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

[Fig]

There is a facet to Eric Lindros' game that is always kinda in the back of my mind. Eric Lindros could one handed smack a puck with enough force that it would qualify as a decent shot. It's not as sneaky scary as Crosby's backhand per se, but it wasn't completely uncommon either.

Lindros was a prototypical perfect NHL player, but he also had abilities and facets to his game in a package that exceptionally rare to the point he was and still is generation level unique (albeit his abilities constantly get minimized). He wasn't just a big rough and tumble guy with hockey skill and surprising speed he actually had the ability to think outside of the box. If he had played to his full potential, I am actually curious if one handed shots would have become a little more popular.

Foppa wasn't generational unique, but he sure took a style that wasn't uncommon and did a damn good job at executing and making it his own over the course of his career.

 

[FerrisRox]

I take Forsberg over Lindros.

 

[newfy]

Forsberg increased his goalscoring noticeably in the playoffs.

During Lindros' playoff peak, Forsberg was as good a goalscorer. NHL.com Stats

Lindros barely has any playoff runs to go off of though and the playoffs are a small sample as well especially when Forsberg played on the second best team in the league at the time and has a tonne of playoff runs to go off of. Either way though, Forsbergs game definitely elevated in the playoffs and thats hard to ignore. He still only has one playoff run where he scored double digit goals though and Lindros is 97 was better than any Forsberg run goal scoring wise.

Its just really hard to compare them in the playoffs due to their teams and the sample size. Theres an argument that Lindros in 97 is the best playoff run of the bunch for sure. But then you only have his first time in the playoffs and another deep playoff run to go off of basically. Compare that with Forsberg essentially never missing the playoffs and going deep the majority of the time, its just really hard to compare. Using full regular seasons makes a lot more sense with these guys given the difference in sample sizes and its really not close for scoring in the regular season.

 

[daver]

Lindros barely has any playoff runs to go off of though and the playoffs are a small sample as well especially when Forsberg played on the second best team in the league at the time and has a tonne of playoff runs to go off of. Either way though, Forsbergs game definitely elevated in the playoffs and thats hard to ignore. He still only has one playoff run where he scored double digit goals though and Lindros is 97 was better than any Forsberg run goal scoring wise.

Its just really hard to compare them in the playoffs due to their teams and the sample size. Theres an argument that Lindros in 97 is the best playoff run of the bunch for sure. But then you only have his first time in the playoffs and another deep playoff run to go off of basically. Compare that with Forsberg essentially never missing the playoffs and going deep the majority of the time, its just really hard to compare. Using full regular seasons makes a lot more sense with these guys given the difference in sample sizes and its really not close for scoring in the regular season.

The point was trying to paint Forsberg as a "playmaker" like Sedin, Oates or Thornton is a false narrative. Of course you are overvaluing goals vs. assists too.

I do think that Lindros hit a higher level offensively earlier than Forsberg in the regular season but Forsberg's playoffs closes that gap. It's very close.

 

[newfy]

The point was trying to paint Forsberg as a "playmaker" like Sedin, Oates or Thornton is a false narrative. Of course you are overvaluing goals vs. assists too.

I do think that Lindros hit a higher level offensively earlier than Forsberg in the regular season but Forsberg's playoffs closes that gap. It's very close.

Hes actually not that far off from those guys though, Forsberg is a better goal scorer but not by all that much. I'm not going to use 20 game samples where he scores 7 or 8 goals as some big sample that changes the narrative of how he was in the regular season.

Using Forsbergs playoffs to close the gap is completely unfair to Lindros when the gap was pretty ridiculous over the course of 82 game seasons. Lindros has 2 playoff runs where he made it out of the second round and thats not his fault. And one of those playoff runs was as good or better than any Forsberg playoff run, 2 of the other ones were very good playoff runs.

My main point I'm getting too though is basically, if you take Lindros's 3 best playoff runs in a row (which is really all he has for a sample) and compare them with any 3 Forsberg playoff runs in a row, Lindros compares extremely well (probably better to be honest). Like lets say 2000, 01 and 02 for Forsberg is his best run of 3 in a row... He had 56 points in 47 games (20 goals) and Lindros' run was 53 points in 43 games (22 goals). Thats a 1.19 points per game vs 1.23 points per game in favour of Lindros. Over a whole season the goal difference would be 35 goals vs 42 goals.

Now Forsberg obviously did it consistently and more but Lindros' 3 year peak and only sample we have of him in the playoffs was as good or better than any 3 years of Forsbergs. Thats the only sample we have of Lindros though. So its completely unfair to say Forsbergs playoffs are somehow what put him over the edge in this comparison. Lindros was legit as hell in the playoffs too, he just wasnt on a stacked team his entire career to allow him to have a chance at all those playoff runs Forsberg had.

 

[daver]

Hes actually not that far off from those guys though, Forsberg is a better goal scorer but not by all that much. I'm not going to use 20 game samples where he scores 7 or 8 goals as some big sample that changes the narrative of how he was in the regular season.

Using Forsbergs playoffs to close the gap is completely unfair to Lindros when the gap was pretty ridiculous over the course of 82 game seasons. Lindros has 2 playoff runs where he made it out of the second round and thats not his fault. And one of those playoff runs was as good or better than any Forsberg playoff run, 2 of the other ones were very good playoff runs.

My main point I'm getting too though is basically, if you take Lindros's 3 best playoff runs in a row (which is really all he has for a sample) and compare them with any 3 Forsberg playoff runs in a row, Lindros compares extremely well (probably better to be honest). Like lets say 2000, 01 and 02 for Forsberg is his best run of 3 in a row... He had 56 points in 47 games (20 goals) and Lindros' run was 53 points in 43 games (22 goals). Thats a 1.19 points per game vs 1.23 points per game in favour of Lindros. Over a whole season the goal difference would be 35 goals vs 42 goals.

Now Forsberg obviously did it consistently and more but Lindros' 3 year peak and only sample we have of him in the playoffs was as good or better than any 3 years of Forsbergs. Thats the only sample we have of Lindros though. So its completely unfair to say Forsbergs playoffs are somehow what put him over the edge in this comparison. Lindros was legit as hell in the playoffs too, he just wasnt on a stacked team his entire career to allow him to have a chance at all those playoff runs Forsberg had.

Why? Playoffs are different animal. Forsberg was one of the top playoff goalscorers during his prime.

NHL.com Stats

127 games is enough to say this

 

[Merrrlin]

Why? Playoffs are different animal. Forsberg was one of the top playoff goalscorers during his prime.

NHL.com Stats

127 games is enough to say this

Peter Forsberg played deep playoff runs with one of the best teams in history during that 4-5 year span, while Eric Lindros dragged a pretty lacklustre Philly team much deeper than they would have otherwise gone. It's just really hard to compare the 2 when they played under completely different circumstances. Would Eric have put up great numbers playing with Sakic/Kariya/Bourque/Hejduk/Turgeon/etc? Those were some pretty talented squads up and down the rosters.

 

[daver]

Peter Forsberg played deep playoff runs with one of the best teams in history during that 4-5 year span, while Eric Lindros dragged a pretty lacklustre Philly team much deeper than they would have otherwise gone. It's just really hard to compare the 2 when they played under completely different circumstances. Would Eric have put up great numbers playing with Sakic/Kariya/Bourque/Hejduk/Turgeon/etc? Those were some pretty talented squads up and down the rosters.

Forsberg was a very good playoff goal scorer. Nothing more, nothing less. He was more of an all around offensive threat than the term "playmaker" implies.

 

[Yuri35]

Okay fair lol, Forsberg was definitely better. Lindros was able to rack up assists too though.

yeah like Ovie
That doesn't mean he was a fantastic passer or had awesome vision cause we know how assists are counted in hockey.

 

[zizbuka]

You may want to read my OP again, you seem to be making up your own rules. I asked who the better player was when healthy.

Please stop changing the rules of the thread - you can go ahead and make your own thread if those are the discussions you want, but calling out others for simply answering the question the way it was asked and not by your own idea of what's right is pretty arrogant.

How they were injured or how they played while suffering from the lingering effects of injury are irrelevant.

I wanted to know which player was better in their ideal state without injuries.

Don't bother, not like this is a discussion forum with varying opinions. Have an opinion different from someone else, they'll just call you stupid, etc. This place just becomes more toxic, it's why I don't pop in as much anymore.

 

[Fig]

Peter Forsberg played deep playoff runs with one of the best teams in history during that 4-5 year span, while Eric Lindros dragged a pretty lacklustre Philly team much deeper than they would have otherwise gone. It's just really hard to compare the 2 when they played under completely different circumstances. Would Eric have put up great numbers playing with Sakic/Kariya/Bourque/Hejduk/Turgeon/etc? Those were some pretty talented squads up and down the rosters.

One of the other things I wonder, is that there seemed to be more heavy weights out East at the time. Could he have been subject to less concussions and injuries by playing out West instead of East or on par? It's curious to know if a guy like Foppa would have been injured further if he had to play against guys like Kasparitus, Stevens and Konstantinov regularly.

 

[newfy]

Why? Playoffs are different animal. Forsberg was one of the top playoff goalscorers during his prime.

NHL.com Stats

127 games is enough to say this

In the playoffs he scored a bit better for sure but it was still at a 34 goal pace over 82 games. He basically played a season and a half worth of games at a 34 goal pace. While an improvement, at Forsbergs best he was a ~30 goal guy anyways so it doesnt really change the argument much at all. His scoring definitely improved a bit in the playoffs obviously but is a season and half worth of 34 goal pace worth bringing up vs a guy who was pacing for ~55 over several seasons and had the best goal scoring playoff of the 2?

Bringing up playoffs or saying playoffs helps Forsbergs case in this argument isnt really fair or true. We have 3 playoff runs from Lindros when he was healthy that we can really draw conclusions from and thats a function of his team mostly. Forsberg has a lot more to choose from, but even if you take his best 3 runs of his career, Lindros' best 3 could very well be better still. Forget about just taking Forsbergs best 3 in a row because Lindros has the best 3 year run.

 

[LokiDog]

To me Forsberg vs Lindros is almost identical to Crosby vs Ovechkin.

Crosby = Forsberg; they’re very similar players, same size, hard working, playmakers with great defensive games. Both played with another elite center on their team and had more playoff success. Forsberg was more physical.

Ovechkin = Lindros; physical freak of nature who was absolutely dominant for a period of time. Imposed his will with sheer athleticism and strength. Had quite a peak early in his career before the Capitals got the supporting cast they have now.

However close the Crosby/Ovechkin debate is, the Forsberg/Lindros ought to be essentially the same. I am a MUCH bigger Ovechkin fan than Crosby, but if you ask me who the better player is, I take Crosby. And I take Forsberg.

 

[daver]

In the playoffs he scored a bit better for sure but it was still at a 34 goal pace over 82 games. He basically played a season and a half worth of games at a 34 goal pace. While an improvement, at Forsbergs best he was a ~30 goal guy anyways so it doesnt really change the argument much at all. His scoring definitely improved a bit in the playoffs obviously but is a season and half worth of 34 goal pace worth bringing up vs a guy who was pacing for ~55 over several seasons and had the best goal scoring playoff of the 2?

Good for 3rd best pace from '96 to '04 while his regular season GPG was 30th best. There is no doubt he was a great all around offensive player, not just a playmaker.

 

[psycat]

Legion of Doom was awesome yet Philly likely should have kept their players including Forsberg. Yes, Forsberg was physical yet Lindros was at a whole different physical and cheap level. (kicking out players feet in a fight, punching a guy when he’s down and the fight is over, etc).

So punching guys laying down makes him a better player at their peaks?

 

[surixon]

This is a good question. Lindros was a pretty dominant player but I prefer other players in the 1990's more. I personally felt a number of players like Karyia, Forsberg and Sakic were equally as dominant as him during that stretch. Then you have Lemieix and Jager ahead. I prefer Forsberg's more cerebral game more.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Lindros. Not really close. One may say Foppa was a better postseason player. But then you have to realize that Forsberg had a much better team around him.

 

[HarryLime]

Lindros. Not really close. One may say Foppa was a better postseason player. But then you have to realize that Forsberg had a much better team around him.

Flyers were pretty damn good, probably a top 5-6 team in terms of talent from the mid 90s to the early 00s.

 

[ElLeetch]

Flyers were pretty damn good, probably a top 5-6 team in terms of talent from the mid 90s to the early 00s.

The Flyers were good, but they never had a Roy in net, or a Sakic, or a Bourque.

 

[HarryLime]

Sakic lol... ask the Avs’ fans. Forsberg was hands down the Avs’ bigger threat of that era. As for the poll: Basically no stats suggest Lindros to be the better player. Both are really underrated though

Wrong on so many levels, Joe Sakic was greater than Forsberg.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Flyers were pretty damn good, probably a top 5-6 team in terms of talent from the mid 90s to the early 00s.

Colorado still had a much better lineup. Lindros absolutely had to be the GUY in order for Philly to succeed. Not so with Forsberg.

 

[HarryLime]

The Flyers were good, but they never had a Roy in net, or a Sakic, or a Bourque.

I agree with that, Avs and Wings were the 2 best teams. Lindors def had a squad was my point.

 

[HarryLime]

Colorado still had a much better lineup. Lindros absolutely had to be the GUY in order for Philly to succeed. Not so with Forsberg.

Yeah, as mentioned above I agree Colorado was better but this isn't like Iginla on the Flames or anything. Lindros had Renberg, Rod the Bod, Johnny Leclair and others. Not bad.

 

[ElLeetch]

Yeah, as mentioned above I agree Colorado was better but this isn't like Iginla on the Flames or anything. Lindros had Renberg, Rod the Bod, Johnny Leclair and others. Not bad.

Leclair was good. Brind'Amour was a great secondary weapon. Renberg had a great rookie year, had some injuries his 2nd and 3rd years, and then was a middle-6 level player the entire rest of his career. He was a 20-goal scorer who racked up assists by being on the ice with Leclair and Lindros.

 

[NinjaKick]

I think they were roughly on par as players. Similar offensively, with Lindros a better goalscorer and Forsberg a better playmaker. Forsberg was better defensively, but both dominated possession time and GF% though. Both were highly physical in different ways. I think I've always ultimately preferred Forsberg because I think he was a bit of a smarter player and seemed better able to adapt to different teams in the playoffs. I do wonder though if Lindros would have been better if he remained healthy, given he was more dominant offensively out of gate.

completely agree brother... Forsberg's puck control especially was something special...
I understand voting for Lindros as well... he was a physical specimen

I choose not to vote as I can't decide