![]() ![]() ![]() His induction was a mistake, a whiff by the committee that can’t really be defended. HHOF expert Paul Pidutti makes the case against Brind’Amour here, and I agree with just about all of it.Īnd no, I’m not interested in hearing about Guy Carbonneau. Those two Selkes are impressive, but they were the only two years he ever finished in the top 10, and his name showed up on Hart ballots just once in his 20-year career. That’s great, but second-liners aren’t supposed to get into the Hall of Fame (even though a few have). Brind’Amour was a very good player with a very long career, most of it spent as the guy you wished your team had as its No. Here’s Sara Civian laying out the pro-Brind’Amour case a few years ago here’s a Hurricanes fan blog doing the same. Either way, these days people will point to a two-time Selke winner with nearly 1,200 points and wonder how he’s been left out for a decade. I suspect that his success as a coach is driving some of this it doesn’t help his case according to the HHOF rules, but it does keep him in the public eye. Since then, something changed, to the point where Brind’Amour is now often one of the very first names that come up when the discussion turns to snubs. (We have no idea whether that was also true for the committee, since they don’t tell us anything about who they discuss.) He was flying so far under the radar that I used to make a point of bringing him up in discussing other fringe candidacies, wondering why you never seemed to even hear his name. He first became eligible in 2013, and there seemed to be close to zero support for him among fans. The comment section will be super positive today, right? Cool, can’t wait, let’s do this.īrind’Amour’s candidacy has been fascinating. I’m not making the case against any of the (many) worthy women, because it’s ridiculous that the HHOF refuses to use both of the slots it has available to start clearing the backlog of candidates who should already be in.Īs an added bonus, once I’m done being a grumpy old man who doesn’t like anything, you can head to the comments and prove me wrong by making the case for your favorite stars.Yet his name is conspicuously missing from the hallowed ranks of the Hockey Hall of Fame. He won one Stanley Cup and authored a prolific 76-goal campaign at age 23. I’ve made the case for him several times, most notably during the NHL99 project. Similarly, I’m not listing Alexander Mogilny, who I think is the most glaring omission among those who’ve been eligible for years.Lundqvist should be an easy induction, and there is no reasonable case to be made against him. I’m all for playing devil’s advocate, but there’s a line between that and just being contrarian for the sake of it. I’m not making a case against Henrik Lundqvist, because come on.But the important thing is that I’ll be proven right on Wednesday, when the committee agrees with me on the vast majority of these players … and maybe even all of them.īut first, a few names you won’t see here: That will be just fine for some of you Small Hall types, and infuriating for at least a few of you when it comes to your favorites. Yes, I’m switching sides, and arguing to keep stars out. I’m going to give you a list of candidates, and then try to convince you that they shouldn’t make it. And that list will probably include some that you feel are deserving, especially if you’ve just seen guys like me pumping their tires to convince you they should be in. With a limited number of spots up for grabs each year, most candidates won’t make it. But there’s a problem with that approach - it just ends in disappointment. This is the time of year when I’d typically write a post laying out the strongest arguments in favor of a bunch of players. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |