By Beaker

Listen up, and listen up good I’m only going to write about this once and once only: Eric Lindros belongs in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

While we’re at it, so does Pavel Bure.

I can’t see any rational reason for anyone in their right mind to suggest otherwise.

Let’s build our case beginning with the intangibubbles.

The quality standards have been set with the HHOF. This is the place that felt it fit to put Reg Noble, Marty Walsh, Marty Barry, Busher Jackson, Tim Horton, Leo Boivin, Bob Pulford, and Clark Gillies, among others in the hall. No disrespect to any of those. I can’t say this enough, the HHOF is not about dominance with peak and career values playing a decisive role. Just the career value seems to factor in.

Bob Pulford? And you’re going to argue against Lindros?

Moreover, if we consult a higher grade of player, were solid players like Alex Delvecchio and Norm Ullman that much more deserving than Lindros?

You can’t put lesser players in and ignore guys like Lindros and Bure. It’s irrational, illogical and, well, laughably unfair.

What other reasons have been blurted out from the mouths of hockey fans against Lindros getting in? One guy chimed in with the usual he was “poor defensively.” Retarded to even bring this up. I won’t even bother with that.

The other argument is he only played in 760 games. Cam Neely 726. Same type of player but Lindros has better statistics – more in a minute. End of discussion.

What about comparisons to other players in the Hall? Let’s see, I arbitrarily select Cam Neely, Bernie Federko, Mike Gartner, Denis Savard and Joey Mullen; each of whom are in the Hall. None were really dominant in the most stringent of definitions for a career; rather they had their “moments.” A guy like Gartner was remarkably consistent but hardly a threat to win the Art Ross.

Statistically here’s how they compare:

- Cam Neely – .54 goals per game/.96 points per game. Playoffs: 57 goals, 89 points in 93 games. Never cracked the top 10 in scoring in the league – obviously a function of his injuries. One award to his name, the Masterton trophy. A beloved, prototypical power forward.

-Bernie Federko – .37 gpg/1.13 ppg. 35 goals and 101 pts. in 91 games in the playoffs. 5 times in top 10 in scoring. No major awards. Four 100 point seasons.

-Mike Gartner – .49 gpg/.93 ppg. In 122 playoff games he amassed 43 goals and 93 points. One top 10 in scoring to his name. But he has those 700 plus goals. No major award. One 50 goal season, one 100 point season.

-Denis Savard – .40/1.12. Spun and dipsy-doodled  his way to 66 goals and 175 points in 169 playoff games. 5 top 10 finishes in scoring. No major award. Five 100 point seasons.

-Joe Mullen – .47/1.00. 106 points, 60 goals in 143 playoff games. One top ten. No major award.

Eric Lindros – .49 ppg/1.13. 57 points and 27 goals in 53 games. One Hart trophy, one Lester B. Pearson. 3 top 10 – tied for overall scoring with Jaromir Jagr in 1994-95. 115 points in 1995-96.

I recognize this sample is incomplete but it does lend some perspective of Lindros’s career. Better to look at it from this angle than all the subjective nonsense we hear. True, relative to the hype, Lindros never really reached the plateau expected of him. Ordained the ‘Next One’ certainly weighs in on people’s mind I’m sure. And then the whole ‘not going to Quebec’ thing. But those are just strawman serving to distract one from observing his career objectively.

Two things can further be added about Lindros. Like Neely (and Pavel Bure), injuries ravaged his career and potential. He never played a full season reaching 81 games only once. Also, Lindros was pretty productive during a time when the NHL was in the dark ages when it came to style of play and overall goal production. There was no free-wheeling hockey from the early 1990s to the lock-out year in 2005. Finally, let’s add a third for fun, check out his production for Team Canada.

Last, of all those players, Lindros did have a greater impact on his team and even the league. There were times where one could say he was among the best players in the NHL if not the world. If you want to penalize him for the lack of games played, I submit that’s unfair, again, for the simple fact Neely is in. For the sake of sanity and consistency, he gets in.

In any event, just pro rate the numbers.

Lindros averaged 58 games per year during his career. Let’s add, say, 12 games to that and make it 70. That will give him 910 games. At 1.12 ppg he’d be at 1019 points. Assuming, of course, he’d maintain 1.12 ppg. 

The case for Lindros almost sells itself. 

Notice two things in the stats I provided. The glaring absence of achievements and awards that determine dominance for the selected players and the fact I didn’t mention if they won Stanley Cups.

Which brings me to my final point.

Nothing irritates me more than people saying, “yeah, well he didn’t win a cup.”

It makes no sense whatsoever to extract individual performances in team sports to measure an athlete’s career. It’s inconsistent with the nature of the game. Dan Marino is still greater than Mark Rypien, for example, even though he only made it to the Super Bowl (Lindros at least led the Flyers to a final) and never won. That he didn’t win, doesn’t detract from his greatness.

The playoffs in any sports is a damn crap shoot. Anyone can get hot. Does anyone really truly believe the New York Giants were a better team than the New England Patriots? That because Eli Manning won a Super Bowl that somehow he’s equal to his brother Peyton? Of course not.

And so it is in hockey. Federko never won neither did Neely or Gartner. Savard and Mullen were part of a winning team. Lucky them. It’s a pointless discussion.

Oh. Marcel Dionne never won too.

So concludes the madness of this position.

Lindros belongs.

And if you need me to build a case for Pavel Bure then you shouldn’t be allowed to watch hockey.