Better Through Four Seasons: Lindros Or McDavid?

[McFlash97]

If Lindros was a rookie in todays NHL he would literally be unstoppable. Especially with how soft the league has gone.

I cant wait until we see the "next Lindros" every draft year I have my fingers crossed.

Its truly amazing to see such a physical beast with speed and soft hands. It's something the NHL hasnt seen in well over a decade.

Young HFers have no idea lol

McDavid is a better hockey player. Skill and IQ win everytime.

 

[ConnorMcMullet]

As soon on as as you called McDavid a beast you lost any credibility. McDavid is about as physical as wet toilet paper.

What would Gaudreau be then?

 

[Eternal Leaf]

To be fair, Lindros was dealing with Gretzky, Jagr, and Lemieux in those scoring races.

No one can compare in this era (besides McDavid himself).

 

[Machinehead]

People on HF: "Every player today with the training and equipment they have now would put up hundreds of points in the 80's."

Also people on HF: "Any player from today would die after 2 periods in the 90's. Lindros was 600 pounds of muscle."

 

[daver]

Similar production, but context is everything: Mcdavid became the best in the league in his second season, while Lindros was never quite the best.

Apparently it isn't.

McDavid did not become the best in the league in his 2nd season, or else we declare Lindros to be in his 3rd season using the same criteria.

If Lindros wasn't quite the best, it was because he was up against Mario or a peak Jagr, both of whom would be ahead of McDavid.

As for the OP, McDavid is more accomplished offensively than Lindros but is lacking in everything else. We were already starting to see signs of Lindros' chronic inability to stay healthy after four seasons.

 

[daver]

To be fair, Lindros was dealing with Gretzky, Jagr, and Lemieux in those scoring races.

No one can compare in this era (besides McDavid himself).

Except the player who has kept pace with him for three years or the player who may end up #5 all-time?

 

[BostonBruins11]

Lindros first 4 seasons had a 1.428PPG (117 point pace) he was no slouch.

IMO Lindros is one of the leagues biggest "WHAT IF" because of all his injuries.

He was also Competing against Prime Lemieux/Jagr and Gretzky was still racking up points.

I still stand by the notion that whenever this league drafts the next 6"4+ Skilled/Physical monster he'll be unstoppable because of how soft the league has gone.

Most big players now a days are soft like Gumby(if any of you are old enough to know who gumby is)

 

[Walter Sobchak]

I am a huge fan of Lindros. He remains, to this day, the single most physically dominant hockey player I have every watched. He was built to play a tough, physical yet skilled brand of hockey that fit perfectly for his era.

He would, in my opinion, dominant today's NHL like no other. But he doesn't play in todays NHL and he couldn't stay healthy in his era.

McDavid has stayed healthy, is built for the new skill centric NHL and has accomplished more in his first four years than Lindros.

I vote McDavid.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

This is the usual clear case of a generation of young internet era people who never obviously saw both players play and are just tossing a vote for who they know because there is no other rational explanation.

Ah the classic dinosaur argument they dismissed any rational explanation because reasons.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Provide some substance then, I'm interested to see your take on why Lindros is ahead

You’ll be waiting a very long time

 

[daver]

I am a huge fan of Lindros. He remains, to this day, the single most physically dominant hockey player I have every watched. He was built to play a tough, physical yet skilled brand of hockey that fit perfectly for his era.

He would, in my opinion, dominant today's NHL like no other. But he doesn't play in todays NHL and he couldn't stay healthy in his era.

McDavid has stayed healthy, is built for the new skill centric NHL and has accomplished more in his first four years than Lindros.

I vote McDavid.

This comment makes no sense as many smaller, less physical forwards were able to succeed in that era like Karya, St. Louis, Sakic etc... Unless you think those players would be even better in this era which would make no sense.

There is no reason to think that Lindros' would be any better in this era.

 

[Flamesjustwin]

What would Gaudreau be then?

A skill player? Certainly not a beast.

 

[ConnorMcMullet]

A skill player? Certainly not a beast.

I don't get it. You're bashing McDavid for being soft, but Gaudreau's fine?

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Mcdavid through first 4 seasons cumulative ppg (2015-2019)

1. Mcdavid 1.31
2. Kucherov 1.21
3. Kane 1.16
4. Crosby 1.15
5. Malkin 1.14

Lindros through first 4 seasons cumulative ppg (1992-1996)

1. Lemieux 2.36
2. Lindros 1.46
3. Lafontaine 1.43
4. Oates 1.43
5. Jagr 1.42

If you take Lemieux out as an outlier, on a per game basis they're not that far off. Mcdavid clearly ahead due to full seasons and hardware, but Lindros was on track to be one of the best of his generation.

 

[Mr Tadakichi]

Every hockey expert just came into this poll and laughed their heads off. Lindros was an absolute beast and McDavid would have been destroyed in his first year back then. No wonder guys like Bobby Mac ridicule HF. Like I don't get it, this is like saying Mahome is a better NFL qb then Montana was already. Just ridiculously stupid.

This guy has an Oilers thread beacon installed because this always happens with you.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Much like waiting for the Oilers to make the playoffs again?

And way to prove everyone’s point.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Mcdavid through first 4 seasons cumulative ppg (2015-2019)

1. Mcdavid 1.31
2. Kucherov 1.21
3. Kane 1.16
4. Crosby 1.15
5. Malkin 1.14

Lindros through first 4 seasons cumulative ppg (1992-1996)

1. Lemieux 2.36
2. Lindros 1.46
3. Lafontaine 1.43
4. Oates 1.43
5. Jagr 1.42

If you take Lemieux out as an outlier, on a per game basis they're not that far off. Mcdavid clearly ahead due to full seasons and hardware, but Lindros was on track to be one of the best of his generation.

OT: What was with that 1992-93 season? Offense just seems to have exploded, with guys having career years way above what they'd previously produced.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

This comment makes no sense as many smaller, less physical forwards were able to succeed in that era like Karya, St. Louis, Sakic etc... Unless you think those players would be even better in this era which would make no sense.

There is no reason to think that Lindros' would be any better in this era.

Paul Karyia and Joe Sakic would be better in this era. The NHL is less of a physical game now that it has ever been. Karyia and Sakic were all skill.

But I get your point. Lindros' size and aggressiveness would be offset by the new rules and style of play.

 

[TheGuiminator]

OT: What was with that 1992-93 season? Offense just seems to have exploded, with guys having career years way above what they'd previously produced.

PP inflation for the first half of the season

 

[daver]

Paul Karyia and Joe Sakic would be better in this era. The NHL is less of a physical game now that it has ever been. Karyia and Sakic were all skill.

But I get your point. Lindros' size and aggressiveness would be offset by the new rules and style of play.

So everyone who played in Lindro's era would be better and the top offensive players would put up more points than the top offensive players today?

That makes zero sense and no evidence to prove it. Many players played before and after the lockout with no discernible difference in their production.

 

[Regal]

So everyone who played in Lindro's era would be better and the top offensive players would put up more points than the top offensive players today?

That makes zero sense and no evidence to prove it. Many players played before and after the lockout with no discernible difference in their production.

Most were past their primes and today isn't the same as post lockout. That was 14 years ago. The idea that some players wouldn't benefit from certain eras based on the rules and play styles emphasizing their best skills is pretty illogical. The fact that there's no "proof" because there can't be any isn't a good argument against it.

Besides, that poster didn't say every star would benefit, nor that they would outscore everyone today, and specifically said Lindros likely wouldn't, which I'm inclined to agree with. Lindros's physicality and ability to fight through clutching and grabbing isn't as necessary these days and his skillset beyond that was impressive, but not as much as McDavid's. It's likely that both players were better suited for their eras. I don't think there should be a question whether someone like Kariya was better suited to the current NHL though.

 

[daver]

Besides, that poster didn't say every star would benefit, nor that they would outscore everyone today, and specifically said Lindros likely wouldn't, which I'm inclined to agree with. Lindros's physicality and ability to fight through clutching and grabbing isn't as necessary these days and his skillset beyond that was impressive, but not as much as McDavid's. It's likely that both players were better suited for their eras. I don't think there should be a question whether someone like Kariya was better suited to the current NHL though.

That's exactly what the poster was saying. It is more believable that Jagr and Lindros only excelled because they could fight thru better due to their size than the smaller skilled players. Not that I believe that either.

Way too much is made of the DPE. It is irrelevant in these type of comparisons.

 

[spiny norman]

Lopsided result.