Your Mt.Rushmore of OVERRATED and Mt.Rushmore of UNDERRATED ... all time

[bobholly39]

This forum barely ranked Lindros top 100 and you think he was over-rated?? On most of these kinds of lists he's top 30.

I mean the post of mine you quoted literally says "HF at large" - so no I don't mean this forum specifically.

For me the top 100 was always more about greatest careers. I think based on that, Lindros is mostly slotted in the correct spot, or close enough. If you changed it to "best players" - yes, he would rise up since at his best he is better than some players who had better careers.

Reason why I say he's overrated on HF at large is there's so many assumptions that with health he's a Crosby/McDavid type player. No....I disagree. I think he'd be more a Messier level player, or slightly better than a Joe Sakic. And even if he's slightly better then that - he wouldn't compare to Crosby/McDavid. Both Crosby and McDavid have had absolutely all-time great elite consistency in their career (McDavid still young though, let's see how he holds up) - I don't see Lindros as someone who would have held up as well or for so long.

 

[DitchMarner]

In Lindros' prime ('94 to '99), he was third in points per game and actual points. He did miss a lot of games, but he played enough that he was third in plus/minus as well.

I'd take that six-year window over the entire careers of guys like Andreychuk and Ciccarellii personally. There probably haven't been too many more dominant six season primes since '67. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure Crosby has a better stretch of six seasons. McDavid, maybe.

 

[daver]

Reason why I say he's overrated on HF at large is there's so many assumptions that with health he's a Crosby/McDavid type player. No....I disagree. I think he'd be more a Messier level player, or slightly better than a Joe Sakic. And even if he's slightly better then that - he wouldn't compare to Crosby/McDavid. Both Crosby and McDavid have had absolutely all-time great elite consistency in their career (McDavid still young though, let's see how he holds up) - I don't see Lindros as someone who would have held up as well or for so long.

He was an inherently flawed player who relied on his physicality to an extent to create his offense and get his juices going. I agree that you probably do not get much more peak/prime Lindros than we did in the best of worlds. Forsberg was a bit of the same. Malkin was injury-prone, period.

This is different from Orr, Mario and Crosby; all of whom are easier players to make assumptions (if one chooses to make assumptions).

 

[jigglysquishy]

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Crosby 2012-13 through 2017-18. First in points and PPG. 2nd in assists. 3rd in goals (1 back of 2nd). 1st in EVP.

McDavid will have a very dominant stretch too

 

[DitchMarner]

He was an inherently flawed player who relied on his physicality to an extent to create his offense and get his juices going. I agree that you probably do not get much more peak/prime Lindros than we did in the best of worlds. Forsberg was a bit of the same. Malkin was injury-prone, period.

This is different from Orr, Mario and Crosby; all of whom are easier players to make assumptions (if one chooses to make assumptions).

I do agree with that. He was never going to age particularly well. He just didn't have the hockey IQ for it. Not that he was dumb...

I think where some people underrate him is in assuming or misremembering that he did a lot less than he did in his prime. Some people seem to think he was always out with an injury. He was hurt a lot but still managed to be third in points (not just PPG) and plus/minus over a good six years, and that's basically the best you were going to get from him. He was never going to be a model of consistency over ten or 15 years.

 

[Albatros]

He was an inherently flawed player who relied on his physicality to an extent to create his offense and get his juices going. I agree that you probably do not get much more peak/prime Lindros than we did in the best of worlds. Forsberg was a bit of the same. Malkin was injury-prone, period.

This is different from Orr, Mario and Crosby; all of whom are easier players to make assumptions (if one chooses to make assumptions).

Didn't for example Orr rely on sacrificing his knee just the same? If anything, hypothetically Lindros could have been the same player and kept his head up more whereas Orr would have had to become a different player in order to avoid injuries.

 

[bobholly39]

In Lindros' prime ('94 to '99), he was third in points per game and actual points. He did miss a lot of games, but he played enough that he was third in plus/minus as well.

I'd take that six-year window over the entire careers of guys like Andreychuk and Ciccarellii personally. There probably haven't been too many more dominant six season primes since '67. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure Crosby has a better stretch of six seasons. McDavid, maybe.

See that's what I mean by overrated.

better than Andreychuk and Ciccarelli? I don't think anyone has ever argued the opposite.....Lindros is way better than those 2. Even 6 year to full career.

But his 6 year prime is nowhere near the best post 67. Off the top of my head players who have better 6 year primes:

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Esposito, Bossy, Jagr, Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid, Kucherov, MacKinnon, Messier, Bourque, Lidstrom, Lafleur

Maybe I missed a few, and maybe you disagree with a couple I listed. But he's still very far down the list.

Even with the best health possible - he'd still be behind a majority of those names. And we have no idea what kind of longevity/consistency Lindros might have had with better health, so no way to tell what his career might have looked like.

 

[DitchMarner]

See that's what I mean by overrated.

better than Andreychuk and Ciccarelli? I don't think anyone has ever argued the opposite.....Lindros is way better than those 2. Even 6 year to full career.

But his 6 year prime is nowhere near the best post 67. Off the top of my head players who have better 6 year primes:

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Esposito, Bossy, Jagr, Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid, Kucherov, MacKinnon, Messier, Bourque, Lidstrom, Lafleur

Maybe I missed a few, and maybe you disagree with a couple I listed. But he's still very far down the list.

Even with the best health possible - he'd still be behind a majority of those names. And we have no idea what kind of longevity/consistency Lindros might have had with better health, so no way to tell what his career might have looked like.

If you take the best six seasons of some of those guys and compare them to his, the other players might come out on top in some cases. I meant six consecutive seasons, though.

I think you'd have a harder time than you might think finding six season stretches of players where they're top three in points per game, points and plus/minus. He was also seventh in goals and assists.

Plus/minus is basically just a crude and somewhat antiquated proxy for impact on goal differential. It's not the best stat out there, but we don't have things like XGF% and Corsi from Lindros' time. I'm sure he would look heavily dominant in those stats as well. He has a reputation for being a major ice-tilting and goal differential-skewing force in his prime and I think it's warranted.


Again, I'm not a huge Lindros guy personally. I just think that there's been an overcorrection on the "overrating" to the extent that now some may have this idea that he played like 45 games per season on average in his best years and wasn't actually that big a factor in the NHL over a sustained period of time in his best years. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[bobholly39]

If you take the best six seasons of some of those guys and compare them to his, the other players might come out on top in some cases. I meant six consecutive seasons, though.

I think you'd have a harder time than you might think finding six season stretches of players where they're top three in points per game, points and plus/minus. He was also seventh in goals and assists.

Plus/minus is basically just a crude and somewhat antiquated proxy for impact on goal differential. It's not the best stat out there, but we don't have things like XGF% and Corsi from Lindros' time. I'm sure he would look heavily dominant in those stats as well. He has a reputation for being a major ice-tilting and goal differential-skewing force in his prime and I think it's warranted.


Again, I'm not a huge Lindros guy personally. I just think that there's been an overcorrection on the "overrating" to the extent that now some may have this idea that he played like 45 games per season on average in his best years and wasn't actually that big a factor in the NHL over a sustained period of time in his best years. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I assumed you meant 6 consecutive years and my response meant exactly that. For best 6 consecutive years, all of the players I listed are above Lindros. And that's before adding any goalies.

And honestly - I made my list super fast. There's a whole bunch of other players who for top 6 consecutive seasons might have a case vs Lindros too. Forsberg, Sakic, Trottier, Malkin, etc.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Didn't for example Orr rely on sacrificing his knee just the same? If anything, hypothetically Lindros could have been the same player and kept his head up more whereas Orr would have had to become a different player in order to avoid injuries.

Not really. Orr suffered a knee injury his rookie year that never really went away and led to additional injuries. If he had the same injury today, he'd have a simple arthroscopic procedure done to fix it and miss less than 6 months. It wasnt to do with his play or skating style.

 

[GMR]

Linden is the most overrated player in the history of the game.

Do you realize how insulting that statement is to Toews and Niedermayer?

 

[JackSlater]

If you take the best six seasons of some of those guys and compare them to his, the other players might come out on top in some cases. I meant six consecutive seasons, though.

I think you'd have a harder time than you might think finding six season stretches of players where they're top three in points per game, points and plus/minus. He was also seventh in goals and assists.

Plus/minus is basically just a crude and somewhat antiquated proxy for impact on goal differential. It's not the best stat out there, but we don't have things like XGF% and Corsi from Lindros' time. I'm sure he would look heavily dominant in those stats as well. He has a reputation for being a major ice-tilting and goal differential-skewing force in his prime and I think it's warranted.


Again, I'm not a huge Lindros guy personally. I just think that there's been an overcorrection on the "overrating" to the extent that now some may have this idea that he played like 45 games per season on average in his best years and wasn't actually that big a factor in the NHL over a sustained period of time in his best years. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Lindros is definitely underrated. As has already been basically stated you have some people looking to judge a career rather than the player. You also have the reality that he was also disliked by two camps even when he played, those who were furious that he'd dare go against the established system in the OHL and NHL drafts and those who needed a fainting chair when they saw how physically he played. It's cliche but nobody roots for Goliath, and people looking for bullet points (trophies, scoring finishes) are inevitably going to underrate the quality of a player who missed time most seasons (rip scoring finishes) and brought an elite element or two (physicality, possession) that is not easily measured.

The thing is that we don't need to judge Lindros on his potential, we saw him play enough games at or near his best to know how good he was.

 

[67 others]

This forum barely ranked Lindros top 100 and you think he was over-rated?? On most of these kinds of lists he's top 30.

Not really, no. Lindros played the way everyone played in the 1990s -- hit first, ask questions later. Crosby was concussed as often as Lindros and it wasn't because of his playing style. It's because it took the NHL 90 years to figure out that it might be a good idea to actually enforce the rules so that the elite players (the ones fans pay money to see) will actually be in the lineup.

I wasn't even thinking his concussions.

He missed a lot of time for non concussion injuries just from the old crash and bang. Bruised ribs, Charlie horse, collapsed lung....like a LOT

 

[Albatros]

Not really. Orr suffered a knee injury his rookie year that never really went away and led to additional injuries. If he had the same injury today, he'd have a simple arthroscopic procedure done to fix it and miss less than 6 months. It wasnt to do with his play or skating style.

He willingly put his knee on harm's way time and time again, a particular surgery would have done little to avoid repetitive injuries and resulting deterioration. Would have needed to change his skating style and play a more cautious game altogether, has said himself that his injuries were an inevitable consequence of his style that he accepted.

"It was the way I played, I liked to carry the puck and if you do that, you're going to get hit. That's the way it goes. I wish I'd played longer, but I don't regret it. I had a style - when you play, you play all-out. I tried to do things. I didn't want to sit back. I wanted to be involved."

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He willingly put his knee on harm's way time and time again, a particular surgery would have done little to avoid repetitive injuries and resulting deterioration. Would have needed to change his skating style and play a more cautious game altogether, has said himself that his injuries were an inevitable consequence of his style that he accepted.

"It was the way I played, I liked to carry the puck and if you do that, you're going to get hit. That's the way it goes. I wish I'd played longer, but I don't regret it. I had a style - when you play, you play all-out. I tried to do things. I didn't want to sit back. I wanted to be involved."

If he doesn't play that way, he's not Bobby Orr.

 

[Davenport]

My second choice for under-rated: Bill Gadsby. It's hard for a d-man to really stand out on a poor team, but Bill managed to do it. Spent parts of nine seasons in Chicago - made the playoffs once. Spent parts of seven seasons in New York - made the playoffs three times. Finished his career with five seasons in Detroit, where he made the playoffs four times, and had three shots at the Stanley Cup - to no avail. Gadsby played a very physical game, and was - especially for his era - quite productive, especially on the powerplay. Below, we see what might be my favorite hockey image: Bill welcoming Stan Mikita to the Wings' end of the rink (from the 1965-66 playoffs)

 

[tabness]

On Lindros, I think @Dale53130 nailed it the best on so many factors. If there's someone you could say overrated him, it's some in the Flyers organization, who must have thought he was literally superman or something since they tried to make him do everything for them, and not surround him with the right talent, or even like an enforcer to reduce to burden of fighting his own battles (and he was BY FAR the most targeted player I've ever seen). Shame he had a soft head on top of the targeting.

For me though, Lindros is a guy who I think the world of, I literally watch him and think, this may be the most perfect player I've ever seen, only other one like that is Lemieux.

I think I've grown more of Lindros and his game as the NHL has gone in the complete opposite direction of hardness. You take for granted what you got until it's gone, it's REALLY gone in today's NHL lol...

The numbers are actually great (I posted a lot on how good Lindros's road even strength stats are, my pet stats in many senses), but with Lindros, it was never really about numbers anyway. I always go to this Neil Smith quote about him (rookie Lindros no less): “With Gretzky, Lemieux, Steve Yzerman, Pat Lafontaine, you’ve got a group of superstars who are tremendously skilled, dominant athletes,” said N.Y. Rangers general manager Neil Smith, “but they don’t have the physical presence to dominate a game. Lindros does.”

 

[JackSlater]

Just goaltenders

Overrated: Dryden, Tretiak, Thomas, Fuhr (and Smith, Cheevers, Bobrovsky sort of)

Underrated: Liut, Markstrom, Giacomin, Turco

 

[K Fleur]

I find Lindros, like most 90’s players, to be overly romanticized.

What kept him from being a true upper echelon all time great was his inability or unwillingness to adapt.

 

[Soundgarden]

Just goaltenders

Overrated: Dryden, Tretiak, Thomas, Fuhr (and Smith, Cheevers, Bobrovsky sort of)

Underrated: Liut, Markstrom, Giacomin, Turco

It definitely feels like Liut spent his career on a lot of bad/middling teams.

 

[VanIslander]

I find Lindros, like most 90’s players, to be overly romanticized.

What kept him from being a true upper echelon all time great was his inability or unwillingness to adapt.

He wouldn't keep his bloody head up.
He was still in juniors in his mind.
5'11 Michael Peca cleaned his clock.

Mr. Elbows would have ended his career.

Lindros was the anti-Gretzky in the spidey sense dep't.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

On Lindros, I think @Dale53130 nailed it the best on so many factors. If there's someone you could say overrated him, it's some in the Flyers organization, who must have thought he was literally superman or something since they tried to make him do everything for them, and not surround him with the right talent, or even like an enforcer to reduce to burden of fighting his own battles (and he was BY FAR the most targeted player I've ever seen). Shame he had a soft head on top of the targeting.

For me though, Lindros is a guy who I think the world of, I literally watch him and think, this may be the most perfect player I've ever seen, only other one like that is Lemieux.

I think I've grown more of Lindros and his game as the NHL has gone in the complete opposite direction of hardness. You take for granted what you got until it's gone, it's REALLY gone in today's NHL lol...

The numbers are actually great (I posted a lot on how good Lindros's road even strength stats are, my pet stats in many senses), but with Lindros, it was never really about numbers anyway. I always go to this Neil Smith quote about him (rookie Lindros no less): “With Gretzky, Lemieux, Steve Yzerman, Pat Lafontaine, you’ve got a group of superstars who are tremendously skilled, dominant athletes,” said N.Y. Rangers general manager Neil Smith, “but they don’t have the physical presence to dominate a game. Lindros does.”

I'd say he was closer to Gordie Howe than Mario.

 

[VanIslander]

I'd say he was closer to Gordie Howe than Mario.

Ommmmg no.

Mario couldnt keep his head up either!
Little 5'11 Lithuanian Kasparitis knocked him around several times because Mario was watching the puck not the players! Mario ASKED the team to get Kasparitis so that he wouldn't have to face him again.

Gordie Howe? Mr. Elbows? The guy who you sucker punch once and 9 years later he returns it and vocally lets you know why?!

No. Howe & Lemieux are wired entirely differently.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ok, that's not true. The Lemieux/Kasparaitis thing was mostly Kasparaitis being agitating. Lemieux played with his head up. Even when Kasparaitis was trying to line him up, Lemieux met him with a stick in the face most of the time...

I'm trying to think of who actually tagged Lemieux while he was skating with the puck and Lemieux didn't take hardly any protective measure...I can't think of any off hand. Lindros and Lemieux didn't play anything alike and didn't have the same tendencies, so it makes sense...

 

[JackSlater]

It definitely feels like Liut spent his career on a lot of bad/middling teams.

Yes, he should have had the sense to play on one of the best teams in the NHL, or at least a team clearly geared toward defence, like most of the best goaltenders over the years.