How high were Mario Lemieux's rookie expectations?

[billybudd]

I have always envisioned it that the demolishing of the just peaked Lafleur's junior numbers should mean that people could have thought he was possibly the next Gretzky actually. Was this the case?
Pardon my butchering of the english grammar.

Eddie Johnston's story (GM who drafted him) is that the first scouting report he got back on Lemieux from his guy in the Q was something along the lines of "You're not going to believe this, but there's another one of them." By "them," he meant "a Gretzky-like freak offensive player."

 

[billybudd]

Looking back at the Lindros hype, it does seem a bit over-cooked.

I think the thing with Lindros is he was the first ultra-talented North American to emerge after sports journalism really went international and got entangled with PR hype machine. Not sure how it was in Canada in the 70s and 80s, but there wasn't any ESPN to sell a Mario or an Orr up the way there was with Lindros.

As a new thing, the machine got a bit carried away, branding a guy who would ultimately prove to be one very talented guy among a handful of similar talents as if he had huge (or any) separation from a Jagr or whoever.

 

[pown]

Behold!

My god what an absolute savage

 

[daver]

That's right. The expectations for Lindros were mammoth, mainly because, unlike Gretzky, Lemieux, Lafleur, Orr, etc. who were drafted by their organizations and debuted for them, Lindros was acquired for 5 players, 2 first rounders and $15 million in cash.

Lindros was also fresh off a Canada Cup where he dominated among the world's best as a teenager.

I remember projections for Lindros were...

"Bigger, stronger, meaner, more skilled Messier."

"Lemieux's skill with Messier's toughness."

"Today's Gordie Howe."

"The type of player you win multiple Cups with."

The expectations for Lindros were ridiculous.

Was there really any basis for this claim? Talking offense here.

He was certainly impressive for a 17 year old in the O but he was not blowing everyone else out of the water like Mario, Crosby or even McDavid in their draft years.

Was it presumed that he had the potential to be even more dominant offensively in the NHL because he really should have been viewed as a 2nd tier level offensive prospect.

 

[billybudd]

Was there really any basis for this claim? Talking offense here.

He was certainly impressive for a 17 year old in the O but he was not blowing everyone else out of the water like Mario, Crosby or even McDavid in their draft years.

Was it presumed that he had the potential to be even more dominant offensively in the NHL because he really should have been viewed as a 2nd tier level offensive prospect.

Needs of (then) new media. When Messier was a rookie, what were US/Canada cable TV adoption rates? I can't imagine more than 5 percent. Fast forward a dozen years and you're probably closer to 40 or 50, with sports magazine subscriptions posting all-time highs. Sports media needed a "next one" to excite its readership/viewership and continue its growth. Lindros was the best hockey candidate for its needs. Voices exaggerating his bonafides were promoted. More careful ones were ignored. They weren't lying, per se, just giving a platform to existing opinions that suited their business needs.

ESPN pulled the same thing with Kobe Bryant at around the same time. Hall of Famer, sure, but he was sold as another Jordan, when he was more of a Byrd.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Was there really any basis for this claim? Talking offense here.

He was certainly impressive for a 17 year old in the O but he was not blowing everyone else out of the water like Mario, Crosby or even McDavid in their draft years.

Was it presumed that he had the potential to be even more dominant offensively in the NHL because he really should have been viewed as a 2nd tier level offensive prospect.

at 17 years old, he had the third highest points/game ratio ever in the OHL. the two guys ahead of him were 20 year old stan drulia and 19 year old pat peake. the only other under 18 player to ever average 2.5 points/game in the OHL was mcdavid, who for ftr finished third in the OHL in his draft year, behind two guys from his own draft (though he played ten fewer games).

lindros led the OHL in scoring by more than 20 points. the only player within 10 goals of him was his linemate, rob pearson.

as a 16 year old, lindros was a point away from leading the OHL in playoff scoring, behind 19 year old shayne stevenson. he was three points ahead of draft year primeau, who led the OHL in regular season scoring (lindros missed most of the year because daddy). lindros then followed this up by leading the OHL in playoff scoring in his own draft year.

mario certainly is pushing it, but i don't see why lindros wouldn't be in the crosby/mcjesus level offensively, without even talking about physicality and other considerations.

 

[KingPuckChoo]

expectations were high af bro!

 

[Boxscore]

at 17 years old, he had the third highest points/game ratio ever in the OHL. the two guys ahead of him were 20 year old stan drulia and 19 year old pat peake. the only other under 18 player to ever average 2.5 points/game in the OHL was mcdavid, who for ftr finished third in the OHL in his draft year, behind two guys from his own draft (though he played ten fewer games).

lindros led the OHL in scoring by more than 20 points. the only player within 10 goals of him was his linemate, rob pearson.

as a 16 year old, lindros was a point away from leading the OHL in playoff scoring, behind 19 year old shayne stevenson. he was three points ahead of draft year primeau, who led the OHL in regular season scoring (lindros missed most of the year because daddy). lindros then followed this up by leading the OHL in playoff scoring in his own draft year.

mario certainly is pushing it, but i don't see why lindros wouldn't be in the crosby/mcjesus level offensively, without even talking about physicality and other considerations.

Not only did Lindros dominate in the O, but his size, passing ability, and snap shot were lethal. As a 17 year old, he played in the Canada Cup against the world's best and looked great while breaking Ulf Samuelsson's collarbone with a huge hit. He was considered a man among boys.

Personally, I never considered his "raw skill" on par with Mario, because talent-wise, Lemieux was the greatest I ever saw. But I certainly can see the "bigger, better Messier hype" and "modern Gordie Howe." Eric had elite tools with hulking size and top-end physicality.

Also, keep in mind that NHL teams in the 90's were obsessed with big, strong players. Lindros was the poster boy.

 

[Thenameless]

Lindros deserved every bit of the hype. No, he wasn't as good as Wayne or Mario, but he slots in nicely in that next tier. Let's not forget that at his peak (which admittedly was short lived) he could push Jagr for a scoring title, but had other tools to go with it. He did win a Hart Trophy, and could easily have won more had it not been for injuries.

Crosby and McDavid are a better fit for this current era, while Lindros was a better fit for the era he played in. Having said that, Lindros would have probably fared much better career-wise had he born 20 years later, where the NHL protects better against dirty hits, and more specifically head shots. He'd be less physically dominant today, but he'd have a longer prime to show for it. I can imagine something like a much better version of Jamie Benn, with the awesome play-making skills of a true center-man.

 

[Boxscore]

Lindros would have probably fared much better career-wise had he born 20 years later, where the NHL protects better against dirty hits, and more specifically head shots. He'd be less physically dominant today, but he'd have a longer prime to show for it. I can imagine something like a much better version of Jamie Benn, with the awesome play-making skills of a true center-man.

I've often thought who would be a good comparable for a modern day Lindros, and I've decided it would be a combination of the best of Jamie Benn and Dustin Byfuglien rolled into one.

 

[bobbyking]

they were dam high.


they said he'd be as good as me if he worked hard enough

 

[daver]

at 17 years old, he had the third highest points/game ratio ever in the OHL. the two guys ahead of him were 20 year old stan drulia and 19 year old pat peake. the only other under 18 player to ever average 2.5 points/game in the OHL was mcdavid, who for ftr finished third in the OHL in his draft year, behind two guys from his own draft (though he played ten fewer games).

lindros led the OHL in scoring by more than 20 points. the only player within 10 goals of him was his linemate, rob pearson.

as a 16 year old, lindros was a point away from leading the OHL in playoff scoring, behind 19 year old shayne stevenson. he was three points ahead of draft year primeau, who led the OHL in regular season scoring (lindros missed most of the year because daddy). lindros then followed this up by leading the OHL in playoff scoring in his own draft year.

mario certainly is pushing it, but i don't see why lindros wouldn't be in the crosby/mcjesus level offensively, without even talking about physicality and other considerations.

That was the point. He didn't do anything in juniors to warrant a Mario/Wayne comparison. Wayne dominated the O as a 16 year old (only losing to a 20 year Bobby Smith) and Mario was crazy dominant in his draft year, much moreso than Lindros was in his draft year. Crosby was clearly more dominant offensively as a 16 year and 17 year old than Lindros was.

The hype really should have been a player with the potential to lead the league in scoring while being the most intimidating physical force in the league which is what we got out of him.

Off topic but one of the great questions is how much Lindros relied on his physicality, rather than traditional offensive skills, to produce. Once he toned down the physicality after his concussions, he wasn't as effective offensively.

 

[The Panther]

Lindros deserved every bit of the hype. No, he wasn't as good as Wayne or Mario, but he slots in nicely in that next tier. Let's not forget that at his peak (which admittedly was short lived) he could push Jagr for a scoring title, but had other tools to go with it. He did win a Hart Trophy, and could easily have won more had it not been for injuries.

Crosby and McDavid are a better fit for this current era, while Lindros was a better fit for the era he played in. Having said that, Lindros would have probably fared much better career-wise had he born 20 years later, where the NHL protects better against dirty hits, and more specifically head shots. He'd be less physically dominant today, but he'd have a longer prime to show for it. I can imagine something like a much better version of Jamie Benn, with the awesome play-making skills of a true center-man.

Nice post. I think people under-sell Lindros's scoring and talent level, which were super-elite.

From 1992 to 2000, Lindros was (per game) pacing with prime Jagr in scoring... and Jagr had a lot higher-scoring teams and lots of power-plays with Mario and other skilled players that Lindros didn't necessarily have. And, as you say, in addition being Jagr-ish offensively, Lindros brought a lot of other things to the table.

It would indeed be interesting to see a Lindros in today's game. I almost feel like such big size + talent guys are a bit handicapped in today's hockey, which almost discriminates against bigger guys who aren't unusually fast (think: Lucic). Then again, who knows?

 

[Florbalista]

As a 17 year old, he played in the Canada Cup against the world's best

He was 18 years and 7 months old. So he was closer to 19 than 17.

 

[Boxscore]

He was 18 years and 7 months old. So he was closer to 19 than 17.

That's right, it was the year he held out. For some reason I thought it was the year going into his draft. Duh.

 

[Boxscore]

Off topic but one of the great questions is how much Lindros relied on his physicality, rather than traditional offensive skills, to produce. Once he toned down the physicality after his concussions, he wasn't as effective offensively.

Lindros relied on his physicality because it was in his DNA. He was predatory by nature, like Forsberg, but even more so.

But his offensive skills were elite. His passing was among the best in the NHL during his prime, and his shot arsenal was deadly--not as accurate as Mario's but it was powerful. I swear, Lindros would take snap shots that looked like one-timers.

I've always felt Eric would have scored MORE if he wasn't as physical or predatory for three simple reasons:

1. He spent more time in the box
2. His predatory physicality made him the target of opponents looking to strike back
3. He missed tons of time due to injury

After the concussions, Lindros was a shell of himself. It was like watching a player age 10 years overnight. He was overly-cautious, reluctant, and his head wasn't 100%.

Prime Lindros was one of the highest PPG averages in history. If he stayed relatively injury-free (and played less physical) he would have been over the century mark religiously. He'd never put up Mario numbers or anything, but he would have been among the league leaders throughout his career, winning more Art Rosses and Harts IMO.

Lindros, to me, is the biggest "what if" in NHL history. Even players like Orr who saw their careers cut short were able to establish their legacy without question.

 

[MS]

If you project Eric Lindros' first 5 seasons to a full healthy schedule, his numbers look like this :

1992-93 84-56-47-103
1993-94 84-56-69-125
1994-95 82-52-73-125
1995-96 82-53-76-129
1996-97 82-50-74-124

The guy was a freak, and the hype was 100% justified.

 

[daver]

If you project Eric Lindros' first 5 seasons to a full healthy schedule, his numbers look like this :

1992-93 84-56-47-103
1993-94 84-56-69-125
1994-95 82-52-73-125
1995-96 82-53-76-129
1996-97 82-50-74-124

The guy was a freak, and the hype was 100% justified.

PPGs over that time:

Mario - 2.11
Lindros - 1.47
Jagr - 1.43
Lafontaine - 1.34
Selanne - 1.34

Basically he hung with Jagr until Jagr stepped it up in 1998. I wouldn't say he was a clear top 10 offensive prospect let alone anything close to Wayne/Maro or Howe which is what he was hyped as.

 

[MS]

PPGs over that time:

Mario - 2.11
Lindros - 1.47
Jagr - 1.43
Lafontaine - 1.34
Selanne - 1.34

Basically he hung with Jagr until Jagr stepped it up in 1998. I wouldn't say he was a clear top 10 offensive prospect let alone anything close to Wayne/Maro or Howe which is what he was hyped as.

Nobody thought he'd be as productive as Wayne or Mario and score 200 points in a season. They thought he'd be a Lafleur/Messier player offensively while being the most imposing physical beast in NHL history - and he was exactly that.

The guy's 5-year peak where he averaged 125 points/82 GP was as good offensively in NHL in history not named Gretzky or Lemieux, and he was the most feared physical presence in the NHL at the same time. He's getting criminally underrated in hindsight.

 

[daver]

Nobody thought he'd be as productive as Wayne or Mario and score 200 points in a season. They thought he'd be a Lafleur/Messier player offensively while being the most imposing physical beast in NHL history - and he was exactly that.

The guy's 5-year peak where he averaged 125 points/82 GP was as good offensively in NHL in history not named Gretzky or Lemieux, and he was the most feared physical presence in the NHL at the same time. He's getting criminally underrated in hindsight.

Not when you measure it against his peers. It was very good, albeit unproven, but others have surpassed that level of offensive dominance like Jagr, Crosby, McDavid just in the post Mario/Wayne era.

 

[daver]

Lindros relied on his physicality because it was in his DNA. He was predatory by nature, like Forsberg, but even more so.

But his offensive skills were elite. His passing was among the best in the NHL during his prime, and his shot arsenal was deadly--not as accurate as Mario's but it was powerful. I swear, Lindros would take snap shots that looked like one-timers.

I've always felt Eric would have scored MORE if he wasn't as physical or predatory for three simple reasons:

1. He spent more time in the box
2. His predatory physicality made him the target of opponents looking to strike back
3. He missed tons of time due to injury

After the concussions, Lindros was a shell of himself. It was like watching a player age 10 years overnight. He was overly-cautious, reluctant, and his head wasn't 100%.

Prime Lindros was one of the highest PPG averages in history. If he stayed relatively injury-free (and played less physical) he would have been over the century mark religiously. He'd never put up Mario numbers or anything, but he would have been among the league leaders throughout his career, winning more Art Rosses and Harts IMO.

Lindros, to me, is the biggest "what if" in NHL history. Even players like Orr who saw their careers cut short were able to establish their legacy without question.

IDK, seems like the "what if" is asking to change his fundamental style of play rather than imagining a healthier career. He seemed destined to have an injury-filled career given his style of play. If he played less aggressive, would he have been as effective? Maybe not, but I don't see him being better offensively.

 

[MS]

Not when you measure it against his peers. It was very good, albeit unproven, but others have surpassed that level of offensive dominance like Jagr, Crosby, McDavid just in the post Mario/Wayne era.

McDavid is ahead of that but hasn't even hit 5 years yet. Lindros' best 5 year stretch is better than Crosby's in both raw production/82 and adjusted production/82.

In terms of era-adjusted production/82, Jaromir Jagr's 1994-2001 stretch is probably the best in modern NHL history next to Gretzky and Lemieux, and falling short of that doesn't mean that Lindros didn't match the hype. Again, nobody expected him to score 200 points.

 

[daver]

McDavid is ahead of that but hasn't even hit 5 years yet. Lindros' best 5 year stretch is better than Crosby's in both raw production/82 and adjusted production/82.

In terms of era-adjusted production/82, Jaromir Jagr's 1994-2001 stretch is probably the best in modern NHL history next to Gretzky and Lemieux, and falling short of that doesn't mean that Lindros didn't match the hype. Again, nobody expected him to score 200 points.

So you went through all the adjusted pts/82 for the all-time greats and determined Lindros was as good as anyone's or are you just throwing that out there because clearly Lindros did not dominate his peers in his best 5 years like the players I mentioned?

Here is Crosby's best 5 year stretch (09/10 to 13/14):

PPG - 1.43

Next five best PPGs:

1.19
1.17
1.11
1.07
1.05

See the difference?

 

[MS]

So you went through all the adjusted pts/82 for the all-time greats and determined Lindros was as good as anyone's or are you just throwing that out there because clearly Lindros did not dominate his peers in his best 5 years like the players I mentioned?

Here is Crosby's best 5 year stretch (09/10 to 13/14):

PPG - 1.43

Next five best PPGs:

1.19
1.17
1.11
1.07
1.05

See the difference?

If you take raw points/82 or adjusted points/82 for the best 5 year stretch of their careers, Lindros is ahead. Those are facts. The fact that his prime overlapped with Lemieux's and Crosby's didn't doesn't really change anything.

Lindros was exactly what he was hyped to be, aside from injuries. He was an absolutely dominant force who produced at a level basically as good as anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux or Jagr while being the most physically imposing player in the game.

Like, what were you expecting when he was drafted? Were you honestly expecting more than averaging 125 points/82 games over a 5 year stretch between age 20-24? Really?

 

[daver]

If you take raw points/82 or adjusted points/82 for the best 5 year stretch of their careers, Lindros is ahead. Those are facts. The fact that his prime overlapped with Lemieux's and Crosby's didn't doesn't really change anything.

Lindros was exactly what he was hyped to be, aside from injuries. He was an absolutely dominant force who produced at a level basically as good as anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux or Jagr while being the most physically imposing player in the game.

Like, what were you expecting when he was drafted? Were you honestly expecting more than averaging 125 points/82 games over a 5 year stretch between age 20-24? Really?

The facts are that Crosby was clearly better than his peer group of the elite offensive players than Lindros was. Using a very flawed method of "adjusting" doesn't change this.