View Single Post
11-14-2012, 01:44 AM
Mind of Milbury
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
If he wasn't such a jerk, had a better playoff resume, or had either durability or longevity, then there probably wouldn't really be a debate. Those factors make it arguable for some.
I know this is veering slightly off topic (although there was a brief mention of John Elway in this thread), but what if I pointed out a player who (to point 1) was a wonderful and dedicated father, husband, and teammate, who (to point 2) was a TREMENDOUS playoff performer who won 2 Championships, appeared in a third Championship Series, but who (to point 3) admittedly played a relatively short time in his sport? The sport is baseball, and that player was Thurman Munson. Hes credited with an 11 year career, although he only had a brief appearance in '69 and obviously didnt play much more than half of '79 before he died (Similarly, Lindros had one whole year missed and there are about 4 seasons you can piece together to bring his total career years from 14 to 11 or so...) Even so, Munson's career was extraordinarliy decorated and productive (he was ROY in '70 and MVP in '76) for its length. He has done things Lindros hasnt (playoff-wise, plus Lindros wasnt ROY), and yet Munson doesnt even get a sniff of the HOF (he has only received more than %10 of the votes once, in 1981).

Point is, off-field goings-on dont necessarily have to have a profound effect one way or the other when it comes to HOF voting processes, irrespective of the career in question. I suppose based upon this one particular example, longevity and durability (Munson was healthy during his career) takes precedence over relative production. On the other hand, Lindros might need to be even MORE attractive statistically to overcome any issues (real or perceived) off ice in the minds of the voters. It is all really very subjective (obviously).


Mind of Milbury is offline   Reply With Quote