One might not think so initially... but once you really analyze their careers, it doesn't seem like an outlandish question at all. Their best point totals are as follows: Linden: 80 75 72 70 61 59 51 47 41 40 40 38 37 37 36 Ronning: 85 71 68 67 62 62 60 55 55 54 51 48 44 25 25 Their best adjusted point totals are: Linden: 77 69 67 63 58 55 54 49 46 43 43 42 41 41 39 Ronning: 69 69 68 67 64 63 62 62 62 53 53 45 43 38 28 _______________________________________________________ If we go by adjusted point totals, Linden has the best season offensively between the two and his fifteenth best season is better than Ronning's fifteenth best, but in between those seasons, nearly every season of Ronning's best 15 is better in terms of production than Linden's corresponding season. Ronning finished with 869 points (878 adjusted points) in 1137 games while Linden had 867 points (874 adjusted points) in 1382 games. Linden has fewer points and adjusted points in 245 more games! Of course, there's more to hockey than scoring. Linden has a reputation for having been a good defensive player. However, outside of season where he placed fifth in Selke voting, he received virtually no Selke love. He finished 55th in Selke voting in 2004. I watched the Canucks during the 1994 playoffs, but I was eight years old then, so I can't say I have any impression of Linden's defensive capabilities from that time. I was too young to really judge his defensive capabilities meaningfully during his prime, but based on the fact that he only received Selke consideration in two seasons and the fact that he wasn't an elite scorer at all, I can see why people say he's overrated. Obviously he was a strong playoff performer and he supposedly brought leadership and intangible qualities, but as a regular season performer, I'm not sure he was better than a guy like Cliff Ronning. Ronning was a nice player, but he's not revered nearly as much as Trevor Linden. Someone like Doan seems like a good comparable to Linden.