The Ten Worst Players in the HHOF

[Canadiens1958]

Surely you can agree that goals were easier to come by in 1987 than in 2017 though?

So? Give the same recipe and ingredients to 100 chefs and you will not have the same results but 100 different results. Same with hockey players. Not only goals - your focus but the whole package.

Those who manage to go beyond and produced better results
with the same or less, get the honours - see the Prentice v Olmstead analogy, reap HHOF honours.

BTW, looks like someone had an epiphany- Bergeron/Toews thread then regressed to the norm within four hours.

 

[arrbez]

So? Give the same recipe and ingredients to 100 chefs and you will not have the same results but 100 different results. Same with hockey players. Not only goals - your focus but the whole package.

Those who manage to go beyond and produced better results
with the same or less, get the honours - see the Prentice v Olmstead analogy, reap HHOF honours.

BTW, looks like someone had an epiphany- Bergeron/Toews thread then regressed to the norm within four hours.

I think you're heading in the complete wrong direction with the Toews/Bergeron comparison. Bergeron and Toews are players whose offensive numbers don't nearly capture how good they are. Neither guy will score 500 goals and there's a chance neither will hit 1,000 points. But they've been great players. A lot of people would argue that Dave Andreychuk is the opposite scenario. Unless you want to make a case for Andreychuk's defensive play, ability to raise the level of his teams/linemates, elite playoff performances?

If you think he was actually a good enough player to warrant the Hall of Fame, that's fine, we all have our opinions. But it's the refusal to look at numbers logically that doesn't make any sense. I mean, your vague chef analogy in the first paragraph seems to indicate that it makes sense to hold guys from different eras to the same numerical standard. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think you're heading in the complete wrong direction with the Toews/Bergeron comparison. Bergeron and Toews are players whose offensive numbers don't nearly capture how good they are. Neither guy will score 500 goals and there's a chance neither will hit 1,000 points. But they've been great players. A lot of people would argue that Dave Andreychuk is the opposite scenario. Unless you want to make a case for Andreychuk's defensive play, ability to raise the level of his teams/linemates, elite playoff performances?

If you think he was actually a good enough player to warrant the Hall of Fame, that's fine, we all have our opinions. But it's the refusal to look at numbers logically that doesn't make any sense. I mean, your vague chef analogy in the first paragraph seems to indicate that it makes sense to hold guys from different eras to the same numerical standard. Is that what you're saying?

So you are a compass?

Refer you to a great post by Overpass in the Alex Delvecchio thread

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/138413485/

Note how concisely and without numbers he describes what made Delvecchio great.

That is also what makes Bergeron and Toews great. Play Bergeron on RW with Crosby and both intuitively adjust to play their game,allowing each to play their game knowing that they will be covered. This creates successful teams.

Toews is more like Jacques Lemaire allowing stars and rookies to play their game while making the necessary adjustments. This creates successful teams.

Andreychuk. You just don't get it It is never about the numbers. It is how you cook with what you have.

Andreychuk would fill the needed roll, play a bit of each of the forward positions, cover for a center or a defenceman. Took faceoffs as a RHS. Killed penalties. Played on the PP.

Simply contributed more with the same ingredients than others. Made his teams better by doing what had to be done.

 

[insomniac]

I don't think the games played thing is what you should be hanging your hat on. Everyone knows the all-time points leader but does everyone know the all-time games leader? It was Gordie Howe and will be Jagr at year's end. The fact that most people don't know that shows you how important the games played stat is for the HHOF. Marleau is going to pass Andreychuk in that stat. Shane Doan ended up just 100 games behind him. Glen Wesley, Scott Mellanby and Luke Richardson are among names not more than 200 games behind Andreychuk all-time. None were great, they just always found a team that needed their services because they were serviceable for a long time.

To put Andreychuk's goals in context let's look at how he did on a per game basis. He may be 14th in goals but he is 108th in goals per game. Here are some names ahead of him:

Petr Klima
Brian Bellows
Stephane Richer
Tomas Sandstrom

So what does that say? Could it be possible that he may have only achieved that many goals because he hung around collecting a ton of 20 goal seasons at the end of his career? Because if so, then it makes sense why he had over 600 career goals. One of the problems I have with Andreychuk is that he didn't score 600+ goals the right way. Dino did. Gartner got 708 the right way. If Andreychuk did what those players did he might have gotten 550, not 640. They retired when they were no longer scoring much, Andreychuk didn't.



I would say both should be left out. Both very solid defenseman and did their role well. Neither were the best defenseman on their teams though and when they won there was always a better defenseman. If you are going to be defensive minded then you should be dominant like Rod Langway to the point where a 25-30 point year doesn't hurt you. I just don't see them as "great" and I think that tends to be the narrative on here.

How do you put Hatcher in and leave Zubov out? That would be interesting.

I guess it depends on how you see the hall. I don’t think goals-per-game matters nearly as much as total goals and total games in this context. I see a lot of people say “it’s not the hall of very good” but it’s also not “the hall of elite superstars only”; it’s the hall of FAME. Retiring at 7th all-time in games played in a 100 year old league is worthy of the hall’s recognition.

 

[ThreeLeftSkates]

Meh, he just compiled after that.

Trots earned 2 Cups with the Penguins. Players do play for the love of the game, he was not just hanging around.

 

[seventieslord]

Trots earned 2 Cups with the Penguins. Players do play for the love of the game, he was not just hanging around.

and players don't just "get" to play, they have to earn and keep a roster spot, and keeping one on an elite, stanley cup team is even more impressive. He was not just hanging on there either, he was 7th-8th in TOI among forwards.

 

[Hobnobs]

and players don't just "get" to play, they have to earn and keep a roster spot, and keeping one on an elite, stanley cup team is even more impressive. He was not just hanging on there either, he was 7th-8th in TOI among forwards.

and Andreychuk was 4th (6th ES) most used forward on a cup team yet he was compiling?

 

[Canadiens1958]

and Andreychuk was 4th (6th ES) most used forward on a cup team yet he was compiling?

Sssshhhh, do not introduce facts to the discussion.

 

[seventieslord]

and Andreychuk was 4th (6th ES) most used forward on a cup team yet he was compiling?

arrbez answered this best already: I think the point was that if you weren't a Hall of Fame player by the end of your prime years, no amount of banging out 30 point seasons should make you become one. That is to say, if nobody ever saw you as a Hall of Fame player when you were at your best, then there shouldn't be anything to discuss.

Bryan Trottier was an obvious HHOFer by the time he "compiled an extra 100 or so points - they also represent a rather small percentage of the points he scored in his career - you could say Andreychuk scored as much as 20% of his career points in his compiling phase.

Also, considering their styles of play and reputations as all-around players, who was really bringing the most to the table in their last few seasons?

And even if you still say Andreychuk, refer to Arrbez' quote.

 

[Hobnobs]

arrbez answered this best already: I think the point was that if you weren't a Hall of Fame player by the end of your prime years, no amount of banging out 30 point seasons should make you become one. That is to say, if nobody ever saw you as a Hall of Fame player when you were at your best, then there shouldn't be anything to discuss.

Bryan Trottier was an obvious HHOFer by the time he "compiled an extra 100 or so points - they also represent a rather small percentage of the points he scored in his career - you could say Andreychuk scored as much as 20% of his career points in his compiling phase.

Also, considering their styles of play and reputations as all-around players, who was really bringing the most to the table in their last few seasons?

And even if you still say Andreychuk, refer to Arrbez' quote.

Trottier still spent his last years compiling by this yours and others definition. That was my argument. Dont deflect. This wasnt about how much Andreychuk "compiled" or what Trottier did before "compiling".

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

what on earth do bryan trottier's last years have to do with asking who the ten worst players in the HHOF are?

 

[Hobnobs]

what on earth do bryan trottier's last years have to do with asking who the ten worst players in the HHOF are?

I dont remember exactly... but my guess is the general argument that "Dave Andreychuk is just a compiler" came up somewhere and I decided to tease and people took it far too serious.

 

[Killion]

I dont remember exactly... but my guess is the general argument that "Dave Andreychuk is just a compiler" came up somewhere and I decided to tease and people took it far too serious.

Hobster?

 

[Hobnobs]

Hobster?

I know. Im a naughty boy

 

[Big Phil]

Not suggesting he was an "elite talent", the kind of player his opponents worried about coming into a game, his genius was just that. He was solid, reliable, rugged, was excellent at carrying the puck to the net, did a lot more than just stand there & bang in rebounds.... Theres a statute of Dave Andreychuk hoisting the Stanley Cup over his head outside of Amalie Arena in Tampa..... Why would that be?.... How many non HHOF players have statutes erected to them in their honor 70's?... Theres a reason for it, plenty of good reasons. He belongs, earned his stripes, place in the Hall. Total Warrior.

The reason being is he captained a Cup winner. Who was the first member of the Lightning to hoist the Cup that year? It was Andreychuk. That is the lasting image we get. Hatcher was the first Dallas Star to hoist the Cup too for the same reasons. He had 39 points during that year and even that was the best he did for 6 years. He just aged horribly. He did nothing of note after the age of 30. You can say he won a Cup, but do we give him this credit or do we give it to St. Louis, Richards and Lecavalier? He was 6th in regular season scoring and playoff scoring on his team. Sorry, but this is not something that screams HHOFer.

I get the feeling Killion that you have a mood that the HHOF can do no wrong but I am willing to bet that you didn't think Andreychuk was worthy a year ago simply because he hadn't been elected in yet. There are always politics involved with these decisions and Andreychuk's is the perfect example.

That will get Big Phil nowhere fast. Top 40 in a 21 to 30 team NHL converts to a Top 7 to 10 range player in the pre WHA, NHL. A solid number of HHOFers acceptable to Big Phil and you would not qualify by this metric.

So that is a non-starter.

I hardly agree with that. The best in the NHL is still the best, original 6 league or 30 team league. There is a bit of wiggle room with a bigger league but it still doesn't do any favours for Andreychuk. Can you even name a season that he was a top 20 player? I can start with this, there are two seasons where he was a top 20 SCORER!

1992 - 16th
1994 - 9th

Can we find 20 players who had better seasons in 1994 than Andreychuk? I think we can.

Fedorov, Gretzky, Gilmour, Roenick, Bure, Oates, Recchi, Shanahan, Lindros, Jagr, Hull, Bourque, Leetch, Stevens, Zubov, Hasek, Beezer...............

Not to mention the players who may have had injuries and maybe produced less than Andreychuk. Let's face it are there any players you would pass over for Andreychuk here?

Yzerman, Fleury, Chelios, Coffey, MacInnis, Roy, Neely, Francis, Lafontaine, Mogilny, (obviously Mario too)..............am I missing someone?

So basically he is a marginal top 20 player in the NHL in his best season and even then there are players that were notably better but injured that year. How the heck is a guy like that in the HHOF when he was never even close to being an elite player?

 

[Canadiens1958]

The reason being is he captained a Cup winner. Who was the first member of the Lightning to hoist the Cup that year? It was Andreychuk. That is the lasting image we get. Hatcher was the first Dallas Star to hoist the Cup too for the same reasons. He had 39 points during that year and even that was the best he did for 6 years. He just aged horribly. He did nothing of note after the age of 30. You can say he won a Cup, but do we give him this credit or do we give it to St. Louis, Richards and Lecavalier? He was 6th in regular season scoring and playoff scoring on his team. Sorry, but this is not something that screams HHOFer.

I get the feeling Killion that you have a mood that the HHOF can do no wrong but I am willing to bet that you didn't think Andreychuk was worthy a year ago simply because he hadn't been elected in yet. There are always politics involved with these decisions and Andreychuk's is the perfect example.



I hardly agree with that. The best in the NHL is still the best, original 6 league or 30 team league. There is a bit of wiggle room with a bigger league but it still doesn't do any favours for Andreychuk. Can you even name a season that he was a top 20 player? I can start with this, there are two seasons where he was a top 20 SCORER!

1992 - 16th
1994 - 9th

Can we find 20 players who had better seasons in 1994 than Andreychuk? I think we can.

Fedorov, Gretzky, Gilmour, Roenick, Bure, Oates, Recchi, Shanahan, Lindros, Jagr, Hull, Bourque, Leetch, Stevens, Zubov, Hasek, Beezer...............

Not to mention the players who may have had injuries and maybe produced less than Andreychuk. Let's face it are there any players you would pass over for Andreychuk here?

Yzerman, Fleury, Chelios, Coffey, MacInnis, Roy, Neely, Francis, Lafontaine, Mogilny, (obviously Mario too)..............am I missing someone?

So basically he is a marginal top 20 player in the NHL in his best season and even then there are players that were notably better but injured that year. How the heck is a guy like that in the HHOF when he was never even close to being an elite player?

So creating artificial benchmarks out of desperation. Do not care for your benchmarks.

Top 20 from Dave Andreychuk's era, in a 6 team league equates to top 4. In Andrechuk's era when playing against his teams he was one of the had to plan for players which is really the starting point for HHOF consideration.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

Can you mention a time he was great? That might make him seem like more of a HHOFer. Not to me though, because I know he was never an individually great player.

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

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.

I think Housley's defense does have to come into play since he was a defenseman. I don't think his career resembles a HHOFer. He had too many years where he was just off the radar. 21 years in the NHL and the best he got was finishing 3rd in Norris voting. Take into account that everyone knew about his offensive numbers as well. He was bad in the playoffs, got out of the 1st round twice and didn't have a big role when his team got into the final. I can think of defensemen who have their own warts in their career that I would have wanted on my team over him: Suter, Wilson, Gonchar, Zubov.

As for Andreychuk here is the thing with his 640 goals. Basically, he's Pat Verbeek. There isn't really a lot of difference between them career wise other than the fact that Andreychuk hung around longer and was slightly better at goal scoring in his best couple of years. But in all honesty, do you really lose sleep if you trade one for the other in their career? I don't think so. Gilmour was a huge factor in that spike in his career which he was never close to otherwise. That has to be taken into account here. When he got his 500th goal no one was figuring he was a Hall of Famer, it was never brought up. But 140 more goals over 5-6 seasons does?

 

[Big Phil]

So creating artificial benchmarks out of desperation. Do not care for your benchmarks.

Top 20 from Dave Andreychuk's era, in a 6 team league equates to top 4. In Andrechuk's era when playing against his teams he was one of the had to plan for players which is really the starting point for HHOF consideration.

Like them or not, they are proper benchmarks. The fact that you can't find a season he is a top 20 player is something I agree with you on, and expected as well. He never was. Not once. How in the world can we call him a HHOFer? He played half of his career in a 21 team league and he didn't stand out. By the way, that is nonsense that the top 20 players in the NHL in his era equate to top 4 in the original 6. It is hogwash simply because we aren't inducting more players based on more teams, so your argument is moot.

Since you think he was a player who teams had to find a way to stop (which by the way can be described for, oh, I don't know 40-50 players in the NHL) can you tell me when he was the best player on his team? Because if you want to find a time for that you need to pick the timeframe between Perreault's retirement and Turgeon's arrival. And even then Phil Housley and Tom Barrasso were on those teams and those were some pretty bad teams. So basically you have a guy who was arguably never considered the best player on his team..................once.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Like them or not, they are proper benchmarks. The fact that you can't find a season he is a top 20 player is something I agree with you on, and expected as well. He never was. Not once. How in the world can we call him a HHOFer? He played half of his career in a 21 team league and he didn't stand out. By the way, that is nonsense that the top 20 players in the NHL in his era equate to top 4 in the original 6. It is hogwash simply because we aren't inducting more players based on more teams, so your argument is moot.

Since you think he was a player who teams had to find a way to stop (which by the way can be described for, oh, I don't know 40-50 players in the NHL) can you tell me when he was the best player on his team? Because if you want to find a time for that you need to pick the timeframe between Perreault's retirement and Turgeon's arrival. And even then Phil Housley and Tom Barrasso were on those teams and those were some pretty bad teams. So basically you have a guy who was arguably never considered the best player on his team..................once.

Same can be said for any player who played on a team with generational talents. They were never the best of even top three players on a team. But they are deserving. Also true for players on balanced teams like the Leaf dynasties or many of the Canadiens dynasties. So what.

 

[Killion]

I get the feeling Killion that you have a mood that the HHOF can do no wrong but I am willing to bet that you didn't think Andreychuk was worthy a year ago simply because he hadn't been elected in yet. There are always politics involved with these decisions and Andreychuk's is the perfect example.

Not a "mood", those are fleeting. Its an "opinion". I dont actually take umbrage, issue with their process & elevations, promotions of whatever players, inductions into the HHOF. As Ive stated on previous occasions the only issues I have with the HHOF is its lack of "Mission Statement" in terms of circumference, that its no longer clear, the lines blurred with respect to International & Womens Hockey. No clear statement has ever been made in this regard and they really need to get out in front of that. Additionally we have a lot of omissions in the Players & Builders Categories including a gaping hole with the WHA's absence, its Players, Builders, Officials if indeed the HHOF has determined to set itself up as the preeminent HHOF globally, the arbiters of greatness, contributions to the game.

I dont really even have a problem with their policies pursuant to expelling those who's actions outside of the game & or the business thereof brought disgrace & disrepute upon themselves & perhaps tangentially the NHL & game itself. They did expel Eagleson, highly debatable whether they should expel Ballard or Campbell, both of whom were convicted of crimes. I say no. That as with the Football Hall of Fame what matters is what took place on the field (or ice in this case) with Players & Officials; what took place off of it with Builders must be measured vs what they contributed to the game & to society at large, find the balance & if worthy & they induct them then no, I'm not going to argue against, lose my **** over Jacobs getting in, demand Ballard or whomever be evicted. So sure.... Dave Andreychuk? No problem. Borderliner? Sure. But so what? He's on the line, a wee nudge & he's in. Some of you paint the guy like he's not much better than a Bill Hicke or Gerry Ehman. Gimme a break.

 

[Big Phil]

Same can be said for any player who played on a team with generational talents. They were never the best of even top three players on a team. But they are deserving. Also true for players on balanced teams like the Leaf dynasties or many of the Canadiens dynasties. So what.

Alright, let's take another fellow left winger like Dickie Moore who played on a stacked team but was possibly never the best player on his team (despite two Art Rosses). So basically you have Moore as a guy who was probably never thought to be #1 but let's look at the guys ahead of him shall we? You've got both Richards (depending on what years), Beliveau, Harvey, Geoffrion and Plante. All in the Hall of Fame.

The years in question with Andreychuk he is arguably not better than Housley or Tom Barrasso. Tell me you at least see the difference here right? Even Denis Maruk was on some mediocre teams but he was at least clearly the best player at times.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Alright, let's take another fellow left winger like Dickie Moore who played on a stacked team but was possibly never the best player on his team (despite two Art Rosses). So basically you have Moore as a guy who was probably never thought to be #1 but let's look at the guys ahead of him shall we? You've got both Richards (depending on what years), Beliveau, Harvey, Geoffrion and Plante. All in the Hall of Fame.

The years in question with Andreychuk he is arguably not better than Housley or Tom Barrasso. Tell me you at least see the difference here right? Even Denis Maruk was on some mediocre teams but he was at least clearly the best player at times.

Ah, finally making progress. Moore was the #1 LW but also responsible for covering the likes of Gordie Howe and Andy Bathgate which he did exceptionally well.

At no time in your argument have yo ever been able or willing to discuss a players complete game. You simply use bogus offensive benchmarks.

Anyway we agree to disagree. Otherwise I'm just wasting keystrokes on your biases. Enjoy life.

 

[Big Phil]

I dont really even have a problem with their policies pursuant to expelling those who's actions outside of the game & or the business thereof brought disgrace & disrepute upon themselves & perhaps tangentially the NHL & game itself. They did expel Eagleson, highly debatable whether they should expel Ballard or Campbell, both of whom were convicted of crimes. I say no. That as with the Football Hall of Fame what matters is what took place on the field (or ice in this case) with Players & Officials; what took place off of it with Builders must be measured vs what they contributed to the game & to society at large, find the balance & if worthy & they induct them then no, I'm not going to argue against, lose my **** over Jacobs getting in, demand Ballard or whomever be evicted. So sure.... Dave Andreychuk? No problem. Borderliner? Sure. But so what? He's on the line, a wee nudge & he's in. Some of you paint the guy like he's not much better than a Bill Hicke or Gerry Ehman. Gimme a break.

I think the main idea is that throughout his career he was not any better than someone like Pat Verbeek and then somehow got a polished reputation at the end. He got his career totals in quite possibly the worst way any HHOFer ever has. He was a "good" goal scorer in a high scoring era, aged poorly, didn't have an elite year the last decade of his career and even in his prime is considered to be a product of Gilmour.

 

[Big Phil]

Ah, finally making progress. Moore was the #1 LW but also responsible for covering the likes of Gordie Howe and Andy Bathgate which he did exceptionally well.

At no time in your argument have yo ever been able or willing to discuss a players complete game. You simply use bogus offensive benchmarks.

Anyway we agree to disagree. Otherwise I'm just wasting keystrokes on your biases. Enjoy life.

That totally went over your head. What I was suggesting is that Moore was CLEARLY the better player than Andreychuk and he shouldn't be penalized for never being the best player on his team because his team was littered with HHOFers.

As for a complete game, do tell, what did Andreychuk do that was complete? He was slow as molasses, he wasn't terribly physical and he wasn't great defensively. Not a good playoff performer either. Andreychuk is in the HHOF because he hung around long enough to compile over 600 goals and even in that situation he is not elite either. Observe:

1982 to 1994 goals:
Andreychuk is 11th with 426. Behind Larmer, barely ahead of Bellows. These are more or less his peers and I think most of us overall want Larmer. Meanwhile even someone like Gartner is 2nd overall in goals during this time with 498.

 

[Killion]

I think the main idea is that throughout his career he was not any better than someone like Pat Verbeek and then somehow got a polished reputation at the end. He got his career totals in quite possibly the worst way any HHOFer ever has. He was a "good" goal scorer in a high scoring era, aged poorly, didn't have an elite year the last decade of his career and even in his prime is considered to be a product of Gilmour.

Yes, your arguments are absolutely valid Big Guy however, the HHOF Selection Committee (and myself included when I heard he was getting in, discussed again here) weighed all of that against what he did accomplish, felt he was worthy, in. To me at least he was an excellent player even after he'd aged & was on the downslope, brought a lot of intangibles to the dressing room & game, deserving of the recognition he received with his induction into the HHOF.... Same with Duff & others who you dont think are deserving. And thats cool. Your bar is high, very demanding, I understand, respect your high standards, your absolute right to disagree. I'm not one to just blithely go along with the decisions of "The Man" or whatever authority, quite the opposite in fact in so many cases but in this case, and in the case of how the HHOF goes about the selections & inductions I'm really fine with it. Not a problem. The omissions etc as mentioned earlier, ya, for sure I'd like to see those issues addressed.