Hockey Hall of Fame 2017

[Canadiens1958]

Longevity

Longevity should be understood. Not a question of longevity being rewarded or punished.

To a large extent the HHOF does an excellent job of defining the value of longevity. Players like Dit Clapper, Red Kelly, Mark Howe, others who effectively had two careers at distinct positions eventually are recognized although they may have to wait longer than some would like. Others like Doug Mohns are not. HHOF appreciates the adjustments required for such changes and the value such players bring to their team. The HHOF distinguishes between moves made because a player was simply lacking certain attributes and one where a player was adding new attributes.

 

[sr edler]

As I said before, longevity ought to be rewarded, and not punished. Andreychuk may not have had that elite peak, but it really takes a lot to go for as long as he did and to put up those numbers during all of that time. There are many athletes who have a great start to their careers that we wonder if they'll be Hall of Famers, then many of them drop off. Andreychuk was a slow and steady wins the race kind of case, and he deserves to be in.

In my opinion, Mike Gartner is not a Top 100 player in NHL history, but he is in the Hall of Fame and rightfully so.

Andreychuk doesn't have any defining moments. He's not a famous hockey player. No one outside of hockey knows who he is. Tell me about one important or pretty goal he scored and I will listen.

People remember him for lifting a Cup with Tampa, but he was an old passenger on that team.

I do know he was on the ice when Malarchuk got his throat cut though, but other than that his career is pretty "meh".

No disrespect though, he was a good player, but nothing about him says HHOF.

 

[HawkNut]

Andreychuk doesn't have any defining moments. He's not a famous hockey player. No one outside of hockey knows who he is. Tell me about one important or pretty goal he scored and I will listen.

People remember him for lifting a Cup with Tampa, but he was an old passenger on that team.

I do know he was on the ice when Malarchuk got his throat cut though, but other than that his career is pretty "meh".

No disrespect though, he was a good player, but nothing about him says HHOF.

Does a player really have to have the fame aspect if they put up Hall worthy numbers?

 

[Sentinel]

I actually prefer for the player to be famous for something. Not infamous (Bertuzzi, McSorley, ,etc.) but famous. That's why it's a Hall of FAME. I'd prefer to see Rod B. there before Andreychuk.

OTOH nobody outside of hockey knows who ANY of these people are.

 

[Plural]

Gretzky is probably the only hockey player who became a household name in NA. Outside of the obvious countries, hockey players simply aren't really well known. Everyone knows who Messi or Federer is and compared to them practically nobody has ever heard of Crosby.

 

[HawkNut]

If we emphasize the fame part of the Hall of Fame, then Roenick should have been inducted by now.

Andreychuk may have had a low profile, but his stats say he deserves it.

 

[JackSlater]

If we emphasize the fame part of the Hall of Fame, then Roenick should have been inducted by now.

Andreychuk may have had a low profile, but his stats say he deserves it.

Statistics don't say anything when it comes to players, as they all need to be interpreted. They are a very useful tool though. Andreychuk has statistics befitting a member of the HHOF. Looking at context reveals that Andeychuk was a lesser player than his statistics superficially indicate and is comfortably among the weakest inductions. Andreychuk absolutely belongs in the pages of a record book where numbers are all that need to be considered. When considering actual players, not numbers, he really doesn't belong among the best players of all time.

 

[HawkNut]

Statistics don't say anything when it comes to players, as they all need to be interpreted. They are a very useful tool though. Andreychuk has statistics befitting a member of the HHOF. Looking at context reveals that Andeychuk was a lesser player than his statistics superficially indicate and is comfortably among the weakest inductions. Andreychuk absolutely belongs in the pages of a record book where numbers are all that need to be considered. When considering actual players, not numbers, he really doesn't belong among the best players of all time.

I've seen it and read about it too many times in sports where players begin their career on a Hall of Fame path, only to falter. Andreychuk never did. If he scored 440 goals, I would say he's undeserving. He scored 640, and that puts him over the top for me. I can think if weak HOF inductees. Andreychuk is not one of them. Not to me, anyway.

 

[JackSlater]

I've seen it and read about it too many times in sports where players begin their career on a Hall of Fame path, only to falter. Andreychuk never did. If he scored 440 goals, I would say he's undeserving. He scored 640, and that puts him over the top for me. I can think if weak HOF inductees. Andreychuk is not one of them. Not to me, anyway.

He is definitely one of the worst players inducted, and thus one of the weakest. Since you've decided to ignore context I can see how you can reach that conclusion though. Typing out "640 goals" repeatedly doesn't change that he was never one of the best players in hockey and is one of the worst players actually inducted. I suppose it is debatable if being worse than almost every other player in the HHOF means he isn't worthy of enshrinement though.

 

[86Habs]

I've seen it and read about it too many times in sports where players begin their career on a Hall of Fame path, only to falter. Andreychuk never did. If he scored 440 goals, I would say he's undeserving. He scored 640, and that puts him over the top for me. I can think if weak HOF inductees. Andreychuk is not one of them. Not to me, anyway.

Simply out of curiosity, who do you think are weak HHOF inductees?

 

[sr edler]

Does a player really have to have the fame aspect if they put up Hall worthy numbers?

Those are not Hall worthy numbers in the right kind of context. He has what, a 10th place scoring finish once riding shotgun on Toronto beast mode Gilmour? That's not very impressive.

Pavol Demitra has three top 10 scoring finishes.

Fact is that Andreychuk wasn't even the best immobile PP scorer of his era. Tim Kerr was. And Kerr led his team in scoring several times in front of players like Brian Propp. Both Kerr and Propp were probably better than Andreychuk.

 

[sr edler]

That's why it's a Hall of FAME. I'd prefer to see Rod B. there before Andreychuk.

Brind'Amour at least is famous for his Arnold body.

 

[sr edler]

OTOH nobody outside of hockey knows who ANY of these people are.

It depends on the country. Here in Sweden most people knows who Peter Forsberg is, whether you like hockey or not.

 

[mrhockey193195]

As I said before, longevity ought to be rewarded, and not punished. Andreychuk may not have had that elite peak, but it really takes a lot to go for as long as he did and to put up those numbers during all of that time. There are many athletes who have a great start to their careers that we wonder if they'll be Hall of Famers, then many of them drop off. Andreychuk was a slow and steady wins the race kind of case, and he deserves to be in.

In my opinion, Mike Gartner is not a Top 100 player in NHL history, but he is in the Hall of Fame and rightfully so.

Who on earth believes longevity should be punished? Longevity can be a huge piece of a HOF resume. That being said, being a good player for ten years and then an average player for another ten years should not get you into the HOF. Andreychuk is the forward equivalent of a Teppo Numminen.

Actually, scratch that. Teppo was a better defenseman than Andreychuk was a forward. Better peak, better prime, better longevity and career value.

 

[reckoning]

That being said, being a good player for ten years and then an average player for another ten years should not get you into the HOF. Andreychuk is the forward equivalent of a Teppo Numminen.

Actually, scratch that. Teppo was a better defenseman than Andreychuk was a forward. Better peak, better prime, better longevity and career value.

I was thinking Steve Duchesne might be the best defenceman equivalent for him. Long career, consistently had a lot of productive seasons but was never considered one of the top 5 blueliners in the game, not better than his stats would indicate, won a Cup in his final year.

I can't think of a good goalie comparable who had a long career. Andreychuk is clearly behind guys like Joseph, Vanbiesbrouck, Barrasso and Vernon, but ahead of goalies like Beaupre and Lemelin. Ranford and Burke had better peaks. I don't know....Ed Johnston maybe.

 

[Big Phil]

Marleau is a great modern counter argument. He has had a much, MUCH more impactful career than Andreychuk has. He similarly hasn't won a cup in his prime, and might get one as a secondary (or even tertiary) piece before he retires. I can't fathom how anyone would say Marleau should get in. Andreychuk's admission is utterly baffling. Tocchet, Roberts, and Kevin Stevens should have gotten in before him (and none of them should be in).

It really is getting silly. Look, at least Baseball has too HIGH of a standard. I'd rather have that. In fact, the HHOF is generally pretty good and has respectable standards for goalies and defensemen. They should keep it that way with forwards. The problem is there is no accountability with the committee. 18 guys who decide on the barometer is not good. That's too few.

I've seen it and read about it too many times in sports where players begin their career on a Hall of Fame path, only to falter. Andreychuk never did. If he scored 440 goals, I would say he's undeserving. He scored 640, and that puts him over the top for me. I can think if weak HOF inductees. Andreychuk is not one of them. Not to me, anyway.

Andreychuk had 140 goals in the final 8 seasons of his career. That 640 number looks shiny because he hung around long enough to get it despite not being a good scorer for several years.

You said Andreychuk never faltered, yet he never had a good season after 1994, when he was 30. 0.82 PPG in his career during a high scoring era. That's just awful, especially since there isn't a high peak or a playoff resume to counter it with. He is just a bad, bad pick and the ones that don't know any better will think everything is okay because he hit 640 goals. There needs to be context.

He finished 10th in scoring once. Then 16th. Other than that he was outside - sometimes well outside - of the top 20. In what year is Andreychuk a top 10 player? A top 10 forward? Any year? None that I can think of. Not even 1994. Every player above him in the scoring race was better. That's 9. Others below him such as Hull, Francis, Turgeon, Lindros, etc. were better and that's just the forwards.

How can a guy get in the HHOF if we can't even pick a season where he was a top 10 forward. Even just once?

 

[MXD]

I was thinking Steve Duchesne might be the best defenceman equivalent for him. Long career, consistently had a lot of productive seasons but was never considered one of the top 5 blueliners in the game, not better than his stats would indicate, won a Cup in his final year.

I can't think of a good goalie comparable who had a long career. Andreychuk is clearly behind guys like Joseph, Vanbiesbrouck, Barrasso and Vernon, but ahead of goalies like Beaupre and Lemelin. Ranford and Burke had better peaks. I don't know....Ed Johnston maybe.

I can totally get on board with Steve Duchesne as a comparable.

As for goalies.... I don't know, I was about to suggest Dan Bouchard as someone who is probably exactly in between Beaupre and Barrasso all things considered.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It really is getting silly. Look, at least Baseball has too HIGH of a standard. I'd rather have that. In fact, the HHOF is generally pretty good and has respectable standards for goalies and defensemen. They should keep it that way with forwards. The problem is there is no accountability with the committee. 18 guys who decide on the barometer is not good. That's too few.



Andreychuk had 140 goals in the final 8 seasons of his career. That 640 number looks shiny because he hung around long enough to get it despite not being a good scorer for several years.

You said Andreychuk never faltered, yet he never had a good season after 1994, when he was 30. 0.82 PPG in his career during a high scoring era. That's just awful, especially since there isn't a high peak or a playoff resume to counter it with. He is just a bad, bad pick and the ones that don't know any better will think everything is okay because he hit 640 goals. There needs to be context.

He finished 10th in scoring once. Then 16th. Other than that he was outside - sometimes well outside - of the top 20. In what year is Andreychuk a top 10 player? A top 10 forward? Any year? None that I can think of. Not even 1994. Every player above him in the scoring race was better. That's 9. Others below him such as Hull, Francis, Turgeon, Lindros, etc. were better and that's just the forwards.

How can a guy get in the HHOF if we can't even pick a season where he was a top 10 forward. Even just once?

Lets take away his final 7 seasons. And his -65 in them. That would make him a +103 player. Not bad.

Do you consider Andreychuk to be the worst player in the Hall? Bottom 5? Bottom 10?

 

[MXD]

Lets take away his final 7 seasons. And his -65 in them. That would make him a +103 player. Not bad.

Do you consider Andreychuk to be the worst player in the Hall? Bottom 5? Bottom 10?

Post consolidation player (and Moose Watson excluded)...
Easily bottom-5.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Lets take away his final 7 seasons. And his -65 in them. That would make him a +103 player. Not bad.

Do you consider Andreychuk to be the worst player in the Hall? Bottom 5? Bottom 10?

Bottom five for sure, with Housley & Duff. Maybe throw Anderson in the bottom five as well.

 

[The Panther]

Lets take away his final 7 seasons. And his -65 in them. That would make him a +103 player. Not bad.

That's fine, but that means we also take away his Stanley Cup and 123 goals, meaning he's now a non-Cup winner with 517 goals and no longevity.

A few posts above said it best: a goal-scorer, fairly one-dimensional, who (barely) has one top-10 scoring finish in his career, and no playoff heroics to speak of (1 good third-round showing for his career), should NOT EVEN BE CLOSE TO THE HALL OF FAME.

Andreychuk is just Tony Tanti with more longevity.

 

[seventieslord]

He finished 10th in scoring once. Then 16th. Other than that he was outside - sometimes well outside - of the top 20. In what year is Andreychuk a top 10 player? A top 10 forward? Any year? None that I can think of. Not even 1994. Every player above him in the scoring race was better. That's 9. Others below him such as Hull, Francis, Turgeon, Lindros, etc. were better and that's just the forwards.

Earlier in this thread I pointed out that even in the 1994 yearbook, following the best season of his career, THN did not rate Andreychuk even as a top-40 player.

 

[Sentinel]

Bottom five for sure, with Housley & Duff. Maybe throw Anderson in the bottom five as well.

Leave Anderson out of this. He was ten times the player Andreychuk was!

 

[HawkNut]

Statistics don't say anything when it comes to players, as they all need to be interpreted. They are a very useful tool though. Andreychuk has statistics befitting a member of the HHOF. Looking at context reveals that Andeychuk was a lesser player than his statistics superficially indicate and is comfortably among the weakest inductions. Andreychuk absolutely belongs in the pages of a record book where numbers are all that need to be considered. When considering actual players, not numbers, he really doesn't belong among the best players of all time.

He is definitely one of the worst players inducted, and thus one of the weakest. Since you've decided to ignore context I can see how you can reach that conclusion though. Typing out "640 goals" repeatedly doesn't change that he was never one of the best players in hockey and is one of the worst players actually inducted. I suppose it is debatable if being worse than almost every other player in the HHOF means he isn't worthy of enshrinement though.

Simply out of curiosity, who do you think are weak HHOF inductees?

Duff, Bolvin and Federko come to mind as weak inductees, in my mind. Andreychuk has the longevity and he did something to make up for not having a dominant peak.

 

[HawkNut]

Who on earth believes longevity should be punished? Longevity can be a huge piece of a HOF resume. That being said, being a good player for ten years and then an average player for another ten years should not get you into the HOF. Andreychuk is the forward equivalent of a Teppo Numminen.

Actually, scratch that. Teppo was a better defenseman than Andreychuk was a forward. Better peak, better prime, better longevity and career value.

It really is getting silly. Look, at least Baseball has too HIGH of a standard. I'd rather have that. In fact, the HHOF is generally pretty good and has respectable standards for goalies and defensemen. They should keep it that way with forwards. The problem is there is no accountability with the committee. 18 guys who decide on the barometer is not good. That's too few.



Andreychuk had 140 goals in the final 8 seasons of his career. That 640 number looks shiny because he hung around long enough to get it despite not being a good scorer for several years.

You said Andreychuk never faltered, yet he never had a good season after 1994, when he was 30. 0.82 PPG in his career during a high scoring era. That's just awful, especially since there isn't a high peak or a playoff resume to counter it with. He is just a bad, bad pick and the ones that don't know any better will think everything is okay because he hit 640 goals. There needs to be context.

He finished 10th in scoring once. Then 16th. Other than that he was outside - sometimes well outside - of the top 20. In what year is Andreychuk a top 10 player? A top 10 forward? Any year? None that I can think of. Not even 1994. Every player above him in the scoring race was better. That's 9. Others below him such as Hull, Francis, Turgeon, Lindros, etc. were better and that's just the forwards.

How can a guy get in the HHOF if we can't even pick a season where he was a top 10 forward. Even just once?

It's about the numbers, which Andreychuk had. Numminen does not.