The Ten Worst Players in the HHOF

[SladeWilson23]

Which is exactly why we can't use absolute career numbers to evaluate Hall-of-Fame-worthiness.

Yes we can.

How about the career stats of a guy who scored 1064 career points, another 53 playoff points (inc. two multiple-digit scoring runs and a Stanley Cup championship), and did this with 3/4 of his playing career (and all his playoff numbers) in the Dead-puck era? Seems quite Hall-worthy, doesn't it?

Welcome to the Hall of Fame, Ray Whitney!!

Yea but eras go out the window when a player finishes near the top at a particular category, and is still able to hold that position for several years ala Andreychuk.

Ray Whitney doesn't have 640 goals like Andreychuk does.

Phil should start by pointing out that Andreychuk was never considered even a top-40 player in the nhl.

And that does not matter when you still end up top 15 in goals.

It's most definitely NOT a Hall of Fame career, unless you want to include every player of Andreychuk's level in the Hall of Fame and make longevity the most important consideration. And I can't imagine why any knowledgeable fan would want to do those two things.

But evidently, the Hall of Fame committee did....

Scoring 640 goals is absolutely HOF worthy. The HOF is not just about single season top 10 finishes and trophies.

You don't need to be a great player to make the HOF.

Fair enough. But then, in what specific years do you think we should be analyzing Andreychuk's stats? The fact remains that he was known for one thing -- goal-scoring -- and was never elite at that one thing.

Only thing that matters is Andreychuk scored 640 goals. It's too many goals to leave out of the HOF.

I've always supported Mike Gartner's induction to the Hall of Fame, and been opposed to Dave Andreychuk's, even though both are considered "compilers". Here's my reasoning.

Both players have relatively low peaks (compared to most Hall of Famers). Still, there's a notable difference. Gartner has five years as a top ten goal-scorer, Andreychuk only has two. Gartner is ahead 9-5 in top twenty seasons and 13-6 in top thirty seasons. That's a meaningful difference.

They have the same number of season in the top ten (1) and top twenty (2) in scoring. Gartner pulls away after that. But we need to consider context. Andreychuk's best years were when he played alongside peak Gilmour. He only led his team in scoring three times (two of which didn't make the playoffs, and the other was eliminated in the first round). Gartner led his team in scoring four times (three of which made the playoffs, and two of which made the second round). Neither player is good enough to take a team even to the conference finals on their own, but Gartner was more important to his teams.

The issue that most people have with "compilers" is they play many years past their prime, slowly padding their career totals. Under this definition, Mike Gartner is emphatically not a compiler! In his second last season (1996-97), he scored 32 goals (24th in the league). At the time, that was the 7th best season (measured by goals) for a 37+ year old player in NHL history (behind only Howe twice, Bucyk twice, Esposito and Beliveau). He was disappointing (and relatively healthy) in 1998, and he quickly retired that summer. The extent of Gartner's "compilation" was one year in Phoenix where he scored 12 goals. (Yes I recognize this brought him over the 700 goal mark, but I don`t think his place in history changes if he retired at 696).

In contrast, Andreychuk hung around far past prime. Believe it or not, Andreychuk never scored 30 goals past the age of 30 (Gartner did that six times, including two 45+ goal seasons). But let`s pretend Andreychuk retired after the 1997-98 season, at age 34. He would have played 1,158 games, scored just under a point per game, and had over 500 goals. Nobody would have even considered Andreychuk as a Hall of Fame at that point. He then spent six years putting up 15-20 goals and 30-40 points as a third-line powerplay specialist. Kudos to him for hanging on to a roster spot, but I don't see how being a third-line specialist (thereby reaching the 600 goal mark) magically makes him a Hall of Famer when nobody saw him as one for sixteen years.

Just how much of a specialist was he? From 1999 to the end of his career, Andreychuk was the only forward with 100+ PP points who scored more on the powerplay than at even-strength. During his last five seasons (all with in Tampa Bay), he was dead last in even-strength ice time per game (among the nine forwards who played in 200+ games) - yet he played nearly as much on the powerplay as St. Louis and Lecavalier.

Again, I'm not criticizing Andreychuk for hanging on to his spot. Powerplay goals count just as much as even-strength markers. But this explains why I support Gartner being in the Hall, but not Andreychuk. Gartner had a (slightly) higher peak, was more important to his teams and, most importantly, he retired immediately after he lost his scoring touch. What Andreychuk did was admirable, but hanging around as perhaps the purest powerplay specialist in the league doesn't magically elevate him to a Hall of Famer when he demonstrated over the first sixteen years of his career that he wasn't deserving.

Being able to hang around and play for a long time is a great skill for a player. Any player who scores as many goals as Andreychuk did belongs in the HOF.

Peak means nothing.

The only thing that means anything for Andreychuk is his 640 goals.

 

[Hobnobs]

Some of these baffles me. How can you not think Edgar Laprade is a HoFer? On eof the premier centers of his era. Pioneer by perfecting the poke check. Smart playmaker. What exactly is the argument against him? And please no "but he didnt win a hart *sob sob*", please... Heres an old bio on him

Edgar Laprade​

Credit to Dreakmur for the majority of this profile. Credit to BM67 for many of the newspaper clippings.

An outstanding playmaker, Edgar Laprade was the National Hockey League's premier checking centres during an era when defensive forwards were overshadowed by the exploits of the goal scorers.

….

An outstanding skater and brilliant playmaker, Edgar Laprade was one of the few bright spots on the New York Rangers during a decade of consistent losing seasons. He proved to be an excellent penalty killer and dogged checker. But the two-way centre could also score, contributing 108 goals and 172 assists for 280 points in 500 regular season games, a milestone that only four previous Rangers had reached. In 1982, Edgar was elected to the Northwestern Ontario Sports Hall of Fame, honoured a second time the next year when his Allan Cup-winning Port Arthur Bearcats of 1939 were inducted as a team. In 1993, the Hockey Hall of Fame recognized his extraordinary contributions when they elected Edgar Laprade as an Honoured Member in the Veterans' Category.

Known as "Beaver" because of his hustle and work ethic on the ice, Laprade was known as a aggressive but very clean player. Twice he went the entire season without recording a single penalty minute, and only had 42 PIM in in his 500 NHL game career. He was also known as a play making center with great speed and athleticism. He was a tremendous defensive player as well, making him one of the greatest two way centers in NHL history. A strong back checker and prolific penalty killer, Laprade perfected the "poke check" as an effective strategy.

Edgar Laprade was one of the New York Ranger's best players during one of the franchise's darker periods. He was a play-maker whose effortless skating style enabled him to rag the puck like a little wizard. He back-checked tirelessly and was a stellar face-off man, making him quite valuable to the Rangers in short-handed situations. And Laprade was as clean as he was effective. In fact, there were three seasons where he was not penalized at all!

​

Awards and Achievements:
Hockey Hall of Fame (1993)

Lady Byng Winner (1950)
4 x NHL All-Star (1947, 1948, 1949, 1950)

Hart voting – 6th(1950)
Lady Byng voting – 1st(1950), 3rd(1946), 4th(1947), 4th(1948), 5th(1949)




http://rangers.nhl.com/club/atrplayer.htm?id=8447326

Allan Cup Winner (1939)
2 x Thunder Bay Senior League MVP (1939, 1941)
2 x Thunder Bay Senior League Scoring Leader (1941, 1942)

Scoring:
Points – 12th(1948), 17th(1950), 19th(1946), 20th(1947)
Goals – 12th(1950), 19th(1949)
Assists – 3rd(1948), 12th(1947), 13th(1952), 14th(1946)

From 1946 to 1952, Laprade was 13th in Points and 10th in Assists

Play-off Scoring:
Play-off Points – 5th(1950), 10th(1948)
Play-off Goals – 8th(1950)
Play-off Assists – 3rd(1950), 6th(1948)

From 1948 to 1950, Laprade was 6th in Points and 4th in Assists.

Pre-NHL Career:



Edgar Laprade went head to head against the Kraut Line in the 1942 Allan Cup finals, only a few months after the Krauts left the NHL in the middle of the 1941-42 season:

Edgar Laprade Is Sensational



Edgar Laprade Sparks Ports To 4-3 Win Over Flyers







Edgar Laprade in the 1950 season and playoffs.

The Calgary Herald - March 15, 1950



Ludington Daily News - April 14, 1950



Saskatoon Star-Phoenix - April 15, 1950

 

[Canadiens1958]

Some of these baffles me. How can you not think Edgar Laprade is a HoFer? On eof the premier centers of his era. Pioneer by perfecting the poke check. Smart playmaker. What exactly is the argument against him? And please no "but he didnt win a hart *sob sob*", please...

Edgar Laprade, probably the last male HHOFer whose amateur record was a factor as well as his NHL play.

 

[Killion]

Edgar Laprade, probably the last male HHOFer whose amateur record was a factor as well as his NHL play.

Ya, back in the day when the Allan Cup in Canada was almost as big a deal as the Stanley Cup. Laprade wasnt a terribly big guy at 5'8" though the biggest on what was nicknamed in NY as "The 3 Little Shaefers Line" with Tony Leswick (5'7", 160lbs) & Knobby Warwick (5'5", 155lbs).... Shaefer ball point pens. Big deal back then. Small enough to carry around in your pocket. No inkwell required. Amazing.

 

[Passchendaele]

The weirdest thing about Laprade is, no, he didn't have a long and successful career like, say, George Armstrong.

Nope, he played barely 10 seasons.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The weirdest thing about Laprade is, no, he didn't have a long and successful career like, say, George Armstrong.

Nope, he played barely 10 seasons.

Look at Edgar Laprade's outstanding Allen Cup record:

Edgar Laprade Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[Hobnobs]

The weirdest thing about Laprade is, no, he didn't have a long and successful career like, say, George Armstrong.

Nope, he played barely 10 seasons.

Its not really that weird. You didnt earn that well in the NHL and there were a few good to great players who never signed a pro contract. Preferred to stay with family, work and get a good pension instead.

 

[Killion]

Its not really that weird. You didnt earn that well in the NHL and there were a few good to great players who never signed a pro contract. Preferred to stay with family, work and get a good pension instead.

Yeah, a lifestyle thing too. Being away all winter, the travel, not having any real control over your future should you get injured, traded or sent down. For many as well it was a "kids game", they'd grownup & along the way lost the passion to play professionally, reality check; rather than turning pro many would turn to University, Trades or whatever, play Senior if they were so inclined.

 

[Hobnobs]

Yeah, a lifestyle thing too. Being away all winter, the travel, not having any real control over your future should you get injured, traded or sent down. For many as well it was a "kids game", they'd grownup & along the way lost the passion to play professionally, reality check; rather than turning pro many would turn to University, Trades or whatever, play Senior if they were so inclined.

Not to mention some racist reasons as well...

 

[The Panther]

Ray Whitney doesn't have 640 goals like Andreychuk does.

Scoring 640 goals is absolutely HOF worthy.

Only thing that matters is Andreychuk scored 640 goals.

The only thing that means anything for Andreychuk is his 640 goals.

Wait... I just want to check... how many goals did Andreychuk score?


Well, I'll say that it's an interesting perspective you offer. I don't think I've ever heard anyone present it before, but it's interesting.

So... you say 640 goals is an automatic "in". But are you considering the era Andreychuk played in? Or that he hung on for several years past his prime, as a so-so power-play player who did nothing at even strength?

Furthermore, what is the magical cut-off point at which the player is automatically "in"? Is it 500 goals? Then we have to induct Verbeek, Tkachuk, Turgeon, Marleau... I mean, seriously, in your mind, what is the cut-off point in raw numbers for automatic induction?


For me, career totals are almost entirely meaningless. I rate players according to how they performed against their peers, and against the top-level competition of their peers.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Wait... I just want to check... how many goals did Andreychuk score?

683

Well, I'll say that it's an interesting perspective you offer. I don't think I've ever heard anyone present it before, but it's interesting.

Why else do you think he got in? I'm pretty sure the committee voted him simply because of his gaudy goal total. Otherwise, there's no reason to.

So... you say 640 goals is an automatic "in". But are you considering the era Andreychuk played in? Or that he hung on for several years past his prime, as a so-so power-play player who did nothing at even strength?

He played during the 80's, yet not everyone who played during the same era scored 640 goals. The fact that he was able to "hang around" should be celebrated, because playing a long time is a skill. It doesn't matter how good a player he was.

There's literally only one reason he made it. He scored a lot of goals. That's enough.

640 goals supersedes everything else.

Furthermore, what is the magical cut-off point at which the player is automatically "in"? Is it 500 goals? Then we have to induct Verbeek, Tkachuk, Turgeon, Marleau... I mean, seriously, in your mind, what is the cut-off point in raw numbers for automatic induction?

For me personally, I say 650 goals or 1500 points. For Andreychuk, the 10 goals he's missing gets made up for the fact he captained a team to a Cup at 40 years old.

For me, career totals are almost entirely meaningless. I rate players according to how they performed against their peers, and against the top-level competition of their peers.

That's because if you score 640 career goals, no context is needed.

You don't need to be a great player to make it to the HOF. You just need a HOF career which Andreychuk had.

 

[Killion]

Not to mention some racist reasons as well...

There was a color barrier, yes, Herb Carnegie, Willie O'Ree.... anti-semitism which in the heat of the moment on the ice could get ugly... later on, Salming & Nedomansky amongst others experiencing a fair amount of xenophobia, something that went on for some time thereafter.

 

[Hobnobs]

There was a color barrier, yes, Herb Carnegie, Willie O'Ree.... anti-semitism which in the heat of the moment on the ice could get ugly... later on, Salming & Nedomansky amongst others experiencing a fair amount of xenophobia, something that went on for some time thereafter.

Herb was the guy I thought of in this case. Most likely the best player not in the NHL at the time. Told to go to New Haven while players with lesser skills got to stay up because they were white. So he refused to sign and went home. Another embarrassment to the league as well as the decision to not induct him into the HHoF.

 

[Killion]

Herb was the guy I thought of in this case. Most likely the best player not in the NHL at the time. Told to go to New Haven while players with lesser skills got to stay up because they were white. So he refused to sign and went home. Another embarrassment to the league as well as the decision to not induct him into the HHoF.

Yep. And Conn Smythes notorious quip, either "I'd sign him in a minute if he was white" or "I'll pay anyone $10,000 if they can turn him white" while Herb was tearing it up in Toronto as a member of the Toronto Rangers.... Theres actually still more than enough cause & reason to have him inducted into the HHOF in the Builders Category given his contributions to hockey over the years following his retirement as a player. He established one of the 1st Hockey Schools in the mid 50's, very active at the amateur levels for which he's received both the Order of Ontario & the Order of Canada and was also inducted into the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame.

 

[Hobnobs]

Yep. And Conn Smythes notorious quip, either "I'd sign him in a minute if he was white" or "I'll pay anyone $10,000 if they can turn him white" while Herb was tearing it up in Toronto as a member of the Toronto Rangers.... Theres actually still more than enough cause & reason to have him inducted into the HHOF in the Builders Category given his contributions to hockey over the years following his retirement as a player. He established one of the 1st Hockey Schools in the mid 50's, very active at the amateur levels for which he's received both the Order of Ontario & the Order of Canada and was also inducted into the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame.

Yea, and that what makes NHL look so friggin bad. The only institution not to embrace him. Which basically says "No, we support what happened back then".

 

[Killion]

Yea, and that what makes NHL look so friggin bad. The only institution not to embrace him. Which basically says "No, we support what happened back then".

.... unfortunately so, yes Hobs. There are a number of things they should be doing, long since done in some cases, redress some issues & omissions, make things right. Get with the times already. HHOF in particular.

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Smythe's treatment of Carnegie was despicable, even people at the time knew it was wrong. But hang on a second...let's give Frank Boucher some credit here.

If the Rangers had no intention of playing Carnegie, why would they assign him to their top farm team in New Haven, one step away from the NHL? Why not bury him in St. Paul or Spokane or wherever their lower-rung minor teams were located? For that matter, why invite him to training camp at all?

Carnegie may have been the best player at training camp, but still...it's just training camp! The returning players don't have as much to prove, coach and training staff already know what they can do. Perfectly reasonable for Boucher to want to see Carnegie in action in the minors before calling him up. Which he probably would have done, given the injuries to Buddy O'Connor and Don Raleigh that season. Herb blew it, he should have jumped at the offer. Truth is the Quebec Sr. league offered competitive compensation, but that's the Original Six era for you.

 

[Hobnobs]

Smythe's treatment of Carnegie was despicable, even people at the time knew it was wrong. But hang on a second...let's give Frank Boucher some credit here.

If the Rangers had no intention of playing Carnegie, why would they assign him to their top farm team in New Haven, one step away from the NHL? Why not bury him in St. Paul or Spokane or wherever their lower-rung minor teams were located? For that matter, why invite him to training camp at all?

Carnegie may have been the best player at training camp, but still...it's just training camp! The returning players don't have as much to prove, coach and training staff already know what they can do. Perfectly reasonable for Boucher to want to see Carnegie in action in the minors before calling him up. Which he probably would have done, given the injuries to Buddy O'Connor and Don Raleigh that season. Herb blew it, he should have jumped at the offer. Truth is the Quebec Sr. league offered competitive compensation, but that's the Original Six era for you.

That would be a relevant argument if wasnt for Herb being 29 year old and player that had already proved himself plenty. Why would a 29 year old take a lesser contract than he already have when he has a family to support and a better amateur contract? Lets not forget, Frank Boucher didnt offer him a signing at all. Just an AHL contract.

As for the "Perfectly reasonable for Boucher to want to see Carnegie in action in the minors before calling him up." Boucher didnt care to see Clint Albright in the minors first. A lesser player who never played in the NHL after that.

 

[arrbez]

Meh, he just compiled after that.

I think the point was that if you weren't a Hall of Fame player by the end of your prime years, no amount of banging out 30 point seasons should make you become one. That is to say, if nobody ever saw you as a Hall of Fame player when you were at your best, then there shouldn't be anything to discuss.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think the point was that if you weren't a Hall of Fame player by the end of your prime years, no amount of banging out 30 point seasons should make you become one. That is to say, if nobody ever saw you as a Hall of Fame player when you were at your best, then there shouldn't be anything to discuss.

Johnny Bucyk, Gump Worsley, Johnny Bower were not HHOFers at their best nor were others like Dino C, Phil Housley and a number of others. Point is that their x points or goals or saves produced helped create results that others did not and with the passage of time could not replicate. Yes Dean Prentice scored more shuffling around weak and expansion teams than Bert Olmstead did on Championship teams but Olmstead's contributions brought more value.

Since the whipping boy of the month seems to be Dave Andreychuk, answer the following. Will anyone players in the NHL have a similar career? Will their career have similar accomplishments?

 

[The Panther]

Since the whipping boy of the month seems to be Dave Andreychuk, answer the following. Will anyone players in the NHL have a similar career? Will their career have similar accomplishments?

You raise an interesting question -- who is the present-day equivalent of Andreychuk. Let's see...

Andreychuk's ranking in goals:
3-year prime (1991-94) Goals-scored = 6th
3-year prime (1991-94) GPG = 12th

7-year prime* (1987-94) Goals-scored = 8th
7-year prime (1987-94) GPG = 12th
* min. 160+ games played

10-year prime* (1984-94) Goals-scored = 10th
10-year prime (1984-94) GPG = 18th
* min. 240+ games played

Andreychuk's ranking in points:
3-year prime* (1991-94) Points-scored = 15th
3-year prime (1991-94) GPG = 23rd
* min. 120+ games played

7-year prime* (1987-94) Points-scored = 16th
7-year prime (1987-94) PPG = 28th
* min. 160+ games played

10-year prime* (1984-94) Points-scored = 17th
10-year prime (1984-94) PPG = 31st
* min. 240+ games played

Andreychuk's significant playoff runs/contributions during prime
1993 -- 12 goals, 19 points in 21 games

For the entirety of his 10-year prime in the playoffs outside of 1993 -- c.1985 through 1994 playoffs -- he was basically a total non-factor. He scored 17 goals in 59 games, during the highest-scoring era in modern history.


*******************


So, then, who is the equivalent player today to Andreychuk-circa-his-late-prime from the early-mid 1990s? It has to be someone who's now been around for a while, is well-known as a dependable goal-scorer (not playmaker), rarely threatens the top-10 goal or point scorers, and has done little in the playoffs (excepting maybe one run).

James Neal or Joe Pavelski, over the past 10 seasons, are very similar to Andreychuk during his 10-year prime, statistically. Neal is now 30 and Pavelski 33. So, let's say both players are tipping over or just passing their prime years now, and will henceforth decline statistically. But then both play until they're 42, scoring 20-ish goals per season as power-play specialists.

Are they Hall of Famers?

 

[Canadiens1958]

You raise an interesting question -- who is the present-day equivalent of Andreychuk. Let's see...


For the entirety of his 10-year prime in the playoffs outside of 1993 -- c.1985 through 1994 playoffs -- he was basically a total non-factor. He scored 17 goals in 59 games, during the highest-scoring era in modern history.


*******************


So, then, who is the equivalent player today to Andreychuk-circa-his-late-prime from the early-mid 1990s? It has to be someone who's now been around for a while, is well-known as a dependable goal-scorer (not playmaker), rarely threatens the top-10 goal or point scorers, and has done little in the playoffs (excepting maybe one run).

James Neal or Joe Pavelski, over the past 10 seasons, are very similar to Andreychuk during his 10-year prime, statistically. Neal is now 30 and Pavelski 33. So, let's say both players are tipping over or just passing their prime years now, and will henceforth decline statistically. But then both play until they're 42, scoring 20-ish goals per season as power-play specialists.

Are they Hall of Famers?

Total non-factor you say? How do Gilmour and the Leafs do without Dave Andreychuk in 1992-93 and 1993-94? Certainly not as well.

Neal and Pavelski? If your scenario holds they will finish with app 500 goals. Pat Verbeek neighbourhood with some good fortune yet lacking the overall intangibles.

 

[The Panther]

Total non-factor you say? How do Gilmour and the Leafs do without Dave Andreychuk in 1992-93 and 1993-94?

If you read more carefully, I said "the entirety of his 10-year prime in the playoffs outside of 1993". The point is: during his prime, he had only one impressive playoff run, and was around the 10th-best goal scorer in the NHL, at his very best.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If you read more carefully, I said "the entirety of his 10-year prime in the playoffs outside of 1993". The point is: during his prime, he had only one impressive playoff run, and was around the 10th-best goal scorer in the NHL, at his very best.

Read carefully? Just another way of saying don't cherry-pick or exclude to fit a pre-determined view.

 

[arrbez]

Neal and Pavelski? If your scenario holds they will finish with app 500 goals. Pat Verbeek neighbourhood with some good fortune yet lacking the overall intangibles.

Surely you can agree that goals were easier to come by in 1987 than in 2017 though?