Hockey Hall of Fame Debates: Claude Lemieux

[doniceage]

Many hockey purists are bristling from the title alone, let alone the notion. Before scoffing or writing it off, take a look at the facts behind the reasons for Lemieux’s inclusion. The odds are stacked against him for sure and it does not help matters, so to speak, that two Detroit Red Wings – Scotty Bowman and Igor Larionov – are on the selection committee. Still, his numbers and accomplishments don’t lie.


https://thehockeywriters.com/hockey-...laude-lemieux/

[Devlin]

No

[30ranfordfan]

I wouldn't outright dismiss the idea of Claude Lemieux in the HOF - but if I had a vote, I probably wouldn't cast it for him.

I have always believed that Championships are the most overrated thing, when try to determine if someone is an all time great. Winning a Championship doesn't make you a hall of famer. It means you played on some great teams.

If Lemieux's 4 Cups make him HOF material... Claude Provost(9), Jean-Guy Talbot (7), Kevin Lowe (6), Charlie Huddy (5), Randy Gregg (5) are 5 off the top of my head that have more. Should they all be in too? Heck, Craig MacTavish won 4... and some say that the Rangers trading Todd Marchant for MacT was the reason they won the Cup in '94.

Then they start comparting him to other HOFers. Dick Duff? I never watched the man play, so I really have no opinion. I do think Duff's induction seemed strange at the time, but I won't comment - I simply don't know enough about him.

Clark Gillies & Bernie Federko - I'll give the writer those two. I never thought they should be HOFers - but does their inclusion really make Lemieux one?

He scored more goals than Adam Oates, Eric Lindros, and Peter Forsberg. If the writer is seriously suggesting that Lemieux was a better offensive player than those guys? If he is, then the article is laughable. If he's not, then why mention it? No one number (in this case, total career goals) makes you a HOFer - unless that number is so overwhelming (and Lemieux's is not).

Playoff Scoring? Lemieux playoff goals do rank 9th all time. Is that a sign of a superstar, or the sign of a guy who played a lot of games? How many forwards have played as many (or more) playoff games as Lemieux? The list: Mark Messier (yes, that's it).

Lemieux's 0.67 PPG in his playoff career doesn't sound nearly as impressive as "9th all time Playoff Goals" - you can make his stats show whatever you want them to.

Alfredsson? Osgoode? CuJo? Roenick? Mogilny? Fleury? Lowe? Nichols? LeClair? Turgeon? Not saying I'd vote for all of those guys.... but I'd cast a vote for at least 6 of them before Claude Lemieux.

[Kingum]

The stats are nice, but even the year he won the Conn Smyth he was 4th on the Devils in points. Championships are not what makes a HOFer, at least not in hockey. He was a bruiser (some...eh, most say he's dirty), its hard to have a metric for that type of talent.

So despite me being a lifelong Devils fan and having a auto plaque in my bedroom as a kid that read "Claude Lemieux - Conn Smythe Trophy Winner" with a picture of him holding the trophy.....he's not a HOFer.

However, without getting too much off topic, I think a lot of players that are in the HOF don't belong there. I feel that it really should be left for the elites of the sport. They induct 3-5 players each year. I don't think that we see 3-5 HOFers enter the league each year.

[30ranfordfan]

I very much agree with that last point. Specifically: They can induct up to 4 men and 2 women in the players category each year. There should be ZERO pressure for the HOF to fill all those slots. Nobody worthy? Then induct no one.

The HHOF, IMO, allowed itself to become the Hall-of-Really-Good a long time ago (Ferderko, Gillies, etc) which allows for guys like Lemieux to enter into the conversation.

Highest career goal total, not in the hall of fame (I THINK) is Keith Tkachuk... with 538, and 1065 points. He's 32nd all time in goals, 64th in points. I think those numbers make him a boarderline choice to go in.... my opinion: 1000 points isn't enough on its own, but I think 500 goals with 1000 points is. It's close enough that he probably doesn't get a call though.

If Tkachuk had Lemieux post-season resume, then the 4 Cups & Conn Smythe put him over the top, and he's in.... and if Lemieux had Tkachuk's regular season numbers he'd be in too.

The stats are nice, but even the year he won the Conn Smyth he was 4th on the Devils in points. Championships are not what makes a HOFer, at least not in hockey. He was a bruiser (some...eh, most say he's dirty), its hard to have a metric for that type of talent.

So despite me being a lifelong Devils fan and having a auto plaque in my bedroom as a kid that read "Claude Lemieux - Conn Smythe Trophy Winner" with a picture of him holding the trophy.....he's not a HOFer.

However, without getting too much off topic, I think a lot of players that are in the HOF don't belong there. I feel that it really should be left for the elites of the sport. They induct 3-5 players each year. I don't think that we see 3-5 HOFers enter the league each year.

[Thick McRunfast]

Tough call with Claude Lemieux and the HOF.

The linked article from The Hockey Writers discusses Claude Lemieux's accomplishments and skill, but then also reminds us of the "villain" label attached to him, and how that will probably keep him from HOF enshrinement. However, I think in Claude's case that label should actually help instead. Here's why:

Every good story needs heroes and villains, and Claude Lemieux could play both.

You never knew which role he'd play on any given night, but sometimes he'd end up playing villain and hero before the game was over. He'd agitate his opponents and the opposing fans, lay some big (and occasionally borderline or dirty) hits, and then end up scoring the game-winning goal with a flash of skill.

Infuriating!!

There were some other players of his generation who were capable of filling that role, but not many did it better than Claude Lemieux, and even fewer did it for as long a period of time.

Does that help his HOF case? For many people, probably not much. But when a player has such a notable persona throughout his career and does it better than anyone else, it should contribute something to his legacy. And because NHL hockey has entertainment value, maybe those players with memorable personas have a better chance at HOF induction. Clark Gillies might have had this going for him, with the whole "Jethro" / playoff beard / early example of a power forward / team leader thing, for example.

Essentially, the decision on whether or not a player makes the HOF probably involves weighing a combination of factors: their personal numbers and stats, their playoff accomplishments, their longevity, and maybe a little bit of how they helped tell the story of hockey night in and night out, or how readily they are remembered by the fans, or how they helped grow the game. And those factors are probably weighed differently for each player who is considered for induction.

Whether Claude Lemieux is ever enshrined or not, he still remains a memorable character in the story of hockey, and I definitely enjoyed watching him play.

[doniceage]

Tough call with Claude Lemieux and the HOF.

The linked article from The Hockey Writers discusses Claude Lemieux's accomplishments and skill, but then also reminds us of the "villain" label attached to him, and how that will probably keep him from HOF enshrinement. However, I think in Claude's case that label should actually help instead. Here's why:

Every good story needs heroes and villains, and Claude Lemieux could play both.

You never knew which role he'd play on any given night, but sometimes he'd end up playing villain and hero before the game was over. He'd agitate his opponents and the opposing fans, lay some big (and occasionally borderline or dirty) hits, and then end up scoring the game-winning goal with a flash of skill.

Infuriating!!

There were some other players of his generation who were capable of filling that role, but not many did it better than Claude Lemieux, and even fewer did it for as long a period of time.

Does that help his HOF case? For many people, probably not much. But when a player has such a notable persona throughout his career and does it better than anyone else, it should contribute something to his legacy. And because NHL hockey has entertainment value, maybe those players with memorable personas have a better chance at HOF induction. Clark Gillies might have had this going for him, with the whole "Jethro" / playoff beard / early example of a power forward / team leader thing, for example.

Essentially, the decision on whether or not a player makes the HOF probably involves weighing a combination of factors: their personal numbers and stats, their playoff accomplishments, their longevity, and maybe a little bit of how they helped tell the story of hockey night in and night out, or how readily they are remembered by the fans, or how they helped grow the game. And those factors are probably weighed differently for each player who is considered for induction.

Whether Claude Lemieux is ever enshrined or not, he still remains a memorable character in the story of hockey, and I definitely enjoyed watching him play.

A villian he was but only as long as he was on the opposing team. If he is on your team then you suddenly support his role and love him a as a hero.

Definitely not a hall famers as Sean mentioned his stats are not that good when compared to others on a game basis. I rather vote for a lot of those other players he had listed over Claude.


DON