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

Who was the better hockey player when healthy?


  • Total voters
    397

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,969
8,453
Lindros is overrated as f***, evident since he took longer than Forsberg to enter HHOF.

Only canadian bias thinks othervise.

Plus he was nothing special in the playoffs.

What? How do you overrate yourself into the record books over the other player discussed right now? I agree with the previous poster who said it's basically splitting hairs, but look below.

  • Fourth-fastest player in NHL history to score 300 points (210 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (159), Mario Lemieux (186) and Peter Šťastný (186);
  • Fourth-fastest player in NHL history to score 400 points (277 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (197), Mario Lemieux (240) and Peter Šťastný (247);
  • Fifth-fastest player in NHL history to score 500 points (352 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (234), Mario Lemieux (287), Peter Šťastný (322) and Mike Bossy (349);
  • Sixth-fastest player in NHL history to score 600 points (429 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (273), Mario Lemieux (323), Peter Šťastný (394), Mike Bossy (400) and Jari Kurri (419).
Eric Lindros - Wikipedia

Foppa is not on that list above Lindros for being the fastest at scoring points to 600.

There are many legitimate reasons to Foppa overall in other scenarios, but this specific question is basically about highest peak when healthy (actual results, not projected) and Lindros definitely owns that over Foppa based on the above.
 

psycat

Registered User
Oct 25, 2016
3,240
1,149
By the age of 24 Lindros had led the Flyers to two conference finals and a final. Scoring 53 pts in 43 games.

No Joe Sakic at his side no Patrick Roy in net.

Roy, especially the Avs version of course, is the most overrated on these boards for sure.
 

MrOT

Roenick / Modano / Hull
Jan 5, 2016
815
301
What? How do you overrate yourself into the record books over the other player discussed right now? I agree with the previous poster who said it's basically splitting hairs, but look below.


Eric Lindros - Wikipedia

Foppa is not on that list above Lindros for being the fastest at scoring points to 600.

There are many legitimate reasons to Foppa overall in other scenarios, but this specific question is basically about highest peak when healthy (actual results, not projected) and Lindros definitely owns that over Foppa based on the above.

Are your list above more legit than this:

Forsberg is...
4th all time in assists per game
8th all time in points per game
10th all time in playoff ppg
4th all time in adjusted ppg

That's pretty impressive too...
 

BrindamoursNose

Registered User
Oct 14, 2008
20,107
14,220
Listen, I'm obsessed with Peter Forsberg. He's one of my favorite players of all time (whereas Lindros is NOT one of my favorites)...

But I take Lindros.

This guy was a freak in the 90s. Forsberg was great, but Lindros was a pissed-off, scoring machine-tank rolling through anyone (until he ran into Kaspiritis with his head down)
 

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,969
8,453
Are your list above more legit than this:

Forsberg is...
4th all time in assists per game
8th all time in points per game
10th all time in playoff ppg
4th all time in adjusted ppg

That's pretty impressive too...

I'm not saying those stats aren't impressive, but I've never seen those stats used before to argue in that manner. Those stats aren't necessarily the best indicator of true peak and seem pretty out of context to me.

Jagr is ranked 25th vs Forsberg at 8 for all time PPG. Jagr is basically only 1 year older, has 5 Art Ross wins to Forsberg's 1 and has played more than double the games. Who had the higher peak?

NHL All-Time Points per Game Leaders

Fastest to a certain point threshold and youngest to a certain point threshold is very common for NHL media though.

But let's PPG for a second.

Regular season wise, Lindros had 3 seasons over 1.5 PPG if he played more than half the season and 1 season at 1.49 PPG. Forsberg broke 1.4 twice if he played more than half the season and they weren't consecutive years. Lindros had 4 seasons below PPG, Forsberg had 1. Lindros had a higher peak than Forsberg in the PPG game per season, but way lower lows in the PPG game per season. Forsberg is more consistent and he won the Art Ross vs Lindros never winning a Ross.

If I'm going with the better player when healthy, I'm going to go with the player who had 4 seasons in a row with 1.49 PPG and higher vs the other guy who peaked at 1.42 and generally averaged around 1.2 to 1.3 PPG per season. Lindros' worst season was 0.65 PPG. Forsberg's worst season was .96 PPG. Even Jagr I don't believe had 4 seasons in a row with 1.45 PPG and above (only had 3). If I am not mistaken with my quick number crunch, Jagr had a peak PPG per season if playing more than half of 1.817, Lindros 1.575 and Forsberg 1.414.

With this, I will now say I'll go with the player who had the higher PPG per season, had a PPG per season streak that rivals all time greats and was fastest to certain points thresholds.

Look, selecting Lindros over Forsberg isn't some major insult to Foppa. It's pretty damn close. But of commonly used stats in a proper context, I think Lindros edges out Foppa by the slightest bit for peak when he was healthy.
 

AvroArrow

69 for Papi
Jun 10, 2011
18,127
18,400
Toronto
Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, and Orr are top four in no particular order. That cannot be argued.

What is your argument for Lindros over the likes of Bobby Hull, Hasek, or even say ..Jagr? I haven't even gotten to Richard, Beliveau, Harvey, Ovi, or Crosby.

"Healthy Lindros" key word being healthy. He didn't accomplish much because of his injuries but when healthy he was every bit as good offensively as Jagr/Lemieux with Ovi's physicality, on an absolute monster of a frame.

I don't think people are reading the OP clear enough, when healthy he was an absolute monster
 

newfy

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
14,771
8,326
"Healthy Lindros" key word being healthy. He didn't accomplish much because of his injuries but when healthy he was every bit as good offensively as Jagr/Lemieux with Ovi's physicality, on an absolute monster of a frame.

I don't think people are reading the OP clear enough, when healthy he was an absolute monster

He wasnt Lemeieux offensively, mightve been Jagr if he stayed healthy though. But his goal scoring was so much better than Forsberg and his playoffs were really good as well. The answer here is Lindros, not in a blow out but he has a clear edge
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
78,705
53,221
Forsberg. He actually kinda was what Lindros was supposed to be. And he was that for a long time.

I feel like the mythos of "The Lindros" has grown to kind of insane proportions these days. Yes, he was good when he was healthy...but even at his peak, he wasn't this McDavid-esque talent who completely changed the game as people seem to refer to him. He played great on a completely dope line with a pair of other terrific players. Did well...and then his career basically ended. It's crazy to me, the reverence he's somehow garnered as a player based on that. It's on a totally different level, from my perception of what he was and what he did as a player.

This post reads like someone trying to survey the wreckage 25 years later and completely missing the mark on literally everything.

Peter Forsberg is all-time great and a Hall of Famer, two time cup champion, Hart, Art Ross, all that great stuff. He was a warrior, was also unfortunately cut down by injuries, but wasn't really what Lindros was supposed to be.

Eric Lindros was supposed to be Mario Lemieux with a temper. That's what he was drafted as, and that's why a franchise would pay $15 million in 1992 plus an entire farm system worth of prospects and veterans to get him. This isn't mythology, this is what the hockey world was projecting.

He didn't play on a "dope line." He was a 22 year old prodigy and Hart Trophy winner - also tied Jagr for the Art Ross - who turned an underachieving John Leclair into a 50 goal man literally overnight. It was basically the equivalent of Connor McDavid breathing life into Leon Draisaitl's career. Mikael Renberg was a good player early in his career and suffered his own injury issues, but didn't do anything away from the Legion of Doom line.

By 1996, he had posted a 115 point, 47 goal season in 73 games, which is as good as anything McDavid has done to date.

He changed the landscape of the Eastern Conference. Notice how teams were drafting big and skilled after 1993 in the Lindros arms race: Chris Pronger to Hartford. Traded for Brendan Shanahan. Then Keith Primeau. Chris Gratton to Tampa. Jovocop in Florida. New Jersey's Dead Puck revolution led by Scott Stevens. Then towards the end of the decade you had guys like Joe Thornton and Vincent Lecavalier coming up as 6'4" super center prospects.

By 1997, Lindros was 24 and leading the Flyers to the Stanley Cup finals, beating Mario Lemieux and the Penguins in the first round and Lindros' childhood hero Mark Messier in the conference finals. It was by all accounts a passing of the torch, though unfortunately for Lindros, the Detroit Red Wings had other plans. But even then, Lindros was firmly cemented among his generation's best, alongside Jagr, Forsberg, Kariya and Sakic,

After 1996-97, the injury troubles started mounting, Philadelphia declined as a contender and culminated in the punctured lung incident, the Scott Stevens hit in the conference finals and a very public falling out with Bob Clarke around 2001. But by that time Lindros was already past his peak and prime.
 

psycat

Registered User
Oct 25, 2016
3,240
1,149
What makes Roy overrated then?

To begin with goalies in general are overrated and most difference is the teams they play for. Not saying they are all bad, more like they are all good. Also people on here regulary rank him above one of the few goalies, Hasek that is, that actually stand out to me.
 

The Abusement Park

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 18, 2016
34,138
25,284
To begin with goalies in general are overrated and most difference is the teams they play for. Not saying they are all bad, more like they are all good. Also people on here regulary rank him above one of the few goalies, Hasek that is, that actually stand out to me.
What goalies stand out to you? If Roy doesn't than Hasek should be the only one.
 

KoozNetsOff 92

Hala Madrid
Apr 6, 2016
8,567
8,229
"Healthy Lindros" key word being healthy. He didn't accomplish much because of his injuries but when healthy he was every bit as good offensively as Jagr/Lemieux with Ovi's physicality, on an absolute monster of a frame.

I don't think people are reading the OP clear enough, when healthy he was an absolute monster

No. Nowhere close to Lemieux. Not as good as Jagr either, healthy or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobholly39

KoozNetsOff 92

Hala Madrid
Apr 6, 2016
8,567
8,229
This post reads like someone trying to survey the wreckage 25 years later and completely missing the mark on literally everything.

Peter Forsberg is all-time great and a Hall of Famer, two time cup champion, Hart, Art Ross, all that great stuff. He was a warrior, was also unfortunately cut down by injuries, but wasn't really what Lindros was supposed to be.

Eric Lindros was supposed to be Mario Lemieux with a temper. That's what he was drafted as, and that's why a franchise would pay $15 million in 1992 plus an entire farm system worth of prospects and veterans to get him. This isn't mythology, this is what the hockey world was projecting.

He didn't play on a "dope line." He was a 22 year old prodigy and Hart Trophy winner - also tied Jagr for the Art Ross - who turned an underachieving John Leclair into a 50 goal man literally overnight. It was basically the equivalent of Connor McDavid breathing life into Leon Draisaitl's career. Mikael Renberg was a good player early in his career and suffered his own injury issues, but didn't do anything away from the Legion of Doom line.

By 1996, he had posted a 115 point, 47 goal season in 73 games, which is as good as anything McDavid has done to date.

He changed the landscape of the Eastern Conference. Notice how teams were drafting big and skilled after 1993 in the Lindros arms race: Chris Pronger to Hartford. Traded for Brendan Shanahan. Then Keith Primeau. Chris Gratton to Tampa. Jovocop in Florida. New Jersey's Dead Puck revolution led by Scott Stevens. Then towards the end of the decade you had guys like Joe Thornton and Vincent Lecavalier coming up as 6'4" super center prospects.

By 1997, Lindros was 24 and leading the Flyers to the Stanley Cup finals, beating Mario Lemieux and the Penguins in the first round and Lindros' childhood hero Mark Messier in the conference finals. It was by all accounts a passing of the torch, though unfortunately for Lindros, the Detroit Red Wings had other plans. But even then, Lindros was firmly cemented among his generation's best, alongside Jagr, Forsberg, Kariya and Sakic,

After 1996-97, the injury troubles started mounting, Philadelphia declined as a contender and culminated in the punctured lung incident, the Scott Stevens hit in the conference finals and a very public falling out with Bob Clarke around 2001. But by that time Lindros was already past his peak and prime.

If we look at raw totals without any context then yes. But in reality, not really. I'm pretty sure McDavid has finished better than 6th in pts and 2nd in PPG, at least a few times.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,241
14,861
What? How do you overrate yourself into the record books over the other player discussed right now? I agree with the previous poster who said it's basically splitting hairs, but look below.


Eric Lindros - Wikipedia

Foppa is not on that list above Lindros for being the fastest at scoring points to 600.

There are many legitimate reasons to Foppa overall in other scenarios, but this specific question is basically about highest peak when healthy (actual results, not projected) and Lindros definitely owns that over Foppa based on the above.

None of this really means anything. Development isn't linear. If the question was "who was more NHL-ready at draft" or "who had better NHL career start" - it's Lindros 100% and would love to see absolutely anyone else argue otherwise.

But...that just means he started better. Forsberg hit his stride a bit later, and his peak was really great too.

You see the same arguments with Gretzky vs Lemieux all the time. "fastert to....so many points". All that does is show who started better, it doesn't compare who was better at their best. Gretzky started much better than Lemieux.

I have no issue if you want to say Lindros > Forsberg and Gretzky > Lemieux at their best, you just need a better argument.

Jagr > both Forsberg + Lindros for offensive peak (and not really close either) - and I bet he doesn't do too well in these "fastest to" comparisons either, since his first couple of years were a bit slow.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
78,705
53,221
If we look at raw totals without any context then yes. But in reality, not really. I'm pretty sure McDavid has finished better than 6th in pts and 2nd in PPG, at least a few times.

Lindros was tied for lead in points in 1995 with Jagr but lost the Art Ross due to having scored 3 fewer goals (in 2 fewer games). Jagr had 70 points in 48 games. Lindros has 70 points in 46. But you’re probably not even registering that season as a lockout shortened one.

McDavid has a more “next generation” skill set no doubt but Lindros was also not trying to deke around or skate past you. He was simply going to go through you. Different tools.
 

Thenameless

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
3,855
1,788
None of this really means anything. Development isn't linear. If the question was "who was more NHL-ready at draft" or "who had better NHL career start" - it's Lindros 100% and would love to see absolutely anyone else argue otherwise.

But...that just means he started better. Forsberg hit his stride a bit later, and his peak was really great too.

You see the same arguments with Gretzky vs Lemieux all the time. "fastert to....so many points". All that does is show who started better, it doesn't compare who was better at their best. Gretzky started much better than Lemieux.

I have no issue if you want to say Lindros > Forsberg and Gretzky > Lemieux at their best, you just need a better argument.

Jagr > both Forsberg + Lindros for offensive peak (and not really close either) - and I bet he doesn't do too well in these "fastest to" comparisons either, since his first couple of years were a bit slow.

Everything you say is true. One thing about being so high on the "fastest to...." lists though, is that it shows how really elite this guy was - both from the start and potential-wise. In order to have an all-time career, it helps to start well, obviously peak extremely high, and usually have some consistency and longevity in there as well. When the only names ahead of you are basically Gretzky, Lemieux, plus one or two other all-time greats, it kind of shows that the guy really did live up to the hype of being the Next One. We've discussed ad nauseam what derailed his career, but boy, early on he was easily trending to become a Top 10 player of all time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fig

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
25,643
10,630
This post reads like someone trying to survey the wreckage 25 years later and completely missing the mark on literally everything.



He changed the landscape of the Eastern Conference. Notice how teams were drafting big and skilled after 1993 in the Lindros arms race: Chris Pronger to Hartford. Traded for Brendan Shanahan. Then Keith Primeau. Chris Gratton to Tampa. Jovocop in Florida. New Jersey's Dead Puck revolution led by Scott Stevens. Then towards the end of the decade you had guys like Joe Thornton and Vincent Lecavalier coming up as 6'4" super center prospects.

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".
 

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,969
8,453
None of this really means anything. Development isn't linear. If the question was "who was more NHL-ready at draft" or "who had better NHL career start" - it's Lindros 100% and would love to see absolutely anyone else argue otherwise.

But...that just means he started better. Forsberg hit his stride a bit later, and his peak was really great too.

You see the same arguments with Gretzky vs Lemieux all the time. "fastert to....so many points". All that does is show who started better, it doesn't compare who was better at their best. Gretzky started much better than Lemieux.

I have no issue if you want to say Lindros > Forsberg and Gretzky > Lemieux at their best, you just need a better argument.

Jagr > both Forsberg + Lindros for offensive peak (and not really close either) - and I bet he doesn't do too well in these "fastest to" comparisons either, since his first couple of years were a bit slow.

How does it not mean anything? It gave a glimpse into the concept that Lindros started out with a bang and was indeed slated to be an all time great before he was badly derailed.

Also, Forsberg didn't high is stride later on. He was actually straight up consistent as F generally ranging between 1.4-1.1 PPG his entire career. Lindros had 4 seasons in a row over 1.49 PPG. Even Jagr didn't have that type of PPG per season peak. Jagr had the highest PPG season pinnacle of the 3 (if playing more than half the season) at 1.817 PPG/season vs Lindros 1.575 and Forsberg 1.414.

Lindros had lows of 0.65 PPG per season.

Everything you say is true. One thing about being so high on the "fastest to...." lists though, is that it shows how really elite this guy was - both from the start and potential-wise. In order to have an all-time career, it helps to start well, obviously peak extremely high, and usually have some consistency and longevity in there as well. When the only names ahead of you are basically Gretzky, Lemieux, plus one or two other all-time greats, it kind of shows that the guy really did live up to the hype of being the Next One. We've discussed ad nauseam what derailed his career, but boy, early on he was easily trending to become a Top 10 player of all time.

Thanks for this. That's an eloquent way to put it.

The argument about being ready earlier isn't necessarily wrong, but true generational talents will dominate the league from the very beginning.

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".

You say this, but your previous post crapped all over Lindros. So while yes saying Forsberg is better isn't a slight on Lindros, your post actually was a slight on Lindros.

Also, how can Forsberg be what Lindros was supposed to be when Lindros had 4 seasons in a row over 1.49 PPG and Forsberg never broke 1.42 PPG once plus didn't have consecutive years of 1.4 PPG and over? Lindros literally peaked higher than Forsberg and fell further than him.

Also, while size and goonery had been around for a while and part of a prototype grail, a huge arms race (pardon the pun) took place with some teams hiring pure goons as a deterrent to allowing Lindros completely bullying their teams in both physicality and skill.


I've given Foppa props in other threads that asks the question differently. This thread however is designed in a way that should point at Lindros.
 

Alexanderthe89

Registered User
Apr 29, 2011
1,043
299
Forsberg has the playmaking ability. Lindros has everything else, including being a vastly superior goal-scorer.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad