Hockey Hall of Fame 2017

[Epsilon]

Can't keep someone out who had a 150 points season. Look at the company he's in. There are only 4 players who had higher scoring seasons than Nicholls.

You know who you get if you take that list an additional 7 players? Dennis Maruk. Only 12 players in NHL history have had higher scoring seasons than Maruk.

 

[unknown33]

You know who you get if you take that list an additional 7 players? Dennis Maruk. Only 12 players in NHL history have had higher scoring seasons than Maruk.

Well obviously he's next in line then.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Career Hart trophy votes from recent HHOF inductees (2000-2017)

Player|Votes
Dominik Hasek | 2.89
Mark Messier | 2.23
Eric Lindros | 1.43
Ray Bourque | 1.34
Joe Sakic | 1.31
Brett Hull | 1.24
Peter Forsberg | 1.03
Patrick Roy | 0.96
Sergei Fedorov | 0.89
Teemu Selanne | 0.85
Chris Pronger | 0.73
Doug Gilmour | 0.7
Steve Yzerman | 0.69
Pavel Bure | 0.67
Rogie Vachon | 0.59
Paul Kariya | 0.58
Rod Langway | 0.51
Nicklas Lidstrom | 0.5
Grant Fuhr | 0.43
Dale Hawerchuk | 0.38
Paul Coffey | 0.31
Denis Savard | 0.3
Ed Belfour | 0.27
Mike Modano | 0.24
Pat LaFontaine | 0.24
Mark Howe | 0.19
Scott Niedermayer | 0.15
Al MacInnis | 0.12
Adam Oates | 0.12
Mats Sundin | 0.12
Ron Francis | 0.1
Scott Stevens | 0.08
Mark Recchi | 0.06
Chris Chelios | 0.05
Brendan Shanahan | 0.05
Rob Blake | 0.04
Brian Leetch | 0.02
Cam Neely | 0.02
Clark Gillies | 0.02
Joe Nieuwendyk | 0.01
Dino Ciccarelli | 0.01
Jari Kurri | 0.01
Bernie Federko | 0.01
Joe Mullen | 0
Dave Andreychuk | 0
Dick Duff | 0
Glenn Anderson | 0
Larry Murphy | 0
Luc Robitaille | 0
Mike Gartner | 0
Phil Housley | 0

This table shows the number of adjusted Hart trophy votes earned by recent HHOF inductees. The votes are adjusted so that each year is worth the same number of votes.

I've included all inductees from 2000 to 2017, NHL players only. I've excluded Larionov, Fetisov, etc., who spent all or most of their prime out of the NHL.

Is this a perfect measure? Obviously not. Defensemen rarely get significant support for the Hart, and quality of competition isn't taken into account (Yzerman's score is hurt because his best year occured when Gretzky and Lemieux had even better ones). Still, it helps highlight players who were, for a time, considered among the best players in the league.

 

[Killion]

Still, it helps highlight players who were, for a time, considered among the best players in the league.

Absolutely. Nice compilation, over-view, perspective.

 

[trentmccleary]

Is this a perfect measure? Obviously not. Defensemen rarely get significant support for the Hart, and quality of competition isn't taken into account (Yzerman's score is hurt because his best year occured when Gretzky and Lemieux had even better ones). Still, it helps highlight players who were, for a time, considered among the best players in the league.

The other small imperfection is that it isn't specifically an MVP trophy, it's for the player who was judged most valuable to his team. So we regularly have players receiving votes who were better on their own teams vs. other players who were better period (ie; Yashin getting 40% of the votes in 1999 vs. Sakic getting a single 4th place vote).

 

[Sentinel]

OK, that's fine, but then why wasn't a superior player in all facets aside from PP production, and a vastly superior post-season performer in Brind'Amour not inducted before him? Because Brind'Amour didn't stick around for a decade+ after his "best by date" compiling, and was unfortunate that his prime was in a lower scoring era?

You got me... except I suspect Brind'Amour will eventually get in. Sooner rather than later.

 

[The Panther]

At the rate we're going, Nail Yakupov may yet be a Hall of Famer.



The NHL blows. They've not only destroyed the on-ice product, they've also made the integrity-level a joke with Housley and Andreychuk now in the Hall of Shame.

 

[Killion]

The NHL blows. They've not only destroyed the on-ice product, they've also made the integrity-level a joke with Housley and Andreychuk now in the Hall of Shame.

... honestly TP, Im ok with those 2 inductions. but ya, sure, weak year. good with ok. not "bad". just "ok". definitely borderliners. underwhelming. do make the grade though... but then I'm also good with Duff so....

 

[seventieslord]

... honestly TP, Im ok with those 2 inductions. but ya, sure, weak year. good with ok. not "bad". just "ok". definitely borderliners. underwhelming. do make the grade though... but then I'm also good with Duff so....

That's great to say they're ok inductions, but then when you put pen to paper and start listing names it doesn't pass scrutiny. To put in all the players over the years who've been not just arguably, but significantly better than players like this, the hall would need to induct 6-8 per year, every year.

 

[LightningStorm]

I suspect that Andreychuk got in solely on his captaincy of the Cup-winning Lightning. An elder statesman who brought his team to the Holy Land is always a nice narrative, but mind you: this was the first time in a decade when the Cup was won by someone other than the Big Four. It's those "intangibles" that made Toews (undeservingly) the punchline of every joke. If that's the case, I am OK with him in the Hall. There is so much locker room stuff we don't know. And, of course, not everything can be measured by stats.

This probably was the main reason he got in, in addition to his 640 goals (and most PP goals ever). Him winning the cup for the first time in 22 years was a great story, with Tampa being the team that ended the cup winning streak of the big 4 at the time (Detroit, New Jersey, Colorado and Dallas). When Andreychuk signed their, we weren't even a mid tier team, we were flat out horrible. But he stuck by us and won the cup in his 3rd season there, which was his last full season. That being the final memory most have as him as a player I think colors the perception of him.

I love Andreychuk and all he's done for the Lightning, but objectively speaking, he isn't a Hall of Famer, for many of the reasons listed above. He was never among the best players in the game and wasn't that versatile of a player. He probably would've been mostly forgotten if not for being the captain of a cup winning team in his 22nd season. For his contributions to the Lightning, I'm glad we gave him a statue (with him holding the cup) and that he's still a part of the organization. But being a Hall of Famer is a completely different thing.

 

[HawkNut]

Nicholas isn't HOF worthy, neither is Damphousse.

Andreychuk deserves it. So do Tkachuk and Turgeon.

 

[The Panther]

Nicholas isn't HOF worthy, neither is Damphousse.

Andreychuk deserves it. So do Tkachuk and Turgeon.

Here's the thing. When they were playing, Nicholls and Damphousse were WAY better players than Andreychuk.

Nicholls and Damphousse both had quite respectable longevity as well, even if they didn't play for 22 years or whatever.

None of these players was great defensively or physically, but Nicholls and Damphousse were far more well-rounded, skilled players than Andreychuk.

Nicholls and Damphousse both led multiple franchises in scoring. Damphousse led 3 Canadian franchises in scoring, in fact (maybe the only player ever to do so?). Nicholls was a 3 x 100+ point scorer, who once finished only 18 points behind Gretzky in the 1980s. The following year he was outscoring prime-Yzerman for most of the season.

These kind of players' (respectably long) primes are WAY, WAY beyond the ability of Andreychuk, whose game basically consisted of getting to the front of the net and banging in rebounds, at which he was very good.


Saying Nicholls and Damphousse don't deserve the Hall while Andreychuk does, is like the modern-day equivalent of saying that Backstrom doesn't deserve to be in, while Patrick Maroon does.



Having said all of that, if I had my way, none of the players you listed would make it in.

 

[HawkNut]

Here's the thing. When they were playing, Nicholls and Damphousse were WAY better players than Andreychuk.

Nicholls and Damphousse both had quite respectable longevity as well, even if they didn't play for 22 years or whatever.

None of these players was great defensively or physically, but Nicholls and Damphousse were far more well-rounded, skilled players than Andreychuk.

Nicholls and Damphousse both led multiple franchises in scoring. Damphousse led 3 Canadian franchises in scoring, in fact (maybe the only player ever to do so?). Nicholls was a 3 x 100+ point scorer, who once finished only 18 points behind Gretzky in the 1980s. The following year he was outscoring prime-Yzerman for most of the season.

These kind of players' (respectably long) primes are WAY, WAY beyond the ability of Andreychuk, whose game basically consisted of getting to the front of the net and banging in rebounds, at which he was very good.


Saying Nicholls and Damphousse don't deserve the Hall while Andreychuk does, is like the modern-day equivalent of saying that Backstrom doesn't deserve to be in, while Patrick Maroon does.



Having said all of that, if I had my way, none of the players you listed would make it in.

Andreychuk did things you could tout as HOF worthy to make up for his shortcomings. I don't see that with Damphousse or Nicholas.

 

[MXD]

Andreychuk did things you could tout as HOF worthy to make up for his shortcomings. I don't see that with Damphousse or Nicholas.

And those things were?

 

[86Habs]

Andreychuk did things you could tout as HOF worthy to make up for his shortcomings. I don't see that with Damphousse or Nicholas.

Weren't you the one who admitted to never having seen Andreychuk (or any of these guys) play? What "things" did Andreychuk do to make up for his shortcomings? What shortcomings did Nicholls and especially Damphousse have in their games vis-a-vis Andreychuk?

 

[Guy Gadowsky]

What has Jeremy Jacobs built for the NHL other than lockouts?

 

[HawkNut]

And those things were?

Weren't you the one who admitted to never having seen Andreychuk (or any of these guys) play? What "things" did Andreychuk do to make up for his shortcomings? What shortcomings did Nicholls and especially Damphousse have in their games vis-a-vis Andreychuk?

Numbers. That's what it boils down to in this case.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That's a surprisingly weak case, even for the circumstances...

 

[mrhockey193195]

Numbers. That's what it boils down to in this case.

My goodness, this is an infuriatingly narrow-minded way of looking at it. I assume you think Chris Osgood should be in the HOF as well? How about Gary Suter? He's 14th all time in points by a defenseman. Steve Duchesne? He's 20th. Only 19 defensemen have ever scored more points than him, and only 11 defensemen have scored more goals than him.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Alec Connell, best goalie of all-time...

 

[Doctor No]

Alec Connell, best goalie of all-time...

Elected in 1958.

 

[overpass]

I don't think you guys are honestly engaging with Andreychuk's HOF case as viewed by his supporters and (probably) the electors. His 3 strongest points are:

1. 14th all time in a major counting stat (goals scored), where everyone else in the top 30 is in the Hall or will be.

2. All time leader for a secondary stat (power play goals)

3. Leadership in turning around the Lightning at the end of his career and captaining them to a Cup.

Comparisons like Turgeon, Nicholls, Suter, and Duchesne only address one of this three points at most.

Maybe you don't think that these three points are enough to get him in the Hall. OK. But now that he's been elected, why not celebrate him for his accomplishments and recognize that he had a pretty rare career? It's not as if there are a lot of other marginal candidates who hold NHL records.

 

[Voight]

Can't keep someone out who had a 150 points season. Look at the company he's in. There are only 4 players who had higher scoring seasons than Nicholls.

Sure, playing on Gretz's wing.

 

[Sens Rule]

Sure, playing on Gretz's wing.

No. Playing centre on the second line for the most part.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I don't think you guys are honestly engaging with Andreychuk's HOF case as viewed by his supporters and (probably) the electors. His 3 strongest points are:

1. 14th all time in a major counting stat (goals scored), where everyone else in the top 30 is in the Hall or will be.

2. All time leader for a secondary stat (power play goals)

3. Leadership in turning around the Lightning at the end of his career and captaining them to a Cup.

Comparisons like Turgeon, Nicholls, Suter, and Duchesne only address one of this three points at most.

Maybe you don't think that these three points are enough to get him in the Hall. OK. But now that he's been elected, why not celebrate him for his accomplishments and recognize that he had a pretty rare career? It's not as if there are a lot of other marginal candidates who hold NHL records.

I think the counter argument is that #2 doesn't mean very much at all, and #3 is conjecture at best. That is, Andreychuk won that cup as captain, yes, but as the seventh most important forward on that team at absolute best. He was a secondary player on the order of a Dan Hinote or a Darren McCarty on the ice. Off the ice leadership is hard to measure, but it's hard to imagine that team *not* winning with a 1997-Bernie Nicholls or a 2006-Pierre Turgeon.

So that leaves #1 as the only real argument, and that's where most of the above posters are poking holes.