On June 23, 2009, the Hockey Hall of Fame Selection Committee will meet in Toronto to nominate and elect up to 4 players who will join their 240 counterparts already honoured. But until the news emerges from Toronto, we can enjoy a few weeks of speculation, prognostication and good-natured debate. Here's my contribution to the mix.

There are few arguments as passionate as whether or not a player deserves to become enshrined in the Hockey Hall of Fame (HHOF). Unfortunately, most of these arguments are purely subjective in nature (i.e. Player X deserves to be in the HHOF because he is as good as / better than Player Y), or they subjectively interpret seemingly objective albeit limited statistical measures (i.e. Player X has more goals than Player Y, and therefore deserves to be in the HHOF).

The fault with these kinds of arguments is not their subjective nature, but rather the exclusive focus on the subjective at the expense of objective measures, and the narrow focus on a single skill or achievement. For example, Paul Henderson scored some very important goals for Canadian hockey in the 1972 Summit Series, but does a glorious September exhibition tournament merit induction to the HHOF? What about the rest of Henderson's career: does it measure up to what we expect from an HHOFer? Similarly, some may argue that since Dino Ciccarelli has seven more goals than Jari Kurri, he too deserves to be in the HHOF. What is left unaddressed in that argument is just the how the rest of Ciccarelli's career measures up to Kurri's.

To more effectively deal with these types of issues in general (I will leave those specific players / arguments for another time), I have designed a series of objective measurement tools that address the totality of an individual's NHL career - including regular season, playoffs and individual awards and honours - as well as their international experience - specifically Canada Cups, World Cups and the Olympics. Appearances in the World Championships held concurrent with the Stanley Cup Playoffs, international exhibitions such as Rendezvous 87, and the World Hockey Association are not included at this time. Pending further study and review, these metrics may be incorporated into a future version of this analysis.

From these numerous data-points we can produce an Induction Scale (IS) score, which acts as an indicator of a player's qualifications for the HHOF. In theory, the higher a player's IS score, the better he meets the criteria expected of HHOF candidates and the more broad-based the consensus should be that he belongs in the HHOF. A higher IS score does not necessarily mean that player is better than those below him on the list, but rather that he is arguably more qualified for the HHOF. To illustrate the range amongst the 30 most viable ranked candidates currently eligible for the HHOF, Steve Yzerman has the highest IS score of 1774 while Randy Carlyle has the lowest IS score of 716. (Rather than bore readers any further than I have already, I won't detail the IS scoring system in this blog. I'm happy to send anyone interested a summary. Just click on my picture and drop me a note in the message center.)

To further refine these IS scores, an Achievement Index (AI) is calculated which divides the player's IS score by the number of regular season NHL games he has played. The AI is adjusted slightly for goalies due to their shorter careers compared to skaters and the smaller sample pool compared to other positions, and for defensemen to compensate for their lower point production compared to forwards.

The key benefit of the AI is it allows a differentiation between players with careers of similar length, or players with similar IS scores achieved under different circumstances (i.e. to distinguish between an above-average player whom earns his IS score over a 20 year career versus a star player whom earns the same IS score in just 13 years). Like the IS score, the AI is not used to grade players as better or worse than others on the list. Again, providing a range amongst the 30 most viable ranked candidates currently eligible for the HHOF, and where zero is par, Pavel Bure has the best AI result of +0.513 (above par) while Rogie Vachon has the worst AI result of -0.452 (below par).

By comparing these IS scores and AI results, we can objectively rate the eligible HHOF candidates. Here is a list of the highest rated 30 HHOF eligible candidates for 2009, shown with their IS scores and AI results:

1. Brett Hull (IS: 1723; AI: + 0.358)
2. Steve Yzerman (IS: 1774; AI: + 0.172)
3. Brian Leetch (IS: 1232; AI: + 0.272)
4. Pavel Bure (IS: 1062; AI: + 0.513)
5. Luc Robitaille (IS: 1517; AI: + 0.060)
6. John Tonelli (IS: 1161; AI: + 0.130)
7. Alexander Mogilny (IS: 1133; AI: + 0.144)
8. Adam Oates (IS: 1344; AI: + 0.005)
9. Andy Moog (IS: 1255; AI: +0.043)
10. Mike Vernon (IS: 1339; AI: - 0.002)
11. Doug Gilmour (IS: 1429; AI: - 0.031)
12. Rick Middleton (IS: 1099; AI: + 0.094)
13. Kevin Lowe (IS: 1057; AI: + 0.093)
14. Doug Wilson (IS: 958; AI: + 0.186)
15. Tom Barrasso (IS: 1309; AI: - 0.033)
16. Dino Ciccarelli (IS: 1211; AI: - 0.017)
17. Gary Suter (IS: 994; AI: + 0.118)
18. Butch Goring (IS: 1099; AI: - 0.007)
19. Mark Howe (IS: 870; AI: + 0.186)
20. Mike Richter (IS: 1117; AI: - 0.041)
21. Eric Desjardins (IS: 949; AI: + 0.080)
22. Phil Housley (IS: 1071; AI: - 0.034)
23. Ron Hextall (IS: 1028; AI: - 0.025)
24. Dave Andreychuk (IS: 1252; AI: - 0.236)
25. Steve Duchesne (IS: 898; AI: +0.057)
26. John Vanbiesbrouck (IS: 1178; AI: - 0.382)
27. Rogie Vachon (IS: 1142; AI: - 0.280)
28. Kevin Hatcher (IS: 867; AI: - 0.001)
29. Charlie Simmer (IS: 733; AI: + 0.030)
30. Randy Carlyle (IS: 716; AI: - 0.071)

The early consensus for the HHOF class for 2009 has been the selection of Brett Hull, Steve Yzerman, Brian Leetch and Luc Robitaille, all first-time eligible inductees. The objective data essentially proves this assumption. Hull, Yzerman and Leetch vault into the top three positions past all the holdover candidates. Robitaille ranks fifth overall, behind only Pavel Bure, who has been passed over thus far for election to the HHOF due in part to his injury-shortened career.

It should again be stressed that the specific numerical ranking on this list is less important than the general placement. The point is not to suggest that Brett Hull is necessarily a better choice than Steve Yzerman for the HHOF. Rather, there should be more broad-based consensus for Hull or Yzerman (players near the top of the list) to be elected to the HHOF compared to Charlie Simmer or Randy Carlyle (players near the bottom of the list).

The results of this exercise were revealing. Before running the numbers I believed that John Tonelli and Kevin Lowe would be viable candidates for the HHOF, and that opinion was validated as both players appeared in the top half of the list. Conversely, I had discounted the HHOF qualifications of Rick Middleton, who ranked significantly higher than I would have anticipated.

The main value of this objective ranking we now have a common basis by which to pursue the subjective HHOF arguments related to these individual players, something I aim to address in future columns.

***

Just a quick aside, I regret the long delay between postings, brought on part by research and part by just the hectic nature of life. Thanks very much for your patience and I will strive to post on a more regular basis.