How good would Forsberg and Lindros been if they were not plagued by injuries?

[Staniowski]

Yeah I remember the big storyline in 1997 was that Lindros was taking the torch from Gretzky and Lemieux as the Flyers rolled through both the Penguins and Rangers in the playoffs and he was just following his destiny to the cup. It just so happened that the Wings were clicking on all cylinders, the Flyers weren't, Vernon was playing amazing and the Flyers goalies somehow seemed even worse than they were earlier in the playoffs (which wasn't really that good either lol)

Disappointing performance all around from the Flyers, and Lindros himself, and he took a lot of heat about that going forward. Then there was of course Canada's failure in Nagano, and the concussions, and by 1999 when Gretzky retired, it was Jagr who the storyline for the torch in the final game that happened to be against the Penguins.

Even before all those failure storylines, Lindros just was never loved by the media in the same way as other mega hyped guys like Crosby or McDavid. Seems like there were always people wanting Lindros to fail even in the media and always finding something to chirp him on (I mean Crosby and McDavid certainly had/have their share of haters in terms of online fans as we can see on HF, but the hockey media seemed to be firmly behind both of them in their early years - with Crosby especially as he was especially important for the New NHL marketing, and he had the early success with the cup and Vancouver gold, but also McDavid as we saw just recently with Sportsnet almost solely focusing on him throughout the playoffs/finals, seriously felt the way they were talking after game 4 that the Oilers just won the cup lol).

Keeping that in mind, there were definitely cases of the hockey media taking others over Lindros in the mid/late nineties even before the sweep/Nagano. The Hockey News Yearbook after 1995-1996 had Jagr over Lindros. I remember after during/after 1996-1997 there was a lot of Kariya hype as well and some would have him as the next one. Of course, as I mentioned before, there was little bit about Forsberg himself as the best at the time. The Hockey News Top 50 program also included Jagr but not Lindros (who placed somewhere in the 50s in the extended 100 list they put out later) and that was compiled somewhere between the end of the 1995-1996 season and before the conclusion of the 1996-1997 season, even as it was broadcast later after the conclusion of the 1996-1997 season. If they did that in like 2010 or 2020 or whatever it would be inconcievable for them to leave off Crosby or McDavid or whoever the next hyped guy is, but at the time, not super surprising to have Lindros not show up though. A lot of the old school people in hockey at the time hated Lindros ever since he refused to report to Quebec, and much less focus paid to "marketing the stars" than now.

Obviously in terms of looking at it now, Kariya, like Lindros, had his career cut down shortly after this period. Jagr, while his star did rise to to tope around the turn of the miliennium a bit, faded almost just as fast and massively in the early 2000s. Forsberg seemed to be the clear winner in the acclaim department in the early 2000s, but he too was mostly out of sight and out of mind by the new NHL. Jagr reestablished some of his star power in the new NHL but that too faded pretty quick, but that retour after the KHL stint and climbing up the leaderboards will do wonders for you, and stats in sports seem to be more important now, as they are far more readily available and easily accessible, and society just seems more data focused nowadays anyway.

Yes, THN all-time ranking was done during the '96-'97 regular season, and Jagr was 37 and Lindros 54 (when expanded to 100). They were both very highly regarded by most hockey people. And it was contentious...when they released the top 50, the #1 negative feedback THN received about the ranking is that a lot of people thought that Lindros should've been higher (somewhere in the top 50), and especially higher due to Jagr being at #37.

 

[tabness]

Yes, THN all-time ranking was done during the '96-'97 regular season, and Jagr was 37 and Lindros 54 (when expanded to 100). They were both very highly regarded by most hockey people. And it was contentious...when they released the top 50, the #1 negative feedback THN received about the ranking is that a lot of people thought that Lindros should've been higher (somewhere in the top 50), and especially higher due to Jagr being at #37.

Yep, I remember Jagr being the number one criticism (in term of inclusion) of that list. Just a different time, you sort of had to pay your dues more lol

 

[Staniowski]

It's funny, because I swore it was Mario Lemieux in 1997, "symbolically" passing the torch to Lindros as "The Next One", which was also echoed by Wayne Gretzky. I don't recall either one of them saying (or hinting) that it was Jagr's league now. And Mario played with Jagr!

I don't recall ever reading any publication, from 1990 (when Lindros was still with Oshawa), through to 1998 (pre-concussions) when anyone who was covering the sport of hockey, ever said that Jagr was as good or superior to Lindros.

Even after Jagr's monster 1996 campaign (playing behind Lemieux which helps), I still never entertained the idea (and I doubt many people then did either) that you could do a 1-for-1 swap for Lindros and Jagr, without Philadelphia asking what else are you throwing in (not that they were going to do it anyway).

He had a ton of talent too. You can still watch his highlights, and while he bullied guys (sure), it's kind of impossible to be checking and fighting while scoring goals and racking up assists. He was very gifted offensively in his own right. I never felt that he took a backseat to Jagr in terms of offensive talent (up to '98), and it's not like Lindros only had that part of the game down.

Again, I wasn't even a Lindros fan at the time.

Until Lindros' concussions and other significant injuries started (during '97-'98), they both had a lot of support in the Lindros vs Jagr comparison.

Certainly a lot of people would've taken Lindros anytime until '97 or '98. And, on the other hand, even back in the early '90s, some people thought Jagr was better.

But, of course, from '98 onwards, Lindros' career declined due to injuries.

 

[psycat]

Pretty much same as they were just for longer time/more concistently, Forsberg "paced" for 100pts+(in deadpuck era) for 8 seasons or so(+ missing an entire season in the midst of his absolute prime), that's pretty much Crosby tier production if healthy. Of course that's also the difference between them, what a player actually accomplishes matters and availability is important.

If he had 9 seasons above 100pts in such a scoring enviorment he would be, rightfully I suppose, ranked much higher but I don't think he would be all that much better per game, sometimes id argue "resting" can even help players in the short perspective.

It's all speculation and who knows really, maybe his foot hampered his development and he would have been even better without any issues but it's hard to say and I think we saw him at just about max of his capacity.

 

[Hobnobs]

Bure and Kariya are pretty much right there with them in terms of being hampered by injuries in the same era. Selanne definitely impacted as well though to a lesser degree.

I don't think that Lindros or Forberg get much better on a game to game basis if they are gifted good health, they just get more games in and accumulate more stuff. Somewhat better I guess but to me Jagr is their best case scenario, except that Jagr actually reached that level.

I mean Forsbergs foot was alreay pertty much destroyed when he won the Art Ross. So i kinda get the point of the thread. He is a bigger unknown than Lindros to me if we are gonna go with the whole "What if they never were injured"-scenario.

Lindros we did absolutely see what he could do before injuries.

 

[Dale53130]

Anyone who thought Lindros better than Jagr was from Philly, was 6'4+ or wannabe, or loathed Pitt as much as i did. But i never could deny Jagr's talent. His lazy play, his lack of finish- he proved me f'in' right in Washington - ..... ugh, i'd trade him for claude & esa any day. JJ got it together late in his career, when he came back from Europe, but by then he couldn't overcome

I liked the Penguins, I liked Jagr more than Lindros, I'm from Winnipeg, and though I liked the '80s Flyers' teams, I never liked them after the Mark Howe, Tim Kerr, and Brian Propp era.

He should have stayed in Quebec, and this wouldn't even be a discussion today.

 

[VanIslander]

Dale...the only non-obscene reference i heard was to "Propp".

 

[MadLuke]

Yep, I remember Jagr being the number one criticism (in term of inclusion) of that list. Just a different time, you sort of had to pay your dues more lol

List done in the 96-97 season, those player competed for the Art Ross for the first time in their career in the 94-1995 season less than 2 years before, already ranked above Marcel Dionne.

That a bit like ranking Crosby all time during the 2008-2009 season or McDavid in 2018-2019, not sure if there would have been less critics for them to be that high at that point of their career now.

If I am not getting my math wrong.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Forsberg's passing was awesome. I remember talking about his "Gretzky-like" passes in the late '90s. Other than Gretzky and Lemieux, Forsberg and Kucherov are the most beautiful passers ever. Players like Jagr, Crosby, Malkin, and McDavid are great passers too, but they don't quite have the pure beauty of Forsberg and Kucherov.

Adam Oates and Bobby Orr were better passers than anyone you listed except Gretzky.

 

[The Panther]

So, if you just compare mid-1992 to mid-2000 (i.e., Lindros's entire Philly career), the stats are like this:

PPG
1.45 Jágr
1.36 Lindros
(The two are higher than anyone else in this period, except Mario, who played half as many games.)

Even Strength PPG
0.98 Jágr
0.92 Lindros

Plus/Minus per 82 games
+32 Lindros
+26 Jágr

So, just from those stats, it would be difficult to argue one's superiority over the other. Jágr is scoring 7 more points per season, but Lindros gets somewhat better results at evens, overall, and has a somewhat better shooting percentage. Really, the scoring difference is down to Lindros having twice as many penalty minutes (despite playing fewer games). Had Lindros controlled his physicality a bit better (or maybe been targeted a bit less, you could also say), he probably matches Jágr in per game scoring. There's also the fact that the Pens in this period were the highest scoring team in the League (Jágr a big part of that), but Jágr had the benefit of playing "behind" Lemieux for three of these seasons.

Anyway, if we isolate a shorter period here, they get even closer. Just taking off the 99-00 season (by which point Lindros was already slowing down) and already the difference in scoring between them in negligible.

Then, if you compare mid-1992 to mid-1998, Jágr and Lindros are exactly even in scoring, with a PPG of 1.41.

 

[Felidae]

So, if you just compare mid-1992 to mid-2000 (i.e., Lindros's entire Philly career), the stats are like this:

PPG
1.45 Jágr
1.36 Lindros
(The two are higher than anyone else in this period, except Mario, who played half as many games.)

Even Strength PPG
0.98 Jágr
0.92 Lindros

Plus/Minus per 82 games
+32 Lindros
+26 Jágr

So, just from those stats, it would be difficult to argue one's superiority over the other. Jágr is scoring 7 more points per season, but Lindros gets somewhat better results at evens, overall, and has a somewhat better shooting percentage. Really, the scoring difference is down to Lindros having twice as many penalty minutes (despite playing fewer games). Had Lindros controlled his physicality a bit better (or maybe been targeted a bit less, you could also say), he probably matches Jágr in per game scoring. There's also the fact that the Pens in this period were the highest scoring team in the League (Jágr a big part of that), but Jágr had the benefit of playing "behind" Lemieux for three of these seasons.

Anyway, if we isolate a shorter period here, they get even closer. Just taking off the 99-00 season (by which point Lindros was already slowing down) and already the difference in scoring between them in negligible.

Then, if you compare mid-1992 to mid-1998, Jágr and Lindros are exactly even in scoring, with a PPG of 1.41.

I think Lindros takes another trophy or two from Jagr had he been healthy.

Regardless of who you think was better at their best, I don't think the voters could resist giving Lindros the nod over Jagr in some years. Lindros was supposed to be "the next one" after all. It also doesn't help as a pure offensive force, Jagr had to follow up Lemieux and Gretzky. Meanwhile, Lindros was the most imposing physical force in the league combined with offensive talent pretty close to Jagr's, a combination rarely seen.

That said, I don't think even a fully healthy Lindros would rank above Jagr in an all time sense because the latter ages better. But I think he would have been what Ovi was to Crosby(roughly speaking) At their peak, at least debatable who was better.

 

[Dale53130]

I guess what irks me in Jagr vs Lindros, isolating 1990-1998 (in terms of perception of who was better), is that it's not a done deal after we see that it's close to a 1:1 deal in terms of scoring. Lindros is in that Howe/Messier camp, in that he does a lot of very important stuff - necessary stuff - aside from scoring, that I don't think that Jagr did. If he was a hair behind in scoring, why are we overlooking all of the other intangibles that should separate Lindros from Jagr (under the filter of 1992-1998)?

It feels like there's some revisionism that it was a close race, but inevitably, it was always supposed to be Jagr, and we sort of knew it then. To me, that's like revisiting the early '80s, and saying then that U2 was always bigger than Duran Duran, because U2 would go on to be the bigger band beyond 1985 up until now. I'm not arguing that U2 wasn't a deal back in the early '80s, but even Baby Boomer Mom's knew of Duran Duran by name even if they couldn't tell you a single title of their songs, whereas they'd (likely) never even heard of U2 at the time (beyond those BBM's who lived in the U.K. or specifically Ireland). Outside of a poster in the background of a scene in "Just One of the Guys" (1985), I never really see much indicating that they were as big then as Duran Duran was up to that point in time.

I'm starting to wonder if Lindros were from Finland, and played with a visor on, that we'd be more inclined to think that he only scratched the surface of what he could have done had it not been for his injuries. I'm not the least bit sold that Lindros came close to what he could have become.

 

[Staniowski]

I guess what irks me in Jagr vs Lindros, isolating 1990-1998 (in terms of perception of who was better), is that it's not a done deal after we see that it's close to a 1:1 deal in terms of scoring. Lindros is in that Howe/Messier camp, in that he does a lot of very important stuff - necessary stuff - aside from scoring, that I don't think that Jagr did. If he was a hair behind in scoring, why are we overlooking all of the other intangibles that should separate Lindros from Jagr (under the filter of 1992-1998)?

It feels like there's some revisionism that it was a close race, but inevitably, it was always supposed to be Jagr, and we sort of knew it then. To me, that's like revisiting the early '80s, and saying then that U2 was always bigger than Duran Duran, because U2 would go on to be the bigger band beyond 1985 up until now. I'm not arguing that U2 wasn't a deal back in the early '80s, but even Baby Boomer Mom's knew of Duran Duran by name even if they couldn't tell you a single title of their songs, whereas they'd (likely) never even heard of U2 at the time (beyond those BBM's who lived in the U.K. or specifically Ireland). Outside of a poster in the background of a scene in "Just One of the Guys" (1985), I never really see much indicating that they were as big then as Duran Duran was up to that point in time.

I'm starting to wonder if Lindros were from Finland, and played with a visor on, that we'd be more inclined to think that he only scratched the surface of what he could have done had it not been for his injuries. I'm not the least bit sold that Lindros came close to what he could have become.

Duran Duran were definitely bigger stars than U2 before The Joshua Tree, which certainly changed everything. Everybody knew Duran Duran. U2 were critically acclaimed, particularly their two previous albums, and some people loved them in the early '80s, but they weren't big mainstream stars like Duran Duran.

Lindros' last pre-concussion season was his 23-year-old season....so, yeah, he was still young.

 

[The Panther]

Don't forget that Gretzky was actually in Duran Duran for a while...

 

[frisco]

This thread title sums about 60% of all HOF posts. Now, if somehow the OP could have added Pavel Bure's name to Forsberg/Lindros and mentioned how lousy Dave Andreychuk was in there somehow, we could make this thread a sticky.

Comparing Forsberg/Lindros to Jagr/Crosby is sort of like comparing Tim Kerr or Rick Martin to Brett Hull or Luc Robitaille.

My Best-Carey

 

[Albatros]

I'm starting to wonder if Lindros were from Finland, and played with a visor on, that we'd be more inclined to think that he only scratched the surface of what he could have done had it not been for his injuries.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

This thread title sums about 60% of all HOF posts. Now, if somehow the OP could have added Pavel Bure's name to Forsberg/Lindros and mentioned how lousy Dave Andreychuk was in there somehow, we could make this thread a sticky.

Comparing Forsberg/Lindros to Jagr/Crosby is sort of like comparing Tim Kerr or Rick Martin to Brett Hull or Luc Robitaille.

My Best-Carey

I think the problem is that ever since Turgeon and Barrasso were inducted into the Hall of Fame, you’re not pulling your weight balancing the content ratio like you used to.

 

[The Panther]

I think the problem is that ever since Turgeon and Barrasso were inducted into the Hall of Fame, you’re not pulling your weight balancing the content ratio like you used to.

In fact, after 47 different Buffalo Sabres from the 80s/90s made the Hall of Fame, I think we have to assume that 'Carey' made it happen. It was his life's mission, and once he succeeded, his work here is done.

Comparing Forsberg/Lindros to Jagr/Crosby is sort of like comparing Tim Kerr or Rick Martin to Brett Hull or Luc Robitaille.

My Best-Carey

I know Crosby is a bit overrated, but comparing him to Kerr and Martin is going a bit too far, don't you think...?

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

In fact, after 47 different Buffalo Sabres from the 80s/90s made the Hall of Fame, I think we have to assume that 'Carey' made it happen. It was his life's mission, and once he succeeded, his work here is done.

As long as flash in the pan gimps like Bure, Fedorov, Forsberg and Lindros are being lionized here, and Phil Housley treated like a middle-six LW rather than an all-time puck moving defenseman, his work must continue.

(All jokes aside, I earnestly appreciate frisco’s contributions around here, and the Perreault-Lafleur comparison is one of the most interesting reoccurring debates on HoH).

 

[bobholly39]

If you simplify it - there are two elements to being an all-time great player. Having an all world peak level, and having an all-world consistency to play at a high level every year.

All-world peak level? Sure, both Forsberg and Lindros are great. As good as peak Crosby/Jagr? No I don't think so, but I'm open to the idea that in a perfect storm it would be close, and it's possible they even peak higher.

All-world consistency? This is where they lose me. Crosby has one of the most consistency elite career in the history of the sport. In a tier with guys like Howe or Bourque. Jagr - not very far behind, 4 straight art rosses, etc. Nothing about Forsberg or Lindros's primes lead me to believe they could match either/or guy, and it would be their undoing.

I think on our latest top 100 list we ranked Forsberg close to ~50th all time, and Lindros close to ~100th. Without any major injuries, I could see them both being in the ~20 to 35 range. Messier was 21st - I think Lindros at most could potentially match that or slightly surpass it, but barely. Sakic is 32nd - I think that's a good target for Forsberg, he could potentially match/surpass Sakic.

They would not approach McDavid/Crosby tier careers imo.

 

[JackSlater]

This thread title sums about 60% of all HOF posts. Now, if somehow the OP could have added Pavel Bure's name to Forsberg/Lindros and mentioned how lousy Dave Andreychuk was in there somehow, we could make this thread a sticky.

Comparing Forsberg/Lindros to Jagr/Crosby is sort of like comparing Tim Kerr or Rick Martin to Brett Hull or Luc Robitaille.

My Best-Carey

Oh yeah, those numbers look great in the HHOF.

If you simplify it - there are two elements to being an all-time great player. Having an all world peak level, and having an all-world consistency to play at a high level every year.

All-world peak level? Sure, both Forsberg and Lindros are great. As good as peak Crosby/Jagr? No I don't think so, but I'm open to the idea that in a perfect storm it would be close, and it's possible they even peak higher.

All-world consistency? This is where they lose me. Crosby has one of the most consistency elite career in the history of the sport. In a tier with guys like Howe or Bourque. Jagr - not very far behind, 4 straight art rosses, etc. Nothing about Forsberg or Lindros's primes lead me to believe they could match either/or guy, and it would be their undoing.

I think on our latest top 100 list we ranked Forsberg close to ~50th all time, and Lindros close to ~100th. Without any major injuries, I could see them both being in the ~20 to 35 range. Messier was 21st - I think Lindros at most could potentially match that or slightly surpass it, but barely. Sakic is 32nd - I think that's a good target for Forsberg, he could potentially match/surpass Sakic.

They would not approach McDavid/Crosby tier careers imo.

There is nothing to suggest that Forsberg or Lindros lacked the ability to consistently dominate, outside of being injured. The point of this thread is that they are magically not injured as much.

 

[frisco]

There is nothing to suggest that Forsberg or Lindros lacked the ability to consistently dominate, outside of being injured. The point of this thread is that they are magically not injured as much.

Possibly the only difference between Forsberg/Lindros and Crosby/Jagr was simply injuries. But, I would counter that the reason Crosby/Jagr produced way more and for way longer was also due to a combination of:

-They were just better players and more talented.
-Particularly, in Crosby's case, they had the ability to adapt their playing styles to try to maintain effectiveness even after injuries.
-Conditioning.
-Athletic talent and genetics.
-A wider skill base which allowed them to compete at a higher level while the game around them changed. Some of this would be physical and some of it "hockey IQ".
-Unmatched work ethic which focused on fighting the natural aging process and adding to their strengths and eliminating their weaknesses even as logic would say they should have regressed.
-Different playing styles that are more conducive to long careers. If Lindros would have been more willing to play a finesse game he could have lasted longer. It also may have meant he may never have reached the high peak of play he got to that makes this conversation interesting in the first place.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

In fact, after 47 different Buffalo Sabres from the 80s/90s made the Hall of Fame, I think we have to assume that 'Carey' made it happen. It was his life's mission, and once he succeeded, his work here is done.

I'll admit when Barrasso and Turgeon went into the HOF, the fire faded a bit. But as long as 1990's "but if you take the best five years of my career and extrapolate them, I'm an all-time great" board superdarlings Bure, Lindros, Forsberg and Kariya keep getting undue props, I'll always be here, fighting the good fight.

My Best-Carey

 

[Janvonpobben]

Oh yeah, those numbers look great in the HHOF.



There is nothing to suggest that Forsberg or Lindros lacked the ability to consistently dominate, outside of being injured. The point of this thread is that they are magically not injured as much.

Thanks finally someone understood the point of my thread. Forsberg and Lindros was often injured and lacked consistancy thanks to that. They really could hang with the best.

 

[Janvonpobben]

Possibly the only difference between Forsberg/Lindros and Crosby/Jagr was simply injuries. But, I would counter that the reason Crosby/Jagr produced way more and for way longer was also due to a combination of:

-They were just better players and more talented.
-Particularly, in Crosby's case, they had the ability to adapt their playing styles to try to maintain effectiveness even after injuries.
-Conditioning.
-Athletic talent and genetics.
-A wider skill base which allowed them to compete at a higher level while the game around them changed. Some of this would be physical and some of it "hockey IQ".
-Unmatched work ethic which focused on fighting the natural aging process and adding to their strengths and eliminating their weaknesses even as logic would say they should have regressed.
-Different playing styles that are more conducive to long careers. If Lindros would have been more willing to play a finesse game he could have lasted longer. It also may have meant he may never have reached the high peak of play he got to that makes this conversation interesting in the first place.

My Best-Carey

Hard disagree there. In terms of talent both Lindros and Forsberg were up there. They were both two of the best juniors ever.