Rick Martin vs. John Leclair

[Big Phil]

Both are LW. Both had a ton of all-star team nods and neither are in or will likely ever be in the HHOF. But if you could only pick one, which one is the closest?

Martin: 1st team all-star ('74, '75) 2nd team all-star ('76, '77). No Cup, better PPG than Leclair.

Leclair: 1st team all-star ('95, '98) 2nd team all-star ('96, '97, '99). Cup win in '93, worse numbers than Martin in the playoff though

Click to read more...

 

[Big Phil]

Martin. But that's just me. 701 points in 685 games is pretty good and he had a higher peak than Leclair I think. Plus while we never found out about this since he almost always had Perreault with him, I still see him as a 40 goal man without a great centreman. Leclair proved how average (at best) he is without Lindros. He was nothing more than a 2nd liner. Martin had the better skill set to b able to compete well on his own. Neiter will ever make the HHOF though. Martin would have if he didnt have to retire at 30, but he just wasnt great long enough. Had 45 goals in his last full year. Leclair is too much a product of Lindros.

 

[MS]

Leclair proved how average (at best) he is without Lindros. He was nothing more than a 2nd liner. Leclair is too much a product of Lindros.

Lindros missed a ton of games from 1995-2000 and Leclair still produced. It's unfortunate he had to have major back surgery in 2000 and was never really the same after that.

Can anyone dig up the numbers on Leclair's production in the 96 games Lindros missed from 1995-2000? It would really shed a lot of light on whether that's a myth or not, and how good Leclair really was.

 

[Jungosi]

Lindros missed a ton of games from 1995-2000 and Leclair still produced. It's unfortunate he had to have major back surgery in 2000 and was never really the same after that.

Can anyone dig up the numbers on Leclair's production in the 96 games Lindros missed from 1995-2000? It would really shed a lot of light on whether that's a myth or not, and how good Leclair really was.

I was actually bored (or interested) enough to do most of the work for the seasons 95-96,96-97 and 97-98

95-96 :
Leclair scores 51 goals and 46 assists in 82 games
Lindros misses 9 games and has his statisticly best season

In those 9 games Leclair scores : 5 goals and 5 assists combined for 10 points. So he is on pace for 46 goals and 45 assists combined for 91 points.

If he had Lindros all season his pace would have been : 52 goals and 46 assists combined for 98 points.

With Big E : +1g and 0a from the real total
Without Bie E : -5g and 1a from the real total

96-97 :
Leclair scores 50 goals and 47 assists in 82 games.
Lindros misses 28 games.

In those 28 games Leclair scores : 17 goals and 13 assists combined for 30 points. So he is on pace for 50 goals and 38 assists combined for 88 points.


If he had Lindros all season his pace would have been : 50 goals and 52 assists combined for 102 points.

With Big E : 0g and +5a from the real total
Without Big E : 0g and -9a from the real total

97-98
Leclair scores 51 goals and 36 assists in 82 games.
Lindros misses 19 games.

In those 19 games Leclair scores : 12 goals and 9 assists combined for 21 points. So he is on pace for 52 goals and 39 assists combined for 91 points.


If he had Lindros all season his pace would have been : 51 goals and 35 assists combined for 76 points.

With Big E : 0g and -1a from the real total
Without Big E : +1g and +3a from the real total

-----------------------------

So there is basicly no statistical difference in Leclair's 50-goal seasons.

ps : I did this rather fast so there might be some mistakes. I mostly used flyershistory.com and hockey-reference.com as sources.

 

[overpass]

This topic caught my interest, so I looked up Leclair's performance without Lindros. Flyershistory.net has game logs for them from 1996/97 through 1999/2000, which made this very easy, so I looked at those seasons.

I see you looked at this also Jungosi, but I looked at a different set of seasons so I'll post my results also.

John Leclair - 1996/97 - 1999/2000

|GP |G |A| P |PIM |SOG |+/-
With Lindros |239| 137 |126 |263| 108 |830 |103
Without Lindros |83 |47 |40 |87 |48 |292 |18

Per 82 Games

|GP| G| A |P |PIM |SOG |+/-
With Lindros| 82| 47 |43 |90 |37 |285 |35
Without Lindros |82 |46 |40 |86 |47 |288 |18

I was surprised to find no significant drop in Leclair's scoring while playing without Lindros. This also matches Jungosi's findings above.

Leclair did post a lower +/- when playing without Lindros. I'm not surprised - I've looked at +/- relative to team a bit, and Lindros posted excellent +/- relative to his team almost his whole career. Leclair never had a good +/- relative to his team except during his Lindros years.

 

[Badger Bob]

Can't for the life of me figure out why Richard Martin is being compared with John Leclair, but these "vs." threads seem to be a great source of amusement to today's youth.

This is an interesting reply though:

This topic caught my interest, so I looked up Leclair's performance without Lindros. Flyershistory.net has game logs for them from 1996/97 through 1999/2000, which made this very easy, so I looked at those seasons.

I see you looked at this also Jungosi, but I looked at a different set of seasons so I'll post my results also.

John Leclair - 1996/97 - 1999/2000

|GP |G |A| P |PIM |SOG |+/-
With Lindros |239| 137 |126 |263| 108 |830 |103
Without Lindros |83 |47 |40 |87 |48 |292 |18

Per 82 Games

|GP| G| A |P |PIM |SOG |+/-
With Lindros| 82| 47 |43 |90 |37 |285 |35
Without Lindros |82 |46 |40 |86 |47 |288 |18

I was surprised to find no significant drop in Leclair's scoring while playing without Lindros. This also matches Jungosi's findings above.

Leclair did post a lower +/- when playing without Lindros. I'm not surprised - I've looked at +/- relative to team a bit, and Lindros posted excellent +/- relative to his team almost his whole career. Leclair never had a good +/- relative to his team except during his Lindros years.

Exhibit A for Leclair without Lindros is the 1996 World Cup of Hockey. That was Leclair's true coming out party.

 

[seventieslord]

Nice work, fellas. Since Martin missed some time with injuries, couldn't we do the same thing sort of in reverse and see if his absence caused his own linemates to suffer? Not the exact same thing, but it would help to indicate if he was a catalyst or a complementary player on that line.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Martin was the better talent and had more natural skill, but Leclair was a much harder worker, hence they had similar results. I always thought Leclair was riding the pony, but those stats really make me revisit that opinion.

A better poll might be Leclair vs Kerr vs K.Stevens at their peaks.

 

[tony d]

John Leclair was the better player

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'd go with Leclair. A lot of people forget how dominant of a goal scorer he was in a low-scoring era. His style was suited to the style of the game at that time though. Big and strong, and could fight through the traffic to get to the net. I was glad to see that the with/without Lindros comparison disproved the notion that he was just the beneficiary of Lindros' talent. Nobody seemed to think that in the late 90's, he was considered one of the game's elite. Unfortunately the bizarre need of some people to label certain players "leeches" many years after the fact has skewed some people's opinions of Leclair. Not quite a HOFer, but worthy of having his name mentioned.

 

[Big Phil]

Can't for the life of me figure out why Richard Martin is being compared with John Leclair, but these "vs." threads seem to be a great source of amusement to today's youth.

Actually Badger, I think it's a fairly good comparison when talking about HHOF eligiblity. Both were LW, both had a good peak, both had a great center, both had a ton of all-star nods and 9/10 we dont think either one of them are HHOFers.

 

[brianscot]

I don't think Martin's totally getting his due here.

Yes, he played in the immediate post expansion era, but he's also 10th all time in goals per game and played in the same approximate peak era that Gillies, Shutt, and Barber did.

For the six seasons that those 4 played concurrently (1974-75-1979-80), Martin scored the most goals.

All had superior centers, but the other three played on overall better teams with more depth. Other than Danny Gare, Buffalo had no second line depth to alleviate the defensive focus on the French Connection.

Martin's major fault was that he was one dimensional. But in an era that featured those 3 Hall of fame left wings (controversial choices or not) Martin was the supreme goal scorer at the position.

 

[Big Phil]

I agree give Martin a couple more full seasons and he's a HHOFer. I think that had his career been a full one that 600 goals isnt out of the question