Better hockey player: Lindros or Forsberg? [not career accomplishments]

[Stephen]

You say he "changed the landscape of the Eastern Conference", so teams started drafting "big and skilled"...as though that wasn't always what teams have ultimately coveted. It's that sort of editorializing and viewing Lindros' legacy through the tint of his "hype" as a game-changing prospect, that makes Lindros so overrated imo.

Teams didn't just start drafting big and skilled players because Lindros came along. They just kept drafting them, because that was always kinda the holy grail. Lindros just happened to be a prospect who was made like the "prototype" in that mold.

The reality was, he was a great player when he was healthy. Saying Forsberg was better, and better lived up to the hype of what Lindros was supposed to be...isn't really an egregious sleight on Lindros. It's comparing him to an even better "great".

Again, Forsberg achieved more success in his own career than Lindros and won championships, but really has nothing to do with achieving what Lindros was supposed to be. That's a conclusion that only someone who didn't watch the early part of Lindros' career could come to.

The Eastern Conference was absolutely shaped by Eric Lindros. Look at the distribution of bigger aggressive players, physical teams and the difference between the East and West in the mid 90s. There was a very real physical arms race that was going on at that time in that conference that was happening, and you could easily look at the disproportionate distribution of faster, more skilled players out West than in the East.

 

[Stephen]

I get that some fans want to buy into the idea that we are on an ever progressing curve towards more skill, more speed and previous eras were full of knuckle dragging bruisers. I understand people look at Peter Forsberg's beautiful mechanics and they see someone more next generation than Eric Lindros with his head down, playing his power game, whatever. They want to look at McDavid's recent dominance and they start pointing to that as the benchmark for what a super hyped franchise center should be doing. But let's just take a look at real production over a similar time frame up to where McDavid is currently at:

Between 1992-93 and 1997-98, Eric Lindros scored:

360 GP 223 G 284 A 507 PTS 1.41 PPG

Between 2014-15 and 2019-20, Connor McDavid scored:

351 GP 162 G 307 A 469 PTS 1.34 PPG

Between 2005-06 and 2009-10, Sidney Crosby scored:

371 GP 183 G 323 A 506 PTS 1.36 PPG

Eric Lindros was absolutely that special and was on a very high trajectory before injuries basically wiped him out.

 

[Ben White]

I get that some fans want to buy into the idea that we are on an ever progressing curve towards more skill, more speed and previous eras were full of knuckle dragging bruisers. I understand people look at Peter Forsberg's beautiful mechanics and they see someone more next generation than Eric Lindros with his head down, playing his power game, whatever. They want to look at McDavid's recent dominance and they start pointing to that as the benchmark for what a super hyped franchise center should be doing. But let's just take a look at real production over a similar time frame up to where McDavid is currently at:

Between 1992-93 and 1997-98, Eric Lindros scored:

360 GP 223 G 284 A 507 PTS 1.41 PPG

Between 2014-15 and 2019-20, Connor McDavid scored:

351 GP 162 G 307 A 469 PTS 1.34 PPG

Between 2005-06 and 2009-10, Sidney Crosby scored:

371 GP 183 G 323 A 506 PTS 1.36 PPG

Eric Lindros was absolutely that special and was on a very high trajectory before injuries basically wiped him out.

Between ’92 and ‘96 was a higher scoring era though. The real DP era didn’t occur until the 96-97 season.

 

[Ben White]

Physical beast + two of the slickest hands ever. (Some rare clips there)

 

[Hattrickkane88]

Against smaller and lesser defenders? Lindros

Against big and skilled defenders? Forsburg

 

[Stephen]

Between ’92 and ‘96 was a higher scoring era though. The real DP era didn’t occur until the 96-97 season.

Neither McDavid or Crosby played in the Dead Puck era either.

 

[Ben White]

Neither McDavid or Crosby played in the Dead Puck era either.

At least in 92/93 and 93/94 the scoring was higher than in any Crosby/McDavid year.

 

[Admiral Awesome]

Tough call. Each one had a period of their career where they were widely considered the best player in the world.

 

[Captain Controversy]

Which player had better numbers and accomplishments ?
Forsberg? Shocker.

 

[Fig]

Which player had better numbers and accomplishments ?
Forsberg? Shocker.

Depends on how you look at the overall data.

Forsberg's probably would fit nicely on a bell curve if you looked at his stats from a year to year in chronological order. (Lower standard deviations)
Lindros' was basically a skew curve in chronological order. (Higher peak and lower lows or higher standard deviations from his mode)

Forberg had the higher median.
Lindros the higher max and min and probably mode.

Lots of posters are eyeballing median data and then posting in this thread. A few of us are arguing that mode and max are the better statistical view of the players prior to posting in this thread.

 

[Captain Controversy]

Depends on how you look at the overall data.

Forsberg's probably would fit nicely on a bell curve if you looked at his stats from a year to year in chronological order. (Lower standard deviations)
Lindros' was basically a skew curve in chronological order. (Higher peak and lower lows or higher standard deviations from his mode)

Forberg had the higher median.
Lindros the higher max and min and probably mode.

Lots of posters are eyeballing median data and then posting in this thread. A few of us are arguing that mode and max are the better statistical view of the players prior to posting in this thread.

Ok so taking into consideration only the ability to produce points.
Not taking into consideration longevity, playstyle or accomplishments. It's still Forsberg. He was much more skilled than Lindros. Forsberg was better at putting up points.

 

[Fig]

Ok so taking into consideration only the ability to produce points.
Not taking into consideration longevity, playstyle or accomplishments. It's still Forsberg. He was much more skilled than Lindros. Forsberg was better at putting up points.

Umm, not quite.

Lindros had 4 seasons in a row early in his career with 1.49 PPG or higher per season. (higher peak in putting up points snapshot)
Forsberg over any 4 seasons in a row would likely be between 1.2 to 1.4 PPG per season. (lower peak in putting up points snapshot)

Lindros had an overall career PPG around 1.0 ish. (Arguable he stuck around longer than he should have)
Forsberg had an overall career PPG around 1.2 ish. (Arguable he left at the perfect time, and/or better overall player)

 

[Captain Controversy]

Umm, not quite.

Lindros had 4 seasons in a row early in his career with 1.49 PPG or higher per season. (higher peak in putting up points snapshot)
Forsberg over any 4 seasons in a row would likely be between 1.2 to 1.4 PPG per season. (lower peak in putting up points snapshot)

Lindros had an overall career PPG around 1.0 ish. (Arguable he stuck around longer than he should have)
Forsberg had an overall career PPG around 1.2 ish. (Arguable he left at the perfect time, and/or better overall player)

In this discussion, you cannot prorate. Because if you are doing so, then you must take into account injuries and longevity.
Playing 40 or 60 games in a season and assuming he would keep at the same pace for a 82 games cannot be accounted for because he could have gone cold and not scored 1 more point in the last 30 games.

Forsberg put up more points.

 

[Fig]

In this discussion, you cannot prorate. Because if you are doing so, then you must take into account injuries and longevity.
Playing 40 or 60 games in a season and assuming he would keep at the same pace for a 82 games cannot be accounted for because he could have gone cold and not scored 1 more point in the last 30 games.

Forsberg put up more points.

I'm not exactly prorating though... I am however trying to match the lingo to that of others in the thread and I'm arguing that many are likely not looking at the raw data in isolation but instead lazily lumping career numbers together. I get your point about pace, but if you look at the raw data below, it's actually surprisingly comparable for the first few seasons which reduces the effect of that noise. There's raw data below that shows that it's relatively comparable.

Both players born 1973

Lindros vs Forsberg per data in Wiki:

1992
GP 61 vs NIL
P 75 vs NIL
PPG 1.23 vs NIL

1993
GP 65 vs NIL
P 97 vs NIL
PPG 1.49 vs NIL

1994
GP 46 vs 47
P 70 vs 50
PPG 1.52 vs 1.06

1995
GP 73 vs 82
P 115 vs 116
PPG 1.58 vs 1.41

1996
GP 52 vs 65
P 79 vs 86
PPG 1.52 vs 1.32

1997
GP 63 vs 72
P 71 vs 91
PPG 1.13 vs 1.26

1998
GP 71 vs 78
P 93 vs 97
PPG 1.31 vs 1.24

1999
GP 55 vs 49
P 59 vs 51
PPG 1.07 vs 1.04


Lindros and Forsberg's worst season are coincidentally in the same year:

2006
GP 49 vs 57
P 26 vs 55
PPG 0.53 vs 0.96

Lindros' second worst season:

2002
GP 81 vs 75
P 53 vs 106
PPG 0.65 vs 1.41

Highest points in a single season is coincidentally both in 1995:

115 vs 116


GP isn't a measure of when the player was healthiest. But in 1993-1996 which was Lindros' peak, Lindros was dominating Forsberg on the PPG rate with relatively similar games played. You can re-run the numbers for Forsberg's peak if you don't believe me (which was around 2002-2006 and coincidentally has similar ratios to his 1995-1998 campaigns) and he ranged between 1.42 and 1.25 PPG vs Lindros was sub PPG during that same period with a low of 0.53 PPG. Again, I think the GP was similar for both guys for each season.

 

[Ben White]

I'm not exactly prorating though... I am however trying to match the lingo to that of others in the thread and I'm arguing that many are likely not looking at the raw data in isolation but instead lazily lumping career numbers together. I get your point about pace, but if you look at the raw data below, it's actually surprisingly comparable for the first few seasons which reduces the effect of that noise. There's raw data below that shows that it's relatively comparable.

Both players born 1973

Lindros vs Forsberg per data in Wiki:

1992
GP 61 vs NIL
P 75 vs NIL
PPG 1.23 vs NIL

1993
GP 65 vs NIL
P 97 vs NIL
PPG 1.49 vs NIL

1994
GP 46 vs 47
P 70 vs 50
PPG 1.52 vs 1.06

1995
GP 73 vs 82
P 115 vs 116
PPG 1.58 vs 1.41

1996
GP 52 vs 65
P 79 vs 86
PPG 1.52 vs 1.32

1997
GP 63 vs 72
P 71 vs 91
PPG 1.13 vs 1.26

1998
GP 71 vs 78
P 93 vs 97
PPG 1.31 vs 1.24

1999
GP 55 vs 49
P 59 vs 51
PPG 1.07 vs 1.04


Lindros and Forsberg's worst season are coincidentally in the same year:

2006
GP 49 vs 57
P 26 vs 55
PPG 0.53 vs 0.96

Lindros' second worst season:

2002
GP 81 vs 75
P 53 vs 106
PPG 0.65 vs 1.41

Highest points in a single season is coincidentally both in 1995:

115 vs 116


GP isn't a measure of when the player was healthiest. But in 1993-1996 which was Lindros' peak, Lindros was dominating Forsberg on the PPG rate with relatively similar games played. You can re-run the numbers for Forsberg's peak if you don't believe me (which was around 2002-2006 and coincidentally has similar ratios to his 1995-1998 campaigns) and he ranged between 1.42 and 1.25 PPG vs Lindros was sub PPG during that same period with a low of 0.53 PPG. Again, I think the GP was similar for both guys for each season.

you do understand you need to era adjust the numbers between 93-96?

 

[Ben White]

Forsberg’s prime was right in the DPE, started at 96/97 and ended 03/04, same time as the start an finish as the dead puck era. That’s why his adjusted ppg are as high as 4th all time. Even without era adjustment his ppg ranks 8th all time. I’d love anyone who’d bother doing an all time era adjustes ppg list for PRIME for every player that has more than 1,0 ppg for their career. I promise you Forsberg would still rank very high and we could finally put an end to the “Forsberg’s inflated ppg due to shortened career” argument you hear all the time.

 

[Video Nasty]

Forsberg’s prime was right in the DPE, started at 96/97 and ended 03/04, same time as the start an finish as the dead puck era. That’s why his adjusted ppg are as high as 4th all time. Even without era adjustment his ppg ranks 8th all time. I’d love anyone who’d bother doing an all time era adjustes ppg list for PRIME for every player that has more than 1,0 ppg for their career. I promise you Forsberg would still rank very high and we could finally put an end to the “Forsberg’s inflated ppg due to shortened career” argument you hear all the time.

You care way too much about career PPG, especially when it comes to these guys with shorter careers.

Once upon a time, someone like Jagr had a PPG that was much higher than Forsberg‘s.

He had 941 points through 708 career games compared to Forsberg’s 885. 1.33 vs 1.25. He even increased it during his final year in Pittsburgh with 121 in 81 games.

He was 5th in PPG all time when he was 1000 games deep into his NHL career. He ended up playing over a 1000 more games than Forsberg and here he sits at 25th time, with Ovechkin soon to fall back below him likely for good.

Project out something semi-reasonable like Forsberg somehow playing an additional 400 games in his career and putting up another 400 points. His PPG would fall down to 1.159, still great, but it would knock him down into tie for 15th all time with Yzerman who would still have 400 extra games dragging his PPG (and in real life he played 800 more games).

Orr and Lemieux get passes because even though they retired early/missed tons of time, they still were talents Forsberg could only dream of being, ripped the league apart and racked up tons of individual hardware despite missing all that time.

To close, your stance on higher and lower scoring eras, unadjusted/adjusted points are fine, but you’re being a little disingenuous by acting like Forsberg played an insane amount of games in a low scoring time period. He played about 300 games in the 4 out of 6 seasons between 1997-1998 through 2003-2004 (he missed the entirety of 2001-2002 so he didn’t play one of these low scoring years) that qualify as the DPE with scoring below 5.4 total.

Forsberg was a great player and yes, we all wish he could have been healthier. But he didn’t exactly demolish the league like others who missed just as much or more time. It’s also ridiculous to not recognize that his PPG would only drop with more time played. A pretend whole other career of 708 additional games a fair 1.0 ppg clip puts him knocking on the door of falling out of the top 20.

 

[Fig]

you do understand you need to era adjust the numbers between 93-96?

Why is era adjusting required when both players played that season?

 

[daver]

Why people don't automatically compare players point and PPG finishes rather than their raw numbers escapes me.

Lindros was producing at a higher level, relative to the league, at an earlier stage of his career. That is inarguable. Their peak production (Forsberg in 02/03 to 03/04 vs. Lindros from 94/95 thru to 96/97) is similar but the edge has to go to Lindros for doing it over one more season.

I do think Forsberg's playoff performances close the offensive gap to a certain extent but then consideration for the relative strength of their teams needs to be considered too.

I am not against the premise that Forsberg had more of a killer instinct than Lindros similar to Crosby and OV.

 

[psycat]

You care way too much about career PPG, especially when it comes to these guys with shorter careers.

Once upon a time, someone like Jagr had a PPG that was much higher than Forsberg‘s.

He had 941 points through 708 career games compared to Forsberg’s 885. 1.33 vs 1.25. He even increased it during his final year in Pittsburgh with 121 in 81 games.

He was 5th in PPG all time when he was 1000 games deep into his NHL career. He ended up playing over a 1000 more games than Forsberg and here he sits at 25th time, with Ovechkin soon to fall back below him likely for good.

Project out something semi-reasonable like Forsberg somehow playing an additional 400 games in his career and putting up another 400 points. His PPG would fall down to 1.159, still great, but it would knock him down into tie for 15th all time with Yzerman who would still have 400 extra games dragging his PPG (and in real life he played 800 more games).

Orr and Lemieux get passes because even though they retired early/missed tons of time, they still were talents Forsberg could only dream of being, ripped the league apart and racked up tons of individual hardware despite missing all that time.

To close, your stance on higher and lower scoring eras, unadjusted/adjusted points are fine, but you’re being a little disingenuous by acting like Forsberg played an insane amount of games in a low scoring time period. He played about 300 games in the 4 out of 6 seasons between 1997-1998 through 2003-2004 (he missed the entirety of 2001-2002 so he didn’t play one of these low scoring years) that qualify as the DPE with scoring below 5.4 total.

Forsberg was a great player and yes, we all wish he could have been healthier. But he didn’t exactly demolish the league like others who missed just as much or more time. It’s also ridiculous to not recognize that his PPG would only drop with more time played. A pretend whole other career of 708 additional games a fair 1.0 ppg clip puts him knocking on the door of falling out of the top 20.

But everyone acknowledge that Jagr was a better offensive player than Forsberg right? I mean except the odd contrarian that nobody takes seriously.

 

[Ben White]

Why is era adjusting required when both players played that season?

Why not compare Forsberg in 98 to Gretzky in 98 when they both played? Oh Damn Forsberg > Gretz. Lindros entered the league two years prior to Forsberg and entered his prime in the shortened 94/95 season. Forsberg entered his prime in the 96/97 season. The 95/96 season was Forsberg’s first full season in the NHL so hardly his prime. What also makes the 93/94 - 95/96 span unfair is the fact that scoring was way up in 93/94 and Forsberg didn’t even play that season so just weird to include that. Instead you could use that span for Lindros if you want to, era adjust the numbers and compare it to Forsberg’s peak. Then we’re actually getting somewhere instead of both sides just cherry picking the **** out of the thread.

 

[Fig]

Why not compare Forsberg in 98 to Gretzky in 98 when they both played? Oh Damn Forsberg > Gretz. Lindros entered the league two years prior to Forsberg and entered his prime in the shortened 94/95 season. Forsberg entered his prime in the 96/97 season. The 95/96 season was Forsberg’s first full season in the NHL so hardly his prime. What also makes the 93/94 - 95/96 span unfair is the fact that scoring was way up in 93/94 and Forsberg didn’t even play that season so just weird to include that. Instead you could use that span for Lindros if you want to, era adjust the numbers and compare it to Forsberg’s peak. Then we’re actually getting somewhere instead of both sides just cherry picking the **** out of the thread.

Eric Lindros and Peter Forsberg were born in the same year (1973). Gretzky was born 12 years earlier. The 12 year age difference is typically why era adjusting is required. It isn't required for the two players born in the same year and played at the same time.

Era adjusting two players who played at the same time and are the same age doesn't make sense.

 

[Ben White]

Eric Lindros and Peter Forsberg were born in the same year (1973). Gretzky was born 12 years earlier. The 12 year age difference is typically why era adjusting is required. It isn't required for the two players born in the same year and played at the same time.

Era adjusting two players who played at the same time and are the same age doesn't make sense.

Did I ask you to “era adjust the players”? No, I asked you to era adjust Lindros’ peak years (which happened to be in a higher scoring environment) vs Forsberg’s peak years (which happened to be lower) if you wanna do this peak vs peak ppg comparison. Or do you seriously think you can pick Lindros 3 years peak and just compare it to what Forsberg happened to do over this 3 year span where he played one and a half season (his rookie season and second, first full season), this is just ridiculous. I’m out.

 

[Samsquanch]

Anybody who deosnt say Lindros probably didnt get to watch him in his prime enough imo.

I dont think they know how much this guy literally terrorized the opposing teams and tilted the ice, he literally put fear and dread into the hearts of the guys forced to match up against him every night, and was next to impossible to contain (and to walk away without getting banged up).

Relatively speaking between hockey and basketball, he was like the Lebron of hockey. He was just so much stronger and athletically gifted than everyone else, while simultaneously being among the most skilled and talented in the league.

Forberg could hang with the very best as well, and at times may have come out on top with his peers. And I like his career better.

But ask me who the perfect hockey player was at their absolute peak for say 1 season (and assume perfect conditions for linemates and coaching systems, ect) between Gretzky, Lemieux, or Lindros, Lindros might not even be #3 on that list. Thats saying something.

If Lindros was a bit more super human and could continue playing that ferocious and violent blend of punishment and skill for 20 seasons, he probably would be the GOAT.

 

[Ben White]

Anybody who deosnt say Lindros probably didnt get to watch him in his prime enough imo.

I dont think they know how much this guy literally terrorized the opposing teams and tilted the ice, he literally put fear and dread into the hearts of the guys forced to match up against him every night, and was next to impossible to contain (and to walk away without getting banged up).

Relatively speaking between hockey and basketball, he was like the Lebron of hockey. He was just so much stronger and athletically gifted than everyone else, while simultaneously being among the most skilled and talented in the league.

Forberg could hang with the very best as well, and at times may have come out on top with his peers. And I like his career better.

But ask me who the perfect hockey player was at their absolute peak for say 1 season (and assume perfect conditions for linemates and coaching systems, ect) between Gretzky, Lemieux, or Lindros, Lindros might not even be #3 on that list. Thats saying something.

If Lindros was a bit more super human and could continue playing that ferocious and violent blend of punishment and skill for 20 seasons, he probably would be the GOAT.

This could very much be said about peak Forsberg as well. However Lindros had the slight physical advantage off course due to size.