Lindros vs. Malkin

[Sasso09]

Did you actually watch how the Flyers were eliminated each year?

Because I remember quite clearly.

He wasn't Thor on skates. He could be pummelled, and physically beaten down like anyone else. He could be outskilled, outskated, and outsmarted. He could be beaten many different ways.

Redwings kept the puck away from him. Ed Jovanovski and Scott Stevens played him physically and won.

This is blatantly false. Lindros physically abused stevens their entire career. People only remember the dirty hit Stevens knocked him out with

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

No its not like that at all. Brady Anderson wouldn't be comfortably beating Mike Trout in a poll on a respectable baseball forum.

This comment confirms you're either
A) A penguins fans
B) under 30 years old.

Im gonna go with both, you're a 17 year old penguins fan

lindros wouldn't comfortably beat malkin in a poll on a respectable hockey forum, that is the point

brady anderson hit 50 home runs in one season and didn't do much after that, while mike trout has been a stud his whole career but never hit 50 home runs, so yeah comparing lindros to malkin is just as silly as comparing anderson to trout

i'm gonna go with C, you know less than a "17 year old penguins fan"

 

[Sasso09]

lindros wouldn't comfortably beat malkin in a poll on a respectable hockey forum, that is the point

brady anderson hit 50 home runs in one season and didn't do much after that, while mike trout has been a stud his whole career but never hit 50 home runs, so yeah comparing lindros to malkin is just as silly as comparing anderson to trout

i'm gonna go with C, you know less than a "17 year old penguins fan"

Ok..... so now you're a 17 year old Penguins fan who can't read.


OP: "Considering peak play who you think is better?"

You'd be correct in your opinion if this was a question of career, it's not so you're wrong.

Name a more respectable hockey forum than HFB? For every poster like you there's 5 knowledgeable ones.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

Ok..... so now you're a 17 year old Penguins fan who can't read.


OP: "Considering peak play who you think is better?"

You'd be correct in your opinion if this was a question of career, it's not so you're wrong.

Name a more respectable hockey forum than HFB? For every poster like you there's 5 knowledgeable ones.

his peak was absolutely not better, in fact it's an insult to malkin to compare him to lindros

i'm tired of the disrespect malkin gets from not making the top 100 all time list to comparing him to overrated guys like lindros

 

[Regal]

lindros wouldn't comfortably beat malkin in a poll on a respectable hockey forum, that is the point

brady anderson hit 50 home runs in one season and didn't do much after that, while mike trout has been a stud his whole career but never hit 50 home runs, so yeah comparing lindros to malkin is just as silly as comparing anderson to trout

i'm gonna go with C, you know less than a "17 year old penguins fan"

The fact that you think Lindros was comparable to a player with one spike season shows how little weight anyone should put into your opinion on him.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

The fact that you think Lindros was comparable to a player with one spike season shows how little weight anyone should put into your opinion on him.

ok would joe mauer be a better example? andrew mcutcheon?

 

[Regal]

ok would joe mauer be a better example? andrew mcutcheon?

No, because your entire premise is flawed. Malkin isn't close to Trout in terms of consistent elite play, and has lots of injuries and good but not elite seasons. Both he and Lindros were similarly elite talents.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

No, because your entire premise is flawed. Malkin isn't close to Trout in terms of consistent elite play, and has lots of injuries and good but not elite seasons. Both he and Lindros were similarly elite talents.

malkin has 3 championships and a finals mvp

trout and lindros have a combined ZERO

 

[joez86]

malkin has 3 championships and a finals mvp

trout and lindros have a combined ZERO

Lindros has a Hart Trophy, though.

But trophy case aside, the question is who was a better player at their peak, and the answer to that is clearly Lindros.

 

[ILikeTurtles]

No, because your entire premise is flawed. Malkin isn't close to Trout in terms of consistent elite play, and has lots of injuries and good but not elite seasons. Both he and Lindros were similarly elite talents.

Career 1.186 ppg isn't elite? Hmm guess guys like Beliveau, Jagr, Messier, Bure, and even Lindros aren't elite...

 

[IceManCat]

Malkin is still criminally underrated

 

[PensandCaps]

Uh.... Malkin

 

[PensandCaps]

Lindros has a Hart Trophy, though.

But trophy case aside, the question is who was a better player at their peak, and the answer to that is clearly Lindros.

how is it clearly Lindros at peak play?

Compare their best single season....the stat line is very similar.

adjust that Malkin was by far the best player in the world in his best year and Lindros wasn't....

Also if you bring playoff resumes into this....Malkin should be easily winning this poll if we take in account whole career


Both have a Hart. So I don't see how one is clearly above another at their peak.

 

[joez86]

how is it clearly Lindros at peak play?

Compare their best single season....the stat line is very similar.

adjust that Malkin was by far the best player in the world in his best year and Lindros wasn't....

Also if you bring playoff resumes into this....Malkin should be easily winning this poll if we take in account whole career


Both have a Hart. So I don't see how one is clearly above another at their peak.

I feel it is clearly Lindros because of the bolded. While Malkin may have had a consistent edge offensively, it isn't really that big a gap at all at their peak. Meanwhile, I don't feel hyperbolic in saying that Lindros was better than Malkin in essentially every other aspect of the game.

Also, not being "the best player in the world" in the early-mid 90s is far from a knock. At his peak, only Lemieux was clearly better (not counting Gretzky, who was already well past his prime at that time), and Malkin would never be confused for being on Lemieux's level. Jagr was also up there with Lindros, but it's hard to separate the influence playing on a team with Lemiuex had on him, similarly to how Malkim benefitted from playing on a team with Crosby (Crosby doesn't sniff Lemiuex either, though)

Moreover, when I compare players at their peak, I think of it as "who would I want more for one game at their very best?", and in that regard, I take Lindros every time. As you extend the window of time considered "peak", Malkin becomes a better player, and it's more from injuries than anything else. It wasn't as if Lindros got "figured out" after his Hart season, he just couldn't stay on the ice game in and game out for seasons on end. There is, of course, something to be said for staying healthy, but comparing peaks is not the time to do so, IMO.

 

[Human]

I watched Lindros play. He is overrated in the sense that if you notice, half of the users in here prefering him are like "Lindros in his prime was an animal", "Lindros instilled fear in his opponents". I feel like this inflates his actual hockey abilities. yes, Lindros was a big bully back in the day, and it was a double edged sword for him. he was intimidating to most players, but some of them just hunted him down. his mean streak killed his career in the end more than he killed others' careers. the guy played with a target on his back.

I remember on the Kasparaitis hit how the Penguins bench was cheering, that must tell you what kind of a character Lindros was, because I haven't seen that ever with any other player.

also, to the guy who keeps making short insecure comments, a guy that constantly skated with his head down around the blueline can't have the best season ever in the history. that's ridiculous fanboysm.

 

[PensandCaps]

I feel it is clearly Lindros because of the bolded. While Malkin may have had a consistent edge offensively, it isn't really that big a gap at all at their peak. Meanwhile, I don't feel hyperbolic in saying that Lindros was better than Malkin in essentially every other aspect of the game.

Also, not being "the best player in the world" in the early-mid 90s is far from a knock. At his peak, only Lemieux was clearly better (not counting Gretzky, who was already well past his prime at that time), and Malkin would never be confused for being on Lemieux's level. Jagr was also up there with Lindros, but it's hard to separate the influence playing on a team with Lemiuex had on him, similarly to how Malkim benefitted from playing on a team with Crosby (Crosby doesn't sniff Lemiuex either, though)

Moreover, when I compare players at their peak, I think of it as "who would I want more for one game at their very best?", and in that regard, I take Lindros every time. As you extend the window of time considered "peak", Malkin becomes a better player, and it's more from injuries than anything else. It wasn't as if Lindros got "figured out" after his Hart season, he just couldn't stay on the ice game in and game out for seasons on end. There is, of course, something to be said for staying healthy, but comparing peaks is not the time to do so, IMO.

Not like Malkim himself isn't good away from the puck..

The thing that does it for me is that Malkin and Lindros have played basically the same amount of games and Malkin has a .5 higher PPG in a lower scoring era.

I'm sure if Malkin played in the early 90s he would've been up there with Mario,Jagr and Gretzk. And if Malkin is already outscoring Lindros in a lower scoring Era, he is most likely blowing lindros away in points if they played at the same time in the 90s.

 

[joez86]

Not like Malkim himself isn't good away from the puck..

The thing that does it for me is that Malkin and Lindros have played basically the same amount of games and Malkin has a .5 higher PPG in a lower scoring era.

I'm sure if Malkin played in the early 90s he would've been up there with Mario,Jagr and Gretzk. And if Malkin is already outscoring Lindros in a lower scoring Era, he is most likely blowing lindros away in points if they played at the same time in the 90s.

Lindros played 10 seasons after already having his head turned to jello, and by that time it was an even lower scoring era than today. That considerably lowered his career PPG. He was at ~1.47e PPG after his first 297 games, which was the end of the '97 season. The '98-'04 seasons were all lower or roughly equivalent scoring seasons when compared to the years Malkin played. Malkin's career PPG is ~1.19, which Lindros had beaten if you take his career PPG through his time with the Rangers... it was ~1.21 for his career as of the end of '04. He played two more seasons, one with Toronto that brought it down to ~1.18, and the last with Dallas dropped it to ~1.14... so the career PPG argument is not really the best argument for Malkin, IMO.

Malkin would definitely not "blow him away" in points in the early 90s... it would be pretty close, with likely an edge (i.e. 10 points or so max) to Malkin, but they would be in the same tier offensively. While Malkin is not horrible defensively, he wasn't as good a two-way guy as Lindros, and he also doesn't come close to bringing the physical game Lindros had, which is something that really did matter back in the 90s. It is close, but clearly Lindros, for me. And yes, I am a Flyers fan... but Brind'amour was my favorite in those days, anyway.

 

[PensandCaps]

Lindros played 10 seasons after already having his head turned to jello, and by that time it was an even lower scoring era than today. That considerably lowered his career PPG. He was at ~1.47e PPG after his first 297 games, which was the end of the '97 season. The '98-'04 seasons were all lower or roughly equivalent scoring seasons when compared to the years Malkin played. Malkin's career PPG is ~1.19, which Lindros had beaten if you take his career PPG through his time with the Rangers... it was ~1.21 for his career as of the end of '04. He played two more seasons, one with Toronto that brought it down to ~1.18, and the last with Dallas dropped it to ~1.14... so the career PPG argument is not really the best argument for Malkin, IMO.

Malkin would definitely not "blow him away" in points in the early 90s... it would be pretty close, with likely an edge (i.e. 10 points or so max) to Malkin, but they would be in the same tier offensively. While Malkin is not horrible defensively, he wasn't as good a two-way guy as Lindros, and he also doesn't come close to bringing the physical game Lindros had, which is something that really did matter back in the 90s. It is close, but clearly Lindros, for me. And yes, I am a Flyers fan... but Brind'amour was my favorite in those days, anyway.

It's not like Malkin himself didn't endure some pretty horrible injuries. For a while there it looked like he was declining to "just" a PPG player.

I can see a case for both. neither are clearly better imo. Just a matter of preference.

 

[Syrinx]

I hate to seemingly devalue Malkin as I feel he’s one of the most underrated of the true greats but a healthy Lindros in his prime was virtually impossible to play against.

As is evidenced by all of his playoff success.

 

[b in vancouver]

Lindros was incredible. Malkin is a great player without a doubt, but at his best Lindros was unstoppable. He simply owned the ice.

 

[Cup or Bust]

Malkin has had a much better career, but at their absolute best and peak Lindros is a better player, one of the most dominant players there has been. All the younger people that think Jagr is so great because they look at his stats, he was never considered to be a better player then Lindros when Lindros was at his best back in the 90's. No GM in the league would have picked anyone over Lindros at the time, except Lemieux. Based on age and potential at the time, maybe no one. To bad we never got to see Lindros at his best for a prolonged period.

 

[b in vancouver]

I'm a Bruins fan so no love lost for either the Pens or Flyers but Lindros was able to do everything Malkin can do plus put the fear of god into everyone on the ice.
In hindsight, it's an unsustainable style of play and, like Cam Neely, people started targeting him with cheap hits and we were robbed of watching him.

Transplant these guys back in time. Malkin would be Mahovlich. Lindros would be Howe.

 

[The Abusement Park]

People love the idea of Lindros more than what he actually was

This. So much this.

 

[PepperKeenan]

It’s funny. I’ve seen polls where Forsberg beats Lindros and polls with Malkin beating Forsberg. But in this poll, Lindros beats Malkin, go figure.

Voted Malkin btw.

 

[KevSkillz4]

Malkin. Lindros is overrated.