The HF.net Hall of Fame

[JR Ewing]

I'm a big fan of the work of baseball writer/thinker Bill James. Back when I was a kid, I bought and/or borrowed everything of his which I could get my hand, including the 1985 Baseball Abstract. In that book, for the first time, I came across The Keltner List, named after Ken Keltner. Keltner was the recipient of a post-career movement which saw some people suggest he would be a good Hall of Fame candidate. Jame took the opportunity to come up with a list of subjective questions you can ask a player's career which can help evaluate how worth he is of being the in HOF an, in reference to Keltner, called it the Keltner Test. By creating a list of common criteria, it helps frame the discussion and give it direction. There's no one single thing that make a player HOF worthy, and so the more relevant questions we ask about a player, the closer we come to having a better idea about him and how qualified he is.

Years ago, I adapted it for hockey, have always found it useful, and maybe others here will like it, too. I think of it as a chance to build our own hockeyforums.net Hall of Fame.

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?

3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?

6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?

7. Was he ever a team Captain?

8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?

9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?

10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)

11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?

12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?

13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?

14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)

15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)

16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)

17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?

18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?

13+ = Best of the best

11-12 = Unquestioned HOFer

9-10 = Great player

5-8 = Belongs in HOF

4 = Borderline

3 = Weak Argument

1-2 = Completely Unqualified

Now, don't take me too literally here. If you run a player through it, and they end up with a 4, that doesn't mean he sucks and is clearly not a HOFer. What it does mean is that, relative to players with higher scores, there is a less effective argument to be made for him being in the HOF. The headings of "Weak Argument" are subjective; are meant to give an idea of his qualifications, and are not to be taken as absolutes.

NOTE: this test is extremely difficult in which to score points. To even get one point shows that a player had a very strong career. To score two or three points and make it into the "weak argument" range is an immense accomplishment.

So, I'm hoping to see other member be interested in this. If so, copy/paste the questions and enter a player. We can keep a running list and build the HF.net Hall of Fame.

Resources

The biggest resource of info for these questions is at hockey-reference. You can find all of their stats, league leader, awards, the most similar players, etc.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/

For the questions regarding team captains, full listing is here. Just click on each team's listing, and you'll be re-directed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NHL_captains_and_alternate_captains

The Conn Smythe Trohpy wasn't created until the 1965 season. The Society for International Hockey Research, with support from the Hockey Hall of Fame, has filled in the blanks from 1918 to 1964. We can use that list to help with players from those years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_Conn_Smythe

JR

[JR Ewing]

I'll kick things off with a gimme, but just to show how it works: Mark Messier.

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?

No way. Not with Gretzky and Lemieux around.

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?

He won two Harts, but I don't anybody saying he was the best centre around.

3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

Yes. Messier was among the league leaders in the major categories about 20 times. (1)

4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

No. (1)

5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?

Yes, Messier was a big part of 7 trips to the Finals. (2)

6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?

Absolutely. Messier was the 2C on four Cup winners, and top dog on 2 more. (3)

7. Was he ever a team Captain?

Yes, he was a captain for the Oilers, Rangers and Canucks. (4)

8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?

Messier is the only player to captain two different teams to Stanley Cups (EDM and NYR) (5)

9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?

Messier was decent in this area, but not in the range of the top defensive forwards of his time. No (5)

10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)

Messier had a serious dirty side to his game which intimidated friend and foe alike. Big yes. (6)

11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?

The man played forever. (7)

12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?

Messier was 1st AS at LW (1982), 3 more times at C (1983, '90, '92), and a 2nd AS in 1984. (8)

13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?

Yes. Of the ten most similar player, 5 are in the HOF, and most of the rest will likely be in soon. (9)

14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)

Messier won two Harts and two Lindsays. (10)

15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)

Messier won the 1984 Conn Smythe. (11)

16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)

I don't see it. (11)

17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?

Extremely difficult area in which to get a point. Messier was well known in the hockey world as an Edmonton Oilers. When he led the Rangers to their Cup in 1994, he became famous everywhere. Yes. (12)

18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?

No, but this one is also very difficult.

Final Score = 12

According to the quiz, Messier is an unquestioned HOFer.

[J0e Th0rnton]

I am assuming we can use our own Criteria? Certain intangibles mean more to people than others

Edit, and would we have a panel and vote in process?

Edited August 2, 2013 by J0e Th0rnton

[JR Ewing]

I am assuming we can use our own Criteria? Certain intangibles mean more to people than others

Edit, and would we have a panel and vote in process?

I'm guessing you didn't get past the thread title. lol

Anyway, I certainly don't mean to impose MY way of looking at these things on to everybody else. There's any number of ways we could go about. I proposed a Keltner List approach as its quick and allows things to move along. If others wish to put the players to vote, that's certainly an option too, though it would definitely increase the time (which isn't always bad) between players inductions. We could create a series of polls and have them run for a certain amount of time (a week, for example) and then create a minimum percentage of votes for players to require in order to be inducted. This would be a chance for people to make their case (well reasoned, idiotic and everything in between). My only fear is that discussion may be diminished due to that approach, but it could work very well, too. Also, the chance for jackass votes exists, as well.

JR

Edited August 2, 2013 by JR Ewing

[J0e Th0rnton]

I'm guessing you didn't get past the thread title. lol

Anyway, I certainly don't mean to impose MY way of looking at these things on to everybody else. There's any number of ways we could go about. I proposed a Keltner List approach as its quick and allows things to move along. If others wish to put the players to vote, that's certainly an option too, though it would definitely increase the time (which isn't always bad) between players inductions. We could create a series of polls and have them run for a certain amount of time (a week, for example) and then create a minimum percentage of votes for players to require in order to be inducted. This would be a chance for people to make their case (well reasoned, idiotic and everything in between). My only fear is that discussion may be diminished due to that approach, but it could work very well, too. Also, the chance for jackass votes exists, as well.

JR

haha. So far this forum seems like it could handle the poll

I am up for this. I like the discussions.

Will we be skipping the obvious hall of fame guys? I mean autoinducting them?

Obviously we do not need to have a discussion on the merits of the top 20 players of all time lol.

[jammer2]

@JR Ewing I can see how 18 would be a tough cookie to crack. Off the top of my head, I'd say Gretzky, Brodeur, Harvey and Orr would qualify there. I wonder if Patrick Roy's excessively bulky goaltending equpment and jersey would qualify for the rule change part?

[JR Ewing]

haha. So far this forum seems like it could handle the poll

I am up for this. I like the discussions.

Will we be skipping the obvious hall of fame guys? I mean autoinducting them?

Obviously we do not need to have a discussion on the merits of the top 20 players of all time lol.

On the one hand, it seems like not THE best use of our time to go through the process of auto-inducting players like Gretzky, Orr, Howe, etc.

However, on the other hand, where do we draw the line on who to drop the voting process for?

That's not a loaded question but, rather, an honest one.

JR

[yave1964]

@JR Ewing

Good lord I knew I liked you. I have about everything Bill James ever wrote in the eighties thru the mid nineties. His Whatever happened t the Hall of Fame is a top twenty or so favorite of mine. Speaking of Hall of Fame, he certainly belongs in one somewhere if you just go by his own Keltner list.

[yave1964]

The black ink test of James also was fantastic, hockeyreference.com has their own slightly different version but it comes out fairly well on most players as far as rating them goes.

Another James innovation was similarities scores which again hockeyreference.com has listed, not sure of their exact formula and they have the occasional eyebrow raising selection but overall Bill James did more for statistical analysis than any man alive.

[JR Ewing]

@JR Ewing I can see how 18 would be a tough cookie to crack. Off the top of my head, I'd say Gretzky, Brodeur, Harvey and Orr would qualify there. I wonder if Patrick Roy's excessively bulky goaltending equpment and jersey would qualify for the rule change part?

Yeah, not a lot of players can cut the mustard on that one. The Bobby Hull banana curve comes to mind. Some others players have had their doings inspire rules changes, but they're dubious honours:

Sean Avery: the "wave your arms and hands around like a jackass" rule.

Rob Ray: jersey tie-downs for fights, because the goof stripped himself down every time. Man, that was cheap.

JR

[yave1964]

As a non-Flyer fan, I will do a quickie on Lindros

1 yes 2 yes 3 yes 4 yes 5 no 6 no 7 yes 8 no 9 no 10 yes 11 no 12 yes 13 yes 14 yes 15 no 16 yes 17 no 18 no

Of course this is all subjective but IMHO it gives him ten total yes answers which places hi in the great player/just under the hall of fame range which sounds about right to me.

[JR Ewing]

@JR Ewing

Good lord I knew I liked you. I have about everything Bill James ever wrote in the eighties thru the mid nineties. His Whatever happened t the Hall of Fame is a top twenty or so favorite of mine. Speaking of Hall of Fame, he certainly belongs in one somewhere if you just go by his own Keltner list.

"The Politics of Glory" was a fantastic book, even by James' standards. I got turned on to his stuff while messing around at the public library when I was about 9, so around 1982 or so, and I then had to read everything of his that I could get my hands. Changed the way I thought about baseball, and opened up my mind to how I thought about hockey and how I couldn't help but noticed other people talked about the game as well. At a young age, it was a good introduction into the world of logical and ordered thinking. I keep an updated version of "The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" next my bed, and thumb through it regularly. It's not stretching the point to say that I treasure it, beaten up as it's become. Notes in the margins, etc, etc, etc... I love it.

The black ink test of James also was fantastic, hockeyreference.com has their own slightly different version but it comes out fairly well on most players as far as rating them goes.

Another James innovation was similarities scores which again hockeyreference.com has listed, not sure of their exact formula and they have the occasional eyebrow raising selection but overall Bill James did more for statistical analysis than any man alive.

Baseball men (and many writers) have hated his kind for years, but I feel his impact on the game will be understood in time. Billy Beane is credited as a genius, had a book written in no small part about him, a movie, etc. Mostly it's because he's a handsome insider, and James is a neck-beard outsider, and if people think Beane had baseball men chafing, just think of what they thought of a chubby night security guard from a pork and beans plant telling them how wrong they were.

Nice to see another fan.

JR

[JR Ewing]

Another thing I'd like to propose:

If we're going to go through the process of voting, I'd like to ensure that we don't just concentrate on the last two or three decades, and make an attempt to look at players from decades gone by. For those who know about these guys, it's a chance to fill other people in about them, to spread knowledge of the game. For those who don't know about some of those players, it can help create more appreciation for different eras of hockey, those players, and help provide context for how to view modern players as well.

JR

[J0e Th0rnton]

Another thing I'd like to propose:

If we're going to go through the process of voting, I'd like to ensure that we don't just concentrate on the last two or three decades, and make an attempt to look at players from decades gone by. For those who know about these guys, it's a chance to fill other people in about them, to spread knowledge of the game. For those who don't know about some of those players, it can help create more appreciation for different eras of hockey, those players, and help provide context for how to view modern players as well.

JR

Sounds like a plan to me.

Regarding "Where do we cut off"

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_100_greatest_hockey_players_by_The_Hockey_News

I would say the top 31 players at least are easily going to make their way into the Hall of fame without much argument or need for validation. Their accomplishments speak for themselves.

Some of the names below the top 31 I have never heard of, so i would need to look into them.

[yave1964]

Well if we are doing them from days gone by here is one of my favorites.

In one of my Brian Mcfarlane books (Don't ask me which one it would require getting up and going to the bookshelf and checking but I think it was Brian Mcfarlane's world of hockey I was introduced to Fred 'Cyclone' Taylor who was an early pioneer in the game, lived damn near forever until he was 94 dying in 1979.

Born in 1884 in Tara Ontario, it was almost as if he was born with skates on his feet, his grace and speed caught the attention of everyone everywhere he went. He broke into 'organized Hockey with Portage for the 1905-06 season and began as a forward but was moved to defense because none of his teammates could keep up with him. Really. In his first year with Portage of the IPHL they won the championship with Taylor on point.

After the league folded he moved on to the renowned Ottawa Silver Seven's where he scored nine goals in ten games, most of them end to end rushes because his burst was just too much for other players to handle. The Ottawa club won the Stanley Cup in 1908-09, and then in a dispute wit management over promises made Cyclone jumped ship and joined the Renfrew hockey club where he starred for two seasons.

His skating ability and speed and grace were unparalleled in his day. It was during his playing days at Renfrew that a legend developed around Taylor. Before his first appearance in a game for Renfrew in Ottawa, Taylor claimed that he would score a goal against Ottawa while skating backwards. In the actual game, he did not score. However, in a later game in Renfrew against Ottawa, Taylor did score a back-hand goal while skating backwards and the legend was born. However, Taylor himself long disputed the legend, saying he made the comments as a joke, and his famous "backwards" goal, only involved a brief period of backward skating and the actual goal was scored just like any other.

The Pacific Hockey League was formed by his friends and former teammates Lester and Frank Patrick, and Taylor was lured out West to be the face of the league and he was moved back to forward for the Vancouver Millionaires where he starred for the final nine years of his playing career, averaging over a goal a game, and winning another Stanley cup in 1915. He led the league in scoring on five separate occasions, was the highest paid athlete in Canada, making more even than the Prime minister. In an eighteen year career, most of it as western Canada's first ever sport superstar he scored 13 more goals than games played. He became a charter member of the hockey hall of fame.

Taylor always had a head on his shoulders and planned for post career throughout his career, negotiating an off season job with the Canadian Immigration Branch as part of his contract with Ottawa, when he transferred to Vancouver he insisted his job transferred too, post retirement Taylor later became the Commissioner of Immigration for British Columbia and the Yukon, a position he held until his retirement in 1950. In 1949, Taylor was named as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for outstanding service to the country and community as an immigration officer in two wars.

Taylor's sharp hockey mind led to his being named president of the Pacific Coast Hockey League in 1937. An active member of the Vancouver community, he helped form the British Columbia Hockey Benevolent Society, where he served as director from 1954 until his death in 1979.

Cyclone was voted into the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame and the British Columbia Sports Hall of Fame. He was elected as a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1947, and he was also given the honor of turning the sod for the construction of the Hockey Hall of Fame building that opened in 1961. This larger than life man who still ice skated into his early nineties died at 94 in 1979 from complications of a broken hip.

so lets go through the questions

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played? Yes absolutely and was Canada's highest paid athlete.

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played? Yes a fearful d-man and then in Vancouver as a forward

3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)yes consistently

4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)yes constantly leading the league in something

5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run? Two Stanley cups plus when Vancouver lost in seven games to the Toronto Arenas he scored nine goals in seven games.

6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner? Yes two of them

7. Was he ever a team Captain? Pre captain but certainly yes in Vancouver and Renfrew.

8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner? Yes with Vancouver in 1915

9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player? I cannot find anything saying so but with his blinding speed I would have to say so.

10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)no

11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?no. H knew when to fold them and move on

12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team? Read this carefully. He earned the remarkable distinction of being named to the First All-Star Team everywhere he played from 1900 to 1918.

13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF? anyone with similar stats is in.

14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)Yes if they had it he would have several.

15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)Yes 1915 ad 1918 respectively if it were around

16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)no

17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey? Yes. After retiring he remained involved in hockey after he stopped playing. He was president of the Pacific Coast Hockey League from 1936 to 1940. Taylor helped start the B.C. Hockey Benevolent Association in the 1950s, and served as a director until his death. He dropped the puck in the ceremonial faceoff that preceded the expansion Vancouver Canucks' first home game when the expansion team joined the National Hockey League (NHL) in 1970. Taylor was a fixture at Canucks games, sitting in the crowd.

18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played? Well his speed was such that they forced him to the blue line and he was the first end to end rush specialist revolutionizing defense in his day (before it slipped back to the dark ages for decades to come) and his skating backwards was supposedly quicker than many or most could skate forward so I say yes.

So fifteen yes answers make him a stand out superstar hall of famer, one of the early greats and a west coast legend who never played in the fledgling NHL but made his mark on the game and on Canada in general. A superstar and from all I have read a man who stayed sharp throughout most of his life and according to what I have read he enjoyed interaction with fans and chose sitting among the fans in retirement over private boxes at every opportunity. A great hockey legend, I think I got most of what is written here right, this was a hell of a hockey player and man.

[yave1964]

Oh and on the retro Smythe award it is given in 1918 to Alf Skinner who led the Arenas to the cup but in my mind it had to be Taylor.

[hf101]

@JR Ewing

Peter Forsberg

Yes 1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?

Yes 3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

? 4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

Yes 5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?

Yes 6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?

Yes 7. Was he ever a team Captain?

No 8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?

Yes 9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?

Yes 10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)

Yes 11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?

Yes 12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?

Yes 13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?

Yes 14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)

15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resource

16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)

Yes 17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?

? 18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?

Forsberg gets 12 yes, and 2 ? Best of the Best, imo

There really should be a category for playing through numerous injuries

[JR Ewing]

@JR Ewing

Peter Forsberg

? 4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

Yes 13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?

Yes 17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?

? 18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?

4 - Yes. Forsberg led the NHL in A and Pts in 2003.

13 - Perhaps a minor point, but of the ten most similar players, 3 are in the HOF. I don't know if that's "many", but it's still impressive.

17 - At first I was going to disagree, on the basis that Forsberg isn't exactly a household name among non-hockey fans the way Gretzky is, or the way Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali or Tiger Woods are for non-fans of their sport. But then, I have to admit, the man is on a postage stamp in his country. Not exactly a common honour, and it does brings positive and intense focus to hockey.

18 - My vote would be for no, but it's extremely tough to get one here.

There really should be a category for playing through numerous injuries

I really really really think this is an area best avoided. We can say "Man, that guy would have been great if he wasn't injured", but there's really no stopping once you start. It's hypothesizing about what might have been rather than focusing on what the player was. Orr WAS great despite the knees, Bossy and Lemieux were great despite their bad backs, etc, etc, etc.

JR

[yave1964]

This is an arbitrary list, I just wanted to say that I believe the 5-8 as a lock for the hall is too low IMHO. The hall is for the greatest of the great, guys like Andreychuk likely fit in the 5-8 yes category, and are not elite. I know the Hall does not consist of only bobby Orr's it has Clark Gillies and Cam Neely's and other players who were never considered the best player in the game during their career but I feel IMHO that 9 or better AT LEAST is what should be considered for Hall worthiness.

[yave1964]

Dave Andreychuk

Played forever scoring 640 goals and had 698 assists. Won a cup in 2004 with the Lightning. On the outside right now.

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played? no

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played? no

3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)Goals 1993 and 1994 3rd in plus/minus in 1997 so yes

4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc) no

5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run? yes 12 goals with the leafs in 1993 playoffs

6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner? yes 2004 lightning

7. Was he ever a team Captain? yes

8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner? yes again the lightning

9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player? no. God no.

10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)Not really, but he was a master in front of the net and would push his way into position ala holmstrom

11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime? Yes

12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team? no

13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF? His top three comps are Dino, Bucyk and Ullman so yep

14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections) no

15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)no

16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)no

17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey? Yes

18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played? Yes. He parked his big butt in front of the net and became the all time master of setting up in front of the net and tipping pucks.

so for andreychuk that is a total of 8 or 9 points, depending on definition of a category or two, so he is at the least in the top end of the 5-8. I think 9, 10 should be he rule of thumb for a HOFer. To me Andreychuk is the ultimate borderline, his body f work way outnumbers any one season, kind of the Don Sutton of Hockey, Sutton won 15 games a year for 20 years until he had numbers too good to not put in, 300 wins and 3000 strikeouts. Andreychuk lumbered out in front of the net and scored 34-38 goals a year forever until his overall numbers are so ridiculous that it is impossible to look at the body of work and not see a hall of famer. I am torn with him, 8,9 votes for him sounds about right. IMHO anyone below him is not a HOFer, anyone above likely is.

[JR Ewing]

Dave Andreychuk

10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)Not really, but he was a master in front of the net and would push his way into position ala holmstrom

17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey? Yes

18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played? Yes. He parked his big butt in front of the net and became the all time master of setting up in front of the net and tipping pucks.

so for andreychuk that is a total of 8 or 9 points, depending on definition of a category or two, so he is at the least in the top end of the 5-8. I think 9, 10 should be he rule of thumb for a HOFer. To me Andreychuk is the ultimate borderline, his body f work way outnumbers any one season, kind of the Don Sutton of Hockey, Sutton won 15 games a year for 20 years until he had numbers too good to not put in, 300 wins and 3000 strikeouts. Andreychuk lumbered out in front of the net and scored 34-38 goals a year forever until his overall numbers are so ridiculous that it is impossible to look at the body of work and not see a hall of famer. I am torn with him, 8,9 votes for him sounds about right. IMHO anyone below him is not a HOFer, anyone above likely is.

See, and I wouldn't even give him a point in any of those.

10. He stuck his butt in one spot and didn't move. He was definitely really good with the puck right there, but he wasn't a physical beast who intimidate the opposition. With that question, I'm looking for animals; bulls. We're looking for Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay. Coiled springs lubricated with testosterone.

17. He was well known in the cities he played in, but he didn't exactly transcend the sport.

18. Andreychuk was definitely not the first guy to do that, so I don't see a point for innovation.

I agree, though: definitely not a clear-cut HOFer.

JR

[yave1964]

@JR Ewing

He is such a hard case. Nobody with anywhere near his 640 goals will be kept out of the hall, and who is to say that the guy who scores 35 goals for fifteen years is not as worthy as the guy who scores fifty for ten? I understand peak value versus career value. He really was never thought of as a star while playing, only two all star games, never first or second team but SIX HUNDRED AND FOURTY GOALS!! What the hell do you do abut that??

[JR Ewing]

@JR Ewing

He is such a hard case. Nobody with anywhere near his 640 goals will be kept out of the hall, and who is to say that the guy who scores 35 goals for fifteen years is not as worthy as the guy who scores fifty for ten? I understand peak value versus career value. He really was never thought of as a star while playing, only two all star games, never first or second team but SIX HUNDRED AND FOURTY GOALS!! What the hell do you do abut that??

Career like his are ones where the sum is greater than the whole of its parts: never had a great season, but wound up with great career numbers. It couldn't be any different than the best players in the history of the game. If Gretzky had quit after ten years, he'd be a shoe-in HOFer, and his results on this list would likely be exactly the same. The first ten years are largely about establishing the HOF argument, and the rest of the career is more about padding those numbers.

Andreychuk built his case with padding.

JR

[yave1964]

Last Andreychuk point I want to throw in then I will get off the subject, he is the all time leader in power play goals, nobody active is likely to come close to breaking the record. That has to count for something.

[jammer2]

Another thing I'd like to propose:

If we're going to go through the process of voting, I'd like to ensure that we don't just concentrate on the last two or three decades, and make an attempt to look at players from decades gone by. For those who know about these guys, it's a chance to fill other people in about them, to spread knowledge of the game. For those who don't know about some of those players, it can help create more appreciation for different eras of hockey, those players, and help provide context for how to view modern players as well.

JR

That would be fun, trying to do some of the older players....AND, it's August...nothing better to do, except watch my TIgers kick some butt!!

I like the idea of just sticking to your criteria, that way we have a significant strong base to cross compare the totals.

" I got turned on to his stuff while messing around at the public library when I was about 9, so around 1982 or so, and I then had to read everything of his that I could get my hands."

Waaait a minute here, when other kids were playing with marbles and playing tag, you were knee deep in stats?? HA HA...that is great!!