Adam Kirshenblatt: Hockey Hall of Fame: Assessing Steve Larmer's Candidacy

Adam Kirshenblatt: Hockey Hall of Fame: Assessing Steve Larmer's Candidacy
- MasWE

Nope. Not HOF worthy.

Definitely HHOF worthy.

Gramps should have been in the HHoF yesterday !

In addition to his ultra consistent offensive production (1012 points in 1006 games), he was one of thee most responsible defensive players of his era...finishing with a +203 rating AND duplicated his scoring consistency in the playoffs, notching 131 points in 140 post season games....

Larmer career stats http://www.hockeydb.com/i...ats/pdisplay.php?pid=2978

NOT BAD..for a 6th round draft pick. And his INTEGRITY as a player and human being (i.e. resigning from the NHLPA on principal in the wake of the Ted Saskin saga) is worthy of any Hall of Fame.

GET HIM IN....YESTERDAY

No

Just No

The Hall of Pretty Good already has too many Pretty Goods...

Nope. Not HOF worthy.
- Iggysbff

Well, now that you have spoken it must be true.

No

Just No

The Hall of Pretty Good already has too many Pretty Goods...
- TheGame316

If Joey Mullen is a HOF'er Gramps sure the (frank) is.

If Joey Mullen is a HOF'er Gramps sure the (frank) is.
- Elbows15

If Joey Mullen is a HOF'er Gramps sure the (frank) is.
- Elbows15

3 Stanley Cups, 500 Goals and the highest scoring US born player at the time

and I still consider him sort of fringe.....

3 Stanley Cups, 500 Goals and the highest scoring US born player at the time

and I still consider him sort of fringe.....
- TheGame316

Nah...Hells Kitchen Joey should in yesterday too

Nah...Hells Kitchen Joey should in yesterday too
- philco28

He is in Phil.

He is in Phil.
- Elbows15

Good. As it should be. Now GET GRAMPS IN

Good. As it should be. Now GET GRAMPS IN

- philco28

The Hawks should retire #28, at the very least.

The Hawks should retire #28, at the very least.
- EKolb13

Rocky Balboa called and said "Absoloooooooooooooooooooooooly."

The Hawks should retire #28, at the very least.
- EKolb13

Yes. And Smitty should go back to #57. He scored some huge goals in 2011 wearing that #

The Hawks should retire #28, at the very least.
- EKolb13

:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)

No other Hawk should wear 28. Ever again.


I love Larmer . Not sure he statistically belongs in the Hall of Fame though.


If there was a Human Being Hall of Fame he would be first ballot

Rocky Balboa called and said "Absoloooooooooooooooooooooooly."


- philco28

Perhaps he only screamed "Adriaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan"

and thats why they hung up

:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)

No other Hawk should wear 28. Ever again.


I love Larmer . Not sure he statistically belongs in the Hall of Fame though.


If there was a Human Being Hall of Fame he would be first ballot
- mrpaulish

11 years without missing a game, averaged a point a game and a defensive wizard as well.....he BELONGS.

Perhaps he only screamed "Adriaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan"

and thats why they hung up
- MDGHawk

Thing about Larmer is....he ALWAYS PUT TEAM ahead of I....dude was an amazing hockey player and barely talked about himself. He perfomed extremely well with Savard and Roenick and was a big part of that Rangers team that won the Cup.

If you notice....Gramps was ON THE ICE for the last few seconds of G7 in the '94 SCF....Keenan trusted him immensely.

Larmer retired at a young age. If he stayed around longer he could have padded his stats.

Larmer retired at a young age. If he stayed around longer he could have padded his stats.
- RogerRoeper

His back troubled him a lot at the time he retired AND....his stats were EXCELLENT.

My son (11) and I discuss whether Larmer is HOF worthy on a regular basis. He somehow knows the stats of every player that's ever played, and because of the hockey channel, he has seen a lot of Blackhawks games that I was at when I was 11. He's a weird kid. Anyway, I have never understood why Larmer is not in the HOF. > 1000 points, point per game in season and in playoffs, 3 Stanley Cups.... shoe in? My son says otherwise. He believes the vote against Larmer HOF is based on the fact that Larmer's numbers were more easily earned because he was on the ice with Hall of Famers Denis Savard, or Jeremy Roenick.

My son (11) and I discuss whether Larmer is HOF worthy on a regular basis. He somehow knows the stats of every player that's ever played, and because of the hockey channel, he has seen a lot of Blackhawks games that I was at when I was 11. He's a weird kid. Anyway, I have never understood why Larmer is not in the HOF. > 1000 points, point per game in season and in playoffs, 3 Stanley Cups.... shoe in? My son says otherwise. He believes the vote against Larmer HOF is based on the fact that Larmer's numbers were more easily earned because he was on the ice with Hall of Famers Denis Savard, or Jeremy Roenick.
- DirkGraham

Steve only played on 1 Cup winner, but did play in 2 SCF '92 and '94.

As for Roenick and Savard...ask them both if Gramps is HOF worthy ? Bet the answer is a resounding YES. And Larmer made both those players better as well.

And again...he played 11 seasons in a row (884 straight games)...nothing EASY about that

No.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the "if X is in, then ..." argument, because Steve Larmer certainly would not be the worst player of his generation in the HHOF. Larmer's peak offensive point production is easily above both Glenn Anderson and Lanny McDonald, and very very comparable with Joe Mullen and, I would add, Dino Ciccarelli. Others did score more goals, but if there is reason to believe Larmer's defensive value was significantly higher than these comparables then a case could be made that he's the best of the group.

But I would tend to say that the problem is not that Steve Larmer should be in because he's better than at least a few of these guys; the problem is that none of them should be in.

If you adjust the numbers for the context of their scoring eras, Keith Freakin' Tkachuk comes out, fairly significantly, ahead of all five guys listed above in terms of his peak offensive value. Pierre Turgeon crushes them, too. Vincent Damphousse is a closer comparable to Larmer and co. in terms of the adjusted offensive numbers.

Again, I'm somewhat sympathetic because I think Larmer was a better player than some of his contemporaries in the Hall (particularly Anderson, McDonald, and of course Clark Gillies), and it's not fair that they should get in when Larmer was the better player.

But I also don't think that, just because the Hall made some stupid decisions and let in a few players clearly below the generally accepted Hall standard, they now have to let in anyone who clears that low benchmark. It's a travesty that Anderson is in, but if you use him as a comparable then Doug Weight is a Hall of Famer and Bill Guerin has an argument. If Clark Gillies is your comparable, then just about anyone good enough to play on a first line for more than a couple of years is a Hall of Famer.

A player today with Larmer's relative level of offensive production (adjusted for era) would not have Hall of Fame numbers. Among current players, Thomas Vanek would be a good comparable in terms of point production.

Yes. And Smitty should go back to #57. He scored some huge goals in 2011 wearing that #
- reeder16

I disagree. Smith has the number now. Once he's gone, then retire #28 for Larmer.