Luc Robitaille was a 1st or 2nd team all star EVERY one of his first 7 years. He followed that up immediately with a team-easily-leading 44-goal season.
If his career had ended after 8 seasons, he'd be a revered legend. Instead, he went to Pittsburgh, New York, Detroit and back to L.A. in a thereafter less remarkable, more remembered thirtysomething who never hit 40 goals again in the next 11 years despite doing so each of his first 8 seasons.
He even absurdly was called slow (uh, many players lose speed in their second decade of play), but he in his heyday was considered to be as fast as they come exiting corners with the puck, accelerating for a shot on net (yes, there are quotes).
Lucky Luc is considered a MARGINAL HHOFer, but really he has a great combination of skilled peak and durable career.
The second half of his long career is what unfortunately he is remembered for mostly.
I pretty much disagree with this entire post.
First, while Robitaille's first 8 seasons in L.A. were certainly memorable and with a bunch of 1st-team All Star choices, I don't think he would have been considered a "revered legend" if he'd retired in 1994. Mainly respected as a goal scorer, his League finishes those years were 4, 4, 6, 7, 7, 9, 10, 13. It's great, of course, but not legendary.
Then, his Pittsburgh season (only one!) was highly successful. It was a low-scoring season, and he put up 23 goals in 46 games (i.e., 41-goal pace), was second to Jagr on the Pens in goals, and had the club's best shooting-percentage.
The two years in New York weren't great, but weren't bad. 69 points in 77 games, and 24 goals in 69 games... it was all right, but a bit 'meh'. Likewise, the first season of his return to L.A. was injury-reduced and not overly memorable.
But his 1998-99, 1990-00, and 2000-01 seasons were outstanding. This is peak dead-puck era. In 1998-99, the Kings were offensively challenged in extreme (which they never were in Luc's first 8 seasons), but Robitaille had 39 goals and more than doubled the second-Kings' leader in scoring. Then, 36 goals in just 71 games (pace for 42; led the team in scoring again), and the finally a 37-goal, 88-point season. (This last year, he was a 2nd-team All Star, aged 34.)
Then, in Detroit, he banged in another 30 goals, despite getting only 14-15 minutes per game, ice-time.
Luc's second year in Detroit was forgettable (but with even less ice-time).
His third stint in L.A. started quite well, even if he was past his prime now for sure. He still scored 22 goals and 51 points, leading the club in scoring.
(He tried one more season after the Lock-out, and then retired.)
So, as I see it, the second half of Luc's career was great, if a small notch below the first half (which generally happens when you get traded a handful of times).
If you go by the 'adjusted stats' method (admittedly a flawed metric, but useful for rough comparison),
the second best goals season of Luc's entire career was 1998-99. Then, his 1999-00 and 2000-01 both rank higher than his 1991-92 or 1986-87. The Pittsburgh season also ranks higher than those seasons.
Next, I'd disagree that Luc is considered a "marginal" Hall of Famer. Who said this? His peak levels (except maybe 1992-93) were not exceptionally high, but nor were they as low as some other players inducted in recent years (Shanahan and Andreychuk come to mind, but there are others). Nine seasons in NHL top-10 goal scoring (between 1987 and 2000) is no small total.
Eight 1st/2nd All Star selections in itself pretty much guarantees he's an automatic Hall of Famer. And I haven't even mentioned his 668 career goals.
Finally, I disagree that Luc is mainly remembered for the second half of his long career. I think he is mainly remembered for the first half. But even if you are right, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the second half of his career. He had exceptional consistency and longevity.