The Hockey News: Brian Costello's blog: THN.com Blog: Sizing up the 2010 Hall of Fame induction class

THN.com Blog: Sizing up the 2010 Hall of Fame induction class

Joe Nieuwendyk will be up for Hall of Fame induction in 2010. (Photo by Dave Sandford/NHLI via Getty Images)

Brian Costello
2009-11-08 09:45:00

We’ve had quite a run of Hall of Fame induction classes the past several years.

This year’s foursome of Steve Yzerman, Brett Hull, Brian Leetch and Luc Robitaille ranks among the best ever. But even slightly better was the 2007 class of Mark Messier, Al MacInnis, Scott Stevens and Ron Francis.

And these two groups come just five years after the best induction class for defensemen ever, that being Ray Bourque, Paul Coffey and Larry Murphy in 2004.

Looking ahead, the 2010 field isn’t nearly as strong. Among players first-time eligible (three years retired) Joe Nieuwendyk is the best bet for induction while Eric Lindros and John LeClair are bubble candidates. Long-shot first-timers are Peter Bondra and Pierre Turgeon.

Also in the mix is an impressive list of holdovers from previous years. Because a maximum of four per year get in, the fifth-, sixth- and seventh-best players from the 2009 class – Alex Mogilny, Dave Andreychuk and Theo Fleury – are effectively first-timers in 2010. There was no room for them this year.

Wait, there’s more.

Pavel Bure, Doug Gilmour, Tom Barrasso, Phil Housley and Mike Richter were first-time eligible in 2006. They were all turned down even though there was room with Patrick Roy and Dick Duff that year.

Igor Larionov and Adam Oates were the No. 5 and 6 candidates in the stacked class of 2007. Larionov got in with longtime holdover Glenn Anderson in 2008, but Oates is still a worthy candidate.

Holdovers from previous years include Guy Carbonneau, Dino Ciccarelli, Dale Hunter, Sergei Makarov, Steve Larmer, Kevin Lowe, Mike Vernon and Mark Howe. So that’s 20 solid names to consider in 2010.

Related Links

One thing I’ve learned about the Hall of Fame’s selection committee in my years monitoring their results is they’re never in a hurry to induct former stars who had run-ins with the law or NHL’s disciplinary board, or were not model players or citizens.

Anderson was first-time eligible in 2000, but didn’t get in until 2008. Hunter, Ciccarelli, Gilmour, Bure, Barrasso, Housley and Fleury also fall into that category of players who were special on the ice, but caused a headache or two off it.

And for that reason I don’t think Lindros, a high maintenance player if there ever was one, will get Hall of Fame approval from at least 14 of the 18 men on the selection committee. Not in his first year eligible.

My picks for 2010 induction are Nieuwendyk, Bure and Carbonneau. And I haven’t yet made up my mind on the fourth opening.

Brian Costello is The Hockey News’s senior special editions editor and a regular contributor to THN.com. You can find his blog each weekend.

For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.

COMMENTS (28)

Sort: Oldest | Newest Filter: All | Videos

detcrockett77 Posted
(2009-11-10 20:18:23)

Singollo, It's not a matter of stretching. It's merely being logical. And I'm also not saying statistics don't matter; it's just that you have to view them in the proper light. You can't draw a clear line in the sand. You could say, for instance, 500 goals, or for goalies, 300 wins, but even then, some players attain those benchmarks simply due to longevity and/or to favorable circumstances (e.g. Osgood, Andreychuk). It's the same with the Cups. You said, "This is precisely how the legions of "pretty good" players end up in the Hall of Fame," referring to looking past stats and Cups. If anything, it's the other way around. I mean, do you honestly think Clark Gillies belongs in the Hall of Fame? Or various players from the Original Six era?

singollo Posted
(2009-11-10 16:22:45)

@detcrock77: I'd sure love to hear what your idea of HOF credentials and criteria are. You've already stated "it's not all goals and assists" and implied that you don't think statistics should be the primary factor, and now you've said "trophies, awards, and All-Star Game appearances shouldn't really be part of the discussion". So if you take out a players stats, awards, honors, and All-Star nods, what do you have left to objectively compare? Stanley Cup rings? I get your point, but I simply don't agree. This is precisely how the legions of "pretty good" players end up in the Hall of Fame. For my money, baseball has it right. No one ever says "well, you know what...there were a lot of great players at left field when he played, so his lack of a Gold Glove is excused". If you have to stretch at all to find a reason why someone should be in the HOF, they shouldn't be. It's that simple.

detcrockett77 Posted
(2009-11-10 13:54:04)

Trophies, awards, and All-Star Game appearances shouldn't really be part of the discussion. A lot of that is subjective, and a lot of it has to do with circumstance (e.g. too many great players at one position during the same era, etc.).

singollo Posted
(2009-11-10 09:04:39)

@Texasgoat: Please. Spare me the "Lester Patrick" nonsense. I know Broten won the Patrick, deservingly so, but acting as it that trophy bolsters an otherwise shaky resume is laughable. The Patrick is given out not for on-ice achievement, but for contribution to the sport in the US. It's also been awarded to 108 individuals since it's inception in 1966, so it's not exactly an ultra-exclusive club. In any case, the Patrick Trophy would strengthen one's case for induction into the US Hockey Hall of Fame. And as you point out, Broten is a well-deserving member already. And precisely what other awards did Broten win in his career? And we're talking individual honors that indicate being among the best at his position for a sustained number of years? That, in my mind, is what should get you in the Hall of Fame. You say he had "plenty of assists". I say that 634 assists in 1099 career games, particurlarly when you had the entirety of the run-and-gun 1980's to rack up points is the sign of a good, but not great, playmaker. Again, I'm not trying to knock Broten: he was a very good player, I'd have loved having him on my team, and I have a great deal of respect for what he's done for hockey in the US: all of this does not change the fact that he is not one of the all-time greats, and thus does not belong in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

kozzomozzo Posted
(2009-11-09 23:59:10)

Bure should be in he was the best goal scorer in the league for 4-5 years. housley will get he was too elite for too long not too. Carbonneau was the second greatest defensive player ever to most people so even though he may not get in he has to be the next defensive playere to get in. Broten shouldn't be there you should have to be elite to get in. My favorite player is recchi. He has 1400 points and he was never an elite player so why the hell should broten get in. Fleury should be in after all he has been part of too many great teams to be left out with his cup and the olympic team. As far as oates goes ask neely or hull or that question.

texasgoat Posted
(2009-11-09 16:31:43)

Hey there "singollo"............... How about the awards Broten received in his career??? Lester Patrick, for starters..............OK, he did not have 300 goals.........but he did have plenty of assists. His career started with the 1980 Miracle on Ice, and from there to the North Stars, the Stars, the Devils, and back to the Stars. I really believe our then coach, Hitchcock, made a big mistake not using Neal in his last game enroute to retirement. Just ask the Devils Cup team what Neal's contributions were in 95..........starting with Capt. Scott Stevens. Bet he would disagree with your reasoning, as would any center/winger who played with him. By the way, he is already in the US Hockey Hall.

singollo Posted
(2009-11-09 15:31:51)

@detcrockett: My post was more of a general statement about how the HOF continually chooses to induct those who had "good" careers. Of course there is no magic number of goals, assists, or points for enshrinement: my premise was that if you played your entire prime during most offensively-minded era in NHL history and can't crack 300 goals, you probably are not HOF material. And Broten was NOT an "elite set up man". He was a very good player; he could have a spot on my team any day- but he was not elite. I'd use 70 assists in a season as a fairly good level to qualify for "elite" playmaker status: Broten achieved it just once. He appeared in only two NHL All-Star games, recieved no post-season First or Second Team All-Star nods, and never earned any individual awards or nominations for his on-ice performance. In the other major pro sports, there wouldn't even be a discussion about someone with Broten's resume; only in the NHL do the legions of the "pretty good" get HOF consideration. I agree it's not all goals and assists, and not every HOFer will be Gretzy or Bobby Orr...but they should still be among the greatest to play the game.

detcrockett77 Posted
(2009-11-09 13:30:26)

I'm reading some of these comments, and I see Neal Broten's name come up. One poster suggested he shouldn't get in since he didn't have 300 goals. That's poor reasoning, because Broten wasn't a sniper--he was an elite setup man. That said, I'm not convinced he's quite a Hall of Famer. He's just always struck me as one of those "best of the rest" guys, like Eric Desjardins to defensemen. I agree with the sentiment that Nieuwendyk is not a "surefire lock," per se, but I think he should still get in. (Not every HOFer is a Gretzky or an Orr, obviously. Some of them are "merely" great. ;)) People forget that aside from his offensive prowess, Nieuwendyk was a very underrated defensive player and penalty killer, not to mention a superb faceoff man and playoff presence. It's not all goals and assists, people.

singollo Posted
(2009-11-09 13:09:56)

@Texasgoat- you and I have completely different opinions on what constitutes a players Hall of Fame worthiness. In my view, being "a good guy who gave their best with a great career" shouldn't be a free pass to the Hall. It's obviously far too late to change things now, with the Hall having admitted so many borderline candidates already, but I'd much rather have the Hall limited to the true greats of the game, not the endless lists of players who were very good for a very long time. And I wasn't trying to say Nieuwendyk shouldn't gain entry, just that I disagree with the implication in the article that he's a sure-fire lock. He's not, or shouldn't be in my mind, a guaranteed first-ballot entry. As I said, his overall resume will probably get him in, I just don't think he should be viewed as a slam-dunk case the way an Yzerman, Messier, or Bourque were. Now Neal Broten...I'm sure, but he is NOT a Hall of Famer. US Hockey Hall of Fame, sure. The overall HOF, no way. Broten played his entire prime during the run-and-gun 80's, and he still didn't notch 300 goals in his career. Being a good, solid team guy who pots 20-30 goals a year is NOT a HOF resume.

janb55 Posted
(2009-11-09 12:27:51)

azlizard, if you think that being a Canadian is the first qualification for the HOF, then how did Brian Leetch get in? then Bure and Moligny shouldn't be considered?? and Hasek(when he's eligible) shouldn't be considered, either??

1 2 3 Next »