Bure versus Lindros for HHOF

[Kyle McMahon]

Thank you, I'd take Bure with no cups, scoring 50 in his sleep, rather than Anderson with "his" six cups any day. No GM in their right mind would take Anderson over Bure, who's only misfortune other than his injuries was not being luck enough to play for a contender after 1994. I don't know why he's labeled as a selfish player just because he was the only one on his team putting the puck in the net. Had he played his career for Detroit, I think his legacy would be a lot different. It just goes to show a player can do everything in their power to be the best but if they don't play for the right team its often all for not.

No GM building a team from scratch would. But if you went to Doug Wilson, Ray Shero, or Stan Bowman right this minute and gave them the choice of adding Bure or Anderson, I bet all three take Anderson.

 

[Briere Up There*]

I agree with adding a supplemental scorer with intangibles over a pure scorer because those teams already have scoring. But how many teams have that luxury? Bure might not fit on an overcrowded offensive team like Washington but let's face it there are more teams that want Bure. He's the better player.

 

[Clown Baby*]

This isn't in relation to their on ice play but Lindros just might be held back from the HHOF because of his actions particularly towards Quebec. The reason being is that he has such a marginal resume to begin with that he isn't a lock. If the committee simply doesn't want him in because of his character they could do that and we'd be none the wiser. Because there are certainly holes in his career that one can point towards.

The problem I have with Lindros is that he did this twice. He did it with SS Marie in the OHL in 1989. He forced them to trade him to Oshawa. He then did it with Quebec in 1991 forcing them to............well make a trade that benefitted them. The common denominator is Lindros and his parents. IMO you should be honoured and proud to be a part of the NHL and never take for granted that a team wants your services because a whole slew of 18 year olds would gladly take your spot. I never agreed with Lindros doing that, he was an 18 PROSPECT, the NHL owed him nothing

It's a shame Lindros didn't think to threaten SOO with defecting to the NCAA, like a handful of CHL players do every year. I mean, if you're going to pick and choose which team you'll eventually play for, at least be discrete about it!

 

[Big Phil]

hockey is a team sport, and you win with your team, but if you're going in as an individual aren't you supposed to be going in specifically on what you did as an individual player? bure has the edge as an individual player ... he led the league in goals three times, nuff said

anderson was a cog on a great team, well good for him, stefan persson was too

Stefan Persson? 7 goals in 102 games and this is someone who is comparable to Anderson in the playoffs? Not even close.

Personally I do look at the individual player of Glenn Anderson. The man was a legend in the postseason but his regular season play was good. He hit 100+ points three times, he was a top 10 scorer once and 11th another time, he scored 54 goals twice which put him 3rd and 4th those seasons. Not bad.

But his postseason is what sticks out. He has 17 game winning goals in the playoffs. Good for a tie for 5th. As many as Mike Bossy and more than Guy Lafleur and Peter Forsberg. You just simply cannot keep a guy out of the HHOF who has such a great playoff record. Many on here claim he should have won the Conn Smythe in 1987. He was the guy who broke the Flyers back in Game 7 of that year with the insurance goal late in the game. He did that ALL the time. When you think of him you think of a guy who drove to the net and cut inside before putting a shot on net. He was on two Canada Cup teams on the difficult RW position. And to be honest, there are a couple of years where Anderson could have been an all-star at RW.

The guy has 93 playoff goals. Now that is a lot of rhubarb at the most critical time of year. Only Gretzky, Messier, Kurri and Hull are superior to him there. I can rhyme off a ton of playoff legends that Anderson outscored but the truth is when you are that high on the charts in playoff records and coupled with the regular season resume you have it is impossible to ignore.

If I am a GM who do I build by team around, him or Bure? Well, Bure for sure just on the assumption that his skill can win you games, but if I am to look at their careers it's Anderson without even thinking based on their overall impact and their contribution to winning

 

[Big Phil]

Facts are that Anderson unlike Gretzky, Kurri or Bure, was not at the top of the list of players who would get prime defensive attention during the playoffs. Better overall than Mel "Sudden Death" Hill in OT situations but like Hill benefitting from playing with linemates Cowley and Roy Conacher) that drew defensive attention

Using the same logic - your cup counting has implications for your Gilmour and Oates support. Cannot ignore that combined they have one total Stanley Cup between them.

I am not Cup counting, if that's the case where is Kirk Maltby. Winning a Cup is great, even as a 4th liner, but what I focus on is the CONTRIBUTION a player makes to the cause. The truth is Anderson was money in the bank all the time. He did not have a bad playoff where his teams won, that's telling. He also had some good ones where they lost as well.

Sure Gilmour and Oates have 1 Cup between them. But that's half the story, they also were players who contributed greatly to how far their teams went. Oates performed better than any other forward both times he made his trip to the final. Gilmour is another guy who you rarely felt should shoulder the blame for a playoff loss. At the end of the day Gilmour and Oates have 344 playoff points combined. No one would call them chokers or say they disappeared in the playoffs

 

[Blades of Glory]

I do not know what is being argued anymore. Don't we all agree that Bure was a better player? If someone really is trying to marginalize Glenn Anderson's playoff career, I will enjoy waiting for the next 3 years as they attempt to come up with a legitimate argument against it. That means an argument that doesn't involve robots. Humans have emotions. Robots do not have emotions. Emotions are affected by surroundings and circumstances, and controlling these emotions is key for dealing with the pressure of the NHL playoffs. That's why some players are so good in the playoffs, and others are not.

I cannot believe someone would say Anderson's 5 OT goals are due to luck. If it was, I guess luck followed him to Toronto and St. Louis, because he scored his last two without the "help" from the dynastic Oilers. He was a guy who loved the pressure of big games, and if you really don't believe that that mentality affected the way he played, you are kidding yourself.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Actually.............

I am not Cup counting, if that's the case where is Kirk Maltby. Winning a Cup is great, even as a 4th liner, but what I focus on is the CONTRIBUTION a player makes to the cause. The truth is Anderson was money in the bank all the time. He did not have a bad playoff where his teams won, that's telling. He also had some good ones where they lost as well.

Sure Gilmour and Oates have 1 Cup between them. But that's half the story, they also were players who contributed greatly to how far their teams went. Oates performed better than any other forward both times he made his trip to the final. Gilmour is another guy who you rarely felt should shoulder the blame for a playoff loss. At the end of the day Gilmour and Oates have 344 playoff points combined. No one would call them chokers or say they disappeared in the playoffs

Truth of the matter is that with Washington in the playoffs, going to the finals Oates performed on a par with Joe Juneau, slightly better than Andrei Nikolishin while with Anaheim he performed on a par with Peter Sykora, hardly an endorsement for the HHOF.

As for Doug Gilmour in the 1989 playoffs, offensively he was below Joe Mullen and slightly ahead of Hakan Loob and Joel Otto who was a defensive and a face-off force.Again closer to non-HHOF forwards.

Which is the other half of the story - the factual half.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I do not know what is being argued anymore. Don't we all agree that Bure was a better player? If someone really is trying to marginalize Glenn Anderson's playoff career, I will enjoy waiting for the next 3 years as they attempt to come up with a legitimate argument against it. That means an argument that doesn't involve robots. Humans have emotions. Robots do not have emotions. Emotions are affected by surroundings and circumstances, and controlling these emotions is key for dealing with the pressure of the NHL playoffs. That's why some players are so good in the playoffs, and others are not.

I've heard Anderson talk about how a tremendous fear of losing is what motivated him and helped him turn his teams into winners so often. Can't remember the exact quotes, but this was an individual that was downright sickened by the thought of losing a crucial hockey game, likely moreso than the vast majority of guys who've ever played the game.

 

[Heat McManus]

I think they both get in. Once Neely got in I think it cements it for these two. Two absolutely dominant players who had their careers cut short due to injury

But, Lindros before Bure. In his prime he was simply a better player. And Bure is my favorite player of all time.

 

[vulture77]

Again I am surprised how even the results of this poll are. I consider pre-concussions Lindros more dangerous offensively, better defensively and his physical intimidation and aggression simply makes him the better player.

Bure was the better goalscorer and niftier, but to me it seems it is only his "wow" -factor which makes him a candidate and seem to enamour people for his induction. I wouldn't induct him at all, but I guess if the emphasis is on the word Fame, I guess he could be inducted without me having a fit.

 

[pluppe]

I do not know what is being argued anymore. Don't we all agree that Bure was a better player? If someone really is trying to marginalize Glenn Anderson's playoff career, I will enjoy waiting for the next 3 years as they attempt to come up with a legitimate argument against it. That means an argument that doesn't involve robots. Humans have emotions. Robots do not have emotions. Emotions are affected by surroundings and circumstances, and controlling these emotions is key for dealing with the pressure of the NHL playoffs. That's why some players are so good in the playoffs, and others are not.

I cannot believe someone would say Anderson's 5 OT goals are due to luck. If it was, I guess luck followed him to Toronto and St. Louis, because he scored his last two without the "help" from the dynastic Oilers. He was a guy who loved the pressure of big games, and if you really don't believe that that mentality affected the way he played, you are kidding yourself.

I´m not saying Anderson's goals are due to luck. But I´m saying you could score 5 OT goals on "luck" if you get enough opportunities and have chance in your corner because of the fact that it´s such a small sample size. And you can´t score 5 OT goals without this kind of "luck". As I said, Wallin scored 3.

So hypothetically: Anderson wins those 5 games in the 5 last minutes of regulation. Would it affect his legacy?

I think it would. Because I think OT goals and GWG are something that gets to much value. Yes it takes skill, yes it helps to perform better under pressure, to controll your emotions. But it also takes chance. The fact that you keep saying that it in itself proves something is the reason I think it´s overvalued.

Does it give a hint of a great playoff performer: yes (see leaders)
Does it prove it: no (see Niclas Wallin and all the great playoff performers that aren´t on the list.

The robot analogy was only a way of proving that chance plays a roll. I never said they were comparable to humans. just that the activity (hockey) is influenced by chance.

I you look at Glenn's career he scored about the same in the playoffs. nothing spectacular considering that his regular season performance was nothing spectacular, but still an indication that he lifted himself since most peoples production drops more.

His 6 stanley also seems to hint that way.

So I would think he was a great playoff performer, well deserwing of a place in the HOF considering their standards, but maybe a little overrated because of those 5 goals. If I´m wrong tell me why without using the OT goals as definite proof.

 

[sr edler]

Stefan Persson? 7 goals in 102 games and this is someone who is comparable to Anderson in the playoffs? Not even close

butch goring is close, he was also a 'cog', on the isles, but at least he won a conn smythe and could score a cute goal on his own

 

[Canadiens1958]

Excellent Point

I've heard Anderson talk about how a tremendous fear of losing is what motivated him and helped him turn his teams into winners so often. Can't remember the exact quotes, but this was an individual that was downright sickened by the thought of losing a crucial hockey game, likely moreso than the vast majority of guys who've ever played the game.

You raise an excellent point the, fear of losing.

Similarly everyone likes to win but very few hate losing. Those who hate to lose are the players that work harder and longer, almost to an OCD level. Maurice Richard hated to lose.

 

[pluppe]

Stefan Persson? 7 goals in 102 games and this is someone who is comparable to Anderson in the playoffs? Not even close.

Personally I do look at the individual player of Glenn Anderson. The man was a legend in the postseason but his regular season play was good. He hit 100+ points three times, he was a top 10 scorer once and 11th another time, he scored 54 goals twice which put him 3rd and 4th those seasons. Not bad.

But his postseason is what sticks out. He has 17 game winning goals in the playoffs. Good for a tie for 5th. As many as Mike Bossy and more than Guy Lafleur and Peter Forsberg. You just simply cannot keep a guy out of the HHOF who has such a great playoff record. Many on here claim he should have won the Conn Smythe in 1987. He was the guy who broke the Flyers back in Game 7 of that year with the insurance goal late in the game. He did that ALL the time. When you think of him you think of a guy who drove to the net and cut inside before putting a shot on net. He was on two Canada Cup teams on the difficult RW position. And to be honest, there are a couple of years where Anderson could have been an all-star at RW.

The guy has 93 playoff goals. Now that is a lot of rhubarb at the most critical time of year. Only Gretzky, Messier, Kurri and Hull are superior to him there. I can rhyme off a ton of playoff legends that Anderson outscored but the truth is when you are that high on the charts in playoff records and coupled with the regular season resume you have it is impossible to ignore.

If I am a GM who do I build by team around, him or Bure? Well, Bure for sure just on the assumption that his skill can win you games, but if I am to look at their careers it's Anderson without even thinking based on their overall impact and their contribution to winning

Stefan Persson was clearly the most important player on the Isles dynasty. Probably the greatest player ever. So yes, not even close.















And I´m not saying this just because we are related.

 

[Big Phil]

butch goring is close, he was also a 'cog', on the isles, but at least he won a conn smythe and could score a cute goal on his own

I truly do like Goring and actually would have put him in the HHOF before Gillies, but in all honesty his playoff and regular season career are not quite in the same bracket as Anderson's either. He isn't and likely won't ever get into the HHOF. The 1981 Conn Smythe is an accomplishment I would never take away from Goring, but even on these boards it has been hotly debated

 

[Big Phil]

Truth of the matter is that with Washington in the playoffs, going to the finals Oates performed on a par with Joe Juneau, slightly better than Andrei Nikolishin while with Anaheim he performed on a par with Peter Sykora, hardly an endorsement for the HHOF.

As for Doug Gilmour in the 1989 playoffs, offensively he was below Joe Mullen and slightly ahead of Hakan Loob and Joel Otto who was a defensive and a face-off force.Again closer to non-HHOF forwards.

Which is the other half of the story - the factual half.

To be fair he was almost 41 in 2003 at that time. Him and Sykora were tied in points while Oates and Juneau were tied in 1998 when Oates was 35. The point that in both situations we could easily argue he was the most important forward on a Cup finalist is telling.

Gilmour was 2 measley points behind Mullen. Scoring the Cup winning goal and being more tenacious defensively I think made up for that. If Gilmour isn't the 2nd most important Flame in 1989, he's the 3rd on that stacked team.

The facts have spoken again

 

[Big Phil]

I´m not saying Anderson's goals are due to luck. But I´m saying you could score 5 OT goals on "luck" if you get enough opportunities and have chance in your corner because of the fact that it´s such a small sample size. And you can´t score 5 OT goals without this kind of "luck". As I said, Wallin scored 3.

So hypothetically: Anderson wins those 5 games in the 5 last minutes of regulation. Would it affect his legacy?

I think it would. Because I think OT goals and GWG are something that gets to much value. Yes it takes skill, yes it helps to perform better under pressure, to controll your emotions. But it also takes chance. The fact that you keep saying that it in itself proves something is the reason I think it´s overvalued.

Does it give a hint of a great playoff performer: yes (see leaders)
Does it prove it: no (see Niclas Wallin and all the great playoff performers that aren´t on the list.

The robot analogy was only a way of proving that chance plays a roll. I never said they were comparable to humans. just that the activity (hockey) is influenced by chance.

I you look at Glenn's career he scored about the same in the playoffs. nothing spectacular considering that his regular season performance was nothing spectacular, but still an indication that he lifted himself since most peoples production drops more.

His 6 stanley also seems to hint that way.

So I would think he was a great playoff performer, well deserwing of a place in the HOF considering their standards, but maybe a little overrated because of those 5 goals. If I´m wrong tell me why without using the OT goals as definite proof.

Anderson also had 9 playoff goals and 17 game winners. It isn't as if he only came up big in overtime. If overtime is the only thing we look at with him then it's unfair. Because there are some deadly names, Lemieux, Howe, Messier etc. who never scored a playoff overtime goal (did Trottier?). But he was just always in the mix. Scoring 93 goals at the most important time of year is one thing, but it isn't as if he has Claude Lemieux's weak regular season resume either

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Anderson also had 9 playoff goals and 17 game winners. It isn't as if he only came up big in overtime. If overtime is the only thing we look at with him then it's unfair. Because there are some deadly names, Lemieux, Howe, Messier etc. who never scored a playoff overtime goal (did Trottier?). But he was just always in the mix. Scoring 93 goals at the most important time of year is one thing, but it isn't as if he has Claude Lemieux's weak regular season resume either

After the age of 27 Anderson's biggest year was 72 points. A product of the greatest offensive machine in hockey history.

 

[Big Phil]

After the age of 27 Anderson's biggest year was 72 points. A product of the greatest offensive machine in hockey history.

In which he was a part of don't forget. Kurri wasn't the same in his 30s either. Plus Anderson still brought it in the postseason and had still done a lot prior to 1988

 

[MXD]

I hope both don't get in. Two of the guys I despise the most (along with Dale Hunter).

This said, somewhere, I'd like Bure to make it.

 

[sexydonut]

I hope both don't get in. Two of the guys I despise the most (along with Dale Hunter).

This said, somewhere, I'd like Bure to make it.

gee, make up your mind.

ideally both lindros and bure should get into the hhof. no one can control the injuries, yet both players had consistently shown that they were elite players for an extended period of time.

no point to despising these two. if you dislike dirty players, mark messier should be at the top of your list. yet he's hailed as a god because he played on winning teams.