"Generational" players

[Flyerfan52]

Well put.  An example:  Lindros.

 

Most on here agree that Crosby's special.  I couldn't really be bothered with definitions.

 

 

What about Lindros?

 

Not as talented as Crosby/Gretzky/Lemieux, but similar impact when factoring in physical dominance.

 

So, what do you do with a guy who only dominated for 4-7 seasons, and never won a cup?

 

There were at Least 2 seasons in there, maybe more, where what Lindros was doing was comparable to Crosby now in terms of impact.

 

So where do you draw the line?  How long do you have to sustain before you make that category?

 

Then take a guy like Daigle.   Similar talent level to Crosby, but never translated.  Not one season.

 

 

We can all agree to cut Daigle out.   And like DD says, we thus shouldn't even be seriously comparing McDavid (I'm guilty) or Bennett yet.

 

Is Lindros in the conversation?

 

He did translate.   For a few short seasons. But he couldn't sustain long enough to set a lasting record. 

Like the stars in the sky some burn bright for a short time. The astral version is a nova.

 

For those seasons Eric Lindros was the complete package physically. Big, mean enough but with great hands. But the same skills that made him great in junior kept him from developing the important 1 of being aware @ all times. In junior players bounced off him. In the NHL that wasn't a given.

[CheersMan]

I would not consider Eric Lindros to have been a generational hockey player.  He surpassed 100pts once and was equivalent to Sakic and Forsberg.  I would put all 3 of these players one step down from generational.

-------------
There are only 4 players that I would consider generational and that would be Howe, Orr, Gretz and Lemieux.  These four players dominated.  If there was another level above generational then maybe they go up a level but these 4 are in a league on their own.

[The_People1]

This is so silly to call any player a "generational player " before they have played a single game in the NHL. 

 

Save that title for after they have played a few seasons in the NHL and proved themselves worthy of that title ......

True. But is it okay to label prospects with generational "potential"? I think so and I think that's all that's being done. No one actually accepts McDavid as a generational player right now.

[DirtyDeeds]

True. But is it okay to label prospects with generational "potential"? I think so and I think that's all that's being done. No one actually accepts McDavid as a generational player right now.

No Peoples.. just about everyone in this thread has already called him a generational player talent, then went on to the debate if Crosby, Gretzky, Lemieux, Lindros etc are all classed the same for reference....

 

Edit: Changed the generational (player) to word "talent" which is the exact term OP used.

[Flyerfan52]

This year the media are hyping McDavid & Eichel as generational players.

 

THN has aready started hyping Auston Matthews & Jesse Puljujarvi the same way with with Jakob Chychrun thrown in for good measure.

*********************************************************************

5 generational players in 2 years? We're in for the best hockey of all time since generational player Crosby will still be around as will lesser lights like Stamkos, McKinnon, etc.

 

[DirtyDeeds]

This year the media are hyping McDavid & Eichel as generational players.

 

THN has aready started hyping Auston Matthews & Jesse Puljujarvi the same way with with Jakob Chychrun thrown in for good measure.

*********************************************************************

5 generational players in 2 years? We're in for the best hockey of all time since generational player Crosby will still be around as will lesser lights like Stamkos, McKinnon, etc.

 

5 generational Players in 2 years?????

 

Do they come with fries and a side of gravy?

 

Let the tanking begin now....

[Zirakzigil]

BTW, said franchise did that tank twice. 1st time for Lemieux & 2nd for Crosby.

Hilarious you think the Pens tanked for Crosby, when they got him during the lockout. But hey, continue to let your hatred for a team flow through you and cloud your judgement. 

[Pyromancer]

  Just my opinion:

 

Generational players are only defined after their body of work has finished or nearly finished.
Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux and several from the original six.
The league is full of elite or franchise players but I fail to see any I would define as generational currently.
The closest would be Martin Brodeur and Jaromir Jagr.
A notch below would be Sidney Crosby.

 

The so-called generational players in the 2015 draft will not earn that title until 15-20 years have passed.
 

[The_People1]

No Peoples.. just about everyone in this thread has already called him a generational player then went on to the debate if Crosby, Gretzky, Lemieux, Lindros etc are all classed the same for reference....

 

Does everyone in this thread accept McDavid as a Generational player? 

 

I don't think so.  I certainly hope not.  He hasn't played a game in the NHL so how can he be a generational player?  He merely has generational "potential".

 

Also, I don't recall anybody giving Mackinnon the "generational" label.  "Franchise Player", yes, but never heard generational.  Same with Stamkos, Kane, Ekblad, etc.  They were Franchise player potential.  The closest to generational was when Tavares was breaking Gretzky's records in Juniors.  But even then, the hockey world quickly retracted the Generational label on Tavares when they discovered his lack of skating abilities.

 

About Eric Lindros, he had generational player "potential" but he never lived up to the hype due to concussions.  He's not even first ballot Hall of Fame so definitely not a generational player.  But it's okay to give him the label because the he did have that level of potential.

  Just my opinion:

 

Generational players are only defined after their body of work has finished or nearly finished.

Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux and several from the original six.

The league is full of elite or franchise players but I fail to see any I would define as generational currently.

The closest would be Martin Brodeur and Jaromir Jagr.

A notch below would be Sidney Crosby.

 

The so-called generational players in the 2015 draft will not earn that title until 15-20 years have passed.

 

 

Yes agreed.

 

No prospect can be called "generational player" before even playing a game in the NHL.  It's only okay to give them "generational player potential" because it means they have the potential but they still have to earn it.

[DirtyDeeds]

Does everyone in this thread accept McDavid as a Generational player? 

Not everyone. A few feel as I do that the term generational player should only be earned after many years of performance. Don't ask me why the press in particular has decidded to call prospects with high end skill generational...

 

I don't think so.  I certainly hope not.  He hasn't played a game in the NHL so how can he be a generational player?  He merely has generational "potential".

 

Also, I don't recall anybody giving Mackinnon the "generational" label.  "Franchise Player", yes, but never heard generational.  Same with Stamkos, Kane, Ekblad, etc.  They were Franchise player potential.  The closest to generational was when Tavares was breaking Gretzky's records in Juniors.  But even then, the hockey world quickly retracted the Generational label on Tavares when they discovered his lack of skating abilities.

Franchise is another term that needs to be earned. Bennett has the potential to become a franchise player for us as does Monahan, but they have to earn it with years of performance on our team.

 

About Eric Lindros, he had generational player "potential" but he never lived up to the hype due to concussions.  He's not even first ballot Hall of Fame so definitely not a generational player.  But it's okay to give him the label because the he did have that level of potential.

 

I was not the one who brought up the Lindros example. Draw your own lines in the sand...

 

Yes agreed.

 

No prospect can be called "generational player" before even playing a game in the NHL.  It's only okay to give them "generational player potential" because it means they have the potential but they still have to earn it.

this is what i said in my post.... don't even use the term generational on any prospect until they have proved it for a number of years in the NHL.

[The_People1]

this is what i said in my post.... don't even use the term generational on any prospect until they have proved it for a number of years in the NHL.

 

It's okay to use the term "generational" to grade the prospect's potential.  Just like it's okay to use the term "4th liner" or "second pair Dman" as a grade score. It's implied that these terms don't seal their fates but rather put one prospect up against another for comparison's sake.

[DirtyDeeds]

It's okay to use the term "generational" to grade the prospect's potential.  Just like it's okay to use the term "4th liner" or "second pair Dman" as a grade score. It's implied that these terms don't seal their fates but rather put one prospect up against another for comparison's sake.

You can compare McDavid and his stats to Crosby without giving him the generational <insert whatever> title into the discussion.

[KACaribou]

There seems to be a lot of Crosby Man-Love here. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." However that could be another completely different Crosby thread here...

[Flyerfan52]

It's okay to use the term "generational" to grade the prospect's potential.  Just like it's okay to use the term "4th liner" or "second pair Dman" as a grade score. It's implied that these terms don't seal their fates but rather put one prospect up against another for comparison's sake.

Since Shea Weber, Duncan Keith & P.K.Subban were all picked mid to late 2nd round should we use the term "future top 5-7 defense" for all Ds selected in that range?

 

As has been said in many posts the terms generational & franchise are tossed around while talking about teenaged kids & their potential. @ 15-18 kids grow physically & skill wise. That 15 year old phenomonen is surpassed by late bloomers.

 

On the wrong team even the best kid becomes less. On the right team he might become what those paid to arouse interest say they might.

 

Think about the free agent frenzy & trade deadline deals that are often boring. Talking heads need to arouse interest.

[The_People1]

You can compare McDavid and his stats to Crosby without giving him the generational <insert whatever> title into the discussion.

 

Yes you can, agreed.  But it's not all stats.  It's about skating, shot power, passing vision, etc.  These don't show up in stats so we can't use such limiting grade scores to compare one prospect to another.

 

Fans will draw their own conclusions in any event.  Like, if a prospect's game draws comparison to Toews, then we automatically think Franchise Player.  If a prospect's game draws comparison to Brad Marchand, then we automatically think 2nd line pest.  If a prospect's game drawings comparison to Tim Jackman, then we automatically think career 4th liner.

 

It's how humans categorize things, rightfully or wrongfully.  Therefore, it's okay to use the term "generational" because it implies a prospect that is seen once in a generation and has the potential to become a generational player.  It helps the general public draw a picture of just how good the prospect is.

 

Since Shea Weber, Duncan Keith & P.K.Subban were all picked mid to late 2nd round should we use the term "future top 5-7 defense" for all Ds selected in that range?

 

As has been said in many posts the terms generational & franchise are tossed around while talking about teenaged kids & their potential. @ 15-18 kids grow physically & skill wise. That 15 year old phenomonen is surpassed by late bloomers.

 

On the wrong team even the best kid becomes less. On the right team he might become what those paid to arouse interest say they might.

 

Think about the free agent frenzy & trade deadline deals that are often boring. Talking heads need to arouse interest.

 

To answer your question, yes it's perfectly okay to use the term "future top 5-7 defense" because it's gives a predicted projection.  It doesn't mean they will become that.

 

Also, "generational" is not tossed around all the time.  "Franchise" is.  It's implied to their potential so it's not to say they will certainly become that.

[Flyerfan52]

 

 

This is a case of premeditated conclusions.

 

 

Conclusion 1:  Flames will make the playoffs.     Probably wrong.  

 

   The worst case scenario is the most likely:  We'll get a week draft choice but miss the post-season.

 

 

Conclusion 2: Advanced Stats has failed.

 

   Advanced stats has barely begun.   Like the Flames, their story is far from over.

 

   Let's be honest:  The biggest names in advanced stats these days...are Not math experts.   To say the very least.

 

      Like....the "Corsi Rating".  I'm sorry.  But does Jim Corsi even have high school?

 

      Publicly, little or no well-known hockey stats are currently "advanced".

 

       Another big reason, is because the marriage of math and sport is still in its infancy.  Especially in hockey.

 

There is truth in the numbers.   I wouldn't trust the popularized interpreters of this truth.....at This time.  

 

Nor would I use the Flames as an example yet.   

 

The most likely lesson of this season is Still most likely going to be that we should have been bigger sellers at the trade deadline.

Conclusion 1: 4 playoff spots yet to be claimed & 2 are in the Pacific. Flames are positioned to take 1 of the 5 by finishing 2/3 in the Pacific or hang on for a wild card spot. Jets (& even Wild should they hit a mini slump) don't have that option with all 3 guaranteed spots in the Central locked up. Flames have a 1/5 chance in the west & 1/3 in the Pacific. I'll let you work out the odds of Calgary making the playoffs.

Conclusion 2: So when those more reliable interpretations can be presented to the general public in an understandable way we might have faith in them. Stats are simply #s that can be juggled to prove what ever point the person wants to make. Right now it's still mind boggling that 24 of 30 teams are playing 0.500 % hockey.

 

On your last line, being bigger sellers @ the deadline would have likely decreased our chances of being in our current situation. 1 stat I can guarantee is that missing the playoffs puts your chances of winning the SC @ 0%.

***************************************************************************************

I'll be happy cheering on the Flames in the playoffs. You sound like you'd only be happy if we tanked for McEichel. You hopefully realize that even being the worst of the bottom suckers gives the team less chance of getting 1 of 2 generational players (if he's the best of his generation how can there be 2?) than the Flames have of going to the real season.

[stubblejumper1]

Conclusion 1: 4 playoff spots yet to be claimed & 2 are in the Pacific. Flames are positioned to take 1 of the 5 by finishing 2/3 in the Pacific or hang on for a wild card spot. Jets (& even Wild should they hit a mini slump) don't have that option with all 3 guaranteed spots in the Central locked up. Flames have a 1/5 chance in the west & 1/3 in the Pacific. I'll let you work out the odds of Calgary making the playoffs.

Conclusion 2: So when those more reliable interpretations can be presented to the general public in an understandable way we might have faith in them. Stats are simply #s that can be juggled to prove what ever point the person wants to make. Right now it's still mind boggling that 24 of 30 teams are playing 0.500 % hockey.

On your last line, being bigger sellers @ the deadline would have likely decreased our chances of being in our current situation. 1 stat I can guarantee is that missing the playoffs puts your chances of winning the SC @ 0%.

***************************************************************************************

I'll be happy cheering on the Flames in the playoffs. You sound like you'd only be happy if we tanked for McEichel. You hopefully realize that even being the worst of the bottom suckers gives the team less chance of getting 1 of 2 generational players (if he's the best of his generation how can there be 2?) than the Flames have of going to the real season.

The worst of the bottom suckers has a 100% chance of getting 1 of the 2 generational players.

[Flyerfan52]

The worst of the bottom suckers has a 100% chance of getting 1 of the 2 generational players.

You missed it. How can there be 2 generational players? By definition a generational player is the best of his generation.

 

The worst scum sucker has a 100% chance of getting 1 of the 2 hyped as such. 2003 was considered 1 of the strongest drafts ever. Given a choice would you rather have MA Fleury (1st OA), Eric Staal (2nd) or 1 of lesser hyped Ryam Getzlaf (19th) or Shea Weber (49th)?

 

Posters go by the opinion of the media. A couple of weeks ago a THN writer said there will be 3 generational players in the draft next year. HTF can there be 5 players that are all the best of their generation in 2 years?

****************************************************************************

Your chances of a good player go up if you draft high but with 18 year old kids it's all expectations. Proper scouting isn't really about finding diamonds in the later rounds as it proper projections of what the lesser hyped players are capable of. Diamonds in the rough are those like Gio & other undrafted players.

[stubblejumper1]

You missed it. How can there be 2 generational players? By definition a generational player is the best of his generation.

The worst scum sucker has a 100% chance of getting 1 of the 2 hyped as such. 2003 was considered 1 of the strongest drafts ever. Given a choice would you rather have MA Fleury (1st OA), Eric Staal (2nd) or 1 of lesser hyped Ryam Getzlaf (19th) or Shea Weber (49th)?

Posters go by the opinion of the media. A couple of weeks ago a THN writer said there will be 3 generational players in the draft next year. HTF can there be 5 players that are all the best of their generation in 2 years?

****************************************************************************

Your chances of a good player go up if you draft high but with 18 year old kids it's all expectations. Proper scouting isn't really about finding diamonds in the later rounds as it proper projections of what the lesser hyped players are capable of. Diamonds in the rough are those like Gio & other undrafted players.

I haven't missed a thing. I am just not hung up on the literal interpretation of a media headline. The point is that the bottom team is guaranteed to get one of the two most sought after eighteen year olds in several years.

I would take Getzlaff/Weber over Staal/Fleury.

Would the Penguins/Huricanes have won the Cup if Pittsburgh/Carolina had drafted Weber instead of Fleury/Staal?

[Flyerfan52]

Would the Penguins/Huricanes have won the Cup if Pittsburgh/Carolina had drafted Weber instead of Fleury/Staal?

Yes.

[Flame111]

Generational players are Bobby Orr / Wayne Gretzky / Gordie Howe...

Crosby has got the term as well but we will see with him... He very well may be the current generational player...

 

He may end up being an elite player in the Mario / Messier  camp. I don't like the way the term is thrown around rather loosely. No one denies Bobby Orr was a generational player, same with Wayne - short answer might be that if you are to call a player a generational one, no one really disputes it...  

 

It just kind of goes to my point that I think the term generational is thrown around too casually. Bobby Orr changed the game of hockey / Wayne destroyed the record book / Howe was playing at the NHL level when he was over 50. These players are so rare... 

[IpsoFacto]

Generational players are Bobby Orr / Wayne Gretzky / Gordie Howe...

Crosby has got the term as well but we will see with him... He very well may be the current generational player...

 

He may end up being an elite player in the Mario / Messier  camp. I don't like the way the term is thrown around rather loosely. No one denies Bobby Orr was a generational player, same with Wayne - short answer might be that if you are to call a player a generational one, no one really disputes it...  

 

Who disputes that Mario was generational?!

[Flame111]

Who disputes that Mario was generational?!

 

Okay - lets start the discussion - Mario or Jagr and why? May as well throw Messier in there as well and explain why Mario is a leap above Messier and Jagr...

 

While you are at it - talk about Lidstrom and why Mario is the generational player above Nick Lidstrom - these are always fun message board debates...

[Flyerfan52]

Okay - lets start the discussion - Mario or Jagr and why? May as well throw Messier in there as well and explain why Mario is a leap above Messier and Jagr...

 

While you are at it - talk about Lidstrom and why Mario is the generational player above Nick Lidstrom - these are always fun message board debates...

Many tend to confuse franchise player with generational.

[Flame111]

  Just my opinion:

 

Generational players are only defined after their body of work has finished or nearly finished.

Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux and several from the original six.

The league is full of elite or franchise players but I fail to see any I would define as generational currently.

The closest would be Martin Brodeur and Jaromir Jagr.

A notch below would be Sidney Crosby.

 

The so-called generational players in the 2015 draft will not earn that title until 15-20 years have passed.

++++++++++++++++

 

Totally agree with this. 

 

Also on Mario - the reason I am not sold on his title of generational player is that he played with Jagr - this enriched him. Many say the same about Gretzky/Kurri but to me Super-Mario benefited more from Jagr than Gretz did from Kurri - just my view. But for me a generational player is just vastly above other players consistently, not just slightly... 

Like it or not, Mario had his health issues and although this is nothing to do with his game, it held him back imo... 

If you were forced to pick a single player between Gretz and Mario - not sure if I go with Mario. If I could have had Gretz and Jagr together - I think we would have seen how Gretz would have piled up even more points...