Where are you getting the adjusted points from? (Honestly curious, not debating their validity)
You can see adjusted points on hockey-reference, although I don't think they are given as per 82. Of course one can always take out a calculator.
Just for fun here are the top five seasons for each player based on offensive point shares. By my calculations Lindros and Malkin are very close on a per-game basis, while Malkin is more dominant on a per-season basis.
Malkin's yearly OPS:
1. 13.4 ('11'-12)
2. 11.5 ('07-08)
3. 10.2 ('08-09)
4. 10.2 ('17-18)
5. 8.4 ('16-17)
Lindros's yearly OPS:
1. 11.0 ('95-96)
2. 9.2 ('98-99)
3. 9.0 ('93-94)
4. 7.9 ('97-98)
5. 7.7 ('01-02)
Malkin blows Lindros out of the water here and with both players being somewhat injury-prone, I don't think that excuse can work for Eric.
But let's be fair to Lindros: one of his better seasons was the strike-shortened '94-95 where he played 46 of 48 games with 7.3 OPS. Let's pretend that there was no strike and adjust his production to, say, 80 games and we get 12.7 OPS.
In that case we get:
Lindros
1. 12.7 ('94-5) * adjusted to a full season
2. 11.0 ('95-96)
3. 9.2 ('98-99)
4. 9.0 ('93-94)
5. 7.9 ('97-98)
Now let's pretend neither player gets injured in their best seasons. How do they fare against one another based on offensive point shares? I get the following when we adjust their production to an 82-game season:
Malkin's adjusted OPS
1. 14.7 ('11-12)
2. 11.5 ('07-08)
3. 11.1 ('16-17)
4. 10.7 ('17-18)
5. 10.2 ('08-09)
Lindros's adjusted OPS
1. 13.2 ('96-97)
2. 13.0 ('94-95)
3. 12.4 ('95-96)
4. 11.4 ('93-94)
5. 10.6 ('98-99)
Higher peak for Malkin, but Lindros is more dominant in his next two best seasons.
I think injuries are no excuse and therefore Malkin is the better player. Some will point to other factors to consider outside of offensive production: physical intimidation, defensive play, leadership, etc, which is where things get subjective.