HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   Lindros vs. Forsberg HOF (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=143544)

Big Phil 05-18-2005 04:28 PM

Lindros vs. Forsberg HOF
 
Okay this should spark an interesting debate. Both Lindros and Forsberg have been (so far) injury prone and had a very abbreviated career. But based on that so far which one is the most likely, if any, to get into the Hall of Fame?

Lindros - First all star team in '95, second in '98. Hart Trophy in '95. Tied for points in '95, led the playoffs in '97 with 26 points. No Cups. His highest point totals are 115, 97, 93, 79. His highest goals total is 47, 44, 41, 40. He was easily the best player for 2 or three seasons of his career. He was a physical presence combined with a scoring prowess. Is he Hall worthy or at least more than Forsberg?

Forsberg - Has had a very similar career to Lindros. Calder trophy in '95. First all-star in '98, '99 and '03. Has won two Cups with the Avs, and led the playoffs in points twice, both times despite never reaching the final. Never scored more than 30 goals in a season but his points totals go like this: 116, 106, 97, 91, 89, 86. Won the Hart and Art Ross Trophies in '03. Like Lindros has been considered the best player in the game at one time in his career. Was a little more offensive than Eric but didnt have quite the physical edge. Is he more worthy than Eric?

SChan* 05-18-2005 04:45 PM

more:

Forsberg playoff stats

GP 133 G 57 A 97 Points 154 + 47

Points Per Game: 1.16


Lindros playoff stats

GP 50 G 24 A 33 Points 57 + 10

PPG: 1.14

GKJ 05-18-2005 05:01 PM

Forsberg is in. He has 2 rings and a Hart.



Lindros needs some help. His stats are as good as some of the guys in the 80's who aren't in, regardless of how much offense there was back then.

jamiebez 05-18-2005 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Forsberg is in. He has 2 rings and a Hart.



Lindros needs some help. His stats are as good as some of the guys in the 80's who aren't in, regardless of how much offense there was back then.

IIRC, everyone who has won the Hart is in the Hall of Fame. Since Lindros and Forsberg have both won it, shouldn't they both get in?

Just playing Devil's advocate... :madfire: :)

Trottier 05-18-2005 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Forsberg is in. He has 2 rings and a Hart.

And he remains to this day arguably the best player on the planet, and has held that mantle for some time. His future induction is not even a question, which is why I find it amazing that some here (not alluding to this particular thread) even suggest that Forsberg doesn't belong in the HOF. His NHL career alone is worthy and the HOF considers all professional hockey accomplishments.

Won't comment on the Big E's chances ("E" for enigma), except to say that he would not get my vote.

And one doesn't need to rely on stats as a crutch for making this decision. Forsberg over the last several seasons has been doing EXACTLY what everyone had expected Lindros to be doing at this point in his career. Namely, being the outstanding player on a perennial Cup contender.

Ogopogo* 05-18-2005 05:14 PM

Forsberg deserves to be in. 2 Cups, 1 Hart, 3 First Team Selections, Several top 7 scoring seasons. That is greatness, that is Hall worthy.

Lindros is just barely on the wrong side of the line. I would say no, he did not have enough for career accomplishments to justify it.

Hasbro 05-18-2005 07:28 PM

Are they better candidates than Federko?

God Bless Canada 05-18-2005 08:21 PM

I'm not convinced with either players credentials. I like Forsberg's chances more, as he has been an impact player from the moment he entered the league. I'd lean towards a yes in his case, with his consistent placing in the league's top 10, his Art Ross, Hart and Calder Trophies and his two-way brilliance. He's also come up big in the playoffs several times in his career. One or two more elite seasons would take him from a Pat LaFontaine (dominant at his peak, considered among the league's elite for several seasons, but will get turned down a couple times because of longevity) to a sure-fire first ballot guy.

Lindros hasn't done a damn thing since his 25th birthday. If he would have retired after the internal injury suffered in 1999, he would have had a better chance than he does now. He's a shell of what he used to be. He doesn't scare the opposition physically anymore. The fire is gone. He'd need two or three elite seasons to get Hall consideration. A player with his burgeoning talent and physical gifts should still be good for 90-100 points per seasons.

(By the way, I remember a 1997 THN cover story that said most general managers in the league would take Forsberg over Lindros, so Forsberg's superiority is nothing new).

GKJ 05-18-2005 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hasbro
Are they better candidates than Federko?


Yes, but that doesn't mean Lindros should get in. Federko is in, and Glenn Anderson is not. Lindros might not play again, and if he doesn't the answer is no.

chooch* 05-18-2005 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
One or two more elite seasons would take him from a Pat LaFontaine (dominant at his peak, considered among the league's elite for several seasons, but will get turned down a couple times because of longevity) to a sure-fire first ballot guy.

remind me again how the best 2 way player in the world (ie the best player, even more than Jagr) for the past 10 years compares to Lafontaine?

God Bless Canada 05-18-2005 11:25 PM

I'm saying who was better. I'm saying that Forsberg, if he were to retire today, would be in a similar boat to LaFontaine: a shortened career with some absolutely dazzling seasons (LaFontaine put up two of the best years I've ever seen in 1990 and 1993, both deserving of strong Hart consideration), and some other years cut short by injury. LaFontaine would have been a gimmie for HHOF induction if he'd not been hampered by injuries. As it is, he got in on his third attempt. Forsberg, if he doesn't come back, or if his career were to end next season due to injury, won't get in on his first attempt because of longevity, but he will get in eventually.

And LaFontaine in his prime was better than pretty much anyone in today's NHL.

Zine 05-19-2005 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
I'm saying who was better. I'm saying that Forsberg, if he were to retire today, would be in a similar boat to LaFontaine: a shortened career with some absolutely dazzling seasons (LaFontaine put up two of the best years I've ever seen in 1990 and 1993, both deserving of strong Hart consideration), and some other years cut short by injury. LaFontaine would have been a gimmie for HHOF induction if he'd not been hampered by injuries. As it is, he got in on his third attempt. Forsberg, if he doesn't come back, or if his career were to end next season due to injury, won't get in on his first attempt because of longevity, but he will get in eventually.

And LaFontaine in his prime was better than pretty much anyone in today's NHL.

:amazed:

LaFontaine was a great player (HOF worthy) but not THAT great. There are players in today's game that are better than LaFontaine was in his prime.

Pat did play for 14 years (10 seasons of 67+ games). No cups, no scoring titles, no Harts, etc. Never made NHL 1st team, only made 2nd team once ('93).
I'd say Forsberg is certainly a notch above him.

gary69 05-19-2005 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamiebez
IIRC, everyone who has won the Hart is in the Hall of Fame. Since Lindros and Forsberg have both won it, shouldn't they both get in?

Just playing Devil's advocate... :madfire: :)

Tom Anderson, 1942 Hart winner, is not in the Hall, maybe Lindros will be the other one.

Ogopogo* 05-19-2005 11:56 AM

I disagree that Forsberg and Lafontaine are in the same category. Lafontaine had many good seasons and one great season. Forsberg has had several great seasons. Forsberg is Hall worthy and Lafontaine is not, IMO.

Yes I am a hard ass. I would rather have too few HOFers than too many. Lafontaine would not make it if I had the control.

Ogopogo* 05-19-2005 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Bless Canada

And LaFontaine in his prime was better than pretty much anyone in today's NHL.

LOL.

I strongly disagree. He played in a much more offensive era so, you are being dazzled by numbers and open ice.

Martin St. Louis, for one, is better than Lafontaine.

WVP 05-19-2005 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Martin St. Louis, for one, is better than Lafontaine.

I don't agree with that at all.

ACC1224 05-19-2005 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogopogo
LOL.

I strongly disagree. He played in a much more offensive era so, you are being dazzled by numbers and open ice.

Martin St. Louis, for one, is better than Lafontaine.

Not even close. Did you ever see Lafontaine play?

ACC1224 05-19-2005 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zine
:amazed:

LaFontaine was a great player (HOF worthy) but not THAT great. There are players in today's game that are better than LaFontaine was in his prime.

Pat did play for 14 years (10 seasons of 67+ games). No cups, no scoring titles, no Harts, etc. Never made NHL 1st team, only made 2nd team once ('93).
I'd say Forsberg is certainly a notch above him.

Not saying Forsberg isn't better but Lafontaine didn't play on a stacked Avs team and didn't have to go against Gretzky every year for hardware.

Ogopogo* 05-19-2005 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACC1224
Not even close. Did you ever see Lafontaine play?

LOL.

I saw plenty. In fact, Lafontaine's 1992-93 season is one of my all time favorites. Not only did he score a ton of points but the goals and assists were BEAUTIFUL. It was awesome to watch.

But, the truth is, Martin St. Louis has a scoring title, 1st team all star, Hart Trophy and Stanley Cup to his credit. Lafontaine never accomplished that in his career.

Ogopogo* 05-19-2005 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACC1224
Not saying Forsberg isn't better but Lafontaine didn't play on a stacked Avs team and didn't have to go against Gretzky every year for hardware.


Go against Gretzky for hardware? Lafontaine had one great season. He finished 2nd in scoring in 1992-93. I will give you Gretzky and Lemieux - why was Lafontaine NEVER 3rd in scoring? There was plenty of opportunity to be #3, he never stepped up and did it - except in 1992-93.

Lafontaine was an excellent player but, in a historical perspective, he is not in the top 100. He never stepped up and grabbed the torch. Players like Messier, Hull, Fedorov and Lindros all won Hart Trophies during Gretzky and Lemieux's era. Lafontaine never did. Excellent player but not GREAT.

ACC1224 05-19-2005 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Go against Gretzky for hardware? Lafontaine had one great season. He finished 2nd in scoring in 1992-93. I will give you Gretzky and Lemieux - why was Lafontaine NEVER 3rd in scoring? There was plenty of opportunity to be #3, he never stepped up and did it - except in 1992-93.

Lafontaine was an excellent player but, in a historical perspective, he is not in the top 100. He never stepped up and grabbed the torch. Players like Messier, Hull, Fedorov and Lindros all won Hart Trophies during Gretzky and Lemieux's era. Lafontaine never did. Excellent player but not GREAT.

same could be said for Forsberg, St. Louis shouldn't be included in the same sentence as these two.

Ogopogo* 05-19-2005 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACC1224
same could be said for Forsberg, St. Louis shouldn't be included in the same sentence as these two.


Forsberg is greater than St. Louis.
St. Louis is greater than Lafontaine.

It is all about significant accomplishments. If a guy plays 20 years and never accomplishes anything significant, how great is his career?

ACC1224 05-19-2005 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Forsberg is greater than St. Louis.
St. Louis is greater than Lafontaine.

It is all about significant accomplishments. If a guy plays 20 years and never accomplishes anything significant, how great is his career?

All this is opinion but one thing I can say is a safe bet, St. Louis won't make the HOF.

St. Louis has more hardware than Sundin, is he the better player?

Ogopogo* 05-19-2005 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACC1224
All this is opinion but one thing I can say is a safe bet, St. Louis won't make the HOF.

St. Louis has more hardware than Sundin, is he the better player?

Yes. Being the BEST once is better than being in the top 20 your whole career.

ACC1224 05-19-2005 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Yes. Being the BEST once is better than being in the top 20 your whole career.

wow, you're joking right?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:15 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.