Generational Players?

[Canucks_fan18]

Another thread sparked this idea for me. Going back to let's say the 80's who are the "generational players" and what does that mean? I think for me it's a combination of being the greatest, longevity and controlling the narrative.

80's: Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Mike Bossy. Just Missed: Mark Messier, Marcel Dionne.
90's: Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Patrick Roy. Just Missed: Brett Hull, Eric Lindros, Dominik Hasek, Ray Bourque
00's: Martin Brodeur, Nicklas Lidstrom, Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin. Just Missed: Evgeni Malkin.
10's: Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Connor McDavid. Just Missed: Evgeni Malkin, Patrick Kane.

It's hard for our era I feel like going back and maybe it's just nostalgia but there were more "generational" or at least bonafide hall of famers in the 90's. I left out Sakic, Yzerman and Bure to name a few. This era from the 00's on wards I would say some of the just outside talents were Thornton, Ignila, Karlsson.

[Pengwin7]

IMO, a better way to classify "generational" is by the ranges/eras for Generational Birth Years:

The Silent Generation: Born 1928-1945 (73-90 years old) - HOWE (b.1928)
Baby Boomers: Born 1946-1964 (54-72 years old) - ORR (b.1948), GRETZKY (b.1961)
Generation X: Born 1965-1980 (38-53 years old) - LEMIEUX (b.1965)
Millennials: Born 1981-1996 (22-37 years old) - CROSBY (b.1987)... maybe Ovechkin. Nobody else.
Post-Millennials: Born 1997-Present (0-21 years old) - MCDAVID (b.1997)

To be "generational" in hockey, there should be ONE... maybe TWO... player(s) per Generation, they should:
*Excel in the sport so obviously beyond their peers that it is NOT EVEN DEBATABLE how incredible they are.

Bossy, Dionne, Jagr, Messier... these were GREAT players.
But putting them in a thread defining GENERATIONAL just goes to show you are not on the right track.

[Axeman33]

IMO, a better way to classify "generational" is by the modern definitions for Generational Birth Years:

The Silent Generation: Born 1928-1945 (73-90 years old) - HOWE (b.1928)
Baby Boomers: Born 1946-1964 (54-72 years old) - ORR (b.1948), GRETZKY (b.1961)
Generation X: Born 1965-1980 (38-53 years old) - LEMIEUX (b.1965)
Millennials: Born 1981-1996 (22-37 years old) - CROSBY (b.1987)... maybe Ovechkin. Nobody else.
Post-Millennials: Born 1997-Present (0-21 years old) - MCDAVID (b.1997)

To be "generational" in hockey, there should be ONE... maybe TWO... player(s) per Generation, they should:
*Excel in the sport so obviously beyond their peers that it is NOT EVEN DEBATABLE how incredible they are.

Bossy, Dionne, Jagr, Messier... these were GREAT players.
But putting them in a thread defining GENERATIONAL just goes to show you are not on the right track.

Yep

[2014olympicgold]

Not Pettersson.

[saucelife90]

Not Pettersson.

lol

[Canucks_fan18]

Yah it was hard to compile this list but for me if you were the best at whatever you did in the NHL for an extended period of time you were generational. Ovi certainly belongs there, his cupboard is actually fuller then Crosby's minus the 2 cups. I also belive Jagar for a period of time there was better then everyone else by a good margin as well.

Ovi:

Calder
Art Ross
Smythe
Lester/Lindsay x 3
Hart x 3
Rocket x 7

Jagar: 3 of his scoring titles were in a row.

Masterton
Hart
Lester x 3
Art Ross x 5

[Axeman33]

Bryan Trottier won the Calder, Hart trophy (runner up two other times), Conn Smythe, Art Ross and the King Clancy award. He was also a 7 time all-star and a 6 time StanleyCup champ on two different teams. Lots of players win awards. That doesnt make them generational. In fact, Trottier's name rarely comes up when people talk about the greatest hockey players ever although I think he deserves to be in that same breath.

That being said, I do think Ovechkin deserves to be in there with Crosby.

[lucafen4]

Maybe 'Sub-Generational' players - for those that seem to separate themselves a bit from that elite group of players, but fall just shy of those generational talents -- Mackinnon/Rantanen/Matthews vs. Crosby/Ovie

I'm also not willing to fully define McDavid as generational as of yet.

In Leafland, Matthews is a generational talent by default - we haven't had talent in a generation. but I digress.

From the OP post - Had Hasek entered the NHL 2-3 years sooner - I don't think there would be any question we would be considering him a generational talent for his position.

[ericdaoust]

Everything is relative to the individual and how we do rankings and tiers is different for everyone. The only thing I'll make note of is if we're calling this upper tier the "generational players" (ie once in a generation) then you should NOT have 3+ players listed per decade.

[lucafen4]

and where does someone like Nik Lidstrom fit into all of this. Best defenseman of his generation... Not really a close second.

[als_revenge]

IMO, a better way to classify "generational" is by the ranges/eras for Generational Birth Years:

The Silent Generation: Born 1928-1945 (73-90 years old) - HOWE (b.1928)
Baby Boomers: Born 1946-1964 (54-72 years old) - ORR (b.1948), GRETZKY (b.1961)
Generation X: Born 1965-1980 (38-53 years old) - LEMIEUX (b.1965)
Millennials: Born 1981-1996 (22-37 years old) - CROSBY (b.1987)... maybe Ovechkin. Nobody else.
Post-Millennials: Born 1997-Present (0-21 years old) - MCDAVID (b.1997)

To be "generational" in hockey, there should be ONE... maybe TWO... player(s) per Generation, they should:
*Excel in the sport so obviously beyond their peers that it is NOT EVEN DEBATABLE how incredible they are.

Bossy, Dionne, Jagr, Messier... these were GREAT players.
But putting them in a thread defining GENERATIONAL just goes to show you are not on the right track.

Great post. Only feedback is (1): calling McDavid generational is more anticipating than based on what he's actually done; and (2) I think consideration should also be given to goaltenders. And I know I'll be against the gain, but I'd put Hasek on their for goalies. 2 Hart trophies - no goalie in the NHL has ever done that, in any era. Of course, I'm biased as I grew up watching him play. 5 Vezina trophies at the age of 30+.

[Canucks_fan18]

and where does someone like Nik Lidstrom fit into all of this. Best defenseman of his generation... Not really a close second.

That's why I had him in my 00's, 7 Norris trophies the guy was an animal.

[metaldude26]

I have to agree with the Pengwin definition here. Only one or two guys truly define a generation, but at the end of the day, these are just symbols we type out on a page. Better articulating one's self so everyone understands your own personal definition of "generational" helps the discussion along.

[Canucks_fan18]

I have to agree with the Pengwin definition here. Only one or two guys truly define a generation, but at the end of the day, these are just symbols we type out on a page. Better articulating one's self so everyone understands your own personal definition of "generational" helps the discussion along.

I gave that in my OP. I think it's a combination of being the best, longevity and being a part of the narrative of the entire NHL. Eric Lindros was an interesting case for this. He was the best for a very fleeting time, always dominated the narrative but didn't have the longevity. So he missed for me. Then there are guys like Jagar who dominated for stretches, certainty had longevity and was a big part of the narrative through his best years and his record chasing years towards the end of his career. That is why Jagar to me is generational, he ticked all three boxes.

[lucafen4]

This is all Craig Button's fault.

The word Generational is being GIVEN out before accomplishments are achieved.
This should be a term used in REFLECTION of a career. My opinion.

We've anointed McDavid as the generational player for the next decade +. Why? because he's had B2B 100pt season?
Okay, Good start.

BUT,
what happens if (or maybe when) say Rantanen outpoints him over the next 12 years?
Or Matthews goes toe to toe with him (currently has a better pt/gm avg on the season) and wins more cups (Which I'll bet on)?
Or jack Hughes/Lafreniere come along in 2-3 years and make waste of everyone else (hypothetical - but still)

On my desk sits Stan Fischler's Hockey 100 from 1984.
Top 100 players of all time
Howe is #1 - Orr is #13
Gretzky is #10 - he's had a great start to his career, but sample size is still small
Shore is #2, Kelly #3, Frank Boucher #4, Richard #5, Morenz #6, Beliveau #7, Cyclone Taylor #8, Harvey #9
It's an all time list, a personal list. Clearly his parameters differ to others, but the point is,
it puts things in perspective a bit. He's calling Shore & Kelly 2 of the best EVER... yet neither is mentioned above. his list seems primarily based on a full body of work.


35 years later,
Most won't agree with his list, but it does illustrate a change in hockey culture.

There's a need to be the first to call someone a generational player, anoint the next carrier of the flame (no pressure kid)
Rather than sit back, enjoy the show and debate when the dust settles.