Hockey Hall of Fame 2017

[overpass]

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.

Power play goals is obviously not a first class category along the lines of goals or points, but it isn't an obscure stat, either. It's a category that commonly shows up on a one line stat summary for players. Why shouldn't an NHL record for career power play goals mean very much?

The case for Andreychuk's leadership does not require conjecture. It is a well documented fact that he was team captain of the Lightning from 2002 to 2005, including their 2004 Cup win. There is supporting evidence for the importance of his leadership in the form of testimony from teammates, coaches, and executives. I expect there will be more former teammates discussing his leadership as his Hall induction approaches.

 

[JackSlater]

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.

The first point is certainly impressive, but context matters. Andreychuk played and peaked during the era when goal scoring was highest and also at a time when many top players were able to have long careers. Andreychuk may have the 14th most goals ever, but he is not close to the 14th best goal scorer ever. If he was, he would be a reasonable addition to the HHOF. There are other players in the top 30 who probably shouldn't be there (Nieuwendyk, Gartner, Ciccarelli) but that they were unfortunately added doesn't mean that Andreychuk is suddenly a good addition. If would be better if all four weren't there.

The second point is just trivia. Powerplay goals are a subset of goals, and giving credit to Andreychuk for total goals and then powerplay goals in addition is double dipping. His number of total goals is much more relevant. Also, while power play goals are certainly a positive, Andreychuk's numbers show that he was more reliant on powerplays for his goals than any other top scorers. 42.8% of Andreychuk's goals were on the powerplay, which is a higher percentage than any other forward in the top 30 for powerplay goals. It doesn't really need to be explained here that generally it is more valuable to be an even strength scorer than a powerplay scorer, so while all goals are valuable, Andreychuk's tended to be a little less valuable than most of the other top goal scorers. It isn't surprising that while Andreychuk has the highest percentage of his goals scored on the powerplay among the top 30 goal scoring forwards of all time, the four following him are among the worst players in that group --- Bellows, Ciccarelli, Tkachuk, Nieuwendyk.

The third is also definitely a positive, but compared to other HHOF cup winners Andreychuk's contributions are pretty minor. Realistically it's difficult to put him much higher than eighth most valuable on his own team in 2004.

He's a bad addition to the HHOF. The novelty of such a high percentage of his goal total, with the overall goal total being the actually significant thing, coming on the powerplay doesn't really change anything.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I agree with Overpass that Andreychuk's contributions to the 2004 Lightning were primarily intangible, rather than on the score sheet. But I think him captaining the Lightning to a Cup near the end of the career has overshadowed the reality that he was bad playoff performer.

Andreychuk scored just 43 goals in 162 playoff games. For a player whose in the Hall of Fame almost solely on the basis of his goal-scoring ability, that's an awful result.

One can argue that that number is negatively skewed because includes a large number of games that he played from 1998 onward (11 goals in 75 games), when he was a veteran presence on contending teams. Fine, let's exclude that. From 1983 to 1997, he was 45th in playoff goal-scoring, and he was 41st in goals per game (minimum 50 games played). During that period, his playoff stats are indistinguishable from Steve Thomas, or Shayne Corson. Not bad, of course, but nothing that suggests he's a Hall of Famer.

Andreychuk led his team in playoff goal-scoring just twice. Once was in 1985, when he was tied with Ric Seiling, and the Sabres were eliminated in five games in the first round. The other time was 1993, when he was clearly assisted by Doug Gilmour temporarily reaching a level few players have achieved. Andreychuk only led his team in playoff scoring once - in 1990, when the Sabres were upset in the first round by Montreal. The reality is Andreychuk wasn't good enough to be his team's best player in most years, and when he was, his team wasn't getting far.

I'm not trying to bash Andreychuk (there's enough of that in this thread). But I don't like how the narrative seems to be that he was a great leader in 2004. That's true, but it shouldn't overshadow a long list of playoff failures.

 

[overpass]

Also, while power play goals are certainly a positive, Andreychuk's numbers show that he was more reliant on powerplays for his goals than any other top scorers. 42.8% of Andreychuk's goals were on the powerplay, which is a higher percentage than any other forward in the top 30 for powerplay goals. It doesn't really need to be explained here that generally it is more valuable to be an even strength scorer than a powerplay scorer, so while all goals are valuable, Andreychuk's tended to be a little less valuable than most of the other top goal scorers. It isn't surprising that while Andreychuk has the highest percentage of his goals scored on the powerplay among the top 30 goal scoring forwards of all time, the four following him are among the worst players in that group --- Bellows, Ciccarelli, Tkachuk, Nieuwendyk.

I don't agree with the bolded point. I can see discounting power play scoring when it comes solely from getting more ice time with the man advantage. But when comparing HHOF candidates, almost all played big minutes at even strength and on the power play. Given the same ice time, I see no reason to consider power play scoring any less valuable than even strength scoring. Especially from a player who brought an elite skill on the PP.

It's not everyone who can score at a high rate on the power play. For example, the Ottawa Senators might have won the Cup if they had an Andreychuk or Ciccarelli on their power play in the playoffs this year.

I'm not trying to bash Andreychuk (there's enough of that in this thread). But I don't like how the narrative seems to be that he was a great leader in 2004. That's true, but it shouldn't overshadow a long list of playoff failures.

Fair point. There's a reason Sabres fans called him Andreychoke.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't agree with the bolded point. I can see discounting power play scoring when it comes solely from getting more ice time with the man advantage. But when comparing HHOF candidates, almost all played big minutes at even strength and on the power play. Given the same ice time, I see no reason to consider power play scoring any less valuable than even strength scoring. Especially from a player who brought an elite skill on the PP.

It's not everyone who can score at a high rate on the power play. For example, the Ottawa Senators might have won the Cup if they had an Andreychuk or Ciccarelli on their power play in the playoffs this year.

Just intuitively I'd say that a guy who can score 40+10 is more valuable than a guy who scores 25+25, all things being equal. The guy who can score 40 at ES is doing something that is much more difficult to replace.

If you lose a guy who scores 25 PP goals, someone else of somewhat similar skill is going to take his place and score a fair percentage of those goals just because it's the powerplay.

 

[HawkNut]

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.

Osgood, yes. No to the others.

 

[unknown33]

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.

1. Which is about 10th of his era
2. Trivia, don't see it as significant
3. Nice end to his career, but overall pretty minor contribution to a cup even compared to some non-HoF

If you put those facts on their own they look decent, but if you directly compare it to what other players did it's incredibly weak compared to nearly any player who's in the hall of fame and not standing out at all among a bunch of non-HoF candidates.

I'm sure there are at least 15 players where you can list similar impressive feats for.

John LeClair
Theoren Fleury
Rick Middleton
Ziggy Palffy
Alex Mogilny
Claude Lemieux
Peter Bondra
Brian Propp
Keith Tkachuk
Rick Martin
Markus Naslund
Jere Lehtinen
Tim Kerr
Vincent Damphousse
John Tonelli

Taking just winger - even excluding soviets - where you could just draw a name out of a hat and they wouldn't look out of place next to Andreychuk. Now you can make a case that you prefer him over some of those - that's fine.

Still there is nothing special about him which makes him outstanding compared to every single one of this group.

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.

His career isn't rare at all.
You seem to have picked out mostly joke mentions, try all the players above.

When you're done (which isn't possible because Andreychuk just isn't standing out) we can start listing centers, defensmen, goalies and soviets.

 

[Theokritos]

The first point is certainly impressive, but context matters. Andreychuk played and peaked during the era when goal scoring was highest and also at a time when many top players were able to have long careers. Andreychuk may have the 14th most goals ever, but he is not close to the 14th best goal scorer ever. If he was, he would be a reasonable addition to the HHOF. There are other players in the top 30 who probably shouldn't be there (Nieuwendyk, Gartner, Ciccarelli) but that they were unfortunately added doesn't mean that Andreychuk is suddenly a good addition. If would be better if all four weren't there.

The second point is just trivia. Powerplay goals are a subset of goals, and giving credit to Andreychuk for total goals and then powerplay goals in addition is double dipping. His number of total goals is much more relevant. Also, while power play goals are certainly a positive, Andreychuk's numbers show that he was more reliant on powerplays for his goals than any other top scorers. 42.8% of Andreychuk's goals were on the powerplay, which is a higher percentage than any other forward in the top 30 for powerplay goals. It doesn't really need to be explained here that generally it is more valuable to be an even strength scorer than a powerplay scorer, so while all goals are valuable, Andreychuk's tended to be a little less valuable than most of the other top goal scorers. It isn't surprising that while Andreychuk has the highest percentage of his goals scored on the powerplay among the top 30 goal scoring forwards of all time, the four following him are among the worst players in that group --- Bellows, Ciccarelli, Tkachuk, Nieuwendyk.

The third is also definitely a positive, but compared to other HHOF cup winners Andreychuk's contributions are pretty minor. Realistically it's difficult to put him much higher than eighth most valuable on his own team in 2004.

He's a bad addition to the HHOF. The novelty of such a high percentage of his goal total, with the overall goal total being the actually significant thing, coming on the powerplay doesn't really change anything.

Great post!

 

[JackSlater]

I don't agree with the bolded point. I can see discounting power play scoring when it comes solely from getting more ice time with the man advantage. But when comparing HHOF candidates, almost all played big minutes at even strength and on the power play. Given the same ice time, I see no reason to consider power play scoring any less valuable than even strength scoring. Especially from a player who brought an elite skill on the PP.

It's not everyone who can score at a high rate on the power play. For example, the Ottawa Senators might have won the Cup if they had an Andreychuk or Ciccarelli on their power play in the playoffs this year.

I think that the arguments regarding the value of power play scoring relative to even strength scoring are pretty established at this point. Even strength scoring is more difficult to replace with a teammate and less dependent on external factors like the opposition and the referees. You can value powerplay goals how you like of course, my bigger issue is giving credit to Andreychuk for total goals and then again for powerplay goals.

I did not say that everyone can simply score a lot on the powerplay. I agree that Andreychuk (and Ciccarelli) would have helped Ottawa, or any other team. That's because they were good players, which I suspect everyone agrees on. There's a difference between being a quality HHOF addition and a good player though.

 

[overpass]

The second point is just trivia.

2. Trivia, don't see it as significant

Andreychuk's record for power play goals scored is listed on his page at hhof.com and is in the opening paragraph of his Wikipedia article. Clearly the Hall and others view it as significant.

I think that the arguments regarding the value of power play scoring relative to even strength scoring are pretty established at this point. Even strength scoring is more difficult to replace with a teammate and less dependent on external factors like the opposition and the referees.

Can you cite any works that provide empirical support for the bolded?

I will concede that power play scoring requires the referee to call a penalty, but surely that just means power play scorers provide more value when more penalties are called and less value when fewer penalties are called. It changes the shape of the value but not necessarily the overall value.

You wouldn't want 12 power play scoring forwards on your team but you need one or two.

You seem to have picked out mostly joke mentions, try all the players above.

When you're done (which isn't possible because Andreychuk just isn't standing out) we can start listing centers, defensmen, goalies and soviets.

Yeah, I'm not doing your work for you. Why don't you give it a try.

I don't think most of the players on that list will have signature accomplishments to match Andreychuk's. For example, Kerr has the single season PPG record, but that's less impressive from a Hall perspective than the career PPG record.

This discussion brings to mind Bill James' observation that the baseball Hall tended to value players with outstanding strengths over similarly valuable players with a more well-rounded skill set. I think the hockey Hall is doing the same thing here, and I don't know that they are necessarily wrong to do so. Like Bob Gainey, Andreychuk had an outstanding, all time great skill, and it's easier to tell the story of a Hall induction for such a player than for an all-around player like Brian Propp.

 

[seventieslord]

Speaking of Bill James, he developed the Keltner list. How many of those 15 questions does Andreychuk score a "YES" on?

 

[BraveCanadian]

This discussion brings to mind Bill James' observation that the baseball Hall tended to value players with outstanding strengths over similarly valuable players with a more well-rounded skill set. I think the hockey Hall is doing the same thing here, and I don't know that they are necessarily wrong to do so. Like Bob Gainey, Andreychuk had an outstanding, all time great skill, and it's easier to tell the story of a Hall induction for such a player than for an all-around player like Brian Propp.

I think you're on the right track. Being known for anything at all outstanding is better than being an all-arounder who isn't outstanding at anything.

It should be very obvious by now that the measures people think should be used are not always used by the committee. "Fame" figures in.. team successes figure in etc..

 

[seventieslord]

I think you're on the right track. Being known for anything at all outstanding is better than being an all-arounder who isn't outstanding at anything.

It should be very obvious by now that the measures people think should be used are not always used by the committee. "Fame" figures in.. team successes figure in etc..

I agree that having some outstanding feature is probably better than being very balanced a'la Brian Propp or someone like that. But did Andreychuk have an outstanding feature that can be described in a way other than career totals? For example, he is the all-time leader in PP goals, but he was not that dominant on the PP at his best. His top-10 finishes in PP goals are 1-1-6-6-7-9. While that is very good, you could look at a player whose total goals finishes were that high and he would still not be a HHOF lock. In fact, Peter Bondra's goals finishes are almost exactly the same: 1-1-4-4-6-8. In this statistic, which is more important than the powerplay segment alone, Bondra is slightly better, yet, no one says he was so dominant a goal scorer that he has to be in the hall (and rightly so, I'd add). So this still comes back to career totals versus actual dominance. Would I have a problem inducting the best PP specialist of all-time, if the rest of his resume didn't merit induction? Maybe not. But Andreychuk is not that guy - a quick look at overpass' most recent adjusted points sheet has Andreychuk at 21st post-expansion in adjusted PPP, and 84th per-game (among players with 800+ GP).

I also agree that "fame" and team success figure in. But how does that apply to Dave Andreychuk? Not in a good way, I don't think.

 

[unknown33]

I think you're on the right track. Being known for anything at all outstanding is better than being an all-arounder who isn't outstanding at anything.

It should be very obvious by now that the measures people think should be used are not always used by the committee. "Fame" figures in.. team successes figure in etc..

I understand and agree that the fame aspect should be highly valued. One of the reasons I think it was correct to induct someone like Neely for example.

The problem is Andreychuk just isn't 'famous' at all.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I understand and agree that the fame aspect should be highly valued. One of the reasons I think it was correct to induct someone like Neely for example.

The problem is Andreychuk just isn't 'famous' at all.

He's got a statue though. That's not nothing. And I feel like a lot of people know him because of the powerplay thing. I guess I don't mind it, but there were others who seem more famous.

 

[JackSlater]

Andreychuk's record for power play goals scored is listed on his page at hhof.com and is in the opening paragraph of his Wikipedia article. Clearly the Hall and others view it as significant.

That's nice. It's still obviously trivia. It makes for an easier narrative but it has no bearing on how good Andreychuk was as a player. If Ovechkin breaks the record for powerplay goals then the title goes to him, but Andreychuk was still just as effective.

Can you cite any works that provide empirical support for the bolded?

I will concede that power play scoring requires the referee to call a penalty, but surely that just means power play scorers provide more value when more penalties are called and less value when fewer penalties are called. It changes the shape of the value but not necessarily the overall value.

You wouldn't want 12 power play scoring forwards on your team but you need one or two.

I'm not particularly interested in digging for something fairly clear to many people in the name of Andreychuk. You are free to value the trivia of his powerplay goal title and value powerplay offence just as much as even strength offence if you wish. At the very least you won't be alone in those beliefs. Even if Andreychuk's powerplay goals matter just as much as his even strength goals, he isn't a player of such quality that he should be in the HHOF, or at least the HHOF as I and some others in this thread interpret it.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He's got a statue though. That's not nothing. And I feel like a lot of people know him because of the powerplay thing. I guess I don't mind it, but there were others who seem more famous.

Being the guy who captains a club to its first Stanley Cup, and capturing your first after 22 years has a bit of the Ray Bourque vibe going on and definitely gives you a leg up in the notice department.

 

[Ishdul]

I agree that having some outstanding feature is probably better than being very balanced a'la Brian Propp or someone like that. But did Andreychuk have an outstanding feature that can be described in a way other than career totals? For example, he is the all-time leader in PP goals, but he was not that dominant on the PP at his best. His top-10 finishes in PP goals are 1-1-6-6-7-9. While that is very good, you could look at a player whose total goals finishes were that high and he would still not be a HHOF lock. In fact, Peter Bondra's goals finishes are almost exactly the same: 1-1-4-4-6-8. In this statistic, which is more important than the powerplay segment alone, Bondra is slightly better, yet, no one says he was so dominant a goal scorer that he has to be in the hall (and rightly so, I'd add). So this still comes back to career totals versus actual dominance. Would I have a problem inducting the best PP specialist of all-time, if the rest of his resume didn't merit induction? Maybe not. But Andreychuk is not that guy - a quick look at overpass' most recent adjusted points sheet has Andreychuk at 21st post-expansion in adjusted PPP, and 84th per-game (among players with 800+ GP).

I also agree that "fame" and team success figure in. But how does that apply to Dave Andreychuk? Not in a good way, I don't think.

So another thing while I'm looking at all things Andreychuk; only 92 Buffalo really checks out as an elite powerplay that featured him, including teams that had quite a bit of talent. Buffalo was a mediocre PP team during his years there. 93 is a bit odd since he split time with Toronto and Buffalo (who finished 7th and 10th) and led the league. In 94, Andreychuk's best year, Buffalo's rose to 2nd best without him while Toronto was 12th. When he was with New Jersey they had pretty good powerplays but he was a 2nd unit guy there, they continued to be good after they left and when played more earlier on they were dreadful. He was near exclusively a PP specialist in Tampa but despite having some impressive talent they were pretty disappointing there.

All to say: was he actually a big difference maker on the power play?

 

[BraveCanadian]

All to say: was he actually a big difference maker on the power play?

Wouldn't it be a plus if individually he scored more goals on the PP than anyone else while playing on what were otherwise relatively lackluster powerplays?

Like imagine how many more he would have gotten playing with Calgary in the late 80s or Pittsburgh in the 90s..

 

[Canadiens1958]

Reliable

I agree that having some outstanding feature is probably better than being very balanced a'la Brian Propp or someone like that. But did Andreychuk have an outstanding feature that can be described in a way other than career totals? For example, he is the all-time leader in PP goals, but he was not that dominant on the PP at his best. His top-10 finishes in PP goals are 1-1-6-6-7-9. While that is very good, you could look at a player whose total goals finishes were that high and he would still not be a HHOF lock. In fact, Peter Bondra's goals finishes are almost exactly the same: 1-1-4-4-6-8. In this statistic, which is more important than the powerplay segment alone, Bondra is slightly better, yet, no one says he was so dominant a goal scorer that he has to be in the hall (and rightly so, I'd add). So this still comes back to career totals versus actual dominance. Would I have a problem inducting the best PP specialist of all-time, if the rest of his resume didn't merit induction? Maybe not. But Andreychuk is not that guy - a quick look at overpass' most recent adjusted points sheet has Andreychuk at 21st post-expansion in adjusted PPP, and 84th per-game (among players with 800+ GP).

I also agree that "fame" and team success figure in. But how does that apply to Dave Andreychuk? Not in a good way, I don't think.

Teams prefer reliable, steady to dominant, flashy. Reliable, steady forces the opposition to be careful about taking penalties because they have to face a dependable PP. Dependable is what forced the rule change in 1956 to one PP goal per penalty. Dependable is what allowed the Canadiens to sustain their PP dominance for years to come.

Your 40 +10 to 25 + 25 analogy is rather dubious. Doubt you can show such ratios sustaining over time. Nice red herring. Deflects from the fact that Andreychuk also scored 356 ES goals which places him comfortably in the Top 25 ES scorers since the 1967 expansion.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...s_ev&c2comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=goals_ev

The list is interesting since it also puts the likes of Peter Bondra and Pierre Turgeon at the Stephane Richer level for ES goals. No one ever advocates that Richer be a HHOF inductee.

The key element to Andreychuk's PP value is the goal to assist ratio. Andreychuk has a 274 : 296 goals to assists ratio on the PP.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/a/andreda01.html

Tim Kerr has a 145 : 93 goals to assists ratio on the PP.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kerrti01.html

Andreychuk kept the puck moving and was integrated into the PP while Kerr was the go to shooter.

Phil Esposito was 249 : 287 but the first four seasons of his career do not show PP assists.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/e/esposph01.html

Andreychuk on the PP and career wise has interesting comparables with some of the sure fire HHOF inductees past and future.

 

[seventieslord]

Teams prefer reliable, steady to dominant, flashy. Reliable, steady forces the opposition to be careful about taking penalties because they have to face a dependable PP. Dependable is what forced the rule change in 1956 to one PP goal per penalty. Dependable is what allowed the Canadiens to sustain their PP dominance for years to come.

Your 40 +10 to 25 + 25 analogy is rather dubious. Doubt you can show such ratios sustaining over time. Nice red herring. Deflects from the fact that Andreychuk also scored 356 ES goals which places him comfortably in the Top 25 ES scorers since the 1967 expansion.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...s_ev&c2comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=goals_ev

The list is interesting since it also puts the likes of Peter Bondra and Pierre Turgeon at the Stephane Richer level for ES goals. No one ever advocates that Richer be a HHOF inductee.

The key element to Andreychuk's PP value is the goal to assist ratio. Andreychuk has a 274 : 296 goals to assists ratio on the PP.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/a/andreda01.html

Tim Kerr has a 145 : 93 goals to assists ratio on the PP.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kerrti01.html

Andreychuk kept the puck moving and was integrated into the PP while Kerr was the go to shooter.

Phil Esposito was 249 : 287 but the first four seasons of his career do not show PP assists.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/e/esposph01.html

Andreychuk on the PP and career wise has interesting comparables with some of the sure fire HHOF inductees past and future.

OK, so you're for Andreychuk's induction. That's great, except in recent years you said things like this:

Goal scoring on its own is rarely a measure. See Andreychuk, Verbeek, Bondra amongst retired players. Very doubtful they will get into the HHOF

Effectively he was the first to take advantage of liberalized rules that allowed screening the goalie and deflecting the puck. Original that spawned the likes of Camille Henry, Dino Ciccarelli, Dave Andreychuk and other basically one - trick pony wingers who have impressive NHL career numbers are not up for discusiion and will not show up in this project later.

It seems like what you're really in favour of is the establishment. If they've decided a player should get in, you're in favour, and if they haven't, you're in favour of that too.

Interestingly:

you have offered nothing except stating that Gilmour is more deserving than Andreychuk, Housley, Verbeek,amongst others not enshrined in the HHOF.

I'll grant you that Doug Gilmour may be better than the aforementioned but that does not make him HHOF worthy.

Gilmour is one exception. I know you used to take the pro-establishment side on Gilmour's omission from the HHOF, but have been silent on him since then. Maybe you still disagree, maybe you see it their way now, as you always do.

but if you don't... it's odd that you'd think Gilmour is better than Andreychuk, yet, not worthy for the HHOF and Andreychuk is, wouldn't you say?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Explaining

OK, so you're for Andreychuk's induction. That's great, except in recent years you said things like this:





It seems like what you're really in favour of is the establishment. If they've decided a player should get in, you're in favour, and if they haven't, you're in favour of that too.

Interestingly:



Gilmour is one exception. I know you used to take the pro-establishment side on Gilmour's omission from the HHOF, but have been silent on him since then. Maybe you still disagree, maybe you see it their way now, as you always do.

but if you don't... it's odd that you'd think Gilmour is better than Andreychuk, yet, not worthy for the HHOF and Andreychuk is, wouldn't you say?

Well, at least you read my posts, even archieve them. Flattered - hope they contribute. I just happen to understand the process at the HHOF.

Lets ramp things up a bit and try understanding my posts. In the post referenced show me where I advocate his induction or have in the past? Just provided a complete overview how PP contributions should be viewed. So far in this thread everyone has overlooked the assists aspect of the PP. Do you not agree with this? Just provided a full PP production picture closing with an observation how his complete PP stats compare to others in the HHOF. Goes to understanding not advocacy.

I'm in favour of understanding how and why decisions are made. The when of decision making - your niche, holds little or no interest for me. Some decisions about HHOF qualifications may be made instantly upon eligibility. Others take lots of time because seasons have to go by before fans and voters start appreciating that certain talents were special and that similar talents have not surfaced for generations - Roy Conacher, Edgar Laprade. Some cannot live with this, others can.
So understanding a decision does not mean advocacy for the decision or the position.

You raise the establishment and that I am pro establishment. Far from. Quite anti-establishment but to have such a view you have to understand the establishment. In other words not just mouth catch phrases like "Left Wing" or "Right Wing" but understand that they are part of the same bird.

Yes the Gilmour comment. Taken out of the full post. Few points. Compare up not down when trying to elevate. This was the kernal of the phrase. Better is not a synonym for worthy.

Point is that neither Gilmour, or the others were inducted at the time of the quote. That they eventually made it validates my impression of the process outlined above.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Noticed Keith Tkachuk hasn't gotten any hof love. Dorset he deserve enshrinement?

 

[seventieslord]

Well, at least you read my posts, even archieve them. Flattered - hope they contribute. I just happen to understand the process at the HHOF.

Lets ramp things up a bit and try understanding my posts. In the post referenced show me where I advocate his induction or have in the past? Just provided a complete overview how PP contributions should be viewed. So far in this thread everyone has overlooked the assists aspect of the PP. Do you not agree with this? Just provided a full PP production picture closing with an observation how his complete PP stats compare to others in the HHOF. Goes to understanding not advocacy.

I'm in favour of understanding how and why decisions are made. The when of decision making - your niche, holds little or no interest for me. Some decisions about HHOF qualifications may be made instantly upon eligibility. Others take lots of time because seasons have to go by before fans and voters start appreciating that certain talents were special and that similar talents have not surfaced for generations - Roy Conacher, Edgar Laprade. Some cannot live with this, others can.
So understanding a decision does not mean advocacy for the decision or the position.

You raise the establishment and that I am pro establishment. Far from. Quite anti-establishment but to have such a view you have to understand the establishment. In other words not just mouth catch phrases like "Left Wing" or "Right Wing" but understand that they are part of the same bird.

Yes the Gilmour comment. Taken out of the full post. Few points. Compare up not down when trying to elevate. This was the kernal of the phrase. Better is not a synonym for worthy.

Point is that neither Gilmour, or the others were inducted at the time of the quote. That they eventually made it validates my impression of the process outlined above.

- I am not saying that you advocated for Andreychuk in the past - the point was that you pretty much did the opposite. You're only defending the induction now that he was inducted. It gives the reader the impression that you'd still be defending the decision to omit him, if he had indeed been omitted this year.

- What special talent did Roy Conacher have that needed to be recognized? I get that he had the offensive numbers but by most accounts that is all he had, and based on your comments during the wingers project you're not exactly a fan, so I don't see how bringing his case up helps your cause here.

- Your last post simply states what I am saying: You think it was right not to induct Gilmour, and now you think it was right to do so.

 

[Ishdul]

Noticed Keith Tkachuk hasn't gotten any hof love. Dorset he deserve enshrinement?

Two wrongs don't make a right.