View Single Post
Old
07-09-2013, 12:35 PM
  #48
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,836
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Neely and Bure already being in aside, this is completely ridiculous. Lindros was one of the best players of all time. Anyone who watched saw it, and his numbers show it. How is he less deserving than someone like Ciccarelli who had 1200 points because he played over 1200 games? How does being above average for a long time trump being arguably the best over several years?
Because that is how it goes. If you put up big numbers, even if over a long period of time, you'll get in in any sport. It happens in hockey. It happens in baseball. And so forth and so on.

Quote:
Two or three exceptional seasons? From 93-98 he averaged 1.42 PPG, a 116 point pace. In that time he had 2 90 point season, a 100 point season, and 70 points in the shortened 46 game season (124 point pace). He paced for 100 points in about half the seasons he played.
But he wasn't able to play a full season. That is going to count against you no matter how you slice it. His PPG pace was ridiculous. I agree. But where do you draw the line? At what point do you say that he simply didn't play enough to warrant the honor of being inducted into the HOF. I know Neely and Bure were inducted, and if they were up I would probably have similar arguments (though as I stated earlier there are differnet arguments to be made about Bure and Neely that aren't necessarily present here).

Lindros had four seasons where he played 70+ games. Only one where he played 80+. The majority of the time he was playing in the low fifties or less. He also sat out a year because of a contract dispute. He was a great player when he was on the ice, but IMO he wasn't on the ice enough. I completely understand your argument, I just don't agree with it.

Quote:
Lindros was an absolute force, and one of the greatest talents of all time. Allowing him in does not open any floodgates because there are not players like him. The closest thing would be Forsberg, and Crosby if he heads down the same path. Two more of the game's greatest talents.
But again, that is going on talent, not on ice production. Forsberg I would argue similarly, though Forsberg didn't have the off-ice issues that the voters are obviously considering. If you are talking just about most talented players of all time, I'd put Lindros on that list. But that doesn't mean he is a HOFer.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote