Forsberg, Modano, Blake and Hasek chosen by the Hall

[Vanflyer]

Efff Points per game averages. Lindros was a freaking force of nature on Skates. He was a bigger version of Cam Neely with better passing and Hockey IQ.

 

Its a bit unclear to me how Forsberg is a shoe-in and not Lindros. They there stats are nearly identical across the board, with two exceptions: Lindros had double the pims and Forsberg had double the rings (though truthfully Forsberg had not much to do with the second due to ruptured spleen. 

 

But, both players are nearly a 1.17 ppg in playoffs. I just don't get how every gaga over Forsberg was an obvious no-brainer and Lindros is / was not.  I really don't mind black so much. We are talking a .7 ppg player in both regular season and playoffs. Thats pretty darn impressive to me. Blakes numbers are very near Ray Bourques (Bourques were higher because he played signicantly longer, but the ppg was about the same). 

[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.

About 25 years ago, I adapted it for hockey, have always found it useful, and maybe others here will like it, too.

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... Eric Lindros:

 

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?
Yes, Lindros was commonly in that discussion. (1)

 

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?
Yes, same as above. (2)

 

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

Too many to list here. (3)

 

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

Lindros led the league in scoring in 1995. (4)

 

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

Yes. Lindros led the playoffs in scoring during the Flyers 1996 Finals appearance. (5)

 

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

No.

 

7. Was he ever a team Captain?

Yes, from 1994 to 2000. (6)

 

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

No.

 

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

Lindros had a very small handfull of Selke votes over the years, but no, he wasn't considered excellent by many.

 

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

Absolutely. (7)

 

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

No, Lindros' concussion problems meant that he was finished as an impact player by the time he was 29.

 

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

1st AS in '95, 2nd AS in '96 (8)

 

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

Of the ten most statistically similar players, 7 are in the HOF,  and the three who aren't (Thornton, Iginla, St Louis) may well end up there. (9)

 

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

Won the Hart and Lindsay in 1995. (10)

 

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!)

I see nothing to indicate a point here.

 

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

I don't think so. If anything, controversy followed him everywhere, since before he was even a junior.

 

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, there was nothing new here.

 

---

 

So, Lindros ends up with 10 points (as I see it) using this system, which is a very good case.

Edited June 25, 2014 by JR Ewing
Had listed 7 points twice!

[AJgoal]

Actually ten. You listed 7 twice. Nice evaluation process, JR

[JR Ewing]

Actually ten. You listed 7 twice. Nice evaluation process, JR

 

Ack! Thanks for letting me know.   

[yave1964]

Yeah....just stop it right there. You make it sound like he had the hype - and disappointing numbers - of Falloon or Daigle. He didn't deliver ultimately, but his career was better than words like "stole his paycheck" or "squandered" indicate. I think you can criticize him - a lot of which I'd probably agree with - without saying something that dumb.

IMHO Lindros the player had one of the top 5 to 10 skill sets of all time, and didn't have even one of the top 100 careers. Injuries? Sure. a lot of it he simply wasted his career. When he broke in I could not think of a way that he would not be a HOFer, now I cannot think of a way that you could justify putting him in. Was he Falloon or Daigle? Of course not. But you don't see anyone advocating them for the hall either. He coulda woulda shoulda been one of the all time greats and for reasons that I can only blame on him didn't. In my opinion no team with Lindros and all of his baggage could have won a cup. The Flyers, with Forsberg, Hextall, ect... would have likely won a cup during that era. Lindros quite simply IMHO was not a winner. I would never want him on my team under any circumstances.

[yave1964]

@JR Ewing

I am a huge Bill James fan as well. His wonderfully overlooked book, Whatever happened to the Hall of Fame is a must read.

He brings the case of Dick Allen up in that book, a fan wrote bringing up Allen's numbers as being Hall worthy (keep in mind this is before the Roid era). James said, after the career is over and time passes, all that is left is the black and white numbers and to a lot of the voters that is either all they remember and the other stuff becomes blurred.  James then made the case against Allen, most of it boiling down to the teams he played for not only never won but for the most part were better after he left.

  Lindros and his family, ugh, what they did to the draft, what they did to the Nordique organization is unforgivable. Start with that.

  The ulcers and alcohol that Bobby Clarke had to have went through for this guy and his family, add that in.

  The team never won. The circus that was Team Lindros was a bigger distraction than the team could handle.

  The trade for Forsberg, Ricci, 15 million bucks, Duchesne, Hextall, picks, ect.. kept the Flyers from winning a cup. IMHO that bunch added with the remaining talent would have won a cup.

  The way his family reacted every time little Eric got a booboo was sickening. How soon people forget.

 

  In the Bill James book he says that Alen, more than any player in the game did more to cause his team NOT to win. He says that alone should forever keep him out of the hall. I think every single word written about Alllen in James book equally applies to Lindros. James says that if Allen is a Hall of Famer, that he is a lugnut. Same with Lindros. He did more to cause his team NOT to win than any player of his generation, stats be damned. Individually, great stats, I watched him with both eyes and jaw hanging open in fear whenever he had the puck. Team wise, he may have been the worst teammate in the history of the game and that includes Billie Tibbets and Steve Durbano. Hall of famer my rear.

Edited June 25, 2014 by yave1964

[JR Ewing]

@JR Ewing

I am a huge Bill James fan as well. His wonderfully overlooked book, Whatever happened to the Hall of Fame is a must read.

He brings the case of Dick Allen up in that book, a fan wrote bringing up Allen's numbers as being Hall worthy (keep in mind this is before the Roid era). James said, after the career is over and time passes, all that is left is the black and white numbers and to a lot of the voters that is either all they remember and the other stuff becomes blurred.  James then made the case against Allen, most of it boiling down to the teams he played for not only never won but for the most part were better after he left.

  Lindros and his family, ugh, what they did to the draft, what they did to the Nordique organization is unforgivable. Start with that.

  The ulcers and alcohol that Bobby Clarke had to have went through for this guy and his family, add that in.

  The team never won. The circus that was Team Lindros was a bigger distraction than the team could handle.

  The trade for Forsberg, Ricci, 15 million bucks, Duchesne, Hextall, picks, ect.. kept the Flyers from winning a cup. IMHO that bunch added with the remaining talent would have won a cup.

  The way his family reacted every time little Eric got a booboo was sickening. How soon people forget.

 

  In the Bill James book he says that Alen, more than any player in the game did more to cause his team NOT to win. He says that alone should forever keep him out of the hall. I think every single word written about Alllen in James book equally applies to Lindros. James says that if Allen is a Hall of Famer, that he is a lugnut. Same with Lindros. He did more to cause his team NOT to win than any player of his generation, stats be damned. Individually, great stats, I watched him with both eyes and jaw hanging open in fear whenever he had the puck. Team wise, he may have been the worst teammate in the history of the game and that includes Billie Tibbets and Steve Durbano. Hall of famer my rear.

 

I read that one, too. Great book. There are very few athletes who (IMO) had a presence so destructive and distracting, that they were a detriment to their team. Dick Allen would be one. I remember in Jame's "New Historical Baseball Abstract", he referred to Allen as perhaps the most selfish and immature player in history. Ouch.

 

As far as Lindros goes, I don't know as I'd really put him in that groups of guys. You obviously have strong ideas about that aspect of his life, and that's fine. Carl Lindros WAS a pain in the ass, but I'm also left with the fact that the Flyers organization DID treat Eric poorly, regarding the head injuries. I dunno... I'm not really for keeping players out of the HOF for things which happen outside of the purview of the sport itself. Gambling would be a reason, and I could probably think of a few others given the time.

[JackStraw]

I read that one, too. Great book. There are very few athletes who (IMO) had a presence so destructive and distracting, that they were a detriment to their team. Dick Allen would be one. I remember in Jame's "New Historical Baseball Abstract", he referred to Allen as perhaps the most selfish and immature player in history. Ouch.

 

I grew up watching Allen play for the Phillies. Lindros is not even in the same universe as team distraction. Maybe nobody is/was. That said, I was a huge fan of Allen. Very few players ever could hit a baseball like that guy.

 

Bill James has piece on Allen's HoF chances on his website: http://www.billjamesonline.com/article914/

 

Edit: the piece wasn't written by James himself.

Edited June 25, 2014 by JackStraw

[Vanflyer]

Was he Falloon or Daigle?

 

Sadly both of whom played for the Flyers at one point! Ouch! 

Edited June 26, 2014 by Vanflyer

[fanaticV3.0]

IMHO Lindros the player had one of the top 5 to 10 skill sets of all time, and didn't have even one of the top 100 careers. Injuries? Sure. a lot of it he simply wasted his career. When he broke in I could not think of a way that he would not be a HOFer, now I cannot think of a way that you could justify putting him in. Was he Falloon or Daigle? Of course not. But you don't see anyone advocating them for the hall either. He coulda woulda shoulda been one of the all time greats and for reasons that I can only blame on him didn't. In my opinion no team with Lindros and all of his baggage could have won a cup. The Flyers, with Forsberg, Hextall, ect... would have likely won a cup during that era. Lindros quite simply IMHO was not a winner. I would never want him on my team under any circumstances.

 

It's stuff like this where your argument just completely falls apart. I have a lot of problems with him as a player and leader, but you take it to absurd levels.

 

In what universe are Ron Hextall and Peter Forsberg the key to the Flyers woes? Ron Hextall, as a player, was the key to nothing. Let's just get that out of the way right there. Fiery guy, fan favorite, nice enough player, but outside of that run in 87, that man was not a cup caliber goalie (and the rest of his career showed that).

 

Peter Forsberg here - at that time - is no different than Lindros here during the same time period. Both men are immediately thrust into the spotlight and expected to bring a dead organization back to life. Lindros did that. He took a pathetic franchise - and I can vouch for how bad attendance was during that era, because I used to walk up to the ticket window the night of games and get great seats - Forsberg did not. Forsberg had the benefit of playing with multiple all-time greats and when he did venture out on his own, he couldn't even create a fraction of that success.

 

When I look back on his career the first word that comes to my mind is disappointing. It's the very first thing I think of and what I think defines his career. I also think he didn't play well with others. But I don't outright deny - like you - how dominant he was, his stats (ppg particularly), the fact that he single handily resurrected a whole franchise, had injury problems, did not have great talent around him (in part because of his ego).

[Vanflyer]

did not have great talent around him (in part because of his ego).

 

I am not sure I agree with that. Truthfully, I don't think he ever had the right fabric to be captain. Your best player does not need to be your captain (dustin brown says hello). I think Eric Lindros would have been 100% content to be second fiddle (or at least not the Captain). I think of Crosby in the same vein. Let guys like Crosby / Lindros just go play. Get someone else to be the anchor / rudder as far as the leadership goes. I always got the sense that Lindros just wanted to be one of the guys. But his parents, his enormous talent, early captaincy and enormous expectations easily alienated him from that possibility. 

[fanaticV3.0]

I am not sure I agree with that. Truthfully, I don't think he ever had the right fabric to be captain. Your best player does not need to be your captain (dustin brown says hello). I think Eric Lindros would have been 100% content to be second fiddle (or at least not the Captain). I think of Crosby in the same vein. Let guys like Crosby / Lindros just go play. Get someone else to be the anchor / rudder as far as the leadership goes. I always got the sense that Lindros just wanted to be one of the guys. But his parents, his enormous talent, early captaincy and enormous expectations easily alienated him from that possibility. 

 

Any guy who refuses to play for an organization before his first big league game has an ego. You can't pull a move like that and not have at least a little inflated sense of your own value.

 

And if you are going to blame his parents for him being alienated, you gotta blame the grown man who allowed that to happen too.

 

I do think he was given a lot of responsibility at a very young age, but you bring that kind of stuff on yourself when you think so highly of yourself you think you can dictate which team you play for before a single NHL game. I do think that he lacked talent around him and despite that, still did pretty well for himself. He could take over a game when the mood struck him. He also had legitimate injury issues. He was a force to be reckoned with, but also cracked very easily at times (but I freely admit he did a lot on his own as well).

[yave1964]

@fanaticV3.0

  I am not an advocate of Neely for the Hall, but a simple question for you, why have Neely and Forsberg who put up similar numbers during their careers been chosen for the hall and Lindros is on the outside?

  It is because of the other stuff. The stuff that did not happen on the ice. It is relevant and plays a factor in the voters minds. He is on the outside looking in because of the things that people without black and orange blinders remember.

  World class talent? Absolutely.

  Hall of fame statistics? Arguable, flip a coin. His type of numbers will likely eventually get him in but not necessarily. Players with better numbers are still on the outside looking in, but players with worse numbers are in.

  Is it only the numbers that should be/ are considered? Absolutely not. The whole picture must be and is looked at. In his case, it counts against him to a tremendous degree. He didn't exactly make friends with the writers and the people who vote for these things.

Clarke is now a member of the selection committee, in spite of what he says in public I cannot see him casting a vote or pulling hard for Eric for the hall. Others on the committee include Brian Burke, Scotty Bowman, Colin Campbell and Bill Torrey, a bunch of no nonsense executives. Retired players on the committee include peers such as Mike Gartner, Luc Robitaille, Lanny McDonald, and Peter Stastny.

  The way the committee is set up, he would require 14 of 18 votes. I believe he is such a devisive character that to get 78 percent of the voters to tab him in  agiven year will be difficult at best. From what I have read, Serge Savard and Pat Quinn who just left the committee were both advocates for his selection. Losing those two votes hurts him.

  I think if he is ever going to get in it will be next year. Nick Lidstrom is the only sure fire first ballot HOFer joining the ranks, along with guys with their own set of cases for and against, Mark Recchi, Sergei Federov, Jeremy Roenick. After Lidstrom the class is weak, one of the weakest in years. Lindros has as good of a case as anyone not named Lidstrom, he has been waiting five years, if Clarke really does push for him than Lindros very well might and even should make it next year.

 

  I don't like him, I feel what he was versus what he could have been is the widest chasm in league history. The fact that he still put up a near hall of fame career says something, though I am not sure what.

[fanaticV3.0]

@fanaticV3.0

  I am not an advocate of Neely for the Hall, but a simple question for you, why have Neely and Forsberg who put up similar numbers during their careers been chosen for the hall and Lindros is on the outside?

  It is because of the other stuff. The stuff that did not happen on the ice. It is relevant and plays a factor in the voters minds. He is on the outside looking in because of the things that people without black and orange blinders remember.

  World class talent? Absolutely.

  Hall of fame statistics? Arguable, flip a coin. His type of numbers will likely eventually get him in but not necessarily. Players with better numbers are still on the outside looking in, but players with worse numbers are in.

  Is it only the numbers that should be/ are considered? Absolutely not. The whole picture must be and is looked at. In his case, it counts against him to a tremendous degree. He didn't exactly make friends with the writers and the people who vote for these things.

Clarke is now a member of the selection committee, in spite of what he says in public I cannot see him casting a vote or pulling hard for Eric for the hall. Others on the committee include Brian Burke, Scotty Bowman, Colin Campbell and Bill Torrey, a bunch of no nonsense executives. Retired players on the committee include peers such as Mike Gartner, Luc Robitaille, Lanny McDonald, and Peter Stastny.

  The way the committee is set up, he would require 14 of 18 votes. I believe he is such a devisive character that to get 78 percent of the voters to tab him in  agiven year will be difficult at best. From what I have read, Serge Savard and Pat Quinn who just left the committee were both advocates for his selection. Losing those two votes hurts him.

  I think if he is ever going to get in it will be next year. Nick Lidstrom is the only sure fire first ballot HOFer joining the ranks, along with guys with their own set of cases for and against, Mark Recchi, Sergei Federov, Jeremy Roenick. After Lidstrom the class is weak, one of the weakest in years. Lindros has as good of a case as anyone not named Lidstrom, he has been waiting five years, if Clarke really does push for him than Lindros very well might and even should make it next year.

 

  I don't like him, I feel what he was versus what he could have been is the widest chasm in league history. The fact that he still put up a near hall of fame career says something, though I am not sure what.

 

 

Nooo, you don't say?

 

Being liked by you or anybody else has nothing to do with anything. The HOF is about recognizing the player, not the human being. Your dislike of him reaches the level of obsession when you come up with conspiracy theories like saying Clarke would never vote for him, despite his public support for the man.

[yave1964]

Nooo, you don't say?

 

Being liked by you or anybody else has nothing to do with anything. The HOF is about recognizing the player, not the human being. Your dislike of him reaches the level of obsession when you come up with conspiracy theories like saying Clarke would never vote for him, despite his public support for the man.

Done with you. I just pointed out the case for his election in the next cycle, (a weak class, ect..) and you want to continue being, well, rather a bit of a douche. I guess I will just agree with you. You win. Lindros is the greatest player ever, maybe even better than Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr Combined. My apologies, I am even going to write a letter to king Eric himself letting him know that I am wrong, the Hall of fame voters (for 5 years running now) are wrong, the Nordiques brought it all upon themselves, the league needs to go back and award the Flyers the cup retroactively for 1997 and Scott Stevens, wherever he might be, needs to be hunted down and shot like a dog. Hope that helps.

[yave1964]

  @fanaticV3.0

Oh and I do not have an obsession with Lindros. Havent given him a thought in years, he has been irrelevant in every way for a long time, that includes the last five or six years of his career. Have a nice day. Instead of being, well like I said earlier, how about bringing something to the discourse, a sensible argument for his selection rather than attacking those who disagree with you?

[JackStraw]

He is on the outside looking in because of the things that people without black and orange blinders remember.

 

Those things may very well be the reason he hasn't gotten in, but don't for a minute think that those of us who were Flyers fans during that time don't remember. Like I said, I breathed a huge sigh of relief the day the Flyers traded him away.

[yave1964]

Those things may very well be the reason he hasn't gotten in, but don't for a minute think that those of us who were Flyers fans during that time don't remember. Like I said, I breathed a huge sigh of relief the day the Flyers traded him away.

  I felt the same way about Federov when he left for Anaheim.

[JackStraw]

I don't like him, I feel what he was versus what he could have been is the widest chasm in league history.

 

I have a hunch that this has a lot to do with it, even if it's only in the (far) back of voters' minds. The expectations were so great (probably unfairly so) that the fact that his career was cut short and plagued with injury and controversy might make his accomplishments seem less than they really were. I just don't think the off-ice stuff should be a factor. Pete Rose betting on baseball games while he was a player/manager is one thing, having parents who were a pita is another.

Edited June 26, 2014 by JackStraw

[yave1964]

I have a hunch that this has a lot to do with it, even if it's only in the (far) back of voters' minds. The expectations were so great (probably unfairly so) that the fact that his career was cut short and plagued with injury and controversy might make his accomplishments seem less than they really were. I just don't think the off-ice stuff should be a factor. Pete Rose betting on baseball games while he was a player/manager is one thing, having parents who were a pita is another.

Absolutely couldn't agree more that his parents should not be considered-but they are. I agree it is not as bad as Pete Rose. I do believe the off ice stuff is a huge factor. I believe that most of the time the off ice stuff should not and will not matter, but in Lindros case, there is just so much that if you have two equal candidates, Lindros V Neely, Lindros V Forsberg, Lindros V Roenick, the one with the massive amount of baggage will get passed over much more often than not.

[fanaticV3.0]

Done with you. I just pointed out the case for his election in the next cycle, (a weak class, ect..) and you want to continue being, well, rather a bit of a douche. I guess I will just agree with you. You win. Lindros is the greatest player ever, maybe even better than Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr Combined. My apologies, I am even going to write a letter to king Eric himself letting him know that I am wrong, the Hall of fame voters (for 5 years running now) are wrong, the Nordiques brought it all upon themselves, the league needs to go back and award the Flyers the cup retroactively for 1997 and Scott Stevens, wherever he might be, needs to be hunted down and shot like a dog. Hope that helps.

 

Don't let the fact that I'm talking with another poster - on this very thread no less - about how I think he had an ego, was not a great team player, and the first words that come to my mind when thinking of his career are disappointing, get in the way of your rant. By all means continue.

 

Your entire argument for him not being in the hall is based the fact that you and others don't like him and you're "done with" (which lasted all of one post) me? Ha! That's rich.

Edited June 26, 2014 by fanaticV3.0

[yave1964]

Don't let the fact that I'm talking with another poster - on this very thread no less - about how I think he had an ego, was not a great team player, and the first words that come to my mind when thinking of his career are disappointing, get in the way of your rant. By all means continue.

 

Your entire argument for him not being in the hall is based the fact that you and others don't like him and you're "done with" (which lasted all of one post) me? Ha! That's rich.

Okay, my case against Lindros has nothing to do with not liking him. Here goes.

 

 He disrespected the game with his BS that he pulled with the Nordiques.

 

 The trade that the Flyers made for him actually hurt the franchise in the long run.

 

 His parents. Yes, they should not count, but they do. To many voters, they certainly do.

 

 He put up damn good numbers, was a good scorer in the highest scoring era of all time, but his career was short and while his numbers are similar to Forsberg, Forsbergs were slightly better and he won 2 cups.

 

 Lindros was a disruptive force who hurt his own teams growth,

 

 He did win the Hart once, in a strike shortened season. Other than that he only received votes 4 other seasons and never finished higher than 3rd.

 

 He only played 760 games for his entire career, a very short career for a HOFer of the modern era.

 

His teams never won.

 

 Bobby Clarke put up with so much, the soap opera was appalling. If he really is campaigning for him, he must be the most forgiving man since Christ.

 

 The injuries, while severe, were a distraction and many wondered (then as now) just how much of it another player might have played through.

 

  The perception that he was going to put up numbers equal to the immortals of the game did not match the reality.

 

 Since his eligibility most years better players were on the ballot and forced him down the list. 

 

  There it is, a concise short list of why I feel he is not yet in. Again, I think he has to be considered a frontrunner for the honor next year, after Lidstrom there are a bunch of players with their own set of baggage. His best shor since he came upon the ballot has to be next year.

 

  I apologize for taking some comments personal. I understand that even after all of this time he is a polarizing subject, and to start it on a Philadelphia forum and not expect some heated debate would be foolish. I do not have an obsession with him, I go to Toronto every year or two and visit the Hall every time I am there, I suppose if he gets in I will continue to do so.

[JackStraw]

Bobby Clarke put up with so much, the soap opera was appalling. If he really is campaigning for him, he must be the most forgiving man since Christ

 

Well, this was is what Clarke said in a 2007 interview:

 

"Yes, based on his ability to play the game and based on his contributions as a player," said Clarke, who was Lindros' boyhood idol.

"I think you have to separate all the crap that went on. Particularly when he played for the Flyers, it was just outstanding, dominant hockey — the first of the huge, big men with small man's skill."

"The standards that were put on this kid were very unfair," Clarke said. "Nobody could live up to those standards, and I think he was awful special as a player and awful good.

"But he wasn't Wayne Gretzky and he wasn't Mario Lemieux. He was a different type of player, but had he stayed healthy … he may have been at that standard."

"He was an easy guy to have around, didn't cause problems, and didn't really demand anything extra for himself," Clarke said. "He didn't cause any problems — it was his family that ended up causing problems, between Eric and myself or between Eric and the team."

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/eric-lindros-is-a-hall-of-famer-clarke-1.645087

[fanaticV3.0]

Okay, my case against Lindros has nothing to do with not liking him. Here goes.

 

 He disrespected the game with his BS that he pulled with the Nordiques.

 

 The trade that the Flyers made for him actually hurt the franchise in the long run.

 

 His parents. Yes, they should not count, but they do. To many voters, they certainly do.

 

 He put up damn good numbers, was a good scorer in the highest scoring era of all time, but his career was short and while his numbers are similar to Forsberg, Forsbergs were slightly better and he won 2 cups.

 

 Lindros was a disruptive force who hurt his own teams growth,

 

 He did win the Hart once, in a strike shortened season. Other than that he only received votes 4 other seasons and never finished higher than 3rd.

 

 He only played 760 games for his entire career, a very short career for a HOFer of the modern era.

 

His teams never won.

 

 Bobby Clarke put up with so much, the soap opera was appalling. If he really is campaigning for him, he must be the most forgiving man since Christ.

 

 The injuries, while severe, were a distraction and many wondered (then as now) just how much of it another player might have played through.

 

  The perception that he was going to put up numbers equal to the immortals of the game did not match the reality.

 

 Since his eligibility most years better players were on the ballot and forced him down the list. 

 

  There it is, a concise short list of why I feel he is not yet in. Again, I think he has to be considered a frontrunner for the honor next year, after Lidstrom there are a bunch of players with their own set of baggage. His best shor since he came upon the ballot has to be next year.

 

  I apologize for taking some comments personal. I understand that even after all of this time he is a polarizing subject, and to start it on a Philadelphia forum and not expect some heated debate would be foolish. I do not have an obsession with him, I go to Toronto every year or two and visit the Hall every time I am there, I suppose if he gets in I will continue to do so.

 

I appreciate the apology.

 

Lindros' personality, his parents, and all three of their relationship with Clarke has nothing to do with anything. It's the Hall of Fame, not Hall of Gossip. I think Pete Rose is a low-life who should never coach again, but the man deserves to be recognized for his on the field accomplishments. The same logic should be applied to Lindros. It should be about his stats, awards, cups (or lack thereof).

[yave1964]

I appreciate the apology.

 

Lindros' personality, his parents, and all three of their relationship with Clarke has nothing to do with anything. It's the Hall of Fame, not Hall of Gossip. I think Pete Rose is a low-life who should never coach again, but the man deserves to be recognized for his on the field accomplishments. The same logic should be applied to Lindros. It should be about his stats, awards, cups (or lack thereof).

But will you agree with me that when you have two fairly equal candidates, such as Neely and Forsberg that the reason they get in is because of the baggage that went along with Lindros? I personally feel everything counts, and apparently the majority of Hockey Hall of Fame voters do as well.