Why isn’t Lindros in the HHOF?

[Scotty B]

...Lindros was like a freak combination of Gordie Howe and Scott Stevens and Mark Messier...

Stevens was like a shark lurking in murky water. He feasted on guys like Lindros wading into the middle largely unaware. Try that with Mark, much less Mr Hockey, at your PERIL!

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

-he never scored 50 goals
-he never won even a single scoring title
-he never won the stanley cup. He made one finals appearance and never won a single game.

92-93, 93-94, 95, and 96-97 he was scoring goals at a 60 goal season pace. He was a 50 goal talent, he just missed 20 games every year.

 

[Wrath]

Saying he never won the scoring title as some grand statement against Lindros being an all-time elite talent is ridiculous considering he lost the art ross on a tiebreak (goals) because he tied Jagr in points.... with less games played.

 

[Voight]

92-93, 93-94, 95, and 96-97 he was scoring goals at a 60 goal season pace. He was a 50 goal talent, he just missed 20 games every year.

Pace is cool and all but the fact is, he never actually did put in 50 goals a year.

 

[Voight]

Lindros was like a freak combination of Gordie Howe and Scott Stevens and Mark Messier. Your posts suggests you never saw him play.

Well eh certainly did not have their leadership abilities or ability to see a hit coming.

 

[SatanwasaSlovak]

People seems to forget that Lindros many times before had ran over Stevens like he was a common man.

He isn't in though, because he pissed off the NHL. Simple as that. Can't hold out from the draft and refuse to go to the team that they say you should, if every kid would do that, the whole system falls apart, and especially Bettman's beloved parity and bottom-teams ability to sell tickets based on "hope" because they get to sign the best youngster without any complaints, all goes up in the air.

Fact of the matter is, teams needed Lindros more than he needed them. One extra year in Junior did great for him (and would certainly do for a lot of the players nowadays aswell, 18 year olds, playing against full grown athletes, meh, no wonder why all of them has nagging injuries by age of 24). And he didn't had to play for a team he didn't want to play for.

I think it's strange how we can have a draft system, while america is supposed to be a free-market. The actual best choice would be to scrap it completely because it's only promoting losing, for the teams that know they aren't in for contention. Which goes against the very fabric of sports and competition. You're in it to win it, would create a lot more actually interesting matches aswell, because you have to win, you can't just take 2-3 seasons of ****** teams to rebuild.

 

[Theokritos]

He isn't in though, because he pissed off the NHL. Simple as that. Can't hold out from the draft and refuse to go to the team that they say you should, if every kid would do that, the whole system falls apart, and especially Bettman's beloved parity and bottom-teams ability to sell tickets based on "hope" because they get to sign the best youngster without any complaints, all goes up in the air.

Which of course just highlights another issue: the HHOF is not a department or an enterprise of the NHL and is therefore not obliged to care for what Bettman or anybody else says and thinks. NHL policies are none of their business. And yet...

 

[Rebuilt]

Yes, let's stick to the facts, shall we? Only, let's tell whole facts, not carefully selected partial facts (he never scored 50!).

Eric Lindros was one of the elite goal and point scorers in the league in his 8 year career with the Flyers. He didn't score 50 goals purely because of missing games due to injuries.

He had 41 goals in 61 games his rookie year.
He had 44 goals in 65 games his second year.
He had 29 goals in 46 games his third year (lockout).
He had 47 goals in 73 games his fourth year.
He had 32 goals in 52 games his fifth year.
He had 30 goals in 63 games his sixth year.
He had 40 goals in 71 games his seventh year.
He had 27 goals in 55 games his eighth and final year as a Flyer.

The last few years are firmly DPE, btw.

That's 49 Goals per 82 pace for 8 freaking years. Not a dominant goal scorer?

He also paced for 111 points per 82 for those 8 freaking years. And he tied for the league lead in scoring but lost due to a combination of freak eye injury and tie-breaker.

Not a dominant player? Talk about revisionist history.

Also, you have the balls to say that Mark Recchi had a better career, as in, he was a better player? Recchi's career was better because he played longer. He was in no way a better player. Hell, he was Lindros' line-mate for two different stretches, and trust me, it was Lindros that was the dominant force, not Recchi.

First off, you cant PRO RATE his goals and count them like a guy who scored 49 playing full seasons. . The other players who play full seasons have to pay for the fact Lindros ruined his body? Perhaps he should have altered his style so he could actually play a full season once in a while. No?

Second of all, you cant just end your 'story' when he stopped being a Flyer. His WHOLE career counts. Not just cherry picked years. He was not a 'dominant' player at anytime past the age of 27 and hobbled around with half baked totals until age 34.

Yes he was a 'dominating' player at his peak. Compared to whom? The average NHL guy? Again, like I wrote in my original post, the guy was a GREAT player at his peak. He was the MOST dominating player one time when he won the hart trophy. He still didnt win the scoring title even.

Being a 'dominant' player for some years and then not so the rest of your career does not get you into the hall of fame. He never scored 50 goals when yeah, it was a LOT easier to do so back in the 90s. He never won a scoring title. He never won the Stanley Cup.

You obviously have a much lower threshold of what a hall of fame career is than I do. Much lower.

Mark Rechhi was nowhere near the talent Lindros was, but he scored 50 goals. On the same team Lindros was on no less.

Rechhi is in the 500 goal club , 1500 point club, cups on 3 different teams and played until he was 43 years old. Yeah, I would argue conclusively his career was drastically better than Lindros's career.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

I know that Lindros was a million times the player Recchi was and thats all that matters. Goals and points per game is ultimately the best measuring stick of talent, no?

If not you're taking Dave Andreychuk, Dino Ciccarelli, and Mark Recchi over Eric Lindros, Pavel Bure, and Cam Neely...

 

[Rebuilt]

I think we have differences of opinion of what a 'hall of fame' career is.

Its not just some guy who did really good for a few years but never actually won anything.

Most players have average careers
Some players have good careers
Few have excellent careers
Even fewer have careers so outstanding they are enshrined among the greatest to ever play the game. Those go to the hall of fame.

Lindros fits into the 'good career' category as he had some EXCELLENT years, but then a couple of good ones then some truly lousy ones and ended his career early. All told I would say he had a good career.

. If there is one thing Lindros did teach us, its not to skate with your head down and dont simply try to bully your way around the ice. You might get more points in the short term but you wont last long, no matter how big you are.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's all well and good to talk about how the HHOF should be for players with great careers, but they did induct Bure and Neely.

I really can't think of a single on-ice reason for inducting Neely and not Lindros.

Lindros will get in when enough of the HHOF voters decide to stop punishing him for being a jackass

 

[Sens Rule]

I know that Lindros was a million times the player Recchi was and thats all that matters. Goals and points per game is ultimately the best measuring stick of talent, no?

If not you're taking Dave Andreychuk, Dino Ciccarelli, and Mark Recchi over Eric Lindros, Pavel Bure, and Cam Neely...

To be fair Recchi has true dominant years and dominant playoffs. He scored 123 points, was top 5 in points 3 times, led the league in assists... And had a 34 point playoff on a Cup winner.

Maybe not always dominant. But he shouldn't be thrown in with Andreychuk.

 

[Jumptheshark]

For me he is being hurt by the off ice activities not only of his family/Agents--but his own powerplay behind the the NHLPA. When he resigned as ombudsman there were a lot of whispers of his dealings behind the scenes that offended many NHLers both current and past and there was some goofy trip he tried to get signed offed by the NHLPA--but ended up paying the bill for himself.

But it is his involvement with Trevor Linden and Paul Kelly that I think some of the guys on the HHOF voting committee hold a grudge over just what Lindros did behind the scenes both when active and after he retired. There is a lot of hearsay behind the scenes and a lot of smoke in regard to just what Lindros did with the NHLPA during lockouts and in helping the fall of Paul Kelly.

The one good thing he did was that due to his involvement in the mayhem--active player pushed hard to get Fehr as the new head of the NHLPA and make the NHLPA more legit.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Pace is cool and all but the fact is, he never actually did put in 50 goals a year.

He was only a few goals away 4 times while missing 10+ games. Is it really that ridiculous to think he could have done it?

First off, you cant PRO RATE his goals and count them like a guy who scored 49 playing full seasons. . The other players who play full seasons have to pay for the fact Lindros ruined his body? Perhaps he should have altered his style so he could actually play a full season once in a while. No?

Second of all, you cant just end your 'story' when he stopped being a Flyer. His WHOLE career counts. Not just cherry picked years. He was not a 'dominant' player at anytime past the age of 27 and hobbled around with half baked totals until age 34.

Yes he was a 'dominating' player at his peak. Compared to whom? The average NHL guy? Again, like I wrote in my original post, the guy was a GREAT player at his peak. He was the MOST dominating player one time when he won the hart trophy. He still didnt win the scoring title even.

Being a 'dominant' player for some years and then not so the rest of your career does not get you into the hall of fame. He never scored 50 goals when yeah, it was a LOT easier to do so back in the 90s. He never won a scoring title. He never won the Stanley Cup.

You obviously have a much lower threshold of what a hall of fame career is than I do. Much lower.

Mark Rechhi was nowhere near the talent Lindros was, but he scored 50 goals. On the same team Lindros was on no less.

Rechhi is in the 500 goal club , 1500 point club, cups on 3 different teams and played until he was 43 years old. Yeah, I would argue conclusively his career was drastically better than Lindros's career.

So your using Lindros stats against him while admitting he was much better than Recchi, but Recchi is still a HOFer?......

Did I miss something.

Your acting like 50 goals and 500 goals is a MUST for the HOF, and because Lindros never did it, it's somehow used against him. And again, like so many have said, MANY HOFers didn't win the scoring title at that time, mostly because 2 other players were sweeping up most of the awards. Yet let's use that against Lindros

He was One of the most dominant players of the 90s, as if that's something to scoff at. Your out of your mind if your think Lindros isn't HOF worthy yet Recchi is without question. Neely and Bure had equally short careers and weren't even close to the player Lindros was or peaked the way he did, yet they are HOFers..

The only players who were better than Lindros at that time were Gretzky, Lemieux, and arguably Jagr....who else? NO ONE.

You basically just said you would take the numbers over the actual talent, the short dominance over a long non dominant career, and a better peak, over a player who compiled for a majority of his years, but but never peaked like the other....

Your HOF opinion is obviously a flawed one.

I think we have differences of opinion of what a 'hall of fame' career is.

Its not just some guy who did really good for a few years but never actually won anything.

Most players have average careers
Some players have good careers
Few have excellent careers
Even fewer have careers so outstanding they are enshrined among the greatest to ever play the game. Those go to the hall of fame.

Lindros fits into the 'good career' category as he had some EXCELLENT years, but then a couple of good ones then some truly lousy ones and ended his career early. All told I would say he had a good career.

. If there is one thing Lindros did teach us, its not to skate with your head down and dont simply try to bully your way around the ice. You might get more points in the short term but you wont last long, no matter how big you are.

Lindros had a better and more dominant career than a lot of players in the HOF.

Again he won the HART and LESTER B. In the heart of the Lemieux/Gretzky era. Sorry but that isn't "never won anything."

Or by anything do you mean cups? Does him not winning a cup somehow hurt his career?

I want you to PLEASE remind yourself that Phil Housley was inducted recently into the HOF based on a popularity vote. That's righty, PHIL HOUSLEY was inducted before the likes of Eric Lindros.

Or do you have a reasoning behind that one. Would love to hear it.....

 

[Hardyvan123]

To be fair Recchi has true dominant years and dominant playoffs. He scored 123 points, was top 5 in points 3 times, led the league in assists... And had a 34 point playoff on a Cup winner.

Maybe not always dominant. But he shouldn't be thrown in with Andreychuk.

funny that he did that at age 22 and his next best playoff performance was what exactly?

I get that Recchi had a pretty good career but he never reached the heights of Lindros and Lindros was at that great height for 7 NHL seasons (and the year before for the Canadian Olympic team)

 

[mja]

First off, you cant PRO RATE his goals and count them like a guy who scored 49 playing full seasons. . The other players who play full seasons have to pay for the fact Lindros ruined his body? Perhaps he should have altered his style so he could actually play a full season once in a while. No?

For ****'s sake, he scored at a 49 goals pace for 8 ****ing years well into the DPE. Who the **** else did that? I'm betting that the list is really ****ing small, and Mark Recchi sure as hell isn't on it.

Second of all, you cant just end your 'story' when he stopped being a Flyer. His WHOLE career counts. Not just cherry picked years. He was not a 'dominant' player at anytime past the age of 27 and hobbled around with half baked totals until age 34.

I didn't cherry pick a ****ing thing. I'm using his entire career as a Flyer, which represents more than two-thirds of his whole career. You know, his prime? I didn't even mention his PPG season as a Ranger in the height of the DPE after taking an entire year off.

Yes he was a 'dominating' player at his peak. Compared to whom? The average NHL guy? Again, like I wrote in my original post, the guy was a GREAT player at his peak. He was the MOST dominating player one time when he won the hart trophy. He still didnt win the scoring title even.

Being a 'dominant' player for some years and then not so the rest of your career does not get you into the hall of fame. He never scored 50 goals when yeah, it was a LOT easier to do so back in the 90s. He never won a scoring title. He never won the Stanley Cup.

You obviously have a much lower threshold of what a hall of fame career is than I do. Much lower.

Mark Rechhi was nowhere near the talent Lindros was, but he scored 50 goals. On the same team Lindros was on no less.

Rechhi is in the 500 goal club , 1500 point club, cups on 3 different teams and played until he was 43 years old. Yeah, I would argue conclusively his career was drastically better than Lindros's career.

1. He wasn't a dominant player compared to just the average NHL guy. He was a dominant player compared to EVERYONE (including Mark Recchi). Hence, he belongs in the Hall.

2. He wasn't dominant for "some" years and then "not so dominant for the rest" of his career. In his 13 seasons, he was PPG+ in 9 of them. 9 years. Over two-thirds of his career.

3. Is the HOF for the best players or the best careers? I always thought it was for the best players.

 

[Hobnobs]

For ****'s sake, he scored at a 49 goals pace for 8 ****ing years well into the DPE. Who the **** else did that? I'm betting that the list is really ****ing small, and Mark Recchi sure as hell isn't on it.

Players who scored more were Bure and Selänne. Players who were marginally worse, Leclair, Hull, Jagr, Bondra, Shanahan, Mogilny, Tkachuk. Anyways. You cant pro rate scoring. Its all well that Lindros scored alot during the regular season games he was playing but he didnt actually score 49 goals for 8 seasons so its moot.

People complain about Forsbergs injuries and yet Forsberg accomplished a lot more than Lindros as a player. The myth of Lindros has gone to two extremes on here. His fans seem to think he was an unstoppable beast who could do everything and his detractors has made a caricature of him. Its actually similar to how Forsberg has been viewed on here.

1. He wasn't a dominant player compared to just the average NHL guy. He was a dominant player compared to EVERYONE (including Mark Recchi). Hence, he belongs in the Hall.

It doesnt really matter if he was dominant or not. If you arent playing you cant dominate. You are also overrating his ability. He never dominated other forwards.

2. He wasn't dominant for "some" years and then "not so dominant for the rest" of his career. In his 13 seasons, he was PPG+ in 9 of them. 9 years. Over two-thirds of his career.

PPG is easier to maintain if you have a short career and dont play alot of games.

3. Is the HOF for the best players or the best careers? I always thought it was for the best players.

Neither and both. The election process also takes character and sportsmanship into consideration. Something Lindros fails.

 

[The Panther]

People complain about Forsbergs injuries and yet Forsberg accomplished a lot more than Lindros as a player.

I don't know who you're referring to "complaining" about Forsberg on this (history) forum; I've never seen anyone do so. Anyway, Forsberg won the Stanley Cup once, but the fact that his team took down the Cup champion in 2001 with him on the sidelines for the whole series sort of underscores the fact that Lindros' team depended on him a lot more than the Avs did Forsberg. (Not saying Lindros or Forsberg is better, just that the Flyers depended on Lindros a lot more.)

It doesnt really matter if he was dominant or not... He never dominated other forwards.

I don't know what planet you're on, but on this one, it does actually matter if a player is dominant or not (what the hell...?) and Lindros totally dominated other star forwards of his era. Like, did you watch the guy in the 90s? Check out the 1991 Canada Cup where he's knocking over players left and right, outscoring prime-NHL stars, competing against the best players in the world, playing (at first) on a line with Gretzky and looking good at it, and doing it all at age 18. Or check out the 1997 Rangers/Flyers series, where Lindros totally dominates the Rangers, makes Messier look like a small, ineffective forward, and pretty much single-handedly wins the Conference for Philly.

PPG is easier to maintain if you have a short career and dont play alot of games.

Good thing Lindros appeared in 80% of the games for his first 8 seasons. That's actually rather a lot of games. Yes, his missing games does affect our evaluation of him -- it might be a reason, for example, that he's not a 1st-ballot Hall of Famer, but that should be the only conceivable reason. At the very worst, he should have been in the Hall on his 2nd try.

Check out the concurrent thread on relative PPG (adjusted) for players' 6-peak seasons in NHL history. See where Lindros is. Then ask yourself how he's not in the Hall...

 

[mja]

Players who scored more were Bure and Selänne. Players who were marginally worse, Leclair, Hull, Jagr, Bondra, Shanahan, Mogilny, Tkachuk. Anyways. You cant pro rate scoring. Its all well that Lindros scored alot during the regular season games he was playing but he didnt actually score 49 goals for 8 seasons so its moot.

So, the only guys who scored more were Bure and Selanne? And you're trying to make the case that he was NOT an elite goal scorer? Really?

People complain about Forsbergs injuries and yet Forsberg accomplished a lot more than Lindros as a player. The myth of Lindros has gone to two extremes on here. His fans seem to think he was an unstoppable beast who could do everything and his detractors has made a caricature of him. Its actually similar to how Forsberg has been viewed on here.

I've never complained about Forsberg's injuries. He was a dominant forward who is richly deserving of being in the HOF. Also, having seen Lindros' entire career, I'm well aware of who he was as a player, both the good and the bad.

It doesnt really matter if he was dominant or not. If you arent playing you cant dominate. You are also overrating his ability. He never dominated other forwards.

PPG is easier to maintain if you have a short career and dont play alot of games.

People act like Lindros had a year or two of dominant play. Yeah, he was injured 20 games a year, but the man played 760 games and scored 372 goals and 865 points. That's absolutely HOF production.

Also, he absolutely made Mark Messier his ***** in the 97 ECF, after first dispatching Lemieux & Jagr in the series before that. Lindros had lots of great play in the playoffs, just not in the 97 finals against a dynastic Detroit team.

Neither and both. The election process also takes character and sportsmanship into consideration. Something Lindros fails.

Lindros is going to eventually get in the HOF. You know that, right?

 

[Voight]

Lindros had a better and more dominant career than a lot of players in the HOF.

Again he won the HART and LESTER B. In the heart of the Lemieux/Gretzky era. Sorry but that isn't "never won anything."

In a season where Lemieux didn't play one game and when Gretzky was A) 35 and B) Obviously wasn't the dominant player he was. Context.

 

[Voight]

I don't know who you're referring to "complaining" about Forsberg on this (history) forum; I've never seen anyone do so. Anyway, Forsberg won the Stanley Cup once, but the fact that his team took down the Cup champion in 2001 with him on the sidelines for the whole series sort of underscores the fact that Lindros' team depended on him a lot more than the Avs did Forsberg. (Not saying Lindros or Forsberg is better, just that the Flyers depended on Lindros a lot more.)

False.

He may have been on the sidelines in 2001, but in 2002 he led the playoffs in scoring without playing in the finals.

 

[Sens Rule]

funny that he did that at age 22 and his next best playoff performance was what exactly?

I get that Recchi had a pretty good career but he never reached the heights of Lindros and Lindros was at that great height for 7 NHL seasons (and the year before for the Canadian Olympic team)

I didn't say Recchi was as dominant as Lindros. I said he was dominant at times. And not merely an accumulator like Andreychuk.

Recchi is an easy HHOFer. For peak and prime and his longevity and accumulated counting stats.

Using Recchi as an example of a "negative" and why someone shouldn't be a HHOFer is ridiculous.

Recchi was never as "Great" as Lindros. I am not saying that. But he was actually "great" at times.

Lindros did not play in the 80's... Yet his ppg career wise was at he same level as Crosby's was and is now. Behind only 99,66, Orr and Flirting with Bossy. Until his body crapped out. Lindros peaked at a level that few HHOFers every achieve once... And he did it from 19-26 years old... All the time. Not for a year.

There are many legitimate arguments against a player with a similar career as Lindros. Rarely played complete seasons, huge drop off past his peak years, did not really meet expectations of him, didn't win a Cup, wasn't very well liked, hated by many, low career totals. All of those might be an argument against someone else... But Lindros's peak was actually his entire career in Philly... And per game it is a top 10 or top 15 peak of a forward EVER. Even if delivered in 68 game bunches. Even if he wasn't the next one. Lindros is the strongest, biggest and baddest man to ever lace on skates. No one ever was as feared and hockey strong as Lindros. Not before, not after. He was the Shaq of hockey... But he was really mean and tough. I never saw a player get lined up by a huge defenceman and just settle his own weight and have the guy bounce off of him. Lindros was a freak of nature. He was Cam Neely with an extra 40 pounds of muscle and an extra 50% stronger.

So I totally believe Lindros needs to be inducted. I was just stating that using Recchi as an example of a guy that had no peak is silly. Heck Recchi's "peak" is as good as Ron Francis's "peak"... And no one goes lumping Francis in with Andreychuk of Ciccarelli.

 

[Hobnobs]

So, the only guys who scored more were Bure and Selanne? And you're trying to make the case that he was NOT an elite goal scorer? Really?

Where did I write that he wasnt elite?

People act like Lindros had a year or two of dominant play. Yeah, he was injured 20 games a year, but the man played 760 games and scored 372 goals and 865 points. That's absolutely HOF production.

Indeed, I havent written that it wasnt.

Also, he absolutely made Mark Messier his ***** in the 97 ECF, after first dispatching Lemieux & Jagr in the series before that. Lindros had lots of great play in the playoffs, just not in the 97 finals against a dynastic Detroit team.

Lindros didnt dispose of Lemieux and Jagr. He did however exploit a weak Pens defense. Thats not really that big of a deal tbh.

Lindros is going to eventually get in the HOF. You know that, right?

He might get inducted, yes. Why? Did I write that he wouldn't?

 

[Sens Rule]

Also using the Stevens hit as this big example of Lindros's huge inability to keep his head up or be aware, or take a big hit is ridiculous. Lindros played like 500 games of brutal, hard physical hockey. The hit and the couple of other big ones he took did have drastic consequences to his career but.... Stevens is the best open ice hitter... Maybe ever.

It is like remembering Ray Bourque getting schooled by Mario and looking like a pylon and sizing up Ray Bourque's career based largely on that famous play, by the best beating the best at what they did best.

 

[mja]

Where did I write that he wasnt elite?



Indeed, I havent written that it wasnt.



Lindros didnt dispose of Lemieux and Jagr. He did however exploit a weak Pens defense. Thats not really that big of a deal tbh.



He might get inducted, yes. Why? Did I write that he wouldn't?

So, you agree that he was elite, had HOF production, and was good and at times dominant in the playoffs? Excellent.