Lindros should be in the Hall

[Voight]

Technically he never won a scoring title just like how Gretzky never won the scoring title in his rookie season.

Yes, Lindros was 3 goals behind, Gretzky 2. I'm not sure "technically" is the right word.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

He still had the most points in the league. Playing two less games.

Hart
Pearson
Playoff scoring title
First team all star
Tied for scoring lead in 94-95

Better resume than a lot of hall of famers

 

[Big Phil]

We are lucky in hockey because the guys we talk about are Lindros and Vachon and Fleury and such. Guys that probably could and should be in but there can be a side that they shouldn't be to some, and it at least makes it interesting. Lindros and Fleury are probably out because of their off-ice actions but this is nothing compared to Baseball. You can probably sleep at night knowing Lindros isn't in there, but imagine a league where Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, Palmeiro and then the likes of Ortiz and A-Rod eventually. Every name is a lock for the Baseball HOF but they either admitted to steroids or just haven't but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

It is a big mess when the all-time single season and career HR guy is out. Not to mention the guy who held the single season record prior to him and has 583 in total. Or Sosa, three times 60+ HR. Clemens is one of the best pitchers of all-time and Palmeiro is in by now for sure without the steroids.

A-Rod and Ortiz when they are eligible are locks on their playing careers but we all know what happened to them.

So in a way we are lucky with hockey, we are debating Lindros, while Baseball is wondering if they can induct the guys who have some of their records. Big difference and I hope they fix that mess soon enough in baseball.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It still comes down to people either liking him or not.

The argument that he doesn't have HHOF numbers just isn't there.

He has the numbers in spades if one uses context and is an above average HHOF player for his peak of 8 years (7 NHL and national team).

I'm not sure about that. He only hit 80 points three times. The lockout-shortened 1995 season was the only time he came close to playing the full schedule. He only played 53 playoff games in his entire career.

It boils down to whether one views his peak as a collection of ~400 games, or compartmentalizes into individual seasons. There's no right or wrong viewpoint, but most players are judged through a lens of how valuable each individual season was. If Lindros is going to be judged differently, other players ought to be afforded the same courtesy.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm not sure about that. He only hit 80 points three times. The lockout-shortened 1995 season was the only time he came close to playing the full schedule. He only played 53 playoff games in his entire career.

It boils down to whether one views his peak as a collection of ~400 games, or compartmentalizes into individual seasons. There's no right or wrong viewpoint, but most players are judged through a lens of how valuable each individual season was. If Lindros is going to be judged differently, other players ought to be afforded the same courtesy.

And there in lies the biggest problem with Lindros - outside of his off-ice decisions and reputation. He "would" have been better "if" he played more. 1995 and 1996 no arguments there. He played enough games to make an impact. 1997, 1998 and 2000 he did not and he did nothing of note after 2000 so this is more of a moot point discussing anything he did outside of a Flyer jersey.

So basically as far as what I would consider a great season, he had 1995, 1996 and 1999. Even in 1999 he suffers the collapsed lung and played only 71 games and missed the playoffs. Yet he still had 93 points which was pretty good that year so you give it to him.

So three elite years basically. 1994 is on the border of elite and missing too much time to be elite but 97 points is great so we'll give it to him.

It wasn't as if he was Lemieux and could miss 20 games and win a scoring title still. Those 50-60 game seasons hurt him. This is why Leclair had the Hart votes over him in 1997 and 1998. He played full years and scored 50 goals.

So while we all know the impact he had from a physical standpoint and everyone wanting a player just like him the truth is, can a maximum of 4 elite seasons with a spotty playoff record get you in the HHOF? Or does Lindros actually need that whole "impact on the game" thing to get in?

 

[The Panther]

No one is comparing Lindros to Mario Lemieux. Certainly his spotty games-played record is a factor, and that explains why he wasn't a first-balloter and had to wait. But his level of play and domination of peers was so high that it simply doesn't exclude him from the Hall. It's comparable to Crosby, whose main claim over Lindros as this point is that he won one Stanley Cup.

As for Lindros's "spotty playoff record"... I dunno, is it? He took a sad-sack team to the Stanley Cup Finals, leading the whole playoffs in scoring. He won the Canada Cup. He won the Gold medal. Since expansion, how many Hall of Famers have equal or worse playoff/international resumes? Maybe half of them...?

At this point in time, Lindros' (and Makarov's) exclusion in preference to, say, Phil Housley, is an embarrassment to the NHL, which should be ashamed of itself.

 

[Big Phil]

No one is comparing Lindros to Mario Lemieux. Certainly his spotty games-played record is a factor, and that explains why he wasn't a first-balloter and had to wait. But his level of play and domination of peers was so high that it simply doesn't exclude him from the Hall. It's comparable to Crosby, whose main claim over Lindros as this point is that he won one Stanley Cup.

As for Lindros's "spotty playoff record"... I dunno, is it? He took a sad-sack team to the Stanley Cup Finals, leading the whole playoffs in scoring. He won the Canada Cup. He won the Gold medal. Since expansion, how many Hall of Famers have equal or worse playoff/international resumes? Maybe half of them...?

At this point in time, Lindros' (and Makarov's) exclusion in preference to, say, Phil Housley, is an embarrassment to the NHL, which should be ashamed of itself.

Overall he should get in for various reasons because let's face it, he was a big face of the game. I am just playing the devil's advocate here and showing that overall he didn't have the elite seasons people think he had. On a "per game" basis, sure. But I think Crosby has long passed him when it comes down to career value. I think it goes beyond just having a Cup. For Crosby the elite seasons I count are:

2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015. That's 7 right there. Obviously on a per game basis 2008, 2011 and 2012 would be right there too but he missed too much time. Lindros did not have that many elite seasons. He also doesn't have Crosby's playoff record. 118 points in 100 games. We all talk about how Crosby could have an even BETTER playoff record but in reality he has over double the points Lindros had. If you want to compare Lindros to anyone's career right now it might be Malkin's. That's only because Malkin has had some missed time and a couple of suspect seasons. He has about the same elite seasons as Lindros but yet still a much better playoff resume. Would Lindros even have a better career than Malkin? I don't know.

He was a bit of a disappointment in the 1996 World Cup and 1998 Olympics. No doubt he could have done so much more. He was the best player in probably both tournaments, or so we thought. He should have shown it, this was his time to do it. The times he did win was 2002 when he was a role player with little value and 1991 when he certainly did "arrive" but this was Gretzky's tournament still and Canada doesn't win without him, not Lindros.

I don't know about glorifying his playoff resume though. I wouldn't call the Flyers in 1997 a "sad sack" team either. They had some talent, no doubt. I also wonder who these HHOFers are that had worse playoff records than him. There aren't that many to be honest. Phil Housley, okay fine, no argument there, but even Jean Ratelle picked up some slack later in his career in the postseason. Selanne I guess might be one although his regular seasons are just so much better than Lindros it doesn't really matter. I don't know, it would be a short list of HHOFers with a worse playoff record.

 

[The Panther]

Overall he should get in for various reasons because let's face it, he was a big face of the game. I am just playing the devil's advocate here and showing that overall he didn't have the elite seasons people think he had.

Fair enough.

Lindros did not have that many elite seasons. He also doesn't have Crosby's playoff record. 118 points in 100 games. We all talk about how Crosby could have an even BETTER playoff record but in reality he has over double the points Lindros had.

I don't disagree with any of this, but let's not forget Lindros had 53 points in 43 playoff games (+13) in three consecutive playoff years, which includes a run to the Finals. (After that, he was basically done for the playoffs in his career, making three more partial appearances.) Right there, in three years, he's outperformed, say, Daniel Sedin's career in the playoffs, but I doubt anyone's going to use that stick to beat Sedin out of the Hall of Fame.

Maybe I'm over-stating it with the Lindros/Crosby comparison, but I don't think it's too far-fetched. When healthy, Lindros from 1992-2000 was probably the #1, #2, or #3 forward in the game at any time in that 8-year span.

He was a bit of a disappointment in the 1996 World Cup and 1998 Olympics. No doubt he could have done so much more. He was the best player in probably both tournaments, or so we thought. He should have shown it, this was his time to do it. The times he did win was 2002 when he was a role player with little value and 1991 when he certainly did "arrive" but this was Gretzky's tournament still and Canada doesn't win without him, not Lindros.

You are quite right about this. I'd almost forgotten how disappointing Lindros was in the '96 World Cup, and also in Nagano '98. I mean, the stat-line doesn't look too bad (11 points in 14 games overall), but certainly he didn't grasp the mantle the way Orr did in '76, Gretzky in '84-'91, Mario in '87, etc.

I don't know about glorifying his playoff resume though. I wouldn't call the Flyers in 1997 a "sad sack" team either.

To clarify: I meant they were "sad-sack" in 1992, when he joined. Three years later, they were contending for the Cup.

 

[Juicy Pop]

Am I able to effectively tell a detailed story of the NHL in the 90's without speaking, at length, about Lindros?

That's usually the first question I ask myself regarding HOF candidates.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I don't disagree with any of this, but let's not forget Lindros had 53 points in 43 playoff games (+13) in three consecutive playoff years, which includes a run to the Finals. (After that, he was basically done for the playoffs in his career, making three more partial appearances.) Right there, in three years, he's outperformed, say, Daniel Sedin's career in the playoffs, but I doubt anyone's going to use that stick to beat Sedin out of the Hall of Fame.

Picking a very borderline HOFer with a bad playoff resume as your point of comparison doesn't further Lindros' case.

Lindros' problem is the startling lack of games played. For a guy who spent his prime on an elite team, it stands out like a sore thumb. He just couldn't manage to stay on the ice. Even guys who spent their careers on bottom feeders got into more playoff games.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Overall he should get in for various reasons because let's face it, he was a big face of the game. I am just playing the devil's advocate here and showing that overall he didn't have the elite seasons people think he had. On a "per game" basis, sure. But I think Crosby has long passed him when it comes down to career value. I think it goes beyond just having a Cup. For Crosby the elite seasons I count are:

2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015. That's 7 right there. Obviously on a per game basis 2008, 2011 and 2012 would be right there too but he missed too much time. Lindros did not have that many elite seasons. He also doesn't have Crosby's playoff record. 118 points in 100 games. We all talk about how Crosby could have an even BETTER playoff record but in reality he has over double the points Lindros had. If you want to compare Lindros to anyone's career right now it might be Malkin's. That's only because Malkin has had some missed time and a couple of suspect seasons. He has about the same elite seasons as Lindros but yet still a much better playoff resume. Would Lindros even have a better career than Malkin? I don't know.

I think this is accurate. A Cup-less, Smythe-less Malkin is a pretty good parallel. Even the injury-plagued Crosby has been far more durable than Lindros.

 

[The Panther]

Picking a very borderline HOFer with a bad playoff resume as your point of comparison doesn't further Lindros' case.

The comparison player isn't the point. The point is that there is nothing wrong with Lindros's playoff performances. His scoring in the playoffs is exceptional. He just didn't play a lot of playoff games compared to dynasty players... but then again, he played more than some.

Even guys who spent their careers on bottom feeders got into more playoff games.

To my knowledge, from his first playoff in '95 to the Stevens' hit in 2000, Lindros played in every Philadelphia playoff game.

I'd like to know why my Dale Hawerchuk point (startling lack of playoff success with two teams over 15 years) gets dismissed, but Lindros is constantly beaten down for not enough playoff games, even though he got his team to the Finals very quickly -- far more success than Hawerchuk had in 15 years with two franchises. Hawerchuk played 31 playoff games in his first 8 years; Lindros 50.

Again, I'm not saying Lindros was a playoff hero -- his lack of playoff appearances post-1997 is very disappointing -- but I don't think his resume is bad when he did play. In fact, it's mainly great. And he almost single-handedly won the Conference for his team in '97.

Even the injury-plagued Crosby has been far more durable than Lindros.

Except in their first 8 years, which is nearly Lindros's entire career of significance. In those respective first 8 seasons, Crosby appeared in 470 games out of a possible 622 (75.6%); while Lindros appeared in 486 games out of a possible 626 (77.6%).

So, in all of the 8 seasons anyone cares about, Lindros appeared in 78% of the games. But I guess this isn't enough for some people. Ah, well, Eric should have played more like Phil Housley I guess...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

three year playoff peaks for the sedins (2009-2011)--

henrik: 47 games, 46 points, run to the finals (10 points in 10 games, 14 points in 12 games, 22 points in 25 games)

daniel: 44 points, 47 games, run to the finals (10 points in 10 games, 14 points in 12 games, 20 points in 25 games)

lindros, '95-'97: 53 points in 43 games, run to the finals (15 points in 12 games, 12 points in 12 games, 26 points in 19 games)

eric's three year playoff peak isn't that far off, is it? and i'm not saying this to prop the sedins' playoff record. i'm saying this because most of us agree that the sedins were at best average playoff performers for superstar level players, and i think a lot of you guys would think that is being quite generous to call them average. no, there's nothing "wrong" with lindros' playoff numbers. but they also are not so much better as to make the difference between sedin-level to "exceptional."

the difference between lindros' and daniel sedin's playoff resumes is basically one big series by lindros (or rather, one series against nashville where daniel didn't produce).

i think lindros really was in the playoffs: fairly average for a superstar level player. and actually, hawerchuk is a good comparison here. peak hawerchuk on a better team in a weaker conference probably does everything eric did.

that said, by current standards of course lindros belongs in the HHOF. even with all the games missed almost every year, his regular season resume alone more than hits the existing threshold.

 

[trentmccleary]

The first X hundred games of his career, where X>3. Had to watch him to understand. You're not going to find much in trophies, because:



And still, better than Naslund's rounding up to 3 seasons of being a top LWer, and winning a Pearson that probably could/should have gone to Forsberg instead.



If you think the above distillation encapsulates everything we need to know about Lindros and Naslund for the sake of comparison, I submit you're greatly mistaken. For starters, why have you completely ignored the playoffs? 500 points in his first 352 games is an accomplishment that Naslund can't match, either; Ovechkin barely did.

Look at how much cherry picking and adding up of partial seasons you had to do to make this argument. He was more dominant than Naslund ever was, no argument. But he missed so many games in his prime that his peak accomplishments look more like Naslund's than those of the Orr's, Lemieux's, Crosby's and whatever other comparables thrown out there.

He surpassed 65 games in a season just 4 times.
He played one 80+ game season and it was in his decline phase with a 50 point season.
The 3 others were all in the low 70's in GP. 96 & 99 are apart of his best years, but 02 wasn't a dominant season.

Otherwise, the 50-60 games he was playing were impressive at the time, but didn't do a lot to build a HHOF legacy vs. guys who had dominant full seasons before their careers were cut short.

The half season MVP is nice, but in admitting my biases...
I'd probably only look at it as a real award if it proved some continuing level of dominance (Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, Hasek). That Lindros won just makes me think "of course, the season was too short for him to get hurt and miss 25 games".

Ultimately, I think he'll eventually get in somewhere between Forsberg and Lafontaine/Neely. But people seemed to like Lafontaine and Neely and awful lot to make their inductions happen. It wouldn't entirely surprise me if Lindros had to wait until everybody over the age of 60yo had to leave the board before he got in.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The comparison player isn't the point. The point is that there is nothing wrong with Lindros's playoff performances. His scoring in the playoffs is exceptional. He just didn't play a lot of playoff games compared to dynasty players... but then again, he played more than some.

Exactly, he didn't play many playoff games. That's the criticism. This might get excused somewhat for players stuck on terrible teams. For a guy who played on great teams for a number of years, it's concerning.

To my knowledge, from his first playoff in '95 to the Stevens' hit in 2000, Lindros played in every Philadelphia playoff game.

Not even close. Missed all of 99, and almost all of 00. The Stevens game was one of only two games he played in the entire playoffs.

I'd like to know why my Dale Hawerchuk point (startling lack of playoff success with two teams over 15 years) gets dismissed, but Lindros is constantly beaten down for not enough playoff games, even though he got his team to the Finals very quickly -- far more success than Hawerchuk had in 15 years with two franchises. Hawerchuk played 31 playoff games in his first 8 years; Lindros 50.

Wasn't dismissed by me.

Again, I'm not saying Lindros was a playoff hero -- his lack of playoff appearances post-1997 is very disappointing -- but I don't think his resume is bad when he did play. In fact, it's mainly great. And he almost single-handedly won the Conference for his team in '97.

It's not bad when he did play; he just played very little relative to other star players on decent teams in his era.

Except in their first 8 years, which is nearly Lindros's entire career of significance. In those respective first 8 seasons, Crosby appeared in 470 games out of a possible 622 (75.6%); while Lindros appeared in 486 games out of a possible 626 (77.6%).

Crosby had four full seasons though. One big injury cost him most of two seasons. Lindros consistently missed 20-30 games every year with one ailment after another.

So, in all of the 8 seasons anyone cares about, Lindros appeared in 78% of the games. But I guess this isn't enough for some people. Ah, well, Eric should have played more like Phil Housley I guess...

If Housley is the new bench mark, prepare to double the size of the HOF.

 

[BraveCanadian]

You are quite right about this. I'd almost forgotten how disappointing Lindros was in the '96 World Cup, and also in Nagano '98.

The mantle was pushed on him too early by his dumb manager.

But imagine how different his reputation would have been if he hadn't hit the post on Hasek.

 

[Crosbyfan]

The comparison player isn't the point. The point is that there is nothing wrong with Lindros's playoff performances. His scoring in the playoffs is exceptional. He just didn't play a lot of playoff games compared to dynasty players... but then again, he played more than some.

To my knowledge, from his first playoff in '95 to the Stevens' hit in 2000, Lindros played in every Philadelphia playoff game.

I'd like to know why my Dale Hawerchuk point (startling lack of playoff success with two teams over 15 years) gets dismissed, but Lindros is constantly beaten down for not enough playoff games, even though he got his team to the Finals very quickly -- far more success than Hawerchuk had in 15 years with two franchises. Hawerchuk played 31 playoff games in his first 8 years; Lindros 50.

Again, I'm not saying Lindros was a playoff hero -- his lack of playoff appearances post-1997 is very disappointing -- but I don't think his resume is bad when he did play. In fact, it's mainly great. And he almost single-handedly won the Conference for his team in '97.

Except in their first 8 years, which is nearly Lindros's entire career of significance. In those respective first 8 seasons, Crosby appeared in 470 games out of a possible 622 (75.6%); while Lindros appeared in 486 games out of a possible 626 (77.6%).

So, in all of the 8 seasons anyone cares about, Lindros appeared in 78% of the games. But I guess this isn't enough for some people. Ah, well, Eric should have played more like Phil Housley I guess...

That's not correct. He missed the 6 games they played the year previous to the hit, and 3 of the 15 games from back in '95.

The year of the hit, he missed the first 2 rounds, then came back and played just two against New Jersey.

So he missed a fair bit.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Picking a very borderline HOFer with a bad playoff resume as your point of comparison doesn't further Lindros' case.

I agree and Daniel Sedin isn't a good comp for Lindros either.

Lindros' problem is the startling lack of games played. For a guy who spent his prime on an elite team, it stands out like a sore thumb. He just couldn't manage to stay on the ice. Even guys who spent their careers on bottom feeders got into more playoff games.

The Flyers didn't perform as an elite team in the playoffs....except for Lindros of course and Rod Brind'Amour/LeClair to a much lesser extent.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Lindros was simply extremely elite for the 486 games he played for the flyers and the narrow focus on regular season and 80 points without context means very little when one looks at him closely.

He was hands down one of the top forwards in the NHL in his 7 year peak, at a time when the competition for forwards was extremely fierce and deep.

Lindros doesn't get all of his value from simply scoring, like a Selanne or Oates for instance, but rather he is a full impact type of player and he is very deserving (from his hockey resume) to be in the HHOF.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

The only thing keeping him out is non hockey stuff plain and simple.

I think over time his refusal to play in Quebec will hurt him less much like the amateur/pro "problems" at the beginning of the 20th century.

No one brings up the fact that players back then did alot of stuff counter to the "established " hockey norm at the time yet we never hear anything negative about that do we?

 

[Hardyvan123]

three year playoff peaks for the sedins (2009-2011)--

henrik: 47 games, 46 points, run to the finals (10 points in 10 games, 14 points in 12 games, 22 points in 25 games)

daniel: 44 points, 47 games, run to the finals (10 points in 10 games, 14 points in 12 games, 20 points in 25 games)

lindros, '95-'97: 53 points in 43 games, run to the finals (15 points in 12 games, 12 points in 12 games, 26 points in 19 games)

eric's three year playoff peak isn't that far off, is it? and i'm not saying this to prop the sedins' playoff record. i'm saying this because most of us agree that the sedins were at best average playoff performers for superstar level players, and i think a lot of you guys would think that is being quite generous to call them average. no, there's nothing "wrong" with lindros' playoff numbers. but they also are not so much better as to make the difference between sedin-level to "exceptional."

the difference between lindros' and daniel sedin's playoff resumes is basically one big series by lindros (or rather, one series against nashville where daniel didn't produce).

i think lindros really was in the playoffs: fairly average for a superstar level player. and actually, hawerchuk is a good comparison here. peak hawerchuk on a better team in a weaker conference probably does everything eric did.

Using Lindros 3 year playoff peak and calling him fairly average for a superstar level player ins't really all that correct though.

He was 3rd in playoff scoring over those 3 years behind legendary performers like Feds and Sakic who played on much better teams and thus the legendary part.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

that said, by current standards of course lindros belongs in the HHOF. even with all the games missed almost every year, his regular season resume alone more than hits the existing threshold.

Agree with this.

His regualr season 7 year peak and the National team and OG resume the year before he entered the NHL passes the threshold of a HHOF player quite easily, the playoffs is just icing on the cake.

And he has that all important signature playoff run as well.....

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Using Lindros 3 year playoff peak and calling him fairly average for a superstar level player ins't really all that correct though.

He was 3rd in playoff scoring over those 3 years behind legendary performers like Feds and Sakic who played on much better teams and thus the legendary part.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

that is a good point.

on the other hand, henrik was 5th (one single point out of third), daniel was 7th during their three year stretches. every guy ahead of them was either sidney crosby or a conn smythe winner (kane, malkin, zetterberg, and henrik was tied with toews, two points ahead of daniel). daniel sedin was closer to second place (4 points) than lindros was (9 points).

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points


i don't know what to make of this and seriously i don't want to make this about the sedins. honestly, i am just flat out surprised how close lindros' best three playoff seasons are to the sedins'. yes, lindros has a better signature run, but not that much better. from what i'm seeing, if lindros was a great playoff performer, then the sedins are good ones. or if the sedins are bad playoff performers, then lindros was below average.

and the eye test on all three of those guys in the playoffs tells me, lindros: fairly average for a superstar level player, got the yips when it really counted. the sedins: not as bad as people say, but not especially good either, at least not for superstars. also had trouble getting it done when it counted.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The Flyers didn't perform as an elite team in the playoffs....except for Lindros of course and Rod Brind'Amour/LeClair to a much lesser extent.

If they were in the West at the time, their playoff stumbles might be forgiven. But the East saw Florida, Washington, and Buffalo win the conference in the late 90's. Plus New Jersey choke repeatedly. Philadelphia should have done better than they did given these circumstances. Lindros not being available for some of these playoff games was a big factor. I guess what I'm saying is, they were elite compared to the rest of the conference.

Lindros was simply extremely elite for the 486 games he played for the flyers and the narrow focus on regular season and 80 points without context means very little when one looks at him closely.

Oh he definitely was. But there's plenty of other players that would have their Hall of Fame chances boosted by cherry picking their best 400 games and ignoring how those games were distributed to individual seasons.

The only thing keeping him out is non hockey stuff plain and simple.

See, that's kind of the point of contention for me. Ignoring all the off ice stuff, Lindros is still borderline in my view. Missing big chunks of games injured practically every year is a negative to me. To others, not so much. I think he'll eventually get it, and it won't be a poor selection, but he'll be on the bottom rung of inductees. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I think over time his refusal to play in Quebec will hurt him less much like the amateur/pro "problems" at the beginning of the 20th century.

No one brings up the fact that players back then did alot of stuff counter to the "established " hockey norm at the time yet we never hear anything negative about that do we?

There's early-era players that didn't get inducted until long after they became eligible and/or the HOF was created. Conn Smythe kept Busher Jackson out until the 1970's because he was a party animal (apparently). Clint Benedict was kept out for a long time, possibly for forcing the league to change the rules on goaltenders dropping to the ice. Everyone who might have held a grudge against these players is long dead, which is why we don't hear complaining about them.

Lindros will get in eventually. Pretty much any borderline guy with a significant number of supporters seems to find his way in eventually. Anderson got in. Ciccarelli got in. Mark Howe finally broke through. Housley of all people somehow got in. But they had to wait a while.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I hated Lindros during his peak. But he's definitely a hall of famer.

The effect he had on games during his peak isn't matched by anyone but the true greats.

When people talk about the DPE and how many giant plugs were drafted ahead of smaller, much better, players. Lindros was the reason for that.

Do people forget how much of being a GM in the eastern conference was trying to figure out how to combat the legion of doom?

Granted, it was only for a few years. But he definitely had a hall of fame effect on the game.

 

[angrymnky]

I'd like to know why my Dale Hawerchuk point (startling lack of playoff success with two teams over 15 years) gets dismissed, but Lindros is constantly beaten down for not enough playoff games, even though he got his team to the Finals very quickly -- far more success than Hawerchuk had in 15 years with two franchises. Hawerchuk played 31 playoff games in his first 8 years; Lindros 50.

It's startling that Winnipeg lost every year Hawerchuk was there (except for his rookie season) to either the Stanley Cup Finalists or Stanley Cup champions?
Philly lost to Finalists and Champions as well but they got to beat up on some other teams, a luxury Winnipeg never had.
And in 81 Winnipeg had 32 points, in Hawerchuk's rookie season in 82 they had 80 points and by 85 they were the 4th best team in the league and without a top 10 goalie.

 

[seventieslord]

Crosby has easily surpassed Lindros by now, but Crosby is not the bar for the HHOF.

 

[Big Phil]

But imagine how different his reputation would have been if he hadn't hit the post on Hasek.

All we can say is what would have happened right at that second. If he scores on that shootout, then Canada and the Czechs are tied after 4 shooters, well, 4 for Canada and 3 for the Czechs. Jagr was the 4th Czech shooter and he hits the post on Roy as it was. If the shootout is tied with Jagr maybe he does a different move and there is a different outcome, who knows. That being said, Shanahan is the final Canadian shooter and I don't like his chances either way (why Crawford figured Shanny was better on breakaways than someone like Yzerman is beyond me). I have no idea who the 5th Czech shooter was since it never got there.

So if Lindros scores there, it is nice, but another Canadian needed to score for them to win, and that doesn't take into account how the Czechs would have done. They may have just remembered the guy who eventually scored Canada's winner over Lindros. However, that would have set up a Canada/Russia gold medal game and if Lindros does well that game and captains Canada to Gold, then yes, the whole "can't win" label isn't there nearly as much.

However it didn't work out that way.

I think this is accurate. A Cup-less, Smythe-less Malkin is a pretty good parallel. Even the injury-plagued Crosby has been far more durable than Lindros.

And if Malkin didn't win that Cup in 2009 and his career ended tomorrow we would all be wondering in 10 years why Malkin wasn't in there. However, he has far less enemies than Lindros did.

I don't disagree with any of this, but let's not forget Lindros had 53 points in 43 playoff games (+13) in three consecutive playoff years, which includes a run to the Finals. (After that, he was basically done for the playoffs in his career, making three more partial appearances.) Right there, in three years, he's outperformed, say, Daniel Sedin's career in the playoffs, but I doubt anyone's going to use that stick to beat Sedin out of the Hall of Fame.

There are a lot of people, including me, who have an issue with Daniel Sedin getting in someday even though he probably will. He has that twin factor attached to him which is unique. This is a player who won an Art Ross but only has one other time he was top 10 in points and this doesn't even delve into his playoff resume. It should roll off your tongue that a player is a HHOFer, and it doesn't with Sedin. Even with Lindros there is a bit of hesitation.

Maybe I'm over-stating it with the Lindros/Crosby comparison, but I don't think it's too far-fetched. When healthy, Lindros from 1992-2000 was probably the #1, #2, or #3 forward in the game at any time in that 8-year span.

Which is his Achilles heel. Staying healthy. We all said that about him too. It was always "If he stayed healthy................" type of thing. That just got too routine and almost tiring with Lindros. You got sick of it just waiting for the guy to play consistently. We've complained about Mario and Crosby's career this way too but it pales in comparison with Lindros. Mario still wins 6 Art Ross trophies despite his injuries while Crosby is actually relatively healthy in his career without the side effects from the concussion those two years.

You are quite right about this. I'd almost forgotten how disappointing Lindros was in the '96 World Cup, and also in Nagano '98. I mean, the stat-line doesn't look too bad (11 points in 14 games overall), but certainly he didn't grasp the mantle the way Orr did in '76, Gretzky in '84-'91, Mario in '87, etc.

I was waiting for it too. 1996 was a disappointment but I thought all of that could be forgotten if he came through in the 1998 Olympics. It never happened. In 1996 Gretzky and Coffey outpointed him and led the team in scoring. Fleury had as many points as Lindros too. 6 points in 8 games for a guy who was supposed to be the best player in this tournament? Not good. By 2002 when he made the Olympic team you sort of thought that he was so far gone by then. He had one point and it was against Belarus.

I'll say again though, as far as his playoff resume goes, which names come to mind that have a worse resume that are in the HHOF?