• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

2012 Hall of Fame Class

bustaheims said:
Nik? said:
Although, if I am going to complain...

At their peaks is there anyone who would have taken Bure over Lindros? Both guys had injury shortened careers, one guy has a Hart trophy.

Expressed as per 82 game averages their career numbers are

Bure:  51 g 40 a 91 p
Lindros: 40 g 53 a 93 p

And, you know, maybe a bit of an edge to Lindros in the physicality department.
Click to expand...

I almost certainly go with Lindros. My guess is his snub so far has a little more to do with some off ice issues rather than his on ice play.
Click to expand...

Although it may have no place in determining this individual honor, I think that of late, they're trying to address some lack of Russians and maybe Euros in the hall.
 
Well, of there's one constant here, it's the puzzling ways of this committee... They always somehow seem to make this um, fun (for lack of a better word.) 
 
Nik? said:
Although, if I am going to complain...

At their peaks is there anyone who would have taken Bure over Lindros? Both guys had injury shortened careers, one guy has a Hart trophy.

Expressed as per 82 game averages their career numbers are

Bure:  51 g 40 a 91 p
Lindros: 40 g 53 a 93 p

And, you know, maybe a bit of an edge to Lindros in the physicality department.
Click to expand...

Another similarity is the degree of success in Olympic and WJC tournaments both in personal stats and Olympic medals.

I give the edge to Bure in the pure entertainment value he brought.  What an incredible display of puck control and overall speed and skill. 
 
Sgt said:
Well, of there's one constant here, it's the puzzling ways of this committee... They always somehow seem to make this um, fun (for lack of a better word.)
Click to expand...

Well, that's sort of the nature of the beast when you're talking about entrance into an institution where the qualifications for entry are largely subjective.
 
I look at it this way - if I'm building a team and can choose one of these guys to have for their entire career on my team, the only one I choose Shanahan ahead of is Bure, and, as I said before, that's really only because Bure's career was cut short.
 
I think in the Bure vs Lindros debate, people forget how crazy good Lindros was in the early going. In the years leading up to the draft, his talent was described as "generational." Even in the first years in Philly, he was just so scary. He could hurt you in so many ways. Sure, Bure was awesome too but (I think) people generally remember one Bure and two Lindros'. I wonder if people really remember how good Lindros was.
 
hap_leaf said:
Another similarity is the degree of success in Olympic and WJC tournaments both in personal stats and Olympic medals.
Click to expand...

I guess. Although Lindros has a gold medal. Bure doesn't even have one of the phoney baloney USSR gold medals.

hap_leaf said:
I give the edge to Bure in the pure entertainment value he brought.  What an incredible display of puck control and overall speed and skill.
Click to expand...

Bure was exciting to watch, Lindros demolished people.
 
bustaheims said:
I look at it this way - if I'm building a team and can choose one of these guys to have for their entire career on my team, the only one I choose Shanahan ahead of is Bure, and, as I said before, that's really only because Bure's career was cut short.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Oates is a tricky case. His career numbers are great on the surface but I think an argument can be made that he had the biggest pre and post trap splits.
 
bustaheims said:
I look at it this way - if I'm building a team and can choose one of these guys to have for their entire career on my team, the only one I choose Shanahan ahead of is Bure, and, as I said before, that's really only because Bure's career was cut short.
Click to expand...

I'd still take Shanahan because he played in both ends of the ice. He was a complete player but still put up a bunch of points. Bure's teams paid for a number of his goals. Beyond that, I think Shanahan had the edge in leadership, his contributions to the game beyond on the ice (which is a HHoF consideration) and physical play.

Bure was an exceptional scoring winger - maybe the best of his style ever - so I don't have a problem with his induction.
 
Just to illustrate the point, and I know these are imperfect measurements, but here's a comparison between Oates and Lindros:

       
                                    Lindros                      Oates
Major Awards:                  2                              0
End of Year AS teams:      2                              1
AS game appearances:      7                              5

Personally, a HOF should favour peak greatness over lengthy careers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top