The Hockey Hall of Fame will welcome seven new members this weekend, including three players from the men’s side. That’s one fewer than the committee is allowed to induct, meaning they didn’t run out of room, they just decided that some of the bigger names weren’t worthy.
Good. The Hall is supposed to be tough to get into, and we should be slamming the door on some of the names that just don’t deserve a spot.
At least, that’s the angle we’re taking today. I’m not necessarily a Small Hall guy, and I’ve spent plenty of time over the years making the cases for various stars. But I think there’s value in trying the other side sometimes, if only to force the supporters of certain stars to sharpen their arguments. So today, I’m going to make the case against 10 names that could be front and center when the HHOF committee holds its next meeting.
We tried this a while ago, with a list of 15 players. That was two years’ worth of inductions ago, and four names from that piece have got the call: Mike Vernon and Tom Barrasso in 2023, then Jeremy Roenick and Pierre Turgeon this year. Apparently my other 11 arguments were just more convincing.
We won’t be doing any repeats this time around, so check that older post if you want to see my case against names like Rod Brind’Amour, Patrik Elias, Ryan Miller or anyone else you’re expecting to see today but don’t. This time, the group of 10 will be made up of some names that I left off last time, as well as a few new ones that are new to the mix. I won’t bother with a few players I think are easy slam dunks, including Zdeno Chara, Joe Thornton and Patrice Bergeron, and we’re not tackling anyone who isn’t eligible until 2027 or beyond, including anyone who’s still active.
That still leaves us with plenty of names to consider, including several who’d probably have my vote. Here’s why none of them should make it — just for argument’s sake.
The case against: Patrick Marleau
Marleau’s main claim to a spot in the Hall is that he retired as the league’s all-time leader in games played, which is no small feat in a sport where durability is a legitimate skill. That alone might be enough to get him into a lot of sports halls — for example, the NBA’s top nine in games played are all either in or will be, baseball’s top 10 are all Hall of Famers except for the exiled Pete Rose, and the NFL’s games played leader is in even though he’s a kicker. Mix in nearly 1,200 points and a reputation as a good guy, and Marleau feels like a lock.
Should he be? Absolutely not, according to a lot of you, which is something I’ve learned from experience whenever the question comes up. And not according to The Athletic’s own Hall of Fame committee, we didn’t just snub him this year, we actually shut him out.
That was a little harsh, but the end result was right. Playing a lot of games shouldn’t get Marleau a free pass to the Hall any more than it would for Shane Doan, Glen Wesley or Matt Cullen. But once you look past that, you’re left with a one-way offensive player who didn’t even top .70 points per game, was never an All-Star, and had only one season where he cracked the top ten in Hart voting (by coming ninth). Despite playing 23 seasons, he was barely ever in the conversation for the best player on his own team, let alone in the world. He was good for a long time, but rarely great, and “rarely great” should never appear on a Hall of Fame resume.
Do I think he’ll get in anyway: Yes, although I’m curious to see how long it takes.
The case against: P.K. Subban
Subban won a Norris, and as of today the only eligible Norris winner who isn’t in the Hall is Randy Carlyle. And unlike Carlyle, who never got close to a repeat win, Subban was a finalist two other times. He was a two-time first-team All-Star, made the All-Rookie team, won the King Clancy, led his team to a Stanley Cup Final, and was once traded straight up for a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Oh, and he stood out by having an actual personality in a league full of stars who seem to go out of their way to be boring.
Unfortunately, he just didn’t do it for long enough. That’s really it. His NHL career lasted just 12 full seasons, the least of any player in today’s post, and he retired at 33. And while his three Norris finalist honors in six years was an impressive peak, he fell off quickly after that. Even a few more strong seasons in New Jersey or elsewhere would have made his case much stronger. Unfortunately, the last four years of his career were spent with more focus on his cap hit than what he was doing on the ice.
The “every Norris guy gets in” argument is a solid one, but even putting Carlyle aside, Mark Giordano isn’t getting in either. Subban deserved all the accolades he got as a player, but the Hall shouldn’t be one of them.
Do I think he’ll get in anyway: His case is stronger than a lot of fans give him credit for, but no, I don’t think he gets in. Put him in the Hall of Awesome, though.
The case against: Carey Price
Price will be on the ballot next year, since eligibility is based on a player’s last game as opposed to official retirement. And he’ll have a ton of support, thanks to 361 wins, a Vezina and a (relatively rare for goalies) Hart Trophy. He didn’t win a Cup, but he almost dragged a very mediocre Habs team to one in 2021, and he won Olympic gold and a World Cup so you certainly can’t play the “not a winner” card. He’s also an almost universally well-liked figure in the hockey world, which certainly doesn’t hurt.
Should all that get him in? Maybe, although the case isn’t the slam dunk it might seem like. The Vezina and Hart are huge, but they came in the same season, and were his only major awards. He had one other year as a Vezina finalist and two other top-five finishes, but for most of his 15-year career, he was closer to good-but-not-great territory than you might want to remember.
As for those 361 wins, while it’s an impressive number, it still ranks him well behind guys like Andy Moog and John Vanbiesbrouck who aren’t getting anywhere near the Hall. And yes, he’d have had better career numbers if injuries hadn’t forced him out of the league at 34, but he’s in the top 30 for games played, so this isn’t a Peter Forsberg/Pavel Bure type of situation where we were robbed of a big chunk of a player’s prime.
Do I think he’ll get in anyway: Yes, and probably on the first ballot. So let’s try some goalies who might be tougher calls for the committee …
The case against: Tuukka Rask and Pekka Rinne
We’ll do these two together since they have a lot in common. They’re two Finnish goalies who played 15 NHL seasons. Both won a Vezina, both were two-time All-Stars, both led their teams to the Final but never won a Cup as a starter, and both won over 300 games.
And neither should make the Hall of Fame, although that’s a dicier position now than it was a few years ago. For decades, the Hall was way too stingy with goalies. After inducting Vernon and Barrasso, you could argue that they over-corrected. But both of those guys were two-time Cup winners, and while it’s silly to hold a lack of championships against a skater, it makes at least a little more sense for the guy who’s on the ice 60 minutes a night or more when the games matter.
We’ve just inducted Roberto Luongo and Henrik Lundqvist, Marc-Andre Fleury is almost certainly going to get in too, and Price probably will join them. It feels weird to say it after so many years of largely ignoring the position, but maybe we should pump the brakes on the goalies for a bit.
Do I think they’ll get in anyway: I feel like Rinne will and Rask may not.
The case against: Bernie Nicholls
For years, the case for Pierre Turgeon went something like this: He was one of the 50 top scorers in the history of the NHL, and each and every eligible player ahead of him had already been inducted. The case against him was that somebody had to hold that distinction. That case apparently held up for years, but Turgeon finally got the call this summer.
Luckily for us, Turgeon has some experience with passing a torch, because there’s a new name on top of the all-time “top scorers who aren’t in the Hall of Fame” list, and it’s Bernie Nicholls.
On the surface, the case against Nicholls seems pretty ironclad. He was never an All-Star, never won a major award, and never received votes for the Hart Trophy. He was productive and played for a long time, so his counting stats added up to some impressive totals, but he was never one of the greats.
Then again, that’s basically the argument that didn’t hold up against Turgeon. It’s not quite the same — Turgeon won a Lady Byng and did get Hart votes in one of his 19 seasons, and he scored more points in a lower-scoring era — but it’s pretty close.
If anything, Nicholls has something in his favor that Turgeon doesn’t: An all-time great season. In 1988-89, Nicholls became just the fourth player to ever record at least 70 goals and 150 points in the same season, joining all-time legends Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Phil Esposito. Nobody else has come all that close since, including guys like Steve Yzerman, Sidney Crosby and (so far) Connor McDavid. Was it a one-year wonder type of fluke? Kind of, sure, thanks to the arrival of Gretzky in Los Angeles that season. But wouldn’t you rather have a guy capable of even one year like that over a compiler like Turgeon?
At the very least, maybe we owe Nicholls another look now because he’s still the most recent top scorer. But I don’t think the argument is all that convincing. I wouldn’t have voted for Turgeon, but if I had to choose one guy, he’d be an easy pick. Nicholls was a good player who had one amazing year but otherwise just racked up a bunch of 60 and 70-point seasons in an era where lots of guys did that.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering: Put Nicholls in the Hall, and the next guy up on the scoring list is Vincent Damphousse. You have to draw the line somewhere, and Turgeon was the right place to draw it. But now that he’s in, Nicholls has to be that guy.
Do I think he’ll get in anyway: No.
The case against: Ryan Getzlaf
Getzlaf will be eligible for the first time next year, and he checks a lot of boxes. He has a Cup, was a postseason All-Star, put up consistently solid numbers, was a Hart runner-up, and had a strong international career. He also did all of that while staying with just one franchise for his entire career, which maybe shouldn’t matter but often seems to help with the committee.
The argument against him is that he was very good but never truly great aside from 2013-14, the year that saw him named a second-team All-Star while finishing second to Sidney Crosby’s near-unanimous Hart win. He had one year north of 90 points and five with more than 70, which means the majority of his 17-year career was spent putting up merely respectable numbers at best. Since those seasons didn’t add up to 1,000 points or even 300 goals, and since he never finished higher than 10th in Selke voting, there’s just not enough here to get him in.
Do I think he’ll get in anyway: Probably not, although he was so well-respected that if anyone on the committee really goes to bat for him then I could see it happening.
The case against: Nicklas Backstrom
It’s a lot like Getzlaf’s, although at least Backstrom did get over the 1,000-point mark (barely). But he scored even fewer goals, and while he was always primarily a playmaker, he only led the league in assists once in his 17-year career despite playing with the greatest goal scorer of his era. He was a solid defensive player, but certainly not an Anze Kopitar-type of 200-foot force, and he never won an award or was named an All-Star. And aside from his lone 100-point season, his numbers were always good, and rarely great.
Do I think he’ll get in anyway: Right now, no. But I do wonder if all the focus on Alexander Ovechkin over the coming months will cause any sort of re-evaluation of Backstrom’s role in all those goals. If so, and the wind behind him blows just right, he might have a shot.
Those last few felt a little too easy. Let’s crank the difficulty way up …
The case against: Jonathan Toews
Toews spent so many years as the thinking fan’s version of an ideal center that he feels like a slam dunk. But should he be? Assuming he doesn’t return to the NHL someday, he’ll finish his career with just 883 points. The list of modern forwards to make the Hall with those sorts of totals isn’t zero, but it’s not long. And it’s made up of guys who either had their careers cut well short by injury (like Eric Lindros) or who won multiple Selkes (like Guy Carbonneau and Bob Gainey). Toews played well over 1,000 games, and despite his reputation as a strong defensive player, he only won the Selke once.
Beyond that, we’re left with a player who never won an MVP and was never a first-team All-Star. In fact, he only finished higher than seventh in all-star voting twice. Shouldn’t you have to consistently be one of the best half-dozen players at your position to get into the Hall of Fame?
Yes, he was named to the league’s all-time top 100 a few years ago, but that entire list was very weird and very wrong in lots of places, and we shouldn’t factor it in. And the three Cups are nice, but that’s team success. Toews was a very good two-way who ultimately fell just short of generational greatness, and it’s not blasphemy to suggest that the committee shouldn’t rubber-stamp his entry.
Do I think he’ll get in anyway: He’s probably the closest thing to a lock on this list. If anything, Toews is an example of how you can get cute with this stuff — yes he only won one Selke, but he was a finalist three times and had several other years where he was just short. Not beating out Patrice Bergeron for what might as well be called the Patrice Bergeron Award is hardly a candidacy-killer. If Carbonneau is in, Toews should get his own wing.
And finally, what might be the toughest case of them all … unless you’ve been on the committee for the last decade or so.
The case against: Alexander Mogilny
Last time, I refused to include an argument against Mogilny because I thought his selection was just too obvious. I still do, and I wrote about that at length as part of the NHL99 project. But clearly, something is keeping him out of the Hall, no matter how many of us outsiders would happily vote for him. We’ll include him as our final name today if only to prove that I’m willing to see the case against players I support.
So let’s try this. The two most commonly cited reasons for Mogilny’s continued absence from the Hall are that he’s Russian, and that he could be kind of jerk. But in a week where we’re inducting Datsyuk and Roenick, that can’t be the whole story. Is there a legitimate case to be made against Mogilny?
There could be. After all, we’re talking about a one-way offensive player who just barely got past the 1,000-point mark, and that’s despite playing his prime years in a high-scoring era. He’s remembered as a goal scorer, but didn’t get to 500. He had that spectacular 76-goal season in 1992-93, but only one other year north of 50 and just one beyond that where he so much as hit 40. He was a wizard with the puck, but it’s not the Hall of Highlight Reels, and the numbers aren’t that strong.
As for the quite literally league-altering impact he had as the first Soviet star to defect, the committee could see that as an argument for him as a builder, not a player. (They didn’t for Václav Nedomanský, but maybe they’ve changed their minds.)
Maybe Mogilny was just a supremely talented player who simply didn’t put up Hall-worthy numbers beyond a peak that was too short. At the very least, it’s possible that his fans have fallen into overstating what’s still a hit-or-miss case.
Do I think he’ll get in anyway: He should, but I’m really starting to wonder.
(Top photo of Carey Price and P.K. Subban: Christian Petersen / Getty Images)
