Ok. How to properly rationalize if Dino Ciccareli belongs in the Hockey Hall of Fame – or as it’s known to me, the Hockey Hall of Mediocrity? Or the Hall of Do your time ,be consistent and you’re in.
I think I just made the case for Dino. There are plenty of players in the Hall, that if we were to apply and employ what it means to be a hall of famer – a player that clearly demonstrates dominance above his peers – like they do in baseball, wouldn’t make the cut.
Hockey’s Hall of Fame is just that, it allows a certain amount of flexibility for players who didn’t quite dominate but put in a good career. Classic case is Mike Gartner. Indeed, Gartner is a tough file to wrestle with. His wicked constant stream of goals led him not to 600 goals but 708. It’s pretty hard to deny a player hitting that mark even if they didn’t dominate.
Then again, is it?
Eight 40 plus and one 50 goal season (with one 100 point season) in 15 years in succession is impressive on its own, but measured against his peers it was, you know, less so. It’s still not enough. I don’t want to hear anything about character and what he did to trim his moustache. Nor does the fact this player, as it’s been said of Ciccarelli, played “poorly defensively” make any sense whatsoever. How do you even begin to put that into a competent or coherent formula? What, does winning the Selke make you a dominant player? Unless you’re winning the Art Ross alongside that Selke, it’s not much of an argument.
That’s more of an intangible issue. I want to stay strictly on the DOMINANT theme.
Length of time really isn’t a measure of greatness. Call it the Alex Delvecchio effect. If you’re an above average player like Gartner and Delvecchio were, you’re bound to hit some substantial numbers.
In fact, on a goals per game basis Gartner clocks in at a meager .494 gpg. If you’re to pull out the top 100 goals scorers ever he wouldn’t make the top 10; or even 20 perhaps. I use goals because that’s the primary reason why Gartner got in. Not because he won any major awards like the Art Ross or Hart trophy. He doesn’t even have any 1st or 2nd all-star selections.
If there’s a poster boy for getting in for having a solid career without dominating he’s it.
Another player in the Hall is Glenn Anderson. The Anderson comparison is relevant for two reasons. One, it removes the “bad boy” argument against Dino and two, his stats are also similar to Ciccarelli.
Anderson’s off ice issues is well known. It may have delayed his induction but he’s in now. I’m off the opinion a player should be in based on the strength of their body of work on the ice. Period. HHOF official criteria notwithstanding. Why complicate things with abstract notions of “morality” and “character?” If we were to scrutinize many athletes for off ice behavior, the list of inductees would be thin indeed.
The former Edmonton Oilers great has the most annoying stats in pro sports: 498 goals , 1099 points. Couldn’t anyone have signed him for a couple of more games to, you know, round up those numbers? Sheesh. Anyway, that works out to .441 gpg and .973 ppg. Like Gartner, Anderson has no all-star selections and no major trophies. Absolutely, he had a remarkable knack to score big playoff goals – he’s 4th all-time in playoff points behind his Oilers contemporaries Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier and Jari Kurri - but again, no Conn Smythe for his troubles.
Still, Anderson has something none of the concerns have: Five Stanley Cup rings.
Which brings me to Dino Ciccarelli.
His stats summarized look like this: Two 50 plus, four 40 plus, 2 one hundred point seasons. Productively, he was slightly better than Gartner. In fact, their numbers are similar. If 700 can’t deny you entry, then 600 is pretty darn close. Moreover, since we’re at it, Ciccarelli was a top 10 scorer twice in his career to Gartner’s one. Again, no major trophies but he sure could play with a meanstreak; sorta like Anderson.
As irony would have it, Ciccarelli’s gpg avg. is exactly .494. The same as you know who. And if you don’t, you haven’t been reading. His ppg is .973. The same as one Glenn Anderson.
Statistically, there’s little rationale to keep Ciccarelli out.
However, the point is, did Gartner, Anderson and Ciccarelli DOMINATE their peers? The answer is no. Judging by their careers, with a few differences here and there, either you lump them in together or you don’t. Personally, as great as these players were – and they really were – I don’t think they were “Hall” worthy if we were to be really, really strict about it like they are in baseball.
But hey. That’s me.
Taw, taw.
