Is Eric Lindros a Hall of Famer?

[sarsippius]

I probably didn't phrase that right. I have seen (on hfboards) people who were not Flyers fans before Lindros, and who were not from the Philly area (i.e., they had no natural connection to the Flyers) say they became fans because of Lindros. Maybe they became Flyers fans, I don't know.

 

 

_{That point is dead on. Several years ago on that board that shall remain nameless, I started a thread asking Flyer fans outside of the Philly area, how did you become Flyer fans? And depending the age of the poster, there were mainly two answers: Bob Clarke/Broad Street Bullies for the 40+ generation, and Eric Lindros/Legion of Doom for the "younger" set. Lindros undoubtedly was a great gate draw and brought new fans into the fold, and I think it's reasonable to assume the alot of Philly-based Flyer fans became hockey fans because of the impact Lindros had}

Edited June 26, 2014 by sarsippius

[Polaris922]

@Vanflyer

I won't argue his charity efforts but they only began in earnest AFTER his playing days ended. During his actual career he did next to nothing.

As for Crosby the man is constantly involved in charity events. The entire team is pretty good about it. Whether by their own choices or some organizational requirement I don't know, but Crosby has been recognized as one of the most active players in the league for it so no comparison there. Opposite ends of the spectrum.

@JackStraw

I don't buy the "parents doing" excuses made for the guy every time. When I was 18 I was full on engaged in my choices. All but the most immature of us were. Whether it be picking a college, a branch if service, a career path... What have you. His parents may have influenced him, but HE decided what he did, nobody else. The "my parents made me do it" is complete malarkey.

@JackStraw

@sarsippius

As I agreed I'm sure a lot of FLYERS fans were drawn by him, but he didnt have the far reaching draw to the sport many great players have because of his obvious selfishness and baggage. He did well by your franchise though, no argument here.

[Vanflyer]

I won't argue his charity efforts but they only began in earnest AFTER his playing days ended. During his actual career he did next to nothing.

 

Completely incorrect. 

[Polaris922]

Completely incorrect.

I remember criticism of him for it, and even now can find nothing contradicting that criticism until after his injuries forced him out. Great charity contributions after but not much to speak of until then.

Regardless... Even giving him credit for his work after retirement he still has too many negatives to overcome with borderline stats. He'll only get in if there's a thin class and voters are charitable. Many voters seem of purist ideals though so I bet the Quebec fiasco does a lot if damage.

[sarsippius]

@JackStraw

@sarsippius

As I agreed I'm sure a lot of FLYERS fans were drawn by him, but he didnt have the far reaching draw to the sport many great players have because of his obvious selfishness and baggage. He did well by your franchise though, no argument here.

Yeah I make no argument for him bringing fans to the sport globally, Just pointing out that having the next wunderkind here in Philly brought alot of new fans to the Flyers from some far-flung places.

[Polaris922]

So who can see the voting? Have any non-Flyers fans said yes??

[mojo1917]

2 more dominant years would do it. For Big E

sadly he couldn't skate with his head up so for me @sarsippius post about expectations not met is the deciding criteria for my opinion of him as a player. 

So Sorry as it stands now his unfulfilled promise will keep him out of the hall.

 

I don't think he was a "terrible person" but he was the poster boy for the "me generation " athlete in hockey.

 

 

@Polaris922

I can't help but think you missed the point of van's post by about 20 feet.

 

van never said Sid wasn't generous with his time. 

 

Would there be a record of charitable giving ? yes,

would there be a record of a visit to CHOP ?  maybe not. 

 

in 20 years will Sid's time be remembered ? by those who benefited from his presence sure, after that if a guy from Nashville wanted to "find out " about Sid's charity work at University Hospital ( or whatever ) he might have a hard time finding "proof" . 

 

And not for nothing you do say you won't argue about his charity efforts  

I won't argue his charity efforts

 

but then you do.

[ruxpin]

 

_{That point is dead on. Several years ago on that board that shall remain nameless, I started a thread asking Flyer fans outside of the Philly area, how did you become Flyer fans? And depending the age of the poster, there were mainly two answers: Bob Clarke/Broad Street Bullies for the 40+ generation, and Eric Lindros/Legion of Doom for the "younger" set. Lindros undoubtedly was a great gate draw and brought new fans into the fold, and I think it's reasonable to assume the alot of Philly-based Flyer fans became hockey fans because of the impact Lindros had}

 

 

I don't doubt it with Flyers' fans.  You're not going to get many "Chris Therien was awesome!" answers.And some who weren't fans at all may have become fans (from anywhere, not just Philly.  Even Camden).    I'm just not sure there were too many fans of another team who either liked him or switched allegiance because of him.  Now that Jack's clarified, I don't think he meant the latter.

[JackStraw]

I'm just not sure there were too many fans of another team who either liked him or switched allegiance because of him.  Now that Jack's clarified, I don't think he meant the latter.

 

Correct. I didn't mean it that way.

[ruxpin]

What about Barber makes you think he was so Hall-worthy? He never led the league in any offensive category (Lindros did). He never won any NHL awards (Lindros did). He was never even considered the best player on own his team, let alone the league. He was also possibly the most notorious diver I've ever seen play (not that that should have any bearing on his selection but if we can talk about Lindros skating with his head down we can talk about Barber's diving).

 

Barber's goal totals are nice, but it helped that he played next to one of the best pure playmakers the league has ever seen. If he had played his entire career for say, Atlanta (who passed over him in the draft in favor of Jacques Richard, also a LW) he probably doesn't come close to those numbers.

 

First, his career numbers get him to the "bubble" area.  Plus all-star games, PPG which is better than a lot of forwards in the Hall and top 70 all time (admittedly behind Lindros by not really close), goals per game which is in the top 50 all time,  Top 10 in shorthanded goals six times and 31st all time for career.  And two Cups.  He wasn't along for the ride for those.  They don't win those Cups without them (please note, that does not translate to "they won the Cup because of him."  If your name isn't Parent, you probably don't get that distinction).    2 Cups, 4 finals,   He deserves to be there.

 

However, I acknowledge he, too, is a bubble player given that he did not score 500 goals or 1000 points, only scoried 50G/100pts once each, etc, but I know (suspect) you're actually not making the case that he shouldn't be there,   I know you're asking "why is he there and Lindros isn't."

 

The career numbers between the two come up fairly even.   Barber more goals, Lindros more assists and points.   Barber had more games (902-760) but Lindros had more seasons (or parts of) 13-12.

 

I know people don't want to hear this, but the difference is the following:

 

Barber:  all games played with the same team.   Lindros four (yeah, two were cups of coffee in each of his last two seasons).

Barber:  4 finals, 2 Cups.   Lindros:  1 final, no Cups.

Barber:  Runner up for Calder Trophy.   Lindros:  4th (I don't actually think this plays into the equation but would have lost the bet that Lindros wasn't runner up to Selanne).

Barber:  Didn't hold out on the team that drafted him and didn't force a trade.   Lindros:   Yep

Barber:  As a player, no public disputes with management.

Barber:  Didn't ever lead a team accused by its own coach of choking (rightly or wrongly)   Lindros:  1  (rightly or wrongly)

 

 

Both being bubble players, I really do think the boldfaced items above play into pushing the player one way or the other (the other two in the list were just pile-on throw-ins).

 

The one non-personal playing accomplishment that should be in Lindros' favor, though:

 

Number of arenas built largely because of him:   Lindros 1, Barber 0

 

I honestly think Lindros probably gets in someday.  The delay is punishment (overtly or otherwise) for the hold out and the public spat with management.  At some point, whatever punishment in terms of ballots will be exhausted and he will get in...my guess is in a year with an otherwise weak field.  But he'll get in. 

 

If Neely is in, Lindros should be in.

[Polaris922]

2 more dominant years would do it. For Big E

sadly he couldn't skate with his head up so for me @sarsippius post about expectations not met is the deciding criteria for my opinion of him as a player.

So Sorry as it stands now his unfulfilled promise will keep him out of the hall.

I don't think he was a "terrible person" but he was the poster boy for the "me generation " athlete in hockey.

@Polaris922

And not for nothing you do say you won't argue about his charity efforts

but then you do.

As this isn't about Sid's charities or efforts I'll leave that debate for elsewhere. As for my saying I won't argue about his charity efforts, you left off the end if the sentence where I say those efforts only really happened AFTER his retirement. That is when he became charitable, not before. That was the part I wouldn't argue was post- retirement generosity. It was a criticism he received as a player but was more or less forgotten with his post-retirement efforts which are laudable. The whole sentence counts!

[blocker]

Him (and John Leclaire) have held many events to raise money for this charity

 

Lindros traveled here to Vermont each summer to help raise money for John LeClair's foundation.   I know he made significant donations in addition to lending his presence. 

 

I've sat at the same table as him.   To me, he seemed quiet and diffident.  He played hockey with arrogance, but in face to face meetings, that disrespect never showed.  IMHO, he was cowed by Carl and especially Bonnie.

 

Anyway, he's a rum character. 

[sarsippius]

So who can see the voting? Have any non-Flyers fans said yes??

I didn't vote and I'm not sure how I'd vote if I were on the committee. It's an interesting debate and there's a lot of meat in the arguments pro and con. Above my pay grade

[JackStraw]

First, his career numbers get him to the "bubble" area.  Plus all-star games, PPG which is better than a lot of forwards in the Hall and top 70 all time (admittedly behind Lindros by not really close), goals per game which is in the top 50 all time,  Top 10 in shorthanded goals six times and 31st all time for career.  And two Cups.  He wasn't along for the ride for those.  They don't win those Cups without them (please note, that does not translate to "they won the Cup because of him."  If your name isn't Parent, you probably don't get that distinction).    2 Cups, 4 finals,   He deserves to be there.

 

However, I acknowledge he, too, is a bubble player given that he did not score 500 goals or 1000 points, only scoried 50G/100pts once each, etc, but I know (suspect) you're actually not making the case that he shouldn't be there,   I know you're asking "why is he there and Lindros isn't."

 

The career numbers between the two come up fairly even.   Barber more goals, Lindros more assists and points.   Barber had more games (902-760) but Lindros had more seasons (or parts of) 13-12.

 

I know people don't want to hear this, but the difference is the following:

 

Barber:  all games played with the same team.   Lindros four (yeah, two were cups of coffee in each of his last two seasons).

Barber:  4 finals, 2 Cups.   Lindros:  1 final, no Cups.

Barber:  Runner up for Calder Trophy.   Lindros:  4th (I don't actually think this plays into the equation but would have lost the bet that Lindros wasn't runner up to Selanne).

Barber:  Didn't hold out on the team that drafted him and didn't force a trade.   Lindros:   Yep

Barber:  As a player, no public disputes with management.

Barber:  Didn't ever lead a team accused by its own coach of choking (rightly or wrongly)   Lindros:  1  (rightly or wrongly)

 

 

Both being bubble players, I really do think the boldfaced items above play into pushing the player one way or the other (the other two in the list were just pile-on throw-ins).

 

The one non-personal playing accomplishment that should be in Lindros' favor, though:

 

Number of arenas built largely because of him:   Lindros 1, Barber 0

 

I honestly think Lindros probably gets in someday.  The delay is punishment (overtly or otherwise) for the hold out and the public spat with management.  At some point, whatever punishment in terms of ballots will be exhausted and he will get in...my guess is in a year with an otherwise weak field.  But he'll get in. 

 

If Neely is in, Lindros should be in.

 

Pretty good post and I would agree with most of it. I also think Lindros will get in eventually.

[yave1964]

Pretty good post and I would agree with most of it. I also think Lindros will get in eventually.

  I posted elsewhere that other than Lidstrom it is a weak class, the weakest in  a long time. My bet is he gets in next year. He will be battling Recchi, Kariya and Roenick for votes, and I think in that group he should have the edge.

[J0e Th0rnton]

  I posted elsewhere that other than Lidstrom it is a weak class, the weakest in  a long time. My bet is he gets in next year. He will be battling Recchi, Kariya and Roenick for votes, and I think in that group he should have the edge.

Rofl, or we could have another 2010 year on our hands. Whoops, this year we need a few women!

 

Or they decide to slip in some oldies who should have been in a long time ago. More Russians? (Makarov) Insert random 40's-70's player here(Dick Duff, Roy Conacher). Just looking at the list on Wikipedia, I am laughing at some of the guys I see in the hall.

 

I kind of agree Neely should not be in. Although I loved him to death and he was a monster. He was never the best player in the world, or even top 10 at any point on any year. But neither was Mike Gartner, Dino Ciccerelli, etc etc

 

Some of the names, I did not ever remember hearing, so I clicked on them, and it shows this guy Lionel Conacher inducted in 1994, carrying a football in his wiki bio. It also says he retired in 1937. How did they just suddenly decide to put him in in 1994?

 

The Hall of fame seems to have weird standards.