Argument against Andreychuk

[Hockey Outsider]

I found your first 2 points extremely weak:

Bergeron, you know I respect you, but I will respond to your points…

Then I guess Gilbert Perreault, Dale Howerchuk, Alex Delvecchio, Norm Ullman, Peter Stastny, Michel Goulet, Darryl Sittler, Jari Kurri, Bert Olmstead & Steve Shutt shouldnt be in the Hall of Fame by your logic.. Oh, but a few of them have Calders, so I guess thats their ticket in, right?

If a player doesn’t have any personal awards (including all-star selections), I would (with very few exceptions) hesitate to put him in the HOF.

I disagree with most of your example because all of them (except Stastny) were all-stars. Most of them were routinely among the league leaders in scoring in the regular season and playoffs; some were MVP finalists; most were better defensively. Andreychuk never earned an all-star selection, no awards, and was among the league’s leading scorers only once in 22 years.

Perreault—More awards than Andreychuk and more important to his franchise. Also a better scorer. 2 all-star selections and a Lady Byng; often placed among the league’s leading scorers; was basically the face of the Sabres franchise for nearly two decades

Hawerchuk—Much more dominant. All-star and MVP runner-up. Routinely among the league leaders in points and assists for the better part of a decade.

Delvecchio—More awards, better defense. All-star, three Lady Byng’s, Lester Patrick. Probably would have won the Selke if it was around back then.

Ullman—Much more dominant than Andreychuk. Two-time all-star, at time he was a dominant scorer. Led the league in goals once, twice led the playoffs in scoring.

Stastny—One of the few players who never won an award who deserves to be in Hall. Far more dominant offensively than Andreychuk; in fact it’s not even close. Stastny was a top ten scorer 6 times; Andreychuk was a top ten scorer once. Andreychuk was never higher than 9th; Stastny finished 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 6th.

Goulet—also not even close to Andreychuk. Five-time all-star. Andreychuk was a goal-scorer but finished 4th and 9th; Goulet finished 2nd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th. So Goulet was better, and played at a higher level longer.

Sittler- Closest player to Andreychuk on this list, but was an all-star once and had a few dominant seasons.

Kurri- Much more dominant offensively and defensively than Andreychuk, and has more awards. Led the league in goals once and was among the league leaders in goals and points for close to a decade; led the playoffs in goals four times; excellent defender. Five-time all-star, plus a Lady Byng.

Olmstead—Again, much more dominant. Led the league in assists twice in each the regular season and playoffs. Two-time all-star.

Shutt—three-time all star and led the league in scoring. Played an important part on probably the greatest dynasty in history (ie: he wasn’t just along for the ride, he made major contributions to the team as well).

What did you expect? Who did in the 80s and early 90s besides Lemieux and Gretzky?

The fact that Gretzky and Lemieux were so dominant doesn’t change the fact that Andreychuk was never close to being a dominant scorer. After all, he can still finish 3rd! Even if we ignore Gretkzy and Lemieux, there are still 8 more spots in the top ten every year. Andreychuk simply wasn’t close to being the best scorer in the league, whether you include Gretzky or not. Besides, stars like Yzerman, Trottier, Goulet, Hull, Savard, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Robitaille, etc, were able to consistently score goals and points despite also playing behind Gretzky and/or Lemieux.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

I found your first 2 points extremely weak:


Then I guess Gilbert Perreault, Dale Howerchuk, Alex Delvecchio, Norm Ullman, Peter Stastny, Michel Goulet, Darryl Sittler, Jari Kurri, Bert Olmstead & Steve Shutt shouldnt be in the Hall of Fame by your logic.. Oh, but a few of them have Calders, so I guess thats their ticket in, right?


What did you expect? Who did in the 80s and early 90s besides Lemieux and Gretzky?

Um... all these players you listed did. Stastny was the best pointer of the 80-s after Gretzky, Goulet had a lot of seasons when he finished in the top 5 in goals. Sittler too. Kurri too. Olsmtead I dont know as I wasnt around when he played and Shutt lead the league in goals once and was in the top 5 a couple times too.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

Oh, among the leading scorers.. I thought you meant top scorer.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Nope. Sorry if I wasn't clear. If a player routinely places among the top five to ten scorers (in goals, assists or points), that's a sign of dominance. That's what players like Goulet, Stastny, Kurri, Hawerchuk, etc did.

 

[God Bless Canada]

As I said before, Andreychuk was never one of the elite LWs in the league (say, top 5). The crop of LWs was never as strong as the centres or RWs. It'd be one thing if he was a centre stuck behind Gretzky and Lemieux (like Hawerchuk, Savard, LaFontaine, Stastny, Yzerman, etc). Anderson was probably a better player in his prime, and he's not getting in. While Andreychuk is the all-time leader in PP goals, it's not an accomplishment that we look back on with fascination. (How many of you knew that Espo was the all-time leader in PP goals before Andreychuk broke it). Gartner will be remember 20 years from now for an unprecedented, truly incredible feat. Andreychuk will not.

As stated before, our (likely) last memory of Andreychuk was a great one. He did a remarkable job in the Tampa locker room. As long as Ciccarelli doesn't get in, Andreychuk won't get in. Ciccarelli's long wait should be viewed as bad news for Andreychuk fans.

 

[Habsfan 32]

Wow. If Ron Francis does not get in the Hall Of Fame no one else should. This guys is in the Hall for sure. He's 4th in all time points. He's been the face of the Hartford/Carolina Franchise and he's got two Cups.

 

[Lou is God]

His contribution was far less than Brad Richards as the Conn Smythe trophy tells us. I would also say that Lecavalier and a few others contributed far more than Andreychuk as well.

You know there are other things besides stats to define "LED". Leadership is invaluable assest, one that you seem to short change. Why?

 

[arrbez]

I think leadership is often over-valued on these boards, not undervalued, although Andreychuk did do a nice job in Tampa.

That being said, I don't think he's quite good enough to be in the HHOF. As everyone has said before, he never really reached the "next level" for an extended period of time. Comparing him to Ron Francis is foolish, considering Francis has around 500 more points...

 

[arrbez]

and if you want to know what makes andreychuk "great", then how about calling him one of the best power forwards in nhl history or at the very least during his time? i'm sure if you talked to anyone over the last 20 years they'd put him in the top 10, if not top 5.

I don't really think of him as a power forward at all to be honest, and he's certainly not one of the best in NHL history. The problem with the term "power forward" is that so few players actually fall into that description. That's like saying Mike Peca should make the hall because he's one of the top 5 or 10 defensive specialists of the last 20 years...

 

[Ogopogo*]

I wasn't talking about your stats. I was talking about the real point production of stars from that era. Joe Malone, Cy Dennehy, and others from that era played 60 min. a game. So Malones 44 goals in 20 games isn't as impressive as Espo's 76 goals in 78 games IMO.

1917-18 Joe Malone 44 goals, Cy Denneny 36 goals Malone wins by 22%
1970-71 Phil Esposito 76 goals, Johnny Bucyk 51 goals Esposito wins by 49%

I would agree that Esposito's 76 goals are more impressive because of the margin of victory over Johnny Bucyk. Winning a goal scoring crown is winning a goal scoring crown. By how much you win is what determines how great your season is. The actual number of goals (44 in 20 games vs. 76 in 78 games) is completely irrelevant due to era and rules.

 

[Ogopogo*]

are we talking about the same 'francis' that is ranked #4 all-time in points scored in NHL history. Um, yeah, he's getting into the HHOF.

He will get into the Hall but, I don't think he has earned it. He has fattened up his point totals by playing a lot of years of good hockey (not great) in a very offensive era. Does he deserve the #4 all time ranking? Hell no. How is he a better scorer than Cy Denneny, Howie Morenz, Bobby Orr, Babe Dye, Aurel Joliat, Charlie Conacher and Nels Stewart? Those guys won scoring titles and dominated the game. Francis never dominated or won a scoring title. Francis had the advantage of an 80 game season during a very offensive era. Had he played in the 20s, he would have ended his career with about 500 points.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Some years are worth more than others. For example in the 1910s and 1920s several of the games top stars were in the PCHA, in the mid-1940s lots of players were serving in World War II, in the 1970s the WHA took away some of the talent. There are always other factors.

If the NHL came back with replacement players, I don`t think winning a scoring title there would be considered equal to the past seasons.

I suppose you could look at it that way if you want to split hairs. The way I see it is that all seasons have players missing due to injury, military commitments, living behind the iron curtain, lockouts, holdouts etc.

I say no excuses. If you lead the league, you are the best hockey player in the world that year. If a bunch of guys are at war or playing in the WHA, oh well. You are the best scorer in the NHL that season and that is the same as being the best scorer any season. String together a bunch of seasons like that and you are great.

All years are worth the same thing.

 

[Paxon]

1917-18 Joe Malone 44 goals, Cy Denneny 36 goals Malone wins by 22%
1970-71 Phil Esposito 76 goals, Johnny Bucyk 51 goals Esposito wins by 49%

I would agree that Esposito's 76 goals are more impressive because of the margin of victory over Johnny Bucyk. Winning a goal scoring crown is winning a goal scoring crown. By how much you win is what determines how great your season is. The actual number of goals (44 in 20 games vs. 76 in 78 games) is completely irrelevant due to era and rules.

That's a bit ridiculous really. What if, for example, the distance between second and third was huge in 17-18 and small in 70-71? In other words, what if the top two scorers both had amazing seasons and all you directly compare the leading scorer to is the second leading scorer? As someone pointed out, there are many things to consider and different eras are different eras. If a considerable amount of talented players were out fighting in a war or playing in another high-caliber, that has to be taken into account. Leading the league in goalscoring for a season only shows that you scored more goals than anyone else that season. The margin between the first and second leading scorers can only serve to shed some light on the topic.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Andreychuk's a really close call. On one hand, he has 600 goals and over 1,300 points. On the other hand, he never was considered an elite (top five) player at his position. Not only that, but his PPG in his prime wasn't that impressive. (It's not like Doug Gilmour, who finished under a PPG, but only because he played so friggin' long).

The difference between Gartner and Andreychuk is what Gartner did (30 goals in his first 15 seasons) is something truly remarkable, which may never be equaled. Andreychuk

One thing that will be considered: Andreychuk (and to a lesser degree Tim Taylor) meant as much as anyone to Tampa's Cup run and recent success. Tampa's locker room was a disaster before they arrived. They brought cohesion and unity, organizing team-wide events. Andreychuk played peacemaker last year when Lecavalier and Tortorella were feuding. There is no way the Lightning win the Cup without Andreychuk and Taylor's leadership. In my opinion, there hasn't been a better leader in the game the last two years than Andreychuk.

If he gets in, it will take several tries, like Bill Barber. It will also be because (likely) our last memories of him were so good, and the work he did in transforming Tampa's locker room.

This is the first time in my life I've heard someone suggest Francis isn't a future HHOFer. I hope it's the last. Guess what? He's a sure fire first-ballot guy. He's fourth in all-time scoring. He was over a point-per-game even in seasons where they scored under six goals a game. He was hovering around a point per game in his late 30s on a defensive-minded Carolina team. He's also one of the best defensive forwards I've ever seen, is easily one of the top defensive forwards among the top 50 scorers. He was one of the best ever in the faceoff circle. He was a great leader. And, if it means anything, I have never seen a forward who can quarterback a PP like Ron Francis.[/FONT][/FONT]

I am not saying that Francis isn't a HOFer. I am saying that he does not deserve to be a HOFer. He will be put in the Hall - for sure. He never dominated the game like Espo, Gretz or Howe. He never won a scoring title. He just cruised along, picking up 80 or 90 points per year. Nothing great just good for a long time. Take into account that is was the most offensive era of hockey with an 80 game schedule.

How is he a better scorer than Cy Denneny, Howie Morenz, Bobby Orr, Babe Dye, Aurel Joliat, Charlie Conacher, Nels Stewart, Marcel Dionne, Guy Lafleur, Andy Bathgate or Stan Mikita? The truth is, he is not. His point total is a mirage because of the era he played in. Had he played in the 20s he would have ended his career with 500 points.

Excellent player but, I would not consider him a HOFer.

 

[norrisnick]

He will get into the Hall but, I don't think he has earned it. He has fattened up his point totals by playing a lot of years of good hockey (not great) in a very offensive era. Does he deserve the #4 all time ranking? Hell no. How is he a better scorer than Cy Denneny, Howie Morenz, Bobby Orr, Babe Dye, Aurel Joliat, Charlie Conacher and Nels Stewart? Those guys won scoring titles and dominated the game. Francis never dominated or won a scoring title. Francis had the advantage of an 80 game season during a very offensive era. Had he played in the 20s, he would have ended his career with about 500 points.

At some point cummulative stats become great. If Francis weren't a great player and if it were such an easy task he wouldn't be sitting at #4.

Also, 500 points in the '20s-'30s would have put him in elite company.

 

[God Bless Canada]

And you know what? 500 points in the 1920s would likely be enough to get a guy into the Hall.

Again, let's keep in mind the number of great centres that were produced in the late 70s and early 80s. The depth at centre from about 1975 to 1996 is likely the most depth we've seen at one position in the history of the game. I believe Frencis, in his prime, was better than any centre currently in his prime in the NHL. He would be a perennial post-season all-star if he played in today's NHL. And, as mentioned before, he quarterbacked the point on the PP, won faceoffs, provided defensively play and offered leadership with great acumen. Is he the fourth most talented player in NHL history? No. But his numbers are a reflection of terrific hockey sense, hard work, consistency and a dedication to conditioning. And when you look at age, surrounding talent and the level of scoring, coming close to a point per game in 2000 and 2002 is actually pretty damn good.

 

[Ogopogo*]

That's a bit ridiculous really. What if, for example, the distance between second and third was huge in 17-18 and small in 70-71? In other words, what if the top two scorers both had amazing seasons and all you directly compare the leading scorer to is the second leading scorer? As someone pointed out, there are many things to consider and different eras are different eras. If a considerable amount of talented players were out fighting in a war or playing in another high-caliber, that has to be taken into account. Leading the league in goalscoring for a season only shows that you scored more goals than anyone else that season. The margin between the first and second leading scorers can only serve to shed some light on the topic.

Very rarely do the top 2 scorers both finish far ahead of the pack. In 17-18 the gap between 2nd and 3rd was 20%. In 70-71 it was 16%. Quite similar.

As I have said, the wars, WHA, holdouts, lockouts, injuries are all quite irrelevant. If you are the best goal scorer in any given year that is equal to any other year - depending on how you dominated.

 

[Ogopogo*]

And you know what? 500 points in the 1920s would likely be enough to get a guy into the Hall.

Again, let's keep in mind the number of great centres that were produced in the late 70s and early 80s. The depth at centre from about 1975 to 1996 is likely the most depth we've seen at one position in the history of the game. I believe Frencis, in his prime, was better than any centre currently in his prime in the NHL. He would be a perennial post-season all-star if he played in today's NHL. And, as mentioned before, he quarterbacked the point on the PP, won faceoffs, provided defensively play and offered leadership with great acumen. Is he the fourth most talented player in NHL history? No. But his numbers are a reflection of terrific hockey sense, hard work, consistency and a dedication to conditioning. And when you look at age, surrounding talent and the level of scoring, coming close to a point per game in 2000 and 2002 is actually pretty damn good.

Francis cracked the top 10 in scoring three or four times and only cracked the top 5 once. Not hall worthy IMO.

He did a lot of other things well but, was never recognized for them with any kind of award. Again, that is a sign that he did not dominate.

Some say he was buried behind Gretzky and Lemieux. Check the post season all star lists. A dozen centers won all star recognition at least once during the Gretzky and Lemieux era. Francis was not one of them. Another sign that he was not dominant.

His point total is simply a product of an 80 game schedule in an offensive era. He did very little to be considered "great". My HOF would only include the greats, not the "good for a long time" type players. The Hall should be for the greatest players of all time.

 

[Ogopogo*]

And you know what? 500 points in the 1920s would likely be enough to get a guy into the Hall.

Again, let's keep in mind the number of great centres that were produced in the late 70s and early 80s. The depth at centre from about 1975 to 1996 is likely the most depth we've seen at one position in the history of the game. I believe Frencis, in his prime, was better than any centre currently in his prime in the NHL. He would be a perennial post-season all-star if he played in today's NHL. And, as mentioned before, he quarterbacked the point on the PP, won faceoffs, provided defensively play and offered leadership with great acumen. Is he the fourth most talented player in NHL history? No. But his numbers are a reflection of terrific hockey sense, hard work, consistency and a dedication to conditioning. And when you look at age, surrounding talent and the level of scoring, coming close to a point per game in 2000 and 2002 is actually pretty damn good.

500 points / 21 seasons = 24 points per year.

If he did it the same way as he did it in the 80s and 90s, he would not be considered an elite player. Finishing high in the scoring race, dominating and winning awards is greatness. Not averaging a decent amount of points per year. When really looked at with a critical eye, Francis is not worthy of HOF status. He made it to #4 with a loophole.

 

[tom_servo]

?

Please explain.

Being the leading goal scorer in the league in 1923 is the same thing as being the leading goal scorer in the league in 1993. Every player in the league has to use the same rules each season. So, if you are the best goal scorer one year - you are the best goal scorer in the world. Rules don't affect anything, everybody has the same rules during the season that a guy led the way. The best in 1930 is the same as being the best in 2000.

I disagree. Denneny played most of his career in a four-team league, playing only 24 games, with something like ten players per roster.

Think about that.

At roughly six forwards per team, he only had to outscore (minus himself) maybe 23 players.

Now, I'm not trying to discount what he meant to the game at the time, but I think logic will tell you that topping the league over many players for a longer period of time ('93) is much harder than doing it over few players for a short amount of time ('23).

That doesn't necessarily mean that Denneny, if cryogenically frozen and unleashed upon today's NHL, couldn't conceivably be one of the best in the game. But I think circumstances have changed too much to say with any certainty that he had a greater career than any of today's top players, even if he did get all the awards.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I disagree. Denneny played most of his career in a four-team league, playing only 24 games, with something like ten players per roster.

Think about that.

At roughly six forwards per team, he only had to outscore (minus himself) maybe 23 players.

Now, I'm not trying to discount what he meant to the game at the time, but I think logic will tell you that topping the league over many players for a longer period of time ('93) is much harder than doing it over few players for a short amount of time ('23).

I disagree tom.

He had to outscore the whole world. Just because only 4-7 teams were in the league during his career that does not mean that he was not the best in the world.

With a 30 team NHL, we have the top 10 goal scorers then we have everybody else. And after them we have all the guys that didn't make it.

With a 4 team NHL, we have the top 10 goal scorers then we have everybody else. And after them we have all the guys that didn't make it.

How would it affect anything if the 25th best goal scorer was in the league when Denneny played? The guy would still be 25th and Denneny would still be 1st.

If this was a random draw, your argument would make sense. You cannot bring down the best in the world by adding a bunch of mediocre players into the mix.

Is being the president worth less in 1920 because the population of the US was a lot lower than it is today? No, being the president is being the president. You still hold the highest position in the land.

 

[BwayBshirt]

I don't really think of him as a power forward at all to be honest, and he's certainly not one of the best in NHL history. The problem with the term "power forward" is that so few players actually fall into that description. That's like saying Mike Peca should make the hall because he's one of the top 5 or 10 defensive specialists of the last 20 years...

really? because i've always thought of him that way.

anyway, the michael peca comparison wouldn't be fair because peca has had health issues that have affected his career, not to mention that well-publicized, not-to-happy exit from buffalo. whereas andreychuk has stayed healthy throughtout (which shouldn't be discounted considering what kind of punishment he takes constantly game to game), and andreychuk's character has rarely been questioned, if ever.

i think something that really hurts him here, and there's not much doubt about it in my mind, is the fact he's bounced around during his career and guys who bounce around constantly don't have anything to fall back on when it comes time to vote because you can't necessarily identify them with a team. this certainly is true with andreychuk. i mean, i can easily remember him with buffalo as much i do with toronto just like i can with new jersey and just i do with the lightning. if i had to pick which team i remember him most with it would be the leafs to be honest, but still you get my point

 

[God Bless Canada]

Ogopogo,

You only show your ignorance. Nobody played 21 seasons back then. They played 10 or 12 years.

You are the only person in the hockey world who doesn't think Francis belongs in the Hall. As an all-round player, he's one of the best ever. As an all-round player, he was dominant. He could control aspects of the game. He was terrific defensively, but did his work within the framework of the rules. He was considered the best face-off man for years. (Not saying that all strong defensive players or dominant face-off guys should be considered for the Hall, but when those attributes are combined with consistent 90-point seasons, HHOF enshrinement becomes a no-brainer). He has also long been viewed as one of the most underrated players in the history of the game.

Ron Francis is a truly great all-round player. Vincent Damphousse has been a good to very good player for a lot of years. Ron Francis is a truly great player, and has been considered one of the top 10 all-round players at his position for most of his career.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Francis is like the guy that shows up for work every single day for 21 years. Does a good job but nothing spectacular. He just shows up every day.

Other guys were amazing at work they just didn't stay at the company for 21 years. They added to the bottom line, drove up the stock price, they were the BEST at what they did.

Is the guy that shows up every day better than the superstar? Nope.

 

[Big Phil]

This is ridiculous. To me Andreychuk isnt in the Hall for the fact that he was never anything more than a good player. Why are people saying that Francis isnt Hall worhty? His highest point totals are 119, 101, 100. Add that to the fact that he played on a very mediocre team for over half his career and that's even better. His two Cups with the Pens by the way he wasnt just along for the ride. He was an imporant tool in both runs. In '92 with Mario out Game 4 against the Rangers if he doesnt score that OT winner then the Pens are down 3-1. He was always one of the best centres in the game. Even into his mid 30s. His Hockey sense and passing ability are among the all-time best.

Yeah he was never the best player in the game but he was very often in the Top 10 in scoring. Does that not count? There was just a logjam at centre throughout his career. How many other seasons has a centre gotten 119 points and not won a season end all-star selection? Twice he led the league in assists. And take Jagr and Lemieux away in '96 and he's one point behind Sakic for the Art Ross. No he isnt as good as Dionne, Espo, Lafleur or even Perreault, Mikita just because he had more points then them, but if he isnt a Hall of Famer my goodness!