Crosby/Ovechkin: "Generational" Players?

[BraveCanadian]

Absolutely. These two are consistently at the top of the league in scoring, year after year.

Crosby

05-06: 81 GP, 39 G, 63 A, 102 P (Sixth overall in scoring)
06-07: 79 GP, 36 G, 84 A, 120 P (First overall in scoring)
07-08: 53 GP, 24 G, 48 A, 72 P (Second overall in PPG)
08-09: 77 GP, 33 G, 70 A, 103 P (Third overall in scoring)
09-10: 81 GP, 51 G, 58 A, 109 P (Second overall in scoring)

Ovechkin

05-06: 81 GP, 52 G, 54 A, 106 P (Third overall in scoring)
06-07: 82 GP, 46 G, 46 A, 92 P (Thirteenth overall in scoring)
07-08: 82 GP, 65 G, 47 A, 112 P (First overall in scoring)
08-09: 79 GP, 56 G, 54 A, 110 P (Second overall in scoring)
09-10: 72 GP, 50 G, 59 A, 109 P (Second overall in scoring)

They have not separated themselves from their peers or maintained their high level long enough.

Unless we're going to call Jagr and Dionne and Lafleur and on and on generational players, that is..

I mean if those 5 seasons make Ovechkin and Crosby generational why is Jagr labeled as a notch below the true generationals when he had 5 scoring titles?

That pretty much smashes what Crosby and Ovechkin have done up until now but... they are and Jagr isn't?

I mean he outscored them both at age 33 in one of these 5 seasons you're using as proof that they are generational for crying out loud.

It just doesn't compute for the time being, at least.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

To me there are generational talents, and the cream of the crop of the generational talents. Obviously the 2nd group includes Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and Howe. But what about the years that don't include those players? Shouldn't there still be "generational" talents in the 2000s? Or 1960s? In other words, if you are the best player in the game for a number of years, you are a generational talent. It is hard in any generation to be the best in the NHL.

So this is how I look at it, and the cream of the crop are bolded:

Morenz
Shore
Richard
Howe
Hull
Orr
Lafleur
Gretzky
Lemieux
Jagr
(a break where the likes of Thornton, Iginla, Forsberg were the best, none are generational though)
Crosby/Ovechkin

I'll take Crosby personally, but Ovy has been right there the whole time with him. Can't blame Beliveau for not making this list. It isn't his fault Howe played at the same time. Hull takes over in the 1960s after Howe "slowed" down to his standards. Also Esposito played parallel with Orr. What can you do?

Nice list. I don't think a generational talent needs to be limited to one per generation, and have no problem if someone considers Beliveau a generational talent. Your list is also extremely forward-centric - and while I agree forwards typically got the most attention during the time, I think we all realize now that defenseman and goalies were also very deserving.

For instance, I would have no problem adding Harvey, Sawchuk, Bourque, Hasek and Lidstrom to that list.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

They have not separated themselves from their peers or maintained their high level long enough.

Unless we're going to call Jagr and Dionne and Lafleur and on and on generational players, that is..

I mean if those 5 seasons make Ovechkin and Crosby generational why is Jagr labeled as a notch below the true generationals when he had 5 scoring titles?

That pretty much smashes what Crosby and Ovechkin have done up until now but... they are and Jagr isn't?

I mean he outscored them both at age 33 in one of these 5 seasons you're using as proof that they are generational for crying out loud.

It just doesn't compute for the time being, at least.

Agreed - but most probably assume they will be able to keep it up for at least another 5 years, if not even improve.

Obviously my definition of "generational" includes more than just the Big 4. I would loosely define it as "considered best at position and consistently amongst the best in the world for an 8 year stretch".

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

They have not separated themselves from their peers or maintained their high level long enough.

Unless we're going to call Jagr and Dionne and Lafleur and on and on generational players, that is..

I mean if those 5 seasons make Ovechkin and Crosby generational why is Jagr labeled as a notch below the true generationals when he had 5 scoring titles?

That pretty much smashes what Crosby and Ovechkin have done up until now but... they are and Jagr isn't?

I mean he outscored them both at age 33 in one of these 5 seasons you're using as proof that they are generational for crying out loud.

It just doesn't compute for the time being, at least.

Marcel Dionne outscored Lemieux at age 33.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I think huge is definitely overstating it. Even throwing away Thornton's best season to try and make the case we're talking of a .15 PPG gap. Thats 12 points a season having thrown out his best one. That makes them generational and Thornton not? I don't think so.

If we're talking about Ovechkin and Crosby being dominant in the Orr/Lemieux/Gretzky sense of being way out in front of their peers.. they aren't.

If we're talking about Ovechkin and Crosby being dominant in the Howe sense of being top 5 for an amazingly long time. They haven't played long enough.

Howe should be included in this group. I have seen multiple posts on this board that show during his peak he dominated his peers statistically to the same extent Lemieux did

 

[BraveCanadian]

Marcel Dionne outscored Lemieux at age 33.

And that is not one of the seasons that we would call proof that Lemieux was generational.. but thanks for backing up my point.

 

[Violent By Design]

I can't really see any teenage rookies coming in to the NHL and dominating it like Sid and Ovi did, so yes, they are definitely generational talents of the new NHL.

 

[King Forsberg]

Nope. Niether of them. The only possible generational talent is lidstrom or Brodeur. And even that's a stretch

 

[TANK200]

And that is not one of the seasons that we would call proof that Lemieux was generational.. but thanks for backing up my point.

Well, professor, we have the luxury of having seen Lemieux's entire career, so we can pick exceptional seasons from a larger sample. If we were considering Lemieux's status after his first five seasons, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to point out a 100 point rookie campaign to support the notion that he may be a generational talent.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Well, professor, we have the luxury of having seen Lemieux's entire career, so we can pick exceptional seasons from a larger sample. If we were considering Lemieux's status after his first five seasons, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to point out a 100 point rookie campaign to support the notion that he may be a generational talent.

Don't even try to compare Lemieux's first 5 seasons to these guys..

Season 4 for Lemieux 168 points in 77 gp. Season 5 199 points in 76 gp.

Nothing Crosby or Ovechkin has done in their first 5 seasons is even close, even adjusted (which punishes 80s players).

 

[King Forsberg]

If Crosby and Ovechkin are generational talent then so are Dionne and Peter Stastny

 

[BraveCanadian]

If Crosby and Ovechkin are generational talent then so are Dionne and Peter Stastny

And a host of other players who have had similar if not greater 5 year runs.. I made the same point earlier.

They *may* be but they haven't proven it just yet for sure.

 

[King Forsberg]

Agreed

 

[seventieslord]

Nope. Niether of them. The only possible generational talent is lidstrom or Brodeur. And even that's a stretch

Generational talents who never won a Hart? Riiiight.

(Even if Lidstrom did deserve more consideration than he got)

 

[TANK200]

Don't even try to compare Lemieux's first 5 seasons to these guys..

Season 4 for Lemieux 168 points in 77 gp. Season 5 199 points in 76 gp.

Nothing Crosby or Ovechkin has done in their first 5 seasons is even close, even adjusted (which punishes 80s players).

I don't see where I tried to compare Crosby's and Ovechkin's first 5 seasons to Lemieux's, as Lemieux's were obviously better. My point was that, looking only Lemieux's first 5 season's, it doesn't exactly hurt to mention his 100 point rookie season when justifying that he was a generational talent. Same idea goes for the two current players.

 

[TANK200]

If Crosby and Ovechkin are generational talent then so are Dionne and Peter Stastny

Good point, except that neither of those players were, at any point in their careers, better than either Crosby or Ovechkin is right now.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is a strange case, on a year to year basis, no. Over the course of their career, maybe.

What's strange is, that might mean we have to include Joe Thornton...

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&year_min=2006&year_max=2011&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&birth_country=&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=S&handed=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Joe is not in the same discussion at all for at least 4 main reasons.

1. The comp is AO and Crosby from their late teens to 23, 25 to Joe in his 26-31 yr old seasons.

2. Lack of playoff success

3. Joe just doesn't score enough to be in the same grouping he is a play maker needs others around him to finish.

4. Joe was on the bubble for the Olympics in his peak (that's not the definition of a generational talent using any bar in my books).

Crosby and AO are on track to be in the top 10 of all time at this stage of their careers, that's a generational talent in my books.

 

[Derick*]

Joe is not in the same discussion at all for at least 4 main reasons.

1. The comp is AO and Crosby from their late teens to 23, 25 to Joe in his 26-31 yr old seasons.

2. Lack of playoff success

3. Joe just doesn't score enough to be in the same grouping he is a play maker needs others around him to finish.

4. Joe was on the bubble for the Olympics in his peak (that's not the definition of a generational talent using any bar in my books).

Crosby and AO are on track to be in the top 10 of all time at this stage of their careers, that's a generational talent in my books.

AO and Crosby had exceptional rookie seasons and tapered off in their third and second seasons respectively i.e. they plateued very very early.

Crosby was primarily a playmaker in his Hart year and up until this last season. Playmaking is very important and Thornton has used his to lift up some very underwhelming players. Why should that be used against him?

What made him "on the bubble"? First, there's no vote to look at so you're basing that on nothing. Second, looking at the roster and who the media considered to be questionable going in, Thornton was definitely on that team. He was first in the NHL in scoring at the time, there was no question of players like Marleau, Bergeron, or Perry getting in ahead of him.

The playoffs thing is overstated by people who don't watch the Sharks and don't see how much the rest of the team lets him down. Everyone blames the player they've heard of when a team underachieves, as though Thornton doesn't join the team until April and the regular season record is because of everyone else and the playoff record because of him. Obviously Crosby and Ovechkin have both been better than Thornton in the playoffs. But it's not by nearly as much as is made out, and Thornton's career isn't over yet.

 

[dannythekid]

I wonder what it feels like to be one of the best hockey players on the planet...

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's too early to tell if Crosby and Ovechkin are generational "talents."

At this point, I say no to either of them. The last generational talents were Gretzky and Lemieux. They were head and shoulders more dominant by a large margin than everyone else on the ice. The game constantly revolved around their play. I can't say that about Crosby or Ovechkin. Crosby and Ovechkin remind me more of the tier that Yzerman and Sakic were in.

If the criteria is to be "head and shoulders" above everyone else then we have seen the last of the generational talents then.

this criteria works great in a less talented league but as the overall talent goes up the distinction of head and shoulders above becomes more subtle and I think Crosby and AO both reach this criteria so far.

We have to remember that they are both very young and just entering their peaks and in the cap era Crosby's wingers (or lack of them) has to be taken into account when evaluating his stats.

 

[Derick*]

If the criteria is to be "head and shoulders" above everyone else then we have seen the last of the generational talents then.

this criteria works great in a less talented league but as the overall talent goes up the distinction of head and shoulders above becomes more subtle and I think Crosby and AO both reach this criteria so far.

We have to remember that they are both very young and just entering their peaks and in the cap era Crosby's wingers (or lack of them) has to be taken into account when evaluating his stats.

I think we need to wait to call this. I agree that if the game evolves into relative parity we need to accept smaller margins of superiority as "generational," but it hasn't been long enough to say it's era-based parity and not just an era of relatively low top end talent. If in 20 years no one has outscored the league more than Ovechkin and Crosby are we can call them generational. If Stamkos scores 75 this season, or Hall does something similar in the near future, or whatever else, those who did are going to feel silly.

 

[FDBluth]

They have not separated themselves from their peers or maintained their high level long enough.

Unless we're going to call Jagr and Dionne and Lafleur and on and on generational players, that is..

I mean if those 5 seasons make Ovechkin and Crosby generational why is Jagr labeled as a notch below the true generationals when he had 5 scoring titles?

That pretty much smashes what Crosby and Ovechkin have done up until now but... they are and Jagr isn't?

I mean he outscored them both at age 33 in one of these 5 seasons you're using as proof that they are generational for crying out loud.

It just doesn't compute for the time being, at least.

Take a look at Jagr's first five years compared to Crosby and Ovechkin's. Crosby averages 112 points per 82 games, Ovechkin 110 per 82, and Jagr 86 per 82.

 

[Derick*]

Take a look at Jagr's first five years compared to Crosby and Ovechkin's. Crosby averages 112 points per 82 games, Ovechkin 110 per 82, and Jagr 86 per 82.

But the thread isn't about how their first five years rank among other player's first five years, or how they're on pace to be, but about whether they're generational now. To already be generational their achievements up to this point have to make them generational. So it's them up to now versus Jagr's career. If you want a fair comparison, wait until later in their career before whipping out the g word.

 

[SidGenoMario]

Jagr was generational, and now let's stop being idiots and apply the term to more than just 4 players.

By nature of the term, there should be a generational player for every generation, and I don't think we'll see a player like the big 4 ever again, or at least my generation won't.

 

[Hardyvan123]

But the thread isn't about how their first five years rank among other player's first five years, or how they're on pace to be, but about whether they're generational now. To already be generational their achievements up to this point have to make them generational. So it's them up to now versus Jagr's career. If you want a fair comparison, wait until later in their career before whipping out the g word.

Okay so the original poster kinda rigged teh question a bit with the now part as both guys have only played in 5 NHL seasons.

But lets look at what they did in those 5 seasons (and especially with Sid being 2 years younger) and try to find more than a handful of guys who ah better 1st 5 seasons in the history of the NHL.

Crosby

05-06: 81 GP, 39 G, 63 A, 102 P (Sixth overall in scoring)
06-07: 79 GP, 36 G, 84 A, 120 P (First overall in scoring)
07-08: 53 GP, 24 G, 48 A, 72 P (Second overall in PPG)
08-09: 77 GP, 33 G, 70 A, 103 P (Third overall in scoring)
09-10: 81 GP, 51 G, 58 A, 109 P (Second overall in scoring)

Ovechkin

05-06: 81 GP, 52 G, 54 A, 106 P (Third overall in scoring)
06-07: 82 GP, 46 G, 46 A, 92 P (Thirteenth overall in scoring)
07-08: 82 GP, 65 G, 47 A, 112 P (First overall in scoring)
08-09: 79 GP, 56 G, 54 A, 110 P (Second overall in scoring)
09-10: 72 GP, 50 G, 59 A, 109 P (Second overall in scoring)

If you can you more than the digits on your hands it would be very surprising. I can think of 4 who are in the same ball park as these 2 guys, to me that makes them generational players.