Argument against Andreychuk

[GKJ]

Neither Andreychuk nor Francis should be in the hall. They are classic cases of players fattening their stats by playing a long time during an offensive era. Neither man dominated. Neither man won scoring titles or awards. Neither LED a team to the cup.

Excellent players, not hall of famers.

They can't be too bad if they're still on NHL teams into their 40's


Yzerman has played 21 seasons, let's not let him in either.


That would be pretty silly if you don't think someone who has scored 500 goals and 4th all time in points into the hall, but Bernie Federko can get in.

 

[Ogopogo*]

A guy like Scott Mellanby was 'just good'.

For a 21 year period 1981-2002, Francis averaged 62 assists/82 games played. He led the league in assists twice. He had seasons where he finished 4th and 5th in league scoring, and several in the top 10. Far and beyond 'just good'.

Take away the pure statistical numbers if you like. Forget that he had more assists than most HHOFers had points. This is a guy who finished top-5 or so in assists in the NHL pretty much every year for 20 years, and led the league on multiple occasions. This is excellence, end of story. Any way you slice it, this is one of the best playmakers the game of hockey has ever seen. Regardless of era - lop off 20% of his assists to adjust for the time period and he still has 1000 assists, and is ahead of pretty much everyone else ever to play the game save Gretzky.

Never mind that, on top of being one of the games elite playmaking centers for 20 years, he was also one of the league's top defensive forwards, winning a Selke and being a finalist for that award on several occasions.

Mellanby was average. I'll bump Francis up to "very good".

In my world, he is highly overrated. But, many people don't want to look past the numbers and see the truth of what they represent. Fine by me. I choose to see the truth.

 

[Ogopogo*]

They can't be too bad if they're still on NHL teams into their 40's


Yzerman has played 21 seasons, let's not let him in either.


That would be pretty silly if you don't think someone who has scored 500 goals and 4th all time in points into the hall, but Bernie Federko can get in.

Bernie shouldn't be in either. Yzerman accomplished some impressive things in his career - he is deserving. By having Bernie in, it lowers the bar. Now a guy like Andreychuk is actually being considered.

500 goals and 4th all time in points is irrelevant. They played 80 game seasons during the most offensive era in hockey. They padded their stats by playing a long time. How are their accomplishments better than those of Cy Denneny and Howie Morenz? The truth is, they are not.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

IMO Gartner, Francis and Andreychuk all get overrated due to their longevity.

I would put Francis in the HHoF, but he would be at the very bottom end of my Hall of Fame pyramid.

Gartner, Andreychuk, Mullen, Gillies, and Federko would all be missing out.

 

[God Bless Canada]

To reiterate:

*Andreychuk was never an elite LW (a position with less depth), never put up eye-catching numbers, and his greatest claim to fame - goals record on the PP - is not a stat that separates HHOFers from also-rans. He stats are more a reflection of longevity than ever being an elite player. He's in a similar situation to Ciccarelli, who is perpetually passed over. If Andreychuk gets in (which he shouldn't), it will take a few years, but it will be because our last memories of him were so good, and his leadership turned around an also-ran franchise.
*Ron Francis is one of the great two-way players in league history. Always put up strong numbers (three 100-point seasons, scored at a 90-point clip nine other times), consistent, dominant passer, dominant checker, dominant on the face-off circle. Scored at almost a point-per-game at age 40 in a defensive era, with mediocre talent and a defensive-minded system. First-ballot gimmie.
*Mike Gartner is in the Hall because he did something that nobody has ever done before, and may never do again. He scored at least 30 goals in his first 15 years, and in 17 of his first 18. (The only season he didn't was the lockout year). In 14 of those years, he was over 35, and he hit 40 nine times. It's not like there's a glut of guys with 13-15 30 goal seasons waiting to get in.
*Mullen's in because he was the all-time leader for Americans in most stat categories. Federko's in because he put up big numbers, despite playing with lesser talent. LaFontaine is in because at his peak, he was one of the true greats. It's just injuries/inferior talent on Long Island limited his prime. Gillies is in because he won four Cups, playing a power forward role.

Prove me wrong.

 

[revolverjgw]

But, many people don't want to look past the numbers and see the truth of what they represent

Many of us are looking past the numbers and seeing that Francis was a far above average defensive forward, even winning a Selke, was a faceoff expert, a classy guy that keeps things together, these things don't show up on his stat sheet (which is impressive enough in the opinion of most of us). There are a lot of players with more impressive stats that can't claim these strengths.

And besides, I really do value longetivity, as long as you're not just ''hanging around'', and he was top-line center for as long as he's played. Up until last year I guess. And that's a HELL of a long time. In that regard, he's truly elite. You're useless if you can't contribute, and so many superstar scorers with the ''HOF seasons'' you covet quickly become useless.

Francis making the hall because of his inflated career numbers isn't the same as Turgeon making the hall because of his inflated career numbers.

 

[Badger Bob]

Clark Gillies and Bernie Federko are members. That's the current standard for entrance. With that being fact, 8 pages of arguing over Andreychuk and Francis is silly. Both Andreychuk and Francis are HOFers, according to precendent. Lots of worthy candidates will soon be retiring over the next couple of season: Yzerman, MacInnis, Messier, Chelios, Robataille, Hull, etc.

If you want controversy, the possibility of Phil Housley receiving induction is what's truly galling. That puss's plague would really sully those hallowed halls.

 

[Malefic74]

If you want controversy, the possibility of Phil Housley receiving induction is what's truly galling. That puss's plague would really sully those hallowed halls.

Amen to that. Him and Steve Duchesne were the two most overrated defencemen in the 80's and 90's. Maybe Ozolinsh too.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Housley would be a bad induction, but it wouldn't surprise me. The guy was nearly a point-per-game defenceman for most of his career. Problem was, he was defensively inept for most of his career. I think he'll get in eventually, but not for at least five to 10 attempts, and then it'll be a case of inducting him on numbers alone, and by then will have forgotten how truly abysmal he was defensively. (A lot of people diss Coffey for his defensive ability. Coffey was about average defensively. Housley was truly abominable).

 

[reckoning]

Every time a Hall of Fame thread comes up everybody disses Federko. How much of that is based on the fact that he played most of his career in St. Louis? If he played in Toronto or New York he probably would`ve got in a lot earlier and nobody would`ve questioned it. Look at him and Darryl Sittler unbiasedly; is there really a reason why Sittler is more deserving?

 

[#66]

Every time a Hall of Fame thread comes up everybody disses Federko. How much of that is based on the fact that he played most of his career in St. Louis? If he played in Toronto or New York he probably would`ve got in a lot earlier and nobody would`ve questioned it. Look at him and Darryl Sittler unbiasedly; is there really a reason why Sittler is more deserving?

Thank god someone has said it. The guy was a playmaker playing with a grinder (Brian Sutter) and a very good player but not a great one (Joe Mullen). Give him a Goulet or Larmer and his point totals would have been that much better. His playoff stats are very good and he led all playoff point getters in '86. IMO there are a handfull of lesser players in the Hall than Federko. All of whom have been the product of a star or stacked team winning championships.

 

[c-carp]

Every time a Hall of Fame thread comes up everybody disses Federko. How much of that is based on the fact that he played most of his career in St. Louis? If he played in Toronto or New York he probably would`ve got in a lot earlier and nobody would`ve questioned it. Look at him and Darryl Sittler unbiasedly; is there really a reason why Sittler is more deserving?

Amen Bro, Playing in STL hurt Bernie a ton.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I always viewed Bernie as a borderline candidate. Wasn't as upset with his induction as others were, and not as upset as with Gillies. Scored 100 points four times, scored at a 100-point clip two other seasons, and a 90-point clip four other times. He did it in anonymity in St. Lou and with lesser talent. I wouldn't rank him as one of the best 100 players ever, but he's better than a lot of guys that were already in there.

Most of the most contentious inductees were chosen by the Veteran's committee until its abolishment, or when they brought in a bunch of old-timers in the 1960s.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Amen Bro, Playing in STL hurt Bernie a ton.

Actually, the fact that he was never a post-season all-star, Stanley Cup winner, Hart Trophy winner or finalist, or a top 5 scorer is why he is not worthy. Just playing a long time during the most offensive era hockey has ever known should not be reason enough to be in the Hall.

The greats score no matter who they play with and win awards no matter what team they are on. Bernie just wasn't quite good enough in my book.

Excellent player just not Hall worthy.

 

[Big Phil]

Every time a Hall of Fame thread comes up everybody disses Federko. How much of that is based on the fact that he played most of his career in St. Louis? If he played in Toronto or New York he probably would`ve got in a lot earlier and nobody would`ve questioned it. Look at him and Darryl Sittler unbiasedly; is there really a reason why Sittler is more deserving?

Now for the record I like Federko. I dont have a bone to pick with him being in there so much. He did put up very good numbers regardless of the era. But I have to say that Sittler was a much better player, even all around. Sittler did receive one year end all-star team award (second team '78) and despite not winning a Cup he still had good playoff numbers. So Federko is borderline IMO, but Sittler is in without a doubt.

 

[reckoning]

Actually, the fact that he was never a post-season all-star, Stanley Cup winner, Hart Trophy winner or finalist, or a top 5 scorer is why he is not worthy. Just playing a long time during the most offensive era hockey has ever known should not be reason enough to be in the Hall.

The greats score no matter who they play with and win awards no matter what team they are on. Bernie just wasn't quite good enough in my book.

Excellent player just not Hall worthy.

You`re overrating the value of post-season all-star berths. There`s a lot more great centres than the other forward positions, yet they`re being counted the same. Luc Robitaille has made the first or second All-Star team 8 times; Steve Yzerman once. I don`t think even the president of the Luc Robitaille Fan Club feels he deserves to be ranked ahead of Yzerman. Like I mentioned earlier, there`s a lot of politics going on behind award selections. A lot of it is P.R. or reputation. Writers don`t always make intelligent choices; other than the team that they cover the only games they watch are what they catch on T.V. This is where guys playing in non-marquee cities get overlooked, especially in the 70s and 80s when all the games weren`t available on cable like now. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, these selections are not always the result of "unbiased eyewitnesses." Plus the writers travelling with the team most of the year will naturally get along with some players more than others. It would be naive to think that doesn`t influence their choices. Here in Ottawa, there have been instances of writers letting personal vendettas against certain individuals influence what is supposed to be impartial reporting. (i.e. Don Brennan-Alexei Yashin, Bruce Garrioch-Pierre Gauthier)

Yes, Federko was never a top 5 scorer, but he was top 10 four times and top 15 six times. I`ll take that oversomebody like Ken Hodge who was top 5 three times (with help) but not top 20 any other year.

That`s just regular season. Shouldn`t the fact that he was once the leading scorer in the playoffs count for something?

 

[revolverjgw]

Federko put up some VERY impressive playoff numbers. 100 points in 90 games or something like that. That's better PPG numbers than HOFers Dale Hawerchuk, Ron Francis, Pat Lafontaine, Brett Hull, Steve Yzerman Michel Goulet, Bryan Trottier, Guy Lafleur... all guys he played in the same era with (roughly).

I know it's just numbers, but come on. Clearly this says at least SOMETHING about him. Playoffs > regular season. He never won a cup or anything, but that's only because he didn't have the superstars that Trottier, Francis and Yzerman played with.

Here are the only players with a better PPG in the playoffs than Federko. I think! This wasn't an exhaustive search, it was 5 minutes. ;-)

Gretzky
Lemieux
Orr
G. Perreault
Messier
Kurri
Stastny
Sakic
Forsberg
Bossy
Lindros (but he'll fall far behind Federko if the Rag$ make the playoffs!)

 

[Ogopogo*]

You`re overrating the value of post-season all-star berths. There`s a lot more great centres than the other forward positions, yet they`re being counted the same. Luc Robitaille has made the first or second All-Star team 8 times; Steve Yzerman once. I don`t think even the president of the Luc Robitaille Fan Club feels he deserves to be ranked ahead of Yzerman. Like I mentioned earlier, there`s a lot of politics going on behind award selections. A lot of it is P.R. or reputation. Writers don`t always make intelligent choices; other than the team that they cover the only games they watch are what they catch on T.V. This is where guys playing in non-marquee cities get overlooked, especially in the 70s and 80s when all the games weren`t available on cable like now. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, these selections are not always the result of "unbiased eyewitnesses." Plus the writers travelling with the team most of the year will naturally get along with some players more than others. It would be naive to think that doesn`t influence their choices. Here in Ottawa, there have been instances of writers letting personal vendettas against certain individuals influence what is supposed to be impartial reporting. (i.e. Don Brennan-Alexei Yashin, Bruce Garrioch-Pierre Gauthier)

Yes, Federko was never a top 5 scorer, but he was top 10 four times and top 15 six times. I`ll take that oversomebody like Ken Hodge who was top 5 three times (with help) but not top 20 any other year.

That`s just regular season. Shouldn`t the fact that he was once the leading scorer in the playoffs count for something?

Personal vendettas don't affect the post season awards that much at all. When you consider there are 90 people voting, how can one or two guys really change anything?

Federko's big playoff year does count for something but, his regular season stats are good not great. When looking at the all time greats, Federko doesn't meet that description.