I would love to have Ovi on my team, but he wouldn't be my first pick if I could chose whoever I wanted.

Europeans NEVER get the respect that good ol' Canadian boys get, it's always a problem of this or that....maaaaaybe Lidstrom and some other players at the end of successful carreers....

I never liked Lindros, but 95 there was no one I'd rather have on my team than him...I do not know exactly what the criteria for getting into HOF is, but I'm not sure that likability is one of them..Don't think ppg is one of them either..

Sooooo, Londros for HOF , Ovi for Hart...maybe not this year..

- Lindeblom

People can disagree with me all they want, but I think if there is ever a time when you are indisputably the best hockey player in the world , then you should be an automatic selection. Not his fault he had bad injury luck, but I believe 100% that he would considered below Gretz and Lemieux, but above Orr, Crosby and Jagr as one of the best players of all time, if he was luckier.

I would love to have Ovi on my team, but he wouldn't be my first pick if I could chose whoever I wanted.

Europeans NEVER get the respect that good ol' Canadian boys get, it's always a problem of this or that....maaaaaybe Lidstrom and some other players at the end of successful carreers....

I never liked Lindros, but 95 there was no one I'd rather have on my team than him...I do not know exactly what the criteria for getting into HOF is, but I'm not sure that likability is one of them..Don't think ppg is one of them either..

Sooooo, Londros for HOF , Ovi for Hart...maybe not this year..

- Lindeblom

This

If I had first pick to build a team of all the players in the world, I wouldn't take Ovi first. Maybe he'd be somewhere 5-10, for my money anyway.

Lindros I think is a no-brainer HOF. There are different ways to get in, being one of the most dominant players in the world for at least a handful of seasons is one.

For your Lindros comments here are some examples for you to think about because it's not what ifs.

Pavel Bure (Elected to the Hall of Fame)

Career games: 702
Career Points: 779
PPG avg: 1.109

Awards
Calder Trophy
Rocket Richard Trophy (2)

Eric Lindros



Career Games: 760
Career Points: 865
PPG avg: 1.138

Awards
Hart Trophy
Lester B Pearson

How can Bure be a Hall of Famer and Lindros not be when there numbers are so similar with Lindros' PPG was slightly better than Bure's
- RobFlyers#1

--------

Good points. Again, I do think Lindros will make it. It's just not a slam dunk case. The big difference between them is, again, postseason play. Bure very nearly got Vancouver to a cup against the Rangers in '94, and was a consistent postseason threat. Lindros had two decent playoff runs statistically, one good one, and three where he was basically a non-factor. And his one good showing was a 4-game shelling from the Wings. But they are fairly similar players, in terms if how their careers played out, even both having a bit of a career apex in New York.

[quote=holyhuselius]Ovechkin out scored Stamkos the last two seasons, making him the leagues best goal scorer. Now you are informed.
- RobFlyers#1[/quote

he also played 41 more games over the past 2 seasons. That's your argument. Weak but he hold on to those thoughts. Maybe the caps can change their logo to the Russia national team jersey? Maybe Ovechkin would want to win then hey? Injury to Stamkos is the only reason Ovi won the Richard Trophy this season and I guess for caps fans that stings.

Ovechkin beat Stamkos in goal scoring in similar games played last season (He was the only player to reach 30 I might add) and this year Stamkos was injured but you can't award him hypothetical goals that he may have scored if he was healthy. Ovechkin out scored Stamkos two straight seasons and that's a fact.

For a 4 year period he was the 3rd highest ppg of all time? What??

1993-94 thru 1996-97

Lindros 361 pts in 236 games. 1.529 ppg

1995-96 through 1998-99

Jagr 473 points in 303 games 1.561ppg

Steve Yzerman had a 4 year stretch where he averaged 1.61. LaFleur has a 4 year stretch at 1.64...I'm sure this list could go on and on.

Im with you that in his prime, when healthy #88 was a dominant player.
Cherry picking limited groups of stats to somehow prove a point, which is ultimately incorrect is the most overrated thing ever

Bolded because I know how much you enjoy to use hyperbole.

- InvisibleOrange

Ok, so I went and did the math.

For 8 seasons, his first 8, before he missed an entire year with concussion problems, Eric Lindros averaged 1.44 points per game. If he retired then, he would have been the fourth highest of all time, behind only Gretzky,Lemieux and Bossy.

That is amazing and should cement his place in the HOF.

Also consider that for the most part, these 8 seasons occured during the "deadpuck era" and if played in the 80s when those other 3 did he almost certainly would have posted ppg numbers similar to them.

--------

Good points. Again, I do think Lindros will make it. It's just not a slam dunk case. The big difference between them is, again, postseason play. Bure very nearly got Vancouver to a cup against the Rangers in '94, and was a consistent postseason threat. Lindros had two decent playoff runs statistically, one good one, and three where he was basically a non-factor. And his one good showing was a 4-game shelling from the Wings. But they are fairly similar players, in terms if how their careers played out, even both having a bit of a career apex in New York.
- starshower776

I love Bure, but putting him in the same class as Lindros is like trying to tell me that Selanne is as good as Lemieux.

Eric Lindros was a great player for a few years, but he was not head and shoulders above anyone. As a huge Red Wings fan at the time, I can tell you we feared Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg much more-and they were huge winners. So were Steve Yzerman and Sergei Fedorov-and all four had numbers in the same area as Lindros in that era. And, in his one shot at a final, the Red Wings made him disappear in a 4 game sweep in 1997.
Real good player-sure. In a "greatest" conversation? I don't think so.

Ovi does not deserve the Hart.

Eric Lindros was a great player for a few years, but he was not head and shoulders above anyone. As a huge Red Wings fan at the time, I can tell you we feared Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg much more-and they were huge winners. So were Steve Yzerman and Sergei Fedorov-and all four had numbers in the same area as Lindros in that era. And, in his one shot at a final, the Red Wings made him disappear in a 4 game sweep in 1997.
Real good player-sure. In a "greatest" conversation? I don't think so.
- Eric 1

You know what is almost as bad as saying a guy can't win the MVP because his team didn't make the playoffs? Using championships to rank players greatness.

Its absurd for so many reasons. All those guys had long careers and are amazing hockey players. Not even Peter Forseberg came close to being as dominant as Lindros. He is still the closest thing we have ever seen to another Gretzky or Lemieux.

James, I enjoy most of your stuff and have read quite a bit of your posts lately. This one should have stayed in your head and off this board. A goal doesn't happen without an assist 98% of the time. Most valuable player is someone who helps his team succeed, like the 16 teams who made the playoffs. Arguing against Crosby for MVP is exactly like saying trees don't produce oxygen. Over 500 man games lost for the team while playing with an AHL player for the second half of the season!?!

Lindros played on a dominant team with dominant players. His prime years were very good, but he wasn't the best or close to the top. Lemieux put up 283 points in two seasons in the mid '90's, not exactly a dead scoring era. His best year in '95/'96 he finished sixth with 115 points in three more games than Lemieux, 41 points behind. And that's sixth with 115, the top ten all had 107 points or more. Again, not dead scoring era. The Pens put up 363 goals that season!

Not a good article, unless your goal was to waste 15 minutes of my Saturday.

People can disagree with me all they want, but I think if there is ever a time when you are indisputably the best hockey player in the world , then you should be an automatic selection. Not his fault he had bad injury luck, but I believe 100% that he would considered below Gretz and Lemieux, but above Orr, Crosby and Jagr as one of the best players of all time, if he was luckier.
- James_Tanner

It has nothing to do with luck. He pounded people and often when he could of just picked up the puck. You live by the sword, you die by the sword! But when he was healthy he was dominant no question. Does he deserve to be in the HOF before Forsberg, definitely NOT!

People can disagree with me all they want, but I think if there is ever a time when you are indisputably the best hockey player in the world , then you should be an automatic selection. Not his fault he had bad injury luck, but I believe 100% that he would considered below Gretz and Lemieux, but above Orr, Crosby and Jagr as one of the best players of all time, if he was luckier.
- James_Tanner

I actually agreed with you, sorry for being unclear on that,

Lindros YES to HOF (But i still dont like him =) )

You know what is almost as bad as saying a guy can't win the MVP because his team didn't make the playoffs? Using championships to rank players greatness.

Its absurd for so many reasons. All those guys had long careers and are amazing hockey players. Not even Peter Forseberg came close to being as dominant as Lindros. He is still the closest thing we have ever seen to another Gretzky or Lemieux.
- James_Tanner

Longevity is definitely a factor in determining greatness. If he concentrated more on making hockey plays then hitting (Joe Thornton) his career would of been longer and maybe we can speak about him in the se breath of Gretzky and Lemieux.

James, I enjoy most of your stuff and have read quite a bit of your posts lately. This one should have stayed in your head and off this board. A goal doesn't happen without an assist 98% of the time. Most valuable player is someone who helps his team succeed, like the 16 teams who made the playoffs. Arguing against Crosby for MVP is exactly like saying trees don't produce oxygen. Over 500 man games lost for the team while playing with an AHL player for the second half of the season!?!

Lindros played on a dominant team with dominant players. His prime years were very good, but he wasn't the best or close to the top. Lemieux put up 283 points in two seasons in the mid '90's, not exactly a dead scoring era. His best year in '95/'96 he finished sixth with 115 points in three more games than Lemieux, 41 points behind. And that's sixth with 115, the top ten all had 107 points or more. Again, not dead scoring era. The Pens put up 363 goals that season!

Not a good article, unless your goal was to waste 15 minutes of my Saturday.
- Topshelf Mountain

Sorry about wasting you time man - you know, you can't nail every single one!

I do think however, that even if Crosby does deserve the Hart, and some people have made some great points - especially about the QoC and the AHL wingers - but I think the level that Ovechkin is disrespected, at least on these boards, means that someone had to write an article arguing that he is actually pretty freaking amazing.

Does Crosby deserve the Hart this year? 99% aren't often wrong, and I think he probably does, but to not even have OV in the top 3 is, in my opinion, seriously undervaluing the worth of a goal.

And yes, assists do matter, but they are given out at about a 2:1 rate to goals, so in terms of value, a goal is better, at least until they stop giving out second assists. (Which I don't actually want)

James, I enjoy most of your stuff and have read quite a bit of your posts lately. This one should have stayed in your head and off this board. A goal doesn't happen without an assist 98% of the time. Most valuable player is someone who helps his team succeed, like the 16 teams who made the playoffs. Arguing against Crosby for MVP is exactly like saying trees don't produce oxygen. Over 500 man games lost for the team while playing with an AHL player for the second half of the season!?!

Lindros played on a dominant team with dominant players. His prime years were very good, but he wasn't the best or close to the top. Lemieux put up 283 points in two seasons in the mid '90's, not exactly a dead scoring era. His best year in '95/'96 he finished sixth with 115 points in three more games than Lemieux, 41 points behind. And that's sixth with 115, the top ten all had 107 points or more. Again, not dead scoring era. The Pens put up 363 goals that season!

Not a good article, unless your goal was to waste 15 minutes of my Saturday.
- Topshelf Mountain

Good points about Lindros too. Maybe it's just semantics at this point, but I did say the Lindros was behind Lemieux and only suggested that Eric would be #3 if he got to play a full career, so you're point about Mario, while a good one, doesn't really factor here, since Lemieux is a special case and no one said Lindros was better than him.

Hell, Mario is so good that if at the age of 50 or whatever hei is now, he decided to attempt a comeback I'd still pick him in my hockey pool around the third round. I wouldn't even bet against him winning the scoring title.

Sorry about wasting you time man - you know, you can't nail every single one!

I do think however, that even if Crosby does deserve the Hart, and some people have made some great points - especially about the QoC and the AHL wingers - but I think the level that Ovechkin is disrespected, at least on these boards, means that someone had to write an article arguing that he is actually pretty freaking amazing.

Does Crosby deserve the Hart this year? 99% aren't often wrong, and I think he probably does, but to not even have OV in the top 3 is, in my opinion, seriously undervaluing the worth of a goal.

And yes, assists do matter, but they are given out at about a 2:1 rate to goals, so in terms of value, a goal is better, at least until they stop giving out second assists. (Which I don't actually want)
- James_Tanner

Fair enough. I'm taking back the wasting time comment, I'm really enjoying looking through the older stats. The dead scoring era is most certainly now by what I'm seeing. I wish they went back to wood sticks and 30 Darren Pangs.

Good points about Lindros too. Maybe it's just semantics at this point, but I did say the Lindros was behind Lemieux and only suggested that Eric would be #3 if he got to play a full career, so you're point about Mario, while a good one, doesn't really factor here, since Lemieux is a special case and no one said Lindros was better than him.

Hell, Mario is so good that if at the age of 50 or whatever hei is now, he decided to attempt a comeback I'd still pick him in my hockey pool around the third round. I wouldn't even bet against him winning the scoring title.
- James_Tanner

My point was scoring was up during his prime and used Lemieux as an example. I enjoyed watching Lindros and the Flyers and think it was the perfect fit at the right time with the rest of the personnel throughout the lineup. His quasi-fight with Ulanov? I was at that game and he landed one clean shot and Igor was a mess.

In the end, my opinion, a very good hockey player who was his own worst enemy. In the top ten through the nineties? Probably. But like a previous poster wrote, injuries and longevity are taken into account.

I refuse to take the Hart/nominees too seriously. When you have the career that Nick Lidstrom did and NEVER get nominated...."joke" comes to mind.

I understand the argument about +/- But seriously- when you have a guy putting the puck in the net like Ovi and end up with that bad of a minus....there is more to it than just bad goaltending/ linemates. He needs to learn what Stevie Y had to when Bowman came to Detroit- gotta play the WHOLE sheet of ice. Until he does, that doesn't equate MVP to me.

People can disagree with me all they want, but I think if there is ever a time when you are indisputably the best hockey player in the world , then you should be an automatic selection. Not his fault he had bad injury luck, but I believe 100% that he would considered below Gretz and Lemieux, but above Orr, Crosby and Jagr as one of the best players of all time, if he was luckier.
- James_Tanner

geezus murphy

That was a hilarious read! You are dead on about Lindros but you are dead wrong about Ovechkin.

He's not the best hockey player in the world by a long shot. When you ask someone "Who's the one player you want to start your franchise with?" you only hear Crosby, Toews, Giroux maybe a goalie here and there.

Ovy plays like he's in junior where the best players hover around centre ice waiting for fast breaks. He doesn't even bother backchecking when he really should because he's one of the fastest players out there.

Ovie Best player in the league?

hahahahahahahaha
hahhahahahahahaha

Good one

I think Crosby might beat out Ovechkin for the Hart.

That was a hilarious read! You are dead on about Lindros but you are dead wrong about Ovechkin.

He's not the best hockey player in the world by a long shot. When you ask someone "Who's the one player you want to start your franchise with?" you only hear Crosby, Toews, Giroux maybe a goalie here and there.

Ovy plays like he's in junior where the best players hover around centre ice waiting for fast breaks. He doesn't even bother backchecking when he really should because he's one of the fastest players out there.
- Allan Bester

Crosby i'll give you, maybe even Stamkos, but to pick Toews or Giroux ahead of OV is insanity. I guess 51 goals, even if they're harder to score now than ever (so like a prorated 70-80) just aren't what they used to be. Oh, the irony.

Please look at his PPG vs. his EVG. A majority of his goals came with him camping the side of the net and blasting a one timer. He's completely one dimensional which is why that top line on Washington will never be threatening. He was not at all valuable to his team because everytime he scored, the other team would score against him and it would be a wash. The +/- is a difficult stat to read, but when you go -30, then something's obviously wrong.

That was a hilarious read! You are dead on about Lindros but you are dead wrong about Ovechkin.

He's not the best hockey player in the world by a long shot. When you ask someone "Who's the one player you want to start your franchise with?" you only hear Crosby, Toews, Giroux maybe a goalie here and there.

Ovy plays like he's in junior where the best players hover around centre ice waiting for fast breaks. He doesn't even bother backchecking when he really should because he's one of the fastest players out there.
- Allan Bester

Have to agree with this. There were many more reasons why the caps flunked this season, and ovi is one of them. If Sid or toews went -30, you bet your ass people wouldn't be considering them for a hart trophy