Why did Cam Neely make it and Lindros not?

[Infinite Vision*]

Daniel Alfredsson is 3rd (or 4th) in points for the 00 decade. That is great. Alfredsson and Ratelle are great players. I think it is pretty obvious Lindros was on an entirely different level right from his rookie season until he got the big concussion. Alfie was dominant for the 07 playoffs and in 05-07. Ratelle had that one huge season. Lindros was at that high or probably a higher level for his entire career until he suffered that injury.

My point is who cares if Neely or Lindros or Forsberg or Bure had injury riddled careers. They were GREAT PLAYERS career totals mean little compared to the sheer dominance each had when they were at their best.

I'd induct all 4 of them over Mike Gartner who has ridiculous career stats. They were all better players than he was. And I don't have a problem with Gartner being in the Hall of Fame either.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Daniel Alfredsson is 3rd (or 4th) in points for the 00 decade. That is great. Alfredsson and Ratelle are great players. I think it is pretty obvious Lindros was on an entirely different level right from his rookie season until he got the big concussion. Alfie was dominant for the 07 playoffs and in 05-07. Ratelle had that one huge season. Lindros was at that high or probably a higher level for his entire career until he suffered that injury.

My point is who cares if Neely or Lindros or Forsberg or Bure had injury riddled careers. They were GREAT PLAYERS career totals mean little compared to the sheer dominance each had when they were at their best.

I'd induct all 4 of them over Mike Gartner who has ridiculous career stats. They were all better players than he was. And I don't have a problem with Gartner being in the Hall of Fame either.

Lindros was in the top three forwards for four years between 93 and 97 but Lemieux outshone him and Jagr was his equal.

Ratelle was in the top three forwards for four years between 71 and 75, Esposito outshone him, Clarke was roughly his equal.

Difference? Ratelle was 4th in scoring in 67/68 at age 27 and 7th in scoring in 76/77 when he was 36 i.e. he had staying power, in spite of having had a huge almost career-ending spinal cord injury when he was in his early twenties. Lindros isn't the only great plagued by health issues.

Ratelle is underrated because he spent so much time with the Rangers instead of the Flyers, Bruins or Habs teams most remember from the 70s. Ratelle did move to the Bruins when he was in his mid-30s but by then Orr and Esposito were gone (Espo being traded for Ratelle amongst others ironically) and Ratelle was nearing retirement, didn't stop him from still putting up a few very, very good seasons with the Bruins of course and being the best player on their Finals run in 77.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Lindros was in the top three forwards for four years between 93 and 97 but Lemieux outshone him and Jagr was his equal.

Ratelle was in the top three forwards for four years between 71 and 75, Esposito outshone him, Clarke was roughly his equal.

Difference? Ratelle was 4th in scoring in 67/68 at age 27 and 7th in scoring in 76/77 when he was 36 i.e. he had staying power, in spite of having had a huge almost career-ending spinal cord injury when he was in his early twenties. Lindros isn't the only great plagued by health issues.

Ratelle is underrated because he spent so much time with the Rangers instead of the Flyers, Bruins or Habs teams most remember from the 70s. Ratelle did move to the Bruins when he was in his mid-30s but by then Orr and Esposito were gone (Espo being traded for Ratelle amongst others ironically) and Ratelle was nearing retirement, didn't stop him from still putting up a few very, very good seasons with the Bruins of course and being the best player on their Finals run in 77.

Look, I agree with you that Ratelle is probably under rated by many but you are looking too closely only at stats here too.

Lindros was a force on the ice and was much more than his stats just like Messier was in his prime

 

[JackSlater]

Lindros was in the top three forwards for four years between 93 and 97 but Lemieux outshone him and Jagr was his equal.

Ratelle was in the top three forwards for four years between 71 and 75, Esposito outshone him, Clarke was roughly his equal.

Pretty misleading. Lindros was likely a top three level forward for about 6 seasons. Lemieux was a better player, but considering he is quite a bit better than anyone Ratelle competed with this hardly matters. Lindros also had to compete with quite a few European forwards who would not have played when Ratelle was active. The talent pool, especially among forwards, was deeper when Lindros played. Ratelle is also clearly not even roughly Clarke's equal, and it is unlikely that he was a top three forward for each of those years.

Difference? Ratelle was 4th in scoring in 67/68 at age 27 and 7th in scoring in 76/77 when he was 36 i.e. he had staying power, in spite of having had a huge almost career-ending spinal cord injury when he was in his early twenties. Lindros isn't the only great plagued by health issues.

Ratelle has better longevity than Lindros, I don't think many would argue that. I personally don't really care about that though. When a guy is clearly the superior player over a decent amount of games, what difference does it really make if he played 700 games or 1400 games.

Ratelle is underrated because he spent so much time with the Rangers instead of the Flyers, Bruins or Habs teams most remember from the 70s. Ratelle did move to the Bruins when he was in his mid-30s but by then Orr and Esposito were gone (Espo being traded for Ratelle amongst others ironically) and Ratelle was nearing retirement, didn't stop him from still putting up a few very, very good seasons with the Bruins of course and being the best player on their Finals run in 77.

There were far worse situations than what Ratelle faced with the Rangers. He had possibly the best set of wingers in the NHL and played with probably the best defenceman in the world other than Orr. That's better than the support Lindros enjoyed.

 

[Sens Rule]

Lindros was in the top three forwards for four years between 93 and 97 but Lemieux outshone him and Jagr was his equal.

Ratelle was in the top three forwards for four years between 71 and 75, Esposito outshone him, Clarke was roughly his equal.

Difference? Ratelle was 4th in scoring in 67/68 at age 27 and 7th in scoring in 76/77 when he was 36 i.e. he had staying power, in spite of having had a huge almost career-ending spinal cord injury when he was in his early twenties. Lindros isn't the only great plagued by health issues.

Ratelle is underrated because he spent so much time with the Rangers instead of the Flyers, Bruins or Habs teams most remember from the 70s. Ratelle did move to the Bruins when he was in his mid-30s but by then Orr and Esposito were gone (Espo being traded for Ratelle amongst others ironically) and Ratelle was nearing retirement, didn't stop him from still putting up a few very, very good seasons with the Bruins of course and being the best player on their Finals run in 77.

Ratelle was a great player, with a great career and is a HHOFer and should be. He was still not nearly as dominant as Lindros was from his rookie year until he got his first big concussion. He wasn't even close to that dominant for that long. From 71-75 Ratelle was not on the level Lindros was for his first 5 or 6 seasons.

Lindros was MUCH bigger and better than his stats show. He was sheer intimidation. He was unique and feared unlike anyone else plus he scored at as high a rate as anyone aside from Mario or Gretzky did.

Lindros left a lot to be desired but if he had simply stopped playing and retired when he left Philly he would be an easy HHOFer. IMO

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Pretty misleading. Lindros was likely a top three level forward for about 6 seasons. Lemieux was a better player, but considering he is quite a bit better than anyone Ratelle competed with this hardly matters. Lindros also had to compete with quite a few European forwards who would not have played when Ratelle was active. The talent pool, especially among forwards, was deeper when Lindros played. Ratelle is also clearly not even roughly Clarke's equal, and it is unlikely that he was a top three forward for each of those years.

Ratelle just beat Clarke on points per game in that time period, which is the stat people have used to pimp Lindros.

Ratelle has better longevity than Lindros, I don't think many would argue that. I personally don't really care about that though. When a guy is clearly the superior player over a decent amount of games, what difference does it really make if he played 700 games or 1400 games.

Let's not act like Lindros played 700 great games, he was at the level people talk about here for maybe 230-240 of those games. Over the other 524 games he was less than a point per game player. So not only did he not play a lot of games he was at a sub-elite level for 2/3 of his career.

Just for the record, I'm saying Ratelle and Lindros are roughly on one level, what Lindros has on him slightly in terms of peak, Ratelle makes up for with the fact he was a very productive player for a much higher % of his career in spite of being burdened by health problems. Thus on a list of hockey greats, they are to me on roughly a similar level which means, of course, he is a HOFer as Ratelle is one too.

One thing I see in a lot of the posts here is that in the end it always comes down to this supposedly "force of nature" Lindros was, I followed his career as it happened, in the end this force mostly just ended up destroying his own career. It was a natural by-product of his game, his lack of shelf life isn't a freak accident, it was the price he paid for his style. Thus I will not really accept it as an excuse.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Ratelle just beat Clarke on points per game in that time period, which is the stat people have used to pimp Lindros.



Let's not act like Lindros played 700 great games, he was at the level people talk about here for maybe 230-240 of those games. Over the other 524 games he was less than a point per game player. So not only did he not play a lot of games he was at a sub-elite level for 2/3 of his career.

Just for the record, I'm saying Ratelle and Lindros are roughly on one level, what Lindros has on him slightly in terms of peak, Ratelle makes up for with the fact he was a very productive player for a much higher % of his career in spite of being burdened by health problems. Thus on a list of hockey greats, they are to me on roughly a similar level which means, of course, he is a HOFer as Ratelle is one too.

One thing I see in a lot of the posts here is that in the end it always comes down to this supposedly "force of nature" Lindros was, I followed his career as it happened, in the end this force mostly just ended up destroying his own career. It was a natural by-product of his game, his lack of shelf life isn't a freak accident, it was the price he paid for his style. Thus I will not really accept it as an excuse.

Lindros played 431 games in his 1st 7 seasons at an elite level.He played in 55 and 72 games the following 2 years at pretty close to elite levels but it's hard to see that on the surface with the low scoring totals at the time.

One in fact can make a really strong argument that he had 9 elite or near elite seasons of 52 plus games (minus the lockout shortened year).

 

[JackSlater]

Ratelle just beat Clarke on points per game in that time period, which is the stat people have used to pimp Lindros.

Yes, and Clarke is also possibly the best defensive forward ever. That puts him decisively ahead of Ratelle. I woud probably give Lindros a bit of an edge over Ratelle defensively, but it's not signiicant enough to really bother with.

Let's not act like Lindros played 700 great games, he was at the level people talk about here for maybe 230-240 of those games. Over the other 524 games he was less than a point per game player. So not only did he not play a lot of games he was at a sub-elite level for 2/3 of his career.

As Hardyvan123 already pointed out you are understating Lindros' career quite a bit here. Anyway, what matters is that Lindros demonstrated that his incredibly high level of play was not a fluke, since he sustained it for a number of years. Obviously Lindros did not end up providing all of the value that he should have, but he did sufficiently prove whata great player he was.

Just for the record, I'm saying Ratelle and Lindros are roughly on one level, what Lindros has on him slightly in terms of peak, Ratelle makes up for with the fact he was a very productive player for a much higher % of his career in spite of being burdened by health problems. Thus on a list of hockey greats, they are to me on roughly a similar level which means, of course, he is a HOFer as Ratelle is one too.

One thing I see in a lot of the posts here is that in the end it always comes down to this supposedly "force of nature" Lindros was, I followed his career as it happened, in the end this force mostly just ended up destroying his own career. It was a natural by-product of his game, his lack of shelf life isn't a freak accident, it was the price he paid for his style. Thus I will not really accept it as an excuse.

Lindros pretty clearly has more than a slightly more impressive peak, unless you consider the peak to b just their best seasons, but if you personally value longevity to a high degree then I can see Lindros and Ratelle as being on the same level. I agree that his style of play was partially responsible for the injuries he suffered.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Jean Ratelle's best season he had a point per game of 1.71. The 36th best value and 17th best non-Gretzky/Lemieux one between 1963 and 2002 i.e. the time span encompassing both Ratelle's and Lindros's peaks . Lindros's best season is 81st on that particular list. So really, Ratelle's best season easily trumps Lindros's best season.

It's pointless to argue purely stats considering the wild fluctuations in scoring era's in the NHL. Going by that Peter Forsberg would be a top 10 offensive player ever.

Lindros's best seasons in 94-97 trump Ratelle's in my honest opinion.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Lindros played 431 games in his 1st 7 seasons at an elite level.He played in 55 and 72 games the following 2 years at pretty close to elite levels but it's hard to see that on the surface with the low scoring totals at the time.

One in fact can make a really strong argument that he had 9 elite or near elite seasons of 52 plus games (minus the lockout shortened year).

I wouldn't consider his rookie season elite or anything after 98/99. 97/98 is arguable. But even though he had a few decent non-peak seasons, if you consider the contribution of a guy who rarely gets to even 70 games that valuable, the time he was that dominating scoring force was basically those 200 odd games between 93 and 97.

I think, overall you gotta look at the limitation of usefulness of a player that often injured. Lindros at his finest may have been one of the 10 best players to ever play the game but then his durability was so weak you have to take it into consideration as far as career value is concerned, simply because if he had played the game in a way that was easier on his durability he wouldn't have been as good in his 100% healthy moments either. Ratelle got to play until he was 40 in spite of his bad injury early on because his style allowed him to, that does give him added value.

 

[Sens Rule]

I wouldn't consider his rookie season elite or anything after 98/99. 97/98 is arguable. But even though he had a few decent non-peak seasons, if you consider the contribution of a guy who rarely gets to even 70 games that valuable, the time he was that dominating scoring force was basically those 200 odd games between 93 and 97.

I think, overall you gotta look at the limitation of usefulness of a player that often injured. Lindros at his finest may have been one of the 10 best players to ever play the game but then his durability was so weak you have to take it into consideration as far as career value is concerned, simply because if he had played the game in a way that was easier on his durability he wouldn't have been as good in his 100% healthy moments either. Ratelle got to play until he was 40 in spite of his bad injury early on because his style allowed him to, that does give him added value.

I think Lindros was elite in his rookie year. He had 41 goals in 61 games. Good for 11th in the NHL just behind Hull and Yzerman in their prime goal scoring years. Plus he was already all-world physically. He wasn't among the very best in the world but I am pretty sure I would define him as elite that year. Moreso than any of his seasons after he left Philly.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I think Lindros was elite in his rookie year. He had 41 goals in 61 games. Good for 11th in the NHL just behind Hull and Yzerman in their prime goal scoring years. Plus he was already all-world physically. He wasn't among the very best in the world but I am pretty sure I would define him as elite that year. Moreso than any of his seasons after he left Philly.

He was on pace for around 100 points in his rookie year which is of course a great rookie effort. However that year 20 guys scored a 100, so he would have been on the edge of that, I don't consider that quite elite.

It is rather telling though that even then he missed over 20 games. His durability concerns make Forsberg's health look almost decent.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I wouldn't consider his rookie season elite or anything after 98/99. 97/98 is arguable. But even though he had a few decent non-peak seasons, if you consider the contribution of a guy who rarely gets to even 70 games that valuable, the time he was that dominating scoring force was basically those 200 odd games between 93 and 97.

I think, overall you gotta look at the limitation of usefulness of a player that often injured. Lindros at his finest may have been one of the 10 best players to ever play the game but then his durability was so weak you have to take it into consideration as far as career value is concerned, simply because if he had played the game in a way that was easier on his durability he wouldn't have been as good in his 100% healthy moments either. Ratelle got to play until he was 40 in spite of his bad injury early on because his style allowed him to, that does give him added value.

I fully agree to the length of career argument (see my many posts on 0rr-Lidstrom or Orr- Gretzky) but lets get a bit on context in here as well. Ratelle played in an NHL that was every expanding and had a much lower level on concentration of talent due to this increased expansion, and the formation of the WHA in 1972.

So lets stop trying to compare apples with oranges here.

Let's put it into more context and look at their career stats in adjusted terms Ratelle had a line of 1281-427-677-1099 while Lindros is 760-404-538-942.

So in 521 more games Ratelle put up 23 more adjusted goals and 139 more adjusted assists.

Even if you don't take the adjusted stats at full value they tell a more clear picture of each players full value rather than just relying on simple counting stats.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I fully agree to the length of career argument (see my many posts on 0rr-Lidstrom or Orr- Gretzky) but lets get a bit on context in here as well. Ratelle played in an NHL that was every expanding and had a much lower level on concentration of talent due to this increased expansion, and the formation of the WHA in 1972.

So lets stop trying to compare apples with oranges here.

Let's put it into more context and look at their career stats in adjusted terms Ratelle had a line of 1281-427-677-1099 while Lindros is 760-404-538-942.

So in 521 more games Ratelle put up 23 more adjusted goals and 139 more adjusted assists.

Even if you don't take the adjusted stats at full value they tell a more clear picture of each players full value rather than just relying on simple counting stats.

I'm skeptical of adjusted value. I agree that there are obvious fluctuations in scoring and talent levels but I find it hard to swallow that you can simply "adjust" things that neatly, this isn't baseball and even there it's far from perfect. If you look at Ratelle's performance relative to his peers and some of his peers and their careers, it's not like he was Glenn Anderson playing for a 400 goal Oilers club.

 

[canucks4ever]

It's pointless to argue purely stats considering the wild fluctuations in scoring era's in the NHL. Going by that Peter Forsberg would be a top 10 offensive player ever.

Lindros's best seasons in 94-97 trump Ratelle's in my honest opinion.

In jean ratelle's best season, he had a higher ppg than bobby orr. Are you trying to suggest that peak lindros would outscore orr?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

It's pointless to argue purely stats considering the wild fluctuations in scoring era's in the NHL. Going by that Peter Forsberg would be a top 10 offensive player ever.

Lindros's best seasons in 94-97 trump Ratelle's in my honest opinion.

How so? If you look at best point per game seasons unadjusted he wouldn't be a top 100 offensive player ever.

However, he was the second best offensive player during the dead puck era (1997-2004), a span of 8 years in which Jaromir Jagr only outscored him by .05 points per game in the regular season and tied him in the playoffs. He was also the second best offensive player during the span of his entire career in both the regular season and the playoffs (13 year period, 12 if you subtract 2008). He also has the best adj. playoff points per game of anyone besides Lemieux and Gretzky, so you're attempt at a player comparison and extreme exaggeration has failed.

You're probably going to respond with how many games he missed, who cares, Bobby Orr, Eric Lindros, etc.

 

[babyshamble]

Lindros made a mockery of the NHL draft. He basically took a dump on the NHL and put himself above the rules, for me that left a dark cloud over his entire career.

That being said he was a great player.

 

[Hardyvan123]

In jean ratelle's best season, he had a higher ppg than bobby orr. Are you trying to suggest that peak lindros would outscore orr?

Are you trying to suggest that Ratelle is anywhere on Orr's level? A one season one 0ff in a 20 year career is hard to stand on.

Put up Ratelle's peak or prime against Lindros and he will fall short, even before we take into account the conditions of the NHL in the 1970's versus the 1990's.

 

[canucks4ever]

Ratelle's 1972 season is more impressive than anything lindros ever did.

 

[Stephen]

Ratelle's 1972 season is more impressive than anything lindros ever did.

Lindros 1992-1998 begs to differ, when his PPG average was the third highest in league history.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Ratelle's 1972 season is more impressive than anything lindros ever did.

Lindros in 95 had an adjusted 121 point season at the age of 21 and lead the league in scoring.

Ratelle in 72 had his best season ever and scored at a .4 PPG clip higher than anything else he ever did, a fluke year.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Ratelle in 72 had his best season ever and scored at a .4 PPG clip higher than anything else he ever did, a fluke year.

I don't know if I'd call it necessarily a *fluke* rather than a best season given that he had another 100 point season and was pretty close a few more times. But he broke his ankle in 1972 and at age 31 that's not an injury you came back from just like that. It's not unusual to hear the sentence "never the player again he was before the injury" with ankle fractures. Ratelle did come back to be a very good scorer in his 30s but who knows what could have been otherwise?

Similarly, who knows what Ratelle could have done in the 60s if not for his spinal cord injury and the fact the Rangers for some time didn't really know what to do with a "soft" lanky guy like him.

 

[ranold26]

Ask Patrick Roy, arguably one of the best goalies of all-time, who he feared the most and had his number....

 

[edog37]

Well if you are comfortable with a group of around 100 guys so far I would be really interested to see who makes the cut and it would make a great thread as well.


Well we can all agree that Rick Kehoe doesn't belong in the Hall but context really matters.

To use counting stats, as many people seem to do without any context or other measures is the biggest problem when we have these discussions.

Neely doesn't make my Hall but Lindros makes it for a couple of reasons.

Lindros was in the best player in the world discussion for several (maybe 5 years).

Also Lindros get some credit for his play at an international level as well.

that's the reason why I threw the Rick Kehoe mention in there to illustrate the whole point about stats & selection. I just don't see a reason why Neely is in there in the first place. Was he a better power forward than Kevin Stevens? In my book, they were on par. Did Neely revolutionize the sport is some way? No.

That is another reason why the Hall should be reserved for only the very best. It should be exclusive. I have to disagree regarding Lindros. Jagr was the man those years...

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Its funny how opinions on players can change over time. in 1998 when lindros was 25 thn ranked him the 54th best player of all time, ahead of many players already in the hall of fame, including peter stastny and yvan cournoyer. Honestly, how in the hell does lindros get ranked ahead of these guys? stastny was the 2nd highest scorer in the 80s behind only wayne gretzky himself and a 7 time 100 pt scorer (5 consecutive). cournoyer won 10 stanley cups including a conn smythe. 10 cups and ranked below lindros. He was also ranked ahead of guys like yzerman and sakic. Yzerman had already had 6 100 pt seasons consecutively and scored 50 goals 5 times, 2 of which were 60 goal campaigns, and won the pearson award once. He had also captained the red wings to the stanley cup the year before in 1997. Sakic had won the cup as captain of the avs and conn smythe in 96 and had 4 100 pt seasons under his belt at this time. Lindros, who was in his 6th season in the nhl, had 0 cups, one 100 pt season, and 1 hart trophy, and was somehow better than these guys....wtf? I know this ranking was pretty much entirely based on the fact that he was supposed to have a long successful career at the top but I still find it incredibly baffling that they ranked him above these guys. Now, after his career has ended nobody seems to know if hes good enough for the hall or not. My answer is he obviously is, I mean if what he accomplished at 25 was better than 10 stanley cups or multiple 100 pt seasons he must be a lock, right?