John LeClair HOF?

[Kristo]

Isn't it about time to induct John LeClair into the HOF? He was maybe the most dominant LW during the second half of the 1990s after Paul Kariya. LeClair was named to five consecutive NHL All-Star Teams during that period. No other player outside the HOF has been selected so many times. He was a phenomenal goal scorer, a physical threat and also really solid defensively. He was also great internationally.

From the 1994-95 season to 1999-00 season he was 10th, 5th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 7th in goal scoring. During that period he had three consecutive 50 goal-seasons.

He won the NHL Plus/Minus Award twice and had the 4th highest plus/minus during the 1990s. Yes, he played for good teams, but he really was solid defensively.

He won the Stanley Cup during the 1992-93 season playing for the Montreal Canadiens.

967 games played. 406 goals, 413 assists, 819 points, 204 +/- rating.

Many people think that Markus Naslund, another LW, should be in the HOF but he wasn't selected to as many All-Star Teams as LeClair. I know there are some of you who think that the LW position is the weakest hockey position (I started a thread about that subject recently) but shouldn't players that was really, really good at a position or similar be premiered? Guy Carbonneau was inducted into the HOF recently and he was one of the absolute best at what he did. I know there are some people who complain that the HOF inducted some players that weren't actual superstars but instead was just really good players that compiled numbers (Andreychuk, maybe Ciccarelli) or had just one or two super good seasons besides high career totals (Recchi maybe). But John LeClair seems to be one of the players outside HOF with the most impressive peaks. I guess an argument against his HOF case would be that he hasn't scored over 1000 points. But a player like Cam Neely didn't score 1000 points and he's in the HOF.


-What do you think, should John LeClair be inducted into the HOF?
-How would you rate John LeClair against Jeremy Roenick and Keith Tkachuk? It wouldn't suprise me if they induct Moginly and Alfredsson before any of these Americans.
-Are there better players outside the HOF with even better peak than LeClair?
-How good was John LeClair in the Playoffs?

Click to read more...

 

[K Fleur]

Isn't it about time to induct John LeClair into the HOF? He was maybe the most dominant LW during the second half of the 1990s after Paul Kariya. LeClair was named to five consecutive NHL All-Star Teams during that period. No other player outside the HOF has been selected so many times. He was a phenomenal goal scorer, a physical threat and also really solid defensively. He was also great internationally.

From the 1994-95 season to 1999-00 season he was 10th, 5th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 7th in goal scoring. During that period he had three consecutive 50 goal-seasons.

He won the NHL Plus/Minus Award twice and had the 4th highest plus/minus during the 1990s. Yes, he played for good teams, but he really was solid defensively.

He won the Stanley Cup during the 1992-93 season playing for the Montreal Canadiens.

967 games played. 406 goals, 413 assists, 819 points, 204 +/- rating.

Many people think that Markus Naslund, another LW, should be in the HOF but he wasn't selected to as many All-Star Teams as LeClair. I know there are some of you who think that the LW position is the weakest hockey position (I started a thread about that subject recently) but shouldn't players that was really, really good at a position or similar be premiered? Guy Carbonneau was inducted into the HOF recently and he was one of the absolute best at what he did. I know there are some people who complain that the HOF inducted some players that weren't actual superstars but instead was just really good players that compiled numbers (Andreychuk, maybe Ciccarelli) or had just one or two super good seasons besides high career totals (Recchi maybe). But John LeClair seems to be one of the players outside HOF with the most impressive peaks. I guess an argument against his HOF case would be that he hasn't scored over 1000 points. But a player like Cam Neely didn't score 1000 points and he's in the HOF.


-What do you think, should John LeClair be inducted into the HOF?
-How would you rate John LeClair against Jeremy Roenick and Keith Tkachuk? It wouldn't suprise me if they induct Moginly and Alfredsson before any of these Americans.
-Are there better players outside the HOF with even better peak than LeClair?
-How good was John LeClair in the Playoffs?

They do?

 

[MadLuke]

-Are there better players outside the HOF with even better peak than LeClair?

to consider: Kevin Stevens, Naslund, Mogilny, Elias, Fleury, Turgeon, Heatley, Bertuzzi, Yashin, Hejduk, Lecavalier, Sedinx2 (I am sure they will get in those 2 too)

 

[Kristo]

They do?

Do you mean Naslund? I don't say that he's a front runner in any way (not even saying that at least 50 percent would say yes if asked), but yes, my impression is that there are people who would like to see him in the HOF. I recently read an article where the author said that he was a candidate for the 2022 HOF, but not as a front runner. The front runners were the Sedins and Luongo. All players who played recently.

 

[GMR]

Leclair did have a great peak. However, his overall career numbers (both regular season and playoffs) aren't as impressive as I thought. Outside of his peak years, his numbers tailed off.

I wouldn't put him, Roenick, Naslund, or Tkachuk in the HHOF. I'm not sure about Mogilny. Alfredsson is a lock.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Nope.

I'll do the ol' SAT comparison

LeClair is to Lindros as Cheechoo is to Thornton

 

[MadLuke]

LeClair is to Lindros as Cheechoo is to Thornton

That seem unfair but something possible to validate has Lindros missed so many game

But a quick glance
95-96: Leclair score 51 with Lindros playing 73 games
96-97: Leclair score 50 with Lindros playing 52 games
97-98: 51 with Lindros playing 63 games

98-99: Leclair score 43 with Lindros playing 71 games
99-00: Leclair score 40 with Lindros playing 55 games

I suspect Leclair was still very good in the non Lindros played game. I imagine someone already looked at the with, without Lindros those season before.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

That seem unfair but something possible to validate has Lindros missed so many game

But a quick glance
95-96: Leclair score 51 with Lindros playing 73 games
96-97: Leclair score 50 with Lindros playing 52 games
97-98: 51 with Lindros playing 63 games

98-99: Leclair score 43 with Lindros playing 71 games
99-00: Leclair score 40 with Lindros playing 55 games

I suspect Leclair was still very good in the non Lindros played game. I imagine someone already looked at the with, without Lindros those season before.

It was admittedly a little facetious. But IMO it's not a coincidence that his only HOF quality seasons came on the wing of peak Lindros

 

[JackSlater]

If I remember correctly LeClair scored at a similar pace without Lindros at his peak but the dominant puck possession left when Lindros didn't play.

I'd say that he was good enough to be in the hall of fame based on his peak but the rest of his career isn't good enough.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That seem unfair but something possible to validate has Lindros missed so many game

But a quick glance
95-96: Leclair score 51 with Lindros playing 73 games
96-97: Leclair score 50 with Lindros playing 52 games
97-98: 51 with Lindros playing 63 games

98-99: Leclair score 43 with Lindros playing 71 games
99-00: Leclair score 40 with Lindros playing 55 games

I suspect Leclair was still very good in the non Lindros played game. I imagine someone already looked at the with, without Lindros those season before.

Somebody looked at this several years ago, but the data was lost with the server transition in 2017.

From what I recall, LeClair's production was a bit lower in the games Lindros missed (ballpark 10%). I think most people (myself included) expected a much steeper drop-off.

I think LeClair's plus/minus was significantly worse in the games Lindros missed. I'm the first to say that there's limited value in that stat, but it provides some evidence that it was Lindros, not LeClair, who drove that line's excellent puck possession (an observation which, I think, is completely in line with what you'd expect).

EDIT: it looks like what I remembered is pretty much exactly what @JackSlater remembered as well (I didn't see his comments until after I posted mine).

 

[MadLuke]

A quick calculation (could have mistake, it was done largely by using code)

Leclair with Lindros:

Season	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	"+/-"	GPG	APG	PPG	PlusPerGames
19951996	73	46	40	86	20	0.63	0.55	1.18	0.27
19961997	52	33	33	66	36	0.63	0.63	1.27	0.69
19971998	63	38	29	67	24	0.60	0.46	1.06	0.38
19981999	67	38	41	79	31	0.57	0.61	1.18	0.46
19992000	55	27	25	52	7	0.49	0.45	0.95	0.13
Sum	310	182	168	350	118	0.59	0.54	1.13	0.38

Leclair without Lindros:

Season	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	"+/-"	GPG	APG	PPG	PlusPerGames
19951996	9	5	6	11	1	0.56	0.67	1.22	0.11
19961997	30	17	14	31	8	0.57	0.47	1.03	0.27
19971998	19	13	7	20	6	0.68	0.37	1.05	0.32
19981999	9	5	6	11	5	0.56	0.67	1.22	0.56
19992000	27	13	12	25	1	0.48	0.44	0.93	0.04
Sum	94	53	45	98	21	0.56	0.48	1.04	0.22

Leclair without Lindros for sure has fewer assists or +/-, but is goal scoring is really, really constant here.

Now in a Lindros less world (say traded in 1996 or injured for good) if Leclair become the face of the team and what opponent make a game plan for maybe it changes, but let say that the burden of the proof seem neatly in the camp of the Leclair is a product of Lindros crowd.

A bit like Naslund, is peak is more than good enough and would be better than many in the hall by a large amount, it is just (like Naslund) the rest of the career that is too underwhelming.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

A quick calculation (could have mistake, it was done largely by using code)

Leclair with Lindros:

Season	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	"+/-"	GPG	APG	PPG	PlusPerGames
19951996	73	46	40	86	20	0.63	0.55	1.18	0.27
19961997	52	33	33	66	36	0.63	0.63	1.27	0.69
19971998	63	38	29	67	24	0.60	0.46	1.06	0.38
19981999	67	38	41	79	31	0.57	0.61	1.18	0.46
19992000	55	27	25	52	7	0.49	0.45	0.95	0.13
Sum	310	182	168	350	118	0.59	0.54	1.13	0.38

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Leclair without Lindros:

Season	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	"+/-"	GPG	APG	PPG	PlusPerGames
19951996	9	5	6	11	1	0.56	0.67	1.22	0.11
19961997	30	17	14	31	8	0.57	0.47	1.03	0.27
19971998	19	13	7	20	6	0.68	0.37	1.05	0.32
19981999	9	5	6	11	5	0.56	0.67	1.22	0.56
19992000	27	13	12	25	1	0.48	0.44	0.93	0.04
Sum	94	53	45	98	21	0.56	0.48	1.04	0.22

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Leclair without Lindros for sure has fewer assists or +/-, but is goal scoring is really, really constant here.

Now in a Lindros less world (say traded in 1996 or injured for good) if Leclair become the face of the team and what opponent make a game plan for maybe it changes, but let say that the burden of the proof seem neatly in the camp of the Leclair is a product of Lindros crowd.

A bit like Naslund, is peak is more than good enough and would be better than many in the hall by a large amount, it is just (like Naslund) the rest of the career that is too underwhelming.

His before and after Lindros seasons paint a less flattering picture.

4 years in Montreal before Lindros, 118 points in 224 games, season highs of 19 goals and 44 points
4 years in Philly and Pitt (excluding injury seasons), 185 points in 265 games, season highs of 25 G and 53 points.

That's 489 games without Lindros at all, and a good but not HOF worthy 0.62 PPG. Even taking only the post Lindros years and saying he was a late bloomer, that's still 0.70 PPG.

Away from Lindros altogether, his goals and points per game are almost cut in half

 

[Hockeyholic]

Yes he should've been inducted years ago.

 

[Professor What]

He's one of the closest misses to me, but as others have said, he seems a bit too dependent on the years with Lindros. If it's at all a close call and I can come to the conclusion that someone else has a great deal to do with his case, I have to fall on the side of no.

 

[MadLuke]

After Lindros Leclair played only 8 games before is massive injury in December, he had 5 goals and 9 points, perfectly in line, he never has the same after is massive injury that for sure, but trying to separate the quick aging of a power forward in is 30 and the injury pilling up versus Lindros absence do not seem obvious.

Has for is time with Montreal, 92/93, 93/94 is 35 even strength goals were the most after the first line players (Dampousse-Bellows-Muller) is +/- (+28) was at the very top among foward with Mike Kean, he virtually never saw any power play (7 ppp are #15 on the team), he was better at scoring that is raw number would have shown, would he have been used has a top line scoring winger/first PP unit during those season one must assume.

Do you have a theory on why is scoring dismished so little when Lindros was not playing ? If you are arguing is peak is a product of Lindros, not if you are simply saying outside those 5 years Leclair did not do enough for the HOF which I fully agree.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

With Kariya finally getting in, doesn't LeClair have the best postseason All-Star record of any player yet to be enshrined?

I realize LW was a weak position, but it was that way in the 1970s too, and I'll take LeClair over Bill Barber or Steve Schutt

 

[trentmccleary]

Do you have a theory on why is scoring dismished so little when Lindros was not playing ?

Lindros was a generational talent. Teams with generational talents play run and gun, because they have the talent to win. They can't flip a switch and change game plans because their best player gets hurt, so they continue to play high event hockey and their +/- takes a beating.

 

[MadLuke]

Lindros was a generational talent. Teams with generational talents play run and gun, because they have the talent to win. They can't flip a switch and change game plans because their best player gets hurt, so they continue to play high event hockey and their +/- takes a beating.

I feel that would explain why is scoring would be high in absolute relative to the league, but he would have been playing that way with Lindros, the question is why it does not go down when Lindros is not there, if he is a product of Lindros.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

by the standards that exist i have no problem with leclair in the hall

but i also have to ask, does anyone other than flyers fans miss him in there?

i feel like necessity is the most important criterion in a watered down hall. take ciccarelli, sure you could, but why?

with kariya, i wouldn’t have voted for him personally but he was a signature star of his era. i just don’t know that history necessarily needs to remember john leclair.

 

[The Panther]

-What do you think, should John LeClair be inducted into the HOF?
According to my personal standards, no. According to the Hall of Fame's recent standards? Yes.
-How would you rate John LeClair against Jeremy Roenick and Keith Tkachuk? It wouldn't suprise me if they induct Moginly and Alfredsson before any of these Americans.
Roenick has the edge over LeClair in two areas: (1) "face of a franchise" / top guy status, which LeClair never had, and (2) better career numbers / longevity. Keith Tkachuk is indeed very comparable, however, to LeClair. If one makes it in, it'd be hard to justify leaving the other out.
-Are there better players outside the HOF with even better peak than LeClair?
Probably Pierre Turgeon, especially if focused on the 1992-93 season. Roenick, too, as mentioned. (Aside from the obvious ones who haven't been eligible yet, like Jagr.)
-How good was John LeClair in the Playoffs?
Well, he scored 2 overtime goals in the same Stanley Cup Final (before the Philly years). Is he maybe the only player in history to ever do that...? (Not sure.)

I didn't follow Philly too closely back then, but I remember him being strong. His stats look 'good-ish', if not overwhelmingly so.

Let's not forget the 1996 World Cup of Hockey -- LeClair scored 6 goals in 7 games. He was a force.

He had 5.5 super-elite left-winger seasons in a row, plus good-to-great playoff / international performances. Is that enough? You decide.

 

[buffalowing88]

He had his moments but I remember him also being a passenger who was chippy enough to work well with Lindros on the LOD line.

Hate him for celebrating a goal against Buffalo in the 2000 playoffs in which he knew he pushed the puck through the mesh of the back of the net.

Think he dropped off like a dead weight from 02-04 in Philly's playoff runs. Wonder why he was a bit of a ghost in the 98 playoff run for the team as well. This would have been around his peak.

So no. I do not think he's a HOFer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Most 1st or 2nd Team All Star nods for eligible players not in the HHOF:

Non-HHOFers with five All Star Teams
John LeClair
(Paul Kariya was here)

Non-HHOFers with four All Star Teams
Carl Brewer
Rick Martin

Non-HHOFers with three All Star Teams
Cecil Dillon
Sid Smith
Pat Stapleton
Bill White
Tom Barrasso
Kevin Stevens
Markus Naslund

Non-HHOFers with 2 All Star Teams
Wilf Cude
Paul Thompson
Dave Kerr
Lorne Carr
Bill Hollett
Jack Crawford
Glen Harmon
Gaye Stewart
Jimmy Thomson
Leo Reise
Ken Mosdell
Moose Vasko
Kenny Wharram
Charlie Hodge
J.C. Tremblay
Mickey Redmond
Glenn Resch
Don Edwards
Charlie Simmer
Mike Liut
John Tonelli
John Vanbiesbrouck
Alexander Mogilny
Keith Tkachuk
Eric Desjardins
Dany Heatley
Sergei Gonchar
Roberto Luongo
Dan Boyle
Tim Thomas

 

[MadLuke]

He did beat for those spot, would he have had to beat the same year on the right wing

95: Tkachuck, Shanahan / Jagr-Fleury
96: (Kariya won) Tkachuck, Shanahan / Jagr-Mogilny
97: (kariya won) Tkachuck, Shanahan / Selanne-Jagr
98: Tkachuck, Brind'amour / Jagr-Selanne
99: (kariya won) Demitra/Robitaille vs Jagr-Selanne

Some year's there is something to the weaker all star teams and would have almost certainly never won on the right wing, but Kariya-Tkachuck-Shanahan was not particularly weak all time for the position I think, when it was them.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Certain players represent the precise cutoff point for HHOF induction. Reading through this thread it's clear which 90s/00s players fit into that category (Tkachuk, Roenick, Brind'amour, Mogilny).

Leclair is probably among the best in that group, but he is still decidedly a part of that group.

 

[MS]

He would be in my HHOF.

To me, 5 post-season AS teams plus being the NHL's leading goal scorer over a 5-year span = HHOF.

On both those fronts, leaving him out makes him a massive outlier.

He was a far better player than guys like Andreychuk and Ciccarelli and the fact that he wasn't a compiler like those guys shouldn't keep him out.

From 1994-2000 (6 years) he was the 3rd highest point scorer in the NHL. Having a guy who peaked that high for that long out of the HHOF is absolutely unprecedented. Like, 12 of the top 15 from that stretch are in and the only other guys who aren't are Fleury (9th - and other stuff in play there) and Turgeon (13th).

He seems to get weirdly judged by different standards with the Lindros stuff. Nobody dunks on Kariya because he didn't have any big seasons without Selanne. Nobody dunks on Kurri because he never scored 50 goals without Gretzky.

This was the dominant player in his position for a 5-year span. That means HHOF, to me.