Saturday, November 10, 2007
The Case For Lindros
Leave a Comment
Send to Friend
Print This Story
It's not often that ice hockey is elevated to a Shakespearean stratum; the closest the NHL comes to that literally loftiness is the comedy of errors that are the Maple Leafs and the VERSUS studio show, which is typically much ado about nothing.
But a few years ago — to the utter amazement and dismay of the dedicated puckheads within ear-shot — Rose Solari, senior editor emeritus of SportsFan Magazine, likened the lamentable Eric Lindros to Hamlet, the tragic prince in the Bard's most celebrated work. She later wrote about it in SFM:
"Eric Lindros, with his tragic parental issues and mysterious, grief-stricken gaze, is the Hamlet of the NHL."
Uncomfortable Oedipal connotations aside, I think Rose was ahead of the curve on this one. Having surveyed the Mainstream Hockey Media reaction to Lindros's formal retirement from the NHL this week, I think his role as a tragic figure is being cast rather emphatically; that he's one of the greatest pure talents in hockey history, but one that was humbled by expectations and injury.
Never mind that he's screwed over more teams than an NHL schedule-maker. Never mind that he alienated teammates, coaches, general managers, and his own fans with behavior that was rebellious to his apologists, but self-destructive to the realists. Never mind that the majority of his injuries were his own damn fault because he thought he could bull through professional competitors like he did teenagers in the juniors — unfortunately, it's a little harder to skate through the middle of the ice with your head down when it's Scott Stevens instead of a pimply-faced kid coming at you at full speed.
If you're sensing that I feel Lindros is more responsible for his own terrible reputation and low approval ratings than any of these "tragic figure" revisionists give him credit for, give yourself a gold star.
But if you're assuming that I feel he doesn't belong in the Hockey Hall of Fame, you may not be totally correct.
The case can be made for Lindros, but it depends on some very specific conditions and some emotional detachment. Consider:
THE KOUFAX ARGUMENT: Lindros was, for my money, the most dominating player for a stretch of the 1990s. Maybe not statistically, but that's hard to measure in a dead-puck era. Watching him play was like watching someone who could physically dominate a game yet had the deft offensive touch of Dan Mario.
I think that era ended officially in 2002 with the Rangers. He wasn't the same player after that year, and in the end he was a passive and nearly invisible presence due to his injuries.
Arthritis claimed the career of Sandy Koufax too early, much like concussions turned Lindros into a journeyman. And Koufax is in the Hall of Fame despite not having the longevity of his peers. I think an argument can be made that Lindros's healthy (such a relative term) years should be weighed more heavily than his final whimper of a curtain call.
THE NUMBERS GAME: The most impressive statistic of Lindros's career is his points-per-game average. Mike Brophy of The Hockey News said that Lindros ranks 17th in NHL history with 1.14 ppg, and that every retired player ranked ahead of him, save for Kent Nilsson and Steve Yzerman, is in the Hall. (And Stevie Y is a shoe-in.)
IT'S THE "HOCKEY" HALL OF FAME: If his NHL credentials aren't enough, keep in mind that international play gets factored into the HOF debate. That means four World Junior Championships appearances, gold in the Canada Cup, gold and silver in the Olympics and some other significant international play are in Lindros's favor.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF STANDARDS: One argument I read from several journalists this week was that the Hockey Hall of Fame has enshrined players that aren't in Lindros's class. I'm not someone who believes hockey's Hall has the regrettably low standards of Cooperstown ... but if Cam Neely's in, shouldn't Lindros be in?
As you can see, arguments can be made for Lindros's place in immortality. But each one is soaked in the controversies and drama that anchored No. 88 down throughout his career, causing him to fail to reach his potential. For many voters, pundits and fans, dropping that baggage from the debate is impossible.
In the end, some will see Eric Lindros as Shakespearean; others will just see a tragedy.
Greg Wyshynski is also a weekly columnist for SportsFan Magazine. His columns appear every Saturday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Greg at gregwyshynski@sports-central.org.