Lindros vs. Malkin

[TopShelfYzerman]

Lemieux
Jagr
Sakic
Forsberg
Fedorov
Bure


I'd put Lindros somewhere in this tier of player:
Selanne
Kariya
Francis
Sundin

Youre funny. Almost comical

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Youre funny. Almost comical

1997 Stanley Cup Finals

Sergei Fedorov 3g,3a = 6pts
vs
Eric Lindros 1g,2a = 3pts

LMFAO

BTW, Lindros' single goal came in the final 15 seconds of his humiliating Game 4 Sweep.


What else do you want to know about how the mighty Eric Lindros stacked up against elite talent?

(Hint, he never won a cup).

I would also add that during Lindros’ peak, Forsberg does not have an argument to be considered the better player.

It's hard to compare them considering they never went head to head.

But Look how difficult Forsberg made life for Federov. Beat him in the Conference finals, and was pretty much his equal on the ice. They were Ying-Yang.

I'm absolutely positive if Colorado faced Philly in the finals, it would be the exact same outcome. A 4 game humiliation of Peak Lindros.


Only real thing to go off of, is Forsberg won his cups, and was arguably the most dominant force on the ice, while Lindros did not.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Ranking Sakic and Forsberg during Lindros's peak years is debatable, considering at that point, neither player edged out Lindros for a higher PPG, nor were they receiving Selke votes at the time, except for Forsberg's last season during that time span. Which is the only one that can contend for Lindros's peak seasons. Is his 2nd in selke voting but lower PPG finish by at least 3 ranks (Depending on which season you consider to be Lindros's best) enough to edge out Lindros's peak?

During his peak, only Lemieux, Jagr, Fedorov or Forsberg have an argument for being better, or if we're to include the entirety of his best years, then only Jagr, Fedorov and Lemieux. So that makes him at least the 4th best forward in the regular season

Let's say 'Eye Test'.

Do you remember Sakic's Conn Smyth run? Or his Hart run (After Lindros Peak).

When Sakic was 'on', there was something about his determination that lead you to believe that once he crossed the blue line you knew he was going to score with a cut to the middle, and a ridiculous wrist shot. We caught it again in 2001. Saw it in the Gold Medal game in the SLC Olympics. He plays at a level far beyond where Lindros ever was.

Sakic also took Lindros' snubbing of the Nordiques to heart, and won a cup without him.

"We only want players here who have the passion to play the game. I'm tired of hearing that name. He's not here and there are a lot of others in this locker room who really care about the game."

Sakic was a better leader, and a better player. Maybe his PPG didn't stack up, but his play on ice certainly did, and his Conn Smyth should count for a lot more in this argument.


Sakic is quite easily a top 15 player of all time, and Lindros is quite easily not. Saying Lindros' peak doesn't stack up to Sakic really shouldn't be considered a sleight.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

From 1990-2003 (giving some grace years before and after Lindros' prime to account for the primes of players who played around him) and among players who played at least 300 games, PPG leaders look like this:

1. Mario Lemieux - 1.91
2. Wayne Gretzky - 1.43
3. Pat LaFontaine - 1.32
4. Jaromir Jagr - 1.30
5. Peter Forsberg - 1.27
6. Joe Sakic - 1.25
7. Eric Lindros - 1.23
8. Cam Neely - 1.22
9. Adam Oates - 1.17
10. Steve Yzerman - 1.17

From 2003-2016 with the same parameters for Malkin, we get:

1. Sidney Crobsy - 1.33
2. Evgeni Malkin - 1.18
3. Alex Ovechkin - 1.15
4. Joe Thornton - 1.08
5. Joe Sakic - 1.06
6. Ilya Kovalchuk - 1.02
7. Patrick Kane - 1.01
8. Marc Savard - 1.01
9. Pavel Datsyuk - 1.00
10. Martin St. Louis - 1.00

So clearly the answer here is Joe Sakic.

 

[Felidae]

Let's say 'Eye Test'.

Do you remember Sakic's Conn Smyth run? Or his Hart run (After Lindros Peak).

When Sakic was 'on', there was something about his determination that lead you to believe that once he crossed the blue line you knew he was going to score with a cut to the middle, and a ridiculous wrist shot. We caught it again in 2001. Saw it in the Gold Medal game in the SLC Olympics. He plays at a level far beyond where Lindros ever was.

Sakic also took Lindros' snubbing of the Nordiques to heart, and won a cup without him.

Sakic was a better leader, and a better player. Maybe his PPG didn't stack up, but his play on ice certainly did, and his Conn Smyth should count for a lot more in this argument.


Sakic is quite easily a top 15 player of all time, and Lindros is quite easily not. Saying Lindros' peak doesn't stack up to Sakic really shouldn't be considered a sleight.

I wasn't watching hockey then. But my responses to your post have been about 93-97, you also said he's maybe the 4th best player at his peak during the regular season.

Sakic's best regular season years weren't even during Lindros's peak. His 2000-01 season is better than anything Lindros has done.

From 1990-2003 (giving some grace years before and after Lindros' prime to account for the primes of players who played around him) and among players who played at least 300 games, PPG leaders look like this:

1. Mario Lemieux - 1.91
2. Wayne Gretzky - 1.43
3. Pat LaFontaine - 1.32
4. Jaromir Jagr - 1.30
5. Peter Forsberg - 1.27
6. Joe Sakic - 1.25
7. Eric Lindros - 1.23
8. Cam Neely - 1.22
9. Adam Oates - 1.17
10. Steve Yzerman - 1.17

From 2003-2016 with the same parameters for Malkin, we get:

1. Sidney Crobsy - 1.33
2. Evgeni Malkin - 1.18
3. Alex Ovechkin - 1.15
4. Joe Thornton - 1.08
5. Joe Sakic - 1.06
6. Ilya Kovalchuk - 1.02
7. Patrick Kane - 1.01
8. Marc Savard - 1.01
9. Pavel Datsyuk - 1.00
10. Martin St. Louis - 1.00

So clearly the answer here is Joe Sakic.

The discussion wasn't about their primes, not even about who had the better overall peak. Both of which I'd say go to Sakic. It was about a certain period that Lindros had his best years in

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I wasn't watching hockey then. But my responses to your post have been about 93-97, you also said he's maybe the 4th best player at his peak during the regular season.

Sakic's best regular season years weren't even during Lindros's peak. His 2000-01 season is better than anything Lindros has done.




The discussion wasn't about their primes, not even about who had the better overall peak. Both of which I'd say go to Sakic. It was about a certain period that Lindros had his best years in

The long story short then:

There's a reason Sakic has a cup during Lindros' peak. And it wasn't just PPG.


Sakic elevated his game above Lindros when the games truly mattered.

 

[mja]

The long story short then:

There's a reason Sakic has a cup during Lindros' peak. And it wasn't just PPG.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Lindros had a near equally productive linemate in Leclair. Brind Amour as a 2nd line C and a 3 time Norris winner in Coffey, and multiple 100 point player Recchi on his team.

They were absolutely stacked.

Nice try on Goalies. Hextall had a Vezina and a Conn Smyth. He also had a better save% than Roy in several of those years.


Hextall wasn't the reason the Flyers never won a cup. Lindros never brought it when it mattered.

 

[mja]

Lindros had a 50 goal scorer on his line in Leclair.

Brind Amour as a 2nd line C and a 3 time Norris winner in Coffey.

Nice try on Goalies. Hextall had a Vezina a Conn Smyth. He also had a better save% than Roy in several of those years.

Dude, I can appreciate you wanting to make these arguments, but this is just bad.

Brind'amour was no Peter Forsberg and you know it. The Philadelphia version of Paul Coffey was WAY past his prime and was completely inferior to Sandis Ozolinsh. Ron Hextall is one of my favorite all time players, but you even trying to make the case that Hextall (particularly in the time period in question) was even remotely comparable to Patrick Roy is so f***ing laughable that's it's positively shameful that you even dared to type it out. Sure, Lindros had Leclair, but look at those line-ups and it's silly how much more depth those Avs teams had than those Flyers teams, and for the specific reason that the Flyers gave away all of that depth to the Nordiques in exchange for Lindros in the first place.

Edit: Since you edited your post to make it even more ridiculous:

multiple 100 point player Recchi on his team.

Recchi wasn't a Flyer from Feb 5 1995 through March 10th 1999. The Flyers played less than 70 games with Recchi, Leclair, & Lindros all in the line-up at the same time, and by then Lindros was plagued with concussions.

Just stop.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Naw man. That Flyers team was definitely deep enough to win a cup, if Federov never made him his bitch.

They were a top 4 team in the regular season, twice beating Colorado in the standings during Lindros' prime (with the other standings being neck and neck 103-104 points, and 104-107).

They had the same amount of 20+ goal scorers (5).
And no to whatever argument you're going to make about Colorado's Defense being better.

Colorado's 96 cup winning Defense:
Ozolinsh - Klemm
Krupp - Leschyshyn
Foote - Lefebvre
Gusarov

Philly's Final Defense
Desjardins - Coffey
Ninimaa - Dykhuise
Thherien - Svoboda

Lindros completely failed in the finals during their best shot at a cup.

I'm telling you right now. When you watched the Colorado Detroit series, you saw gamebreaking talent in Federov vs. Forsberg. When you saw Lindros try and go up against Federov, he failed miserably.

Straight up, head to head he was inferior to them. It wasn't the depth. So NO to that argument. It was the top end not matching up to the other top end. These were NOT close games.

4-2
4-2
1-6
2-1 (misleading because the Lindros goal came with 15 seconds left).

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The discussion wasn't about their primes, not even about who had the better overall peak. Both of which I'd say go to Sakic. It was about a certain period that Lindros had his best years in

Malkin peak, prime, career.

 

[True Finesse]

He is extremely appealing when watching Youtube videos and he had a style of play that was very enticing. But at the end, the results weren't all that great. At his peak, Kariya and Selänne were only 7 pts behind. Mogilny and Weight not far off either...

I think Lindros is one of the biggest what ifs in NHL history by the way. Too bad all those injuries got in the way.

BIGGEST @What IF@ is Almo. Pass? stickhandlig, shot, vision - all kinds of offensive ability in top 10-20 all-time/ Lindor like bure wasnt underachievers. They syle, which made them great, was the reason why them retired too late

 

[True Finesse]

Lindros AINEC. Peak Lindros is the most dominant player of All time

Fedorov 94? healthy Mario, some guy from Oilers in 80s..

 

[reino]

Malkin isn't done yet as a top player. he has still have time

 

[Gurglesons]

Malkin did everything Lindros did and more while playing with second rate line mates and second fiddle on his team.


Accomplishments both at 33.

Malkin

Hart, Ross x 2, Smythe, Pearson, Calder, 3xCups

Points
1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th

PPG
1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th

Lindros
Hart, Pearson

Points
1st

PPG
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th

Peak, career, etc. it all goes to Geno.

 

[True Finesse]

Malkin and Lindros were pretty comparable in the D zone. Malkin gets underrated there more often than not. The one edge Lindros has is physical play.[/QUOTE
Physical play is on o may be main reason of his dominance. And he was doomed due to it. Malkin in the best was most dominant player since Mario and he rely mostly on his pure skills

 

[Slapshot Sultan]

It's Lindros

 

[psycat]

Too bad "scaring the **** out of you" doesn't actually count for anything, though.

I really don't get the comparison here. Lindros' peak full season wasn't even the best season of any player that year, and you really expect me to believe that he was better than peak Malkin, who had the best individual season of any player since 2000? Get out of here with that crap.

Lindros didn't even finish top-5 in points in his best full season, and based on his pace, he still would have finished 20 points behind 2nd place (Jagr) and 32 points behind 1st place (Lemieux). He wasn't some defensive ace either, he was never even in the top-10 in Selke voting. Malkin had more ES points in 2011-2012 than Lindros had in 1995-1996, when goal scoring was 15% higher in 95-96.

But Jagr was a better offensive player than any player since(Lemieux would make almost anybody look pedestrian) so that doesn't really say much.

I mean I voted Malkin but that argument is just flawed since any of the mentioned players would get outscored by prime Jagr who in turn obviously got outscored by Lemieux.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Malkin for peak, prime and career.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Malkin AINEC

 

[Stuzchuk]

Lindros, at the photo finish