Why did Cam Neely make it and Lindros not?

[njdevils1982]

i say put lindros in the hall, why not. put his plaque RIGHT BELOW this one so next time i'm there i can have a good laugh.

 

[Ignoramus*]

To be fair Lindros would have scored 50 in at least two years without his injuries. His highest was 47. He also reached 115 points once compared to Neely's peak at 92.

But to the original question, the answer is simply this: popularity. Character. Lindros didn't thrive on either one. This hurt him in the long run.

No doubt in my mind when you take the body of work of both players that Lindros has the better career, peak and dominance. Character is part of the HHOF bylaws though.

I watched hockey pretty religiously when Lindros first broke into the league, so I know how dominant he was (he might have been the all-around most dominant player to ever play the game when he was at his peak). That said, scoring 50 goals 3 times, doing it once in 49 games, is very impressive. Neely was a beast and he had a great (although injury filled) career.

I think the key difference is expectations. Lindros never came close to matching the crazy expectations and hype at the time (think Crosby x 100). Neely exceeded expectations.

 

[Passchendaele]

I heard he was the best player in the NHL for a stretch of 3 to 4 years.

The one who said that is way off..

His peak to start with was short-lived and from 1995-1997, no one was ahead of Lemieux.

 

[alko]

I haven't seen both of them play in there prime, but I've heard unbelievable things about Lindros. ..

Details, please.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

The weird part is, having watched Lindros in his prime, I could never quite shake the feeling he was a bust. Looking at the stats he's done pretty well but that's the danger of hype. When people go "This guy is Lemieux with an edge!" "Messier with better skill!", well you just expect more than one major trophy. It probably didn't help that in the time 94-96 when the Legion of Doom was in full effect their seasons ultimately ended in the playoffs in disappointment. In 97 they made the Finals but were swept by the Wings.

It could be that I'm biased of course, after the way he had behaved, his family and all that I wanted him to fail. Every little setback gave me a little bit of satisfaction.

 

[BamBamCam*]

And here is a good example as to why stats do not tell the whole story.

Is Coffey better than Orr because he beat his totals?

Neely is considered the first power forward (yes yes I know Gordie Howe) and defined the position as it is known today. End of argument.

GMs will tell you when they are looking at players in the draft, they look for and use certain terms like "the next Great One", the Next Bobby Orr" "the next Mario" and "the next Cam Neely" to describe the player they want to draft and everyone knows exactly what they mean when they use those terms ....

As great as a player Lindros was, Lindros does not get the recognition like Cam does and for good reason. I don't think Lindros played with 1/10th of the heart and passion that Cam did and that is a big separating factor between the two. Lindros for as big and strong as he was, he looked disinterested sometimes and like he didn't care a all until he found out his glass jaw was taking his career away.

Some can all it dislike for his family or attitude but Cam was the better player that was cut short by cheap shots and injuries. Cam did 50 in 49 games on one leg and half a hip and all heart.

 

[JT Dutch*]

... It's because the people who usually participate in the voting for Halls of Fame in sports are usually pretty clueless and vindictive. It has always been this way.

Neely shouldn't even be in the Hall, and neither should Ciccarelli - so, those are pretty bad arguments as to why Lindros should or shouldn't be in.

Lindros was the very definition of a Hall of Famer when he was healthy and in his prime. He was one of the best players, if not THE best, in the NHL during that time. Neely and Ciccarelli were never even the best players on their respective teams, even in their best seasons.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And here is a good example as to why stats do not tell the whole story.

Is Coffey better than Orr because he beat his totals?

Neely is considered the first power forward (yes yes I know Gordie Howe) and defined the position as it is known today. End of argument.

I disagree with the Coffy/Orr analogy, considering it was harder to score when Orr played than when Coffey played. While it was actually easier to score when Cam played than when Lindros played.

GMs will tell you when they are looking at players in the draft, they look for and use certain terms like "the next Great One", the Next Bobby Orr" "the next Mario" and "the next Cam Neely" to describe the player they want to draft and everyone knows exactly what they mean when they use those terms ....

As great as a player Lindros was, Lindros does not get the recognition like Cam does and for good reason. I don't think Lindros played with 1/10th of the heart and passion that Cam did and that is a big separating factor between the two. Lindros for as big and strong as he was, he looked disinterested sometimes and like he didn't care a all until he found out his glass jaw was taking his career away.

This is all true, definitely. Neely is in the Hall because he was a defining player.

Some can all it dislike for his family or attitude but Cam was the better player that was cut short by cheap shots and injuries. Cam did 50 in 49 games on one leg and half a hip and all heart.

Definitely disagree here. Cam had much more heart, but Lindros was quite clearly the better and more dominant player on the ice.

 

[unknown33]

Neely and Ciccarelli were never even the best players on their respective teams, even in their best seasons.

He sure was for the North Stars in the 80s.

 

[Rhiessan71]

He sure was for the North Stars in the 80s.

Beat me to it

I was thinking what kind of crazy talk is that guy going on about.

Is 17th on the all-time goal list not enough?

 

[JT Dutch*]

He sure was for the North Stars in the 80s.

... In 86-87, I suppose he was. But they were pretty terrible that season, right? I don't see where this works in his favor.

I was thinking what kind of crazy talk is that guy going on about.

Is 17th on the all-time goal list not enough?

... oh my god CRAZY talk, you are quite funny please tell me your secret

And, he did play in the highest scoring era of all time, so perhaps using unadjusted counting statistics isn't the best way to go.

 

[Rhiessan71]

... In 86-87, I suppose he was. But they were pretty terrible that season, right? I don't see where this works in his favor.



... oh my god CRAZY talk, you are quite funny please tell me your secret

And, he did play in the highest scoring era of all time, so perhaps using unadjusted counting statistics isn't the best way to go.

Dude...there is nothing to adjust in Dino's case, the guy paid for every goal he scored in spades.
Also note that he potted 35 in 96/97, not the highest scoring year and he was 37 to boot. Get that adjusted crap out of here.


...and my secret is simply having a sense of humour

 

[edog37]

Lindros should never make it & Neely shouldn't have made it in the first place. It just goes to show how watered down the selection process really is for HHOF consideration....

 

[JT Dutch*]

Dude...there is nothing to adjust in Dino's case, the guy paid for every goal he scored in spades.

... Ciccarelli was top 5 in the league in goals scored just twice, both in the '80s - in '82 he was 4th, and in '87 he was 5th.

THIS is your idea of a great goal scorer??? You know what, I take it all back. You're right. You DO have a sense of humor. Because that is pretty hilarious.

 

[Rhiessan71]

... Ciccarelli was top 5 in the league in goals scored just twice, both in the '80s - in '82 he was 4th, and in '87 he was 5th.

THIS is your idea of a great goal scorer??? You know what, I take it all back. You're right. You DO have a sense of humor. Because that is pretty hilarious.

Oh for sure man, I mean how could someone who's just behind Bobby Hull, just ahead of Kurri and only one of 18 players total to crack the 600 goal plateau be considered a great goal scorer, ridiculous I know

Give your head a shake son.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Neely is in because he is well liked.

Lindros is not in (yet) because he is not.

I do think Lindros will make it though, he was the best player in the whole league for a while.

This does sum it up very neatly.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Beat me to it

I was thinking what kind of crazy talk is that guy going on about.

Is 17th on the all-time goal list not enough?

Context does matter or do you think that he is even in the top 20 all time for goal scoring?

Lindros should never make it & Neely shouldn't have made it in the first place. It just goes to show how watered down the selection process really is for HHOF consideration....

Lindros was the best player in the world for at least one season, in the mix for maybe 2 or 3.

How many other players fit that bill? 50 maybe?

He was a force in his 1st 7 seasons in the NHL but after that injuries caught up to him.

I can see why you might not have Neely in your hall but if Lindros doesn't make your Hall how many guys are in it maybe 100?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Context does matter or do you think that he is even in the top 20 all time for goal scoring?

Not far off and as far as context...the guy more than earned every one of those 600+ goals.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

If Lemieux plays in 94/95 then who knows if Lindros even has that Hart Trophy. It was really only that half a season (lockout-shortened) that Lindros was arguably the best player in the league.

I do believe Lindros ultimately belongs in the Hall but lack of career totals, just one 100 point season and no 50 goal season, added on to the fact nobody liked him may make it a longer wait than fans may wish. It's rather interesting given the trade that Forsberg and Lindros ended up with rather similar credentials though Forsberg's case profits from having been a major player on two Cup teams.

 

[kmad]

Not far off and as far as context...the guy more than earned every one of those 600+ goals.

Basically every player who ever scored a goal earned every goal he scored.

The sentiment is that Ciccarelli did it without much skill, by parking himself in front of the net and scoring nothing but garbage goals.

 

[OrrNumber4]

About the character thing; Lindros really mellowed out towards the end of his career. How much can you blame him for having obsessive parents?

Lindros donated a lot of money towards the end of his career to a hospital, I believe. Over 5 million, IIRC.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Eric Lindros' time in the NHL can be effectively broken into two distinct and completely different careers. From October 1992 to March 1998, Eric Lindros was one of the awe-inspiring players in the history of the league. He played a style of hockey that no one before him had done, and no one after him has been able to do, simply because no other player has had the ability that he had. 250 pounds of pure muscle on a 6'4 frame is a body made for football, not hockey.

What separated Lindros from every other hockey player is that while he had the size and physicality of an dominant power forward, he had the offensive tools of a dominant scoring forward. Ellite power forwards are generally far more brute force than raw skill. Elite scoring forwards are generally highly-skilled but are not overly physical, usually due to being smaller. Lindros was so special because he had overwhelming size and a terrifying desire to run over everything in his path, yet also had incredible hands, a laser shot, elite play-making ability, and most importantly, shocking speed for someone of his size. He was not fast, but he was quick, and a 250-lb person moving quickly is going to cause a lot of problems. Ever wonder what Lawrence Taylor on skates looked like? Eric Lindros.

Career one had Lindros as possibly a top-25 player of all-time when he retired. Career two began late in March 1998. The split of Lindros' career into two distinct parts was caused by the shoulder of a Russian defenseman 5 inches shorter and 25 pounds lighter. It is the story of Eric Lindros the hockey player. He had everything physically imaginable in a hockey player, but he didn't have the one non-physical tool every great player has had, the awareness and sense to keep his head up. Lindros was never the same after the Kasparitis hit. Even though he was dominant during the next season, before that collapsed lung scare, those previous concussions were going to destroy him sooner than later.

 

[Sony Eriksson*]

Lindros was probably my favorite player growing up and i watched all of his career. He was one of the most dominating power forwards i have ever seen as he deserves to be in the HHOF. With that said so does Makarov!!

 

[Rhiessan71]

Basically every player who ever scored a goal earned every goal he scored.

The sentiment is that Ciccarelli did it without much skill, by parking himself in front of the net and scoring nothing but garbage goals.

Actually the point here is that trying to "adjust" Dino's goal totals because it was "easier" to score back then is even more a bunch of crap then usual in this case.
It was actually harder and much, much more punishing to score goals the way Dino did most of his.


Anyway, back to topic....I wouldn't have an issue with Lindros being in the Hall, there's much worse in there already imo.
Unlike the Baseball HoF, the bar here is not that high.

 

[MonzaSpyder]

HHOF entry is not all about stats people.

This is taken directly from the HHOF website ...

"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general"

As far as I'm concerned, the last 18 words of that sentence is the very reason why Lindros should never be in the Hall. He only fits the first attribute that is considered for entry to the Hall.