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

[Yozhik v tumane]

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

Weren’t Jagr and Crosby?

 

[Janvonpobben]

Weren’t Jagr and Crosby?

Forsberg with the WJC record and Lindros was called the next one.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

I'm not saying they wouldn't be consistent per se - just that they weren't good enough to be consistently winning/contending for Ross/Hart/Lindsay trophies. And that puts them a tier below Jagr/McDavid/Crosby.

Peter Forsberg missed very little time between 1995 and 2001. His 2000 season he missed a lot, but that's the only one. Even if you pace out all his seasons to a full 82 games - he's not winning any harts/rosses/lindsays. That's from ages 21 to 27. So - better health doesn't automatically make him a perenial hart/ross etc candidate, as guys like Jagr/McDavid/Crosby were. Forsberg definitely would have done better post 2002 & 2003 with better health, but he was already nearing 30.

Lindros - he was very close to Jagr level in 95 and 96....and then Jagr hit another level, and won 4 straight rosses, and probably should have multiple harts too. It's possible Lindros also had another gear to hit post 96, but it's a lot more likely that this was already him at his best....and simply put, Jagr was better. I actually already preferred Jagr in 95, and he just increased that gap beyond that.

With perfect health does Lindros win any individual trophy? He might have won a ross + hart in 2000, the year Jagr only played 63 games, but in my opinion that's about it. I don't see him winning multiple harts/rosses - and that's what a McDavid/Crosby/Jagr player level is. I think he's a tier below, and Mark Messier is a more apt comparable.

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.

I understand the point of the thread fine - but it doesn't mean I have to agree with your premise of how good they would be.

Give McDavid, Jagr, Crosby perfect health and they're each winning multiple rosses, harts, lindsay's. Do the same for Lindros & Forsberg and they win a lot less.

 

[frisco]

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

Actually, I agree. That being said, everyone progresses (and ages) differently. It could be Lindros and Forsberg hit their overall (physical and everything) peak early and had a more steep dive down afterwards. Injuries were a factor for sure but normally players don't sustain success as well as Jagr, Crosby, Howe, Bourque, Chelios. They are the outliers/exceptions.

My Best-Carey

 

[TruePowerSlave]

Would Lindros be able to stay healthy though?

Skated with his head down and the playstyle was just asking for someone to deck Lindros whenever possible. Being a tremendously physical player doesn't help longevity either.

Same thing with Foppa and his physical style despite not being that big. It definitely doesn't help your career in the long run.

 

[JackSlater]

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

You seem really desperate to not accept that they were just injured and that injured players play worse. I'd lean toward thinking that Jagr and Crosby were better players as well but there isn't some defect in Lindros or Forsberg, other than Forsberg's foot I guess. I see no reason to question their conditioning, talent, genetics, skills, work ethic. Lindros had a litany of concussions and then he wasn't as good. Forsberg's body pretty much fell apart and then he had to retire. You can say that Lindros should have changed his style somewhat to avoid some of his issues like his knee injury, but I don't think his playstyle led to most of the concussions or that Forsberg's style of play drastically impacted his health.

The league didn't figure Forsberg and Lindros out or move in a direction that they couldn't compete in, they just got injured. Forsberg excelled from the day he entered the NHL until his body gave out. His skills and iq didn't erode. Lindros was elite from the moment he entered the NHL until his head was pretty much scrambled. His skills and physical advantage didn't just disappear or become irrelevant.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Forsberg with the WJC record and Lindros was called the next one.

Crosby was also called the next one, Forsberg was two full years older than Jagr were when he played in the WJC. Jagr had the record for players under 18 until Bedard beat it last year.

 

[JackSlater]

I'm not saying they wouldn't be consistent per se - just that they weren't good enough to be consistently winning/contending for Ross/Hart/Lindsay trophies. And that puts them a tier below Jagr/McDavid/Crosby.

Peter Forsberg missed very little time between 1995 and 2001. His 2000 season he missed a lot, but that's the only one. Even if you pace out all his seasons to a full 82 games - he's not winning any harts/rosses/lindsays. That's from ages 21 to 27. So - better health doesn't automatically make him a perenial hart/ross etc candidate, as guys like Jagr/McDavid/Crosby were. Forsberg definitely would have done better post 2002 & 2003 with better health, but he was already nearing 30.

Lindros - he was very close to Jagr level in 95 and 96....and then Jagr hit another level, and won 4 straight rosses, and probably should have multiple harts too. It's possible Lindros also had another gear to hit post 96, but it's a lot more likely that this was already him at his best....and simply put, Jagr was better. I actually already preferred Jagr in 95, and he just increased that gap beyond that.

With perfect health does Lindros win any individual trophy? He might have won a ross + hart in 2000, the year Jagr only played 63 games, but in my opinion that's about it. I don't see him winning multiple harts/rosses - and that's what a McDavid/Crosby/Jagr player level is. I think he's a tier below, and Mark Messier is a more apt comparable.


I understand the point of the thread fine - but it doesn't mean I have to agree with your premise of how good they would be.

Give McDavid, Jagr, Crosby perfect health and they're each winning multiple rosses, harts, lindsay's. Do the same for Lindros & Forsberg and they win a lot less.

I don't see that big of a difference. In terms of trophies, no one was outscoring Lemieux in 1996 or 1997 and I don't blame them for failing to outscore peak Jagr either. The critique of Lindros is particularly weird when he did win an individual trophy when he won the 1995 Hart and with perfect health he very, very likely gets that Art Ross as well considering he already tied for the league lead in scoring. It's pretty reasonable to expect that Forsberg and Lindros are both basically top five in points per game almost every season until the lockout if they are both healthy, and in Forsberg's case in particular we don't need to stretch our belief that much. They also are players who brought more than scoring to the table. Other than being injured the critique doesn't make sense.

Great odds that the 2000 Hart, 2002 Hart/Art Ross, and 2004 Hart/Art Ross look different if they are both suddenly healthy. The 1998 scoring title is quite possible for either of them if given a full season of games and good health. Then again they might have periods, as Jagr and Crosby have had, where they take a bit of a lull and don't really compete for the Hart/Art Ross even when they should on paper.

 

[frisco]

You can say that Lindros should have changed his style somewhat to avoid some of his issues like his knee injury, but I don't think his playstyle led to most of the concussions

I would strongly disagree. Lindros with his physical style and unwillingness or inability to change from that was a direct cause of the heavy hits he gave out and took and subsequent concussions. There may be a genetic factor here too, with Brett also having his career altered and eventually cut short by the same issues.

Crosby's concussions were probably as severe or worse than Lindros. But, he subtlety remade his game is response. Did he lose some effectiveness? Probably. Apologies to McDavid but Crosby in the season or so running up to his first major concussion was playing as good a hockey as I've seen this century.

My Best-Carey

 

[JackSlater]

I would strongly disagree. Lindros with his physical style and unwillingness or inability to change from that was a direct cause of the heavy hits he gave out and took and subsequent concussions. There may be a genetic factor here too, with Brett also having his career altered and eventually cut short by the same issues.

Crosby's concussions were probably as severe or worse than Lindros. But, he subtlety remade his game is response. Did he lose some effectiveness? Probably. Apologies to McDavid but Crosby in the season or so running up to his first major concussion was playing as good a hockey as I've seen this century.

My Best-Carey

That's fine, but I don't think it's a coincidence that so many stars from around that time, even those who happened to play a different style than Lindros like LaFontaine, Roenick (some similarities), Bure, Kariya, Selanne, even Forsberg, Savard later on etc. had health problems that limited them. I guess you could argue that Lindros was targeted moreso due to how he played and there is likely some truth to that.

I agree that Crosby became less effective and changed his style somewhat, and it probably did add some length to his career. Crosby is a smarter player than Lindros and a better player, but even his concussion was a different style of issue in that it was a freak accident (bat signal activated) along with his puck to the face in 2013. I think that the issue here however is confusing injured players for players who could not develop.

 

[tabness]

I'll always be here, fighting the good fight.

(wish I could get a celebration picture but the ones easily available and highest quality were with like the Islanders/Blues/Canadiens which just isn't right for you lol)

 

[tabness]

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.

If I am not getting my math wrong.

yes im speaking about the backlash to the list back then

things like long careers and big career numbers were much more highly regarded by fans than like Harts and Art Rosses or especially ppg

and we all know what people were saying about Crosby and McDavid just five years into their careers... i obviously wasnt with it (still not lol)

 

[MadLuke]

and we all know what people were saying about Crosby and McDavid just five years into their careers... i obviously wasnt with it (still not lol)

This is it true and that why I am not sure that short career are less a big deal now than back then.

Those people in "voting power" and fans of a certain age in 1997, would have grown with Bobby Orr, Clarke, Lemaire, Dryden, Lafleur, Lemieux, Bossy, seeing the Soviet from time to time in an era in which someone like Trottier had a very long career.

People for who numbers changed completely over time in drastic ways, I am not sure if long career is less a thing now than back then. or maybe I do not understand what you mean.

The fans of a certain age Bucyk and Gartner outscore Beliveau in career total,, Nicholls over Bossy they must have had a good resistance to career total numbers.

 

[VanIslander]

Injuries? A culprit:

There is a 5'11 Lithuanian who upset Forsberg, Lindros, Jagr and Lemieux (to the point that Mario ASKED the Pens to acquire him to not be pestered by him any more).



Notice the then 'clean hit' shouldering a heads down guy:




And he owns MARIO LEMIEUX on several nights like this one (notice the much bigger guy overreacting like a friggin' soccer player):


That era was wild; it heralded Scott Stevens and Michael Peca for doing what Gary Suter and Darius Kasparaitis did. Headhunting, cheapshots... little penalty compared to today: a 5-minute major or game misconduct was met by fist bumps and a trip to the showers. No shame. Glory.
(Unless your target was beloved.)

Kasper made $23 million dollars over his 14-year NHL career only bodychecking and injuring (his only goal: hit the puck carrier). I hated his guts. But he was akin to several guys who i played youth hockey with. The only thing i admired was his relentless intensity. He never took a shift off. It and his willingness to take on the giants were his all-time great skills.

 

[tabness]

This is it true and that why I am not sure that short career are less a big deal now than back then.

Those people in "voting power" and fans of a certain age in 1997, would have grown with Bobby Orr, Clarke, Lemaire, Dryden, Lafleur, Lemieux, Bossy, seeing the Soviet from time to time in an era in which someone like Trottier had a very long career.

People for who numbers changed completely over time in drastic ways, I am not sure if long career is less a thing now than back then. or maybe I do not understand what you mean.

The fans of a certain age Bucyk and Gartner outscore Beliveau in career total,, Nicholls over Bossy they must have had a good resistance to career total numbers.

It's not a hard and fast rule of course, but note on Gartner, he was called out as one of the huge omissions from the top 50 program, because he had reached 700 goals in between when the list was commissioned and when it was released.

Orr and Bossy had huge milestones even with their short careers though. Orr is Orr anyway, he would be the childhood era "generational" player for quite a few in the panel, Bossy obviously hit 500 goals/1000 points, tied most 50 goal seasons, etc

Obviously the other big thing was cups. There are exceptions like Bourque and Dionne and Park, but I'd say the exceptions only prove the general rule. Same big talk about omissions, about Yzerman who won the cup after the list was commissioned, and on broadcast suddenly many in the panel said they would have very high.

Milestones are still quite important to this day, just look at the dissonance here that happens when the Hall of Fame inducts various players now with big milestones that aren't as highly regarded here because the standards for judging players are different.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

That's fine, but I don't think it's a coincidence that so many stars from around that time, even those who happened to play a different style than Lindros like LaFontaine, Roenick (some similarities), Bure, Kariya, Selanne, even Forsberg, Savard later on etc. had health problems that limited them. I guess you could argue that Lindros was targeted moreso due to how he played and there is likely some truth to that.

I agree that Crosby became less effective and changed his style somewhat, and it probably did add some length to his career. Crosby is a smarter player than Lindros and a better player, but even his concussion was a different style of issue in that it was a freak accident (bat signal activated) along with his puck to the face in 2013. I think that the issue here however is confusing injured players for players who could not develop.

Lindros stated he got freaked out entering the zone (fear of being smoked), hence his style changed and was not as effective. He was a talented player but like Cam Neely, once he stopped being a hitter, his game went down and did not adapt...

 

[JackSlater]

Lindros stated he got freaked out entering the zone (fear of being smoked), hence his style changed and was not as effective. He was a talented player but like Cam Neely, once he stopped being a hitter, his game went down and did not adapt...

It's not about being a hitter, it's about Lindros essentially having to become a perimeter player... which has nothing to do with this thread, as we assume that Lindros is not plagued by injuries.

 

[Janvonpobben]

Lindros was a force before the concussions. Safe to say that he could reach any level except for maybe wayne and mario. Crosby and mcdavid included.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

Lindros was a force before the concussions. Safe to say that he could reach any level except for maybe wayne and mario. Crosby and mcdavid included.

Question is: if Lindros did not play such a rough, hard hitting game and focused purely on skill, would he be even more effective or was being physical such a large part of his game he needed that to be effective?

 

[The Panther]

I'm not saying they wouldn't be consistent per se - just that they weren't good enough to be consistently winning/contending for Ross/Hart/Lindsay trophies. And that puts them a tier below Jagr/McDavid/Crosby.

Is that accurate, though?

As I have noted elsewhere:
PPG 1992-93 to 1997-98:
1.41 Lindros
1.41 Jagr

So, if Lindros wasn't able to compete, then surely Jagr wasn't either? And Crosby is definitely a tier below Jagr in scoring ability.

Lindros - he was very close to Jagr level in 95 and 96....and then Jagr hit another level, and won 4 straight rosses, and probably should have multiple harts too. It's possible Lindros also had another gear to hit post 96, but it's a lot more likely that this was already him at his best....and simply put, Jagr was better. I actually already preferred Jagr in 95, and he just increased that gap beyond that.

That's not really accurate, either:

PPG 1996-97:
1.52 Lindros
1.51 Jagr

With perfect health does Lindros win any individual trophy?

Are you forgetting that Lindros did win the Hart in 1995 (and had the highest PPG in the League)?

 

[daver]

Lindros was a force before the concussions. Safe to say that he could reach any level except for maybe wayne and mario. Crosby and mcdavid included.

Lindros (age 21 to age 24) from 94/95 to his first concussion on March 7, 1998:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Definitely was on a tier above everyone else save for Jagr and Mario. There were zero signs that he would have hit a higher level, ;let alone matched what peak Jagr did in 1999/2000 and a reasonable argument can be made that he had hit his peak already given that he was physically mature at a young age and that his offense relied on that physicality rather than a high hockey IQ.

Crosby and McDavid hit higher levels offensively at the same age (and younger) then were on a tier that only peak Jagr matched from age 23 onwards.

Of course he brought more to the table than offense but to position him as above the best of the non Big 4 offensively is not reasonable.

Crosby, McDavid and Bedard were better offensive players in juniors.

 

[bobholly39]

Is that accurate, though?

As I have noted elsewhere:
PPG 1992-93 to 1997-98:
1.41 Lindros
1.41 Jagr

So, if Lindros wasn't able to compete, then surely Jagr wasn't either? And Crosby is definitely a tier below Jagr in scoring ability.

That's not really accurate, either:

PPG 1996-97:
1.52 Lindros
1.51 Jagr

Are you forgetting that Lindros did win the Hart in 1995 (and had the highest PPG in the League)?

94-95 to 97-98 it's:

Jagr ppg 1.54
Lindros ppg 1.43

Doesn't make sense to compare from 92-93, as Jagr really only hit that next level in 94-95. So for those 4 years with both players at peak ability, Jagr is the better scorer. And Jagr does even better in the following 3 years, 3 more art rosses. No - I don't think Lindros would have kept up with him scoring-wise. He'd do better than Forsberg, but would be #2 to Jagr at best.

Also - I know Lindros won a hart in 1995 of course - I'm saying if you give him perfect health what else does he win from a ross/hart perspective? I think at most it's in 2000 - and only because Jagr misses ~20 games.

Give Crosby the benefit of good health and he climbs to 5 or 6 art rosses/harts
Give Lindros/Forsberg the benefit of good health and they go up to maybe 2. Maybe

 

[The Panther]

94-95 to 97-98 it's:

Jagr ppg 1.54
Lindros ppg 1.43

Doesn't make sense to compare from 92-93, as Jagr really only hit that next level in 94-95. So for those 4 years with both players at peak ability, Jagr is the better scorer. And Jagr does even better in the following 3 years, 3 more art rosses. No - I don't think Lindros would have kept up with him scoring-wise. He'd do better than Forsberg, but would be #2 to Jagr at best.

I agree that Jagr was a better scorer head to head than Lindros. I think most people here would agree with that. But (a) Jagr is, like, the third or fourth-best offensive player in the history of the sport, and (b) Jagr kept going beyond the 1990s at a high level, and Lindros didn't.

Not being able to quite keep up with Jagr isn't exactly an insult to Lindros. It's more so to his credit that he came so close. (And yes, I'm including 1992-93 in this comparison -- it's Lindros's rookie season! If Jagr couldn't match him in his third season while Lindros was a rookie, perhaps Jagr isn't quite as respectively dominant as you think!):

1992-93
1.23 Lindros
1.16 Jagr
1993-94
1.49 Lindros
1.24 Jagr
1995
1.52 Lindros
1.46 Jagr
1995-96
1.82 Jagr
1.58 Lindros
1996-97
1.52 Lindros
1.51 Jagr
1997-98
1.32 Jagr
1.13 Lindros
1998-99
1.57 Jagr
1.31 Lindros
1999-00
1.52 Jagr
1.07 Lindros
2000-01
(Lindros doesn't play. Goes to New York.)
2001-02
1.14 Jagr
1.01 Lindros

In their first 8 seasons head to head., each was the "PPG winner" four times, with Lindros a bit higher earlier and Jagr a bit higher later. After 1997-98, Jagr starts to run away with it, but this is well into Lindros's injury-issues period.

Give Crosby the benefit of good health and he climbs to 5 or 6 art rosses/harts

That seems a bit optimistic. Crosby has 2 Art Rosses in 19 seasons. There are three other seasons when he had a League-best PPG, but...

In 2011, Crosby played only 50% of the games. I can never award a hypothetical Art Ross based on such few games played (maybe if Mario or Wayne in prime years, but to nobody else).

In 2013, Crosby played only 75% of the (48) games, but his PPG was so strong that I'd say it's about an 80% chance he wins that Art Ross. So, I'd give him that one.

In 2015, Crosby was the PPG leader by a measly 0.01 over Tyler Seguin and 0.03 over Jamie Benn. It's of course possible, but also equally unlikely, that he wins that Art Ross with five more games played. It's too close to call and it should not be theoretically awarded to him.

In sum, Crosby could be theoretically awarded only one more Art Ross than he actually has -- the 2013 one.

Give Lindros/Forsberg the benefit of good health and they go up to maybe 2. Maybe

Forsberg is an interesting case. These are the PPG leaders between 1995-96 and 2003-04 (min. 300 GP):
1.38 Jagr
1.30 Forsberg
1.20 Sakic
1.14 Lindros
1.12 Gretzky

For this nine-season period, Jagr is outscoring Forsberg (on pace) by only 6 or 7 points per season. In addition, Forsberg's ES numbers are better. Hell, even his shooting percentage is slightly better!

_________________

I don't think we should get too caught up in how many trophies so-and-so would have won. I mean, if you're going to go down that road, we're at main-board level stuff like "Martin St. Louis won 2 Art Rosses and Rocket Richard won 0, so Richard sucks!"

In many of these comparisons of point production from Jagr (who, again, I think is above the others overall), Lindros, Forsberg, and Crosby, it's a very fine line over large sample sizes. One guy might get lucky and win four Art Rosses (if healthy) in ten years, while another might get unlucky and finish in 2nd place a bunch of times.

 

[Albatros]

Same thing with Foppa and his physical style despite not being that big. It definitely doesn't help your career in the long run.

Forsberg was still among the very best in the league in his mid-30s though, even with the same hockey-related injuries but no unrelated foot issues things would have been decidedly different.

 

[JackSlater]

I agree that Jagr was a better scorer head to head than Lindros. I think most people here would agree with that. But (a) Jagr is, like, the third or fourth-best offensive player in the history of the sport, and (b) Jagr kept going beyond the 1990s at a high level, and Lindros didn't.

Not being able to quite keep up with Jagr isn't exactly an insult to Lindros. It's more so to his credit that he came so close. (And yes, I'm including 1992-93 in this comparison -- it's Lindros's rookie season! If Jagr couldn't match him in his third season while Lindros was a rookie, perhaps Jagr isn't quite as respectively dominant as you think!):

1992-93
1.23 Lindros
1.16 Jagr
1993-94
1.49 Lindros
1.24 Jagr
1995
1.52 Lindros
1.46 Jagr
1995-96
1.82 Jagr
1.58 Lindros
1996-97
1.52 Lindros
1.51 Jagr
1997-98
1.32 Jagr
1.13 Lindros
1998-99
1.57 Jagr
1.31 Lindros
1999-00
1.52 Jagr
1.07 Lindros
2000-01
(Lindros doesn't play. Goes to New York.)
2001-02
1.14 Jagr
1.01 Lindros

In their first 8 seasons head to head., each was the "PPG winner" four times, with Lindros a bit higher earlier and Jagr a bit higher later. After 1997-98, Jagr starts to run away with it, but this is well into Lindros's injury-issues period.

That seems a bit optimistic. Crosby has 2 Art Rosses in 19 seasons. There are three other seasons when he had a League-best PPG, but...

In 2011, Crosby played only 50% of the games. I can never award a hypothetical Art Ross based on such few games played (maybe if Mario or Wayne in prime years, but to nobody else).

In 2013, Crosby played only 75% of the (48) games, but his PPG was so strong that I'd say it's about an 80% chance he wins that Art Ross. So, I'd give him that one.

In 2015, Crosby was the PPG leader by a measly 0.01 over Tyler Seguin and 0.03 over Jamie Benn. It's of course possible, but also equally unlikely, that he wins that Art Ross with five more games played. It's too close to call and it should not be theoretically awarded to him.

In sum, Crosby could be theoretically awarded only one more Art Ross than he actually has -- the 2013 one.

Forsberg is an interesting case. These are the PPG leaders between 1995-96 and 2003-04 (min. 300 GP):
1.38 Jagr
1.30 Forsberg
1.20 Sakic
1.14 Lindros
1.12 Gretzky

For this nine-season period, Jagr is outscoring Forsberg (on pace) by only 6 or 7 points per season. In addition, Forsberg's ES numbers are better. Hell, even his shooting percentage is slightly better!

_________________

I don't think we should get too caught up in how many trophies so-and-so would have won. I mean, if you're going to go down that road, we're at main-board level stuff like "Martin St. Louis won 2 Art Rosses and Rocket Richard won 0, so Richard sucks!"

In many of these comparisons of point production from Jagr (who, again, I think is above the others overall), Lindros, Forsberg, and Crosby, it's a very fine line over large sample sizes. One guy might get lucky and win four Art Rosses (if healthy) in ten years, while another might get unlucky and finish in 2nd place a bunch of times.

I agree with this generally but I'd like to add, if you're going to make Lindros (or Forsberg) healthy you don't just extend their points per game to 80 or 82 games or so, they would be better players on a per game level as well. For instance if we're accepting the premise that Lindros is generally healthy, why wouldn't Lindros, at 28/29 years old, be the clear favourite to lead the NHL in scoring in 2002? The shell of Eric Lindros in the actual 2002 season was on pace for 83 points and the league lead was only 96. That's a Lindros very clearly far from his best. The same applies to Forsberg, who was the best offensive player that year... he just only played in the playoffs.

I also agree that leading the league in scoring is not the be all and end all. Forsberg and Lindros brought good value outside of offence and year to year there are variables that impact what it means to lead the league in scoring.