Lindros vs. Malkin

[Sasso09]

You're stating opinion.

1-You don't know how much of either guy the people voting saw. You're assuming based on them disagreeing with your choice.

2-"Elite at everything" suggests defense. One only needs a quick browse of the internet to see Lindros never finished top 10 in Selke voting. His best finish ever was 14th place. He may have been above average defensively, but he certainly wasn't seen as elite.

Lindros was one of the best defensive forwards in the league, citing selke voting is pretty funny

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I'm stating a fact; more than half these Malkin voters are too young to have experienced Eric. This isn't a close comparison. Malkin has games where he's completely useless when taken off his game. Eric was Elite at everything and contributed significantly every game he played.

Hyperbole. I saw a lot of Lindros. The only thing he had was that he could battle through lesser skilled teams that trapped. But he would still get wrecked by New Jersey's trap, or the puck posession of Detroit, or skill of Colorado. He couldn't match firepower of a Lemiuex lead Penguins.

He was a star player but he was by no means ever the best of that era. I know a huge contingent tried making him the face of the NHL or the Captain of Team Canada, but he really wasn't the best.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Lindros was one of the best defensive forwards in the league, citing selke voting is pretty funny

Yes, your opinion on his defensive prowess is much more accurate than Selke voting.

 

[Sasso09]

Lemieux
Jagr
Sakic
Forsberg
Fedorov
Bure


I'd put Lindros somewhere in this tier of player:
Selanne
Kariya
Francis
Sundin

This is laughable. Bure is my favorite player of all time by far but he's not a better overall peak player, no chance.

Lemieux and Jagr are only ones debatable. Forsberg was Lindros-lite. Less speed, less talent, 3 inches shorter and 40 lbs lighter

 

[Sasso09]

Penguins
Fan

Yes, your opinion on his defensive prowess is much more accurate than Selke voting.

 

[Sasso09]

Hyperbole. I saw a lot of Lindros. The only thing he had was that he could battle through lesser skilled teams that trapped. But he would still get wrecked by New Jersey's trap, or the puck posession of Detroit, or skill of Colorado. He couldn't match firepower of a Lemiuex lead Penguins.

He was a star player but he was by no means ever the best of that era. I know a huge contingent tried making him the face of the NHL or the Captain of Team Canada, but he really wasn't the best.

He was the most dominant player of that ERA when healthy, maybe any ERA. Not going to entertain anymore

 

[Kupo]

Just one player, just one that was more dominant

I’ll take Crosby in 2010. Lemieux is ‘95. And ‘92. And ‘88.

Gretzky from ‘79-‘88.

You can make an argument for Jagr some years throughout his career.

We both watched Lindros in his peak, and were in agreement he was an absolute beast. But his “best” wasn’t better than a number of NHL players.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Penguins
Fan

So you resort to insults rather than actually presenting an argument? I didn't even vote in the poll, nor did I actually say who was better.

I'm simply pointing out you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE to argue your case. You just post a lot of "Lindros is better because I said so" and "Lindros is elite because he is".

Not to mention the irony considering you're a HUGE Flyers fan accusing opposing fans of being biased.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

This is laughable. Bure is my favorite player of all time by far but he's not a better overall peak player, no chance.

Lemieux and Jagr are only ones debatable. Forsberg was Lindros-lite. Less speed, less talent, 3 inches shorter and 40 lbs lighter

Explain how federov got the better of him, humiliating him in a 4 game sweep in the finals?

You know, the other Hart winner during Lindros' alleged untouchable prime (where Feds actually got a couple of Selke's).

Federov made Lindros his bitch. His lone goal he got was in the dying minutes of a game 4 sweep.

If Lindros was as much of a behemoth as you claim he was, why was he not able to physically crush them like Jersey did the year before? How could the most elite physical player who ever played the game be so ineffective?

 

[Perfect_Drug]

He was the most dominant player of that ERA when healthy, maybe any ERA. Not going to entertain anymore

How can you say that when Mario literally outscored him 50%?

161 points to 115. Both playing similar number of games.

You seriously saying lindros was more dominant?? Thats laughable.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Lemieux and Jagr are only ones debatable.

It's not debatable at all. They were clearly better by a significant margin. Lemieux outscored him 161 points to 115. If you think that's 'debatable' whether he was better, you clearly are showing an irrational bias and there is no reasoning with you.

Forsberg was Lindros-lite. Less speed, less talent, 3 inches shorter and 40 lbs lighter

Haha not even close.
Forsbergs playoff performances are legendary. Lindros could only ever dream of being half as dominant as Forsberg was in the playoffs.

Forsberg can't hear Lindros' response because of his Stanley Cup rings stuffed in his ears.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Clownros didn't reach the heights of Malkin, sorry. It's just a statistical fact. Malkin dominated both the RS and the playoffs. Lindros had one great RS.

 

[Nick Hansen]

How can you say that when Mario literally outscored him 50%?

161 points to 115. Both playing similar number of games.

You seriously saying lindros was more dominant?? Thats laughable.

And that was Lemieux just right before he retired due to a bad back and cancer. Still destroyed Clownros.

 

[Riddum]

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

Healthy Malkin is better than both Ovechkin and Crosby, but not Jagr.

 

[Laineux]

Big flashy hits seem a surefire way to bump a player up a couple of tiers at hf, nevermind actual effect on goal differential. Have you considered that his physical impact on the ice is already reflected in his point totals?

 

[daver]

Depending on how you would define Lindros' peak (94-99?), There's easily 10 players I would pick before him for that 5-year span.

WTF are you takilng about?????

Here is his best five year span:

NHL.com - Stats

4th in points, 3rd in PPG (right behind Jagr)

Other than Mario, who would put ahead of Lindros?

 

[daver]

Big flashy hits seem a surefire way to bump a player up a couple of tiers at hf, nevermind actual effect on goal differential. Have you considered that his physical impact on the ice is already reflected in his point totals?

This isn't OV we are talking about. Lindros certainly affected the game with his physicality beyond offense while playing an effective and responsible defensive game. I don't think he had the offensive ceiling that Malkin reached in 11/12 but he was more consistent year in and year out. I think the answer here is Lindros.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

This isn't OV we are talking about. Lindros certainly affected the game with his physicality beyond offense while playing an effective and responsible defensive game. I don't think he had the offensive ceiling that Malkin reached in 11/12 but he was more consistent year in and year out. I think the answer here is Lindros.

Lindros was a lemming. He hit a lot, but he also GOT hit a lot. His style of play got himself injured, and made him a target.

I don't just mean the Scott Stevens hit.

In the Months leading up to the Stevens hit, he got absolutely wrecked by Hal Gill, Darius Kasperitis, and a LOT of really heavy hitters.
Ed Jovanovski made him his bitch in a series as a newly expansion Panthers.

Infact, Lindros had "4 concussions in 5 months" leading up to Stevens ending his prime:
Stevens still smarting over sidelining Lindros | CBC Sports

What made him unique, was he had a lot of skill for someone that size, but he most certainly wasn't the best or most dominant.

A lot of teams proved they could easily contain him, especially in the playoffs.

 

[daver]

Lindros was a lemming. He hit a lot, but he also GOT hit a lot. His style of play got himself injured, and made him a target.

I don't just mean the Scott Stevens hit.

In the Months leading up to the Stevens hit, he got absolutely wrecked by Hal Gill, Darius Kasperitis, and a LOT of really heavy hitters.
Ed Jovanovski made him his ***** in a series as a newly expansion Panthers.

Infact, Lindros had "4 concussions in 5 months" leading up to Stevens ending his prime:
Stevens still smarting over sidelining Lindros | CBC Sports

What made him unique, was he had a lot of skill for someone that size, but he most certainly wasn't the best or most dominant.

OK, and Malkin literally putting his skates on the ice got himself injured. Lindros getting injured doesn't change the fact that he affected the game with his physicality and intimidation. Without his offensive skills, he absolutely would have been at the very top in physicality.

Mario and Jagr are players who had a lot of skill for someone that size. Lindros was whole different kettle of fish.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Lindros was one of the best defensive forwards in the league, citing selke voting is pretty funny

It's Lindros we're talking about. Not Mikael Backlund or whoever. If he was that great defensively he would've gotten the appropriate appreciation for that. As it stands, Forsberg ranked higher in Selke voting in two of the three years Lindros got votes.

 

[daver]

A lot of teams proved they could easily contain him, especially in the playoffs.

Any numbers to back this up? He was arguably the 2nd best offensive force in his five year prime. There is nothing about his playoff resume during that time that points to him being that much less effective in the playoffs.

In case you missed these stats before:

Here is his best five year span:

NHL.com - Stats

4th in points, 3rd in PPG (right behind Jagr)

 

[tony d]

Peak Lindros for me. His peak is amongst the best ever.

 

[authentic]

This is laughable. Bure is my favorite player of all time by far but he's not a better overall peak player, no chance.

Lemieux and Jagr are only ones debatable. Forsberg was Lindros-lite. Less speed, less talent, 3 inches shorter and 40 lbs lighter

Not so sure about that, but yeah he was smaller, good eye. Lindros has IMO become increasingly overrated on this board as time has gone on. Forsberg is about rated right, but still slightly underrated by many. The way Forsberg played in the playoffs, especially against the best opposing teams the league had to offer was a notch above Lindros. In the regular season he also reached the same offensive heights on a per game basis while being the better defensive player. The only argument I could see that would have Lindros as a clearly better player than Forsberg is the fact he had less talent around him, but having a 50 goal scorer as your main linemate certainly didn't hurt I imagine, so it's not a great one.

 

[authentic]

To be clear, during the time Lindros was at his peak from 1993-97 he was better than Forsberg, and I think people just assume that would've continued, but I would take a 97-99 (maybe) and especially a 2002-2005 Forsberg over a peak Lindros. They are close enough at their peaks that I believe it comes down to personal preference.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

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

Do you want to bring up linemates too?