Should Lindros really be ranked higher than St. Louis?

[ORHawksFan]

I was looking at the hfboards top 100 list and was intrigued at Eric Lindros (96) two spots ahead of Martin St. Louis (98). Obviously they were very different players, Lindros being a dominant, physical yet skilled center and St. Louis who was a skilled, clean winger who won multiple Byngs. They each won a Hart while St. Louis also won two Art Ross trophies. They were also both very good playoff performers.

I can see the argument for Lindros as the better player in that when healthy he was a dominant force. However, after too many concussions he became more of a perimeter player, particularly after he left Philly. Throughout his career he struggled with injuries.

St. Louis on the other hand stayed healthy pretty much all his career, impressively winning his second Art Ross at age 37.

I guess I just can’t get over how often Lindros was injured, and how short his peak was, St. Louis had 9 seasons with at least 80 games and consistently put up high point totals into his late 30s. Lindros hit 80 games once, later in his career when he was no longer dominant and nowhere near PPG.

Longevity vs. Peak are fun arguments to have and I agree that some players who had short careers but with high peaks should be ranked higher than others who were more compiler types - but in this case I have a hard time ranking St. Louis below Lindros. What do you all think?

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

St. Louis definitely had more career value, but I have zero doubt that Lindros was clearly a better player. I find it hard to justify putting a player ahead based on career value when I am certain that the other player was better. I'd say that the gap should be a fair bit bigger in Lindros' favour but someone who values career value a lot more could justify going in the other direction.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Normally I'd like this type of post as a good, approachable entry for discussion. But the difference between 96th and 98th doesn't really represent anything material, right?

If you can see the argument that Lindros was the better player, then you can pretty easily see why we basically have these players in the same spot I imagine, yes?

But if I peel myself away from the 96 vs 98 thing and take the thread for what it might be worth...tough to find two more diametrically opposed players, eh? A vending machine that could really skate and really play. A rare, downhill, tough, power forward at the center ice position. Despite being a center, not an amazing distributor and not amazing spatial awareness - as we unfortunately saw - but with the physical and technical skills to rise to the league's elite regardless of his mental game.

Then Martin St. Louis, a pint sized winger who was constantly punching up to try to make it. Basically didn't become an NHL player until Lindros was in his final impact seasons (by age), but stuck it together in both the DPE, the nuNHL, and through the too-fast DPE 2.0. A smart, hard working, playmaking winger who played on his off-wing. He used his guile and quick twitch ability to make room for himself that wasn't afforded hardly any player of his dimensions.

The only thing they have in common (besides their place on this list) is that they both called their own shot in terms of being traded...

 

[buffalowing88]

St. Louis never even approached peak Lindros. Better longevity, as others have stated, but the impact he had on the game was not close to Lindros in those first few years. The St.Louis MVP came at a nadir for the league as a whole.

 

[Albatros]

St. Louis was up there with New York Lindros. Never saw anything from him that would match Lindros at his best in Philadelphia. And of course agree that he had the better career.

 

[daver]

An interesting dynamic with Lindros was how much of his physicality contributed to his offensive production. Once he lost that physicality, his offensive ceiling lowered. I.E. he bullied his way to an elite offensive level that was only bettered by a peak Jagr (and Mario of course) during his first 8 years.

Compare this with Ovechkin who was productive and contributed physicality but the former wasn't reliant on the latter.

I am not sure that the offensive skills shown by Lindros, in a vacuum, were clearly superior to those of St. Louis. I do not think there is an alternative universe where a "healthy" Lindros has a longer career without dialing back the physicality and accordingly, his offense.

 

[Albatros]

Might have avoided some of those concussions by keeping his head up more, but be that as it may, in any case should have rested longer after they did occur. That alone could have gone a long way prolonging his career.

 

[ORHawksFan]

St. Louis definitely had more career value, but I have zero doubt that Lindros was clearly a better player. I find it hard to justify putting a player ahead based on career value when I am certain that the other player was better. I'd say that the gap should be a fair bit bigger in Lindros' favour but someone who values career value a lot more could justify going in the other direction.

I agree that at his peak, Lindros was a better player. But when we rank players aren't we supposed to take into account everything? Hfboards ranked Lemieux below Gretzky, Orr, and Howe but had he stayed healthy he had the talent to rank above at least one of those, yet we don't because we have to take into account what actually happened.

The fact that Lindros couldn't play close to a full season unless it was at the end of his career or a lockout year makes it hard for me to rank higher than someone like St. Louis.

The St.Louis MVP came at a nadir for the league as a whole.

Keep in mind Lindros won his hart in a lockout shortened season. Had it been a full year it's very possible (I would even say probable) that he gets hurt and possibly misses getting it.

 

[JackSlater]

An interesting dynamic with Lindros was how much of his physicality contributed to his offensive production. Once he lost that physicality, his offensive ceiling lowered. I.E. he bullied his way to an elite offensive level that was only bettered by a peak Jagr (and Mario of course) during his first 8 years.

Compare this with Ovechkin who was productive and contributed physicality but the former wasn't reliant on the latter.

I am not sure that the offensive skills shown by Lindros, in a vacuum, were clearly superior to those of St. Louis. I do not think there is an alternative universe where a "healthy" Lindros has a longer career without dialing back the physicality and accordingly, his offense.

I don't think you can say that Lindros "lost' his physicality and then his elite scoring went away when the issue that caused him to become less physical also caused him to score less. They have the same cause. Even then, post-peak Lindros was still fairly physical, particularly if we were talking about recent hockey.

Would Lindros score less if he didn't engage physically to a massive degree? Yes I'd say so, but he'd still be huge and talented and score at an elite level. I don't think that a comparison with Ovechkin works. Ovechkin is and was physical, not to the level of Lindros but no elite player really is, but mainly because Ovechkin is a much smarter player than Lindros. I don't think that Ovechkin has been anywhere near his physical peak for many years but he still manages to pour in goals because he's a very smart player.

I agree that at his peak, Lindros was a better player. But when we rank players aren't we supposed to take into account everything? Hfboards ranked Lemieux below Gretzky, Orr, and Howe but had he stayed healthy he had the talent to rank above at least one of those, yet we don't because we have to take into account what actually happened.

The fact that Lindros couldn't play close to a full season unless it was at the end of his career or a lockout year makes it hard for me to rank higher than someone like St. Louis.



Keep in mind Lindros won his hart in a lockout shortened season. Had it been a full year it's very possible (I would even say probable) that he gets hurt and possibly misses getting it.

No one has to do anything when ranking players. It is always entirely subjective. That said, taking everything into account I still comfortably take Lindros ahead of St. Louis. He's probably a top 30 all time talent, but he doesn't crack the top 30 because of the issues you highlighted and certainly doesn't have a top 30 career. As a better player I unquestionably put Lindros way ahead. As a player I'd want to build around I still take Lindros without thinking much about it, but I would at least pause and think about the extra games I would presumably get from St. Louis.

 

[Midnight Judges]

St. Louis definitely had more career value, but I have zero doubt that Lindros was clearly a better player. I find it hard to justify putting a player ahead based on career value when I am certain that the other player was better. I'd say that the gap should be a fair bit bigger in Lindros' favour but someone who values career value a lot more could justify going in the other direction.

I guess I take the other side of this: IMO the entire purpose of being better is to provide more career value. Contributing the most to one's team is the measure of greatness. I say that with the inclusion that a concentrated peak is worth significantly more than compiled stats of the same totals.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

St. Louis never even approached peak Lindros. Better longevity, as others have stated, but the impact he had on the game was not close to Lindros in those first few years. The St.Louis MVP came at a nadir for the league as a whole.

The league they each won their Harts in are pretty equally weak in terms of elite competition. Dont forget Lindros won his in a year without Mario and Gretzky.

St Louis had the better career, Lindros was the better player.

 

[JackSlater]

I guess I take the other side of this: IMO the entire purpose of being better is to provide more career value. Contributing the most to one's team is the measure of greatness. I say that with the inclusion that a concentrated peak is worth significantly more than compiled stats of the same totals.

That's fine, there is no definitive way to rank players. If a ranking specifically said ranking of careers I'd put St. Louis ahead. If it is ranking players and who was best then I would put Lindros ahead. If it is more vague and talks about the "greatest" player then I'd still go Lindros but it would be closer.

 

[Michael Farkas]

What if they were both available in the same draft class...but you know the outcome of their respective careers...who do you take?

 

[WarriorofTime]

Give me the guy who could actually play full seasons.

 

[Albatros]

What if they were both available in the same draft class...but you know the outcome of their respective careers...who do you take?

If it was Québec drafting they'd take the Lindros trade again without blinking.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I don't have either in my top 100, but I do have Lindros ahead.

Outside the top 25 the gaps are really small. If you go through the initial lists some will have St. Louis ahead some will have Lindros ahead.

At least one person had them outside their top 120. Someone had Lindros 39. Someone had St. Louis 71.

The variance is quite massive, partially by design.

 

[daver]

I don't think you can say that Lindros "lost' his physicality and then his elite scoring went away when the issue that caused him to become less physical also caused him to score less. They have the same cause. Even then, post-peak Lindros was still fairly physical, particularly if we were talking about recent hockey.

Would Lindros score less if he didn't engage physically to a massive degree? Yes I'd say so, but he'd still be huge and talented and score at an elite level. I don't think that a comparison with Ovechkin works. Ovechkin is and was physical, not to the level of Lindros but no elite player really is, but mainly because Ovechkin is a much smarter player than Lindros. I don't think that Ovechkin has been anywhere near his physical peak for many years but he still manages to pour in goals because he's a very smart player.

I think OV's longevity was due to his lethal shot not his smarts. IMO, he was more of an instinctual player. But maybe in comparison to Lindros he is smart.

 

[The Panther]

Lindros should be top-50 all time. This forum massively under-rates him. I guess everyone punishes him severely for missing 15-20% of the games each season.

St. Louis is one of my favorite players ever but he clearly wasn't as impactful as Lindros overall.

So, Lindros was better.

Did St. Louis provide more career value? Sure, he played 374 more games (equivalent to 4.5 more seasons). But I'm certainly not into the "career value" style of ranking players. Otherwise, we're ranking Chelios and Pronger ahead of Bobby Orr, which is wrong.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think OV's longevity was due to his lethal shot not his smarts. IMO, he was more of an instinctual player. But maybe in comparison to Lindros he is smart.

Ovechkin scores in every way possible and has evolved and adapted the way he scores over time. All the while opposing teams have known "hey this Ovechkin guy likes to shoot and is a pretty solid goalscorer, try and not let him". If that's not "smarts" to have that kind of goal scoring longevity, I dunno what it is.

 

[Michael Farkas]

But I'm certainly not into the "career value" style of ranking players. Otherwise, we're ranking Chelios and Pronger ahead of Bobby Orr, which is wrong.

But do we?

What if you assign a score for the value of a season...just for demonstration purposes, these numbers aren't really well thought out...it's just a thought exercise...

Yr/Plyr:	Orr	Pronger
Season 1	92​	9​
Season 2	71​	-13​
Season 3	100​	-9​
Season 4	100​	44​
Season 5	100​	71​
Season 6	100​	77​
Season 7	93​	93​
Season 8	100​	54​
Season 9	100​	66​
Season 10	8​	-1​
Season 11	11​	72​
Season 12	0​	74​
Season 13		81​
Season 14		68​
Season 15		61​
Season 16		85​
Season 17		21​
Season 18		3​
Total	875​	856​
Avg	72.9​	47.6​
Best 7	693​	553​
Best 7 Avg	99​	79​
Best 10	867​	748​
Best 10 Avg	86.7​	74.8​

Just because Pronger played longer doesn't mean that he contributed impact seasons on the level that this board or a ranking of this magnitude would consider useful or even a positive...

Then when you focus on an "acceptable" number of seasons that are threshold for greatness, whether that's 7 or 10 or 15 or whatever...depending on what the measure is in your (royal your) head, demonstrates how much further Orr is ahead.................theoretically.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ovechkin scores in every way possible and has evolved and adapted the way he scores over time. All the while opposing teams have known "hey this Ovechkin guy likes to shoot and is a pretty solid goalscorer, try and not let him". If that's not "smarts" to have that kind of goal scoring longevity, I dunno what it is.

No, that's not what would fall under "smarts" traditionally. Even in this charitable, if simplified, description of events this wouldn't be a description of "smarts" and then in the practical aspects of the game, it would certainly fall on the technical arc.

Which isn't to say that Ovechkin is dumb or that he's lucky or that he's scoring in spite of himself...none of that. But Ovechkin operates heavily on the physical/technical tracks. And when you really dig in on his goal scoring and shooting process it becomes even more pronounced and so do some of the limitations. Which, of course, he has easily "overcome" as we can clearly see in action and in the box score...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Did St. Louis provide more career value? Sure, he played 374 more games (equivalent to 4.5 more seasons). But I'm certainly not into the "career value" style of ranking players. Otherwise, we're ranking Chelios and Pronger ahead of Bobby Orr, which is wrong.

Except that's not true. Career value doesnt flat equal played longer.

In the St Louis v Lindros scenario, career value favors St Louis because he has the better trophy case.

Chelios and Pronger combined have less than half the trophy case that Orr does

4 combined Norris to 8
1 combined Hart to 3
0 combined Ross to 2
0 combined Smythe to 2

 

[MadLuke]

What if they were both available in the same draft class...but you know the outcome of their respective careers...who do you take?

Lindros is too special of a player with too special of a peak delivering too much spectacle (it is sport entertainment after all) to pass.

St-Louis played what 6 season before turning unrestricted full agents, that arguably less time than prime Lindros give you.

Obviously having drafted him, him having an house in your city, window to negotiate an extension when no one else can, easier for you to keep but in the UFA world... putting value in longevity is a bet.

If it comes with some Brodeur-Lidstrom virtually life long at a good price tag guarantee, then it make it enticing but could still be on the team need, to turn a franchise around quick (which would be the common need of a team that has the chance to draft a Lindros), Lindros no question.

 

[DitchMarner]

Lindros should be top-50 all time. This forum massively under-rates him. I guess everyone punishes him severely for missing 15-20% of the games each season.

St. Louis is one of my favorite players ever but he clearly wasn't as impactful as Lindros overall.

So, Lindros was better.

Did St. Louis provide more career value? Sure, he played 374 more games (equivalent to 4.5 more seasons). But I'm certainly not into the "career value" style of ranking players. Otherwise, we're ranking Chelios and Pronger ahead of Bobby Orr, which is wrong.

I think you can question why there is so much of a gap between him and Forsberg and Malkin (other players who were dominant but often injured during their primes). I get that they won Cups and were strong playoff performers and he didn't do too much of note in the playoffs outside of 1997 (not entirely his fault). But I don't know... should they be ranked that far ahead?


Comparing St. Louis to Lindros is fairly tricky. They're two completely different players with very different types of careers.

I'd probably start by lining up their respective best five seasons and deciding who has the best-five-years advantage and how big it is. Without delving into data, I'd say Lindros has a definite per game advantage when you look at scoring and overall impact on goal differential and carrying the play/"tilting" the ice. Per season, though, the advantage is smaller if not negated. This is where the question of how much one should hold Lindros' injuries/unavailability against him comes in. If you feel he was injury prone because of who he was as a player and that he incurred his injuries, then you probably place more value in per season numbers/impact than per game numbers/impact.

When you factor in length of prime and career and strength of playoff career, St. Louis appears to have the advantage.

I think an argument can be made for either party, depending on how much one holds Lindros' injuries against him and how much "credit" one gives him for missed games.

 

[WarriorofTime]

No, that's not what would fall under "smarts" traditionally. Even in this charitable, if simplified, description of events this wouldn't be a description of "smarts" and then in the practical aspects of the game, it would certainly fall on the technical arc.

Smarts is traditionally the ability to read plays, anticipate events and make right decisions. If that doesn't describe Ovechkin as a goal scorer, then there just hasn't been a smart goal scorer in NHL history or you fall for simplistic and non-empircal arguments like "just bangs one-timers.."

Which isn't to say that Ovechkin is dumb or that he's lucky or that he's scoring in spite of himself...none of that. But Ovechkin operates heavily on the physical/technical tracks.

And the ability to read plays, anticipate events and make right decisions.

And when you really dig in on his goal scoring and shooting process it becomes even more pronounced and so do some of the limitations. Which, of course, he has easily "overcome" as we can clearly see in action and in the box score...

This is a rather odd hill to die on. It'd be basically impossible to have 18-years of goal scoring longevity without the ability to read plays, anticipate events and make right decisions.