Comparing The Draft 1990-1999

skg

Registered User
Jul 29, 2005
1,213
1
This is excellent, excellent work my friend. Definitely worth saving a bookmark for.
 

Richer

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
295
0
Toronto
cup2006sensrule said:
Lindros was the best player in the world from 92-93 through 96-97 with the exception of Mario Lemieux who missed a season and only played 22 games in another. Lindros for 5 years was the 2nd best player in the world. I am not even a fan of Lindros but it is a fact that at the time the media, NHL players, hockey writers, the general public... The entire hockey community considered this to be true. Though Lindros had many detractors for his contract disputes, sitting out on Quebec, his injuries etc. And later concussions derailed his career. But if you are considered for a 5 year stretch the best or second best player in the entire world then that is enough to make you nearly a generational talent and if not that certainly a 9 as an elite forward.

Even after having his career decimated by injury per 82 games he currently is averaging 42 goals and 97 points for his career. He has played 711 NHL games. Forsberg who was drafted the same season has only played 640. And Forsberg has averaged 30 goals and 105 points per 82 games.

Over 82 games for their careers Sakic averages 38 goals and 99 points, Yzerman 37 goals and 95 points.

Clearly you have some kind of bias against Lindros. But ranking Brad Richards and Marian Hossa as a 9 while Lindros is rated an 8 makes your rankings appear biased.

Maybe you are only 17 years old and can't remember it or something but Lindros was the real deal. He was bigger and tougher and powerful force that was unique.

Consider Alfredsson (my favorite player) you rate him an 8.5 and Lindros an 8. Alfredsson has had his own injury issues like Lindros. Alfie has played 706 NHL games. Scoring 262 goals and 672 points. Lindros has played 711 games and scored 367 goals and 839 points. Alfredsson has never been considered the best or one of the best players in the world except perhaps midway through this season. Lindros was considered one of the best players in the world before he even played an NHL game and he continued to be considered one of the best players for 6 or 7 years.

There is no way Alfredsson can be considered better than Lindros for his career. No way. And I don't even like Lindros much and Alfie is my favorite player.

Mabye you are 77 and are losing your memory ;) haha kidding aside you make some good points.

Here are the reasons for my ranking and why I don't believe in Lindros is a nine.

You make a good point of Lindros and Forsberg being drafted in the same year and Lindros having more points. My only reply to that is Forsberg only has 23 less point and started playing in the NHL a full two and a half season after Lindros started.

If you look at their career PPG totals Forsberg has the edge
Forsberg - 1.27
Lindros - 1.18

Forsberg is better in that catigory but does not have so much of an edge to say he is clearly superior.

This is the reason for my ranking. If you take Lindros's first eight season he a a PPG average of 1.40. This is an amazing number and clearly deserving of a top ranking, it is also significantly better than Forsberg's 1.24.

The problem is what happens in the last five year of thier careers, Forsberg's PPG average actually rises to 1.31 while Lindros's falls to 0.8. That is the problem, for close to %40 of Lindros career he is nothing more than a 60-65 point man. Not bad but not exactly stellar.

Both player are also thirty-three so in theory have some more years to play. I would say that when they are both healthy Forsberg will still produce at a top clip while Lindros will struggle to maintain a scoring line position on a good team.

As well this doesn't take into account playoff proformance. While Lindros has been decent in the playoffs he is not close to Forsberg and his Stanley Cup rings.
 

Richer

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
295
0
Toronto
God Bless Canada said:
A very interesting read. We won't agree on all points, but my ratings would have come out somewhat similar. I would say 1990 and 1993 would be the two best drafts, followed by 1995 and 1998. A lot of people might be surprised to see how low the 1997 draft is, considering the number of star players selected that year, but it was a very top-heavy draft with little depth beyond the top 12 or so players. The one area that I will definitely agree with: 1992, 1996 and 1999 were the three worst drafts of that decade. All were dogs. Three of the worst drafts ever.

I was suprised by the results myself. I though 1990 would clearly be the best draft, and it did have the best top end talent but the depth of 1998 was suprising, it was the only draft where I had to cut 6's from the top thirty.
 

derbyfan

Registered User
Nov 23, 2002
663
0
Visit site
It's kind of funny the amount of time people spend on things like this here at Hockey's Future.
I mean that with a great deal of respect...

It's not like I have a life or anything, so I won't throw stones... ;)
 

Richer

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
295
0
Toronto
derbyfan said:
It's kind of funny the amount of time people spend on things like this here at Hockey's Future.
I mean that with a great deal of respect...

It's not like I have a life or anything, so I won't throw stones... ;)

I spent three hours, it was that or watch TV at the time, I don't feel it was a waste.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
rdmcknn said:
I spent three hours, it was that or watch TV at the time, I don't feel it was a waste.

Even though I dissed some of your assessments of players I wasn't trying to be rude. I was serious with my criticisms but I appreciate your work on this post. Hope you didn't take the criticisms personally. Actually spent significant time with my posts refuting some of your player ratings.

But that wasn't the point of your posts. You surprised me about how good the 1998 draft was. I though 1990 all the way. But your posts were illuminating despite my criticism of parts of it.
 

derbyfan

Registered User
Nov 23, 2002
663
0
Visit site
cup2006sensrule said:
Even though I dissed some of your assessments of players I wasn't trying to be rude. I was serious with my criticisms but I appreciate your work on this post. Hope you didn't take the criticisms personally. Actually spent significant time with my posts refuting some of your player ratings.

But that wasn't the point of your posts. You surprised me about how good the 1998 draft was. I though 1990 all the way. But your posts were illuminating despite my criticism of parts of it.

I think he was responding to my comment, which I didn't mean as a criticism.
I love reading this stuff.
 

Richer

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
295
0
Toronto
cup2006sensrule said:
Even though I dissed some of your assessments of players I wasn't trying to be rude. I was serious with my criticisms but I appreciate your work on this post. Hope you didn't take the criticisms personally. Actually spent significant time with my posts refuting some of your player ratings.

But that wasn't the point of your posts. You surprised me about how good the 1998 draft was. I though 1990 all the way. But your posts were illuminating despite my criticism of parts of it.

I haven't taken anyone as being critical in a mean spirited way. I though your agruement for Lindros was great I didn't completely realize how good he was in his early years. 1.4 PPG is amazing, I knew he was good but I would have guessed a number just over a PPG. Its a shame that his career had to go down like it did. I appreciate any critism or my player rankings, they are not perfect and there are more than a few that I had trouble deciding on, that why there are so many .5's.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
rdmcknn said:
I haven't taken anyone as being critical in a mean spirited way. I though your agruement for Lindros was great I didn't completely realize how good he was in his early years. 1.4 PPG is amazing, I knew he was good but I would have guessed a number just over a PPG. Its a shame that his career had to go down like it did. I appreciate any critism or my player rankings, they are not perfect and there are more than a few that I had trouble deciding on, that why there are so many .5's.

It is sad about Lindros. It is unfair to rank him lower at his current level of productivity becuase of a series of terrible injuries. Becuase he was drafted in 1990 and say another potentially dominant player is drafted in 1996 or 1998. Lindros fulfilled his potential to a great degree. He was often injured to some degree and that limits him somewhat as it would Forsberg or Wendel Clark or Bobby Orr. But Lindros accomplished a ton in his career before his concussion. He was so freaking good for 5 or 6 years that he will probably end up in the Hall of Fame.

If you redo Neely's draft for instance who can you consider he might get a cheap hit from a cheapshot artist 7 or 8 years into his career? You can't. If not for a cheap shot that ruins his further career he is one of the best goal scorers ever. Same with Lindros. Despite his series of minor injuries (which he should be limited in ranking by) a Series of massive concussions that limit his NHL career aren't that fair to dismiss him by.

In Lindros Draft the only player better was Forsberg and he himself has had more injuries than Lindros has and played less games.

My point is and continues to be Lindros was awesome and one of the best players in NHL history at his peak which lasted 5 or 6 years. His career is a shadow of what it could have been for sure but better than 4 of the first 5 picks in the 1990 draft for sure. and far better. Nolan, Primeau, Ricci and Nedved can not compare to the accomplishments of Lindros. Jagr can and is better provenly. But to rank Lindros, and Nedved, Primeau and Nolan equal to Lindros is not fair.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->