Hall of Not Bad, Volume 4: Bo Boeser (and a Whole Bunch of Others!)

[Gustav 6,434]

Welcome back to Hall of Not Bad, the series in which I take a good look at a player who is not in the VHL Hall of Fame, give an overview of their career and achievements and whatnot, and compare that player's performance against a list of other players, both in and out of the HoF, to answer as fairly as possible whether that player deserved to have made it in. 

 

One of the things that's always thrown a wrench into HoF voting is what happens when a player has lower career total numbers, not due to worse production but due to a shorter career. It's something that I've generally considered a bit less of a disadvantage than some others have seemed to (at the very least, I'd never rule anyone out entirely on that basis), but it's an interesting dilemma when you've got to ask yourself whether a given player should be in both because of and despite 7-ish seasons of good play. I don't think there's an objective answer to those questions...and those are certainly questions that lead to some doubt over the status of the subject of today's article, Bo Boeser.

 

(credit to Frank)

 

I'd likely have zero idea Boeser ever existed if it weren't for @Victor bringing up his name in the BoG's Hall of Fame voting thread way back in S76, and a quick search of Boeser in forum history shows a Victor post in that same BoG subforum ranking Boeser above eventual HoFer Jasper Canmore (we'll get to that later!) in terms of worthiness. For whatever weird/stupid reason, the name has been in the back of my head ever since we didn't really talk about him and never added him to the ballot 10+ seasons ago, so this article will satisfy some curiosity in that regard as well for me.

 

Beginning his VHL career in S55, Boeser was the GM player of @DollarAndADream , and as such automatically assigned to Toronto. He would make an impact right out of the gate with a Stolzschwieger (I spelled that right without looking!) win in his rookie year, and led Toronto to a Victory Cup in S59. Sadly, due to the rules surrounding GM players, his career would be cut short after a trade to New York (followed by forced retirement) in S60. Though Boeser's career only lasted six VHL seasons and he would never lead the league in scoring or win an award beyond Top Rookie, he averaged over 100 points and almost 50 goals per season and was consistently one of the best players the league had to offer during his time up. And while that lack of hardware does represent a negative point, let's quantify that "one of the best in the league" bit with our first of three separate comparisons...

 

...that's right, I said three separate comparisons. Generally, I look for 2-3 HoF players and 1-2 non-HoF players who played during the time of my article's focus, but with the S50s being the member-dead era it was and with Victor's old suggestion drawing a direct comparison to an older player (see Part 3), I'll have to split things up a bit. We'll jump right back in and take a look at...

 

Part 1: One of the Best

 

How do we argue that Boeser was one of the best? There's no better way to do that than to look at some of the best:

• Fredinamijs Krigars: a Hall of Fame player. In the VHL from S54-S60, Krigars was inducted in S62 after a seven-season career in which he would lead the league in points twice and win two Cups with Riga in S57 and S58. At the time, Krigars was the first player since S33 to make it in without having been drafted in the first round--that's a drought longer than I've been in the league.
• Gabriel McAllister: a Hall of Fame player. Here's a name I've known since my rookie season when I was checking the portal's TPE leaderboards--at the time of his retirement, I believe McAllister was #1 all-time. Apart from that, he was one of the defining forwards of his era, putting up more award wins than I even care to list here and winning three championships between his time on Seattle and (!) Davos. Playing between S56 and S63, McAllister's point production curiously did not spike with that of the rest of the league in S62.
• John Locke: a Hall of Fame player. Yet another seven-season player, Locke would spend most of his time on Quebec after an incredible VHLM run and total almost 700 points over his career between S54 and S60. He would win four Cups and lead the league in goals twice, and, like McAllister and Boeser, was the league's top rookie in his first season. Since I have mildly interesting facts for our other two--John Locke the Enlightenment thinker had a lot of capitalist ideas, but John Locke the player is listed as a "left wing". Curious.

 

So, yes, Boeser didn't stick around as long as any of these, and didn't win the same awards, but:

 

 

 

While I'm not saying that Boeser was a better player than any of the others--clearly, based on overall body of work, I'd vote for the other three above him--I will say that this is at least evidence that he was just as good an offensive player as any of the others here while still in the league, and I believe that he would have made it in easily with 2 more seasons of the same (or even 1 more). There's no visible difference in career trajectory between Boeser and anyone else in these charts, and that includes McAllister (offense-wise, at least; McAllister was a great two-way player and we aren't looking at that because most others covered here, Boeser included, weren't built that way).

 

Also clear, though, is the fact that this isn't enough. A couple questions that I asked myself along the way of putting this chart together were:

• What's the next-best player to Boeser in his time, and can we establish that he was better than anyone else spending most of their time between S54-60 and not in the Hall of Fame?
• Can I find a Hall of Fame player with some amount of overlap with Boeser's career who is arguably worse?

 

And luckily, I can answer both.

 

Part 2: It's Complicated

 

Remember how I mentioned up top that Victor had ranked Boeser above Jasper Canmore in some discussion thread? It's time to dig a bit deeper and establish that, while he was playing, Bo Boeser was not only playing at an elite level but playing above some others who were considered pretty darn good. Here, we'll take a look at:

• Mattias Forsberg: NOT a Hall of Fame player. Forsberg makes an appearance here for scoring the most points per game out of anyone whose career mostly overlaps Boeser's and is not in the Hall. Exactly like Boeser, coincidentally, Forsberg was a GM player whose career lasted 6 seasons (56-61) due to an early trade. If there is a drop-off between Boeser and the next-best, this is the comparison to make.
• Jasper Canmore: a Hall of Fame player. The player Victor ranked below Boeser, and who did make it in, is worth a look. Canmore would exceed 700 points, but played 8 seasons, and with a Funk, a Cup, and a Beketov, doesn't do as much better than Boeser in the awards department than the players we looked at in Part 1. In my opinion, a sufficient difference in per-season production could be enough to make up for this. 

 

Here's how that looks:

 

 

 

I'll note that Canmore should be expected to have somewhat lower career totals than our Part 1 players as his career (S58-65) extended more into the start of the VHL's dead puck era--you can even see that taking effect where the red line levels off a bit near the end. But even looking at the seasons they had in common, it's next to impossible to say that Canmore was a better offensive producer than Boeser, and I think Boeser did better overall in that department (even with two extra seasons, Boeser still has more goals in total). Also, there's no debate whatsoever that he's better entirely than the next-best in Forsberg. This does raise a couple of interesting points and questions:

 

• Yes, the players that we looked at in Part 1 clearly had better careers overall than Boeser. But, Boeser clearly had a better career than anyone else who didn't make it.
  • Seeing as there's space on either side of this one player, which side do we draw the line on?
• I think the difference between Boeser and Canmore is subjective for multiple reasons, but we now have a case where we can't say "this Hall of Fame player was clearly better in every way overall."
  • If Canmore is in, what makes the difference? Does a 6-season career do more harm than better production does good?

 

And, another question--if a 6-season career really is enough to keep someone out under these conditions, then why is Bismarck Koenig in?

 

Part 3: The Other 6-Season Mr. B.

 

Yep, here's that "direct comparison to an older player" I referred to earlier. Let's hit hard right away.

 

 

 

And now let's explain where this comparison comes in. I don't think comparing career totals of players across different eras (Koenig was S42-47) does much for us, so we shouldn't take those totals too seriously even though they're pretty graphs that do illustrate that our subjects had similar careers. That's going to be the last time you see Boeser in a chart, though--our best course of action here is to try to contextualize Koenig within his era and try to compare him to the context of Boeser in the late S50s. If we can say that Koenig was exactly to the 40s as Boeser was to the 50s, and one is in while the other is out, that might be a case.

 

• The aforementioned Bismarck Koenig: a Hall of Fame player. Not a GM player, Koenig nonetheless played 6 seasons in the VHL. Following pretty much the same scoring path as Boeser, Koenig would also never win a Cup but did manage to put together a few awards, notably a S47 in which he would lead in points and win MVP. We'll be comparing Koenig to...
• Jody 3 Moons: NOT a Hall of Fame player. 3 Moons was to Koenig what Forsberg was to Boeser--just the next-highest offensive production out of players who haven't made it. Playing between S41 and S47, 3 Moons curiously saw declining production throughout a 7-season career spent mostly in Stockholm.
• Edwin Reencarnacion: a Hall of Fame player. One of the great two-way forwards of his time (a characteristic only shown by Koenig for a few seasons, so we'll drop that for the sake of analysis but keep it at the back of our minds), Reencarnacion would spend all but 22 games playing for New York, leading the league in goals twice and winning MVP in S48. He's got the lowest point-per-game rate out of Hall of Fame forwards in this era.

 

The sake of this one is to try to establish a connection between Koenig and Part 2 of this article, where we established that:

• Boeser is the better player than the next-best, without question, and:
• There is at least room for fair debate between Boeser and an existing Hall of Fame player in Jasper Canmore.

 

If we can say that Koenig is easily better than 3 Moons, and we can debate between Koenig and Reencarnacion, then that could give us some fair context to our comparison across two eras. Interestingly...

 

 

 

I think the first point here--that Koenig is better than 3 Moons--is correct. "Fair debate between Koenig and Reencarnacion" is less so--Reencarnacion did have fewer points per game than Koenig, but played one more season at about the same pace and was much more of a two-way player. This actually gives us a little bit more support for Boeser--I don't see Koenig beating anyone else in the HoF from his era, something that's supported a little by searching up "Koenig" in BoG and seeing more than one instance of "well, if Koenig is in then why isn't this other player?"--which was a supporting argument for the late induction of Mathias Chouinard (who also played 6 seasons!) in S68. So, I think it's fair to say that we have something that's at worst comparable to our Part 2.

 

What about Part 1? Can we say that Koenig produced on par with HoF players from the late S40s in general? The best I can find in this regard* are:

 

• Lord Karnage: a Hall of Fame player. Starting on defense in S42 and switching to forward immediately after for the next seven seasons, Karnage, like Reencarnacion, was a hard, physical player (winning four consecutive Boulets between S44 and S47) with the ability to score. Interestingly enough, also like Reencarnacion, Karnage would spend all but exactly 22 games with one team (Stockholm). And if you're wondering if that's the same because those situations were related, they weren't--Karnage moved one season earlier.
• Thomas O'Malley: a Hall of Fame player. Only twice dipping below 100 points in a single season, O'Malley was one of the best of both the S40s and of all time. Described as "definitely the greatest of his generation" in his HoF article, he won MVP three times--and the "career awards" section of said article takes up my entire screen. **see below**
• Aksel Thomassen: a Hall of Fame player. Leading the league in points twice, Thomassen played seven seasons, including five in Quebec. He wouldn't win a Cup, but did very well in his time and certainly qualified for Hall status.

 

*There is a number of players whose careers started around S45 and who have greater point production rates than Koenig. I haven't included them because I think there was a bit of an uptick in numbers in the early S50s--and there were just enough good players with more overlap to make it work.

**I've crossed out O'Malley because I consider him an exception--"definitely the greatest of his generation" shouldn't be the measuring stick; "typical Hall of Fame player from this era" should be. It's also for this reason that I left out Franchise Cornerstone in our analysis related to Boeser, so I figure it's best to keep it fair.

 

And here's our other Part 1:

 

 

 

I think it's fair to say that we can draw about the same conclusions about Koenig from these charts as we can about Boeser in Part 1 of this article. He didn't play as long as the others, but did produce at around the same level in the time that he had to do it. 

 

So, in summary:

• Boeser and Koenig both played about as well as their respective eras' average Hall of Fame forward; just over 6 seasons instead of 7 or 8.
• There's a visible gap between both Boeser and Koenig and the "next-best not in" of their respective eras.
• Koenig is in; Boeser isn't--why is this?

 

 

I think it's fair to back away from the charts and take the time to think critically a bit.

 

 

The Case For Boeser

 

Yes, Boeser has 6 seasons of Hall of Fame-level production. And while the 6-season part can hurt a player, it isn't automatically something that can keep a player out. I think the strongest case for Boeser does lie in the comparison to Koenig--they've got very similar career arcs, and they put up very similar numbers in what look like very similar eras with respect to the numbers put up by the league's best. In each, there's one clear "best" (Cornerstone/O'Malley) with a handful of others still near enough to the top to be all-time greats. And looking at old BoG posts, there was more or less a consensus that Koenig wasn't worthy of the first ballot, but no one ever really doubted that he was worthy of the Hall of Fame in general. Boeser, on the other hand, doesn't seem to make it too far past Victor suggesting the name a couple times--and no one ever said he shouldn't be on the ballot; the topic really just died out. Plus, he's got Canmore kinda sorta in his era, who he clearly beats in those in-the-era seasons. 

 

All-time, too, only two non-HoF players with at least 6 seasons have recorded more points per game than Boeser's 1.43, and both played in the league's first decade where scoring numbers were through the roof. Even counting weird little outlier careers where someone popped off for 2 or 3 seasons and then retired, no one at all who isn't inducted has even made it to that mark since S20 (Matthew Gunnarson with a 4-season career equalling Boeser's pace--no non-HoFer outside of the league's first decade has ever exceeded it).

 

The Case Against

 

First and foremost, we do have to state the obvious: the Hall of Fame players we've compared Boeser to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame more than Boeser does (with the possible exception of Canmore, who we can't fully rule out due to some era differences). Each recorded more total points, many had an additional physical dimension to their game that Boeser didn't, and all have a more impressive award cabinet. And while this is entirely true for Koenig, he at least had the one MVP campaign Boeser didn't. To quote myself from over 2 years ago at this point:

 

Quote

I guess the awards question pops up for Koenig then--if Koenig wouldn't have gotten in without any awards, then Boeser is similar enough that he doesn't. If he would, then Boeser is similar enough that he does.

 

S47 was cited way back in the day as a big reason to recognize Koenig--and Boeser doesn't have that S47. I'm not at all convinced Koenig would have gotten in had he finished second in goals and/or points and not won much of anything. Even though that would have led to similar enough career totals, that reason would have been gone and we'd probably be looking at Koenig (and, for that matter, Chouinard!) for Hall of Not Bad in some future edition.

 

I don't think just one MVP campaign entirely removes Boeser from contention, though--what I think might do that is a bit of a shift in focus. What if, instead of saying "the line was drawn at this point for Koenig, so let's also draw it at this point for Boeser" (which I do still think is valid), we say "the line shouldn't have been drawn here for Koenig in the first place"? In much the same way that we can argue that, since Koenig is a HoFer, Boeser should be too, we can argue that Koenig shouldn't be a HoFer, and neither should Boeser. The rest of the Hall of Fame crop for both eras is clearly better, and we've seen Koenig brought up more than once as a relatively weak HoF pick and a justification for bringing in others as relatively weak selections. What if the BoG made a mistake, and that's not a justification after all? I think I certainly would have concluded that Boeser doesn't quite make it if it weren't for the comparison to Koenig.

 

 

So: is Bo Boeser a Hall of Fame player?

 

Much like in HoNB, Volume 3, my verdict is that it's complicated. If we interpret Koenig's induction as a valid precedent (and one which was used to--rightfully--induct Mathias Chouinard decades after his career ended!), then I think there's enough similarity to make a valid case for Boeser. If, instead, we disagree with Koenig's induction, I think the entire thing falls apart. I think Koenig was ever so slightly the better player because of awards, but the difference is so small that I have a hard time justifying drawing the line within that smallest possible margin and saying that our standards should be exactly at that point. Either we like both, or we don't like either. 

 

I do think Boeser should be on the ballot, and I might even be inclined to vote for him in a season when we don't have a particularly strong group. I don't outright think that he belongs, but I do think it's next to say that (as the league currently does from the official standpoint of who's in and who isn't) he doesn't and that Koenig does.

 

I hope you've enjoyed this one--it's the most in-depth Hall of Not Bad I've written up so far, and after finishing it I think we do have a borderline-worthy, up-for-debate player that one could reasonably argue both for and against.

 

And so ends my spring break. Until next time!

 

Others mentioned:

@hedgehog337

@CowboyinAmerica

@Will

@Banackock

@Bushito

@BOOM

@MubbleFubbles

@gorlab

@Frank

@boubabi

@OrbitingDeath

 

Previous Hall of Not Bad articles:

Alexander Pepper

Shawn Glade

Jakab Holik

 

3,483 words | see you in a month

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

Bo Boeser was one of my favourite players while he lasted. It sucked to have to retire him early, but it is what it is. I was willing to let that one go.

 

Pretty interesting read, this article. Every name I recognize, as I was most active when the O'Malleys, Cornerstones, 3 Moons, and Reencarnacions of the world were in the league.

[BOOM 8,768]

[Victor 10,959]

5 hours ago, Gustav said:

Stolzschwieger (I spelled that right without looking!)

Nope 

 

Intense analysis here though. Perhaps one to revisit next season when we have no first ballot candidates. 

[Gustav 6,434]

7 hours ago, Victor said:

Nope 

 

Heck I was mostly worried about the middle part. I forgot the great rule of "I before E except when it's not."

 

Next season is going to be interesting though. I think these articles have brought up a whole lot that I didn't know myself about some players from just looking at career totals and stuff--so maybe we'll actually be able to resolve Boeser one way or another.

[Victor 10,959]

1 hour ago, Gustav said:

Next season is going to be interesting though. I think these articles have brought up a whole lot that I didn't know myself about some players from just looking at career totals and stuff--so maybe we'll actually be able to resolve Boeser one way or another.

I'll be there no matter what

[Gustav 6,434]

Week 2

[Gustav 6,434]

And Week 3

[Gustav 6,434]

Week 4! I think I know who #5 is going to be about too