Most Hall of Famers were at one point or another the best players on their own team, or if they weren't they were either in the conversation or a slightly lesser light next to a generational talent.

Was Kevin Lowe ever more than like the fifth-best player on his own team? It’s not a ridiculous thing to ask.

1980 (rookie season): Team already had Gretzky and Messier, plus a bunch of solid vets who were all very likely better than a 20-year-old Kevin Lowe.

1981-1987: Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Coffey, Anderson overlap with him this entire time, with Fuhr joining in 1982. I’d argue Andy Moog from these teams was also probably ahead of Lowe.

You lose Coffey after 1987, Gretzky after 1988, Kurri after 1990, Messier and Fuhr after 1991. But you also gain Tikkanen (starting in 85), Craig Simpson (in 87; finished fourth in postseason all-star voting for LW the following year and sixth the year after), Jimmy Carson (for 88-89), Joe Murphy (in 89), all of whom were arguably better than Lowe at the time.

His entire time in New York fully overlapped with Messier, Leetch, Zubov, Kovalev, Graves, and Richter. Also parts of it overlapped with Gartner, Vanbiesbrouck, Larmer, Amonte, Weight, Robitaille, Verbeek …

By the time he returned to Edmonton he was already 37 and four years removed from the last time he’d gotten a single vote for the postseason all-star team and eight years from a single Norris vote. Those teams obviously were not star-studded but I think it would be fair to say that prime Curtis Joseph, Doug Weight, Jason Arnott, and Ryan Smyth all easily outrank late-30s Kevin Lowe.

I think maybe the 1991-92 season, after Messier left, would be the year where Lowe was closest to being the best player on his own team. He's the only player from that team currently in the Hall of Fame. But even still, that squad had several Hall of Very Good guys on it (Damphousse, Murphy, Simpson, Nicholls, Mellanby, Ranford) who were all at or near their primes, while Lowe was already 32.

I mean, no disrespect to Lowe, really, who by all accounts seems to have been a very good, defensive-minded NHL defenseman for a very long time. But you could say the same thing about, say, Brad McCrimmon or Ken Daneyko.

It's just funny and flippant who cares? Some losers just live for this crap, it's sad.
- James_Tanner

So when you get owned you can just say it's funny and flippant. Do you give others the same rope? When you called 50% of the population psycho was that also just flippant?

The fact two of the greatest American born players, Keith Tkachuk & Jeremy Roenick, keep getting passed over for the likes of a Kevin Lowe is a complete joke.
- Pacificgem

100% Agree. Kevin Lowe over them? 😂

So when you get owned you can just say it's funny and flippant. Do you give others the same rope? When you called 50% of the population psycho was that also just flippant?
- Kooleus

This is a bit sad. People (also bloggers) often exaggerate to make a point. Nothing wrong with that. Don't be a crybaby.

Most Hall of Famers were at one point or another the best players on their own team, or if they weren't they were either in the conversation or a slightly lesser light next to a generational talent.

Was Kevin Lowe ever more than like the fifth-best player on his own team? It’s not a ridiculous thing to ask.

1980 (rookie season): Team already had Gretzky and Messier, plus a bunch of solid vets who were all very likely better than a 20-year-old Kevin Lowe.

1981-1987: Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Coffey, Anderson overlap with him this entire time, with Fuhr joining in 1982. I’d argue Andy Moog from these teams was also probably ahead of Lowe.

You lose Coffey after 1987, Gretzky after 1988, Kurri after 1990, Messier and Fuhr after 1991. But you also gain Tikkanen (starting in 85), Craig Simpson (in 87; finished fourth in postseason all-star voting for LW the following year and sixth the year after), Jimmy Carson (for 88-89), Joe Murphy (in 89), all of whom were arguably better than Lowe at the time.

His entire time in New York fully overlapped with Messier, Leetch, Zubov, Kovalev, Graves, and Richter. Also parts of it overlapped with Gartner, Vanbiesbrouck, Larmer, Amonte, Weight, Robitaille, Verbeek …

By the time he returned to Edmonton he was already 37 and four years removed from the last time he’d gotten a single vote for the postseason all-star team and eight years from a single Norris vote. Those teams obviously were not star-studded but I think it would be fair to say that prime Curtis Joseph, Doug Weight, Jason Arnott, and Ryan Smyth all easily outrank late-30s Kevin Lowe.

I think maybe the 1991-92 season, after Messier left, would be the year where Lowe was closest to being the best player on his own team. He's the only player from that team currently in the Hall of Fame. But even still, that squad had several Hall of Very Good guys on it (Damphousse, Murphy, Simpson, Nicholls, Mellanby, Ranford) who were all at or near their primes, while Lowe was already 32.

I mean, no disrespect to Lowe, really, who by all accounts seems to have been a very good, defensive-minded NHL defenseman for a very long time. But you could say the same thing about, say, Brad McCrimmon or Ken Daneyko.
- Sven22

The premise you offer here is not a valid reason for exclusion from the Hall of Fame in my opinion. How many great players a team has and where a player ranks on that list subjectively is not relevant.

This is a bit sad. People (also bloggers) often exaggerate to make a point. Nothing wrong with that. Don't be a crybaby.
- DutchSenators

You're uninformed. The blogger is not exaggerating. It is an oft repeated claim. Get your act together.

The premise you offer here is not a valid reason for exclusion from the Hall of Fame in my opinion. How many great players a team has and where a player ranks on that list subjectively is not relevant.
- MJL

You’re missing the point, he’s not trying to create a rule just stating that a HOF player is most likely not too far of from the top guy at almost every point of his career like Lowe.

The premise you offer here is not a valid reason for exclusion from the Hall of Fame in my opinion. How many great players a team has and where a player ranks on that list subjectively is not relevant.
- MJL

You are technically correct. However, the fact that a player could play his entire career and never even be remotely close to the best player on his team, or even one of the top 2-3, is strong evidence that he wasn't actually that good.

Look, I won't deny that Lowe was very likely a solid player. And certainly, being a reliable stay-at-home defenseman on the run-and-gun Oilers was a difficult yet important job and Lowe, by all accounts, did it well.

But let's not conflate "role player who did a key job well on a perennial champion" with "guy who belongs in the Hall of Fame." There's little evidence to suggest Lowe was ever widely regarded as an elite NHL defender, or was one. He only received Norris votes in four seasons and was never even close to winning it in any of them.

Yes he was an important role player who helped his team win. So was, say, Kris Draper or Tomas Holmstrom. That doesn't make any of them Hall of Famers.

Sometimes you're just a pretty good player in the right place in the right time. Swap Kevin Lowe and Brad McCrimmon and probably nothing changes for either of the teams they played on. I don't think Lowe belongs in the Hall just because he played for the Oilers.

You’re missing the point, he’s not trying to create a rule just stating that a HOF player is most likely not too far of from the top guy at almost every point of his career like Lowe.
- ClaudeFather

Actually it's you who has missed the point. I said nothing about a rule. Where in the world did you get that from? LOL
Since you didn't understand, I'll explain it to you. A player should be judged on his own merits as a player and should not be penalized because there happened to be numerous other great players on the same team.

You are technically correct. However, the fact that a player could play his entire career and never even be remotely close to the best player on his team, or even one of the top 2-3, is strong evidence that he wasn't actually that good.


- Sven22

Or it could be strong evidence that there were a number of generational players on his team! Such as arguably two of the best 10 players to ever play. Arguably one of the best offensive defenseman ever. Along with a 600 goal scorer and a near 500 goal scorer. Along with a goaltender who was among the best and won multiple cups. None of that should've had anything to do with whether Lowe makes the hall or not. None of that is evidence at all of how good he was. In fact it's irrelevant to how good he was.

Actually it's you who has missed the point. I said nothing about a rule. Where in the world did you get that from? LOL
Since you didn't understand, I'll explain it to you. A player should be judged on his own merits as a player and should not be penalized because there happened to be numerous other great players on the same team.
- MJL

The very first word of my post was "most."

Yes you missed the point. It happens sometimes. No need to be rude about it.

Or it could be strong evidence that there were a number of generational players on his team! Such as arguably two of the best 10 players to ever play. Arguably one of the best offensive defenseman ever. Along with a 600 goal scorer and a near 500 goal scorer. Along with a goaltender who was among the best and won multiple cups. None of that should've had anything to do with whether Lowe makes the hall or not. None of that is evidence at all of how good he was. In fact it's irrelevant to how good he was.
- MJL

I am open to the idea that, in rare circumstances, a guy could possibly be a Hall of Famer despite never being a top 3 player on his own team. Again, that's why I said "most."

To put a name down, let's say instead of Lowe the Oilers had Larry Murphy. Is Murphy still a Hall of Famer? I would say yes.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. I made an observation about Lowe's career, namely that it is unusual for a Hall of Famer to be so consistently overshadowed for his entire career by multiple players on his own teams. You then claimed that I was arguing that a player should not be in the Hall of Fame if they were never close to the best player on their team, which is an argument I did not make. Then you lectured me on why teammates shouldn't matter in terms of judging an individual player, which is something I already agree with.

So let me make it plain.

The reason I think Lowe doesn't belong in the Hall has nothing to do with Gretzky or Messier or Coffey, and everything to do with the fact that he was just nowhere near good enough. Ironically the only reason he is the Hall at all is because he was an Oiler. If he had played anywhere else I think he'd be about as well remembered as Reed Larson.

The fact that Lowe was always merely a role player on his own teams is not disqualifying in and of itself, but it is the logical outcome of him being merely an above average player.

The very first word of my post was "most."

Yes you missed the point. It happens sometimes. No need to be rude about it.
- Sven22

No I didn't miss anything about your point nor am I being rude about it. I disagree with your point and whether that should be relative to a player making the hall. I think your point is a bad one. Plan and simple.

I am open to the idea that, in rare circumstances, a guy could possibly be a Hall of Famer despite never being a top 3 player on his own team. Again, that's why I said "most."

To put a name down, let's say instead of Lowe the Oilers had Larry Murphy. Is Murphy still a Hall of Famer? I would say yes.


- Sven22

It's a rare circumstance for one team to have 6 Hall of fame players. Where is the line drawn at in your premise? How many players deep can you go before the cut off?

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. I made an observation about Lowe's career, namely that it is unusual for a Hall of Famer to be so consistently overshadowed for his entire career by multiple players on his own teams. You then claimed that I was arguing that a player should not be in the Hall of Fame if they were never close to the best player on their team, which is an argument I did not make. Then you lectured me on why teammates shouldn't matter in terms of judging an individual player, which is something I already agree with.


- Sven22

So now you're telling me that your post was not framed as an argument against Lowe making the hall? I read that wrong?

So let me make it plain.

The reason I think Lowe doesn't belong in the Hall has nothing to do with Gretzky or Messier or Coffey, and everything to do with the fact that he was just nowhere near good enough. Ironically the only reason he is the Hall at all is because he was an Oiler. If he had played anywhere else I think he'd be about as well remembered as Reed Larson.

The fact that Lowe was always merely a role player on his own teams is not disqualifying in and of itself, but it is the logical outcome of him being merely an above average player.
- Sven22

See, now you've come around and are making an argument on the merits of the player alone. You've moved on from the irrelevant information in your initial post. I happen to agree with you that I don't see Lowe individually as a Hall of Fame player.

Actually it's you who has missed the point. I said nothing about a rule. Where in the world did you get that from? LOL
Since you didn't understand, I'll explain it to you. A player should be judged on his own merits as a player and should not be penalized because there happened to be numerous other great players on the same team.
- MJL

You are just like Tanner at times it’s hilarious. Stop taking everything so literally, it was more of saying this guy wasn’t close to the best guy on his teams and probably was not HOF worthy, based on numbers and play as well, the pointing to his depth chart or whatever you’d like to call it was just something to call out on top of it.

You are just like Tanner at times it’s hilarious. Stop taking everything so literally, it was more of saying this guy wasn’t close to the best guy on his teams and probably was not HOF worthy, based on numbers and play as well, the pointing to his depth chart or whatever you’d like to call it was just something to call out on top of it.
- ClaudeFather

Yea, you still have it wrong!

Yea, you still have it wrong!

- MJL

He literally just stated it above but ok Tanner