Is Jeff Skinner on a Hall of Fame trajectory?

[French Collection]

24 minutes ago, oddoublee said:

I would make one small correction to this - Roenick's big mouth (I would classify as outspoken) coupled with him being an American is what is holding him back. There is zero reason for him not to be in the Hall of Fame. It is pure silliness. 

I think he should be in due to his career numbers. Winning something is highly valued. Guys with lesser careers who have won Cup(s) and/or individual awards get in a lot more.

[Pimlach]

8 hours ago, Eleven said:

It's a low bar.

To a player it isn't.  

[Thorner]

Absolutely not 

[klos1963]

There is no Hall of Very Good. FYI

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, klos1963 said:

There is no Hall of Very Good. FYI

Explain Housley then.

No f'n' way he should be in the HoF.

[mjd1001]

24 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Explain Housley then.

No f'n' way he should be in the HoF.

4th all time scoring defenseman.  I agree with you that he was never 'great' as in a dominant player who carried a team at an MVP level, but when you are 4th all time, that may get you in the HOF. 

I think the top forwards not in the HOF in career scoring are Turgeon/Roenick. (not couting active guys who aren't eligible yet). And you have to get well into the 30's in terms of ranking among forward before you find where those guys rank.

Edited April 30, 2023 by mjd1001

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, mjd1001 said:

4th all time scoring defenseman.  I agree with you that he was never 'great' as in a dominant player who carried a team at an MVP level, but when you are 4th all time, that may get you in the HOF.

Where does he rank when his F scoring is taken out of that total?

And the only reason (besides not being exclusively a D-man) why his career totals are so high are because he played for 21 years.  Being slightly above average in scoring for a long time should not equate "greatness" which is what is SUPPOSED to be the primary criterion for entry into the HoF.

Though if his assists on Richer's goals were included, he'd probably be top 2 in scoring.  

He was absolutely BRUTAL in his own end.  He flat out never should have gotten in.  Had he not been American, he likely wouldn't have gotten in.

[mjd1001]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Where does he rank when his F scoring is taken out of that total?

And the only reason (besides not being exclusively a D-man) why his career totals are so high are because he played for 21 years.  Being slightly above average in scoring for a long time should not equate "greatness" which is what is SUPPOSED to be the primary criterion for entry into the HoF.

Though if his assists on Richer's goals were included, he'd probably be top 2 in scoring.  

He was absolutely BRUTAL in his own end.  He flat out never should have gotten in.  Had he not been American, he likely wouldn't have gotten in.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think all the hall of fames have too  many players in them that aren't great.  If it were up to me Housley would not be in there.  Neither would Hawerchuk.  I question the Sedins.  Kevin Lowe no way. Housley gets in way before I would even consider Zubov.  I never thought Ed Belfour was the reason his teams won. Bernie Federko...are you kidding me?  Marion Hossa is the definition of getting in via longevity. Almost the same with Mark Recchi.

So yes, Housley is marginal. But longevity and the numbers he put up put in in the same category as many of the above players. The NHL Hall of fame is NOT the hall of fame in reality, as you said it is the hall-of-very-good. But as long as they are going to inducte players like that, Housley deserves to be in just as much as some of the above players.  I wisht it wasn't that way, but Hall of fames get vistiors by inducting players, not keeping them out.

[Sabres73]

7 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think all the hall of fames have too  many players in them that aren't great.  If it were up to me Housley would not be in there.  Neither would Hawerchuk.  I question the Sedins.  Kevin Lowe no way. Housley gets in way before I would even consider Zubov.  I never thought Ed Belfour was the reason his teams won. Bernie Federko...are you kidding me?  Marion Hossa is the definition of getting in via longevity. Almost the same with Mark Recchi.

So yes, Housley is marginal. But longevity and the numbers he put up put in in the same category as many of the above players. The NHL Hall of fame is NOT the hall of fame in reality, as you said it is the hall-of-very-good. But as long as they are going to inducte players like that, Housley deserves to be in just as much as some of the above players.  I wisht it wasn't that way, but Hall of fames get vistiors by inducting players, not keeping them out.

I'm sorry but this is silly in my opinion. Every single one of the players deserves to be in the Hall for various reasons, including Bernie Federko who was a fantastic hockey player. Hawerchuk? Are you kidding me?

[Wyldnwoody44]

I think he should go in as a hockey analyist, for his production of between 2 stalls.

[Xzy89c]

he has never been the best payer on his team. Not even a top 30 at any point in the NHL. He is now 3rd best player on his line.

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, Xzy89c said:

he has never been the best payer on his team. Not even a top 30 at any point in the NHL. He is now 3rd best player on his line.

I don’t think being the 3rd best player on your line is a bar to gaining the Hall of Fame.  Guys like Jari Kurri and Glenn Anderson are in the Hall and deservedly so, but they played on a team with Messier and Gretzky.  
 

The weasel Marchand is the 3rd best player on his line and as much as I loath him, I’d argue he’s on or very near Hall trajectory with 862 pts in 947 games.  He only has 372 goals in his career so far. 
 

Skinner is 4 years younger, but has 333 goals in 932 games.  By the time Skinner reaches 34, he’ll probably be 450 goals at his current pace.  Where Marchand has Skinner beat is in assists.  Skinner only has 291 to Bard’s 490.  

Edited May 1, 2023 by GASabresIUFAN

[mjd1001]

11 hours ago, Sabres73 said:

I'm sorry but this is silly in my opinion. Every single one of the players deserves to be in the Hall for various reasons, including Bernie Federko who was a fantastic hockey player. Hawerchuk? Are you kidding me?

Not kidding at all.  The whole point about this conversation is where do you draw the line for getting into the HOF?  Federko and Hawerchuk can be considered into that "hall of good", not the "hall of great".  Neither one was the best at their position, or honestly even close to it. Neither carried their teams through the playoffs on a regular basis. And their numbers are WAY inflated for the era they played in.    Good? Yes. Bordering on Great? Yes, but truly great?  I'm saying no, that is why my response was I would put many of them into the same category as Housley, very good, all-star level players how put up GREAT numbers over a career but weren't game changers.

[GASabresIUFAN]

You do realize that Hawerchuk was in the top 20 scorers (currently 22) in NHL history with he retired with 518 g and 1409 points. Before he came to Buffalo he was the no.1 player on Wpg for years and years, won a Calder, finished 2nd to The Great One in the MVP race at 21 when put up 130 points.  He played in the playoffs every season of his career except 2 and was an over a pt per game playoff player.  The only active players ahead of him are Thornton, Ovie and Sid.  Patrick Kane is nearly 200 point behind Hawechuk for his career.  Not his fault that he played 2nd fiddle to Gretzky out West and to Patty in Buffalo.

[Sabres73]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

Not kidding at all.  The whole point about this conversation is where do you draw the line for getting into the HOF?  Federko and Hawerchuk can be considered into that "hall of good", not the "hall of great".  Neither one was the best at their position, or honestly even close to it. Neither carried their teams through the playoffs on a regular basis. And their numbers are WAY inflated for the era they played in.    Good? Yes. Bordering on Great? Yes, but truly great?  I'm saying no, that is why my response was I would put many of them into the same category as Housley, very good, all-star level players how put up GREAT numbers over a career but weren't game changers.

Your whole post is patently ridiculous.

[Sabel79]

Mike Gartner is in the HOF.  Adjust his numbers for era and they’re pretty much (or will be once Skinner finishes, if he continues apace) the same player, give or take.  
 

Just something to think about, but no, Skinner isn’t a HOF player and neither is Gartner.  IMHO.  

 

 

 

[mjd1001]

2 hours ago, Sabres73 said:

Your whole post is patently ridiculous.

Way to 'step up' and give reasons why.  The fact that you think what I said is ridiculous just shows how ridiculously little you know.  Let me try to educate you on a few things AGAIN:

-The whole point of the converstation I was having with others on this topic was not who is good or not good, but rather WHERE THE LINE SHOULD BE DRAWN for HOF entrance.  If you follow the conversation you will see that some think putting up a career full of numbers is good enough. Others think a HOF should only be for the elite-of-the-elite (players who are of MVP caliber, multiple championship pedigree.)   SO I ask you again, how is my post ridiculous because the discussion is where to draw the line between those groups of players?  Oh, don't bother answer, I know the anser, it ISN'T ridiculous, you just want to make a point that the converstaion had little to do with.

And lets even go to the point about Hawerchuk.  In the Era he played in, his stats were inflated.  There were many years where his numbers looked great, but he wasn't even in the top 5 in points.  If you 'normalize' his stats for the modern era, he would probably be at most a 400-450 goal, maybe a 1000 point guy. VERY GOOD numbers over a career, but to me now hall of fame.  He is also a guy that I saw playing when I was a kid and even back then he stood out to me as a guy who was actaully pretty bad in terms of backchecking and his effort in that respect.  Compared to his 'contemporarys', very little post season success, a lot less scoring in the post season. For his career, he was not in the top 10 in scoring (points per game) in the regular season, not in the top 10 scoring ppg in the playoffs either, was a minus player both in the playoffs and regular season.  SO, does he have very good career numbers? Yes.  Do I think he was dominant at any point in his career and an MVP contender (even in the conversation)? Nope.  And to me, I am one of those people that I think the HOF is a bit watered down so players like him....Federko, maybe even Housley are the ones that fall into the "Hall of very good" category and not really the "Hall of fame/excellence".

But I guess for people who don't follow the whole converstation, or who simply don't like what they hear, its just easier to say "your whole post is patently ridiculous". 🙄

[Huckleberry]

Well yeah after winning 5 cups with us 😛

[MattPie]

Even if the numbers get there, I'm on board with Skinner not being in the a hall of fame. While very good, I don't think he stands out from other top-line forwards; no one outside Buffalo is having this conversation. I really like the player and his game, but he's not going to get in unless he just lights it up in the playoffs *and* something else. I could see him becoming a Marchand-very-very-lite somehow. Not as dirty, but just sneaky little things that drive the other team nuts while filling the net.

[Sabres Super Fan]

On 4/30/2023 at 4:49 PM, klos1963 said:

There is no Hall of Very Good. FYI

No Jeff Skinner isn’t a Hockey Hall of Fame player yet but you never know as his career is still going. I don’t think that is true today ask Baseball Hall Of Fame that refuses to put in Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Baseball Hall of Fame has become the Baseball Hall of Very Good and few baseball fans care anymore because of what vindictive sports media members that vote have done to the baseball hall of fame. Using admittance as a weapon to hold over players they didn’t like to cover heads forever shameful only the fans and there baseball peers should vote on the Hall Of Fame not the sports media that is vindictive and out of touch with reality. Baseball and hockey fans want to see the the best of the games players not the very good in my opinion. Go Sabres! Let’s Go Buffalo 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Buffalo Sabres Fan

[Ross Rhea]

If Skinner gets to 500 goals and gets in the HOF, you can not deny his consistence of being very very good to better than very very good and that is why I think he will get in. The consistency has to count for something. Different sport I know but look at Don Mattingly, he dominated for years but ultimately didnt have the consistency to get to the HOF.   

[ska-T Palmtown]

In general, isn't HOF also based somewhat on your production compared to your peers? Since entering the league in 2010 (and winning the Calder), Skinny ranks #12 in goals and #49 in points. Sounds very good ... but not great?

[Sabres73]

On 5/1/2023 at 3:34 PM, mjd1001 said:

Way to 'step up' and give reasons why.  The fact that you think what I said is ridiculous just shows how ridiculously little you know.  Let me try to educate you on a few things AGAIN:

-The whole point of the converstation I was having with others on this topic was not who is good or not good, but rather WHERE THE LINE SHOULD BE DRAWN for HOF entrance.  If you follow the conversation you will see that some think putting up a career full of numbers is good enough. Others think a HOF should only be for the elite-of-the-elite (players who are of MVP caliber, multiple championship pedigree.)   SO I ask you again, how is my post ridiculous because the discussion is where to draw the line between those groups of players?  Oh, don't bother answer, I know the anser, it ISN'T ridiculous, you just want to make a point that the converstaion had little to do with.

And lets even go to the point about Hawerchuk.  In the Era he played in, his stats were inflated.  There were many years where his numbers looked great, but he wasn't even in the top 5 in points.  If you 'normalize' his stats for the modern era, he would probably be at most a 400-450 goal, maybe a 1000 point guy. VERY GOOD numbers over a career, but to me now hall of fame.  He is also a guy that I saw playing when I was a kid and even back then he stood out to me as a guy who was actaully pretty bad in terms of backchecking and his effort in that respect.  Compared to his 'contemporarys', very little post season success, a lot less scoring in the post season. For his career, he was not in the top 10 in scoring (points per game) in the regular season, not in the top 10 scoring ppg in the playoffs either, was a minus player both in the playoffs and regular season.  SO, does he have very good career numbers? Yes.  Do I think he was dominant at any point in his career and an MVP contender (even in the conversation)? Nope.  And to me, I am one of those people that I think the HOF is a bit watered down so players like him....Federko, maybe even Housley are the ones that fall into the "Hall of very good" category and not really the "Hall of fame/excellence".

But I guess for people who don't follow the whole converstation, or who simply don't like what they hear, its just easier to say "your whole post is patently ridiculous". 🙄

Why would I waste more than a few seconds on a ridiculous post? Because that's what it is.

[mjd1001]

6 minutes ago, Sabres73 said:

Why would I waste more than a few seconds on a ridiculous post? Because that's what it is.

Yet you keep spending time trying to get the last word in.

Noticable that you won't respond directly to any of the points I explained in my last few points, but yet you feel the need to just say its ridiculous.  Nothing to add to the actual discussion.  Just want to criticize my post and then walk away. Way to step up for what a message board is here for.

Edited May 2, 2023 by mjd1001

[klos1963]

7 hours ago, Ross Rhea said:

If Skinner gets to 500 goals and gets in the HOF, you can not deny his consistence of being very very good to better than very very good and that is why I think he will get in. The consistency has to count for something. Different sport I know but look at Don Mattingly, he dominated for years but ultimately didnt have the consistency to get to the HOF.   

Mattingly injured his back and that sapped his power and quickness. It wasn't really inconsistency, it was injuries.