Lindros vs. Malkin

[koyvoo]

I hate to seemingly devalue Malkin as I feel he’s one of the most underrated of the true greats but a healthy Lindros in his prime was virtually impossible to play against.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Lindros wasnt even a first ballot inductee.

He is extremely overrated on hfboards.

He is extremely appealing when watching Youtube videos and he had a style of play that was very enticing. But at the end, the results weren't all that great. At his peak, Kariya and Selänne were only 7 pts behind. Mogilny and Weight not far off either...

I think Lindros is one of the biggest what ifs in NHL history by the way. Too bad all those injuries got in the way.

 

[koyvoo]

Listen, at the time, when people actually watched all these guys, the only player in that very era that was considered to be on Lindros’ level was Jagr. No one at the time, actually watching these guys day in and day out rated Kariya or Selanne etc above Lindros. No one. The consideration to the fact that Lindros couldn’t play a full schedule was definitely a draw back, but healthy, in that day only Jagr would possibly be chosen ahead of him as a franchise player.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Malkin pretty easily. His peak is the highest we've seen since peak Jagr, maybe even higher.

Ovechkin's peak was higher than Malkin's, and it was far better because he sustained it for 3 consecutive seasons as opposed to 1.

 

[EXTRAS]

Lindros wasnt even a first ballot inductee.

He is extremely overrated on hfboards.

Politics.

 

[Master P]

Prime Lindros was vastly superior. Dude was a bulldozer that had tremendous skill.

Look at those faceoff checks. Although illegal, that's just the type of mentality he brought to the rink... running through his opponents.

Now THATS a power forward.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Lindros wasnt even a first ballot inductee.

He is extremely overrated on hfboards.

That’s because injury cut his career short.

 

[K Fleur]

This is clearly Malkin.

But you know HF and their 90's players..

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Malkin peak (11/12): 133 adjusted points/82

Lindros peak (95/96): 124 adjusted points/82

But are those points worth the superior defense, physicality etc of Lindros?

Where are you getting the adjusted points from? (Honestly curious, not debating their validity)

 

[koyvoo]

Where are you getting the adjusted points from? (Honestly curious, not debating their validity)

For the people that watched Lindros’ career, I don’t even think that matters tbh. It’s as simple as this - you know when people say how “when Malkin hits that top gear, he absolutely takes games over”? Well, Lindros was in that gear far more often and consistently at full health. At his top form, only a very small handful of players dominated hockey games to the degree that Lindros did.

 

[Master P]

This is clearly Malkin.

But you know HF and their 90's players..

You a make a compelling argument. I'm sure you're not biased at all.

 

[K Fleur]

You a make a compelling argument. I'm sure you're not biased at all.

Don't be so sure. I am quite biased towards the better player in a "who is better" poll.

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

Idk I voted Lindros, but close.

I remember watching the game 20 years ago when Joe Thornton tried fighting him.

 

[Beauner]

Lindros wasnt even a first ballot inductee.

He is extremely overrated on hfboards.

People love the idea of Lindros more than what he actually was

 

[WetcoastOrca]

People love the idea of Lindros more than what he actually was

Or some of us watched him and saw how dominant he was in a career cut short.

 

[joez86]

Peak Lindros was a top 5 all time player, IMO. I wouldn't take any player from the 80s onward over him, other than Gretzky and Lemieux.

 

[Kupo]

This is clearly Malkin.

But you know HF and their 90's players..

If you had the opportunity , or desire of watching those 90’s players and comparing them to today’s, then you would understand. But you clearly didn’t. Shaaaaaaaaame.....

Nice avatar by the way.

 

[Kupo]

People love the idea of Lindros more than what he actually was

Cute, another Pens fan offering his completed unbiased opinion.

 

[K Fleur]

If you had the opportunity , or desire of watching those 90’s players and comparing them to today’s, then you would understand.

Nice avatar by the way.

I watched/lived through 90's hockey. I am also able to remove my nostalgia goggles.

Try harder next time by the way.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Malkin is too inconsistent and terrible defensively compared to what Lindros brought each and every game. Even if he wasn't scoring he was physically wearing down the opposing D and could play a grinder role while playing great 2-way hockey. "Intangibles" is a landslide to Lindros but that's hard to value. Peak to peak Malkin is better offensively but not as an overall player. However, in terms of legacy, Malkin easily wins this because of his durability which should not be undermined in these sort of debates. Lindros' physicality is a big reason he had his career cut so short .. that and Scott Stevens.

 

[Fantomas]

Where are you getting the adjusted points from? (Honestly curious, not debating their validity)

You can see adjusted points on hockey-reference, although I don't think they are given as per 82. Of course one can always take out a calculator.

Just for fun here are the top five seasons for each player based on offensive point shares. By my calculations Lindros and Malkin are very close on a per-game basis, while Malkin is more dominant on a per-season basis.

Malkin's yearly OPS:

1. 13.4 ('11'-12)
2. 11.5 ('07-08)
3. 10.2 ('08-09)
4. 10.2 ('17-18)
5. 8.4 ('16-17)

Lindros's yearly OPS:

1. 11.0 ('95-96)
2. 9.2 ('98-99)
3. 9.0 ('93-94)
4. 7.9 ('97-98)
5. 7.7 ('01-02)

Malkin blows Lindros out of the water here and with both players being somewhat injury-prone, I don't think that excuse can work for Eric.

But let's be fair to Lindros: one of his better seasons was the strike-shortened '94-95 where he played 46 of 48 games with 7.3 OPS. Let's pretend that there was no strike and adjust his production to, say, 80 games and we get 12.7 OPS.

In that case we get:

Lindros

1. 12.7 ('94-5) * adjusted to a full season
2. 11.0 ('95-96)
3. 9.2 ('98-99)
4. 9.0 ('93-94)
5. 7.9 ('97-98)

Now let's pretend neither player gets injured in their best seasons. How do they fare against one another based on offensive point shares? I get the following when we adjust their production to an 82-game season:

Malkin's adjusted OPS

1. 14.7 ('11-12)
2. 11.5 ('07-08)
3. 11.1 ('16-17)
4. 10.7 ('17-18)
5. 10.2 ('08-09)

Lindros's adjusted OPS

1. 13.2 ('96-97)
2. 13.0 ('94-95)
3. 12.4 ('95-96)
4. 11.4 ('93-94)
5. 10.6 ('98-99)

Higher peak for Malkin, but Lindros is more dominant in his next two best seasons.

I think injuries are no excuse and therefore Malkin is the better player. Some will point to other factors to consider outside of offensive production: physical intimidation, defensive play, leadership, etc, which is where things get subjective.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

I say Lindros because the dude was obscenely offensive while being cut from a completely different cloth. Very few opposing centers could handle him when he wanted that to be the case - and it happened often.

I'm genuinely bummed that he never played Malkin in his prime so this could be supported, but I take Big E all day er day.

 

[Kupo]

I watched/lived through 90's hockey. I am also able to remove my nostalgia goggles.

Try harder next time by the way.

Well you sure as hell fooled me.

I get it though. You’re a Pens fan with Malkin in your avatar, and you probably hate Philly.

You’re as biased as it gets and your opinion on this matter should be taken with a grain of salt.

Prime Lindros was a total animal in all three zones on the ice. His combination of size, speed, skill, and tenacity was almost unfair for the opposition.

I have no dog in this fight like you do. From a neutral perspective, it’s Lindros. But I’m not going to say something stupid like AINEC. It is close. It’s a good poll by the OP.

Better career? Malkin. Better offensively? Malkin. Better Prime? Give me Lindros.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Malkin is quite clearly better, both peak and career. Lindros is one of the 90s players that gets overrated due to nostalgia.

 

[Kupo]

You can see adjusted points on hockey-reference, although I don't think they are given as per 82. Of course one can always take out a calculator.

Just for fun here are the top five seasons for each player based on offensive point shares. By my calculations Lindros and Malkin are very close on a per-game basis, while Malkin is more dominant on a per-season basis.

Malkin's yearly OPS:

1. 13.4 ('11'-12)
2. 11.5 ('07-08)
3. 10.2 ('08-09)
4. 10.2 ('17-18)
5. 8.4 ('16-17)

Lindros's yearly OPS:

1. 11.0 ('95-96)
2. 9.2 ('98-99)
3. 9.0 ('93-94)
4. 7.9 ('97-98)
5. 7.7 ('01-02)

Malkin blows Lindros out of the water here and with both players being somewhat injury-prone, I don't think that excuse can work for Eric.

But let's be fair to Lindros: one of his better seasons was the strike-shortened '94-95 where he played 46 of 48 games with 7.3 OPS. Let's pretend that there was no strike and adjust his production to, say, 80 games and we get 12.7 OPS.

In that case we get:

Lindros

1. 12.7 ('94-5) * adjusted to a full season
2. 11.0 ('95-96)
3. 9.2 ('98-99)
4. 9.0 ('93-94)
5. 7.9 ('97-98)

Now let's pretend neither player gets injured in their best seasons. How do they fare against one another based on offensive point shares? I get the following when we adjust their production to an 82-game season:

Malkin's adjusted OPS

1. 14.7 ('11-12)
2. 11.5 ('07-08)
3. 11.1 ('16-17)
4. 10.7 ('17-18)
5. 10.2 ('08-09)

Lindros's adjusted OPS

1. 13.2 ('96-97)
2. 13.0 ('94-95)
3. 12.4 ('95-96)
4. 11.4 ('93-94)
5. 10.6 ('98-99)

Higher peak for Malkin, but Lindros is more dominant in his next two best seasons.

I think injuries are no excuse and therefore Malkin is the better player. Some will point to other factors to consider outside of offensive production: physical intimidation, defensive play, leadership, etc, which is where things get subjective.

Did you remember to carry the “1”?

Your last sentence really nails it though in all seriousness.