Should Lindros really be ranked higher than St. Louis?

[Overrated]

Lindros should be ranked a lot higher imo.

 

[JackSlater]

What if they were both available in the same draft class...but you know the outcome of their respective careers...who do you take?

Still Lindros, and honestly he'd be a safer bet to last longer if we're drafting for today. Just need to surround him with the right pieces.

I think OV's longevity was due to his lethal shot not his smarts. IMO, he was more of an instinctual player. But maybe in comparison to Lindros he is smart.

I agree he's instinctual, but that is just another kind of smart. I don't think he's going to go into coaching or something and that's fine. Ovechkin's ability to change how he plays after losing a lot of dynamism and still be very successful proved to me that he is a very smart player. I also don't think that Lindros was a dumb player, and I know that is an oversimplification, just someone who had a physical trait that no one with a talent level near his own could call on and so he could just do what always worked.

 

[The Macho King]

Here's a dirty secret we don't talk about but is absolutely true -

Draft position matters in these discussions. The reason? It helps create the narrative. Lindros was dominant talent and if it weren't for <blank>, he would have been <blank>.

St. Louis was undrafted, was put on waivers, and ended up having to prove he belonged. That means he was a plucky hard worker in order to make up for his lack of skills.

First overall picks have to prove they aren't great. Everyone else has to prove they are. The fact is Lindros' only truly great season was 46 games. He has finishes of 1, 6, and 7. Marty has finishes of 1, 1, 2, 5, and 6. Take away the duplicates and you have a 7th versus a 1, 2, 5 finish.

That's not career value. That's prime value.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Here's a dirty secret we don't talk about but is absolutely true -

Draft position matters in these discussions. The reason? It helps create the narrative. Lindros was dominant talent and if it weren't for <blank>, he would have been <blank>.

First overall picks have to prove they aren't great. .

John Tavares a prime example.

 

[MadLuke]

Marty has finishes of 1, 1, 2, 5, and 6.

IF Forsberg and Crosby play and St-Louis has no 1 finish, does it change anything ?

Those are St-Louis Art Ross seasons:

Points Per Game

1.	Peter Forsberg* • COL	1.41
2.	Marc Savard • ATL	1.16
3.	Martin St. Louis* • TBL	1.15
4.	Robert Lang • 2TM	1.14
	Alex Tanguay • COL	1.14

and

1.	Sidney Crosby • PIT	1.56
2.	Martin St. Louis* • TBL	1.25
3.	Steven Stamkos • TBL	1.19
4.	Patrick Kane • CHI	1.17
5.	Alex Ovechkin • WSH	1.17

While those are not seen as great:

1.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	2.30
2.	Jaromír Jágr • PIT	1.82
3.	Eric Lindros* • PHI	1.58
4.	Ron Francis* • PIT	1.55
5.	Joe Sakic* • COL	1.46

1.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	1.61
2.	Eric Lindros* • PHI	1.52
3.	Jaromír Jágr • PIT	1.51
4.	Paul Kariya* • MDA	1.43
5.	Teemu Selänne* • MDA	1.40

1994-1999m min 200 games

Jagr....: 1.49
Lindros.: 1.42 +149
Forsberg: 1.28
Selanne.: 1.29
Kariya..: 1.25
Sakic...: 1.22

 

[The Macho King]

IF Forsberg and Crosby play and St-Louis has no 1 finish, does it change anything ?

Those are St-Louis Art Ross seasons:

Points Per Game

1.	Peter Forsberg* • COL	1.41
2.	Marc Savard • ATL	1.16
3.	Martin St. Louis* • TBL	1.15
4.	Robert Lang • 2TM	1.14
	Alex Tanguay • COL	1.14

and

1.	Sidney Crosby • PIT	1.56
2.	Martin St. Louis* • TBL	1.25
3.	Steven Stamkos • TBL	1.19
4.	Patrick Kane • CHI	1.17
5.	Alex Ovechkin • WSH	1.17

While those are not seen as great:

1.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	2.30
2.	Jaromír Jágr • PIT	1.82
3.	Eric Lindros* • PHI	1.58
4.	Ron Francis* • PIT	1.55
5.	Joe Sakic* • COL	1.46

1.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	1.61
2.	Eric Lindros* • PHI	1.52
3.	Jaromír Jágr • PIT	1.51
4.	Paul Kariya* • MDA	1.43
5.	Teemu Selänne* • MDA	1.40

1994-1999m min 200 games

Jagr....: 1.49
Lindros.: 1.42 +149
Forsberg: 1.28
Selanne.: 1.29
Kariya..: 1.25
Sakic...: 1.22

If if if.

What happened.

Edit: This is an even more salient point vis a vis Lindros than anyone else, because his entire playstyle centered around him being reckless as f***. I'd rather have 1.2 points per game for 82 games than 1.4 for 40. Staying healthy - playing a style that leads you to be available to your team - that's a skill too. These aren't freak accidents. This is a 6'6 dude thinking he's invincible despite constant reminders he wasn't.

 

[DitchMarner]

Eh, St. Louis' scoring race competition was rather weak in 2004, but it wasn't bad in 2013. Obviously he benefited from Crosby's injury, but he outscored a lot of really good players in their primes that year (Stamkos, Datsyuk, Getzlaf, Kane). Tavares and Hall were recent first overall picks who were productive that season. Ovechkin was post-peak, but he did win the Hart that season.

In 2004, at least he beat Sakic and Kovalchuk in scoring.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Staying healthy - playing a style that leads you to be available to your team - that's a skill too. These aren't freak accidents. This is a 6'6 dude thinking he's invincible despite constant reminders he wasn't.

This is another good point. There's a difference between getting hurt sometimes and being hoisted by your own petard. Whether that's a natural disposition for injury (like Forsberg's leg sizes/ankle bones) or Lindros's aloof stylings), that's more of a penalizing factor for me than penalizing someone who gets cheapshotted semi-regularly...

 

[NordiquesForeva]

I've often wondered what Lindros could have become if he played under a more forward-thinking player management organization in Philly or New York. Setting aside his physicality and ability to really work-over d-men and cycle down low, what skills and capabilities did he have as a player? I remember him having a very good (near-elite, perhaps even elite) hard, accurate shot, good playmaking ability, and he was a very good skater for a big man. What if his coach shifted him to the wing, stripped away some/most of his puck carrying and distribution responsibilities, paired him with a playmaking centre and asked him to focus on using his size/strength to get to the inside and score?

I think he may have become a Jamie Benn-type player after his peak and into his later prime years - a player who could certainly pick his spots physically but, as a winger, take better advantage of the biggest strengths in his game while at the same time lessening his exposure to his "weaknesses" (for lack of a better term) that ultimately got him into trouble...and of course an extended career.

 

[The Macho King]

I've often wondered what Lindros could have become if he played under a more forward-thinking player management organization in Philly or New York. Setting aside his physicality and ability to really work-over d-men and cycle down low, what skills and capabilities did he have as a player? I remember him having a very good (near-elite, perhaps even elite) hard, accurate shot, good playmaking ability, and he was a very good skater for a big man. What if his coach shifted him to the wing, stripped away some/most of his puck carrying and distribution responsibilities, paired him with a playmaking centre and asked him to focus on using his size/strength to get to the inside and score?

I think he may have become a Jamie Benn-type player after his peak and into his later prime years - a player who could certainly pick his spots physically but, as a winger, take better advantage of the biggest strengths in his game while at the same time lessening his exposure to his "weaknesses" (for lack of a better term) that ultimately got him into trouble...and of course an extended career.

He probably needed a coach to protect him. He was a giant among NHLers... what the f*** was he up against in the CHL? He would literally be close to a foot up on a solid chunk of his competition. He needed to adapt. I don't know if he could without someone doing it for him.

 

[ORHawksFan]

If it was Québec drafting they'd take the Lindros trade again without blinking.

haha fair point, Quebec absolutely does that trade. But would Philly? Obviously not considering how Forsberg turned out

 

[Michael Farkas]

What if his coach shifted him to the wing, stripped away some/most of his puck carrying and distribution responsibilities, paired him with a playmaking centre and asked him to focus on using his size/strength to get to the inside and score?

That's a good thought. It might have made things easier for him. The thing about being a winger and being on the boards is that there's only one direction where a threat can get you. At center, it's two-sided and Lindros wasn't very good at managing/tracking that much ice.

It's a reasonable suggestion...and hell, it's not like it could have gone too much worse (while having us still talk about his relevance)...from age 21 to 27 he played 360 games. That's not a ton...

 

[JackSlater]

I've often wondered what Lindros could have become if he played under a more forward-thinking player management organization in Philly or New York. Setting aside his physicality and ability to really work-over d-men and cycle down low, what skills and capabilities did he have as a player? I remember him having a very good (near-elite, perhaps even elite) hard, accurate shot, good playmaking ability, and he was a very good skater for a big man. What if his coach shifted him to the wing, stripped away some/most of his puck carrying and distribution responsibilities, paired him with a playmaking centre and asked him to focus on using his size/strength to get to the inside and score?

I think he may have become a Jamie Benn-type player after his peak and into his later prime years - a player who could certainly pick his spots physically but, as a winger, take better advantage of the biggest strengths in his game while at the same time lessening his exposure to his "weaknesses" (for lack of a better term) that ultimately got him into trouble...and of course an extended career.

I always put Lindros as a winger in fantasy rosters because his game seems like it translates so easily to the wing. He was a fairly straight line player and he could rip wrist shots and cycle the puck just as easily as a RW. I have no memory of prime Lindros playing anything other than centre but it should work, probably he'd lose some assists but see his goals go up.

 

[BraveCanadian]

St. Louis was a great player who rounded out a really solid career after finally getting an opportunity.

Meanwhile, Lindros was in the upper echelon of players all time in ability to tilt the ice.

No doubt whatsoever that Lindros was the better player at their bests but St. Louis ended up with the better career overall.

Ranking them depends on what you value.

 

[The Panther]

Ignoring Lindros's missed games for a minute (I'll get there), let's look at each forward's PPG finishes:

Lindros
1 (over Jagr 1995)
2 (slightly behind Lemieux, marginally ahead of Jagr 1997)
3 (behind Gretzky and slightly behind Neely; ahead of Fedorov 1994)
3 (behind Lemieux and Jagr 1996)
4 (behind Jagr and Selanne; marginally behind Sakic 1999)
4 (behind Jagr, Forsberg, Selanne; tied with Modano & Turgeon 1998)
9
9 (with NY Rangers 2002)

St. Louis
2 (behind Crosby; ahead of Stamkos, Kane, Ovechkin 2013)
3 (behind Forsberg; marginally behind M. Savard; marginally ahead of Lang & Tanguay 2004)
3 (behind Crosby & D. Sedin; marginally ahead of Perry 2011)
7
9


I think it should be clear that Lindros both (a) had the stiffer competition at the top and (b) was the superior scorer, overall.

In his top seasons, Lindros had 1 season where he was outscored by Gretzky, 2 seasons where he was outscored by Lemieux (one of those only marginally), and 4 where he was outscored by Jagr (and one where he outscored Jagr, but lost the Art Ross).

I would argue that Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr are each top-5 all-time forwards and each was a greater offensive player than Crosby, whom St. Louis finished behind twice.

___________________

Another issue is how many games Lindros missed. Some people tend to exaggerate it. He did consistently miss a lot of games, with only 1995 (short season), 1996, 1999, and 2002 being seasons in his prime where he appeared in almost all the games.

Yet in his first 7 NHL seasons, Lindros still appeared in 431 of 544 possible games. That's just shy of 80% of the games, and if you add in playoff games in that period he's well over 80%.

For comparison, in Crosby's first 7 NHL seasons, he appeared in 434 games -- a grand total of 3 more games than Lindros -- of 574 total. That's 75.6% of the games, quite a bit less than Lindros.

And yes, I'm aware that starting in 2013-14, Crosby's career takes a turn for the healthy and he ages well, etc., etc.

It just seems to be the case with Lindros that people here exaggerate his faults.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yet in his first 7 NHL seasons, Lindros still appeared in 431 of 544 possible games. That's just shy of 80% of the games, and if you add in playoff games in that period he's well over 80%.

This is fun. Even in the handpicked perfect time and the benefit of the shortened season, he still misses a game every five.

He also missed the first 82 games of his NHL career by holding out too. That's a chunk that a lot of people don't seem to account for.

 

[The Panther]

This is fun. Even in the handpicked perfect time and the benefit of the shortened season, he still misses a game every five.

He also missed the first 82 games of his NHL career by holding out too. That's a chunk that a lot of people don't seem to account for.

Okay, let's do different players' first 8 seasons (Lindros's entire Phlly career):

Orr
541 of 608 games = 89.0%
M. Lemieux
517 of 640 games = 80.8%
Lindros
486 of 626 games = 77.6%
Crosby
470 of 622 games = 75.6%
W. Clark (for a low-end example)
399 of 644 games = 62.0%

The number of games Lindros missed during his entire Philly career (i.e., the only time non-NYR fans remember him at all for) is in between the games missed by Mario Lemieux and Sidney Crosby.

I'm just trying to give this some context because I think some people have the idea that Lindros, in his prime, was missing whole seasons or was playing half the games or something.

So, as others have said, we all have different ideas about how long you have to have played at a high level for non-longevity to be more-or-less waived as a factor. For me, personally, Lindros in Philly (and throw in his very good 2001-02 in New York) did just enough.

(I don't even know what to say about your comment on Lindros's non 1991-92 NHL season. He was 18-19 years old. Are we going to hold it against Joe Sakic that he chose not to play for Quebec in 1987-88 by waiting one year, and then lower his career ranking for it?)

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lindros held out instead of playing in the NHL - one the many perks of dealing with him. Not sure why that would get a pass.

In any case, Crosby - who is top 100 in games played all time - is constantly docked here for missing time. He's somehow the "what if" king AND top 10 in points all time. So, I don't know what to do with that...

You're carving around an uneven amount of time to frame this.

I don't think this is a very complex puzzle, right?

Season	Games	Missed			Season	Games	Missed
1992​	80​	80​			2006​	82​	1​
1993​	84​	23​			2007​	82​	3​
1994​	84​	19​			2008​	82​	39​
1995​	48​	2​			2009​	82​	5​
1996​	82​	9​			2010​	82​	1​
1997​	82​	30​			2011​	82​	41​
1998​	82​	19​			2012​	82​	60​
1999​	82​	11​			2013​	48​	12​
2000​	82​	27​	Lindros		2014​	82​	2​	Crosby
2001​	82​	82​	Played in		2015​	82​	5​	Played in
Missed	788​	302​	61.7%​		Missed	786​	169​	78.5%​
92 out	708​	222​	68.6%​
92+01 out	626​	140​	77.6%​

Crosby misses five games or less in six full seasons. Lindros does it zero times. Based on the data, we can probably surmise that if 1995 was actually a full season, he likely would have missed a significant chunk of it too.

But even if we charitably remove his deciding not to play for two whole years in his prime adjacent seasons (for him)...this isn't a very productive area of discussion I don't think. The "Lindros Didn't Miss As Much Time As You Think" Party isn't likely to win an election...but this newfound emphasis on points per game is a great bargaining chip.

I'll pull an Igor Larionov and "find" some game sheets for Lindros and submit them to H-R for you and pad those numbers...in exchange, you put Lemieux over Gretzky in our next HoH project and admit that Crosby probably would have had a 216 point season in the early 80's...

 

[WarriorofTime]

Glad it's definitively settled that Crosby > Lindros, at least.

 

[JianYang]

Lindros was such a unique force at his peak that despite the shortened stay at the top, I just can't ignore how special that period of time was.

Obviously it boils down to how you weight longevity vs peak, but I have to go with lindros here.

 

[JianYang]

I've often wondered what Lindros could have become if he played under a more forward-thinking player management organization in Philly or New York. Setting aside his physicality and ability to really work-over d-men and cycle down low, what skills and capabilities did he have as a player? I remember him having a very good (near-elite, perhaps even elite) hard, accurate shot, good playmaking ability, and he was a very good skater for a big man. What if his coach shifted him to the wing, stripped away some/most of his puck carrying and distribution responsibilities, paired him with a playmaking centre and asked him to focus on using his size/strength to get to the inside and score?

I think he may have become a Jamie Benn-type player after his peak and into his later prime years - a player who could certainly pick his spots physically but, as a winger, take better advantage of the biggest strengths in his game while at the same time lessening his exposure to his "weaknesses" (for lack of a better term) that ultimately got him into trouble...and of course an extended career.

In that era, lindros was destroying guys physically and on the scoreboard in a way i have yet to see replicated, and there were plenty of guys employed in the league whose main motive was to give it right back by any means necessary. Guys like Pilon, ulanov, samuelsson, Stevens, Kasparaitis etc... the list goes on.

As much of a bull as lindros was, you just can't survive for long in that era with that style especially if you dont keep your head up. This habit was going to bite him no matter where he played regardless of the questionable decisions made by flyer medical staff.

 

[The Panther]

I'll pull an Igor Larionov and "find" some game sheets for Lindros and submit them to H-R for you and pad those numbers...in exchange, you put Lemieux over Gretzky in our next HoH project and admit that Crosby probably would have had a 216 point season in the early 80's...

I appreciate your attempt at good-natured (if slightly dick-ish) humor, but:

-- I have no agenda to argue for Lindros. Martin St. Louis (as I've noted on here a few times) is one of my favorite hockey players of all-time, and as personal favorites go, I much prefer him to Lindros. I have no personal investment in Lindros whatsoever. I've never particularly liked the guy, didn't cheer for him. Whereas I love St. Louis. But Lindros was the better player.

-- How many points one player would have had if time-machined to a past era is completely irrelevant to ranking the player.

Glad it's definitively settled that Crosby > Lindros, at least.

Crosby obviously ranks higher due to his enormously impressive consistency and his solid (if less than spectacular) playoff resume. But at their best, Lindros was probably better.

 

[ORHawksFan]

Ignoring Lindros's missed games for a minute (I'll get there), let's look at each forward's PPG finishes:

Lindros
1 (over Jagr 1995)
2 (slightly behind Lemieux, marginally ahead of Jagr 1997)
3 (behind Gretzky and slightly behind Neely; ahead of Fedorov 1994)
3 (behind Lemieux and Jagr 1996)
4 (behind Jagr and Selanne; marginally behind Sakic 1999)
4 (behind Jagr, Forsberg, Selanne; tied with Modano & Turgeon 1998)
9
9 (with NY Rangers 2002)

St. Louis
2 (behind Crosby; ahead of Stamkos, Kane, Ovechkin 2013)
3 (behind Forsberg; marginally behind M. Savard; marginally ahead of Lang & Tanguay 2004)
3 (behind Crosby & D. Sedin; marginally ahead of Perry 2011)
7
9


I think it should be clear that Lindros both (a) had the stiffer competition at the top and (b) was the superior scorer, overall.

In his top seasons, Lindros had 1 season where he was outscored by Gretzky, 2 seasons where he was outscored by Lemieux (one of those only marginally), and 4 where he was outscored by Jagr (and one where he outscored Jagr, but lost the Art Ross).

I would argue that Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr are each top-5 all-time forwards and each was a greater offensive player than Crosby, whom St. Louis finished behind twice.

___________________

Another issue is how many games Lindros missed. Some people tend to exaggerate it. He did consistently miss a lot of games, with only 1995 (short season), 1996, 1999, and 2002 being seasons in his prime where he appeared in almost all the games.

Yet in his first 7 NHL seasons, Lindros still appeared in 431 of 544 possible games. That's just shy of 80% of the games, and if you add in playoff games in that period he's well over 80%.

For comparison, in Crosby's first 7 NHL seasons, he appeared in 434 games -- a grand total of 3 more games than Lindros -- of 574 total. That's 75.6% of the games, quite a bit less than Lindros.

And yes, I'm aware that starting in 2013-14, Crosby's career takes a turn for the healthy and he ages well, etc., etc.

It just seems to be the case with Lindros that people here exaggerate his faults.

Choosing PPG is a bit of a cherrypick that favors Lindros and completely ignores his biggest weakness. In 3 or 4 of those years he had those high PPG he only played in 50 or 60 games!

I could easily counter with something like:

80+ point seasons
Lindros: 3
St. Louis: 6

I think we could agree that for Lindros, 95-96 (73 games, 115 points) is his best “full” season (though even then he still missed 9 games). If he had even a couple more seasons like that then yes he should be ranked much higher but he never again reached those heights. He came close one other year in 98-99 but he still played two less games and had 22 less points which is significant.

At his peak, when he was healthy, I agree Lindros was better, but in my opinion, his peak was too short and inconsistent and doesn’t overcome St. Louis’ longevity and consistency.

 

[K Fleur]

Lindros couldn’t adapt to survive his own era, I see no reason why he’d adapt to survive this one.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Lindros couldn’t adapt to survive his own era, I see no reason why he’d adapt to survive this one.

Less players suffer debilitating injury this era