The Great Debate(rehashed): Forsberg vs Lindros

[daver]

Players have had better complete seasons along the way, and have been recognized as such. But, like Lindros, the phrase "best player on the ice when he laces up the skates" applied for a much longer time than just their Hart/Lindsay winning campaigns. Those 8 years involved recovering from two knee injuries and at least one of his concussions, and he still maintained that historically impressive scoring pace (c.f. Crosby, who faced an ankle injury, two concussions, and a broken jaw over a similar period).

Lindros was the best player after Mario retired and, IMO, would have kept that title thru Jagr's peak if he kept his play up at the same level.

 

[Hobnobs]

Got to disagree with the Gretzky-thing. When a player enters the finals with 12 goals and 22 assists in 12 games and is limited to 4 assists in 4 games, he is shut down. But if you mean that the Islanders didn´t focus on Gretzky, rather that they played a perfect rope-a-dope against the whole Oilers-team I agree.

Fully agree that Lindros is judged to hard. He had 22 goals and 31 goals for 53 points during his first 43 playoff-games, divided during three seasons. The Detroit-series should have been his Islanders-series. The series where he learned what went wrong and how to do it different. But injuries and playing on bad teams only had him play 8 more playoffgames. And that was a shadow of early Lindros to say the least.

Makes me chuckle when ppl call the teams Lindros played on for bad teams. Besides, has anyone called Lindros bad in the playoffs? He wasnt bad he was great but still not better than Forsberg.

 

[feffan]

Makes me chuckle when ppl call the teams Lindros played on for bad teams. Besides, has anyone called Lindros bad in the playoffs? He wasnt bad he was great but still not better than Forsberg.

The Flyers sure where a great team after 94 and for about 5 years. But his first years there they were bad.

The Lindros-Rangers was a really bad assembled team. The poster boys of why Rangers had the rumour of signing and trading for star players past their prime. If everyone was in their prime, sure that could have been some great teams.

And Toronto and Dallas was really only for 30 and 50 games, and even if Dallas had a respectable team that year Lindros was threw by then.

But if you mean the mid to late 90´s Flyers I agree. They are one underrestimated team, who was unlucky with injuries, the absence of a true no.1 goalie and some really good teams to face at the same time.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Makes me chuckle when ppl call the teams Lindros played on for bad teams. Besides, has anyone called Lindros bad in the playoffs? He wasnt bad he was great but still not better than Forsberg.

They weren't a bad team but they were only above average sans Lindros.
They difference when Lindros was on the ice compared to off and when he was inthe lineup and he wasn't was huge.

There is no getting around the fact that Lindros made them a much better team.

 

[Hasbro]

The Flyers sure where a great team after 94 and for about 5 years. But his first years there they were bad.

Thanks to trading for Lindros.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

They weren't a bad team but they were only above average sans Lindros.
They difference when Lindros was on the ice compared to off and when he was inthe lineup and he wasn't was huge.

There is no getting around the fact that Lindros made them a much better team.

Of course he made them a much better team, though it is interesting to note that their second best playoff performance of the "Lindros era" was in 2000, when he was injured. (Though I guess you could say the same about Forsberg in 2001, so meh).

 

[Rhiessan71]

Of course he made them a much better team, though it is interesting to note that their second best playoff performance of the "Lindros era" was in 2000, when he was injured. (Though I guess you could say the same about Forsberg in 2001, so meh).

No I mean like supremely much better.
They were below .500 without him in the lineup and Lindros' R-on/R-off numbers in Philly were a ridiculous 1.76-0.95.
Only really did a prime Gretzky equal that kind of ratio difference and only Orr bettered it.

 

[toob]

That is exactly my point.

Lindros had half of the narrative of needing to lose before learning what it took to win but never got another chance.

Exactly. A guy like Forsberg is noted as a Wings killer and rightfully so from the 99 playoffs and onwards, but if we were asking who performed better vs Detroit after 97 it isnt like Forsberg has a great case with a good defensive but subpar offensive performance in 96 and just a forgettable performance overall in 97 before the game 4 injury.

We should give credit to Forsberg for taking advantage of every situation he got afterwards but shouldnt just assume that a player as talented and gifted as Lindros would just not ever do the same if he was given another shot either.

 

[Hobnobs]

Exactly. A guy like Forsberg is noted as a Wings killer and rightfully so from the 99 playoffs and onwards, but if we were asking who performed better vs Detroit after 97 it isnt like Forsberg has a great case with a good defensive but subpar offensive performance in 96 and just a forgettable performance overall in 97 before the game 4 injury.

We should give credit to Forsberg for taking advantage of every situation he got afterwards but shouldnt just assume that a player as talented and gifted as Lindros would just not ever do the same if he was given another shot either.

We cant assume anything since Lindros didnt play. We cant give Lindros credit for anything he didnt do.

 

[Copmuter*]

Lindros was +188 in 486 games with Philly

Forsberg was +193 in 544 games with Colorado

 

[Hobnobs]

No I mean like supremely much better.
They were below .500 without him in the lineup and Lindros' R-on/R-off numbers in Philly were a ridiculous 1.76-0.95.
Only really did a prime Gretzky equal that kind of ratio difference and only Orr bettered it.

No doubt that Flyers were better with Lindros but those numbers gets skewed by the fact that other players were injured when Lindros were both healthy and injured. Like in 2000 I think Brind'amour missed the whole season so ofcourse the team would be much better with Lindros back. But I dont think anyone is refuting Lindros importance to the Flyers.

 

[Randy Marsh]

In his rookie year, Lindros wasn't in the top 30 scorers (or the top 20 PPG). He was 4th in Calder voting, behind Felix Potvin. He was 9th in Hart voting.

During those same 8 peak years, Lindros won 2 major NHL awards (Hart and Pearson in 1995). Forsberg is the same, with 2 -- the Art Ross and Hart in 2003 (but he also won the Calder in his rookie year, whereas Lindros was beaten by three players for it -- including Felix Potvin!).

You're looking at these stats in a Vacuum, though.

Forsberg finished ahead of Jim Carey and Paul Kariya (39 points, not even in the top 10 in scoring)

Lindros finished behind Teemu Selanne (A historic 76-goal season and won all 50 first-place votes), Joe Juneau (70 assists and 103 points) and Felix Potvin (Led NHL with a 2.50 GAA in a year where scoring was through the roof)

You can't just say, "He won ROY and Lindros didn't." Look at the rookie classes both were playing with. No one but Selanne was winning ROY that year, period.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You're looking at these stats in a Vacuum, though.

Forsberg finished ahead of Jim Carey and Paul Kariya (39 points, not even in the top 10 in scoring)

Lindros finished behind Teemu Selanne (A historic 76-goal season and won all 50 first-place votes), Joe Juneau (70 assists and 103 points) and Felix Potvin (Led NHL with a 2.50 GAA in a year where scoring was through the roof)

You can't just say, "He won ROY and Lindros didn't." Look at the rookie classes both were playing with. No one but Selanne was winning ROY that year, period.

Jim Carey tied Ed Belfour for second place in Vezina voting as a rookie. Felix Potvin placed fourth in voting as a rookie.

Paul Kariya's 39 points were in 47 games, and of course he wasn't top-10 in scoring; neither was Joe Juneau.

 

[Randy Marsh]

Jim Carey tied Ed Belfour for second place in Vezina voting as a rookie. Felix Potvin placed fourth in voting as a rookie.

Paul Kariya's 39 points were in 47 games, and of course he wasn't top-10 in scoring; neither was Joe Juneau.

I know it was in 47 games. I only included the top 10 because that was what was in front of me. Looking into it more, he didn't finish in the top 20 in goals, assists or points. Juneau finished T-12th in assists and 18th in points.

As for the goalies, my point was if you are going to discredit Lindros for finishing behind Felix Potvin, you have to discredit Forsberg for having Jim Carey as one of the guys he had to beat out to win the award. Both had mediocre careers but were very good at the time they were in Lindros/Forsberg's rookie classes.

Either way, Selanne had a historic 1992-93 rookie season, one that we really haven't seen anything close to since from ANY player. So using ROY comparisons is not really valid in this scenario, IMO.

 

[quoipourquoi]

As for the goalies, my point was if you are going to discredit Lindros for finishing behind Felix Potvin, you have to discredit Forsberg for having Jim Carey as one of the guys he had to beat out to win the award.

I'm not sure that makes sense. Forsberg beat out Carey (t-2nd for Vezina) for the Calder Trophy, while Lindros placed behind Potvin (4th for Vezina) for the Calder Trophy. In what way does this discredit Forsberg's Calder Trophy? If he didn't finish behind Carey, he wouldn't have finished behind Potvin who was not as good as Carey.

 

[Randy Marsh]

I'm not sure that makes sense. Forsberg beat out Carey (t-2nd for Vezina) for the Calder Trophy, while Lindros placed behind Potvin (4th for Vezina) for the Calder Trophy. In what way does this discredit Forsberg's Calder Trophy? If he didn't finish behind Carey, he wouldn't have finished behind Potvin who was not as good as Carey.

Here is what the OP said:

In his rookie year, Lindros wasn't in the top 30 scorers (or the top 20 PPG). He was 4th in Calder voting, behind Felix Potvin. He was 9th in Hart voting.

During those same 8 peak years, Lindros won 2 major NHL awards (Hart and Pearson in 1995). Forsberg is the same, with 2 -- the Art Ross and Hart in 2003 (but he also won the Calder in his rookie year, whereas Lindros was beaten by three players for it -- including Felix Potvin!).

Unless I am misunderstanding something, I took those posts to mean "Forsberg won ROY and Lindros finished behind Felix Potvin. Felix Potvin wasn't that good after 1993! Therefore, Forsberg gets the advantage here."

I think the OP was looking at the entire career, not just the rookie year. Lindros was the youngest of the top-5 that year by 2 years.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-1993.html#calder
http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-1995.html#calder

 

[Hardyvan123]

I know it was in 47 games. I only included the top 10 because that was what was in front of me. Looking into it more, he didn't finish in the top 20 in goals, assists or points. Juneau finished T-12th in assists and 18th in points.

As for the goalies, my point was if you are going to discredit Lindros for finishing behind Felix Potvin, you have to discredit Forsberg for having Jim Carey as one of the guys he had to beat out to win the award. Both had mediocre careers but were very good at the time they were in Lindros/Forsberg's rookie classes.

Either way, Selanne had a historic 1992-93 rookie season, one that we really haven't seen anything close to since from ANY player. So using ROY comparisons is not really valid in this scenario, IMO.

As good as Selanne was in his rookie year both Sid and AO were better IMO.

 

[drganon]

As good as Selanne was in his rookie year both Sid and AO were better IMO.

Nope.

 

[BraveCanadian]

As good as Selanne was in his rookie year both Sid and AO were better IMO.

I think they are all competitive and Selanne's season was the best of the three.

Although he did have the benefit of being a little older and his season coming in the kind of flukey 92-93 year too.

 

[Randy Marsh]

I think they are all competitive and Selanne's season was the best of the three.

Although he did have the benefit of being a little older and his season coming in the kind of flukey 92-93 year too.

Fair enough, but the 2005-06 season was flukey, as well. Coming out of the lockout there were an insane amount of penalties that season.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Fair enough, but the 2005-06 season was flukey, as well. Coming out of the lockout there were an insane amount of penalties that season.

Good point. The clamp down did benefit people who played the PP quite a bit.

 

[livewell68]

Lindros was the best player after Mario retired and, IMO, would have kept that title thru Jagr's peak if he kept his play up at the same level.

There is also this thing called "one player finally getting more icetime and finally hitting his stride" you know.

There is a big difference between 1994-97 Jagr and 1997-2001 Jagr. The later version of Jagr was miles better than Lindros was at his peak. Jagr was only just getting started in 1994-95 and by 1995-96 was a better player than Lindros was, the Hart voting that season was an embarrassment as Jagr should have finished 2nd in Hart trophy voting behind Lemieux. He was far and away a better player than both Lindros and Messier were. What hurt Jagr's Hart trophy chances were having Lemieux on his team.

Jagr had a PPG of 1.82 to Lindros' 1.57 (1.57 being Jagr's second best PPG finish when he scored 127 Pts in a much lower scoring season). While Lindros started his career better off, his absolute best is a tad level below Jagr's absolute best. Jagr was just as strong and big but was also a better skater, a better goals scorer, a better playmaker and had a better mind for the game hence while he is still playing the game at a high level 23 years later. Lindros couldn't even skate with his head up, that's why he got the concussions he got.

So carry on with your Jagr underrating if you will.

 

[Thenameless]

Jagr was just as strong and big but was also a better skater, a better goals scorer, a better playmaker and had a better mind for the game hence while he is still playing the game at a high level 23 years later. Lindros couldn't even skate with his head up, that's why he got the concussions he got.

I like both of these players. I agree with most of the above except for the bolded part. When Lindros first came into the league he was tested by various enforcers. One who had the misfortune to tangle with Lindros said something to this effect:

"I might as well retire. Eric's so young and he's already the strongest guy I've ever had to fight. I used to wrestle with baby bears in a circus, and he seems to have that kind of strength."

Jagr had supreme conditioning, running up and down the rink's stairs before each game on game day. He was probably just as strong on his skates as Lindros, but I'd give Lindros a considerable advantage in upper body strength.

Intimidation is another element of hockey. We all know who had the advantage there.

 

[livewell68]

I like both of these players. I agree with most of the above except for the bolded part. When Lindros first came into the league he was tested by various enforcers. One who had the misfortune to tangle with Lindros said something to this effect:

"I might as well retire. Eric's so young and he's already the strongest guy I've ever had to fight. I used to wrestle with baby bears in a circus, and he seems to have that kind of strength."

Jagr had supreme conditioning, running up and down the rink's stairs before each game on game day. He was probably just as strong on his skates as Lindros, but I'd give Lindros a considerable advantage in upper body strength.

Intimidation is another element of hockey. We all know who had the advantage there.

Yes early on in their careers Lindros had the clear advantage but if you look at their evolution as athletes, Lindros never really bulked up, he arrived into the NHL as a specimen, sort of like Lebron in the NBA. Jagr did however strengthen his upper body considerably and went from being a scrawny 195 lbs rookie to a 230 lbs beast by 1999.

I think Lindros was strong in the traditional sense but Jagr was stronger on the puck, if that makes any sense.

 

[Thenameless]

I agree. As stated in my post, Jagr was probably just as strong on his skates. And definitely better at playing "keep away".