toby91_ca

You are not objective.

I heard someone bring up something interesting today that I hadn't really thought about. He said that Lindros was a guy that you couldn't take your eyes off when he was on the ice....and that's a hall of famer. There are only a handful of players you can say that about. He is right, he was a presence out there, but I still wonder if he did enough. In what I think the HOF should be, I don't think he gets in, but if you look at some of the guys in there, I don't know how you keep him out.

Let's be honest, ignore stats, how many actually think of him as one of the elite goalies over the past 20 years? I can't imagine there are many that do. His number of wins is clearly a benefit from playing with the Wings.

Here is a very interesting stat for you (so far this year): Vinny - 22:28 minutes per game Hank - 22:28 minutes per game That's not a typo, they are getting the same ice time (to the second).

So, Ron was on The Fan 590 today and he suggested that one of the reasons teams do not play a more wide open style of game is because only 16 teams make the playoffs. Obviously there are other reasons, but this is an interesting one that I never thought of and it makes some sense. Now he wasn't suggesting more teams need to make the playoffs, I think he was just stating the way it is. Back when 16 out of 21 teams made the playoffs, they played a more wide open, run and gun game for the most part. Now that only 16 of 30 make the playoffs, each game is so much more serious, guys can't relax and just play, they need to do whatever they can to avoid losing, which means defense first.

What you are describing is decreased offense due to the defensive style of play these days. It has nothing to do with level of talent available.

No, he was GREAT, just not for a long time.

Ciccarelli's ppg stat is still better than Neely's. Dino has other issues that have kept him out. That's what will happen when you need to get voted in. I don't think Lindros should get in, though Lindros at his best is better than most players in there, but if Lindros doesn't get in, they should think about removing players (starting with Neely). This is a joke of course. I think Anderson will probably get elected next year, but you never know. He has less than 500 goals, less than a point per game, but he was clutch, especially in the playoffs. Maybe some think he rode the coattails of others in Edmonton and that's why that haven't voted him in. Really though, there have been much better alternatives to vote for (especially this year's crop).

Actually, Lafontaine is in the HOF, but anyway, you can't even compare his stats to Neely, there is no comparison, whether its totals or per game averages. Lafontaine has more goals, assists and points than Neely, he has a higher goals per game stat and has an astronomically higher points per game stat than Neely.

Well, I can't remember the specifics of the Crosby hype, but I can't imagine anyone truly thought he would challenge Gretzky's scoring record, that would just be poor judgment. I'm sure Gretzky said he thought he could challenge it, but people shouldn't take that too seriously, it was just Wayne's way of saying he thought this guy is a special player. Crosby is already in a pretty good position for people to start thinking he may be able to get to #2 though. At 20 years old, he already has 246 points. If he can average 100pts over the next 15 years (bringing him to 35 years old), he would be at 1746 points. He would then only need to get another 140pts or so past the age of 35 (seems easy enough). Of course, there are far too many variables in place before we should even talk about that. But think about this: Crosby appears to be well on his way to scoring 100+ pts again this year, which will give him 3, 100pt seasons at the age of 20. How many guys have done that migh you ask? No one! Actually, the only players in the history of the game to start their careers with 3 consecutive 100 pt seasons are Gretzky, Lemieux and Stastny. Of course, Stastny started his career at the age of 24, so, he was already more experienced.

His stats in totality may not be great compared to HOFers, but his ppg stat is right up there with the best. Lots of people think not winning the cup is a failure, but that is stupid, since this is a team game. It's not like Basketball, where one guy can make all the difference in the world. If Bourque didn't go to Colorado at the end of his career and win the cup, would he all of a sudden not be worthy of the Hall? I think most of the argument here is whether Lindros is a bust or not, not whether he is worthy of the HOF. He probably didn't last long enough for the HOF, but that doesn't make him a bust.

I agree, that point of view is simply incorrect. The number of actual talented players in the league is vastly greater than when there were 21 teams. Back when there were 21 teams, each team had about 15 or 16 Canadians on the team, maybe a couple of Americans. You didn't see too many Europeans in the league. Basically, the league was only drawing talent from one part of the globe, now they are drawing talent from everywhere. To suggest the talent has been watered down as compared to the 80s is simply incorrect. There were guys the played in the NHL in the 80s that probably wouldn't make the roster in today's game.

He explains it a little in this article (from yesterday). Apparently it had nothing to do with language or culture, it had to do with ownership. And lets face it, that ownership was gone shortly after, so there were issues there. Nice to see that he donated $5 million to the hospital, that's no pocket change. Edit: forgot to include the article http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=222456&hubname=

I didn't catch the whole interview, but I don't think Ron was putting forth any ideas of fixing things. I think he was simply stating why he thought teams play more defensively nowadays. He wasn't suggesting there shoudl be any changes (i.e. more teams in the playoffs). Basically saying, when the number of teams missing the playoffs is increased from 5 to 14, most teams may move away from a wide open style of play because there is just too much on the line.

Ummmm......huh?

I agreed with mostly everything you said, except this. Lindros didn't average 0.6 gpg, unless you are talking about a certain period of time. Also, the list of players that have a better than 0.6 gpg is longer than you suggest. The most notable name missing is Mr. Mike Bossy.

Not really

A few good years? Do you realize that his first 5 years in the league were right up there with the greats? He wasn't able to play a full season in those 5 years, but had the gpg and ppg during those years to have 50 goals and 100 points for those 5 straight years. Actually, if he had of been able to play 82 games a year, his first 8 years would have averaged out to 49 goals, 111 points. I realize that this is based on the per game totals he put up and he wasn't able to play all the games, but that shouldn't diminish what he actually did accomplish. I buy the argument that he didn't do enough to get into the HOF, but to say he is a bust is silly in my opinion.

Bobby Clarke actually gives his vote to Eric for the Hall....surprised the hell out of me. Anyone who calls Lindros a bust is out of their mind. The guy lived up to his potential/hype, no doubt about that. Problem is that he couldn't maintain it. No one will question whether he had HOF ability, the only thing holding him back is the fact that he didn't have longevity. For the record, I don't think he'll get in and in a perfect world I would say he doesn't deserve to get in, however, there is no reason Cam Neely should be in over Lindros.

How would Homer make it more exciting?

Let's at least wait until he plays 9 or 10 games before making any predictions.

Yes and no. There are probably more wins to be had now due to the shootout (inflating some goalie stats perhaps), but with the current environment (salary cap), the league is generally more even than in the past, it will be difficult to see a dynasty, so it is probably harder to win on any given night than it would have been in the past. So, I'm on the side that thinks it is probably harder in today's game than in the past, but slightly offset by the shootout factor.

One of them would have to be involved in the deal simply to maintain a team payroll under the cap. Kind of pointless to discuss though, I can't imagine anything close to this happening.

Yeah, including pre-season, they are 20-1 this year. Way too early think think about them breaking the wins record, still a long way to go before getting there. They would have to fnish the year going 50-18. They are at a pace better than that, but they will obviously not keep that pace.

I'm just checking on the net though, I wouldn't be able to say for sure until I am home later tonight and trying to tune in.