Lindros vs. Malkin

[K Fleur]

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.

Hell of a lot of assumptions and bias accusations based off an avatar picture.

For what it's worth; I only care about Philly when they give me a reason to, which is not often. The fact that Lindros played for them has nothing to do with him being a worse player than Evgeni Malkin.

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.

His prime ended prematurely directly because of the way he played the game. That's not something that should be looked at as a positive.

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.

None of these are the question the OP asks. Reading that first might be a good idea by the way.

 

[Kupo]

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

Prime Malkin did not control, nor dominate a game like Prime Lindros did.

I’ve never heard about this 90’s nostalgia crap before. When did it happen?

Is there 70’s or 2000’s nostalgia plaguing these boards as well?

 

[Fantomas]

Did you remember to carry the “1”?

Hey the numbers say what they say. And they confirm that Lindros was offensively dominant whenever he played.

Numbers do not end arguments, as I have acknowledged due to other variables, but they give a sense of perspective.

 

[Kupo]

None of these are the question the OP presents. Reading that first might be a good idea by the way.

Nah, I will 100% criticize your biased opinion due to your avatar.

And numerous people have dissected both players peak, and careers, but ironically you decided to point out my post instead of there’s.

Why is that?

And Prime/Peak is the same difference.

Try harder next time.

 

[Sasso09]

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

Lindros AINEC. Peak Lindros is the most dominant player of All time

 

[Kupo]

Hey the numbers say what they say. And they confirm that Lindros was offensively dominant whenever he played.

Numbers do not end arguments, as I have acknowledged due to other variables, but they give a sense of perspective.

I’m not in disagreement here bud.

 

[Sasso09]

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.

Kariya, Selanne, Mogo and Weight did nothing as good as Lindros. While being better offensively he was also one of the best defensive forward in the league And THEE most physically dominant and intimidating. Those players weren't close

 

[Fantomas]

I’m not in disagreement here bud.

Okay, good.

 

[Kupo]

Lindros AINEC. Peak Lindros is the most dominant player of All time

No he wasn’t. As far as peak dominance goes, there were players that were superior to him.

 

[Elliman]

Eric Lindros for me. I hate the Flyers & the Penguins so as an outsider to both organizations it's Lindros every day of the week. Malkin is amazing but Lindros in his prime was something I hadn't seen before. Shame he couldn't keep his head up while skating. IMO could have been one of the great ones.

 

[Kupo]

Kariya, Selanne, Mogo and Weight did nothing as good as Lindros. While being better offensively he was also one of the best defensive forward in the league And THEE most physically dominant and intimidating. Those players weren't close

I think what’s important to point out was the fact that there were a lot more bigger bodies then, than now. Even the true heavyweight goons were thrown around like rag dolls by Lindros. He was physical specimen.

 

[Sasso09]

Lindros wasnt even a first ballot inductee.

He is extremely overrated on hfboards.

Because of longevity, not peak.

Peak Lindros > Peak Malkin > Peak Crosby

Career Crosby > Career Malkin > Career Lindros

 

[K Fleur]

And numerous people have dissected both players peak, and careers, but ironically you decided to point out my post instead of there’s.

You either do not understand what this word means, or you do not understand how to apply it.

Why is that?

You are one of two people to quote me ITT. I've responded to both.

And Prime/Peak is the same difference.

Try harder next time.

No, they are not.

Anything else? This has become boring.

 

[Connor McConnor]

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.

I'm confused how defensive play and physicality is subjective.. it's subjective when you check stat sheets but not if you actually watched the games. They are as real as goals and assists. Leadership is the only thing subjective and that is largely because we aren't in that locker room and what people define as leadership qualities or traits. Analytics seems to be the only thing that matters anymore, why do we even watch the games in the first place?

As for the debate, I mostly agree with you in terms of Malkin > Lindros for offense and legacy/career but peak/prime, head to head, with ALL things considered I actually think Lindros would be superior.

 

[Kupo]

You either do not understand what this word means, or you do not understand how to apply it.



You are one of two people to quote me ITT. I've responded to both.




No, they are not.

Anyhting else? This has become boring.

You criticize me for comparing their careers, but if you scroll up you’ll notice you did the same exact thing. Kettle, meet pot.

Now you’re questioning a word I accurately applied in my response to you.

You’re in quicksand. The more you say the deeper you sink.

 

[K Fleur]

You criticize me for comparing their careers, but if you scroll up you’ll notice you did the same exact thing. Kettle, meet pot.

Where? I don't think these players had comparable peaks(or careers).

Now you’re questioning a word I accurately applied in my response to you.

Explain to me then what exactly is ironic about me responding to you quoting me?

You’re in quicksand. The more you say the deeper you sink.

Sitting down actually

What's next?

 

[Fantomas]

I'm confused how defensive play and physicality is subjective.. it's subjective when you check stat sheets but not if you actually watched the games. They are as real as goals and assists.

I'm using the word 'subjective' as a concept that refers to things we cannot adequately measure. Offensive production we can measure pretty adequately.

In regards to physicality for example, you can count the number of hits (which is done abysmally by the way) but we have no agreed-upon way to document the effectiveness of hits.

 

[Kupo]

Serious answer?

Very serious answer, I guess...

Guess that ends the great debate.

 

[BeastoftheEast85]

The guy who will be a first ballot HHOF

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

Lindros wasnt even a first ballot inductee.

He is extremely overrated on hfboards.

Because his career was destroyed by concussions and he hung on too long.

Prime lindros isn't overrated at all. That is one of the best hockey players ever.

 

[Elliman]

Both players could beat you on the scoreboard but Lindros would literally scare the shit outta you. He was a ****in train. One man wrecking crew.

 

[authentic]

Peak has to be Malkin because he actually played over 70 games in his peak seasons while being the leading scorer of the league. His 36 point playoff run is better than anything Lindros did too. If the question was prime I might say Lindros even with the injuries, he strung together a bit more very elite seasons without down seasons in between.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I'm confused how defensive play and physicality is subjective.. it's subjective when you check stat sheets but not if you actually watched the games. They are as real as goals and assists. Leadership is the only thing subjective and that is largely because we aren't in that locker room and what people define as leadership qualities or traits. Analytics seems to be the only thing that matters anymore, why do we even watch the games in the first place?

As for the debate, I mostly agree with you in terms of Malkin > Lindros for offense and legacy/career but peak/prime, head to head, with ALL things considered I actually think Lindros would be superior.

Lindros wasn't a great defensive player though. Way too many posters conflate size & physicality with effective defense.

 

[Empoleon8771]

also consider who malkin had on his pp vs what lindros had on his.

Crosby was out for all but 20 games in that season, so no. That comparison doesn't work.

I'd like to see a poll for who is more overrated on this site, Lindros or Forsberg. I'd say Forsberg is more overrated, but Lindros gives him a run for his money.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Both players could beat you on the scoreboard but Lindros would literally scare the **** outta you. He was a ****in train. One man wrecking crew.

Too bad "scaring the **** out of you" doesn't actually count for anything, though.

I really don't get the comparison here. Lindros' peak full season wasn't even the best season of any player that year, and you really expect me to believe that he was better than peak Malkin, who had the best individual season of any player since 2000? Get out of here with that crap.

Lindros didn't even finish top-5 in points in his best full season, and based on his pace, he still would have finished 20 points behind 2nd place (Jagr) and 32 points behind 1st place (Lemieux). He wasn't some defensive ace either, he was never even in the top-10 in Selke voting. Malkin had more ES points in 2011-2012 than Lindros had in 1995-1996, when goal scoring was 15% higher in 95-96.