HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   Ovechkin vs. Lindros as of Summer 2000 (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1269125)

seventieslord 10-08-2012 11:38 PM

Ovechkin vs. Lindros as of Summer 2000
 
The general perception around these parts is that Ovechkin is now a top-100 player (let's say in the 80-100 range) and that Eric Lindros didn't quite reach that status (100-120 probably).

I'm starting to get the impression that maybe we're overrating Ovechkin a tad, or underrating Lindros, to have this wide of a gap between them.

First of all, in order for this comparison to go anywhere you have to agree with me that Lindros' post-2000 play doesn't take anything away from his resume. I don't see why it would. If he just retired at 26 instead of plugging away for 7 more years it's silly to think we'd regard him any higher than we do now. If you disagree, I doubt the rest will convince you of anything.

Taking a look at Lindros' first 8 seasons, he had played about as many games as Ovechkin had played after his first 7. (counting his 1995 lockout year as "79 adjusted games). During that time, he scored, in adjusted figures:

519-301-402-703 (.58-.77-1.35)

Ovechkin currently has this:

553-364-352-716 (.66-.64-1.29)

Defensively:

Lindros was pretty solid but nothing special. Ovechkin has definitely had his issues.

Physically:

Ovechkin has thrown some thundering checks and plays an energetic physical game. he has been one of the most physically dominant star forwards of the past 20 years. But Lindros has been THE most physically dominant star forward in that time. And pretty wide margin too, I'd say. Forget star forwards, Lindros was as big, strong, mean and physical as any player in the league in his prime.

Playoffs:

Ovechkin has been a mostly consistent scorer in the playoffs but hasn't advanced past the 2nd round. He's scored 59 points in 51 games. Lindros had 57 in 50 as of 2000, including a run to the finals and one to the semis.

Adjusting their playoff numbers using the same factors used to adjust their regular season numbers yields:

Lindros: 58 in 50
Ovechkin: 64 in 51

A slight edge for Ovechkin on a production basis, but the team's relative lack of playoff success compared to Lindros' Flyers probably makes this category even.

The most important factor, though, is their regular season offensive production, and Lindros appears to have been about 5% more dominant in that regard - on a per-game basis.

A big problem with judging Lindros' offensive game is that his raw totals often make it easy to forget how dominant he could be. He has top-10 points finishes of just 1st, 6th, and 7th. Ovechkin has placed 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th.

But Ovechkin has missed just 21 games in 7 years; Lindros missed 140 in his first 8 years. Lindros' points-per-game finishes look just as impressive as Ovechkin's: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th, compared to 1st, 1st, 1st, 5th, 9th.

So yes, Ovechkin does deserve credit for avoiding injury (and in Lindros' case he probably deserves some blame for his injuries... or should that only apply to his heavy concussion, post-2000 injuries?) but when Lindros was on the ice he was as dominant a force as Ovechkin, and likely even more dominant.

It seems that to choose Ovechkin you have to either be a heavy trophy counter, or you have to put a lot of weight on raw point totals amassed in specific, 80-game, october to april blocks. If you aren't either of the above, is it possible to argue that 2005-2012 Ovechkin was a better player than 1992-2000 Lindros? And if not, shouldn't Lindros, at least for now, be considered a better all-time player than Ovechkin?

have at it!

Stephen 10-08-2012 11:49 PM

Lindros is absolutely a Top 100 player ever. The dominance he brought to the game between 1992 and even till the end of the 2002 season was astounding. Here's a guy who combined physical dominance with offensive dominance over a nine year span, whose bare minimum production was still over a point a game (73 points in 72 games). Maybe the journeyman character of his last four years sullied his all-time great status a little bit, which is a shame. However, you can't really ignore 732 points in 558 games for a 1.31 PPG average, a significant portion produced under the dead puck era, and is superior to Ovechkin minus his 2012 season (614 points in 475 games for a PPG average of 1.29).

tombombadil 10-09-2012 07:25 AM

i agree with this. Lindros is under rated if he isn't top 100 is my take on the situation.

TheDevilMadeMe 10-09-2012 07:50 AM

Health matters, otherwise we'd be rating Peter Forsberg as highly as Joe Sakic. Especially when the player plays a style that leads to his constant injuries, as Lindros did. Lindros isn't helping his team win from the press box. His physical play made him terrifying when he was on the ice, but I think he would have been better served to take it down a notch and stay healthier

Goal scoring matters too, at least when you are as far ahead of your peers as Ovechkin was during his run.

2005-2010 Ovechkin was right up there with prime Lindros on a per-game basis, and actually maintained his pace over almost all the games during that timeframe

I think Ovechkin has had a better career than Lindros did.

tarheelhockey 10-09-2012 08:15 AM

I tend to think we underrate Lindros slightly, but I'd also agree that Ovechkin has had a better career.

coldsteelonice84 10-09-2012 08:23 AM

Give me Lindros if I can take one from the start of their careers, even knowing how it ends up. For 8-9 years, Lindros was one of if not the most complete players in hockey.

Stephen 10-09-2012 09:45 AM

Eric Lindros had a better 9 year run than anything Ovechkin has put up so far. During that era, he led the Flyers to a Finals appearance as your classic number one center/franchise player, and while being swept by Detroit seems like a bit of an epic failure now, Mario Lemieux saw enough greatness in him that he handed the proverbial torch off to him during the conference finals.

Remember, young players weren't leading their teams to the Stanley Cup with the frequency that the Staal/Toews/Crosby/Kane type players have done since the lockout during that era. You still had ex-Oilers in the league, you had the veteran laden trap Devils, you had a 32 year old Yzerman finally winning a cup, Joe Sakic was 27 when he won his, the Dallas Stars were fossils. So if Lindros had remained healthy into the early 2000s, it isn't unreasonable to expect his career to have finally yielded a championship, possibly around 2003 or 2004, since everything was on the right track.

Alexander Ovechkin and the Capitals had just as good a chance to win the cup as anyone since 2005-06. The fact that he's in decline for no apparent reason just doesn't reflect that well on him as a player.

Hawkey Town 18 10-09-2012 10:00 AM

I agree that Lindros was a slightly better player per game than Ovechkin over the time period in question, but I think the difference in games played/injury factor is being understated...

Not only is Lindros getting an entire extra season, but he's also getting the lockout year adjusted up to 79 games. For most players, this adjustment would be fine, but considering over the 8 year period the highest GP Lindros reached in a season was 73, and he only played over 65 games twice, I don't think we can just assume he remains that healthy in 95.

On the other hand, going by the ranges you gave (80-100 for Ovechkin and 100-120 for Lindros)...if they are at the extremes of those, that's a 40 spot gap, which IMO is way too big, and you would be correct that they should be closer. Personally I think most people would only have them about 20 spots apart. After reading this, a 5-10 spot difference sounds about right, with Ovechkin ahead.

TheDevilMadeMe 10-09-2012 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 (Post 54865109)
I agree that Lindros was a slightly better player per game than Ovechkin over the time period in question, but I think the difference in games played/injury factor is being understated...

Was Lindros any better on a per-game basis, or do we just have childhood memories of big bad Lindros pushing guys around? As point producers, prime Ovechkin and Lindros were close to equal, and Ovechkin was the much better goal scorer. And at one point, Ovechkin's playoff PPG and GPG were among the best ever, higher than Lindros' playoff numbers. I realize that Lindros gets bonus points for being a physical menance, but I think Ovechkin was the better player when both were in their primes (and I use the past tense to describe Ovechkin's prime until proven otherwise).

Quote:

Not only is Lindros getting an entire extra season, but he's also getting the lockout year adjusted up to 79 games. For most players, this adjustment would be fine, but considering over the 8 year period the highest GP Lindros reached in a season was 73, and he only played over 65 games twice, I don't think we can just assume he remains that healthy in 95.
Great point. The fact remains that Lindros never played more than 73 games (and as you said, rarely played more than 65) until he was forced to start playing more carefully by the concussions.

Quote:

On the other hand, going by the ranges you gave (80-100 for Ovechkin and 100-120 for Lindros)...if they are at the extremes of those, that's a 40 spot gap, which IMO is way too big, and you would be correct that they should be closer. Personally I think most people would only have them about 20 spots apart. After reading this, a 5-10 spot difference sounds about right, with Ovechkin ahead.
IMO, the gap should could easily be more than 40 spots. A small but clear gap in favor of Ovechkin could easily be the difference between the 40th best player of all time and the 100th best.

Edit: Look at their historical comparables. I see Ovechkin as somewhere below Guy Lafleur but probably above Dickie Moore. What about Lindros? Is he even better than Sid Abel or Elmer Lach?

Hawkey Town 18 10-09-2012 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 54865309)
Edit: Look at their historical comparables. I see Ovechkin as somewhere below Guy Lafleur but probably above Dickie Moore.

Dickie Moore immediately popped in my head when I first read this thread because of his injury problems. I'd really like to see someone compare him to these two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 54865309)
Is he even better than Sid Abel or Elmer Lach?

The thing about these guys is they each had better players on their own team to help them (Howe/Lindsay and Richard). It's tough to decide how to weight that against a guy like Lindros being the clear #1 on his team.

Big Phil 10-09-2012 01:38 PM

Right now it is awfully close. Ovechkin from 2005-'12 is pretty equal to Lindros of 1992-'00. After that Lindros had an alright season in 2001-'02 and then pretty much nothing to note. So really, when we talk about Lindros we don't usually give him credit for anything post 2000 because there was very little there. 2001-'02 he was so much a shadow of his former self as well.

There is lots of comparisons between the two. For example for every time a person knocked them there was another one who defended them. That was for either being lazy, not leading a team, enigma, off-ice issues, etc.

Both peaked very high. Ovechkin still could get back to that level. Both were decent statistically in the postseason but neither led their team anywhere and they didn't meet lofty expectations that we put on all-time greats. Each time the other was playing in a playoff series they were always the best player in each series (save perhaps Ovechkin playing against Pittsburgh in 2009). Lindros was better than any Red Wing in 1997 but he didn't step up. Yet neither did anything legendary in the postseason.

Both players also have strong supporters for the HHOF and others who are vehemently against it. This is of course Ovechkin's career up to date.

seventieslord 10-09-2012 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 54863577)
Health matters, otherwise we'd be rating Peter Forsberg as highly as Joe Sakic.

No, I don't think we would, not unless Forsberg actually played 80 games a year right up through 2010.

Besides, you usually say that how good the player was at his very best matters above all else; I'm not seeing why this is an exception. Over 8 years, we "saw enough of Lindros to know how good he was"... didn't we?

Quote:

Goal scoring matters too, at least when you are as far ahead of your peers as Ovechkin was during his run.
You usually say that for elite players, goals and assists are of equal importance. These two were the definition of elite in their primes.

Even if you want to go back on that statement now, we're talking about a 14% goalscoring edge versus a 20% playmaking edge, so shouldn't those wash out?

Quote:

2005-2010 Ovechkin was right up there with prime Lindros on a per-game basis, and actually maintained his pace over almost all the games during that timeframe
I agree that including Ovechkin's 2011 and 2012 seasons drags his averages down, but if you do that, you should also remove Lindros' 1993 and 2000 seasons, which leaves us pretty much where we started, that being Lindros with a 5% edge per-game.

Lindros: 588 in 403 (1.46)
Ovechkin: 551 in 396 (1.39)

seventieslord 10-09-2012 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 (Post 54865109)
Not only is Lindros getting an entire extra season,

Let me be clear, the point was never to give Lindros an “advantage” by including one more season; it was only to include all seasons for both players that have anything to do with building their resumes as all-time greats. Lindros just happens to have one more of those at this time. And playing more hockey at a high level should be a good thing.

Quote:

but he's also getting the lockout year adjusted up to 79 games. For most players, this adjustment would be fine, but considering over the 8 year period the highest GP Lindros reached in a season was 73, and he only played over 65 games twice, I don't think we can just assume he remains that healthy in 95.
I get what you’re saying, but what do you do about it? The most reasonable assumption is that if he plays 95% of the lockout season healthy, then he plays 95% of a full season healthy.

If you want to consider the 1995 season to be just 59% of a season, that is an option. Instead of 121 adjusted points in 79 adjusted games, it goes to 71 adjusted points in 46 actual games. This would make his 1992-2000 total:

488-280-373-653 (.57-.76-1.34)

This doesn’t substantially change his per-game offensive dominance, the only thing it does is put it over a smaller sample, which, in real terms, it actually was.

Not sure it does anything to change the point, though. 488 games is a lot of hockey still.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 54865309)
Was Lindros any better on a per-game basis, or do we just have childhood memories of big bad Lindros pushing guys around?

Both!

Quote:

As point producers, prime Ovechkin and Lindros were close to equal, and Ovechkin was the much better goal scorer.
That can be stated that way if you like, but then it should follow that Lindros was the much, much better playmaker. And one certainly does not override the other so easily.

Otherwise, let’s reopen Oates vs. Turgeon ;)

Quote:

Edit: Look at their historical comparables. I see Ovechkin as somewhere below Guy Lafleur but probably above Dickie Moore. What about Lindros? Is he even better than Sid Abel or Elmer Lach?
If Guy Lafleur is the theoretical ceiling for Ovechkin thus far, you hugely value peak. And if so, then yes, you should think Lindros is better than both Abel and Lach.

TheDevilMadeMe 10-09-2012 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 54873637)
No, I don't think we would, not unless Forsberg actually played 80 games a year right up through 2010.

If it wasn't for injuries, he would have, right?

Quote:

Besides, you usually say that how good the player was at his very best matters above all else; I'm not seeing why this is an exception. Over 8 years, we "saw enough of Lindros to know how good he was"... didn't we?
We saw enough to know how good Lindros was all right, but his constant injury problems were part of that. Durability is a skill just like speed and strength IMO. Especially when many of Lindros' injuries came from a lack of hockey sense.

Quote:

You usually say that for elite players, goals and assists are of equal importance. These two were the definition of elite in their primes.

Even if you want to go back on that statement now, we're talking about a 14% goalscoring edge versus a 20% playmaking edge, so shouldn't those wash out?
I've said many times that when I compare players offensively, I look at points first. If point production is very close, I go with the goal scorer, since goals are statistically more valuable than assists. If you disagree, that's find, but I'm not "going back on things."


Quote:

I agree that including Ovechkin's 2011 and 2012 seasons drags his averages down, but if you do that, you should also remove Lindros' 1993 and 2000 seasons, which leaves us pretty much where we started, that being Lindros with a 5% edge per-game.

Lindros: 588 in 403 (1.46)
Ovechkin: 551 in 396 (1.39)
Are those numbers adjusted or unadjusted?

TheDevilMadeMe 10-09-2012 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 54873999)

I get what you’re saying, but what do you do about it? The most reasonable assumption is that if he plays 95% of the lockout season healthy, then he plays 95% of a full season healthy.

I don't find that reasonable at all, considering Lindros never one played 95% of a full season before he started playing tentatively.


Quote:

That can be stated that way if you like, but then it should follow that Lindros was the much, much better playmaker. And one certainly does not override the other so easily.

Otherwise, let’s reopen Oates vs. Turgeon ;)
As I said before, all other things being equal, goals are more statistically valuable than assists. I do pick Denis Savard and Dale Hawerchuk over Oates mainly because they were better goal scorers.

Quote:

If Guy Lafleur is the theoretical ceiling for Ovechkin thus far, you hugely value peak.
Everything Lafleur did that is worth talking about happened within 6 years, right?

Quote:

And if so, then yes, you should think Lindros is better than both Abel and Lach.
Why do you think Lindros peaked higher than them?

Stephen 10-09-2012 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 54876157)



Why do you think Lindros peaked higher than them?

Lach and Abel aren't really good comparisons because Lindros didn't occupy a second fiddle position on their teams. I'm guessing you picked them as one great season type players, but I'd be more inclined to evaluate Lindros as a classic number one franchise centerman. Maybe more like a Gilbert Perreault in the sense he served as the cornerstone to his franchise, formed a significant scoring line (French Connection vs Legion of Doom) and went to the finals once and fell short of winning it all.

TheDevilMadeMe 10-09-2012 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 54880947)
Lach and Abel aren't really good comparisons because Lindros didn't occupy a second fiddle position on their teams. I'm guessing you picked them as one great season type players, but I'd be more inclined to evaluate Lindros as a classic number one franchise centerman. Maybe more like a Gilbert Perreault in the sense he served as the cornerstone to his franchise, formed a significant scoring line (French Connection vs Legion of Doom) and went to the finals once and fell short of winning it all.

Lach and Abel won a Hart each, so they weren't always second fiddle, though each spent a good part of his career as such.

I like the Lach comparison, as a player who lost a lot of games (and therefore seasonal finishes) due to injury.

jumptheshark 10-10-2012 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 54863843)
I tend to think we underrate Lindros slightly, but I'd also agree that Ovechkin has had a better career.

Lindros' biggest problem was Lindros. I remember watching an interview with a flyer when Lindros left the flyers and going by his body language he was happy Lindros was gone from the dressing room. Lindros brought too much drama where ever he went

Hobnobs 10-10-2012 12:36 AM

Ovechkin has two harts and three lindsays so by going on how alot of people have argued prior to this, Ovie is much better than Lindros.

me2 10-10-2012 02:35 AM

I'd take a healthy Lindros over a healthy Ovi. Factoring in injuries, I don't know.

Fredrik_71 10-10-2012 02:55 AM

I think Ovi has had a better career by far and its only gonna get better. But that doesn't mean I would choose him at their peak. I hated Lindros only because he crushed my team on a regular basis but I would have loved him on my team.

Lindros was the beast! The most scary forward ever with exceptional skills. Which team wouldn't want the Legion of Doom? And when he droped his gloves people ran :laugh:

Johnny Engine 10-10-2012 05:33 AM

I feel like the physical game both of them bring are very much of the time they played in - dominating the corners in the DPE, and taking runs at people in a faster league. Lindros obviously was the more physically dominant player, but in context, I'm not sure the difference gives him as much a leg up as one might think.

I also am starting to think that Hobnobs wanders around his neighbourhood streets yelling "trophy counter" at random people.

JackSlater 10-10-2012 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil (Post 54869113)
Right now it is awfully close. Ovechkin from 2005-'12 is pretty equal to Lindros of 1992-'00. After that Lindros had an alright season in 2001-'02 and then pretty much nothing to note. So really, when we talk about Lindros we don't usually give him credit for anything post 2000 because there was very little there. 2001-'02 he was so much a shadow of his former self as well.

Lindros doesn't get enough credit for his 2001-02 season. 9th in PPG, including 4th in GPG while not playing with a line as strong as anything he enjoyed in Philadelphia. He also played a solid checking role on Canada at the 2002 Olympics, showing at least some ability to put his ego aside. You are right though, he was definitely a shadow of the 90s Lindros by that point.

I find both Lindros and Ovechkin underrated if they are being viewed as borderline top 100 players. Ovechkin has to get the edge based on superior goalscoring and durability, but they are definitely close.

Sturminator 10-10-2012 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSlater (Post 54884883)
I find both Lindros and Ovechkin underrated if they are being viewed as borderline top 100 players.

There have been a lot of great players in hockey history. I don't consider it a given that either of these guys is truly in the top-100. There is a good argument for both of them, but leaving one or both off of a top-100 list wouldn't be indefensible, either. Ergo, they are borderline top-100 players.

Stephen 10-10-2012 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sturminator (Post 54885081)
There have been a lot of great players in hockey history. I don't consider it a given that either of these guys is truly in the top-100. There is a good argument for both of them, but leaving one or both off of a top-100 list wouldn't be indefensible, either. Ergo, they are borderline top-100 players.

Not a lot of people dominated the way Ovechkin and Lindros did for even the amount of time they did, so to suggest they are borderline 100 seems a bit pretentious/elitist. You must be imagining the history of hockey littered full of mega stars or ascribing more significance to way lesser lights.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.