Lindros vs. Malkin

[6 Karlsson 5]

Pronger was a hell of a lot more then just a big guy who hit people, he was an amazing player at his best and one of a few guys who could control the whole game from the back end.

I sometimes wonder if some posters even watched the players play they comment on.

I wonder if you can read. I never said what you are claiming, try again

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

Or maybe they actually watched all these guys play and know what they are talking about. Kinda like Pronger? Now I know you do not know what you are talking about.

Eye test= shit argument, try again

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

Without a shadow of a doubt he is

Lmao, ok then. No stats back you up, but that is right in line with all your other posts

 

[jj cale]

I wonder if you can read. I never said what you are claiming, try again

I can read just fine, you implied pronger was just big and could hit and thus is considered 20x better then he was, your words not mine, what did I miss?

I do worry about your eyes however if you actually did watch Pronger play in his heyday and you hold that opinion of him.

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

I can read just fine, you implied pronger was just big and could hit and thus is considered 20x better then he was, your words not mine, what did I miss?

I do worry about your eyes however if you actually did watch Pronger play in his heyday and you hold that opinion of him.

No, I did not imply that. I implied that big, phsyical players get overrated. Being overrated does not mean you are not a great player, not does it imply that a player is only good at one skill
0/2

 

[jj cale]

No, I did not imply that. I implied that big, phsyical players get overrated. Being overrated does not mean you are not a great player, not does it imply that a player is only good at one skill
0/2

You SAID he was like Lindros, overrated because he was a big physical player, which is most certainly not true. They are not overrated due to their size or physicality, people think they were great players because that is what they were, great players.

If you think they had more skills then this then you should have stated so, you didn't. make yourself clear in future matters.

o/2

Anyway, I guess this is just a matter of miscommunication, i'll leave it at that, this thread isn't about Pronger anyway.

 

[Sasso09]

Lmao, ok then. No stats back you up, but that is right in line with all your other posts

There's a reason why you're arguing with 10 people right now whom are all questioning your ridiculous statements

 

[Perfect_Drug]

There's a reason why you're arguing with 10 people right now whom are all questioning your ridiculous statements

Actually I'm firmly on his side, and the poll is close to 50/50.

When Lindros was at his absolute peak, he was maybe the 4th best forward in the NHL during the regular season. He was significantly lower in the playoffs.


I have no idea where the narrative comes from, that at his peak he was nearly the greatest ever. That was never ever true. And yes I did watch his entire career.

 

[Felidae]

Actually I'm firmly on his side, and the poll is close to 50/50.

When Lindros was at his absolute peak, he was maybe the 4th best forward in the NHL during the regular season. He was significantly lower in the playoffs.


I have no idea where the narrative comes from, that at his peak he was nearly the greatest ever. That was never ever true. And yes I did watch his entire career.

Not sure this is true.

Considering his peak was never a full season, his points per game from 1993-94 to 1996 were 1, 2, 3, 3. His PPG being quite consistent (1.58, 1.52, 1.52, 1.49)

Lemieux being the only player consistently ahead of him in that time span, Jagr and Neely doing so once.

He was at least a top 3 forward . Jagr had lesser production on a yearly basis while not providing the physicality, and Fedorov was inconsistent in terms of being a top 10 point producer with selke level defense.

 

[daver]

When Lindros was at his absolute peak, he was maybe the 4th best forward in the NHL during the regular season. He was significantly lower in the playoffs.

How does one win the Hart in 1995 as the 4th best forward?

Who was better? And explain how Malkin would be better than whatever names you list.

 

[DDRhockey]

How does one win the Hart in 1995 as the 4th best forward?

Who was better? And explain how Malkin would be better than whatever names you list.

Malkin destroys Lindros career.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

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

???

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Malkin for me.
I need somebody who's going to be there long term. Lindros' disregard for physical injury helped him be as productive as he was, but it shortened his career. To me, that says that maybe he wasn't quite as good as he appeared to be.
Just imagine if Malkin disregarded his own physical well being, how productive could he be? But then it would shorten his career.

 

[canucks4ever]

The problem with Lindros is that we really don't know what his ceiling was in a vacuum. His style of play caused him to miss 20-30 games per season. Even if he chose to be a perimeter player and focus solely on offense, what would his offensive capacity really look like? It's all guesswork.

Was Lindros even the best non lemieux player during the 1995-96 season. We cant prove he would score 149 points if he was on the Penguins the way Jagr was. If Lindros was on the avalanche that year, we can't guarantee that he would have a 35 point playoff run the way Sakic did. 1996 is the only real sample size we can use to evaluate peak Lindros.

In the summer of 1997, he was supposed to take the torch from Mario and that is when his true decline began. He gets too many bonus points for "coulda woulda shoulda". He never consistently played 70-80 games per season. It's much easier to have dominant half season paces.

Although, I do feel Lindros should be voted as a top 100 player on all time lists. The guys who would get voted between 85-100 are just Pavel Bure/ Paul Kariya caliber players with more longevity.

 

[Human]

???

It’s ok. He’s young...

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Who cares what their actual impact on a game was, what really matters is how Lindros made me feel when he was on the ice. Just wow.





In all seriousness, there is certainly an argument for Lindros, but it hasn't really been made yet. All I hear is how he dominated the ice.

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

There's a reason why you're arguing with 10 people right now whom are all questioning your ridiculous statements

i am arguing with 3 people. One who cannot read, and one who cannot count.
Gotta love what amounts to appeal to authority. I guess you have to commit fallacies when you have no actual argument

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

You SAID he was like Lindros, overrated because he was a big physical player, which is most certainly not true. They are not overrated due to their size or physicality, people think they were great players because that is what they were, great players.

If you think they had more skills then this then you should have stated so, you didn't. make yourself clear in future matters.

o/2

Anyway, I guess this is just a matter of miscommunication, i'll leave it at that, this thread isn't about Pronger anyway.

Ok? You may disagree on the reason why he is overrated. That has noting to do with your original claim of what I said, which was that he is just big and hits people
0/3

 

[Perfect_Drug]

How does one win the Hart in 1995 as the 4th best forward?
Who was better?

Is his peak is defined as 93-97? Or is it that one year?
Mario sat out that year but he was clearly better.
(161 points to 115 in similar games, in case you want to know what domination looks like).

I said I clearly consider Fedorov to be ahead of Lindros.
A Sentiment echo'd by Scotty Bowman, Wayne Gretzky, Steve Yzerman, Paul Coffey (who all unanimously agreed Fedorov was the best player in the world).

BTW, want to know how the playoff scoring race went down in 1995?

Fedorov with 25 points in 17 games (1.41 PPG)
Lindros with 15 points in 12 games (1.15PPG)

Scoring aside, Fedorov won his Hart in 94 while still being 20 points behind Gretzky, because he dominated possession and defense. (hence him winning a Selke and Lindsay).

Fedorov also has Stanley Cups. He won one by humiliating Lindros in the Finals (hahaha Lindros' 1 goal in the final 15 seconds of a game 4 sweep).
Do you realise head to head, Fedorov absolutely wrecked Lindros right? He made Lindros invisible that series. I would be shocked if Lindros held the puck for longer than 10mins the entire series when he was up head-to-head against Federov.

BTW, to round out the list, I do consider Jagr, Forsberg, and Sakic better.



TO use the old argument that was used against Ovechkin: Lindros is a loser who could never will his team to win a cup.

 

[jj cale]

Ok? You may disagree on the reason why he is overrated. That has noting to do with your original claim of what I said, which was that he is just big and hits people
0/3

Yeah, whatever man, have a good day.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Not sure this is true.

Considering his peak was never a full season, his points per game from 1993-94 to 1996 were 1, 2, 3, 3. His PPG being quite consistent (1.58, 1.52, 1.52, 1.49)

Lemieux being the only player consistently ahead of him in that time span, Jagr and Neely doing so once.

He was at least a top 3 forward . Jagr had lesser production on a yearly basis while not providing the physicality, and Fedorov was inconsistent in terms of being a top 10 point producer with selke level defense.

Fedorov was top 10 in PPG in every one of those seasons, and Top 5 in Hart voting twice in that span, winning once. Also, two Selke trophies as the best defensive forward in the NHL bridges the gap IMO.

 

[Felidae]

Fedorov was top 10 in PPG in every one of those seasons, and Top 5 in Hart voting twice in that span, winning once. Also, two Selke trophies as the best defensive forward in the NHL bridges the gap IMO.

That's true. What I meant by inconsistent was that he would have an exceptional season, then have a noticeably worse year the subsequent season.

For instance, his PPG in 1993 is 1.49, good enough for 4th in PPG, and one of those players barely played half a season never producing at that pace again.

The next season, his pace dropped to 9th (1.19) and had a lesser selke finish.

The year after that, he had a 7th PPG finish (1.37) while winning the Selke in almost a full season. Then after that he wasn't even 10th in PPG or points, dropping to a 9th selke finish.

Fedorov had the better peak year, but in that time span Eric Lindros's consistency in the top 3 highest point per game players edges out Fedorov as the consistently better player.

The post I responded to claimed he was "maybe" the 4th best player.

Is his peak is defined as 93-97? Or is it that one year?
Mario sat out that year but he was clearly better.
(161 points to 115 in similar games, in case you want to know what domination looks like).

I said I clearly consider Fedorov to be ahead of Lindros.
A Sentiment echo'd by Scotty Bowman, Wayne Gretzky, Steve Yzerman, Paul Coffey (who all unanimously agreed Fedorov was the best player in the world).

BTW, want to know how the playoff scoring race went down in 1995?

Fedorov with 25 points in 17 games (1.41 PPG)
Lindros with 15 points in 12 games (1.15PPG)

Scoring aside, Fedorov won his Hart in 94 while still being 20 points behind Gretzky, because he dominated possession and defense. (hence him winning a Selke and Lindsay).

Fedorov also has Stanley Cups. He won one by humiliating Lindros in the Finals (hahaha Lindros' 1 goal in the final 15 seconds of a game 4 sweep).
Do you realise head to head, Fedorov absolutely wrecked Lindros right? He made Lindros invisible that series. I would be shocked if Lindros held the puck for longer than 10mins the entire series when he was up head-to-head against Federov.

BTW, to round out the list, I do consider Jagr, Forsberg, and Sakic better.



TO use the old argument that was used against Ovechkin: Lindros is a loser who could never will his team to win a cup.

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

 

[Felidae]

The problem with Lindros is that we really don't know what his ceiling was in a vacuum. His style of play caused him to miss 20-30 games per season. Even if he chose to be a perimeter player and focus solely on offense, what would his offensive capacity really look like? It's all guesswork.

Was Lindros even the best non lemieux player during the 1995-96 season. We cant prove he would score 149 points if he was on the Penguins the way Jagr was. If Lindros was on the avalanche that year, we can't guarantee that he would have a 35 point playoff run the way Sakic did. 1996 is the only real sample size we can use to evaluate peak Lindros.

In the summer of 1997, he was supposed to take the torch from Mario and that is when his true decline began. He gets too many bonus points for "coulda woulda shoulda". He never consistently played 70-80 games per season. It's much easier to have dominant half season paces.

Although, I do feel Lindros should be voted as a top 100 player on all time lists. The guys who would get voted between 85-100 are just Pavel Bure/ Paul Kariya caliber players with more longevity.

This is the best argument against Lindros imo. But I think it's worth mentioning from 1993-1996 he had his best seasons, and the season he played the most games those years with 73 games (1995) happened to be his highest points per game. While he finished 3rd in points per game compared to 2nd in 1st during some of those years, he was also competing against Lemieux and Jagr's season.

And though the year before and after 1995 where he had his 2nd highest points per game, were slightly lower scoring years (3.04 to 2.80 and 2.89, negligible?), the fact that he had around the same ppg finish during those 4 years leads me to believe that it was likely he would have maintained his production in 82 games. Him doing it consecutively shows it was not an anomaly. Even if his pace were to decrease from 2nd or 3rd to 5th, no one that would finish above him would have the argument of being better based on overall play besides Forsberg or Fedorov unless their production was miles better.

Speaking of which, during Jagr's 1995 season at least 40 of his points Lemieux contributed on ( can't recall the specific number). Some might call it an anomaly statistically, but Jagr had a comparable season in 1998-99 when adjusting for points, which some also argue as an anomaly, but that's a discussion for another day.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

That's true. What I meant by inconsistent was that he would have an exceptional season, then have a noticeably worse year the subsequent season.

For instance, his PPG in 1993 is 1.49, good enough for 4th in PPG, and one of those players barely played half a season never producing at that pace again.

The next season, his pace dropped to 9th (1.19) and had a lesser selke finish.

The year after that, he had a 7th PPG finish (1.37) while winning the Selke in almost a full season. Then after that he wasn't even 10th in PPG or points, dropping to a 9th selke finish.

Fedorov had the better peak year, but in that time span Eric Lindros's consistency in the top 3 highest point per game players edges out Fedorov as the consistently better player.

The post I responded to claimed he was "maybe" the 4th best player.





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

I would agree. Good post.

With Fedorov though it’s important to recall that in 1995-96 he spent some games as a defenceman, which lowered his PPG. He spent even more time as a defenceman in 1996-97, which again served to greatly lower his PPG.

Also, in 1993-94 he played 27 minutes a game. In 1996-97 he played 17 minutes and change as a forward (his time would go up slightly as a defenceman). Icetime is a lame excuse for sure but with Bowman’s tendency to roll four lines, it’s easy to see how a scoring forward would regress offensively in that system.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

That's true. What I meant by inconsistent was that he would have an exceptional season, then have a noticeably worse year the subsequent season.

For instance, his PPG in 1993 is 1.49, good enough for 4th in PPG, and one of those players barely played half a season never producing at that pace again.

The next season, his pace dropped to 9th (1.19) and had a lesser selke finish.

The year after that, he had a 7th PPG finish (1.37) while winning the Selke in almost a full season. Then after that he wasn't even 10th in PPG or points, dropping to a 9th selke finish.

Fedorov had the better peak year, but in that time span Eric Lindros's consistency in the top 3 highest point per game players edges out Fedorov as the consistently better player.

The post I responded to claimed he was "maybe" the 4th best player.





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

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