The Great Debate(rehashed): Forsberg vs Lindros

[livewell68]

I agree. As stated in my post, Jagr was probably just as strong on his skates. And definitely better at playing "keep away".

I think this speaks to Lindros' IQ for the game. I think he was all brute force and talent but had he learned to better himself as a player, his potential was along the echelon of the "immortal 4".

He had all the tools to dominate and play keep away even better than Jagr.

To me Jagr was Kobe Bryant and Lindros was Lebron James, that's just my opinion though of course the NBA end result is different.

As for the Lindros vs Forsberg comparison, I think Lindros' absolute best was a slight bit better than Forsberg's absolute best.

These threads really make me miss the 90's, especially that 1995-96 season, you had Lemieux with 161 Pts, Jagr with 149 Pts, Sakic with 120 Pts, Francis with 119 Pts, Forsberg with 118 Pts and Lindros with 115 Pts (in 73 games) as he would have had 129 Pts had he played all 82 games.

I wish we had scoring levels similar to that or even talent similar to that nowadays.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think they are all competitive and Selanne's season was the best of the three.

Although he did have the benefit of being a little older and his season coming in the kind of flukey 92-93 year too.

Fair enough one could pick any of the 3 but the original quote called Selanne's "historical and unlike anything we have seen since from any player" which is untrue if we look at Sid and AO.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Fair enough one could pick any of the 3 but the original quote called Selanne's "historical and unlike anything we have seen since from any player" which is untrue if we look at Sid and AO.

Well... Selanne did have a top 10 all-time goal scoring season in his rookie year, while neither Sid nor AO came even close to such a thing. Ovechkin's 52 isn't even top 100. So instead of "untrue", maybe we should say "over-stated" (because of relative age, or whatever), or something else, because it's certainly not false.

People can poo-poo on '92/93 for scoring all they want, but I'll always maintain that the players responsible for inflating the scoring then were better than the players struggling to do the same at the top of the scoring charts now.

 

[Killion]

... oh, hello;

Guys, Im not seeing Selanne vs Crosby vs OV vs Lindros
vs Forsberg in the thread title.... Back on topic please.

 

[matnor]

Because both players were injured quite a lot, I think a better way than compare season to season is to compare them after the same amount of games. Using game-by-game data this can be done. The following graph shows the point evolution of both players from their first to last game:

As can be seen, they started out scoring at a similar pace, but after a while Lindros started pulling ahead with the greatest difference after around 400 games. Then Lindros' injury problems caught up to him and Forsberg passed him.

However, Lindros entered the NHL a couple of years before Forsberg when scoring was higher. So, a better idea would be to compare accumulated points adjusted for average scoring level (among the top 10 percent of scorers, 13/14 scoring level). In that case, we get the following result:

In that case we see a remarkable similarity between the two players where they scored at almost the exact same clip for the first 500 games of their careers. Given that Lindros' NHL career started at a younger age, you could argue that his scoring pace at the beginning of his career is more impressive than Forsberg's.

Finally, here's the result in table form:

Games | Forsberg pts | Lindros pts | Forsberg adj. pts | Lindros adj. pts
100 | 124 | 128 | 103 | 94
200 | 257 | 285 | 218 | 225
300 | 382 | 439 | 342 | 356
400 | 500 | 563 | 455 | 478
500 | 622 | 669 | 567 | 581
600 | 777 | 758 | 716 | 669
700 | 873 | 834 | 799 | 743

 

[matnor]

As for peak value, I think a stretch of 82 games is reasonable. Forsberg's best point stretch for 82 games was 128 points (or 127 adjusted points) from between December 6 in 2002 to February 14 in 2004 (if you include the lockout he actually has a slightly better stretch but I think that's kind of cheating). For Lindros, his best unadjusted stretch was 135 points from February 23 in 1995 to February 19 in 1996. However, because scoring was higher at that point, his best adjusted point stretch was 116 points from March 17 in 1996 to November 8 in 1997. Given these numbers, taking scoring level into account, I think it's possible to say that Forsberg scored at a higher rate than Lindros at his best. Of course, these are just scoring numbers, and there is much more than this to take into account when comparing the players.

 

[Tam O Shanter]

well done, Matnor. I like the adjusted graph, especially.

edit - as for me. I've only just now, for the first time, taken a look at Eric's playoff scoring. I really had no idea the team had so little success/Eric played so few games in the playoffs. His numbers look something like Ovechkin's. ie. They aren't bad, but they aren't outstanding, and there aren't as many games as I'd have hoped.

Interestingly, their playoff careers start in the same year, so one could look at raw numbers pretty easily, save that Forsberg's best years come after Lindros' last playoff game (ignoring 3 games in Dallas)

Taking longevity and team success, I think the only real choice is Forsberg. However, I don't care for the longevity argument very much, and am more interested in what kind of greatness a player peaked at.... although I consider a 'peak' to be impossible to numerically define in a season where everything went someone's way, and rather see a 'peak' as - 'that level where we expected someone to be at the time when we were watching, because he had shown that form repeatedly for enough seasons where we were no longer surprised'.

In that case - including Forsberg's superior team success, and larger playoff resume (and I don't fully buy into team success, but I do feel that Forsberg would be the teammate of the two who I'd rather have with me) I have an edge to Forsberg.

If I am to look at them as mathematical quantities, as names on paper with ratings out of 10 in several categories, ignoring my subjective views on personalities as teammates, well, then its really a wash. Matnor has shown that Lindros produced a sliver better while they were in the league together (before Lindros left his 'peak' anyhow) If I add in the points/game in playoffs, that likely becomes a tie, although I haven't done this. Then, really, I'm left with elite physical intimidation vs a very, very solid physical edge in favor of Lindros. On the other side, I see a very capable defensive center in Lindros vs a borderline elite defensive center in Forsberg. And I think the consensus over the years on here is that Forsberg wasn't, in fact, borderline elite defensively - but, I'll simply have to disagree. I just watched two Detroit-Colorado playoff games from 96-97 and was pleasantly reminded of just how hard he worked on the PK. In fact, I feel his and Sakic's numbers from 95-03 are reflections of their roles on the team. As Forsberg's offensive role increased, Sakic took more of his defensive role away. For the comparo - Lindros was more of a goal scorer, Forsberg was more of a playmaker, although Pete stepped up the scoring in the playoffs, while Eric's fell, to where they settle out pretty close in that regard.

I think its a case of which type of player one prefers, and that they shake out really evenly, if you ignore team success and longevity.

 

[tjcurrie]

Well... Selanne did have a top 10 all-time goal scoring season in his rookie year, while neither Sid nor AO came even close to such a thing. Ovechkin's 52 isn't even top 100. So instead of "untrue", maybe we should say "over-stated" (because of relative age, or whatever), or something else, because it's certainly not false.

People can poo-poo on '92/93 for scoring all they want, but I'll always maintain that the players responsible for inflating the scoring then were better than the players struggling to do the same at the top of the scoring charts now.

This absolutely has to be considered. We can't just adjust points and take it as gospel. It's unfair to the players who achieved the higher numbers.

That doesn't mean that I don't take era in to account. I do. But it's still far from an exact science to adjust numbers and there's merit to the bolded statement above.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This absolutely has to be considered. We can't just adjust points and take it as gospel. It's unfair to the players who achieved the higher numbers.

That doesn't mean that I don't take era in to account. I do. But it's still far from an exact science to adjust numbers and there's merit to the bolded statement above.

What is relevant is that Lindros was an incredible 9th as a rookie in Hart voting in 61 GP, compared to Selanne (who had an excellent goal scoring rookie season to be sure) but was still only 6th in Hart voting.

Foppa had the better career, much of the difference is in elite playoff play, but Lindros get under rated here at times.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What is relevant is that Lindros was an incredible 9th as a rookie in Hart voting in 61 GP, compared to Selanne (who had an excellent goal scoring rookie season to be sure) but was still only 6th in Hart voting.
.

The real story - out of 50 voters, 1 single (likely homer) writer threw a rookie Eric Lindros his third place vote. Since only 8 players received more than 1 vote, this technically made Lindros finish 9th. But who cares?

 

[NewAgeOutlaw]

Well... Selanne did have a top 10 all-time goal scoring season in his rookie year, while neither Sid nor AO came even close to such a thing. Ovechkin's 52 isn't even top 100. So instead of "untrue", maybe we should say "over-stated" (because of relative age, or whatever), or something else, because it's certainly not false.

People can poo-poo on '92/93 for scoring all they want, but I'll always maintain that the players responsible for inflating the scoring then were better than the players struggling to do the same at the top of the scoring charts now.

Do you think it's some great coincidence that most of the highest scoring seasons (and careers) came from players in the 80's thru about 96? Is Bernie Nichols really an all time great talent? Scoring was higher back then and that can't be entirely accounted for by a disparity in top end talent today compared to back then. Everybody was scoring more. Yes, the top-end talent level was better back then due to the presence of Gretzky and Lemieux. Aside from those two, was the top talent better then than now? No, it was not. There were simply two immortals who are above 99.999 percent of people who have ever played the sport. Really, look at some of the players who scored ridiculous totals in 92-93.

A list of some less-than-elite players who managed to score 100 points in 92-93.

Luc Robitaille (125)
Mark Recchi (123)
Mats Sudin (114)
Kevin Stevens (111)
Rick Tocchet (109)
Jeremy Roenick (107)
Craig Janney (106)
Joe Juneau (102)
Ron Francis (100)
Theoren Fleury (100)

Are we to believe that all of these guys are as good or better than the Stamkos/Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin contingent?

The answer is no, they were not, the league wide scoring was simply much higher back then.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The real story - out of 50 voters, 1 single (likely homer) writer threw a rookie Eric Lindros his third place vote. Since only 8 players received more than 1 vote, this technically made Lindros finish 9th. But who cares?

Okay sure the voting process can be really flawed at times but in terms of per game impact Lindros had an excellent rookie season and like most of his legacy it was largely affected by injuries.

Even taken the voting aside, we can probably agree that Lindros had a huge impact in his 61 GP and would have been in serious consideration for the ROY, even with Temmu's performance that year, had he stayed healthy.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

This is all kinda tangential, and I apologize for that, but:

Do you think it's some great coincidence that most of the highest scoring seasons (and careers) came from players in the 80's thru about 96?

No, I obviously don't think it's a coincidence.

Is Bernie Nichols really an all time great talent?

I saw him play with Jim Fox AND Wayne Gretzky. Seemed pretty decent at getting into, and capitalizing on, scoring opportunities to me. What did you think?

Scoring was higher back then and that can't be entirely accounted for by a disparity in top end talent today compared to back then. Everybody was scoring more. Yes, the top-end talent level was better back then due to the presence of Gretzky and Lemieux. Aside from those two, was the top talent better then than now? No, it was not. There were simply two immortals who are above 99.999 percent of people who have ever played the sport. Really, look at some of the players who scored ridiculous totals in 92-93.

Yes, let's.

A list of some less-than-elite players who managed to score 100 points in 92-93.

Luc Robitaille (125)
Mark Recchi (123)
Mats Sudin (114)
Kevin Stevens (111)
Rick Tocchet (109)
Jeremy Roenick (107)
Craig Janney (106)
Joe Juneau (102)
Ron Francis (100)
Theoren Fleury (100)

I'm not sure you've sat back and realized how many HoF'ers are either on that list of "less-than-elite players" or on their teams.

Are we to believe that all of these guys are as good or better than the Stamkos/Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin contingent?

"Better"? Without even defining that, it doesn't matter. The fact that you put a list of 4 current players up against a list of
10 from the previous era (that doesn't even include the "no-brainers" from Gretzky to Yzerman and Lemieux/Jagr) illustrates, if not proves, part of the point I'm making. Not only were the best then "better" than the best now, there were more of them.

The answer is no, they were not, the league wide scoring was simply much higher back then.

Yeah, it was "simply" much higher scoring back then. All that scoring happened at a time (early to mid '90s - not just '92/93) when Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, Belfour, Joseph, and Vanbiesbrouck (just to name a few) all played (and had some of their best seasons), but it was "simply" higher scoring...

 

[NewAgeOutlaw]

This is all kinda tangential, and I apologize for that, but:



No, I obviously don't think it's a coincidence.

Well that is just absurd. If you believe it to be likely that 95% of the most productive players in the history of hockey all had their careers in the 80's or early 90's because of some wealth of talent that the league couldn't match before or since I don't know what to tell you other that you don't understand probabilities very well.

I saw him play with Jim Fox AND Wayne Gretzky. Seemed pretty decent at getting into, and capitalizing on, scoring opportunities to me. What did you think?

No doubt. The difference is, when he was a excellent complimentary player, he scored 150 points in a season. No player today scores more than 120. A Bernie Nichols equivalent today is likely a 60-70 point player at best. If that doesn't display that scoring was higher back then for reasons beyond talent level then I guess you just can't be convinced.

Yes, let's.



I'm not sure you've sat back and realized how many HoF'ers are either on that list of "less-than-elite players" or on their teams.

I'm not saying they weren't great or even hof caliber players, but am I to believe that all of the most talented players in hockey history besides a select few were all born within roughly 10 years of each other? Do you realize how astronomically unlikely that is? I suppose Gordie Howe was trash because his career ppg is lower than several players from that era. Those players, while certainly great, were fortunate enough to play in an era were scoring was so abundant.

"Better"? Without even defining that, it doesn't matter. The fact that you put a list of 4 current players up against a list of
10 from the previous era (that doesn't even include the "no-brainers" from Gretzky to Yzerman and Lemieux/Jagr) illustrates, if not proves, part of the point I'm making. Not only were the best then "better" than the best now, there were more of them.

I only listed 4, but could have listed more. Disregarding Lemieux and Gretzky, was the top talent really that much better? Suppose I add Giroux, Getslaf, Kopitar, Toews, Kane, Hall... to my list which included the big 4 today. Would they really as a group be significantly less talented than a group highlighted by Jagr, Yzerman, Sakic...? I don't think there is a world of difference between the top players today and back then if you discount 66 and 99.

Yeah, it was "simply" much higher scoring back then. All that scoring happened at a time (early to mid '90s - not just '92/93) when Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, Belfour, Joseph, and Vanbiesbrouck (just to name a few) all played (and had some of their best seasons), but it was "simply" higher scoring...

First of all, I said the high scoring era lasted from the 80's through 95-96, so I very much did include the mid 90's in my arguments. Again, I'm not saying the goalies and defensive players were garbage back then. I'm simply saying scoring was so significantly higher that it would be tremendously unlikely for the difference in scoring to be due to a significantly higher talent level in the past. There are many other factors. First, goalie equipment was much heavier and not as large as it is today. Of course, there are better sticks too, but goaltending began to reach new heights as the pads got lighter. Second, in large part related to the first point, Patrick Roy and others popularized the butterfly technique, which cuts off more of the net than the traditional stand-up style.

Third, the commitment to team defense and the implementation of defensive systems had only really started to become popular with the Devils winning the cup in 1995. While there were great individual defenders, there was much less systematic defense as a team in the 80's and early/mid 90's. Finally, Mike Keenan began to popularize the short shifts way of playing hockey in the early 90's, it wasn't practiced league-wide until a few years later. This means that most players in the 80's through the mid 90's saw much more ice time in a season than the stars of today. Go back and watch a game from back then and tell me how long a first line center played in any given game. I would bet the average toi would be much closer to 25 minutes than the current 20 minutes. Over a season, that means many more points.

Believing that the above listed factors had no effect on the league wide scoring level is ignorant in my estimation. To convince me otherwise you would have to come up with a plausible explanation as to why 95% of the most productive players in the history of the sport played in one era if that phenomenon was truly due to their superior talent to those who played before and since. Good luck with that.

 

[The Panther]

Is Bernie Nichols really an all time great talent?

Based on my own watching of the game from 1986 to today, yes, he is. He is one of the most gifted (purely) offensive players I've ever seen. His stickhandling and passing were at elite levels, and in 1988-89 his shot was uncanny.

He was not, however, one of the great players ever. He was a poor skater, had absolutely no physical game, didn't check whatsoever, and wasn't known as a team leader or a particularly committed player. But he had absolutely elite-level offensive talent, better than say, Eric Lindros or Jonathan Toews.

Suggesting that Nicholls, when young and healthy, would have gotten only 65 points today is a little absurd. If you follow Hockey Reference's (sketchy) "adjusted points" standard, he had 124 points in 1989, 80 and 76 years before Gretzky arrived, and 94 the year he was traded away from L.A. Oh, and he supposedly had 88 points in 1995, the first 'dead-puck' season (he was with Chicago) -- that's more points than Gretzky that season, and Nicholls' coach was some nobody who probably couldn't get a job today named Darryl Sutter.

Finally, you're being too hard on Ohashi_Jouzu. He clearly stated that he knows it's not a coincidence that top-end players scored more in the past than today. He is not denying that it was relatively easier to score 100 points in 1986 or 1993 than today. He's simply saying that there were more offensively gifted high-end players then playing than there are now. I happen to agree.

 

[Plural]

Okay sure the voting process can be really flawed at times but in terms of per game impact Lindros had an excellent rookie season and like most of his legacy it was largely affected by injuries.

Even taken the voting aside, we can probably agree that Lindros had a huge impact in his 61 GP and would have been in serious consideration for the ROY, even with Temmu's performance that year, had he stayed healthy.

Definitely. I think Selanne would have won either way. But Lindros was great in those games. His 3rd place vote did skew the voting tough. You can't deny it.

 

[NewAgeOutlaw]

Based on my own watching of the game from 1986 to today, yes, he is. He is one of the most gifted (purely) offensive players I've ever seen. His stickhandling and passing were at elite levels, and in 1988-89 his shot was uncanny.

He was not, however, one of the great players ever. He was a poor skater, had absolutely no physical game, didn't check whatsoever, and wasn't known as a team leader or a particularly committed player. But he had absolutely elite-level offensive talent, better than say, Eric Lindros or Jonathan Toews.

Suggesting that Nicholls, when young and healthy, would have gotten only 65 points today is a little absurd. If you follow Hockey Reference's (sketchy) "adjusted points" standard, he had 124 points in 1989, 80 and 76 years before Gretzky arrived, and 94 the year he was traded away from L.A. Oh, and he supposedly had 88 points in 1995, the first 'dead-puck' season (he was with Chicago) -- that's more points than Gretzky that season, and Nicholls' coach was some nobody who probably couldn't get a job today named Darryl Sutter.

Finally, you're being too hard on Ohashi_Jouzu. He clearly stated that he knows it's not a coincidence that top-end players scored more in the past than today. He is not denying that it was relatively easier to score 100 points in 1986 or 1993 than today. He's simply saying that there were more offensively gifted high-end players then playing than there are now. I happen to agree.

But you see, he does not think it was easier to score back then. His original argument was that Selanne's rookie season was so much better than any we've seen since. Including Crosby and Ovechkin's 100 plus point rookie seasons. He specifically said Ovechkin's 52 goals wasn't even a top 100 goal scoring season while completely ignoring the fact that it was easier to score goals in Selanne's rookie season. I'm not saying Ovie or Sid's rookie seasons were better than Selanne's, but there is certainly a fair debate to be had.

Him saying the higher scoring was not a coincidence was him admitting that he thinks the higher scoring was due to most of the top scorers in history were born within 10 or 15 years of each other. While I also happen to agree that there was better top talent at the time (mostly due to 66 and 99), I refuse to believe that the league wide talent was so much better that the average goals/game was several goals higher. Are we really to believe that the top players today are Mark Recchi and Dino Ciccarelli's equivalents in the 80's-mid 90's. You also go along with the mis-conception that the dpe started in 95 when scoring levels suggest it actually started in 96-97.

 

[The Panther]

But you see, he does not think it was easier to score back then.

Yes, he does. He said as much.

Him saying the higher scoring was not a coincidence ...

He specifically wrote that he is aware that it is NOT a coincidence.

You also go along with the mis-conception that the dpe started in 95 when scoring levels suggest it actually started in 96-97.

Obviously it's debatable; there's no magic moment when an era is switched on. In my view, the short 1995 season was the first DP-season (scoring was WAY down), and then 1995-96 was the last hurrah of semi-firewagon hockey.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

But you see, he does not think it was easier to score back then. His original argument was that Selanne's rookie season was so much better than any we've seen since.

Uh, no it wasn't. Someone referred to Selanne's rookie year as "historical", and I simply reinforced how that was the case. Absolutely nothing about "so much better", or whatever strawman is under construction here.

Including Crosby and Ovechkin's 100 plus point rookie seasons. He specifically said Ovechkin's 52 goals wasn't even a top 100 goal scoring season while completely ignoring the fact that it was easier to score goals in Selanne's rookie season. I'm not saying Ovie or Sid's rookie seasons were better than Selanne's, but there is certainly a fair debate to be had.

Him saying the higher scoring was not a coincidence was him admitting that he thinks the higher scoring was due to most of the top scorers in history were born within 10 or 15 years of each other. While I also happen to agree that there was better top talent at the time (mostly due to 66 and 99), I refuse to believe that the league wide talent was so much better that the average goals/game was several goals higher. Are we really to believe that the top players today are Mark Recchi and Dino Ciccarelli's equivalents in the 80's-mid 90's. You also go along with the mis-conception that the dpe started in 95 when scoring levels suggest it actually started in 96-97.

Again "most" of the top scorers in history, and "so much better"? More of the very best of them in that 10-15 year period than perhaps most (if not all) 10-15 year periods you could isolate out of history? Maybe. Heck, probably. Pretty sure the quality and/or abundance of scorers are but two factors among many contributing to the "several goals" difference on average, though. We haven't even mentioned names like Hull or Kariya so far, btw.

And you needn't be so tight about the DPE thing. Scoring dropped from an average of 271 to a pace of 244 in the '94/95 lockout year, which seems to become a neglected asterisk I guess, and only rebounded to 256 in '95/96. The drop to an average of 239 in '96/97 represents almost the exact same drop in scoring as that from '93/94 to '95/96, and the drop from '93/94 to '94/95 was still the biggest drop in abundance of them all. Dude put it in quotes, so... whatever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Definitely. I think Selanne would have won either way. But Lindros was great in those games. His 3rd place vote did skew the voting tough. You can't deny it.

The third place vote didn't "skew" the voting; it was every vote he got (on a three name ballot). Why are we even talking about it?

 

[Plural]

The third place vote didn't "skew" the voting; it was every vote he got (on a three name ballot). Why are we even talking about it?

That was my point.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

As for peak value, I think a stretch of 82 games is reasonable. Forsberg's best point stretch for 82 games was 128 points (or 127 adjusted points) from between December 6 in 2002 to February 14 in 2004 (if you include the lockout he actually has a slightly better stretch but I think that's kind of cheating). For Lindros, his best unadjusted stretch was 135 points from February 23 in 1995 to February 19 in 1996. However, because scoring was higher at that point, his best adjusted point stretch was 116 points from March 17 in 1996 to November 8 in 1997. Given these numbers, taking scoring level into account, I think it's possible to say that Forsberg scored at a higher rate than Lindros at his best. Of course, these are just scoring numbers, and there is much more than this to take into account when comparing the players.

Just found this, and thought I'd flesh out Lindros "at his best" a bit more for everyone. For almost a 300 game sample (i.e. Lindros' first 297 games in the league), which is surely more "significant" than any 82 game sample, he was simultaneously:

- 2nd in PPG to only Mario Lemieux
- 2nd in GPG to only Mario (ahead of Selanne, Hull, Mogilny, Bure, etc)
- 8th in APG, ahead of Yzerman, Gilmour, Sakic, Coffey, Messier, Janney, Bourque, etc.
- Just as prolific of a shooter (in terms of shots/game) as goal scoring power forwards like Andreychuk, Graves, and Stevens.
- 3rd in shooting percentage behind Lemieux (and Kovalenko, lol)
- 2nd in +/- to only Sergei Fedorov
- Still 8th overall in PIM despite having the equivalent of about a season, partially thanks to "stepping into the ring" something like 35 times over that time frame (dropthegloves has his record in those fights as something ridiculous like 23W-1L-1T when a "decision" could be rendered)

There's no 82 game sample out there - stapled together or not - that could convince me to take Forsberg over a guy who entered the league like that as a teenager.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just found this, and thought I'd flesh out Lindros "at his best" a bit more for everyone. For almost a 300 game sample (i.e. Lindros' first 297 games in the league), which is surely more "significant" than any 82 game sample, he was simultaneously:

- 2nd in PPG to only Mario Lemieux
- 2nd in GPG to only Mario (ahead of Selanne, Hull, Mogilny, Bure, etc)
- 8th in APG, ahead of Yzerman, Gilmour, Sakic, Coffey, Messier, Janney, Bourque, etc.
- Just as prolific of a shooter (in terms of shots/game) as goal scoring power forwards like Andreychuk, Graves, and Stevens.
- 3rd in shooting percentage behind Lemieux (and Kovalenko, lol)
- 2nd in +/- to only Sergei Fedorov
- Still 8th overall in PIM despite having the equivalent of about a season, partially thanks to "stepping into the ring" something like 35 times over that time frame (dropthegloves has his record in those fights as something ridiculous like 23W-1L-1T when a "decision" could be rendered)

There's no 82 game sample out there - stapled together or not - that could convince me to take Forsberg over a guy who entered the league like that as a teenager.

matnor already provided the numbers adjusted for era. what's the point of then posted them unadjusted? Lindros was a rookie in 92-93, the easiest year in history for first liners to put up points (yes, easier than the 1980s when the points were more spread out).

 

[Rhiessan71]

matnor already provided the numbers adjusted for era. what's the point of then posted them unadjusted? Lindros was a rookie in 92-93, the easiest year in history for first liners to put up points (yes, easier than the 1980s when the points were more spread out).

He didn't post them un-adjusted, he posted Lindros' relation to scoring finishes and the players he finished against.

Valid point IMO.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

He didn't post them un-adjusted, he posted Lindros' relation to scoring finishes and the players he finished against.

Valid point IMO.

Exactly. All stats for everyone were from '92/93 to '96/97, i.e. at the exact same "era". The 23W-1L-1T fight record needs no adjusting.