Middleton - 1005 448 540 988

Middleton was pretty solid in the playoffs too. His 33 points in '83 actually top Glenn's best point total, though Glenn had many more impressive playoff seasons obviously, given the powerhouse team he was on.

This is probably a much closer call than people realize. Maybe more should be made of it. The Cups cannot be the answer as why should a player be put into the Hall of Fame over another player simply due to the good fortune of being on a great team.

So, without mentioning Cups, why is Glenn in and Rick out? Is the EXTREMELY slight edge (if any) which Glenn has, simply the BORDER to the Hall, as I say?



Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 10/11/2009 :  08:24:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The bottom line is that the HOF committee, at least recently, has tended to vote in players with Cups. If we looked at the all the players that are in the Hall, how many never won a Stanley Cup??? I would bet that the vast majority of the HOF players are also Cup winners.

Under that Logic, a player with 6 Cups is/should be a shoe in. Couple that with the other "unwritten" HOF criteria of 500 goals and 100 points, Anderson has 1/2 of that and very very close to 500 goals as well. Although Middleton is very close, no 500 goals, no 1000 points, and no Cup make it hard to be in the Hall. He was known as more of an offensive player than a defensive player, so that actually hurts him.

I agree there is a Border to the Hall of who is in and who is out, and I think that the Hall is a little watered down in some respects. But it is what it is. If is was my HOF I would say if Anderson is in, Middleton should be in too. Because the Bruins didn't win a Cup does not take away from Middleton as a player. If Middleton was in Edmonton and Anderson in Boston, their individual stats would be similar, but it would be Middleton with the Cups.

Ultimately, I agree that Middleton's single playoff point total is higher than Anderson's best, Anderson was CLUTCH in the playoffs. If there is a tie breaker, that would be it in my opinion.
Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 10/11/2009 :  08:50:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

The bottom line is that the HOF committee, at least recently, has tended to vote in players with Cups. If we looked at the all the players that are in the Hall, how many never won a Stanley Cup??? I would bet that the vast majority of the HOF players are also Cup winners.

Under that Logic, a player with 6 Cups is/should be a shoe in. Couple that with the other "unwritten" HOF criteria of 500 goals and 100 points, Anderson has 1/2 of that and very very close to 500 goals as well. Although Middleton is very close, no 500 goals, no 1000 points, and no Cup make it hard to be in the Hall. He was known as more of an offensive player than a defensive player, so that actually hurts him.

I agree there is a Border to the Hall of who is in and who is out, and I think that the Hall is a little watered down in some respects. But it is what it is. If is was my HOF I would say if Anderson is in, Middleton should be in too. Because the Bruins didn't win a Cup does not take away from Middleton as a player. If Middleton was in Edmonton and Anderson in Boston, their individual stats would be similar, but it would be Middleton with the Cups.

Ultimately, I agree that Middleton's single playoff point total is higher than Anderson's best, Anderson was CLUTCH in the playoffs. If there is a tie breaker, that would be it in my opinion.


Not to nit pick your posts lately Beans but Middleton was actually very good defensively. Even to the point of receiving Selke consideration. Finished as high as 4th in voting in 83-84.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 10/11/2009 :  09:21:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm not arguing that Middleton wasn't good defensively, I was saying that he was more well known for being offensive.

Mark Messier will never be known as a defensive player even though he was always counted on by all of his teams to shut down the other teams top players.

Being known for one thing does not mean automatically being bad for other things. I'm sure Middleton was very solid defensively, but he will never be confused with Carbonneau who is in the Hall purely for defensive reasons.
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5799 Posts

Posted - 10/11/2009 :  09:59:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Interesting debate, and there always will be these considering it's a place you need to be voted into! Beans, the cup wins thing is a tough one. I mean, in Anderson's case, yeah, he deserves it on cups alone, BUT, mostly because of the player he was, THEN add the cup's in and take it all into consideration. If multiple cups alone was enough, there'd be a whole lot of Habs, Oilers, Isles, etc, in there who aren't quite deserving? Take for example a guy like Charlie Huddy who i'm guessing won 4 maybe 5 cups? Not to take anything away from Huddy, who was a good defender, but he's not hall of fame worthy, that's for sure!
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 10/11/2009 :  14:14:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ah but, Alex116, your example brings up a very interesting question. Huddy played many of his career games beside Paul Coffey. It was becaues Huddy was so solid on the back end that allowed Coffey to play most of his time up ice. Huddy was brilliant, possibly the best I have ever watched, breaking up the 2 on 1. Mainly, because he faced 2-3 a shift because his defensive partner was way way up ice.

So does a guy like Huddy belong??? I would agree that it's doubtful. However, the pure defensive player is often not recognized for their contributions and often not in the HOF.

I'll throw out another example. Mark Howe was one of the top 5 defensemen I ever watched play. He was wicked awesome on both sides of the ice. He will never see the HOF, even though he was great.

Go to Top of Page

willus3
Moderator



Canada
1948 Posts

Posted - 10/11/2009 :  16:29:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Ah but, Alex116, your example brings up a very interesting question. Huddy played many of his career games beside Paul Coffey. It was becaues Huddy was so solid on the back end that allowed Coffey to play most of his time up ice. Huddy was brilliant, possibly the best I have ever watched, breaking up the 2 on 1. Mainly, because he faced 2-3 a shift because his defensive partner was way way up ice.

So does a guy like Huddy belong??? I would agree that it's doubtful. However, the pure defensive player is often not recognized for their contributions and often not in the HOF.

I'll throw out another example. Mark Howe was one of the top 5 defensemen I ever watched play. He was wicked awesome on both sides of the ice. He will never see the HOF, even though he was great.




I wouldn't say Howe will never make it. He may make it eventually. The thing that hurts Howe is his time with the WHA. For some reason the genius's on the committee hold that against players. Brewer and Tremblay are examples.
Howe was a fantastic defenceman though.
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5799 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2009 :  02:04:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans...Please, lemme explain myself.....i was simply using Huddy as an example! I loved the guy as a dman....errrrr..wait, i love him now that he wasn't killing my team! However, i don't care who "allowed" Coffey to be "Coffey", he's not worthy of the HOF!

HOWEVER!!!... i totally agree with you that if the standards changed, he'd be there!

You do see where i'm coming from though, no?
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