Hockey Hall of Fame 2017

HawkNut

Registered User
Jun 12, 2017
725
298
He led the league in goals once and was otherwise never top 5. He was a great goal scorer but not so much that he should get in on that alone (the way Selanne or Bure would), and he doesn't have much else going for him. I don't think anyone cares about the Rocket Richard distinction, considering you know exactly who would've won and the general reverence for previous league leading goal scorers.

Two Second All Stars isn't especially impressive for a LW. One of those years featured him being the 25th ranked scorer. LeClair is a 5 time All Star, including being the 1st teamer in both times that Tkachuk was 2nd, and he isn't in.

Not only was he a great goal scorer, he did it in a tougher era. You cannot knock him for playing in a wide open era, as most of his 527 career goals came after the high flying period. He led the league with 52 goals during the dead puck era. He does have the merit and qualifications. For some reason he only was third for the All Star Team when he scored 52. He should've been first or second.
 

Ishdul

Registered User
Jan 20, 2007
3,989
144
Not only was he a great goal scorer, he did it in a tougher era. You cannot knock him for playing in a wide open era, as most of his 527 career goals came after the high flying period. He led the league with 52 goals during the dead puck era. He does have the merit and qualifications. For some reason he only was third for the All Star Team when he scored 52. He should've been first or second.
Kariya was 2nd in Hart voting that year. Tkachuk had all of 2 more goals than Leclair but 13 less assists, in a year where Lindros missed considerable time and (I believe) Leclair outpaced Tkachuk's production during his absence. I would say Tkachuk was lucky to finish 3rd since Lemieux played more LW but was considered a C by the voters. I could also buy an argument for Shanahan having a better season. He got 3 first place votes and 10 second places vote out of 53, with Kariya getting 36 and 14 and Leclair getting 13 and 25 that year, so it was not a close vote.

That would be a year where it was more like the competition you'd see at RW in a normal year, compared to say 98, where Kariya got hurt, Shanahan had an off year and Tkachuk had to beat out Rod Brind'Amour playing out of position for 2nd place.
 

Plural

Registered User
Mar 10, 2011
33,703
4,853
He led the league in goals once and was otherwise never top 5. He was a great goal scorer but not so much that he should get in on that alone (the way Selanne or Bure would), and he doesn't have much else going for him. I don't think anyone cares about the Rocket Richard distinction, considering you know exactly who would've won and the general reverence for previous league leading goal scorers.

Two Second All Stars isn't especially impressive for a LW. One of those years featured him being the 25th ranked scorer. LeClair is a 5 time All Star, including being the 1st teamer in both times that Tkachuk was 2nd, and he isn't in.

Good points but I want to say something. I don't know if this is even necessary but as a fan of Selanne it kind of irks me when people reference him as a goal-scorer alone. Sure, he was pretty great goal-scorer but he still has 5 top-10 assist finishes and in his relevant scoring seasons he had more assists than goals 4/7. Sometimes I think people don't quite realize how good of an all-around offensive player Selanne was.
 

HawkNut

Registered User
Jun 12, 2017
725
298
Kariya was 2nd in Hart voting that year. Tkachuk had all of 2 more goals than Leclair but 13 less assists, in a year where Lindros missed considerable time and (I believe) Leclair outpaced Tkachuk's production during his absence. I would say Tkachuk was lucky to finish 3rd since Lemieux played more LW but was considered a C by the voters. I could also buy an argument for Shanahan having a better season. He got 3 first place votes and 10 second places vote out of 53, with Kariya getting 36 and 14 and Leclair getting 13 and 25 that year, so it was not a close vote.

That would be a year where it was more like the competition you'd see at RW in a normal year, compared to say 98, where Kariya got hurt, Shanahan had an off year and Tkachuk had to beat out Rod Brind'Amour playing out of position for 2nd place.

LeClair was also part of one of the most formidable lines of his time and on a team that went to the Stanley Cup Finals. Tkachuk had to carry a lesser team.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,116
15,574
Tokyo, Japan
Good points but I want to say something. I don't know if this is even necessary but as a fan of Selanne it kind of irks me when people reference him as a goal-scorer alone. Sure, he was pretty great goal-scorer but he still has 5 top-10 assist finishes and in his relevant scoring seasons he had more assists than goals 4/7. Sometimes I think people don't quite realize how good of an all-around offensive player Selanne was.
That's true, and it happens to a lot of players. Phil Esposito led the NHL in assists 3 times (and seven times 1st or 2nd), Crosby only once, yet everyone thinks of Crosby as a playmaker and Espo as a goal-scorer.

It's actually more notable when elite offensive players are only good at one thing, which I think is less common. (Dave Andreychuk is probably one of those players, but it got him into the Hall of Fame, so...)
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Rebound Assists

That's true, and it happens to a lot of players. Phil Esposito led the NHL in assists 3 times (and seven times 1st or 2nd), Crosby only once, yet everyone thinks of Crosby as a playmaker and Espo as a goal-scorer.

It's actually more notable when elite offensive players are only good at one thing, which I think is less common. (Dave Andreychuk is probably one of those players, but it got him into the Hall of Fame, so...)

Rebound assists contributed to his totals. Likewise Lindros, a few others.Common for slot presence players.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
The Andreychuk induction has gotten me extra nervous for a couple of other reasons. This blows open the door for other players. Keith Tkachuk, Peter Bondra, Rod BrindAmour, Patrick Marleau. The last one mentioned because in all honesty, he is not very different from Andreychuk and since he just signed a three year deal with the Leafs he is on the radar more now.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
The Andreychuk induction has gotten me extra nervous for a couple of other reasons. This blows open the door for other players. Keith Tkachuk, Peter Bondra, Rod BrindAmour, Patrick Marleau. The last one mentioned because in all honesty, he is not very different from Andreychuk and since he just signed a three year deal with the Leafs he is on the radar more now.

Oh yeah, Marleau just increased his HHOF chances a lot by signing with the Leafs. Assuming he can take a veteran leader role, of course
 

DaveG

Noted Jerk
Apr 7, 2003
51,016
47,855
Winston-Salem NC
The Andreychuk induction has gotten me extra nervous for a couple of other reasons. This blows open the door for other players. Keith Tkachuk, Peter Bondra, Rod BrindAmour, Patrick Marleau. The last one mentioned because in all honesty, he is not very different from Andreychuk and since he just signed a three year deal with the Leafs he is on the radar more now.

Rod should have been in well before Andreychuk anyway IMHO.

Difference of about 150 points between the two, with Andreychuk having the benefit of more then 150 more games played and his prime being in the highest scoring era in league history.

Andreychuk - better AS history, but never a consideration for major awards.
Brind'Amour - weaker AS history but at the stronger center position, 2 Selke wins, 9th, 13th, 2x 16th, and 17th finishes

Most notable difference is how their late careers went. After age 30 Andreychuk never once sniffed the PPG level, and while he was captain on the Bolts cup win, he was not a major factor in the win whatsoever coming in at #6 in forward scoring on the team with 1 goal the entire playoff.

Brind'Amour post 30 had mostly seasons around the 50 point mark, and played significant rolls in 2 SCF runs, one as A, one as C (#4 in 02 in team scoring, #3 in 06) winning both his Selkes at that point and posting seasons of 70, 82, 51 (in 59), and 51 before finally retiring after the 09-10 season when injuries had caught up to him. He was also captain for the teams 09 ECF appearance in much the same roll as Andreychuk played on the 04 Bolts.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Chill

The Andreychuk induction has gotten me extra nervous for a couple of other reasons. This blows open the door for other players. Keith Tkachuk, Peter Bondra, Rod BrindAmour, Patrick Marleau. The last one mentioned because in all honesty, he is not very different from Andreychuk and since he just signed a three year deal with the Leafs he is on the radar more now.

Chill, nothing to worry about. First three are not planning a comeback so their "worthiness" remains constant. Marleau is too pedestrian. Brian Bellows with longevity.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,590
15,951
Oh yeah, Marleau just increased his HHOF chances a lot by signing with the Leafs. Assuming he can take a veteran leader role, of course

yikes

when pat verbeek signed with dallas coming off that nice late-prime stint in NYR, imagine if he'd signed with the leafs instead. he would have been an upgrade on the revolving door of meh wingers they had (mike johnson, young modin, igor korolev, derek king, old wendel, etc) and may have gotten some dougie time in the first year. probably, we can look at what steve thomas did in the late 90s/early 2000s and project that for verbeek.

no 1999 stanley cup. but potentially the same deep playoff runs in the weak east and an inflated rep as a gritty veteran. likely still hits 500/1,000. hall of fame?
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Chill, nothing to worry about. First three are not planning a comeback so their "worthiness" remains constant. Marleau is too pedestrian. Brian Bellows with longevity.

Except their worthiness is not all that different than Andreychuk. You say Marleau is Bellows with longevity. That's Andreychuk! I like Marleau, but even if we see him hoist the Cup in a Leafs uniform I could never put him in the HHOF even though the committee will be tripping over themselves to do so. It is just sad because the bar continues to get kicked lower and lower.
 

HawkNut

Registered User
Jun 12, 2017
725
298
These players are Hall of Very Good to me:

Brian Propp
Rick Tocchet
Steve Larmer
Vincent Damphousse
Rod Brind'Amour
Guy Carbonneau
Brian Bellows

Players whose elections I could live with:

Doug Wilson
John LeClair
Rick Martin

No. Just no.

Kevin Lowe
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vanzig

mrhockey193195

Registered User
Nov 14, 2006
6,513
2,005
Denver, CO
Well, I have the unpopular opinion that 500 goals is automatically HOF worthy, but it's more than just that. Unlike Andreychuk, you can't criticize Tkachuk for the era he played in, most of it after the high scoring era. You cannot say he was never a top scorer. He did have the misfortune of leading the league in goals a couple of years before the Rocket Richard trophy's inception. Then there's the two Second All Star team selections.

I believe Keith Tkachuk is qualified for the HOF and this is a snub that I am optimistic the voters will fix in the future.

Just to confirm: hypothetically, a player scores 500 goals in 1600 games in a high scoring era, and he's an automatic lock, but another player scores 495 goals in 1000 games in a dead puck era and he's not a lock?
 

mrhockey193195

Registered User
Nov 14, 2006
6,513
2,005
Denver, CO
Except their worthiness is not all that different than Andreychuk. You say Marleau is Bellows with longevity. That's Andreychuk! I like Marleau, but even if we see him hoist the Cup in a Leafs uniform I could never put him in the HHOF even though the committee will be tripping over themselves to do so. It is just sad because the bar continues to get kicked lower and lower.

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

HawkNut

Registered User
Jun 12, 2017
725
298
Just to confirm: hypothetically, a player scores 500 goals in 1600 games in a high scoring era, and he's an automatic lock, but another player scores 495 goals in 1000 games in a dead puck era and he's not a lock?



When did I say otherwise?
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,089
5,065
Parts Unknown
Marleau is a great modern counter argument. He has had a much, MUCH more impactful career than Andreychuk has. He similarly hasn't won a cup in his prime, and might get one as a secondary (or even tertiary) piece before he retires. I can't fathom how anyone would say Marleau should get in. Andreychuk's admission is utterly baffling. Tocchet, Roberts, and Kevin Stevens should have gotten in before him (and none of them should be in).

To play devil's advocate, why didn't those players score nearly as many goals as Andreychuk? Since he took advantage of a high scoring era, why didn't every player, who came into the league in the early 80's, score 640 goals also?
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,590
15,951
To play devil's advocate, why didn't those players score nearly as many goals as Andreychuk? Since he took advantage of a high scoring era, why didn't every player, who came into the league in the early 80's, score 640 goals also?

two answers:

1. andreychuk was healthier than them

2. andreychuk was a solid offensive contributor almost right away while the other three all took a while to get going

all four guys scored a lot of goals in front of the net, so good on andreychuk for staying mostly healthy while withstanding a lot of abuse. however, i think it's also pretty fair to say that the three non-HHOFers were significantly more physical players than andreychuk. for a huge guy, andy didn't do a lot of pushing his weight around, and he wasn't much of a forechecker. roberts, stevens, and tocchet were extremely hard players to play against and they broke down a lot earlier as a result.

the other point i'm not as clear on, because i'm too young to have watched these guys enter the league. my gut wants to say because andreychuk was more of a specialist the adjustment to the big leagues was easier on him than the steeper learning curve of power forward (see also: neely, bertuzzi). but wendel clark, shanahan, tkachuk, iginla, gillies, and others were just fine as young pups so i don't know if that really holds water.

but at the end of the day, stevens peaked so much higher than andreychuk that i don't think durability, longevity, and hitting the ground running makes up for it. tocchet was just such a winner and difference maker that i can't put andreychuk, with his lack of meaningful team success and relative one-dimensionality, ahead of him either. gary roberts was a better player too, but you could talk me into andreychuk vs. roberts, based on the giant hole where roberts' peak should have been.
 

kaiser matias

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
4,708
1,848
To play devil's advocate, why didn't those players score nearly as many goals as Andreychuk? Since he took advantage of a high scoring era, why didn't every player, who came into the league in the early 80's, score 640 goals also?

None of them played as many games as Andreychuk. You take their GPG career average, multiply it by the same amount of games Andreychuk played, and look at their totals:

Toccet: 440 goals in 1144 games is 630 in 1639

Stevens: 329 in 874 is 617 in 1639

Roberts: 438 in 1224 is 573 in 1639 (only one that isn't close)

It's entirely a product of games played.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Not Impressed

None of them played as many games as Andreychuk. You take their GPG career average, multiply it by the same amount of games Andreychuk played, and look at their totals:

Toccet: 440 goals in 1144 games is 630 in 1639

Stevens: 329 in 874 is 617 in 1639

Roberts: 438 in 1224 is 573 in 1639 (only one that isn't close)

It's entirely a product of games played.

Not impressed. Assuming short career numbers sustain over extra long careers is rather iffy.

Especially given that Andreychuk is 7th all-time in RS games played. Played all three forward positions, showing diversity.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_played
 

mrhockey193195

Registered User
Nov 14, 2006
6,513
2,005
Denver, CO
To play devil's advocate, why didn't those players score nearly as many goals as Andreychuk? Since he took advantage of a high scoring era, why didn't every player, who came into the league in the early 80's, score 640 goals also?

Andreychuk was a very good goal scorer for a long time (I give him a ton of credit). But he was never elite. Maybe you can give him the 93-94 season, but that's pretty much it.

Tocchet, Roberts, and Stevens were all elite power forwards. They were all better playoff performers. They dropped off much quicker than Dave and couldn't maintain their level, hence they didn't come close to 600 goals.

I rate someone with an elite prime and mediocre longevity over a guy that has an okay prime with great longevity (the same reason I think Pavel Bure is a better goal scorer than Mike Gartner and more worthy of the HOF).
 

HawkNut

Registered User
Jun 12, 2017
725
298
As I said before, longevity ought to be rewarded, and not punished. Andreychuk may not have had that elite peak, but it really takes a lot to go for as long as he did and to put up those numbers during all of that time. There are many athletes who have a great start to their careers that we wonder if they'll be Hall of Famers, then many of them drop off. Andreychuk was a slow and steady wins the race kind of case, and he deserves to be in.

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

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->