Eric Lindros Vs. Brendan Shanahan
- Thread starter RabbinsDuck
- Start date
Peak vs Peak, Lindros was so far and away better that its almost insane. I doubt Shanny could every have carried a team the way Big E did. I'd say Lindros was definitely a better playmaker, he was probably a better goal scorer, was a better fighter and was arguably the most intimidating player of his generation.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Let's be generous and say that Shanahan once had a season where he would be considered the 10th-best player in hockey. Lindros was injured for some of this time, but it's arguable that he was regarded as a top-10 player for 7 straight years. (The 1993-2000 seasons, his first 8)
just for fun, I checked the THN yearbooks for an unbiased opinion to verify my theory.
in the 1994 yearbook, following the 1993 season, they ranked him 2nd.
1995: 6th
1996: (they did no ranking but Lindros had just won the hart and there is an article that mentions he was the THN MVP and MOP. safe to say he was #1)
1997: 4th
1998: (there was no ranking but an article naming him one of the league's five true franchise players, safe to say he was top-5)
1999: 7th
2000: 4th
2001: 10th
Shanahan:
1994: (not top-25)
1995: 14th
1996: (there was no ranking)
1997: 20th
1998: (there was no ranking)
1999: 42nd
2000: (not top-50)
2001: 38th
2002: (not top-50)
2003: 23rd
2004: 39th
2005: (not top-50)
2006: (not top-50)
2007: (not top-50)
2008: 47th
I don't think this is close.
It's funny that Shanny is perceived as a first ballot HHOFer, but Lindros has already missed his first chance.
just for fun, I checked the THN yearbooks for an unbiased opinion to verify my theory.
in the 1994 yearbook, following the 1993 season, they ranked him 2nd.
1995: 6th
1996: (they did no ranking but Lindros had just won the hart and there is an article that mentions he was the THN MVP and MOP. safe to say he was #1)
1997: 4th
1998: (there was no ranking but an article naming him one of the league's five true franchise players, safe to say he was top-5)
1999: 7th
2000: 4th
2001: 10th
Shanahan:
1994: (not top-25)
1995: 14th
1996: (there was no ranking)
1997: 20th
1998: (there was no ranking)
1999: 42nd
2000: (not top-50)
2001: 38th
2002: (not top-50)
2003: 23rd
2004: 39th
2005: (not top-50)
2006: (not top-50)
2007: (not top-50)
2008: 47th
I don't think this is close.
It's funny that Shanny is perceived as a first ballot HHOFer, but Lindros has already missed his first chance.
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
That last sentence is what got me thinking about these two. It's just assumed Shanahan is a lock for the HHoF, yet many question Lindros' induction.
Maybe it's all just likeability, but I think a case can be made for Shanahan. Lindros was viewed as a Top 10 player for 7 years, but how many of those seasons did he actually put in a Top 10 season? He only finished in the Top 10 for points three times in his career. It amazes me he only had 4 seasons of 70+ games in his career. I think Shanahan makes up a lot of ground with his much better career, but maybe not enough.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
C vs LW
Eric Lindros is viewed as a center and in terms of performance / stats he lags, Brendan Shanahan is viewed as a LW. In terms of performance / stats he benefits from a very favourable perception.
Shanahan looks very solid to LWs from his era that have entered the HHOF - Robitaille and Goulet whereas Lindros people start ;ooling at Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, soon to be Sakic, Forsberg etc and the drift to no starts.
Eric Lindros is viewed as a center and in terms of performance / stats he lags, Brendan Shanahan is viewed as a LW. In terms of performance / stats he benefits from a very favourable perception.
Shanahan looks very solid to LWs from his era that have entered the HHOF - Robitaille and Goulet whereas Lindros people start ;ooling at Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, soon to be Sakic, Forsberg etc and the drift to no starts.
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
That's a great point as far as the committee is concerned (and Lindros' pain-in-the-assedness), but I think most fans see forwards as forwards. It just struck me that Shanahan is viewed as such a lock to get in while many think Lindros will get in only because of Neely, yet most probably think of Lindros as easily the better player.
tony d
Registered User
revolverjgw
Registered User
Lindros' insane peak more than makes up for Shanahan's longevity. You can't even measure it in top-10 finishes or whatever, I feared for the lives of Habs players when we played the Flyers.
Lindros should have been first ballot, the HOF is useless if it's not being used to celebrate once-in-a-lifetime players like him.
Lindros should have been first ballot, the HOF is useless if it's not being used to celebrate once-in-a-lifetime players like him.
Having watched Shannahan's career with the Red Wings, I'll go with him. He had a toughness and git that we needed to win against teams like the Avs and put us over the top. He did it all whether it was scoring, hitting, or fighting. I'll take these results and this special situation over Lindros. Although, obviously Lindros had a higher peak, but possibly less of a career.
The pillars to our first 3 modern titles were Shanny, Fedorov, Yzerman, and (to a lessor extent earlier on before he reached his peak) Lidstrom. Take one of those away and I don't know if we win, expecially #91.
The pillars to our first 3 modern titles were Shanny, Fedorov, Yzerman, and (to a lessor extent earlier on before he reached his peak) Lidstrom. Take one of those away and I don't know if we win, expecially #91.
LannysStach
Thou shall
I hate it when people say bad or disrespectful things about the Hall. They must not know who does the inducting or how it works.
You can start here: http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/indselect.htm
You'll soon stop pretending you know more about hockey than does the Selection Committee.
Further, since this is human beings voting for other human beings, what kind of a human being you are naturally enters into it.
For this reason, I don't think Lindros will ever be inducted, and it's why Shanny will go in on first ballot.
You can start here: http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/indselect.htm
You'll soon stop pretending you know more about hockey than does the Selection Committee.
Further, since this is human beings voting for other human beings, what kind of a human being you are naturally enters into it.
For this reason, I don't think Lindros will ever be inducted, and it's why Shanny will go in on first ballot.
So Shanahan would fight, hit and score. You take that over Lindros whose game was.... fighting, hitting and scoring? Everything Shanahan did, Lindros did better.
@above
Why wouldn't Lindros be inducted? I don't know if he'll be inducted any time soon, but he will be. People act like Lindros is the anti christ who kicks puppies and built a shrine to Hitler. He's not a terrible guy, he just made a couple questionable decisions when he was young. Heck, he donated five million dollars to a London health centre. Not a lot of players are willing to give up that kind of cash.
@above
Why wouldn't Lindros be inducted? I don't know if he'll be inducted any time soon, but he will be. People act like Lindros is the anti christ who kicks puppies and built a shrine to Hitler. He's not a terrible guy, he just made a couple questionable decisions when he was young. Heck, he donated five million dollars to a London health centre. Not a lot of players are willing to give up that kind of cash.
Last edited:
LannysStach
Thou shall
a black eye on hockey
The very first word to describe the qualifications of a HoF selection committee member is — integrity.
Lindros brought the NHL a lot of bad press for a wide variety of different issues. I think it's going to be a long time, if ever, before that guy gets inducted.
Also — the "human being factor" couldn't be more stark than with this thread's comparison.
And just purely on-ice, Shanahan played twice as many games, scored twice as many goals, and of course won 3 times as many Stanley Cups as Lindros's 0.
The very first word to describe the qualifications of a HoF selection committee member is — integrity.
Lindros brought the NHL a lot of bad press for a wide variety of different issues. I think it's going to be a long time, if ever, before that guy gets inducted.
Also — the "human being factor" couldn't be more stark than with this thread's comparison.
And just purely on-ice, Shanahan played twice as many games, scored twice as many goals, and of course won 3 times as many Stanley Cups as Lindros's 0.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
LannysStach
Thou shall
Y'all might find this of note:
There is only one sentence to describe the basis for induction.
"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."
The problems Lindros has is with the front-loaded criteria of "sportsmanship" and "character" ... where he's gonna score about a zero.
and
he never contributed enough to a team to win in a single Stanley Cup,
and with primarily his absurd stand of hubris against the league's draft, combined with his continual unsavory behavior off the ice, he is not going to be seen as making a positive "contribution to the game of hockey in general."
The link is linked above, and here's the basis and procedure for induction:
http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/indelection.htm
There is only one sentence to describe the basis for induction.
"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."
The problems Lindros has is with the front-loaded criteria of "sportsmanship" and "character" ... where he's gonna score about a zero.
and
he never contributed enough to a team to win in a single Stanley Cup,
and with primarily his absurd stand of hubris against the league's draft, combined with his continual unsavory behavior off the ice, he is not going to be seen as making a positive "contribution to the game of hockey in general."
The link is linked above, and here's the basis and procedure for induction:
http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/indelection.htm
Darrelle Lundqvist
Swagelin
In their primes I'd take Lindros over Shanny. But because of the Big E's injuries, Shanahan won 3 cups and his stats are better, so Shanahan wins IMO.
revolverjgw
Registered User
Some of you guys act like Lindros killed a man, it's just so dramatic, a decades-long grudge against a manipulated teenager. He wasn't Jean Beliveau but his "character issues" are blown way out of proportion. The guy was at fault for no major issues later in his career and was even captain of the Olympic team, and there was no drama. He got along with his teammates.
The fiasco he had during his exit from the Flyers was because of Bobby Clarke, a violent sociopath enshrined in the oh-so honorable Hall of Fame (and he turned out to be just as much of an uncaring a-hole in his managerial career). And not the only one. Lindros is a saint compared to some of the psychos and a-holes in there, and a better and more memorable and influential player than most of them, too.
If the Old Boy's Club unfairly keeps him out, at least he can tell himself this... when people in 40 years have their grandkids on their knees and are telling them about the most incredible hockey players they witnessed, Lindros will be one of the most cited, right up there with Lemieux, Crosby, Lidstrom, etc. Well above guys like Shanahan...
The fiasco he had during his exit from the Flyers was because of Bobby Clarke, a violent sociopath enshrined in the oh-so honorable Hall of Fame (and he turned out to be just as much of an uncaring a-hole in his managerial career). And not the only one. Lindros is a saint compared to some of the psychos and a-holes in there, and a better and more memorable and influential player than most of them, too.
If the Old Boy's Club unfairly keeps him out, at least he can tell himself this... when people in 40 years have their grandkids on their knees and are telling them about the most incredible hockey players they witnessed, Lindros will be one of the most cited, right up there with Lemieux, Crosby, Lidstrom, etc. Well above guys like Shanahan...
Last edited:
Epsilon
#basta
Not that I disagree with your overall point but I think some of those rankings for Lindros were pretty out of whack and based more on hype than the substance of what Lindros had done in the previous season (that 2nd place ranking after his 75 point rookie season in particular).
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Discussion
There may be similarities between Jean Beliveau delaying his departure from Quebec in the QSHL and Eric Lindros refusing to go to Quebec in the NHL but that is a topic for another thread.
Back to the thread at hand.
Brendan Shanahan has the benefit of a complete career without interruptions for major or career ending injuries.Controversies, trades and issues were within the perceived norms of the game.
Eric Lindros has the burden of an incomplete career due to injury - similar to players like Bobby Orr, Cam Neely, Mike Bossy, Richard Martin, Pavel Bure to name a few, without the resulting positive empathy that injured greats often receive.Complex balancing act complicated by the situation where both positions have some merit but not enough to clearly say that Eric Lindros clearly belongs in the HHOF.
There may be similarities between Jean Beliveau delaying his departure from Quebec in the QSHL and Eric Lindros refusing to go to Quebec in the NHL but that is a topic for another thread.
Back to the thread at hand.
Brendan Shanahan has the benefit of a complete career without interruptions for major or career ending injuries.Controversies, trades and issues were within the perceived norms of the game.
Eric Lindros has the burden of an incomplete career due to injury - similar to players like Bobby Orr, Cam Neely, Mike Bossy, Richard Martin, Pavel Bure to name a few, without the resulting positive empathy that injured greats often receive.Complex balancing act complicated by the situation where both positions have some merit but not enough to clearly say that Eric Lindros clearly belongs in the HHOF.
Breakfast of Champs
Registered User
- Apr 15, 2007
- 3,001
- 3,017
Im really curious to see all of thn's yearbook lists of the best players of years past. Is there anywhere i can see these lists?
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I would have to type them all out.... and I am just not prepared to do that.
seeing guys like Turgeon, Recchi and Shanahan miss out in multiple years in their primes demonstrates just how hard it is to maintain that lofty status year in, year out and how special a guy like Sundin was in this regard.
Breakfast of Champs
Registered User
- Apr 15, 2007
- 3,001
- 3,017
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
That's the thing, I think Lindros gets rewarded for lost time. He shouldn't. Lemieux doesn't. Orr doesn't. Neely for some reason did. I think if you were honest with yourself the truth is there are 3-4 seasons where he was a top 10 player in the game just judging on his season. That would be 1995 and 1996 for sure. 1999 also. That leaves a few open. Does his injury filled 1997 season hold him back despite a good playoff run (but an awful final)? Or would he be a legit top 10 player in 1994? Either way that's only about 4 years. You can't give him the benefit of the doubt in injury riddled years like 1998 and 2000.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
There is truth to that. The rankings are based on projections as well. (as in, "if Lindros did that last year, imagine what he'd do this year")
Still, Shanahan was a revered power forward and probably got a little more credit than he deserved, sometimes at least. The overall point still stands, as you implied.
Ugh... I think even that is more than I'm prepared to do right now. That involves getting every issue and opening to the right page. I'd probably rather list the top-50 for one year, than 18 years of #1s
Some credit still needs to be given for just being a good player. And he was. 1993 and 2000 are suspect, yes. Even on a per-game level, his production was not enough to conclusively warrant his status as a top-10 player. However, the six seasons between definitely do. 3rd, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 6th, 4th in points per game, while being the most dominant physical presence in the game. Throw in defense and goalies and drop down the occasional "better offensively but not better overall" forward and he's definitely a top-10 status player for six straight years. 52 games was the fewest he played in that time (lockout excluded, of course) but per-game he was clearly outstanding and had an excellent playoff.
Orr's different, his career wasn't really injury-riddled, just abbreviated. Lemieux and Neely are in the same kind of boat though. Lemieux can't be argued to have had a top-10 season in 1991 or 1994; however, no one would dispute that he was the best or 2nd-best player in the world at that time. that status still means something. Neely is just a much, much lesser version. During his awful 1991-1993 injury-riddled period, ask anyone who the best power forward in the game is, and his name might be who they mention. You know I don't think his HHOF induction is right and he clearly gets some credit for lost time. But that "status" that he attained does count for something.
Totally agree here and that's my 1st thought with Lindros peak being too great for the great career but never true greatness that Shanny had.
Shanny is obviously making the hall as should Lindros.
