The Ten Worst Players in the HHOF

[cupcrazyman]

Red Horner
Clark Gillies
Leo Boivin

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I've always supported Mike Gartner's induction to the Hall of Fame, and been opposed to Dave Andreychuk's, even though both are considered "compilers". Here's my reasoning.

Both players have relatively low peaks (compared to most Hall of Famers). Still, there's a notable difference. Gartner has five years as a top ten goal-scorer, Andreychuk only has two. Gartner is ahead 9-5 in top twenty seasons and 13-6 in top thirty seasons. That's a meaningful difference.

They have the same number of season in the top ten (1) and top twenty (2) in scoring. Gartner pulls away after that. But we need to consider context. Andreychuk's best years were when he played alongside peak Gilmour. He only led his team in scoring three times (two of which didn't make the playoffs, and the other was eliminated in the first round). Gartner led his team in scoring four times (three of which made the playoffs, and two of which made the second round). Neither player is good enough to take a team even to the conference finals on their own, but Gartner was more important to his teams.

The issue that most people have with "compilers" is they play many years past their prime, slowly padding their career totals. Under this definition, Mike Gartner is emphatically not a compiler! In his second last season (1996-97), he scored 32 goals (24th in the league). At the time, that was the 7th best season (measured by goals) for a 37+ year old player in NHL history (behind only Howe twice, Bucyk twice, Esposito and Beliveau). He was disappointing (and relatively healthy) in 1998, and he quickly retired that summer. The extent of Gartner's "compilation" was one year in Phoenix where he scored 12 goals. (Yes I recognize this brought him over the 700 goal mark, but I don`t think his place in history changes if he retired at 696).

In contrast, Andreychuk hung around far past prime. Believe it or not, Andreychuk never scored 30 goals past the age of 30 (Gartner did that six times, including two 45+ goal seasons). But let`s pretend Andreychuk retired after the 1997-98 season, at age 34. He would have played 1,158 games, scored just under a point per game, and had over 500 goals. Nobody would have even considered Andreychuk as a Hall of Fame at that point. He then spent six years putting up 15-20 goals and 30-40 points as a third-line powerplay specialist. Kudos to him for hanging on to a roster spot, but I don't see how being a third-line specialist (thereby reaching the 600 goal mark) magically makes him a Hall of Famer when nobody saw him as one for sixteen years.

Just how much of a specialist was he? From 1999 to the end of his career, Andreychuk was the only forward with 100+ PP points who scored more on the powerplay than at even-strength. During his last five seasons (all with in Tampa Bay), he was dead last in even-strength ice time per game (among the nine forwards who played in 200+ games) - yet he played nearly as much on the powerplay as St. Louis and Lecavalier.

Again, I'm not criticizing Andreychuk for hanging on to his spot. Powerplay goals count just as much as even-strength markers. But this explains why I support Gartner being in the Hall, but not Andreychuk. Gartner had a (slightly) higher peak, was more important to his teams and, most importantly, he retired immediately after he lost his scoring touch. What Andreychuk did was admirable, but hanging around as perhaps the purest powerplay specialist in the league doesn't magically elevate him to a Hall of Famer when he demonstrated over the first sixteen years of his career that he wasn't deserving.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I've always supported Mike Gartner's induction to the Hall of Fame, and been opposed to Dave Andreychuk's, even though both are considered "compilers". Here's my reasoning.

Both players have relatively low peaks (compared to most Hall of Famers). Still, there's a notable difference. Gartner has five years as a top ten goal-scorer, Andreychuk only has two. Gartner is ahead 9-5 in top twenty seasons and 13-6 in top thirty seasons. That's a meaningful difference.

They have the same number of season in the top ten (1) and top twenty (2) in scoring. Gartner pulls away after that. But we need to consider context. Andreychuk's best years were when he played alongside peak Gilmour. He only led his team in scoring three times (two of which didn't make the playoffs, and the other was eliminated in the first round). Gartner led his team in scoring four times (three of which made the playoffs, and two of which made the second round). Neither player is good enough to take a team even to the conference finals on their own, but Gartner was more important to his teams.

The issue that most people have with "compilers" is they play many years past their prime, slowly padding their career totals. Under this definition, Mike Gartner is emphatically not a compiler! In his second last season (1996-97), he scored 32 goals (24th in the league). At the time, that was the 7th best season (measured by goals) for a 37+ year old player in NHL history (behind only Howe twice, Bucyk twice, Esposito and Beliveau). He was disappointing (and relatively healthy) in 1998, and he quickly retired that summer. The extent of Gartner's "compilation" was one year in Phoenix where he scored 12 goals. (Yes I recognize this brought him over the 700 goal mark, but I don`t think his place in history changes if he retired at 696).

In contrast, Andreychuk hung around far past prime. Believe it or not, Andreychuk never scored 30 goals past the age of 30 (Gartner did that six times, including two 45+ goal seasons). But let`s pretend Andreychuk retired after the 1997-98 season, at age 34. He would have played 1,158 games, scored just under a point per game, and had over 500 goals. Nobody would have even considered Andreychuk as a Hall of Fame at that point. He then spent six years putting up 15-20 goals and 30-40 points as a third-line powerplay specialist. Kudos to him for hanging on to a roster spot, but I don't see how being a third-line specialist (thereby reaching the 600 goal mark) magically makes him a Hall of Famer when nobody saw him as one for sixteen years.

Just how much of a specialist was he? From 1999 to the end of his career, Andreychuk was the only forward with 100+ PP points who scored more on the powerplay than at even-strength. During his last five seasons (all with in Tampa Bay), he was dead last in even-strength ice time per game (among the nine forwards who played in 200+ games) - yet he played nearly as much on the powerplay as St. Louis and Lecavalier.

Again, I'm not criticizing Andreychuk for hanging on to his spot. Powerplay goals count just as much as even-strength markers. But this explains why I support Gartner being in the Hall, but not Andreychuk. Gartner had a (slightly) higher peak, was more important to his teams and, most importantly, he retired immediately after he lost his scoring touch. What Andreychuk did was admirable, but hanging around as perhaps the purest powerplay specialist in the league doesn't magically elevate him to a Hall of Famer when he demonstrated over the first sixteen years of his career that he wasn't deserving.

Yes Hockey Outsider we get it. Conversely do a cross sport comparison to say George Blanda - career sub 50% passer, more INTs than TD passes, etc, very bad stats. Yet a 1st year eligible inductee because he compiled and hung around long enough to produce a few game winners:

George Blanda Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Or Hoyt Wilhelm, a baseball Hofer:

Hoyt Wilhelm Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

No problem with Andreychuk. May not have voted for him myself but understand why others did.

 

[DitchMarner]

Fair enough. But then, in what specific years do you think we should be analyzing Andreychuk's stats? The fact remains that he was known for one thing -- goal-scoring -- and was never elite at that one thing.

In '84 he scored 38 goals. By today's standards that seems like quite a lot, but he finished tied for 31st in the League in goals that season.

In '85 he scored 31 goals and finished for 42nd in goals.

In '86 Andreychuk scored 36 goals and finished tied for 30th in goals.

In '87 he scored 25 goals and tied for 71st in goals. Some players I know next to nothing about outscored him that season: Gilles Hamel, Doug Sulliman, Greg Paslawksi.

In '88 Andreychuk scored 30 goals and tied for 50th in goals.

In '89 Andreychuk scored 28 goals and finished tied for 59th in goals.

From the overall time frame of 1984-1969 (six seasons), Andreychuk ranked 28th in goals in the NHL. There were 21 teams back then (and maybe 55 forwards that could be considered first line level forwards in a given season).

Essentially, because of health and a certain degree of consistency when it came to came to goal scoring, Andreychuk was about a mid-range first line forward during the first six seasons in which he played at least 50 games. I would bet he wasn't a top 30 forward in an average season from '84-'89, but over that entire stretch of time, he may have been about the 30th best forward in the NHL.

Then he took his game to another level.

In '90 Andreychuk scored 40 goals and tied for 17th in goals.

In '91 Andreychuk scored 36 goals and finished 22nd in goals.


In 1992 he hit the beginning of his peak, scoring 41 goals and finishing tied for 12th in goals.

In '93 Andreychuk scored 54 goals, tying for ninth in goals.

In '94 he had his best goal scoring season, scoring 53 and finishing fourth in the NHL in goals.


In the shortened '95 season, Andreychuk scored 22 goals, tying for 18th in the NHL in goals.

After 1995, Andreychuk only once scored more than 21 goals in a season (he had 27 in '97, finishing tied for 44th in the NHL in goals that season).


When it comes down to it, he had a long and rather productive career as an NHL'er and really maximized his talent, but I think if a player is mainly known for your goal scoring, he should need to peak higher or stay at Andreychuk's two or three year peak level longer than he did to have a legitimate HHOF case when the rest of his career is similar to Andreychuk's non-peak seasons.

 

[DitchMarner]

I've always supported Mike Gartner's induction to the Hall of Fame, and been opposed to Dave Andreychuk's, even though both are considered "compilers". Here's my reasoning.

I have the same stance, Hockey Outsider.


Here's a thread I made in the summer defending Gartner's induction...

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/does-mike-gartner-belong-in-the-hhof.2377307/


I agree that Andreychuk didn't have a HHOF calibre career up to 1998 and that his last few seasons really shouldn't have moved the needle enough to make him one.

 

[seventieslord]

What??? All for the induction of the likes of Duff, Pulford, plus defencemen and goalies who would never be considered top 10 or even top 20 in any given season. Have been all along.

No, I'm saying you would typically scoff at people who would say something like "top-10 in a 6 team league? Ha, that's like top-50 in a 30-team league!!!" .... and rightly so.

 

[seventieslord]

I have the same stance, Hockey Outsider.


Here's a thread I made in the summer defending Gartner's induction...

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/does-mike-gartner-belong-in-the-hhof.2377307/


I agree that Andreychuk didn't have a HHOF calibre career up to 1998 and that his last few seasons really shouldn't have moved the needle enough to make him one.

I don't think a lot of us here have a problem with Gartner in the HHOF. He's lower tier perhaps, but not in my "dirty thirty" of guys who are bottom of the barrel. Guys like us here typically rail on him as being overrated... and he is, when he makes lists like the NHL's top-100 all-time. But he is a worthy HHOFer. Hockey Outsider is absolutely right that he's very different from Andreychuk.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Even if Gartner was the clear worst player in the Hall, I think the rarified heights he reached on the career charts are not only special, but also a little harder to appreciate now that:
- Jagr and Hull have passed him (and don't look now, but Ovechkin will probably pass #20 this year, and will pass Andreychuk before he's 35, so he'll pass Gartner in the end.)
- We're not currently talking about someone possibly toppling the all-time goal-scoring record.

At the end of the 1992-93 season, Gretzky was 36 goals short of Howe, so the countdown was on. He'd just finished an injury-plagued season with only 16 goals at 33 years old, so it was reasonable to ask whether he'd come back strong and blow past Howe, or take a couple of seasons to limp over the finish line and call it a career.
Meanwhile, in the rear view mirror, Gartner was 219 goals short of Howe, and 182 goals back of Gretzky at a year older, but many years healthier. A year's worth of his normal output would get him comfortably past Bobby Hull into the top 5 (which he did, albeit scoring 11 fewer goals than the year before.) Had he kept this up for another 6 years, he'd pass Howe at 39 years old (and who knows where Gretzky would be at this point).

This might sound a bit like the other thread where some are expecting a burnt out Corey Perry to keep knocking off 25 goal seasons until he hits 500. But Gartner wasn't slowing down at all. As it turned out, he still lasted into his late 30s, and he didn't get a chance to put another 30 on the board in 1995 because of the lockout. If he plays 80 games that year, he has enough to pass Marcel Dionne for 3rd place. If he hangs on and "compiles" for a little bit, who knows how high he gets?

It was a long shot that didn't end up happening, but it was a compelling underdog story to follow and something I remember clearly in my early days as a hockey fan. That's something worth preserving that I don't think the current leaderboard necessarily tells you by itself.

I don't personally see that with Andreychuk, but that's another spiel.

 

[The Panther]

...let`s pretend Andreychuk retired after the 1997-98 season, at age 34. He would have played 1,158 games, scored just under a point per game, and had over 500 goals. Nobody would have even considered Andreychuk as a Hall of Fame at that point. He then spent six years putting up 15-20 goals and 30-40 points as a third-line powerplay specialist. Kudos to him for hanging on to a roster spot, but I don't see how being a third-line specialist (thereby reaching the 600 goal mark) magically makes him a Hall of Famer when nobody saw him as one for sixteen years.

Brilliant post by Hockey Outsider, and all I can say is I agree -- and specifically with the part quoted above.

This is really the crux of it -- to me, anyway: If the player didn't strike the majority as a Hall of Famer in their prime (specifically by their late prime), then they should never be a Hall of Famer.

Just as Hockey Outsider says, Andreychuk was never talked of as a "future Hall of Famer" in the early/mid-90s... Therefore, why, after he declined greatly, did he suddenly turn into a Hall of Famer?

It's not that I don't respect longevity and Andreychuk's ability to get onto those power-plays and bang in a few goals... but the guy was getting paid millions of free-agent dollars, for those years, while basically never contributing anything 5-on-5. Aren't those millions enough? Do we also have to put him in the Hall of Fame?

 

[Killion]

Do we also have to put him in the Hall of Fame?

No, you dont, Hockey Outsider doesnt have to... nor does 70's, any other number of you here.... Fortunately, you guys dont get to vote in the real world on that and Dave's in like Flint. I dont get to vote either but if I did, I'd vote "yea".... so good job Induction Committee.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No, I'm saying you would typically scoff at people who would say something like "top-10 in a 6 team league? Ha, that's like top-50 in a 30-team league!!!" .... and rightly so.

You still do not get it. Never said what you quote, so you should not use quotation marks. Point is this. Top 10 from an O6 season would cluster with the Top 10 of a modern season. Specifically Howe, Beliveau, B. Hull,H.Richard, Mikita, Harvey, Gadsby, Kelly/Pilote,Plante and Hall etc, would be in the mix for the top 10-15 combined of the two eras. They would not be disspersed equally amongst a combined Top 60 of the two eras. The 8th O6 era player would not simply slot as the 40th in such a combined list. He would be much higher, 10-15 range.

Conversely a top 50 player from the modern era or season, depending on the position, once you get below the top half might not even make the O6 NHL. Most blatant example would be centers. You would have app 15 centers in a modern Top 50. Yet #s 10 to 15 would struggle to make the NHL in the O6 era, at least at center. On the other hand certain players below #40 would make the O6 NHL.

Prime example is Dave Andreychuk. RHS / LW, multi-position forward with a specialty -PP, would be extremely valuable since like a Don Marshall he could fill the equivalent of three roster slots. while producing solid offensive numbers while enjoying a longer and better career.

 

[sr edler]

Gartner was on two Canada Cup teams, no? He has that going for him, and his skating. Personally I think Steve Larmer was better than Andreychuk, but hey, there’s no reason to really bother with it. Andreychuk raising the Cup with Tampa probably helped him, it was a nice ending, grey beard and all.

 

[Killion]

Gartner was on two Canada Cup teams, no? He has that going for him, and his skating. Personally I think Steve Larmer was better than Andreychuk, but hey, there’s no reason to really bother with it. Andreychuk raising the Cup with Tampa probably helped him, it was a nice ending, grey beard and all.

Here we go, well put. I really have no problem with the odd debatable player getting in, someone on the fence getting lightly tapped in for sentimental reasons. He had a great career, good-to-great player, IMHO deserving.

 

[Hobnobs]

Hockey is really the only sport where fans is constantly trying to remove greats from history. I rarely experience this in football discussions. Not even amongst rival teams like Barcelona and Real Madrid or the London teams. There is usually a respect for enshrined players and instead of looking purely at the flaws, nitpicking every stat you usually respect the name and what he contributed to the game. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[Killion]

Hockey is really the only sport where fans is constantly trying to remove greats from history. I rarely experience this in football discussions. Not even amongst rival teams like Barcelona and Real Madrid or the London teams. There is usually a respect for enshrined players and instead of looking purely at the flaws, nitpicking every stat you usually respect the name and what he contributed to the game. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule.

Yeah I dont know if its a cultural thing, divide of sorts between North Americans & the rest of the World or what, but we dont see this much with the NFL or MLB either, seems to be localized to hockey, the NHL & the HHOF. I dont have a problem with one single solitary Player Induction, would like to see more, various omissions made right, away we go. If you dont agree with whomevers induction then ok, but to crucify the guy? Gimme a frickin break.

Andreychuk, Dick Duff, these were decent & sometimes great players, earned their stripes. If you want a HHOF with nothing BUT Superstars thats cool. Fine. I can appreciate & respect that position. But the fabric of the game I love is much more than just that, I'm as anti-establishment as it gets, but in the case of the HHOF's decisions rather than criticizing & tearing down whomever I actually appreciate the fact that they do sometimes induct players based on intangibles & other factors. Not gonna shut down conversation on the subject but yes, to me it all seems rather specious, disrespectful. It is what it is. Good arguments being made, passionate, intelligent. Fine.

 

[Passchendaele]

Gartner is not a compiler.. not by a longshot. The minute his play went downhill, he left.

His consistency is mind-blowing.. he's probably comparable to Ron Francis in that way (except Francis was a playmaker, he, a goal-scorer).

Andreychuk put up first-line numbers for the last time in 1996-97.. he hung around for nine more years.

 

[decma]

Just how much of a specialist was he? From 1999 to the end of his career, Andreychuk was the only forward with 100+ PP points who scored more on the powerplay than at even-strength. During his last five seasons (all with in Tampa Bay), he was dead last in even-strength ice time per game (among the nine forwards who played in 200+ games) - yet he played nearly as much on the powerplay as St. Louis and Lecavalier.

Again, I'm not criticizing Andreychuk for hanging on to his spot. Powerplay goals count just as much as even-strength markers. But this explains why I support Gartner being in the Hall, but not Andreychuk. Gartner had a (slightly) higher peak, was more important to his teams and, most importantly, he retired immediately after he lost his scoring touch. What Andreychuk did was admirable, but hanging around as perhaps the purest powerplay specialist in the league doesn't magically elevate him to a Hall of Famer when he demonstrated over the first sixteen years of his career that he wasn't deserving.

I would add that he even on the PP his stats are not that good when ice time is taken into account. Ice time data are available from 1998/99 on. From 98/99 to 05/06 (end of his career), 105 players scored at least 100 power play points. Andreychuk ranked 81st out of 105 in terms of PP pts per PP minute.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Now that we have the internet, the HHOF is obsolete.This is the power of the internet.It will take some time before people catch up though.The internet is the best place to call out the BS going on in many fields, so it's the same with hockey history.

The HHOF should get on with the times, this isn't the 80s or even 90s anymore where people like us had no means to find each other and work on that stuff.The HHOF is a political entity and politics is in the way of fair decisions.It should be a meritocracy.

 

[MXD]

Hockey is really the only sport where fans is constantly trying to remove greats from history. I rarely experience this in football discussions. Not even amongst rival teams like Barcelona and Real Madrid or the London teams. There is usually a respect for enshrined players and instead of looking purely at the flaws, nitpicking every stat you usually respect the name and what he contributed to the game. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule.

This thread is mostly about the judicious use of the word "Great".
Not about removing "Greats".

 

[Hobnobs]

Gartner is not a compiler.. not by a longshot. The minute his play went downhill, he left.

His consistency is mind-blowing.. he's probably comparable to Ron Francis in that way (except Francis was a playmaker, he, a goal-scorer).

Andreychuk put up first-line numbers for the last time in 1996-97.. he hung around for nine more years.

Trottier put up first line numbers for last time in 88. He hung around for 5 more years.

 

[Passchendaele]

Trottier put up first line numbers for last time in 88. He hung around for 5 more years.

By '88, Trottier was one of the best centers of his generation (probably 2nd best behind #99), had 1284 career points, one Art Ross + Hart, four Stanley Cups + a Conn Smythe. He'd still be a slam-dunk Hall of Famer.

 

[Hobnobs]

By '88, Trottier was one of the best centers of his generation (probably 2nd best behind #99), had 1284 career points, one Art Ross + Hart, four Stanley Cups + a Conn Smythe. He'd still be a slam-dunk Hall of Famer.

Meh, he just compiled after that.

 

[seventieslord]

You still do not get it. Never said what you quote, so you should not use quotation marks. Point is this. Top 10 from an O6 season would cluster with the Top 10 of a modern season. Specifically Howe, Beliveau, B. Hull,H.Richard, Mikita, Harvey, Gadsby, Kelly/Pilote,Plante and Hall etc, would be in the mix for the top 10-15 combined of the two eras. They would not be disspersed equally amongst a combined Top 60 of the two eras. The 8th O6 era player would not simply slot as the 40th in such a combined list. He would be much higher, 10-15 range.

Conversely a top 50 player from the modern era or season, depending on the position, once you get below the top half might not even make the O6 NHL. Most blatant example would be centers. You would have app 15 centers in a modern Top 50. Yet #s 10 to 15 would struggle to make the NHL in the O6 era, at least at center. On the other hand certain players below #40 would make the O6 NHL.

Prime example is Dave Andreychuk. RHS / LW, multi-position forward with a specialty -PP, would be extremely valuable since like a Don Marshall he could fill the equivalent of three roster slots. while producing solid offensive numbers while enjoying a longer and better career.

If you think I was attributing that phrase to you, you didn't read carefully enough.

My point is that you typically espouse the exact opposite ideology - you would not stand for some twentysomething coming in this section and downplaying the O6 era by implying anything done in that league (like a position in the scoring race or norris voting) should just be multiplied by five to arrive at a modern equivalent. I would not stand for it either. And the fact that you took such offense when you mistakenly thought I was attributing those words to you says it all. We are on the same page.

Problem is, when I said Andreychuk was never a top-40 player you did exactly what those history-contemptuous twentysomethings, just dividing 40 by 5 and concluding that Andreychuk's failure to be a top-40 player was no different from Pulford and Duff's failure to ever be top-8 players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If you think I was attributing that phrase to you, you didn't read carefully enough.

My point is that you typically espouse the exact opposite ideology - you would not stand for some twentysomething coming in this section and downplaying the O6 era by implying anything done in that league (like a position in the scoring race or norris voting) should just be multiplied by five to arrive at a modern equivalent. I would not stand for it either. And the fact that you took such offense when you mistakenly thought I was attributing those words to you says it all. We are on the same page.

Problem is, when I said Andreychuk was never a top-40 player you did exactly what those history-contemptuous twentysomethings, just dividing 40 by 5 and concluding that Andreychuk's failure to be a top-40 player was no different from Pulford and Duff's failure to ever be top-8 players.

Missing the point completely. Being top X in any era is simply a statement of fact in measurable circumstances and an opinion in non-measurable circumstances. It should never be used as a qualifier for inclusion or exclusion in the HHOF or cross era comparisons.

Prime example would be the 1967 expansion when Mike McMahon a struggling fringe O6 defenceman happened to lead the NHL d-men in scoring in 1968 with 47 points, more than half his career total. He hardly was a regular afterwards and was out of the league rather quickly. Likewise forwards - you will have the Andrew Cassels, Cliff Ronnings, Bronco Horvath types who will sneak into a Top X or lead a weak team. Or a Roman Turek if looking at goalies. One hit wonders.

Conversely you have the solid players, who integrate and contribute to teams throughout their career who deserve recognition inspite of never meeting someone's arbitrary Top X.

In other words the top 40 bar for Andreychuk has no hockey value, pulled out of the air or elsewhere to try and make an invalid point.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Just off the top of my head:

Clark Gillies - It's too bad, because he was good and important to the Isles success but not nearly enough to ever be considered "great"

Agreed.

Phil Housley - Scored a lot, but was equally bad in his own end which is not a good trait for a defenseman

The fact he's only one of 8 defensemen to reach 1000 points makes him worthy. How bad he was defensively is irrelevant.

Dave Andreychuk - A player that tends to make you never look at the HHOF the same again

640 goals is way too many goals to leave out of the HOF. Plus he captained a team to a SC which is a nice cherry on top.

Leo Boivin - Solid defenseman that we would all want on our team, punishing hitter, but so was Bob Baun or Adam Foote. I'd call them very serviceable, not great.

Agreed. But admittedly, I don't know that much about him.

Dick Duff - It says something that when I read the headline "Duff, Roy get inducted" in 2006 I obviously knew who Roy was but was assuming Duff was an obscure player from the 1920s because the only other Duff I knew was Dick Duff and there is no way he'd ever.................

Agreed.

Joe Nieuwendyk - Never a star, never a #1 center for any stretch of time

Agreed. Just not a good enough career imo.

Bernie Federko - Arguably a guy with a good case to still be in there but if there are 10 guys to take out one might be him

Agreed.

Bob Pulford - Better than Duff, definitely someone you wanted on your team. But great?

Agreed.

Edgar Laprade - No, I didn't see him play and he could possibly have some sort of "the stats don't tell everything" thing about him but I just have never seen it

Agreed.

Cam Neely - No question about it with his health this is a factor. I think a healthy Neely who played into his mid 30s and put up what he put up when he was healthy is a lock and not controversial, but part of me thinks there are times he just didn't have enough great seasons.

I see both sides.

Honourable mention, Pat Burns. Not a player of course, but as a Builder. I don't know if I ever thought of him as a great coach. He never lasted more than 4 years on a team before he got fired. He stands out among coaches as someone who really didn't make an imprint on the game.

Again, I can see both sides.