HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

What is "generational"?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-12-2012, 09:05 AM
  #76
Haj
Registered User
 
Haj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,572
vCash: 50
It depends on two things,

What length of time do you use to define a "generation" ?


and

How are you defining the best player at one position over that length of time ?



I'd say a generational players is the elite of the elite. Right now its Sidney Crosby. Alexander Ovechkin if he returns to form. Stamkos ?

I definitely consider Lidstrom as a generational player.

Haj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:05 AM
  #77
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
That would make 6 generations in 76 years!

Does one generation is 12.5 years? In average people have kids older than 12-13yo.

could we at least define how many years is a generation?
Look, i think its very easy, just name the best player you ever watched since you are born.

Unless you are old or young, this player should be the one generational talent since you are one generation.

So Howe, Orr, Gretzky.

Or maybe we could define a generation as a "generation of players"

the career average of a player is what, 10 years?

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:07 AM
  #78
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haj View Post
It depends on two things,

What length of time do you use to define a "generation" ?
I suggest we define it as the average length of a player career, about 10 years.

So we define it as a "generation" of players.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:14 AM
  #79
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DropkickQuinn View Post
A player who is considered to be definitive of the era they played in. This doesn't necessarily mean they put up the greatest stats, or won the most trophies, but the ones who when a period is examined in the future will be remembered first. This means players like

Shore
Beliveau
Richard
Plante
Hull
Howe
Orr
Lafleur
Dryden
Robinson
Gretzky
Potvin
Bossy
Lemieux
Bourque
Hull
Roy
Yzerman
Hasek
Sakic
Lidstrom
Brodeur
Ovechkin
Crosby
24 Generational talent, since Eddie Shore debut ? (started in 1926-1927)

it's in average 3.58 years per generation, or "Era" as you put it.

i think its really a stretch. I think most people conceive a generation as longer than that.


Last edited by palindrom: 12-12-2012 at 09:21 AM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:28 AM
  #80
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
I suggest we define it as the average length of a player career, about 10 years.

So we define it as a "generation" of players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
24 Generational talent, since Eddie Shore debut ? (started in 1926-1927)

it's in average 3.58 years per generation.

i think its really a stretch. I think most people conceive a generation as longer than that.
The average career is close to 5 years.

So that isn't that far off.

Four generational talents from the 80s... Gretzky, Lemieux, and two of Bourque/Yzerman/Roy. Four from the 90s. Jagr, Hasek, Lidstrom, and Brodeur/Pronger/Lindros. Four from the 00s. Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, and... Lundqvist? He has dominated from the start, finalist repeatedly from the start and many people still felt he was not getting his due.

Perhaps Lafleur, Dionne, Potvin, and Robinson for the 70s?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:36 AM
  #81
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
The average career is close to 5 years.

So that isn't that far off.

Four generational talents from the 80s... Gretzky, Lemieux, and two of Bourque/Yzerman/Roy. Four from the 90s. Jagr, Hasek, Lidstrom, and Brodeur/Pronger/Lindros. Four from the 00s. Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, and... Lundqvist? He has dominated from the start, finalist repeatedly from the start and many people still felt he was not getting his due.

Perhaps Lafleur, Dionne, Potvin, and Robinson for the 70s?
What other think about it? could we agree on this 5 years for one generation?

i personally disagree, seeing that all these generational players had a career length longer than 10 years.

Howe played 25yo in the NHL.
Orr - 12 years
Gretzky - 22 years
Lemieux - 17 years
Roy - 19 years
Bourque - 22 years
Yzerman - 22 years
Hasek - 15 years
Lidstrom - 20 years
Brodeur - 19 years and still counting
Jagr - 18 years and still counting?
Lindros - 13 years

I have a hard time defining a generation as 5 years.


Last edited by palindrom: 12-12-2012 at 09:42 AM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:40 AM
  #82
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowhereman View Post
OV's number pail in comparison to the all-time greats and he's not getting any younger/better.
Not his totals, but that's a matter of GP. His per-game numbers are at levels a great majority of players never reach even on hot streak let alone as their career numbers over seven seasons.

Quote:
And God help YOU if you think you can name me a left winger better than Hull, Mahovlich, and Lindsay. They are top 25 players of all time. Who would be a better fit in the top five? Zetterberg?
My list of top ten all-time LWs goes as such:

1) Bobby Hull
2) Ted Lindsay
3) Alex Ovechkin
4) Dickie Moore
5) Toe Blake
6) John Bucyk
7) Luc Robitaille
8) Valeri Kharlamov
8.5)*Henrik Zetterberg (if ranked exclusively as a LW)
9) Frank Mahovlich
10) Ilya Kovalchuk

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
What? I didn't have a single Canuck on my list.
No, but you did say that Gordie Howe wasn't a generational player. Which is silly; he was a generational player for multiple generations!

Quote:
Hasek's highest ever sv% was .937%. It's not unusual for a goalie to hit that every once in a while. No one ever hits 200 points. Ever. Sure, one could make an argument because of consistency, but if your best doesn't far exceed the best of almost everyone else, I wouldn't consider you truly generational. Just my opinion.
Go back and look at what other goalies were putting up when Hasek was doing .930. They certainly weren't putting up the average .920 that they do now. Closer to maybe .895-.900. Hasek's numbers made you wonder if someone punched the wrong buttons.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:43 AM
  #83
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
What other think about it? could we agree on this 5 years for one generation?

i personally disagree, seeing that all these generational players had a career length longer than 10 years.

Howe played 25yo in the NHL.
Orr - 12 years
Gretzky - 22 years
Lemieux - 17 years
Roy - 19 years
Bourque - 22 years
Yzerman - 22 years
Hasek - 15 years
Lidstrom - 20 years
Brodeur - 19 years and still counting
Jagr - 18 years and still counting?

I have a hard time defining a generation as 5 years.
So because some of the league's greatest players ever (you've included eight of my top ten, btw) played extended careers, that means that a generation is a long time, even though the league as a whole will have seen almost complete turnover two or three times in that span?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:45 AM
  #84
Pierce Hawthorne
Formerly Avsare1
 
Pierce Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Caverns of Draconis
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,717
vCash: 500
Way I see it theres probably 6-8 forwards, 3-4 Dmen, and 2-3 goalies.

Gretzky/Lemieux/Stastny(Peter)/Jagr/Sakic/Yzerman/Hull/Esposito

Lidstrom/Orr/Coffee/Bourque?

Hasek/Roy/Brodeur



Thats generally who I would consider generational at this point. Though I can see the argument for or against Bourque, Yzerman, Sakic and the Three goalies, its hard to say whether we've actually seen a generational goalie or not yet.


Also this is for the most part player from 80/90s onward, not all that familiar with players from before this time, so there may be a few from thos years not on this list aswell.

Pierce Hawthorne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:45 AM
  #85
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
No one ever hits 200 points. Ever.
Did you ever heard of someone named Gretzky?

Edit: After reading his whole sentence again, i have to believe what Vankiller Whale did mean was: no one will ever hits 200 points again. Ever.


Last edited by palindrom: 12-12-2012 at 09:59 AM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:47 AM
  #86
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Hasek's highest ever sv% was .937%. It's not unusual for a goalie to hit that every once in a while. No one ever hits 200 points. Ever. Sure, one could make an argument because of consistency, but if your best doesn't far exceed the best of almost everyone else, I wouldn't consider you truly generational. Just my opinion.
Meh, that sort of thinking doesn't really work, it ignores circumstances. When Hasek was putting up those numbers, no one else came even close to them, that is what matters.

You have to take a look at how scoring developed over time. Scoring records are broken when scoring is high, goaltending records are broken when scoring is low. Scoring has been going down for quite some time now and it's a far cry from 80s, so it's rather obvious that Hasek's seasons are easier to be bested than Gretzky's.

In modern times, there have been 110 individual seasons with .92 or better save percentage, only 19 of those fall into the 90s or earlier. 13 different goalies managed to reach that mark, about half of them in 98/99, none of them did it for more than one season and none of them came close to .93 . Hasek, on the other hand, topped .93 five times during that period, plus a sixth season with .92 .

He had multiple years where he was a full percentage-point better than the next goalie, at times it was up to 1.5, that's about 20-30 goals over a whole season if they would face the same amount of shots. There isn't a single season during that time where more than two goalies are within 0.5 percentage-points of him. Then you have to take into account that most starters weren't anywhere near his closest competition either. The average starter was somewhere between .90 and .91, with the numbers rising a bit the closer you get to the end of the period. That's a difference of about 50 goals per season.

Things get even more obvious if you look at how goalies have fared overall:

In 97/98 one goalie broke .93, another three .92 and seven .91 for 11 above .91

98/99: 1 , 6 , 10 for 17 overall
03/04: 4 , 4 , 19 for 27
05/06: 0 , 4 , 10 for 14
10/11: 2, 11 , 19 for 32
11/12: 4 , 7 , 21 for 32

Goalie numbers virtually exploded in the years before the lockout, a starter had to top .91 at that point to not look really bad. The scoring spike after the lockout caused the numbers to tumble, before shooting back up when scoring went down again. Now three times as many goalies top .91 compared to the mid 90s.

That's the reason why today's performances are nothing compared to what Hasek did back in the days. Hasek topped .93 when it was out of the world to top .92 and still excellent to top .91 . It really doesn't get any more dominant than that, it's very much similar to what Gretzky and Lemieux did during their prime.

Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 09:50 AM
  #87
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
So because some of the league's greatest players ever (you've included eight of my top ten, btw) played extended careers, that means that a generation is a long time, even though the league as a whole will have seen almost complete turnover two or three times in that span?
So you maintain a generation should be 5 years? What other think about it?

my suggestion was 10 years.

are you aware that 20% of the NHL players never played more than one season? And about 12% played no more than 2 seasons?

and they do lower the average career length of the NHL players a lot.

But i would not count them when trying to find how many years is a "generation"

For me a generation rather mean how long in average, the core (or the franchise player) of a team last until it is replaced.


Last edited by palindrom: 12-12-2012 at 10:28 AM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:07 AM
  #88
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
 
SmellOfVictory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,873
vCash: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
24 Generational talent, since Eddie Shore debut ? (started in 1926-1927)

it's in average 3.58 years per generation, or "Era" as you put it.

i think its really a stretch. I think most people conceive a generation as longer than that.
It should be roughly one player per position per 10 years, I think (a little less for dmen/goaltenders).

SmellOfVictory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:17 AM
  #89
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmellOfVictory View Post
It should be roughly one player per position per 10 years, I think (a little less for dmen/goaltenders).
Do you qualify Forwards as one position or 3 positions ? left wings, center, Right wings ?

same about defensemen ?

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:53 AM
  #90
Perfect_Drug
Registered User
 
Perfect_Drug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,066
vCash: 500
Generational to me, is someone who completely redefines the game. Their domination forever changes the way the game is played, and creates a paradigm shift.

In my mind, that is Howe, Orr, Gretzky Lemieux.
(Borderline is maybe Rocket Richard.)

Crosby is not a generational player. He's arguably the best player today, but its by a a pretty small margin. He falls in the Sakic/Yzerman/Jagr/Messier/William/Lafleur category of 'amazing player', but there haven't been significant rule changes in place to stop him. His impact on the sport is not defining of his generation.

Perfect_Drug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:21 AM
  #91
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,838
vCash: 593
Yeah, i bet it's a guy that just wins multiple trophies. With that i mean more then say 1 Hart, an Art Ross and two Pearsons. Double that and we're on to something. A Conn Smythe definetely does'nt hurt, two Harts and three Art Rosses, maybe a few Pearsons. It could also be a defenseman like Lidstrom or a goalie like Hasek.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:25 AM
  #92
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,838
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfect_Drug View Post
Crosby is not a generational player. He's arguably the best player today, but its by a a pretty small margin. He falls in the Sakic/Yzerman/Jagr/Messier/William/Lafleur category of 'amazing player', but there haven't been significant rule changes in place to stop him. His impact on the sport is not defining of his generation.
I dont think a player can stick out as much today as Orr, Gretzky and Mario did. Coaching and role players are too good and too well trained. I bet we'll see a healthy Crosby from now on and he will show who is the man, just as he did in 2010-11 before that concussion thing or whatever it really was, maybe his neck.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:38 AM
  #93
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
 
Luigi Lemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 13,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
I dont think a player can stick out as much today as Orr, Gretzky and Mario did. Coaching and role players are too good and too well trained. I bet we'll see a healthy Crosby from now on and he will show who is the man, just as he did in 2010-11 before that concussion thing or whatever it really was, maybe his neck.
No one can stick out like they did because no one in the league currently is as good as they were. Having seen almost all of Lemieux's career since 1993, there is simply no one in the league today remotely as good as he was. And don't forget that as recently as 2000-01, in the middle in the dead puck era, Lemieux came back from 4 years of retirement, mid season and at 35 years old, to put up 35 goals and 76 points in 43 games. He put guys like Sakic, Forsberg, Kariya, Selanne, Yzerman, Bure, the so called stars of the day to shame.

Luigi Lemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:04 PM
  #94
nowhereman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
My list of top ten all-time LWs goes as such:

1) Bobby Hull
2) Ted Lindsay
3) Alex Ovechkin
4) Dickie Moore
5) Toe Blake
6) John Bucyk
7) Luc Robitaille
8) Valeri Kharlamov
8.5)*Henrik Zetterberg (if ranked exclusively as a LW)
9) Frank Mahovlich
10) Ilya Kovalchuk
So, essentially, you scoffed at my inclusion of Frank Mahovlich of all players? There's no way I'd rank either Toe Blake or John Bucyk ahead of Mahovlich. Dickie Moore is, at best, interchangeable with Mahovlich. And that's still a stretch. Zetterberg? Really? Mahovlich was a fifteen-time All-Star and led his team to six Stanley Cups. Even the most rabid OV fans can't rank him above FM.

And, if we're going based off skill and peak, I'd take Kharlamov ahead of OV every time.

nowhereman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:05 PM
  #95
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,430
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderson View Post
Meh, that sort of thinking doesn't really work, it ignores circumstances. When Hasek was putting up those numbers, no one else came even close to them, that is what matters.

You have to take a look at how scoring developed over time. Scoring records are broken when scoring is high, goaltending records are broken when scoring is low. Scoring has been going down for quite some time now and it's a far cry from 80s, so it's rather obvious that Hasek's seasons are easier to be bested than Gretzky's.

In modern times, there have been 110 individual seasons with .92 or better save percentage, only 19 of those fall into the 90s or earlier. 13 different goalies managed to reach that mark, about half of them in 98/99, none of them did it for more than one season and none of them came close to .93 . Hasek, on the other hand, topped .93 five times during that period, plus a sixth season with .92 .

He had multiple years where he was a full percentage-point better than the next goalie, at times it was up to 1.5, that's about 20-30 goals over a whole season if they would face the same amount of shots. There isn't a single season during that time where more than two goalies are within 0.5 percentage-points of him. Then you have to take into account that most starters weren't anywhere near his closest competition either. The average starter was somewhere between .90 and .91, with the numbers rising a bit the closer you get to the end of the period. That's a difference of about 50 goals per season.

Things get even more obvious if you look at how goalies have fared overall:

In 97/98 one goalie broke .93, another three .92 and seven .91 for 11 above .91

98/99: 1 , 6 , 10 for 17 overall
03/04: 4 , 4 , 19 for 27
05/06: 0 , 4 , 10 for 14
10/11: 2, 11 , 19 for 32
11/12: 4 , 7 , 21 for 32

Goalie numbers virtually exploded in the years before the lockout, a starter had to top .91 at that point to not look really bad. The scoring spike after the lockout caused the numbers to tumble, before shooting back up when scoring went down again. Now three times as many goalies top .91 compared to the mid 90s.

That's the reason why today's performances are nothing compared to what Hasek did back in the days. Hasek topped .93 when it was out of the world to top .92 and still excellent to top .91 . It really doesn't get any more dominant than that, it's very much similar to what Gretzky and Lemieux did during their prime.
TL;DR completely, but I think it's reasoning like this that leads to Crosby > Gretzky arguments. If-if-if Gretzky played in todays NHL, he might barely crack 100 points. If-if-if Lundqvist played in the '80s he'd only average .915sv%. Who knows? Once we throw out the numbers due to the era played in, it becomes ridiculous to make comparisons.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:25 PM
  #96
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
TL;DR completely, but I think it's reasoning like this that leads to Crosby > Gretzky arguments. If-if-if Gretzky played in todays NHL, he might barely crack 100 points. If-if-if Lundqvist played in the '80s he'd only average .915sv%. Who knows? Once we throw out the numbers due to the era played in, it becomes ridiculous to make comparisons.
We can only definitively know what a player is/was capable of within the context of when they played. The state of the game, training, nutrition all evolve. No one disputes this. There are two schools of thought when it comes to comparing player A and player B.

1. Due to the evolution of the game, training, nutrition, players today are generally better than players of the past and make implications that guys like Eddie Shore wouldn't be able to crack an NHL lineup today.

2. Concede that the evolution of the game is real, but choose to compare players based on how they performed relative to their direct peers. I don't see the point in punishing a player like Gump Worsley in the annals of history because no one quite figured out at that time that the butterfly was more efficient method of stopping the puck than strict stand-up.

Build a time machine and drop a current state Craig Anderson into the 50s and absolutely, fans will be bowing down to him like the second coming of Christ. But frankly, I find Worsley's achievements much more impressive than Anderson's.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:25 PM
  #97
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 10,133
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
I suggest we define it as the average length of a player career, about 10 years.

So we define it as a "generation" of players.
So there is never two generational talents the same time? Basically that means Gretzky is, Lemieux is not but Crosby might be. I don't think that is what most people go for with the term "generational". Even is the meaning of the word could be read as such.

Using "advanced stats" in hockey hardly apply as advanced stats in university level mathematicians. Still they are called advanced stats.

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:37 PM
  #98
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman47 View Post
Ovechkin is a lock for this generation's player. So because he's had a couple off years he's a no go? Its harder to score in todays NHL than it was in the 90s and before. Ovechkin is it. He's the man. Crosby could be considered also but he'll have to keep putting the numbers up for that. He is to ovechkin as lemieux was to gretzky.
I think, with some confidence i can say that generational players dont have off seasons. Especially not during prime years

LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:41 PM
  #99
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
TL;DR completely, but I think it's reasoning like this that leads to Crosby > Gretzky arguments. If-if-if Gretzky played in todays NHL, he might barely crack 100 points. If-if-if Lundqvist played in the '80s he'd only average .915sv%. Who knows? Once we throw out the numbers due to the era played in, it becomes ridiculous to make comparisons.
Only if you take it to the extreme

The best bet is always to look at how much a player dominated. Looking at the scoring numbers outside of Gretzky and Lemieux, they weren't that out of the norm. Yes, they were a bit higher, but that fits into the higher goals per game average. Most of the years the best of the rest had 120-130 points, not that far removed from what was done right after the last lockout. There were also years like 86/87, where no one but Gretzky topped 108 points.

Gretzky isn't better than anyone today because he scored over 200 points, he's better than anyone because he annihilated the competition, including guys who where among the best in the following lower scoring era, so it wasn't because of a lack of talent.
Crosby has been beaten multiple times by guys like Ovechkin or Malkin, and he hasn't done much to seperate himself from the pack of elite players that follow behind either. Gretzky, on the other hand, regularly scored 70 or even 80 points more than the next best player, even when the rest was scoring at a level comparable to today. One can't just say that Gretzky scored that much because there was more scoring, else more players would have put up those kind of numbers, yet only one came even close.

Everything needs to be put into context. That's why someone scoring 250 points when ppg is at 13.5 would hardly be better than what Gretzky did, as everyone would score like crazy.

Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:00 PM
  #100
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,642
vCash: 50
Generational players are so talented that they only come around - on average - once in a generation. The only current generational player is Crosby.

In the eras of hockey I have lived through the only other generational players were Gretzky and Lemieux. Orr and Howe would definitely fit the bill as well.

worraps 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 11:34 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.