Shakes wrote:mikey287 wrote:Shakes wrote:I'll choose to ignore the AK72 era. He's close to a Hall of Famer, but probably needed a few more points and/or 1 or 2 more rings.
HOF Talent, not a HOF career. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It's not even about rings, he could have gotten 4 rings, he'd still be pretty far out.
Fair enough. I don't claim to a be history guy (admire those who are). Besides significantly more playoff success, what's the difference between him and say, Nieuwendyk, for example. Was Kovy just that much worse in other aspects of the game?
Serious question. I guess he is AlMo, but I think of him as a way better all-around player. Maybe just biased.
Nieuwendyk isn't a good example because he doesn't belong in the HHOF either. He just career-totaled his way in, which is garbage.
That said, Nieuwy has the better resume probably. At least he finished top 10 in goals five times and has a not-clear-cut Conn Smythe. But it's not by a whole hell of a lot, to be honest. Nieuwy is a very weak HHOFer. Even though he was a huge part of 2 Cup winners and a Cup finalist. Plus, he was on a third championship team late in his career.
He basically bowled over the voters with era-biased stat totals...not the worst thing that's ever happened or the worst player in the Hall, but he's a weak choice and shouldn't be used as a benchmark for modern players. Otherwise, someone like Milan Hejduk is well on his way...
In fact, Hejduk is a decent comparable for Kovalev. If you take one, you probably have to take both. I'll take neither...easily.