John LeClair HOF?

[MadLuke]

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.

That a bit unfair when Kariya scored 50 goals-108 points is somophore season Selanne was there only the last 28 games and he was a Top 3 calder before and a 4th overall pick it is normal to less associate is success with Selanne arrival. Kurri did not score 50, but scored 44 and 102 points without him and he is certainly rated quite differently that if a selke candidate would have had those numbers on a different team, a players with 2 70 goals season and scoring 19 goals (tie for the record) in just 18 playoff games would be more brought up in the conversation about the best scorer ever, would it not be of Gretzky.

That a good point than being third in the league in points, second in goals, first in plus/minus over that type of nice windows get underrated, I think in part because of the low scoring era, the same numbers from 88-94 would pop up much more.

I think one issue is going from third in the RS (#8th in ppg) to 12th in the playoff (#20th in ppg among 35 games or more) despite the solid team, would he have is mini Pavel Bure playoff moment in the peak or just stronger after the 97 finals without nothing special that would make him jump over the line (he is certainly on that line of the maybe one day already)

 

[frisco]

People always whine about Andreychuk being in the Hall. LeClair is the same type of player I'd say without the longevity. Here's a breakdown:

90 point seasons:
Andreychuk 3, Leclair 3

70 point seasons:
Andreychuk 10, Leclair 6

35 goal seasons:
Andreychuk 7, Leclair 6

20 goal seasons:
Andreychuk 19!, Leclair 9

My Best-Carey

 

[MadLuke]

Here's a breakdown:

A feel this is quite unfair to compare someone with a large part of is prime post 1996 versus one that had the chance to have is prime in some of the highest scoring season ever.

It look more like this:

fullName	season	numGames	Tgames	TPoints	proRatedCanadianAvgTo82	AdjustedSeasonPoints	ppg	ppgAdjusted	playerSeasonRank
LeClair	19981999	82	76	90	66	131.57	1.18	1.73	1
LeClair	19971998	82	82	87	66.3	126.61	1.06	1.54	2
LeClair	19961997	82	82	97	75.8	123.47	1.18	1.51	3
LeClair	19941995	48	46	54	80	111.26	1.17	1.42	4
LeClair	19992000	82	82	77	67.6	109.9	0.94	1.34	5
LeClair	19951996	82	82	97	88.6	105.64	1.18	1.29	6
Andreychuk	19931994	84	83	99	88.5	105.37	1.19	1.3	1
Andreychuk	19911992	80	80	91	91.3	98.58	1.14	1.2	2
Andreychuk	19921993	84	83	99	99.8	93.44	1.19	1.15	3
Andreychuk	19851986	80	80	87	98.9	87	1.09	1.06	4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]



Or
Dave:
Goals

1992-93 NHL 54 (9th)

1993-94 NHL 53 (4th)

Points

1993-94 NHL 99 (9th)

Versus Leclair:
Goals

1994-95 NHL 26 (10th)

1995-96 NHL 51 (5th)

1996-97 NHL 50 (3rd)

1997-98 NHL 51 (3rd)

1998-99 NHL 43 (5th)

1999-00 NHL 40 (7th)

Points

1994-95 NHL 54 (9th)

1996-97 NHL 97 (4th)

1997-98 NHL 87 (5th)

1998-99 NHL 90 (9th)

Peak wise, Leclair is a clear different tier above Andreychuk (or we would need to open the argument of their respective competition or what they bring outside scoring to their teams).

 

[Big Phil]

Leclair has the misfortune of hitting his stride immediately once he was teamed up with Lindros and then falling off a cliff right at the same time Lindros was no longer a Flyer. Yes, injuries played a bit in his decline too, but there are certain players where we never really knew them without their linemate. Steve Shutt for instance is a HHOFer because of Lafleur, despite his talent. I think we all agree. But we didn't see enough of Shutt on his own to sort of have that stigma against him. Plus he contributed a lot to some seriously great teams.

 

[MS]

People always whine about Andreychuk being in the Hall. LeClair is the same type of player I'd say without the longevity. Here's a breakdown:

90 point seasons:
Andreychuk 3, Leclair 3

70 point seasons:
Andreychuk 10, Leclair 6

35 goal seasons:
Andreychuk 7, Leclair 6

20 goal seasons:
Andreychuk 19!, Leclair 9

My Best-Carey

This is like saying that peak Stephan Lebeau = peak Jarome Iginla because their career years look the same.

 

[The Panther]

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.

Well, Kariya had a huge season in 1995-96 mostly without Selanne, and ten years later (2005-06) another great season without Selanne. Kurri was the NHL 2nd-team All Star and Oilers' team MVP in 1989 without Gretzky, plus scored 10 goals in the playoffs and won the Cup in 1990 without Gretzky. LeClair didn't do comparable things without Lindros (though he did, as I noted above, have those two overtime Finals' goals for Montreal in '93).

But otherwise, I agree with you. I do tire of this "so-and-so-played-with-another-elite-player, therefore-he-wasn't-as-good-as-he-appeared" silliness. You aren't a lesser player because you meshed well with an elite player. (Besides, wasn't it only a few years ago that half the posters on here were dead-set that Lindros wasn't a Hall of Famer? But now he's responsible for LeClair's success.)

 

[frisco]

A feel this is quite unfair to compare someone with a large part of is prime post 1996 versus one that had the chance to have is prime in some of the highest scoring season ever.

It look more like this:

fullName	season	numGames	Tgames	TPoints	proRatedCanadianAvgTo82	AdjustedSeasonPoints	ppg	ppgAdjusted	playerSeasonRank
LeClair	19981999	82	76	90	66	131.57	1.18	1.73	1
LeClair	19971998	82	82	87	66.3	126.61	1.06	1.54	2
LeClair	19961997	82	82	97	75.8	123.47	1.18	1.51	3
LeClair	19941995	48	46	54	80	111.26	1.17	1.42	4
LeClair	19992000	82	82	77	67.6	109.9	0.94	1.34	5
LeClair	19951996	82	82	97	88.6	105.64	1.18	1.29	6
Andreychuk	19931994	84	83	99	88.5	105.37	1.19	1.3	1
Andreychuk	19911992	80	80	91	91.3	98.58	1.14	1.2	2
Andreychuk	19921993	84	83	99	99.8	93.44	1.19	1.15	3
Andreychuk	19851986	80	80	87	98.9	87	1.09	1.06	4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Or
Dave:
Goals

1992-93 NHL 54 (9th)

1993-94 NHL 53 (4th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Points

1993-94 NHL 99 (9th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Versus Leclair:
Goals

1994-95 NHL 26 (10th)

1995-96 NHL 51 (5th)

1996-97 NHL 50 (3rd)

1997-98 NHL 51 (3rd)

1998-99 NHL 43 (5th)

1999-00 NHL 40 (7th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Points

1994-95 NHL 54 (9th)

1996-97 NHL 97 (4th)

1997-98 NHL 87 (5th)

1998-99 NHL 90 (9th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Peak wise, Leclair is a clear different tier above Andreychuk (or we would need to open the argument of their respective competition or what they bring outside scoring to their teams).

Peak-wise, LeClair is better if you just take the best 3-4 years and run them through one type of adjuster. That was not the totality of what I was trying to argue, though. When comparing two players their short prime/peak is but one part of the equation.

I mean if you put Dave Andreychuk up against John LeClair and say, "let's look at their best five years and that's it" it obviously is going to come up in LeClair's favor.

My Best-Carey

 

[MadLuke]

I mean if you put Dave Andreychuk up against John LeClair and say, "let's look at their best five years and that's it" it obviously is going to come up in LeClair's favor.

That not what I was answering too, the statement was:
LeClair is the same type of player I'd say without the longevity

I did object to that, Leclair is not Andreychuck without the longevity, is peak was higher, which you seem to agree.

Andreychuck certainly have an argument over Leclair for someone that value longevity.

 

[MS]

Well, Kariya had a huge season in 1995-96 mostly without Selanne, and ten years later (2005-06) another great season without Selanne. Kurri was the NHL 2nd-team All Star and Oilers' team MVP in 1989 without Gretzky, plus scored 10 goals in the playoffs and won the Cup in 1990 without Gretzky. LeClair didn't do comparable things without Lindros (though he did, as I noted above, have those two overtime Finals' goals for Montreal in '93).

But otherwise, I agree with you. I do tire of this "so-and-so-played-with-another-elite-player, therefore-he-wasn't-as-good-as-he-appeared" silliness. You aren't a lesser player because you meshed well with an elite player. (Besides, wasn't it only a few years ago that half the posters on here were dead-set that Lindros wasn't a Hall of Famer? But now he's responsible for LeClair's success.)

In 1995-96 Kariya scored at a 96-point pace pre-Selanne and a 128-point pace post-Selanne. His 54 games of 96-point play pre-Selanne aren't really any different than what Leclair did around Lindros' injuries.

Kurri's best goal scoring finishes without playing next to the greatest playmaker in NHL history are 15, 35, 46. But he's still considered one of the greatest goalscorers in NHL history.

But yeah, there are guys who made great tandems because both were great and it's silly to just whitewash the 'worse' player in that tandem because the other guy was a bit better.

 

[mja]

LeClair carried those Flyers teams when Lindros was out. He also didn't strictly play with Lindros that entire time. In 97-98 the Flyers broke up the pair for much of the season to avoid being a 1 line team, with Brind'amour joining E and Gratton centering LeClair. LeClair scored 51 goals and 87 points that year.

Should he get in? He's on the line and I'm fine with either side of that question. I think he'll probably get in eventually in a weak year.

 

[frisco]

That not what I was answering too, the statement was:
LeClair is the same type of player I'd say without the longevity

I was kind of thinking stylistically. Both were hulking LWers with a nose for the net and scoring prowess. Their career arcs were very different with Andreychuk scoring at least 20 goals nineteen times and LeClair squeezing most of his production into six or so big years.

My Best-Carey

 

[hacksaw7]

Very good player. Respected competitor...and scoring 50+ and 40+ goals a year for five straight years during the dead puck era is very impressive (and I know most people don't but I consider 95/96 DPE) but he falls short of the HOF for me. Not quite dominant enough for long enough. Didn't really achieve amazing peaks. 90+ goals short of 500.

 

[The Panther]

In 1995-96 Kariya scored at a 96-point pace pre-Selanne and a 128-point pace post-Selanne. His 54 games of 96-point play pre-Selanne aren't really any different than what Leclair did around Lindros' injuries.

Kurri's best goal scoring finishes without playing next to the greatest playmaker in NHL history are 15, 35, 46. But he's still considered one of the greatest goalscorers in NHL history.

But yeah, there are guys who made great tandems because both were great and it's silly to just whitewash the 'worse' player in that tandem because the other guy was a bit better.

You're really cherry-picking here to make a larger point (that I already agree with).

Okay, how about this:

Kurri with Gretzky 1987-88 = 96 points (no season-end All Star)
Kurri without Gretzky 1988-89 = 102 points (2nd Team All Star)

Kariya scoring at basically a 100-point pace in only his 2nd NHL season, before Selanne arrived. Kariya still an elite player 10 years later in 2005-06.

The question is: When did LeClair ever perform at an elite level without Lindros as a line-mate / PP-teammate? The answer is, he never did.

So, LeClair, Kurri, and Kariya are not reasonable comparisons here.

HOWEVER, I still agree with your overall point, as LeClair was a really great and effective player in his prime period. Whether this was largely a result of meshing well with Lindros and other Philly teammates is neither here nor there...

 

[ecemleafs]

Leclair has the misfortune of hitting his stride immediately once he was teamed up with Lindros and then falling off a cliff right at the same time Lindros was no longer a Flyer. Yes, injuries played a bit in his decline too, but there are certain players where we never really knew them without their linemate. Steve Shutt for instance is a HHOFer because of Lafleur, despite his talent. I think we all agree. But we didn't see enough of Shutt on his own to sort of have that stigma against him. Plus he contributed a lot to some seriously great teams.

he broke out statistically late. i dont think he broke down early as some probably think. he was in his 30s and had significant injuries when his production dropped. after missing most of his age 31 season. at ages 32, 34, 36 he put up 50+ points. age 33 season he put up 28 in 35. these point totals came in very low scoring seasons as well. i think hes more punished by not breaking out until he was 25, but he still managed to win the cup and being an important player on that cup team before his breakout. i think hes a HOFer.

 

[JianYang]

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.

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't necessarily like the arbitrary cut off line because I think there are lesser players in the hall who just happened to get in because they were on the right teams at the right time.

But, since the hall seems to value stanley cups so much, if Leclair is going to get in with one cup, surely damphousse should get in before him, I would think.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't necessarily like the arbitrary cut off line because I think there are lesser players in the hall who just happened to get in because they were on the right teams at the right time.

But, since the hall seems to value stanley cups so much, if Leclair is going to get in with one cup, surely damphousse should get in before him, I would think.

This is one of the big weaknesses of the HHOF. There's a long running history of Cup-counting, taking raw stats at face value, and cherrypicking B-level players from dynasties. On a practical level it usually means Committee members voting for their golfing buddies.

 

[Legionnaire11]

Every day after school my friends and I gathered for street hockey and "became" the players. Our goalie was always Hextall. There was always a fight over who was going to be Lindros... But I always took LeClair without hesitation. Even to this day John LeClair is the head coach of my sim team Web Hockey League - WHL27 Team Info

Yet, I'm still a firm NO on LeClair being a Hockey Hall of Fame member. Just didn't have enough of it for long enough. He's was a great player, a beast of a goal scorer, but never the elite player in that best-of-the-best category and even if he certainly came close to touching that level for a short time, he didn't do it over the length of time that would be necessary to justify HOF discussions.

 

[SlickHands]

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't necessarily like the arbitrary cut off line because I think there are lesser players in the hall who just happened to get in because they were on the right teams at the right time.

But, since the hall seems to value stanley cups so much, if Leclair is going to get in with one cup, surely damphousse should get in before him, I would think.

There are a lot of weaker HOFers who never won much, or won once, because they were "star" players for largely mediocre teams/franchises without much else to honor (or played for teams that only flirted with getting it done). The Sedins, Naslunds, Heatleys, and LeClairs of the world all fit this category and there are comparables in there who are there because they were playing in statistically advantageous time periods or fit that franchise star category (Bernie Federko, Ciccarelli, Mark Howe, Andreychuk variety). The advantage can work both ways and if LeClair got in, I think it would be from some nostalgia for what was, in my opinion, an overrated line and a Philly team that didn't ultimately do much.

 

[JianYang]

There are a lot of weaker HOFers who never won much, or won once, because they were "star" players for largely mediocre teams/franchises without much else to honor (or played for teams that only flirted with getting it done). The Sedins, Naslunds, Heatleys, and LeClairs of the world all fit this category and there are comparables in there who are there because they were playing in statistically advantageous time periods or fit that franchise star category (Bernie Federko, Ciccarelli, Mark Howe, Andreychuk variety). The advantage can work both ways and if LeClair got in, I think it would be from some nostalgia for what was, in my opinion, an overrated line and a Philly team that didn't ultimately do much.

With guys like sedins, I really don't have an issue at all.

The guys I'm particularly referring to are the guys who racked up stanley cups and otherwise would not have got in but for the fact they played on dynasties.

Kevin Lowe would be the latest from that category.

 

[GRob83]

I think for comparison sake, a player who also had a career spanning from 1990-2007 that isn't in the Hall of Fame is Peter Bondra. Bondra scored 503 Goals and never had a linemate anywhere near as good as Lindros. He was 2nd in goals only to Jagr between the lock-outs of 94 and 04 and lead the league in SHG over the same time frame while leading the league in goals 2X. If he can't get in as one of the best Slovakian goal scorers the league has ever seen then Leclair stays on the outside looking in as well at a Hall of Fame largely made up of better Canadian and American players than Leclair himself was.

 

[johan f]

Gets watered if every player with a few dominant seasons get in the hockey hall of fame.

 

[crobro]

3 straight post season 1st all star team at left wing is a very tough accomplishment

Naslund should get in

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

There are a lot of weaker HOFers who never won much, or won once, because they were "star" players for largely mediocre teams/franchises without much else to honor (or played for teams that only flirted with getting it done). The Sedins, Naslunds, Heatleys, and LeClairs of the world all fit this category and there are comparables in there who are there because they were playing in statistically advantageous time periods or fit that franchise star category (Bernie Federko, Ciccarelli, Mark Howe, Andreychuk variety).

Is Mark Howe considered a weak HoFer? I don’t think he should be bundled with those other names. Was three times a 1st team all-star in generally a pretty good era for defensemen. He’s a top 100 player according to HoH.

 

[quietbruinfan]

Outstanding player who I wish to God had been a Bruin, but a Hall of very good player who tailed off considerably. Also had the "advantage" of playing in the dpe/super cycle era. He fit Lindros and the era better than anyone. Don't think he would have done as well individually in other eras.

 

[MS]

Gets watered if every player with a few dominant seasons get in the hockey hall of fame.

Pretty much every player with a few dominant seasons *is* in the HHOF as well as a whole bunch who had zero dominant seasons.