The Hockey News: Special Features: Analysis: 2008 HHOF class shows committee learning from past mistakes

Analysis: 2008 HHOF class shows committee learning from past mistakes

Glenn Anderson celebrates his Stanley Cup victory over the Boston Bruins on May 24, 1990. (Photo by Bruce Bennett Studios/Getty Images)

Ken Campbell
2008-06-17 16:44:02

The Hall of Fame’s selection committee undoubtedly left former players such as Doug Gilmour, Pavel Bure and Dino Ciccarelli disappointed Tuesday, but it also went a long way toward regaining credibility with its selections for induction in 2008.

In addition to inducting deserving players Glenn Anderson and Igor Larionov, the HHOF committee chose not to induct two other players it had the option of doing.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Hall’s selections and omissions is one thing, but at least the selection committee can’t be accused this year of inducting unworthy candidates, something that has plagued this group in the past.

I have to admit, I had a sick feeling in my stomach all day this was going to be the year the selection committee would bow to public pressure and grant induction to Paul Henderson, largely because the four spots were open due to the fact there was no retirement class in 2005.

Related Links

Larionov headlines 2008 class heading into Hockey Hall of Fame

That the Hall of Fame didn’t use those open spots to induct players who couldn’t cut it in the past is very encouraging indeed.

You can certainly make a legitimate case for Bure, as you can for Ciccarelli. But the fact they weren’t inducted indicates the selection committee might be more concerned with inducting quality candidates rather than doing something nice for a player they like or being swayed by one or two members of the 17-member board who convinced them to induct a candidate with spotty credentials.

Hall of Fame induction should be reserved only for the truly great players, not the really good ones. It seems the Hall’s induction committee took that philosophy to heart this year.

Let’s hope it’s onto something here.

COMMENTS (9)

Sort: Oldest | Newest | Love | Hate Filter: All | Videos

William Headley Posted
(2009-04-30 06:29:37)

I just dont understand how Igor larionov can rate higher than dino ciccarelli , adam oates , phil housley and doug gilmour . He had a good career yes but not a great one , how can he rate higher . even anderson cant stand out over the four of them , very odd . I could list all sorts of acompleshments on the side of all six but it just doesnt need to be done at one time I thought that anderson was left off unfairly so patience .

bryan blaine Posted
(2009-04-30 06:26:51)

How does Glenn Anderson qualify as a "great" player?? I agree that Bure should have gone in before him. Adam Oates too-he helped Brett Hull become who he was with those sweet passes! Anderson was merely very good-only 2 50-goal seasons-and was a nonfactor once Gretzky left the Oilers.

Joe and Dot Johannes Posted
(2009-04-30 06:26:50)

HHOF will always be a joke to these fans, because of their ongoing omission of Neal Broten. He has been passed over, first so they could induct Mario Lemieux (at his FIRST "retirement"), and ever since because of their fascination with other players and "worthier" contributors. The Hall should be for players first........Broten is very, very worthy, as are many others left out because of the narrow-mindedness of the Powers that BE..............Disgusting. All desire to ever make the trip to Toronto has long been squelched...............

Bruno Pinheiro Posted
(2009-04-30 06:26:48)

While I agree Bure and Gilmour belong in the Hall (and Cicarelli and Verbeek don't), if they are not inducted this year, they should never make it. I mean, only two guys made it, so it's not like it's from lack of space, so the commitee judged them unworthy of the Hall. How can it change in two or three years time? It's not like their careers improved. And I doubt the Commitee would go out and admit it was a mistake. So yeah, if a player is refused like that, when there were open spots and he just didn't make the cut, he should be out. Maybe a 2nd chance, then that's it.

Glen Miller Posted
(2009-04-30 06:26:46)

Verbeek was a great player. A tough guy who could score goals. Similar to Shanahan who I am sure will be in the Hall. I'm surprised that Oates didn't get in. He was a top notch setup guy for years on several teams. I think Anderson deserved to get in. It could be argued that Kurri rode Gretzky's and company's coat tails as much as Anderson did. I thought Housley would get more support as one of the best American born defenseman ever.

MacPhisto Posted
(2009-04-30 06:26:45)

I'll make a case for Pat Verbeek.

Jeremy Crowhurst Posted
(2009-04-30 06:26:43)

If the Hall was truly interested in inducting great players, as opposed to really good players who had great teammates, then Anderson would be outside looking in, and Adam Oates, Phil Housley and Dino Ciccarelli would be in. I can't loudly criticize the exclusion of Ciccarelli. No other eligible player with 600 goals has not been inducted, but the voters have the right to consider character issues, and Ciccarelli's concerns are considerable. The exclusion of Adam Oates, however, is simply mind-numbing. At some point, the Hall is going to have to look at what players brought to their teams, as opposed to what coattails players were able to ride. Look at Brett Hull's stats with and without Oates. Heck, look at the 92-93 Boston Bruins. Oates had 97 assists on a sniperless team (Cam Neely was injured that year) that scored 287 goals apart from the 45 he scored. That kind of achievement puts him in pretty select company. Anderson? Well... I guess if they want to build a wing for "Really Good Players Who Did Well Playing With Really Great Players", he can go in there with Steve Shutt, Clark Gillies, and Dick Duff.

Brian P Posted
(2009-04-30 06:26:43)

Agreed, Ken. Just because the Hall can induct up to four players a year doesn't mean they should every year. Though I was sort of hoping that they'd have the foresight to induct a woman in this year's player class. It would've been nice to see Larionov, Andy and Cammi Granato go in, but I'm not surprised they didn't. Compare Bure to Neely if you must, but Neely had to wait a fair length of time before he got in. Bure probably will too. Gilmour belongs in the hall of "very good." Ciccarelli too. I don't doubt that eventually someone will look at the all-time scorer's list and go "why aren't Gilmour, Ciccarelli and Oates in the Hall?" and then they'll get in. But I think it's a solid decision not to induct them now.

Kevin I Posted
(2009-04-30 06:26:43)

Ken you're right, great players should be in the hall, not really good ones, but if you will remember, Pavel Bure was a great player. A guy who put up 58 and 59 goals in the heart of clutch and grab NHL. If Neely is in based on what he could have done, Bure is the same, if he had two healthy knees and his career was longer, we're talking maybe over 500 goals and way more than his 779 points in 702 games. as far as gilmour goes 1414 points, almost 1000 assists and nearly a point a game over 23 years plus a cup means he needs to go in. this guy was one of the best players in the league in the early 90's. both worthy guys for sure.