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.
He's definitely NOT a lock. He had one amazing season, coupled with a handful of great seasons. His amazing season is probably the best full season anyone's had in a while but his other seasons are no better than anything Crosby and Malkin have done. He'll have to do a lot more than post a few 50+ goal seasons, if he's going to be remembered as "this generation's player". Remember, Pavel Bure had four seasons were he scored 60, 60, 59, and 58 and no one considers him generational. The same goes for Brett Hull, who was averaging 76 goals a season for three years.
As of right now, I don't know if anyone has truly defined themselves as "this generation's player". A healthy Crosby COULD and Ovechkin is also in that same boat... but Sid needs get out of the pressbox and OV needs to pick up his socks.
I'm a huge fan of both Yzerman & Sakic - but they weren't generational talent IMO.
IMO - generational talents are head and shoulders better than even "star" players of their era. As good as Yzerman & Sakic were - they weren't in the discussion with guys like Gretky & Lemieux. Does that mean that TGO was "uber-generational"? Not IMO - just means that Yzerman & Sakic were superstars that don't make generational status.
I don't think that every "generation" HAS to have generational players. IMO - generational players just are on a different level from their competitors. With that being said - I have a hard time saying a guy like Broduer or Roy were generational talents. They were obviously great for an extended period of time - but that doesn't make them generational IMO.
Guys that I've seen play who I would consider generational:
F: Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, OV until the last couple of years
D: Lidstrom, Pronger
G: Hasek
I am really starting to doubt myself. Crosby is given the label of Genrational Talent. Somehow i can't find myself lifting him any higher on relative dominance as players like Sakic, Jagr, Yzerman, Fedorov etc. (Peak wise). Maybe it is true after all. History just seems better than it was. Cause in my mind Lemieux and Gretzky were clearly ahead of Crosby, Ovechkin and Malkin.
I was a young boy when Lemieux was tearing up the league like no one else. Maybe my memories just seem better as time passes by. But i really, really can't find myself lifting Crosby in to the same status as Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr/Howe. Hell, I am not even sure Crosby should be lifted among Messier and Jagr, guys who are not clear cut generational talents themselves.
I am really starting to doubt myself. Crosby is given the label of Genrational Talent. Somehow i can't find myself lifting him any higher on relative dominance as players like Sakic, Jagr, Yzerman, Fedorov etc. (Peak wise). Maybe it is true after all. History just seems better than it was. Cause in my mind Lemieux and Gretzky were clearly ahead of Crosby, Ovechkin and Malkin.
I was a young boy when Lemieux was tearing up the league like no one else. Maybe my memories just seem better as time passes by. But i really, really can't find myself lifting Crosby in to the same status as Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr/Howe. Hell, I am not even sure Crosby should be lifted among Messier and Jagr, guys who are not clear cut generational talents themselves.
There are degrees of generational talents. Just because Crosby has crossed the threshold doesn't put him on the same level as Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr.
If Sid is able to stay healthy (big if), I think he'll end up having a slightly better career than Sakic and Yzerman (two players who just fall short of generational talents in my book) did.
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.
Yeah, maybe the phrase "Generational player" should only be for guys like that, i dont know. But i have no problem including guys like Lidstrom and Hasek under that same umbrella. I mean these were guys that dominated their position over several years. But if we can find another word for them i'm willing to except that too. But there's a good chance Crosby can score 130 points a year if healthy and that would be kinda cool, and Lemieux would'nt exactly score 199 points in todays game.
Yeah, maybe the phrase "Generational player" should only be for guys like that, i dont know. But i have no problem including guys like Lidstrom and Hasek under that same umbrella. I mean these were guys that dominated their position over several years. But if we can find another word for them i'm willing to except that too. But there's a good chance Crosby can score 130 points a year if healthy and that would be kinda cool, and Lemieux would'nt exactly score 199 points in todays game.
I definetely agree to this. I don't think that you have to be in the discussion as the best player of all time (aka - as good as TGO or Mario) to be a generational talent. I just think that you have to be head and shoulders better than the other "superstars" of your time and consistently dominate. If Crosby were healthy, and he was consistently putting up 120-140 points season, I would have no problem saying he was a generational talent. He'd by outscoring guys who were top 10 in the league by 50+%. That's dominance - which would make him a generational talent IMO.
Same deal with Hasek and Lidstrom. People just trying to evaluate Hasek based on his SP% obviously never saw him play in his prime, and don't understand the impact of the changes in the game. Hasek was on a completetely different plane IMO and he was the most relatively dominant goalie that I can remember.
Maybe guys like Sakic & Yzerman would be considered generational talents if they played in an era that didn't have a Mario & TGO. I just have a hard time calling either guy a generational player when they didn't consistently dominanate the other players of the era. Guys like Messier, Hawerchuk, Savard could all be in there for stretches. I think that JS & SY both have the benefit of staying relatively healthy, aging well, and playing for quality organizations which maximized their opportunities to shine in the play-off's, which is what people remember.
There are degrees of generational talents. Just because Crosby has crossed the threshold doesn't put him on the same level as Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr.
If Sid is able to stay healthy (big if), I think he'll end up having a slightly better career than Sakic and Yzerman (two players who just fall short of generational talents in my book) did.
So basically Messier and Jagr are generational talents?
Look I don't want to nitpick everything you say, I just feel that when Crosby is the subject of conversation these days he gets too much benefit of a doubt.
He might even make it as a better of Sakic and Yzerman. But basically it means he would have to come out next year with same kind of fierce play. Considering he would be 26-years at that point the time definitely is starting to run thin on him.
At this point he has 600 points and I reckon he would need few more top-seasons and about 800 points more to be considered as the same level of Sakic/Y. Basically he can't sit out a single season anymore. He has about 4-6 years (considering he will follow roughly the same path as other star players too) of being in the running for the best player and threat for individual awards. Now if he can pick up 2 major awards more, and contribute as a top player for the next 6 years he has a great shot ending up in the territory of Sakic/Yzerman.
But would he really be worthy of a generational label? He came to the league with a bang, won Art and Hart in his sophomore year. Then settled down a bit and became one of the top players for 4 years. Winning one (shared) Rocket on the way. Then bursting out as best offensive player of half season and getting injured. After that it takes him almost three years before he starts playing again.
Now, Crosby would most likely have been the best player of 2010-2011 IF he would have played that season. But the fact remains he did not play. If, IF he can pull of the stats next season and take his place as the best player in the world it will be 7 seasons between in which time Crosby won one shared Rocket and everyone knows the best goal scorer of that year was Ovechkin.
He has hell of a lot ground to cover before he takes up as a Generational player. Lindros was arguably as good as Crosby, but no-one tries to lift him up in the same category as Sakic/Yzerman. At this point Crosby seems to be falling out of the conversation of all-time greats.
We mostly agree that a Generational in average happen once per generation.
I think we have a greater issue to define how many years in average is a generation than defining what is the Talent.
You have been at this subject for quite a few posts now. Nobody seems to agree with you.
Generational talent is most widely not used to count time. Not in hockey at least. By your definition Lemieux is not a Generational talent since he played along Gretzky.
The word elite gets thrown around alot here and the problem we always run into is what exactly defines "elite".
Now that's a can of worms I don't care to open as reaching a clear scope on that is nearly impossible.
Another word that has a similar problem attached to it is "generational" which I figured would be relatively easier to define as it tends to connote a more exclusive group.
So I ask you HFers: what for you makes a player a "generational" talent? Don't define the word so much as the on-ice requisites of meeting that definition. Also, give examples if you can.
wikipedia and use it to look up the word. Then apply the word to hockey. Easy.
I'm a huge fan of both Yzerman & Sakic - but they weren't generational talent IMO.
IMO - generational talents are head and shoulders better than even "star" players of their era. As good as Yzerman & Sakic were - they weren't in the discussion with guys like Gretky & Lemieux. Does that mean that TGO was "uber-generational"? Not IMO - just means that Yzerman & Sakic were superstars that don't make generational status.
The term "generational" gets thrown around in different ways. Does it mean "Elite Superstar" or does it mean "the best guy from a set period of time"? Yzerman IMO is one of the 5-10 best players ever. That certainly makes him a generational talent, even if he was competing against Gretzky and Lemieux in his prime. In 1988 he was part of a THN feature asking which of the three was the best. Gretzky had just scored 149 in 64, Lemieux had just scored 168. And Yzerman was considered their equal.
Quote:
I don't think that every "generation" HAS to have generational players. IMO - generational players just are on a different level from their competitors. With that being said - I have a hard time saying a guy like Broduer or Roy were generational talents. They were obviously great for an extended period of time - but that doesn't make them generational IMO.
So who was the last generational goalie before Hasek? Dryden? Plante? Sawchuk? Brimsek?
Roy and Brodeur are in the conversation
for best ever. That's a pretty good argument for "generational" right there.
Quote:
Guys that I've seen play who I would consider generational:
F: Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, OV until the last couple of years
D: Lidstrom, Pronger
G: Hasek
Pronger is arguable, I wouldn't reject the claim but I wouldn't personally make it. He had an amazing peak and a great, long prime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala
So basically Messier and Jagr are generational talents?
No, Messier is NOT. He was outshined by several of his contemporaries.
The term "generational" gets thrown around in different ways. Does it mean "Elite Superstar" or does it mean "the best guy from a set period of time"? Yzerman IMO is one of the 5-10 best players ever. That certainly makes him a generational talent, even if he was competing against Gretzky and Lemieux in his prime. In 1988 he was part of a THN feature asking which of the three was the best. Gretzky had just scored 149 in 64, Lemieux had just scored 168. And Yzerman was considered their equal.
Very few are going to have Yzerman in their top 10 players.
If generation is defined as "at his peak would likely be as good as any player in the game in a typical 5 year stretch"... then maybe Yzerman was generational. Otherwise, probably not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero
Pronger is arguable, I wouldn't reject the claim but I wouldn't personally make it. He had an amazing peak and a great, long prime.
No, Messier is NOT. He was outshined by several of his contemporaries.
Definitely don't consider Pronger generational. I think even Messier and Lidstrom, if they were "generational", were more generational players and had more generational careers than were "generational talents."
If it's a hockey "generation" of being as dominant as any player for ~5+ years or as any player at your position for ~10+, I'd say since expansion it's something like:
Orr
Lafleur
Bourque
Gretzky
Roy
Lemieux
Hasek
Jagr
With a lot of players on the cusp and/or still playing, such as Esposito, Clarke, Dionne, Potvin, Bossy, Trottier, Messier, Yzerman, Brett Hull, Sakic, Fedorov, Bure, Brodeur, Lidstrom, Lindros, Forsberg, Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, etc.
Last edited by Czech Your Math: 12-13-2012 at 10:17 PM.
The term "generational" gets thrown around in different ways. Does it mean "Elite Superstar" or does it mean "the best guy from a set period of time"? Yzerman IMO is one of the 5-10 best players ever.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it does not mean the opinion is good.
Yzerman has zero chance of being number 5 all-time. Absolutely zero. Most guys don't rank him above Sakic. I think there are few guys out there who take Yzerman in top-10 but i would say it is very rare. Seeing Yzerman at top-10 is more of an anomaly than rule.
You have been at this subject for quite a few posts now. Nobody seems to agree with you.
Generational talent is most widely not used to count time. Not in hockey at least. By your definition Lemieux is not a Generational talent since he played along Gretzky.
you misunderstood then, by my definition yes we could have 2 generational talent at the same time.
by the same logic, we could have no generational talent at a point of time.
Its an average. if for 10 years we have 2 generational talents and the next 10 years, we have none. then we have one per 10 years.
what happens in the hypothetical situation when Bobby Orr plays in the 80's too? Do we have to wait 30 years?
What if Granlund, Tarasenko, RNH, Hall and Seguin go wild and everyone puts up 160+ points regularly? We wait for 40 years?
Don't make sense to me.
But what doesn't make sense to me is to have too many ""Generational talent" in a short span of time.
Generational doesn't mean exceptional, elite, Hall of fame, incredible, it mean Generational. And it should not happen more than once per generation in average.
if you have 5 guy at the same time who put 160+ point regularly , then its not generational anymore.
if we had 100 Gretzky in the history of hockey, then none of them could be called generational talent. It would not be generational anymore.
The question is how long should we define a Generation in hockey? 3 years? 5? 10? 20? 30?
The kind of player who, on average, only comes around once every 10-15 year or so. Sometimes they could be born closer than 10-15 years apart, sometimes further, but we're talking that level of elite talent and dominance.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it does not mean the opinion is good.
Yzerman has zero chance of being number 5 all-time. Absolutely zero. Most guys don't rank him above Sakic.
Which is a mistake, as I've detaile in other posts (Yzerman and Sakic were relatively equal in their overlap, and post-Yzerman Sakic does not outdo pre-Sakic Yzerman.)
Quote:
I think there are few guys out there who take Yzerman in top-10 but i would say it is very rare. Seeing Yzerman at top-10 is more of an anomaly than rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math
Very few are going to have Yzerman in their top 10 players.
If generation is defined as "at his peak would likely be as good as any player in the game in a typical 5 year stretch"... then maybe Yzerman was generational. Otherwise, probably not.
Which goes back to my point about the 5-year average career.
Quote:
Definitely don't consider Pronger generational. I think even Messier and Lidstrom, if they were "generational", were more generational players and had more generational careers than were "generational talents."
What exactly is the difference? Players described Lidstrom as "The Perfect Human." and his biggest strength was the same as Gretzky's. He wasn't an elite player as early as some others, but he was an elite player later than some others. Few would be the best or among the best at their position at 40; Lidstrom scored as many points winning the Norris that year (62) as Gretzky did in his last year at 38.
Quote:
If it's a hockey "generation" of being as dominant as any player for ~5+ years or as any player at your position for ~10+, I'd say since expansion it's something like:
Orr
Lafleur
Bourque
Gretzky
Roy
Lemieux
Hasek
Jagr
With a lot of players on the cusp and/or still playing, such as Esposito, Clarke, Dionne, Potvin, Bossy, Trottier, Messier, Yzerman, Brett Hull, Sakic, Fedorov, Bure, Brodeur, Lidstrom, Lindros, Forsberg, Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, etc.
Where are Paul Coffey, Jari Kurri, Teemu Selanne, Slava Fetisov, and Sergei Makarov?
Coffey certainly was more "generational" than many of those guys, and Kurri>Hull, Selanne>Bure career, Fetisov was considered to be on Bourque's level in the 80s, and Makarov is among those argued as the best Russian forward ever.
And Ovechkin can claim to be as dominant as any winger (except Jagr) on either side since at least Lafleur, if not Hull/Howe.
Last edited by eva unit zero: 12-13-2012 at 06:24 PM.
Which is a mistake, as I've detaile in other posts (Yzerman and Sakic were relatively equal in their overlap, and post-Yzerman Sakic does not outdo pre-Sakic Yzerman.)
I don't know. It is kind of hard to think that there would be some kind of bias in Sakic vs. Yzerman discussion. I mean in wide range. Both were absolutely amazing players and great cornerstones for any franchise. But I have yet to seen a compelling argument that puts Yzerman ahead of Sakic. There is an argument to be made and it is definitely not black and white situation.
I just feel Sakic has more credentials of being ranked ahead of Yzerman than the other way around. Adjusted points gives them basically equal position in all-time point list with Sakic ahead 29 points. Given that Hockey-Reference's adjustment penalize 80's players too much Yzerman should get some benefit of a doubt there. But the drastic 150 games played difference in favor of Yzerman there should be a noted difference in favor of Sakic. Also their top-10 point finishes are almost double in favor of Sakic. Leadership and intangibles should be noted as even since both were proven play-off performers..
It is kind of even now to think of it. Both players also drop just outside of the "generational" label, for me. Basically they are as good as it gets without being exceptional super-stars.
Neither of these guys is top-5 player in any kind of way, as you suggested. But i could maybe see an argument for top-10. But given the fact that these two have almost identical career value it is hard to place them too much apart from each other and frankly, i can't see myself putting both guys in top-10.
As close as it is possible to get generational without being one. I think.
