Ray Whitney Records 1000th Point!

[mikey287]

No disrespect, but why bother discussing players for the Hall of Fame when you (no one in particular) don't understand what makes a Hall of Fame player, what the relative criteria are, etc.? Saying a player like Jason Arnott (no postseason all-star teams, never finished top-10 in goals, assists or points - not even once) or Ray Whitney (never finished top-10 in points even once, finished t-10th in points once, less than stellar career playoff resume, not known for his defensive exploits, etc.) is really just a slap in the face to the history of the game. Whitney and Arnott were fine players, but it's the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Very Good or Above Average...look at the players in the HHOF minus some exceptions, it's elite, elite players...Ray Whitney really belongs next to Jean Beliveau? Maurice Richard? Even, a Glenn Anderson...? Blick...have some context...

If Whitney's in and Arnott is in, the HHOF is polluted with other also-rans such as Vincent Damphousse, Doug Weight, Pat Verbeek, Rick Tocchet, Slava Kozlov, Ryan Smyth, Shane Doan, Andrew Burnette, John MacLean, Brian Rolston and hosts of others in that group...obviously, the HHOF would be a complete joke and largely ignored if those types of players got in...the HHOF is already trending downhill with the likes of Nieuwendyk and Ciccarelli getting in...why on earth are we talking about Whitney and Arnott...get some context, please...

[Physical_Graffiti]

Kerry Collins is #10 in passing yards in NFL history. Do you think he'll get into the Hall?

In both cases, I'd say it's more the longevity of their careers rather than them being that much better than the competition.

As pointed out earlier, he scored more than half of those points after the age of 30.

So longevity of a person's career, while putting up good numbers (as pointed out before, numbers achieved by only 78 others) counts for nothing?

Would it count for Kerry Collins? Yes or no?

The Hall is for the greats. Most of it is hype, best the rest is play. Whitney, while he has numbers, doesn't have the hype and the stardom these others guys have. Same with Kerry Collins. Look at the names surrounding him. Pretty much all of them are in the HOF. Doesn't mean Collins will be.

I honestly have no idea what they base their selections on, but Ray Whitney just screams "NHL's Kerry Collins" to me. Never really had the big numbers and recognition over the seasons, compared to other players in the Hall. Just played long enough to amass a career number close to those guys.

I don't see why it should'nt

[Physical_Graffiti]

No disrespect, but why bother discussing players for the Hall of Fame when you (no one in particular) don't understand what makes a Hall of Fame player, what the relative criteria are, etc.? Saying a player like Jason Arnott (no postseason all-star teams, never finished top-10 in goals, assists or points - not even once) or Ray Whitney (never finished top-10 in points even once, finished t-10th in points once, less than stellar career playoff resume, not known for his defensive exploits, etc.) is really just a slap in the face to the history of the game. Whitney and Arnott were fine players, but it's the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Very Good or Above Average...look at the players in the HHOF minus some exceptions, it's elite, elite players...Ray Whitney really belongs next to Jean Beliveau? Maurice Richard? Even, a Glenn Anderson...? Blick...have some context...

If Whitney's in and Arnott is in, the HHOF is polluted with other also-rans such as Vincent Damphousse, Doug Weight, Pat Verbeek, Rick Tocchet, Slava Kozlov, Ryan Smyth, Shane Doan, Andrew Burnette, John MacLean, Brian Rolston and hosts of others in that group...obviously, the HHOF would be a complete joke and largely ignored if those types of players got in...the HHOF is already trending downhill with the likes of Nieuwendyk and Ciccarelli getting in...why on earth are we talking about Whitney and Arnott...get some context, please...

Having more points than 172 players is a slap in the face to them?

[mikey287]

No disrespect, but why bother discussing players for the Hall of Fame when you (no one in particular) don't understand what makes a Hall of Fame player, what the relative criteria are, etc.? Saying a player like Jason Arnott (no postseason all-star teams, never finished top-10 in goals, assists or points - not even once) or Ray Whitney (never finished top-10 in points even once, finished t-10th in points once, less than stellar career playoff resume, not known for his defensive exploits, etc.) is really just a slap in the face to the history of the game. Whitney and Arnott were fine players, but it's the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Very Good or Above Average...look at the players in the HHOF minus some exceptions, it's elite, elite players...Ray Whitney really belongs next to Jean Beliveau? Maurice Richard? Even, a Glenn Anderson...? Blick...have some context...

If Whitney's in and Arnott is in, the HHOF is polluted with other also-rans such as Vincent Damphousse, Doug Weight, Pat Verbeek, Rick Tocchet, Slava Kozlov, Ryan Smyth, Shane Doan, Andrew Burnette, John MacLean, Brian Rolston and hosts of others in that group...obviously, the HHOF would be a complete joke and largely ignored if those types of players got in...the HHOF is already trending downhill with the likes of Nieuwendyk and Ciccarelli getting in...why on earth are we talking about Whitney and Arnott...get some context, please...

Having more points than 172 players is a slap in the face to them?

Yes. Especially given the context that you put it in. By your logic, with this magical 1000-point barrier as if it means anything given the scoring changes throughout history, it would suggest that Maurice Richard's sub-1000 point career is somehow on par with Whitney's 1000+ point career...the definition of a slap in the face...Whitney isn't one-tenth of the player that Richard was...

I love historical debate more than anyone here, but please, get serious here...on your planet, Mike Gartner's 700 goals is more impressive than Howie Morenz's 271, or on par with, or anywhere near, but it's not...and it's not close. Give me and the board something to actually think about here, no one would buy the "he scored more" argument, not for a thin dime...

[Physical_Graffiti]

Yes. Especially given the context that you put it in. By your logic, with this magical 1000-point barrier as if it means anything given the scoring changes throughout history, it would suggest that Maurice Richard's sub-1000 point career is somehow on par with Whitney's 1000+ point career...the definition of a slap in the face...Whitney isn't one-tenth of the player that Richard was...

I never implied this; you are taking what I said out of context: The fact that it may be easier now to score 1000 points in the league in no way diminishes it's significance. Is Gretzky's 50 in 39 at all diminished by the fact that he did it in the high-scoring 80s?

I love historical debate more than anyone here, but please, get serious here...on your planet, Mike Gartner's 700 goals is more impressive than Howie Morenz's 271, or on par with, or anywhere near, but it's not...and it's not close. Give me and the board something to actually think about here, no one would buy the "he scored more" argument, not for a thin dime...

Again, nowhere did I imply that. I simply stated that 1,000 points in a career is special and deserves to be recognized, which it is, and does.

[MRandall25]

Yes. Especially given the context that you put it in. By your logic, with this magical 1000-point barrier as if it means anything given the scoring changes throughout history, it would suggest that Maurice Richard's sub-1000 point career is somehow on par with Whitney's 1000+ point career...the definition of a slap in the face...Whitney isn't one-tenth of the player that Richard was...

I never implied this; you are taking what I said out of context: The fact that it may be easier now to score 1000 points in the league in no way diminishes it's significance. Is Gretzky's 50 in 39 at all diminished by the fact that he did it in the high-scoring 80s?

I love historical debate more than anyone here, but please, get serious here...on your planet, Mike Gartner's 700 goals is more impressive than Howie Morenz's 271, or on par with, or anywhere near, but it's not...and it's not close. Give me and the board something to actually think about here, no one would buy the "he scored more" argument, not for a thin dime...

Again, nowhere did I imply that. I simply stated that 1,000 points in a career is special and deserves to be recognized, which it is, and does.

Yeah, we congratulate the guy for 1000 points and move on.

[mikey287]

Yes. Especially given the context that you put it in. By your logic, with this magical 1000-point barrier as if it means anything given the scoring changes throughout history, it would suggest that Maurice Richard's sub-1000 point career is somehow on par with Whitney's 1000+ point career...the definition of a slap in the face...Whitney isn't one-tenth of the player that Richard was...

I never implied this; you are taking what I said out of context: The fact that it may be easier now to score 1000 points in the league in no way diminishes it's significance. Is Gretzky's 50 in 39 at all diminished by the fact that he did it in the high-scoring 80s?

I love historical debate more than anyone here, but please, get serious here...on your planet, Mike Gartner's 700 goals is more impressive than Howie Morenz's 271, or on par with, or anywhere near, but it's not...and it's not close. Give me and the board something to actually think about here, no one would buy the "he scored more" argument, not for a thin dime...

Again, nowhere did I imply that. I simply stated that 1,000 points in a career is special and deserves to be recognized, which it is, and does.

In order: Yes it does, 1000 points now is worth less than 1000 points in the 1920's. So, yes, yes it does. Gretzky's 50 in 39 was never duplicated (or even close really), 1000 points has been done plenty of times. If 50 in 39 was to be repeated in 2011-12, it would hold more value, but it wasn't, so it doesn't. 1,000 points is nice, as for its HHOF-worthiness by itself, it holds no water. Nice career Wizard, but you'll need to buy a ticket to get in just like me...

[Samsdog]

It's not even about the numbers for me...he just doesn't pass the "smell test." He could put up two more seasons like this and I still wouldn't want him in just because I can't say that he dominated the game to a level commensurate with most HHOF'ers, improperly included Leafs alumni not considered.

[Physical_Graffiti]

Yes. Especially given the context that you put it in. By your logic, with this magical 1000-point barrier as if it means anything given the scoring changes throughout history, it would suggest that Maurice Richard's sub-1000 point career is somehow on par with Whitney's 1000+ point career...the definition of a slap in the face...Whitney isn't one-tenth of the player that Richard was...

I never implied this; you are taking what I said out of context: The fact that it may be easier now to score 1000 points in the league in no way diminishes it's significance. Is Gretzky's 50 in 39 at all diminished by the fact that he did it in the high-scoring 80s?

I love historical debate more than anyone here, but please, get serious here...on your planet, Mike Gartner's 700 goals is more impressive than Howie Morenz's 271, or on par with, or anywhere near, but it's not...and it's not close. Give me and the board something to actually think about here, no one would buy the "he scored more" argument, not for a thin dime...

Again, nowhere did I imply that. I simply stated that 1,000 points in a career is special and deserves to be recognized, which it is, and does.

In order: Yes it does, 1000 points now is worth less than 1000 points in the 1920's.

By this logic

So, yes, yes it does. Gretzky's 50 in 39 was never duplicated (or even close really), 1000 points has been done plenty of times. If 50 in 39 was to be repeated in 2011-12, it would hold more value, but it wasn't, so it doesn't. 1,000 points is nice, as for its HHOF-worthiness by itself, it holds no water. Nice career Wizard, but you'll need to buy a ticket to get in just like me...

means nothing beause it happened in the high-scoring 80s; it won't be repeated and it's not because no one will be as good as him.

[mikey287]

It's not even about the numbers for me...he just doesn't pass the "smell test." He could put up two more seasons like this and I still wouldn't want him in just because I can't say that he dominated the game to a level commensurate with most HHOF'ers, improperly included Leafs alumni not considered.

Bingo. The conversation won't progress far enough into the HHOF criteria because it simply doesn't merit discussion though...he's literally not even remotely close to the HHOF...Alexander Semin is closer to being on a HHOF pace than Whitney...

#thatllgetthemgoing

[mikey287]

Yes. Especially given the context that you put it in. By your logic, with this magical 1000-point barrier as if it means anything given the scoring changes throughout history, it would suggest that Maurice Richard's sub-1000 point career is somehow on par with Whitney's 1000+ point career...the definition of a slap in the face...Whitney isn't one-tenth of the player that Richard was...

I never implied this; you are taking what I said out of context: The fact that it may be easier now to score 1000 points in the league in no way diminishes it's significance. Is Gretzky's 50 in 39 at all diminished by the fact that he did it in the high-scoring 80s?

I love historical debate more than anyone here, but please, get serious here...on your planet, Mike Gartner's 700 goals is more impressive than Howie Morenz's 271, or on par with, or anywhere near, but it's not...and it's not close. Give me and the board something to actually think about here, no one would buy the "he scored more" argument, not for a thin dime...

Again, nowhere did I imply that. I simply stated that 1,000 points in a career is special and deserves to be recognized, which it is, and does.

In order: Yes it does, 1000 points now is worth less than 1000 points in the 1920's.

By this logic

So, yes, yes it does. Gretzky's 50 in 39 was never duplicated (or even close really), 1000 points has been done plenty of times. If 50 in 39 was to be repeated in 2011-12, it would hold more value, but it wasn't, so it doesn't. 1,000 points is nice, as for its HHOF-worthiness by itself, it holds no water. Nice career Wizard, but you'll need to buy a ticket to get in just like me...

means nothing beause it happened in the high-scoring 80s; it won't be repeated and it's not because no one will be as good as him.

Means nothing? If so, how come no one else did it? I mean, Gretzky did 50 in 39, 50 in 42 and 50 in 49...who got closer? Lemieux got 50 in 46 once...

I mean, adjust goals for era...no one else did it, or got close...(it also has something to do with Gretzky being the best ever). Still not sure where you're going with this...Whitney isn't close to be a HHOFer, despite scoring 50 points a season for 20 years...which is apparently noteworthy, for some reason...

[Physical_Graffiti]

Yes. Especially given the context that you put it in. By your logic, with this magical 1000-point barrier as if it means anything given the scoring changes throughout history, it would suggest that Maurice Richard's sub-1000 point career is somehow on par with Whitney's 1000+ point career...the definition of a slap in the face...Whitney isn't one-tenth of the player that Richard was...

I never implied this; you are taking what I said out of context: The fact that it may be easier now to score 1000 points in the league in no way diminishes it's significance. Is Gretzky's 50 in 39 at all diminished by the fact that he did it in the high-scoring 80s?

I love historical debate more than anyone here, but please, get serious here...on your planet, Mike Gartner's 700 goals is more impressive than Howie Morenz's 271, or on par with, or anywhere near, but it's not...and it's not close. Give me and the board something to actually think about here, no one would buy the "he scored more" argument, not for a thin dime...

Again, nowhere did I imply that. I simply stated that 1,000 points in a career is special and deserves to be recognized, which it is, and does.

In order: Yes it does, 1000 points now is worth less than 1000 points in the 1920's.

By this logic

So, yes, yes it does. Gretzky's 50 in 39 was never duplicated (or even close really), 1000 points has been done plenty of times. If 50 in 39 was to be repeated in 2011-12, it would hold more value, but it wasn't, so it doesn't. 1,000 points is nice, as for its HHOF-worthiness by itself, it holds no water. Nice career Wizard, but you'll need to buy a ticket to get in just like me...

means nothing beause it happened in the high-scoring 80s; it won't be repeated and it's not because no one will be as good as him.

Means nothing? If so, how come no one else did it? I mean, Gretzky did 50 in 39, 50 in 42 and 50 in 49...who got closer? Lemieux got 50 in 46 once...

I mean, adjust goals for era...no one else did it, or got close...(it also has something to do with Gretzky being the best ever). Still not sure where you're going with this...Whitney isn't close to be a HHOFer, despite scoring 50 points a season for 20 years...which is apparently noteworthy, for some reason...

That's exactly what I'm saying: If 1,000 points is "unspecial" how come more player haven't done it?

Good amount of points over a long period of time = noteworthy.

[Staggy]

1,000 points can be noteworthy, sure, but that still doesn't make it HHoF worthy.

[MRandall25]

Good amount of points over a long period of time = noteworthy.

He's been playing 21 years. That averages out to less than 50 points a year, which is average at best, no matter which way you spin it.

Not many players last 21 years.

Here's some guys who have scored 1000 points but aren't in the Hall/weren't listed as eligible on Wikipedia:

Alex Mogilny
Vincent Damphousse
Pat Verbeek
Pierre Turgeon
Brian Bellows
Dale Hunter
Phil Housley
Adam Oates
Dale Andreychuk
Steve Larmer
Brian Propp
Bernie Nicholls
Bobby Smith
David Taylor

Of those I mentioned, I'd say maybe 5 get the call, and it's not because they scored 1000+ points.

[Rylan]

Good amount of points over a long period of time = noteworthy.

He's been playing 21 years. That averages out to less than 50 points a year, which is average at best, no matter which way you spin it.

Not many players last 21 years.

Here's some guys who have scored 1000 points but aren't in the Hall/weren't listed as eligible on Wikipedia:

Alex Mogilny
Vincent Damphousse
Pat Verbeek
Pierre Turgeon
Brian Bellows
Dale Hunter
Phil Housley
Adam Oates
Dale Andreychuk
Steve Larmer
Brian Propp
Bernie Nicholls
Bobby Smith
David Taylor

Of those I mentioned, I'd say maybe 5 get the call, and it's not because they scored 1000+ points.

5? Oates is the only one I would consider.

[mikey287]

50 in 39 = never done
1000 points = done dozens and dozens of times...but it doesn't represent anything in the context of the conversation, and this really is an elementary point, I'm surprised it's requiring so many posts to get this across...what's the difference between 800 points and 1000 points? 300 goals and 400 goals? Such "all time greats" as Ray Whitney, Brian Propp, Brian Bellows, Bobby Smith, Vincent Damphousse, and Phil Housley have 1000+ points...such actual greats as Bobby Orr (2nd best player all time), Maurice Richard (top-10 all time), Howie Morenz (top-20 all time) do not...there's no strong correlation between 1000 points being significant or insignificant...

Not that it's terribly relevant to the conversation, but we're talking about 50 goals in 50 games...a distinctly and actually rare feat...
Maurice Richard did it (HHOF, top-10 player ever)
Mike Bossy did it (HHOF, top-40 player ever)
Wayne Gretzky did it (HHOF, best player ever)
Mario Lemieux did it (HHOF, top-4 player ever)
Brett Hull did it (HHOF)
Joe Malone basically did it (44 goals in a 20 game season) - (HHOF, at least top-100 player ever, almost certainly top-75)

1000 points =/= bad. 1000 points =/= great. Very elementary concept in the very basics of hockey history research...

[mikey287]

Good amount of points over a long period of time = noteworthy.

He's been playing 21 years. That averages out to less than 50 points a year, which is average at best, no matter which way you spin it.

Not many players last 21 years.

Here's some guys who have scored 1000 points but aren't in the Hall/weren't listed as eligible on Wikipedia:

Alex Mogilny
Vincent Damphousse
Pat Verbeek
Pierre Turgeon
Brian Bellows
Dale Hunter
Phil Housley
Adam Oates
Dale Andreychuk
Steve Larmer
Brian Propp
Bernie Nicholls
Bobby Smith
David Taylor

Of those I mentioned, I'd say maybe 5 get the call, and it's not because they scored 1000+ points.

Of that list...only Oates get in for me. No one else deserves it...some are closer than others, but besides Oates my HHOF would not have any of those players in there...

[MRandall25]

Good amount of points over a long period of time = noteworthy.

He's been playing 21 years. That averages out to less than 50 points a year, which is average at best, no matter which way you spin it.

Not many players last 21 years.

Here's some guys who have scored 1000 points but aren't in the Hall/weren't listed as eligible on Wikipedia:

Alex Mogilny
Vincent Damphousse
Pat Verbeek
Pierre Turgeon
Brian Bellows
Dale Hunter
Phil Housley
Adam Oates
Dale Andreychuk
Steve Larmer
Brian Propp
Bernie Nicholls
Bobby Smith
David Taylor

Of those I mentioned, I'd say maybe 5 get the call, and it's not because they scored 1000+ points.

5? Oates is the only one I would consider.

Oates was a definite... I could see arguments for Andreychuk, Mogilny, Bellows, and Nicholls, but that's why I said "maybe"

[mikey287]

Mogilny would have made it if he played on one year deals every year...

Startling that a player like Nieuwendyk could make it before a player like Oates...very strange...

[Physical_Graffiti]

50 in 39 = never done
1000 points = done dozens and dozens of times...but it doesn't represent anything in the context of the conversation, and this really is an elementary point, I'm surprised it's requiring so many posts to get this across...what's the difference between 800 points and 1000 points? 300 goals and 400 goals? Such "all time greats" as Ray Whitney, Brian Propp, Brian Bellows, Bobby Smith, Vincent Damphousse, and Phil Housley have 1000+ points...such actual greats as Bobby Orr (2nd best player all time), Maurice Richard (top-10 all time), Howie Morenz (top-20 all time) do not...there's no strong correlation between 1000 points being significant or insignificant...

Not that it's terribly relevant to the conversation, but we're talking about 50 goals in 50 games...a distinctly and actually rare feat...
Maurice Richard did it (HHOF, top-10 player ever)
Mike Bossy did it (HHOF, top-40 player ever)
Wayne Gretzky did it (HHOF, best player ever)
Mario Lemieux did it (HHOF, top-4 player ever)
Brett Hull did it (HHOF)
Joe Malone basically did it (44 goals in a 20 game season) - (HHOF, at least top-100 player ever, almost certainly top-75)

1000 points =/= bad. 1000 points =/= great. Very elementary concept in the very basics of hockey history research...

1000 points is a rare feat; not as rare as 50 in 50, but certainly not an everyday acomplishment like you make it out to be.

What difference does 200 points make? 1700 points gets you Mario Lemieux, 1500 gets you Mark Recchi: 200 points makes a big difference.

What difference does 100 goals make? 577 goals gets you Mark Recchi; roughly 100 more gets you Mario Lemieux.

There are numbers worth recognizing in the hall, and 1000 points should be one of those numbers.

[Physical_Graffiti]

I have a pretty serious problem with people "losing points" because they're around for a long time. Staying around and productive in hockey is near impossible, which is why raw numbers are impressive no matter how they're accumulated.

Ftw.

[mikey287]

50 in 39 = never done
1000 points = done dozens and dozens of times...but it doesn't represent anything in the context of the conversation, and this really is an elementary point, I'm surprised it's requiring so many posts to get this across...what's the difference between 800 points and 1000 points? 300 goals and 400 goals? Such "all time greats" as Ray Whitney, Brian Propp, Brian Bellows, Bobby Smith, Vincent Damphousse, and Phil Housley have 1000+ points...such actual greats as Bobby Orr (2nd best player all time), Maurice Richard (top-10 all time), Howie Morenz (top-20 all time) do not...there's no strong correlation between 1000 points being significant or insignificant...

Not that it's terribly relevant to the conversation, but we're talking about 50 goals in 50 games...a distinctly and actually rare feat...
Maurice Richard did it (HHOF, top-10 player ever)
Mike Bossy did it (HHOF, top-40 player ever)
Wayne Gretzky did it (HHOF, best player ever)
Mario Lemieux did it (HHOF, top-4 player ever)
Brett Hull did it (HHOF)
Joe Malone basically did it (44 goals in a 20 game season) - (HHOF, at least top-100 player ever, almost certainly top-75)

1000 points =/= bad. 1000 points =/= great. Very elementary concept in the very basics of hockey history research...

1000 points is a rare feat; not as rare as 50 in 50, but certainly not an everyday acomplishment like you make it out to be.

What difference does 200 points make? 1700 points gets you Mario Lemieux, 1500 gets you Mark Recchi: 200 points makes a big difference.

What difference does 100 goals make? 577 goals gets you Mark Recchi; roughly 100 more gets you Mario Lemieux.

There are numbers worth recognizing in the hall, and 1000 points should be one of those numbers.

I'll assume I'm just getting trolled hard right now...there's no one that could have any shred of interest or knowledge in the history of the game and arbitrarily set 1000 points at a marker for greatness...

I mean, honestly...if Ray Whitney is in...Alex Semin is going to moonwalk in, Alex Tanguay is gonna waltz right in, Thomas Vanek is gonna walk on his hands into the Hall, hell...Derek Roy's got a shot to sneak in too (before or after Bobby Smith, I eagerly await that superstar showdown)...and I know when I'm watching Ray Whitney his entire career and Derek Roy that I'm watching HHOF caliber players...

[Physical_Graffiti]

I'll assume I'm just getting trolled hard right now...there's no one that could have any shred of interest or knowledge in the history of the game and arbitrarily set 1000 points at a marker for greatness...

I mean, honestly...if Ray Whitney is in...Alex Semin is going to moonwalk in, Alex Tanguay is gonna waltz right in, Thomas Vanek is gonna walk on his hands into the Hall, hell...Derek Roy's got a shot to sneak in too (before or after Bobby Smith, I eagerly await that superstar showdown)...and I know when I'm watching Ray Whitney his entire career and Derek Roy that I'm watching HHOF caliber players...

Yeah: Semin is terrible! 40 and 40 seasons are crap!

Tanguay is not going to hit 1000 points and neither are Thomas Vanek or Derek Roy: Mark it down. Do not insult the 1,000 point marker by throwing out names of players who aren't going to hit it.

It isn't arbitrary, it's facts, yo. Just like it's a fact that 50 in 50 is noteworthy, 1000 points (and a 20+ year career in the best league around) certainly is in the Hall as well.

[MRandall25]

So you're saying we should let in guys who were lucky enough to last 20 years while playing at a 50 point pace?

[mikey287]

- Semin is HHOF worthy to you? Or is trending that way? Because of how impactful he's been, no doubt? Yes?
- Thomas Vanek averages 79 games per season, and he plays til he's 40...that's 1425 games, he's a career 0.81 points per game player = 1154 points = HHOF to you (and only you)
- Derek Roy averages 68 games per season, he plays til he's 40...that's 1365 games, he's a career 0.78 points per game player = 1065 points = HHOF to you (and only you)

Vanek and Roy and Semin definitely deserve to be in over someone like, say, Damphousse, because when Damphousse played there were 7 goals per game scored...Vanek and Roy are scraping by - I mean - putting up earth shattering, historical numbers at 5.5 to 6 goals per game their entire careers...it's harder for them to get 1000 and they're gonna do it if they hold on long enough...first ballot! That's facts.......yo. (and those are facts, not be confused with your "facts" ......oy)

So your magical 1000 point barrier smacks of modern bias...your 20-year hang up (for Whitney, at least, saw him tossed around to half a dozen teams, waived a couple times, traded for superstar Kevyn Adams and make it as a second liner in most of his stops while being a less than noteworthy playoff performer for his career) smacks of just...crap...

But screw it...let's dilute the Hall, get everyone that's ever had a 40 goal season in there (important milestone - that's facts....yo.), get all the point per game players for a season (Rob Brown, come on down)...get all the goalies that played in this league for more than 8 years...all the guys with at least 1200 penalty minutes too, don't wanna leave anyone out...also, career time on ice (after all, if you can play in the league for a long time, you must have been elite vs. your peers) so Luke Richardson, Darryl Sydor, Glen Wesley, come on down, you all had 2 decade careers...

Hell...anyone with 10,000 posts here on LGP... you're in the HHOF too...longevity! ...or something...whatever...!