#132 - Dino Ciccarelli

Dino Ciccarelli (Murillo Pyramid Rank = #132)

Adjusted Stats

1980-1981   Min          33 GP   15 goals   10 assists   25 points   0.75 PPG
1981-1982   Min          78 GP   43 goals   40 assists   83 points   1.07 PPG
1982-1983   Min          79 GP   30 goals   31 assists   61 points   0.77 PPG
1983-1984   Min          81 GP   30 goals   26 assists   57 points   0.70 PPG
1984-1985   Min          52 GP   12 goals   14 assists   26 points   0.50 PPG
1985-1986   Min          77 GP   35 goals   36 assists   71 points   0.92 PPG
1986-1987   Min          82 GP   45 goals   44 assists   88 points   1.08 PPG
1987-1988   Min          69 GP   35 goals   38 assists   73 points   1.06 PPG
1988-1989   Min/Wsh  78 GP   37 goals   25 assists   62 points   0.80 PPG
1989-1990   Wsh         82 GP   35 goals   33 assists   68 points   0.82 PPG
1990-1991   Wsh         55 GP   19 goals   16 assists   36 points   0.64 PPG
1991-1992   Wsh         80 GP   34 goals   34 assists   69 points   0.86 PPG
1992-1993   Det          80 GP    34 goals   46 assists   80 points   1.00 PPG
1993-1994   Det          64 GP    26 goals   27 assists   53 points   0.82 PPG
1994-1995   Det          72 GP    28 goals   48 assists   76 points   1.05 PPG
1995-1996   Det          64 GP    22 goals   21 assists   42 points   0.66 PPG
1996-1997   TB           77 GP    37 goals   26 assists   63 points   0.82 PPG
1997-1998   TB/Fla     62 GP    19 goals   20 assists   38 points   0.62 PPG
1998-1999   Fla           14 GP    7 goals     1 assist      8 points     0.58 PPG

Adjusted Playoff Stats

1980-1981   Min          19 GP    10 goals   5 assists    15 points   0.78 PPG
1981-1982   Min          4 GP      2 goals     1 assist      3 points    0.78 PPG
1982-1983   Min          9 GP      3 goals     5 assists    8 points     0.87 PPG
1983-1984   Min          16 GP    4 goals     4 assists    8 points     0.50 PPG
1984-1985   Min          9 GP      2 goals     2 assists    5 points     0.50 PPG
1985-1986   Min          5 GP      0 goals     1 assist      1 point      0.17 PPG
1988-1989   Wsh         6 GP      3 goals     3 assists    5 points     0.86 PPG
1989-1990   Wsh         8 GP      7 goals     3 assists    9 points     1.16 PPG
1990-1991   Wsh         11 GP    4 goals     3 assists    8 points     0.70 PPG
1991-1992   Wsh         7 GP      4 goals     3 assists    8 points     1.12 PPG
1992-1993   Det           7 GP      3 goals     2 assists    5 points     0.70 PPG
1993-1994   Det           7 GP      5 goals     2 assists    7 points     0.98 PPG
1994-1995   Det           16 GP    8 goals     2 assists    10 points   0.61 PPG
1995-1996   Det           17 GP    6 goals     2 assists    8 points     0.45 PPG

Career - 1279 GP, 543 goals, 536 assists, 1079 points, 0.84 PPG
Career-Highs - 45 goals (86-87); 48 assists (94-95); 88 points (86-87); 1.08 PPG (86-87)
Avg. (19 seasons) - 67 GP, 29 goals, 28 assists, 57 points, 0.84 PPG
Peak Avg. (85-93) - 75 GP, 34 goals, 34 assists, 68 points, 0.91 PPG

Playoff Career - 141 GP, 61 goals, 38 assists, 100 points, 0.71 PPG
Playoff-Highs - 10 goals (80-81); 5 assists (82-83); 15 points (80-81); 1.16 PPG (89-90)

Accolades - None
All-Star Teams - None
Never Won Stanley Cup

Well, here we are, the bottom of the Pyramid, the cutoff point, if you will. I've chosen Dino Ciccarelli because it was his inclusion into the Hockey Hall of Fame, and my nagging sense that he didn't feel like a hall-of-famer, that inspired me to construct this list (well, that, and Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball). So Ciccarelli is my cutoff point...if your career wasn't better than Dino Ciccarelli's, you don't make my Hall of Fame Pyramid. I was debating including Borje Salming, for example, and initially thought he didn't belong on the list. But his career was better than Ciccarelli's, so he's in. Chris Osgood, ditto. Curtis Joseph? Gaudy career numbers, sort of the goaltending equivalent to Ciccarelli...but he drops out. It's that simple.

Basically, you can take what I say about Gartner and apply it to Ciccarelli: the almost-comical lack of team success (his last year with Detroit was the year right before they ended their Cup drought), his consistent presence in the 30-40 goal/60-80 point range, the absence of any accolades or appearances on year-end all-star teams, and the eye-catchingly Giontaesque numbers put up year after year.

There are a few differences, though. The tongue-in-cheek comparison I made of Gartner to Darcy Tucker's career year is actually more apt for Ciccarelli, since Ciccarelli was a grittier player known for annoying opponents, and since, like Tucker, nearly 40% of Ciccarelli's career goals came on the power play. There is also evidence that, at his best, Ciccarelli was a little bit better than Gartner at his best. Consider that Ciccarelli had four seasons of averaging over a point a game, while Gartner had just one. The reason that Ciccarelli's career totals aren't quite as convincing as Gartner's comes down to pure health: Ciccarelli averaged just 67 games a year, while Gartner hardly ever missed a game.

So since Ciccarelli was equally "meh" when it comes to the standards of the Hall of Fame, yet didn't stick around enough to get to a milestone like 600 goals (and I mean adjusted goals, not 1980s "I'll score one in the middle of a 10-7 game" goals), I might have to sit on the fence if the decision fell to me about whether he was deserving of Hall recognition. Zero cups, no appearances on a first or second all-star team, only twice in the top ten in scoring in his ninteen years, I dunno. But since every Pyramid needs a starting point, let's go with Dino, since he has 543 adjusted career goals and over 1,000 points.

Just know that if you say Ciccarelli, or for that matter Gartner, are no-doubter Hall of Famers, then begin contemplating these names: Rick Nash and Marian Hossa. Are they hall-of-famers? Because in terms of adjusted production, that's essentially what you're looking at (and it could be argued that Nash and Hossa have them beat by virtue of a few truly great goal-scoring seasons, and Hossa has won a Cup). I'll leave it to you to decide.