HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Is Eric Lindros hall of fame worthy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-09-2013, 01:04 PM
  #51
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,513
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Missing games is going to count, sure, but it doesn't mean he wasn't utterly dominant when he played for a long time...and it certainly doesn't count as much as you think it does. Otherwise Bure wouldn't be in. Should we consider revoking Orr's HOF membership because he was injured often? No? That's because his injuries don't detract from his accomplishments or dominance much.
So if it doesn't count as much as I think it does, why isn't Lindros in? Like I said with Bure and Neely there are different arguments. With Bobby Orr, he he has a trophy case filled with awards and tons of records. With Lindros you have a guy who was dominant when playing for the first nine or so years of his career. He won an MVP award but that's the end of it. You also have a guy who was unable to stay healthy. You also have a guy who refused to play for the team that drafted him. You also have a guy who sat out a year because of a contract dispute.

You have to look at everything as a whole. Was he a generational talent? Absolutely. I would not and am not arguing that. He was a legendary talent. But he also was a lot of other things.

Quote:
If there were an identical player who didn't miss games, sure. He should get in first. But, there isn't. There isn't really anyone waiting for the HOF who is like Lindros.
You don't just induct guys into the hall of fame because there is no one else around. And again, I am not saying you (or others) are wrong. This is purely an opinion question. I understand exactly what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. You don't think his injuries and off-ice issues should be considered or at least not be considered that much. I do. I think what I said earlier sums up my opinion pretty succinctly: a guy should get get into the HOF because he was one of the best players of all time, not because he could have been one of the best players of all time but wasn't because of injury.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:12 PM
  #52
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 16,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
You don't just induct guys into the hall of fame because there is no one else around. And again, I am not saying you (or others) are wrong. This is purely an opinion question. I understand exactly what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. You don't think his injuries and off-ice issues should be considered or at least not be considered that much. I do. I think what I said earlier sums up my opinion pretty succinctly: a guy should get get into the HOF because he was one of the best players of all time, not because he could have been one of the best players of all time but wasn't because of injury.
Many people believe he is one of the best players of all-time, even with the injury history.

Lindros will get into the HHoF; it's hockey politicking that will determine when it happens, though.

__________________
I deride your truth handling abilities
CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:13 PM
  #53
Hiesenberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 4,793
vCash: 500
47 minutes

Hiesenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:15 PM
  #54
Flyotes
JVR is Pigeon Caw!
 
Flyotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,315
vCash: 500
No to Lindros. HOF needs to stop lowering the bar with childish: "But so and so got a new bike too!!!"

So what? Shortened his career. Not enough to get in.

Stop aiming for the drain.

Flyotes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:16 PM
  #55
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
So if it doesn't count as much as I think it does, why isn't Lindros in? Like I said with Bure and Neely there are different arguments. With Bobby Orr, he he has a trophy case filled with awards and tons of records. With Lindros you have a guy who was dominant when playing for the first nine or so years of his career. He won an MVP award but that's the end of it. You also have a guy who was unable to stay healthy. You also have a guy who refused to play for the team that drafted him. You also have a guy who sat out a year because of a contract dispute.

You have to look at everything as a whole. Was he a generational talent? Absolutely. I would not and am not arguing that. He was a legendary talent. But he also was a lot of other things.



You don't just induct guys into the hall of fame because there is no one else around. And again, I am not saying you (or others) are wrong. This is purely an opinion question. I understand exactly what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. You don't think his injuries and off-ice issues should be considered or at least not be considered that much. I do. I think what I said earlier sums up my opinion pretty succinctly: a guy should get get into the HOF because he was one of the best players of all time, not because he could have been one of the best players of all time but wasn't because of injury.

People aren't talking about inducting Lindros just because he's the only one around. They talk about inducting him because, like you said, he's a truly great player. He's a one-of-a-kind player who was dominant and had a HOF level career.

Penalizing a player because he didn't have perfect health is nit-picking, especially in a high contact sport.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:17 PM
  #56
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,789
vCash: 500
DFF,

Look at the list of Hall of Famers and see how many you would say Lindros was better than. He was one of the best players ever that also happened to have his career cut short by injuries, not just some dude that couldn't stay healthy.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:25 PM
  #57
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,513
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
Many people believe he is one of the best players of all-time, even with the injury history.

Lindros will get into the HHoF; it's hockey politicking that will determine when it happens, though.
I'm not so sure many people believe that. They may think that he was one of the most talented or could have been one of the best players of all time. It is hard to argue that someone who played the equivalent of about nine and a half seasons over a fifteen year period, with the equivalent of about two and a half of those being average to below average (his last four years or so), is one of the best players of all time. So basically you have a nine and a half year career. Seven great seasons. Two and a half average to below average seasons. And that is one of the best players of all time? I just don't see it. I grew up watching Lindros. I saw his dominance. I also saw the rest (contract disputes, refusing to play for QC, etc). I also have read things like Keith Jones' book where he talks about how Lindros was a great player but a lousy teammate. These are all things that go into consideration when voting for the HOF.

I have to stress again that I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. The guy could easily be in the HOF. I don't think he should be and I wouldn't vote for him. Am I going to complain if he gets in? Absolutely not, because like I have said, I understand the argument for his induction, I just don't agree with it.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:29 PM
  #58
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,513
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
People aren't talking about inducting Lindros just because he's the only one around.
Didn't you just say that: "If there were an identical player who didn't miss games, sure. He should get in first. But, there isn't. There isn't really anyone waiting for the HOF who is like Lindros." Maybe I am reading that wrong?

Quote:
They talk about inducting him because, like you said, he's a truly great player. He's a one-of-a-kind player who was dominant and had a HOF level career.
But there are plenty of truly great players that are not HOF worthy. Truly great, to me, means you are consistently playing. Not playing half seasons throughout your career.

Quote:
ing a player because he didn't have perfect health is nit-picking, especially in a high contact sport.
It is 100% not nitpicking. It is not like Lindros had small issues. He never played a full season. Only came close a handful of times.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:32 PM
  #59
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,513
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
DFF,

Look at the list of Hall of Famers and see how many you would say Lindros was better than. He was one of the best players ever that also happened to have his career cut short by injuries, not just some dude that couldn't stay healthy.
There are plenty of players that I think are great players and better than some HOFers that aren't in the HOF and never will get in. Ron Hextall I think was a better goalie than most in his era. He isn't in and never will get in. And he doesn't deserve to get in. Lindros is on that list too. He is better than a lot of players, but he did not have a HOF career. Like I said, you don't let guys in because they could have been one of the best. They have to actually be one of the best.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:33 PM
  #60
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,162
vCash: 500
Oh, and the main reason he isn't in is because he burned a lot of bridges behind the scenes. It's not his injuries or play. It's nonsense BS and wounded pride in the wrong places.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:39 PM
  #61
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,513
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Oh, and the main reason he isn't in is because he burned a lot of bridges behind the scenes. It's not his injuries or play. It's nonsense BS and wounded pride in the wrong places.
That's a bit of a cop out. It's an easy, un-provable way to make it seem like my arguments are not valid.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:44 PM
  #62
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Didn't you just say that: "If there were an identical player who didn't miss games, sure. He should get in first. But, there isn't. There isn't really anyone waiting for the HOF who is like Lindros." Maybe I am reading that wrong?
If there were a player who was identical to Lindros in every way, the difference being that he had better longevity, only then should he get in before Lindros. It's like the 3rd or 4th tie breaker. It's really low in the list of considerations, is what I'm trying to point out. A player with lesser numbers and achievements but better longevity shouldn't get a nod just because they played a few extra seasons.



Quote:
But there are plenty of truly great players that are not HOF worthy. Truly great, to me, means you are consistently playing. Not playing half seasons throughout your career.
Really? Go look at past NHL players. Let me know how many of them are on Lindros' level and aren't already in the HOF or HOF worthy.



Quote:
It is 100% not nitpicking. It is not like Lindros had small issues. He never played a full season. Only came close a handful of times.
It is, though. It didn't make him any less skilled or any less dominant. It sure didn't detract from Bure in the voters' eyes, and Lindros was a much better overall player.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:44 PM
  #63
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
There are plenty of players that I think are great players and better than some HOFers that aren't in the HOF and never will get in. Ron Hextall I think was a better goalie than most in his era. He isn't in and never will get in. And he doesn't deserve to get in. Lindros is on that list too. He is better than a lot of players, but he did not have a HOF career. Like I said, you don't let guys in because they could have been one of the best. They have to actually be one of the best.
What makes a hall of fame career then? Simply playing 1000+ games and being above average? That's what a lot of the hall is made up of, where as Lindros was one of the very best players ever, who didn't get to play as many games.

We're not talking about a very good player here, he was legitimately one of the most talented ever. If he had played 1200+ games you're probably looking at a consensus Top 10-15 player ever. That's why he belongs in.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:46 PM
  #64
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
That's a bit of a cop out. It's an easy, un-provable way to make it seem like my arguments are not valid.

Are you honestly saying the politics aren't important or don't matter? By all accounts they absolutely do. It gets talked about by people in the know and in the media all the time.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:49 PM
  #65
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 16,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I'm not so sure many people believe that. They may think that he was one of the most talented or could have been one of the best players of all time. It is hard to argue that someone who played the equivalent of about nine and a half seasons over a fifteen year period, with the equivalent of about two and a half of those being average to below average (his last four years or so), is one of the best players of all time. So basically you have a nine and a half year career. Seven great seasons. Two and a half average to below average seasons. And that is one of the best players of all time? I just don't see it. I grew up watching Lindros. I saw his dominance. I also saw the rest (contract disputes, refusing to play for QC, etc). I also have read things like Keith Jones' book where he talks about how Lindros was a great player but a lousy teammate. These are all things that go into consideration when voting for the HOF.
The bold is rarely, if ever, considered. There are a lot of lousy teammates in the HHoF; there are a lot of *******s, too. On ice performance is, ultimately, all that matters. Sometimes voters hold a grudge for a while, but players who deserve to get in based on their on ice performance almost always get in... especially if they're from North America.

It all comes down to whether or not enough people believe that Lindros derserves it. I believe he'll get in eventually because even guys who hated Lindros as a person (like Clarke) recognize his talent.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:52 PM
  #66
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,513
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
What makes a hall of fame career then? Simply playing 1000+ games and being above average? That's what a lot of the hall is made up of, where as Lindros was one of the very best players ever, who didn't get to play as many games.

We're not talking about a very good player here, he was legitimately one of the most talented ever. If he had played 1200+ games you're probably looking at a consensus Top 10-15 player ever. That's why he belongs in.
Every single case is different. You can't define HOF career. If you could we would already know who was being inducted. But I can at least tell you that for me, a HOFer has to be one of the best of all time, not just a guy who could have been if not for the injuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Are you honestly saying the politics aren't important or don't matter? By all accounts they absolutely do. It gets talked about by people in the know and in the media all the time.
I'm sure to an extent it comes in to play, but that isn't the only reason he isn't in. If he was a perfect saint that the NHL loved, sure maybe he would be in becuase everyone loved him. But if he was just a guy who was injured a lot (meaning no off-ice/locker room issues but also no off-ice/locker room positives), I still don't think I'd vote for him.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 01:54 PM
  #67
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,513
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
The bold is rarely, if ever, considered. There are a lot of lousy teammates in the HHoF; there are a lot of *******s, too. On ice performance is, ultimately, all that matters. Sometimes voters hold a grudge for a while, but players who deserve to get in based on their on ice performance almost always get in... especially if they're from North America.

It all comes down to whether or not enough people believe that Lindros derserves it. I believe he'll get in eventually because even guys who hated Lindros as a person (like Clarke) recognize his talent.
You are right. If he was just a lousy teammate or if he just had some off ice issues it probably wouldn't be a big deal. But he was all of those thigns that took away from his legacy. You can't just ignore them because they all happened. Stats-wise He had a great PPG pace. That is pretty much it. On the ice, when healthy (which was only about half his career), he was dominant. But like I said before, I think he wasn't on the ice enough to earn him a spot in the HOF.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:01 PM
  #68
Appleyard
Registered User
 
Appleyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manc/Shef/Utrecht
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 9,706
vCash: 500
Can anyone name a better retired player over a 700 game period than Lindros who is not in the Hall of Fame? (actually, a better player with 400 or 500 still works... probably even lower tbh.)

Nope... because there are non. Forsberg comes close, and he will be in anyway.

This fallacy of the 'bar being lowered' in regards to number of games played is non existent... it is an absurd slippery slope argument.

No more of 'these' kind of guys will get in, because apart from Lindros and Forsberg there are non.

Tim Kerr, Rick Martin and Ziggy Palffy are the only other guys retired in the same situation, over a PPG but with a shortened career. Would anyone mistake those guys for being in the same class as Lindros and Forsberg? No. They were no where near as good, had no where near the impact on the game, had few awards, had less PPG and were not 'superstars'.

Appleyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:05 PM
  #69
Hiesenberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 4,793
vCash: 500
Chelios & Neidermeyer (no brainers)

Hiesenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:06 PM
  #70
Hiesenberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 4,793
vCash: 500
Shanahan...those are the only 3 players.

Hiesenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:07 PM
  #71
Hiesenberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 4,793
vCash: 500
Geraldine Heaney

Hiesenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:07 PM
  #72
OriginJM
watch out im smart
 
OriginJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,347
vCash: 500
how anticlimactic

OriginJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:08 PM
  #73
Hiesenberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 4,793
vCash: 500
And finally our very own Fred Shero

Hiesenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:10 PM
  #74
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,162
vCash: 500
It is about damned time for Shero.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:13 PM
  #75
RJ8812*
Hellooooo ladiiiies
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,092
vCash: 500
about 30 years too late for Shero

RJ8812* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:15 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.