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.
Lindros without thinking twice when it come down to prime. At his prime Lindros was an hart trophy winner, lead the league in points, build one of the best line of the 90s in Legion of Doom, took his team to the final, he was feared around the league and some team drafted big defenseman just in hope to be able to defend against Lindros.
Except for the few legendary players there is not many players I would take over a prime Lindros. Im only 28 years old but I have not seen a similar player to Lindros before and after, he is truly unique and I hope in my lifetime to see a similar player like Lindros on the ice.
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.
Pretty much this. For one healthy game in their primes, it would be Lindros, but Sakic was able to stay healthy. Also, the sheer length of his prime is ridiculous. Top 10 in points as early as 1990 and as late as 2007.
Pretty much this. For one healthy game in their primes, it would be Lindros, but Sakic was able to stay healthy. Also, the sheer length of his prime is ridiculous. Top 10 in points as early as 1990 and as late as 2007.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly4apuckguy
Anyone picking Sakic is doing so because he was a great guy, well respected, and won championships.
In terms of greatest at the peak of their skill, Lindros. By a lot. In fact, Lindros by a lot over almost anyone not named Lemieux or Gretzky.
Too bad his prime didn't last very long.
I would tend to agree with this on a per game basis but in his Prime Lindros misses too many games.
No player can have any impact when they are not playing.
Lindros has a great prime (same as his peak) in his 1st 7 years, but Joe's is longer and healthier even if it might not be "as great" on a per game basis.
Like Regal points out the sheer length of Joe's prime has to count for something here right?
Like Regal points out the sheer length of Joe's prime has to count for something here right?
In this particular poll, yes, as the question asked was who had the best prime, not who was the best in their prime. Like I posted earlier, it's not exactly what the "usual" poll asks. I'd say it's pretty definitively Sakic for the former, and Lindros for the latter.
Sakic's prime lasted longer than Lindros' career. Give me Joe; he was healthier and a better goal scorer.
I interpreted the question as which was better when playing at their very best, aka ignoring Lindros' injury problems, which one would you want on your team for one game or for one playoff series if both were at their best.
Under that definition I went with Lindros. Though Sakic obviously had the better career.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
I interpreted the question as which was better when playing at their very best, aka ignoring Lindros' injury problems, which one would you want on your team for one game or for one playoff series if both were at their best.
Under that definition I went with Lindros. Though Sakic obviously had the better career.
I just went by the exact wording of the poll. To me that's Sakic pretty easily.
i think a lot of people have forgotten ( or simply have never witnessed ) what a monster Lindros was.
he had size, speed and one hell of a mean streak. he could make finesse passes and score with the best of them - but he could also throw devastating hits and drop the gloves against anyone.
No, it's not. Lindros wasn't even the best of his era.
That statement doesn't mean as much when the comparison is obviously to Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr. There are, like, 8 decades of hockey where the "best of the era" couldn't compare to the best of Lindros' prime years in the NHL.
That's not true. If there's one thing Sakic was better at than Lindros in his prime, it's scoring goals.
I thought this too, but looking at it, it's not really the case. Sakic may have had better goalscoring peaks, and better full seasons because he was healthy, but he had more valleys too.
Lindros with a slight GPG advantage, but less GP. Maybe slight advantage Sakic due to actually doing it.
93-94
Sakic: 84 GP, 28G
Lindros: 65GP, 44G
Big advantage Lindros, 16 more goals in 19 less games.
94-95
Sakic: 47 GP, 19 G
Lindros: 46 GP, 29 G
Advantage Lindros
95-96
Sakic: 82 GP, 51 G
Lindros: 73GP, 47 G
Slight edge to Lindros in GPG, 9 more games for Sakic. I'd say even.
96-97
Sakic: 65GP, 22 G
Lindros: 52 GP, 32 G
Lindros with 10 more goals in 13 less games. Big advantage.
97-98
Sakic: 64 GP, 27 G
Lindros: 63 GP, 30 G
Slight edge to Lindros.
98-99
Sakic: 73 GP, 41 G
Lindros: 71 GP, 40 G
Pretty even here.
99-00
Sakic: 60 GP, 28 G
Lindros: 55 Gp, 27 G
Pretty even here as well.
00-01
Sakic: 82 GP, 54 G
Lindros: 0 GP
Lindros missed the season, but Sakic was the league's best player, and had his best goalscoring season. Big edge Sakic.
01-02
Sakic: 82 GP, 26 G
Lindros: 73 GP, 37 G
Fairly big edge to Lindros, as Sakic started to tail off in his goalscoring.
Of course, Sakic was much more productive outside of those seasons, but it only really eliminates one big goal season, when he scored 48 in '91 to finish 6th in the league. Most of Sakic's best coincided with Lindros' best, and Lindros was generally as good or better at goalscoring during that time. At least, on a per game basis.
From 92-93 to 01-02, Lindros scored 327 goals in 558 games to finish 13th in total goals and third to Lemieux and Bure in GPG, whereas Sakic scored 344 goals in 717 games to finish 8th in total goals and 13th in GPG.
If I had to choose one player for one game when they are at their peak I'd go with Lindros.
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.
