HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

prime vs prime.Lindros vs Sakic

View Poll Results: better prime
Lindros 74 55.64%
Sakic 59 44.36%
Voters: 133. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-23-2013, 05:27 PM
  #26
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,360
vCash: 500
Lindros' peak may have been higher, but Sakic's wasn't that far behind and his prime was MUCH longer...he has to get credit for that.


EDIT: The only way Lindros has a chance at winning this is if you consider prime a set time period (i.e. best 4 years), which I don't, I consider prime the time when a player is at or near his best. Sakic was at or near his best for a lot more years and a lot more games than Lindros was at his own slightly higher level. That fact makes Sakic the easy choice for me.


Last edited by Hawkey Town 18: 01-23-2013 at 05:33 PM.
Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 05:31 PM
  #27
Lebanese Leaf
Registered User
 
Lebanese Leaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 6,338
vCash: 500
Sakic.

Lebanese Leaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 06:13 PM
  #28
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Habs View Post
See, I don't understand that particular line of reasoning. Based on what they actually did in their most significant games, I'd take Sakic in a heartbeat. While Lindros was undoubtedly the more talented and naturally-gifted of the two, rising to the occasion and playing your best hockey at the most important moments should also be considered part of someone's skillset.
Subjectivity and opportunity bias; both in terms of what it means to "actually do" something, and what a "significant game" is.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 06:24 PM
  #29
DDIHH
Registered User
 
DDIHH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Sakic in the 2002 Olympic gold medal game may be my "all-time peak of a player ever"



But I have a uber-bias with Sakic

DDIHH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 10:46 PM
  #30
fly4apuckguy
Mr. Old School
 
fly4apuckguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,171
vCash: 500
You guys can take all the stats and chuck 'em. The question is best prime vs prime.

Let's play pretend. You can have one player for game seven of the Stanley Cup final. Lindros at his peak, or Sakic at his peak. their games will each be tied with the best game of their lives.

Joe Sakic is a legend, a great player and an even better man. I could not have more respect for him as a champion or a person.

I would take Lindros for that game 100 times out of 100. Not even a hint od doubt in that decision.

Career-wise, I want Sakic (knowing what we know now). No question about that, either.

I can only guess that people not taking Lindros did not get to experience what a complete and utter freak of nature and humanity he was. He may be the choice for what the hockey gods would create as THE prototypical hockey player that has or will ever live. It just didn't work out.

fly4apuckguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 11:59 PM
  #31
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 14,197
vCash: 500
Sakic every day and twice on sunday! You have to count longevity of said prime... and Sakic's prime being as close, then when you consider longevity in said prime, Sakic then runs away with it!

One of the most clutch players in the history of the game! One player for one game to win the cup, I'd take Sakic over Lindros in a heartbeat due to his clutchness!

TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 01:05 AM
  #32
Nihiliste
Registered User
 
Nihiliste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,740
vCash: 500
People seem to be using peak and prime interchangeably.

Nihiliste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 06:51 AM
  #33
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 19,256
vCash: 50
Peak Lindros, prime Sakic.

InjuredChoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:03 AM
  #34
Horseradish
Registered User
 
Horseradish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,028
vCash: 500
This shouldn't be that close. When Lindros was in his prime, he was either the best or 2nd/3rd best in the game. Sakic was top 10, and for a much longer time, but Lindros completely and utterly dominated games.

Either HF fans are showing their young age, or people aren't remembering Lindros' top 4-5 years properly.

Horseradish is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:33 AM
  #35
DDIHH
Registered User
 
DDIHH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Who would you take in overtime of game 7 of the stanley cup finale? I wonder who is the league leader in playoff overtime goals in NHL history

DDIHH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:54 AM
  #36
gifted88
Dante the poet
 
gifted88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Habs View Post
See, I don't understand that particular line of reasoning. Based on what they actually did in their most significant games, I'd take Sakic in a heartbeat. While Lindros was undoubtedly the more talented and naturally-gifted of the two, rising to the occasion and playing your best hockey at the most important moments should also be considered part of someone's skillset.
Anyway you slice it, Lindros was more dominate in his prime. Yes Sakic was good for a longer period of time and played on some teams that were good enough to put him in the position to score some big goals. But PPG wise in Lindros's prime you were more likely to see him put up more points and also take over a game physically.

gifted88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 09:14 AM
  #37
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Lindros had a higher peak, but that's not what the OP is asking.

If we're comparing primes, it looks something like this:

Lindros (93-94 to 99-00)
Regular Season:
GP: 425 G: 249 A: 335 P: 584 PPG: 1.4
Playoffs
GP: 50 G: 24 A: 33 P: 57 PPG: 1.1
Awards & Honors
1st Team NHL All-Star (94-95)
2nd Team NHL All-Star (95-96)
Hart (94-95)
Lindsay (94-95)
Finishes
Goals: 6, 7, 9
Assists: 4, 6, 9
Points: 1, 6, 7

Sakic (92-93 to 00-01)
Regular Season:
GP: 635 G: 318 A: 493 P: 811 PPG: 1.3
Playoffs
GP: 114 G: 56 A: 73 P: 129 PPG: 1.13
Awards & Honors
1st Team NHL All-Star (00-01)
Conn Smythe (95-96)
Hart (00-01)
Lindsay (00-01)
Lady Byng (00-01)
Finishes
Goals: 2, 5, 6
Assists: 3, 4, 5, 5, 8
Points: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8

The hardest part for me is defining the prime years for Sakic. He was so consistently good for so many years. He actually had some of his best relative finishes in 2002 and 2003.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 09:52 AM
  #38
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,521
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Sakic's prime lasted longer... so I gotta go with him... but if you mean who was better in the peak of their career, I have to go with Lindros.

thadd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 09:54 AM
  #39
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Lindros had a higher peak, but that's not what the OP is asking.

If we're comparing primes, it looks something like this:

Lindros (93-94 to 99-00)
Regular Season:
GP: 425 G: 249 A: 335 P: 584 PPG: 1.4
Playoffs
GP: 50 G: 24 A: 33 P: 57 PPG: 1.1
Awards & Honors
1st Team NHL All-Star (94-95)
2nd Team NHL All-Star (95-96)
Hart (94-95)
Lindsay (94-95)
Finishes
Goals: 6, 7, 9
Assists: 4, 6, 9
Points: 1, 6, 7

Sakic (92-93 to 00-01)
Regular Season:
GP: 635 G: 318 A: 493 P: 811 PPG: 1.3
Playoffs
GP: 114 G: 56 A: 73 P: 129 PPG: 1.13
Awards & Honors
1st Team NHL All-Star (00-01)
Conn Smythe (95-96)
Hart (00-01)
Lindsay (00-01)
Lady Byng (00-01)
Finishes
Goals: 2, 5, 6
Assists: 3, 4, 5, 5, 8
Points: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8

The hardest part for me is defining the prime years for Sakic. He was so consistently good for so many years. He actually had some of his best relative finishes in 2002 and 2003.
I don't even think Lindros had a higher peak. In 2000-01, Sakic had 118 points. Only Jagr, who spent half the year on the same line as Mario Lemieux had more points (121). 3rd place Patrick Elias was way back with 96 points. That same year, Sakic was a Selke finalist and then led the playoffs in scoring. The following spring, he was MVP of the 2002 Olympics. At his peak, Sakic was better than Lindros ever was both offensively and defensively, and Sakic was a much better playoff performer. I really don't see how Lindros' physical play closes the gap.

Then when you consider that Sakic's prime was longer than Lindros' career, I think Sakic easily wins.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 09:59 AM
  #40
I Hate Chris Butler
Backlund Fan Club
 
I Hate Chris Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,817
vCash: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horseradish View Post
This shouldn't be that close. When Lindros was in his prime, he was either the best or 2nd/3rd best in the game. Sakic was top 10, and for a much longer time, but Lindros completely and utterly dominated games.

Either HF fans are showing their young age, or people aren't remembering Lindros' top 4-5 years properly.
Or people just value a prime of 15+ years more than 4 or 5.

I Hate Chris Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 10:20 AM
  #41
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't even think Lindros had a higher peak. In 2000-01, Sakic had 118 points. Only Jagr, who spent half the year on the same line as Mario Lemieux had more points (121). 3rd place Patrick Elias was way back with 96 points. That same year, Sakic was a Selke finalist and then led the playoffs in scoring. The following spring, he was MVP of the 2002 Olympics. At his peak, Sakic was better than Lindros ever was both offensively and defensively, and Sakic was a much better playoff performer. I really don't see how Lindros' physical play closes the gap.

Then when you consider that Sakic's prime was longer than Lindros' career, I think Sakic easily wins.
I'm compelled to give the peak edge to Lindros based on his performance in 94-95, but it's very close for me. What are your thoughts on Lindros 94-95 vs. Sakic 00-01?

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 02:04 PM
  #42
Fred Taylor
The Cyclone
 
Fred Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Lindros, Sakic is very close though.

Fred Taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 02:25 PM
  #43
Nihiliste
Registered User
 
Nihiliste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't even think Lindros had a higher peak. In 2000-01, Sakic had 118 points. Only Jagr, who spent half the year on the same line as Mario Lemieux had more points (121). 3rd place Patrick Elias was way back with 96 points. That same year, Sakic was a Selke finalist and then led the playoffs in scoring. The following spring, he was MVP of the 2002 Olympics. At his peak, Sakic was better than Lindros ever was both offensively and defensively, and Sakic was a much better playoff performer. I really don't see how Lindros' physical play closes the gap.

Then when you consider that Sakic's prime was longer than Lindros' career, I think Sakic easily wins.

I agree completely.

Nihiliste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 05:44 PM
  #44
86Habs
Registered User
 
86Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly4apuckguy View Post
You guys can take all the stats and chuck 'em. The question is best prime vs prime.

Let's play pretend. You can have one player for game seven of the Stanley Cup final. Lindros at his peak, or Sakic at his peak. their games will each be tied with the best game of their lives.

Joe Sakic is a legend, a great player and an even better man. I could not have more respect for him as a champion or a person.

I would take Lindros for that game 100 times out of 100. Not even a hint od doubt in that decision.

Career-wise, I want Sakic (knowing what we know now). No question about that, either.

I can only guess that people not taking Lindros did not get to experience what a complete and utter freak of nature and humanity he was. He may be the choice for what the hockey gods would create as THE prototypical hockey player that has or will ever live. It just didn't work out.
The prototypical hockey player would have the ability to keep his head up when he's stickhandling.

86Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 05:56 PM
  #45
Descendent*
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
I voted for Sakic.

Descendent* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 06:02 PM
  #46
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Interesting phrasing of the question. I'd say Lindros was "better" in his prime, but because of everything we know in hindsight, Sakic had the better prime. Multiple, "full", 100 point seasons, Cups, etc.
Completely true. I would rather have the Lindros of 1994-98 than Sakic from any period of a similar length, if his health was guaranteed. That is a big if though, and of course Sakic's prime ended up being almost three times as long as Lindros'.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 07:19 PM
  #47
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I'm compelled to give the peak edge to Lindros based on his performance in 94-95, but it's very close for me. What are your thoughts on Lindros 94-95 vs. Sakic 00-01?
Sakic was better offensively and defensively and better in the playoffs. Lindros was a feared wrecking ball, but I don't see it making up the gap in everything else.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 07:20 PM
  #48
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
Completely true. I would rather have the Lindros of 1994-98 than Sakic from any period of a similar length, if his health was guaranteed. That is a big if though, and of course Sakic's prime ended up being almost three times as long as Lindros'.
But in the real world, Sakic is an easy choice, IMO.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 10:16 PM
  #49
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
But in the real world, Sakic is an easy choice, IMO.
True, which is why I said it is a big if and voted for Sakic.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 10:40 PM
  #50
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Sakic was better offensively and defensively and better in the playoffs. Lindros was a feared wrecking ball, but I don't see it making up the gap in everything else.
That sells Lindros short so badly it's not even funny. I've heard Ovechkin referred to the same way. I understand where the aggregate numbers, "intangibles", and fandom puts Sakic in this one, but let's look a little more at the "calibre" we're talking about here. While it's true that PPG rates are often misused to extrapolate small samples, or give credit for games that aren't played, I think it still reveals a bit about what separated Lindros from even Sakic.

Sakic's highest assists/game rates actually came in shortened/strike seasons, which is nice because so did Lindros', lol.

(sorry, I don't do the table thing because I'm lazy)

Sakic ('91/92): 69 GP, 0.94 APG
Lindros ('95/96): 73 GP, 0.93 APG
Sakic ('94/95): 47 GP, 0.91 APG
Lindros ('96/97): 52 PG, 0.90 APG
Lindros ('94/95): 46 GP, 0.89 APG
Sakic ('99/00): 60 GP, 0.88 APG
Sakic ('95/96): 82 GP, 0.84 APG (*first exception to the "full" season thingy for either guy)
Lindros ('93/94): 65 GP, 0.82 APG

Now, why did I start off with assists? Because I'm going to assume that, in a Lindros vs Sakic comparison, there are many like yourself who just automatically (and lazily, honestly) lumped "playmaking", for example, into Sakic's win column as part of that "everything else". How much does "everything else" add up to, anyway? Relatively speaking, I mean. I think that "table" right there shows that Lindros, when healthy and playing, at his peak, distributed the puck (or created scoring plays for his linemates) at least as well as Sakic, and that might come as a surprise to some.

I'd do the same thing for goals, but it will just clutter up the page. Suffice to say, I think it's interesting that Sakic gets more praise as a consistent scorer for having 5 out of 20 seasons with a 0.50+ GPG scoring pace than Lindros' does for his prolific scoring, with 7 out of "13" seasons over 0.50 GPG. Ranking the GPG rates gives an "order" (highest to lowest) that starts Lindros, Lindros, Sakic, Sakic, Lindros, Lindros. Now, Sakic has more "complete" seasons leading to more, higher aggregate totals, but I think it's fair (not "right") to claim that Lindros was also the better goal scorer at his best, when healthy and playing, and despite the love affair with Sakic's wrist shot, or "clutch" intangible. Opinions will differ, but the production rates are what they are.

So again, I understand the "everything else" part as far as intangibles go, and maybe even "technically" in areas like skating, hockey I.Q., or whatever. But is there anyone who honestly wouldn't pick the much bigger, feared, "better" goal scorer, equal/"better" linemate scoring generator, if we get our wish to have the choice of either guy at their absolute best and healthy? Does Sakic's wear down opponents in-game to the level of someone with the physicality of Lindros? The wording of the poll is the only way I give this one to Sakic, honestly, and I would have Sakic's babies and gladly crap down Lindros' throat. We don't know if it's for a game, or for a series, or for a season. Lindros was healthy for games at a time, and series' at a time, when at his best, so for either of those, I pick Lindros in a heart beat. If he has to last a whole season (or multiple seasons during the "prime") for me to have a chance to "win the bet", it then - and only then - becomes a decision that hindsight tells me has the smart money on Sakic. For any sample of ~50/60 games, though, you get all the offensive production (or more), with 100X the physicality and intimidation, and no real drop in "impact" in the defensive zone (well, I guess Sakic would represent a drop in impact, but a gain in coverage, or something along those lines).


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 01-24-2013 at 11:22 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.