Why Is Eric Lindros Not In The HHOF

[JagerMeister]

I cant comprehend this, he was such an imposing physical force with enough offensive talent to contend for the Art Ross. Lesser players who have played precisely around the same games he has are inducted. Is Pavel Bure truly more deserving the Lindros...

[ruxpin]

I cant comprehend this, he was such an imposing physical force with enough offensive talent to contend for the Art Ross. Lesser players who have played precisely around the same games he has are inducted. Is Pavel Bure truly more deserving the Lindros...

 

I have always argued against him because as a person I think he's a douche.

 

But yeah, go ahead and put him in.  

[Polaris922]

I cant comprehend this, he was such an imposing physical force with enough offensive talent to contend for the Art Ross. Lesser players who have played precisely around the same games he has are inducted. Is Pavel Bure truly more deserving the Lindros...

 

My opinion is he was bad for the sport.  He ushered in the spoiled brat era.. the I'm too good for the league era..  who the hell refuses to play for the team that drafts them until he shows up?  His numbers are competitive with some who are in, but his reputation was always a negative outside of Philly.  That isn't the image the NHL wanted or needs, so leave him out. 

[mojo1917]

but his reputation was always a negative outside of Philly.

 

inside Philly too.

[flyercanuck]

Injuries derailed his career. People can say he was a douche ...that has zero to do with being in the hall. The guy was a force of skill and physicality we'd never seen before or since, but it only lasted a few years...that's why he isn't in the hall.

[ruxpin]

People can say he was a douche ...that has zero to do with being in the hall.

 

Then let's put YOU in the Hall, too.

[Podein25]

Then let's put YOU in the Hall, too.

 

 

And you. Ok, for you it's not so much a "Hall" as a padded room at the end of the hall. 

[flyerrod]

And you. Ok, for you it's not so much a "Hall" as a padded room at the end of the hall. 

Well played.....and probably true.....I am always amazed at his ability to get on the internet from within his confinement.

[flyercanuck]

Then let's put YOU in the Hall, too.

 

My "career" isn't over yet! 

[flyerrod]

Biggest reason that Lindros is NOT in, Bobby Clarke. As long as he can draw a breathe, Lindros will never be part the hallowed ground. His contentious dealings with the ENTIRE Lindros clan has soured any chance he might have had. Lindros was a great player when he was here but he was also short lived in the scheme of things.

[ruxpin]

Biggest reason that Lindros is NOT in, Bobby Clarke. As long as he can draw a breathe, Lindros will never be part the hallowed ground. His contentious dealings with the ENTIRE Lindros clan has soured any chance he might have had. Lindros was a great player when he was here but he was also short lived in the scheme of things.

 

I can't imagine the folks with the Nordiques/Avalanche franchise and maybe the Rangers aren't that happy with him, either.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

 

The Rangers can't hold Lindros responsible because the idiot GM in Quebec traded him twice (proving Lindros correct that he was a joke).

[JagerMeister]

Injuries derailed his career. People can say he was a douche ...that has zero to do with being in the hall. The guy was a force of skill and physicality we'd never seen before or since, but it only lasted a few years...that's why he isn't in the hall.

Pavel Bure has approximately his amount of games and was inducted into the HHOF. Pavel Bure is not superior to Lindros.

[pilldoc]

@JR Ewing had a great post about this about a year ago (June 25th, 2014 to be exact)  when the topic was discussed.

 

http://www.hockeyforums.net/index.php/topic/62494-forsberg-modano-blake-and-hasek-chosen-by-the-hall/?p=187369

 

From JR's post.......

 

"I'm a big fan of the work of baseball writer/thinker Bill James. Back when I was a kid, I bought and/or borrowed everything of his which I could get my hand, including the 1985 Baseball Abstract. In that book, for the first time, I came across The Keltner List, named after Ken Keltner. Keltner was the recipient of a post-career movement which saw some people suggest he would be a good Hall of Fame candidate. Jame took the opportunity to come up with a list of subjective questions you can ask a player's career which can help evaluate how worth he is of being the in HOF an, in reference to Keltner, called it the Keltner Test. By creating a list of common criteria, it helps frame the discussion and give it direction. There's no one single thing that make a player HOF worthy, and so the more relevant questions we ask about a player, the closer we come to having a better idea about him and how qualified he is.

About 25 years ago, I adapted it for hockey, have always found it useful, and maybe others here will like it, too.

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?
2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?
3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?
6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?
7. Was he ever a team Captain?
8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?
9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?
10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)
11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?
12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?
13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?
14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)
15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)
16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)
17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?
18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?


13+ = Best of the best
11-12 = Unquestioned HOFer
9-10 = Great player
5-8 = Belongs in HOF
4 = Borderline
3 = Weak Argument
1-2 = Completely Unqualified

Now, don't take me too literally here. If you run a player through it, and they end up with a 4, that doesn't mean he sucks and is clearly not a HOFer. What it does mean is that, relative to players with higher scores, there is a less effective argument to be made for him being in the HOF. The headings of "Weak Argument" are subjective; are meant to give an idea of his qualifications, and are not to be taken as absolutes.

NOTE: this test is extremely difficult in which to score points. To even get one point shows that a player had a very strong career. To score two or three points and make it into the "weak argument" range is an immense accomplishment.

 

SO... Eric Lindros:

 

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?
Yes, Lindros was commonly in that discussion. (1)

 

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?
Yes, same as above. (2)

 

3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

Too many to list here. (3)

 

4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

Lindros led the league in scoring in 1995. (4)

 

5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?

Yes. Lindros led the playoffs in scoring during the Flyers 1996 Finals appearance. (5)

 

6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?

No.

 

7. Was he ever a team Captain?

Yes, from 1994 to 2000. (6)

 

8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?

No.

 

9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?

Lindros had a very small handfull of Selke votes over the years, but no, he wasn't considered excellent by many.

 

10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)

Absolutely. (7)

 

11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?

No, Lindros' concussion problems meant that he was finished as an impact player by the time he was 29.

 

12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?

1st AS in '95, 2nd AS in '96 (8)

 

13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?

Of the ten most statistically similar players, 7 are in the HOF, and the three who aren't (Thornton, Iginla, St Louis) may well end up there. (9)

 

14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)

Won the Hart and Lindsay in 1995. (10)

 

15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)

No

 

16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)

I see nothing to indicate a point here.

 

17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?

I don't think so. If anything, controversy followed him everywhere, since before he was even a junior.

 

18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?

No, there was nothing new here.

 

---

 

So, Lindros ends up with 10 points (as I see it) using this system, which is a very good case."

[Podein25]

@pilldoc

Fantastic post and classy giving some credit to another great poster (@JR Ewing)

 

I only disagree with your take on #18. Lindros was a special talent for a big guy. Some of the softest, quickest hands ever. He could let it rip or dish it, made lots of little plays. I feel he was a unique talent in everything he did.

 

18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?

No, there was nothing new here.

 

[pilldoc]

@Podein25

 

Thanks Pods!  As I mentioned in another thread somewhere....many of us here bring a unique perspective and point of view to this forum and to the sport of hockey.  JR had such a great post on this subject that is was worth sharing again.  Have to give credit to where credit is due.

[ruxpin]

I feel he was a unique talent in everything he did.

 

With the possible exception of skating with his damn head up.

[ruxpin]

@Podein25

 

Thanks Pods!  As I mentioned in another thread somewhere....many of us here bring a unique perspective and point of view to this forum and to the sport of hockey.  JR had such a great post on this subject that is was worth sharing again.  Have to give credit to where credit is due.

 

He's used this with several players.  I do think it's a pretty good tool for putting things on an even playing field.    It's great you put it in this thread.

[Podein25]

With the possible exception of skating with his damn head up.

 

 

Yeah, not a lot of "talent" there - just steely-eyed determination to keep doing it.

[pilldoc]

He's used this with several players.  I do think it's a pretty good tool for putting things on an even playing field.    It's great you put it in this thread.

 

Yeah he has...it was a great topic....I was thinking of making a sticky out of it.  It really is a great tool for evaluating potential players for the HOF.

[JR Ewing]

 

@pilldoc

Fantastic post and classy giving some credit to another great poster (@JR Ewing)

 

I only disagree with your take on #18. Lindros was a special talent for a big guy. Some of the softest, quickest hands ever. He could let it rip or dish it, made lots of little plays. I feel he was a unique talent in everything he did.

 

 

The reason I opted not to give a point is because, with respect to the question ("Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?") I didn't see how I could answer with a yes. He wasn't the first player to possess his tools or to use them the way he did. I think he was at the forefront of a movement which brought in a heavy and physical game to the NHL, but it wasn't a new style of play. And, I could be wrong, but I couldn't think of any rules the league came up with in an effort to shut down his dominance of the sport like we could with the trapezoid for Martin Brodeur, the Bobby Hull/banana blade rule, or how the league made coincidental penalties remain 5-on-5 because the Boys on the Bus tilted the game so badly in their favor 4-on-4 and 3-on-3.

 

Trust me, I don't want to take a thing away from Eric Lindros. The points I made in that post are ones I've made from the beginning with him, and were ones I made while they were fresh and insanely unpopular. I think he's a Hall of Fame calibre player. I just don't think he's a singular one.

[ruxpin]

I think he's a Hall of Fame calibre player. I just don't think he's a singular one.

 

That's such an interesting way of putting that.  I like it.

[Yotes Jackets]

Solely based off my domination with him in NHL 2000 he should get in

[ScottM]

Here's my issue with throwing the character card out there to justify the exclusion of Lindros: Dino Ciccarelli is in the Hall. His career average is under a point per game despite playing in the 80's, and he wasn't nearly as dominant at his best as was Lindros, and he had just as many if not more character issues. If character questions are enough to keep Lindros out, why is Ciccarelli there? I'm far from a Lindros fan, but quite frankly, the guy should be in the Hall.

[JagerMeister]

Here's my issue with throwing the character card out there to justify the exclusion of Lindros: Dino Ciccarelli is in the Hall. His career average is under a point per game despite playing in the 80's, and he wasn't nearly as dominant at his best as was Lindros, and he had just as many if not more character issues. If character questions are enough to keep Lindros out, why is Ciccarelli there? I'm far from a Lindros fan, but quite frankly, the guy should be in the Hall.

I think a more comparable example is Bobby Hull....