Define generational and franchise players

[Raisy]

I have gone on the Jordan debate. Did he score 100? Did they change the rules after and during his playing career. Was there a hack a Jordan ? Is Jordan number one in scoring all time? Does he have the most championships all time? No to all. Could he be the best all time maybe. But if your first team dream team has Bird and Magic on it. Then i cannot give Joradn that label. Wilt i can becasue he changed the game. He forced the NBA to change rules becasue he dominated that much.

Here is the part you must not be able to grasp. Forgive i gave you too much credit in the intellegence department. Generational means the best in a generation. A generation is what say a 15 year span. One player has to dominate for that span. And be clear cut above his peers at that time. If Wilt played with Olajuwon, Ewing, Shaq, Robinson. He would not be a generational talent. I do not see him sticking that far out. If Howe, Gretzky, Orr, Crosby, AO, Lemieux all played in the same span. No way one is a generational. But when only one played at a time he is that generations talent. To be generatioanl you have to revolutionary. Like the slider in baseball. It changed alot of things. Wilt changed basketball, Orr changed hockey and defintly how a defencmen is viewed, Gretzky dominated the stat sheet and no one else. The game changed because he dominated so much. More assists then anyone else has points. Jordan did not revolutionize the two guard spot. Lemieux did not revolutionize the center spot. Did they dominate yes, are they the best of all time in their sports, arguably yes. Do they hold major records, nope. Did they have full careers, nope.

If you can't see that Jordan was a generational talent, then you do not know the sport. The guy was the best ever. Did he score 100pts? No. Could he have? Anytime he wanted to. The guy won the championship in 6 of 8 years. (probably would have one 8 of 8, if not for the brief retirement) The guy led the league in scoring for 10+ years. He won a gold medal for the U.S. The guy revolutionized a style of play. Look at the current players that try to emulate him: Kobe, Vince Carter, Duane Wade, etc.) He was a great defender. The biggest intangible that Jordan had was his will to win. When he wanted to win, he would, he was as close to unstoppable as possible in basketball. Generational talent: Yes. He was the best ever.

 

[OHLArenaGuide]

So typical of HF... the question is answered perfectly within the first five posts and then we get three pages of arguing.

 

[Seph]

Ok smartass, who defines the current/90s generation of goaltenders? Hasek? Roy? Brodeur? Is Lidstrom not a franchise player because Yzerman defined the Red Wings? You haven't answered the question at all.

Look above your post smartass. A team can have two franchise players, because sometimes they simply have two players that are equally definitive. I would consider Yzerman more the franchise player for the years he was there, and now that he's not, Nik is hands down the franchise player. Call me crazy, but when people said Red Wings.

You could make cases for all three. When people look back ten years from now and pick out the defining goaltenders of the 90's, the debate will likely still be raging on as to which of the three was the best. And in fact, if people are to look back at the mid-90's to mid 2000's, I think goalies are the only players you could call generational. The goalies define that generation, it was truly the age of the goalie, just like before that in the era of pure scoring you had Wayne and Mario as the generational talents.

 

[MN_Gopher]

If you can't see that Jordan was a generational talent, then you do not know the sport. The guy was the best ever. Did he score 100pts? No. Could he have? Anytime he wanted to. The guy won the championship in 6 of 8 years. (probably would have one 8 of 8, if not for the brief retirement) The guy led the league in scoring for 10+ years. He won a gold medal for the U.S. The guy revolutionized a style of play. Look at the current players that try to emulate him: Kobe, Vince Carter, Duane Wade, etc.) He was a great defender. The biggest intangible that Jordan had was his will to win. When he wanted to win, he would, he was as close to unstoppable as possible in basketball. Generational talent: Yes. He was the best ever.

Jordan was as much a product of time too. Do you think that Jordans teams of the early 90s would have won 6 championships in the 80s. No way. The only reason why Bird or Magic did not win more because they played each other too much.

I think everyone takes generational to lighlty. To me and the original question was what defines it. I see it as a once in a life time thing. Or a once in a life time talent. You cannot have 2-3 once in a life time moments. Just like i do not see more than one payer to summerize a generation. If there is not one player to summerize it. Then there is none.

Really all those guys emulated Pistol Pete Maravich. He was the first real razzle dazzle player. Who did all the tricks.

To all the people who say i am full of it. What are your criteria for generational? Maybe some specifics. Because i do not see really good as the only criteria.

 

[Letang fan 58]

Jordan was as much a product of time too. Do you think that Jordans teams of the early 90s would have won 6 championships in the 80s. No way. The only reason why Bird or Magic did not win more because they played each other too much.

I think everyone takes generational to lighlty. To me and the original question was what defines it. I see it as a once in a life time thing. Or a once in a life time talent. You cannot have 2-3 once in a life time moments. Just like i do not see more than one payer to summerize a generation. If there is not one player to summerize it. Then there is none.

Really all those guys emulated Pistol Pete Maravich. He was the first real razzle dazzle player. Who did all the tricks.

To all the people who say i am full of it. What are your criteria for generational? Maybe some specifics. Because i do not see really good as the only criteria.

Jordan was a once in a lifetime player. end of story. if that is your defenition then he fits.

Generational talent does not mean once in a lifetime to me.......generational talent is just the talent that that generation is formed by.......mario + gretzky both were part of a generation arguablly the best generational talents ever in hockey.

 

[Jonjmc]

Ok guys, if you want literal, lets be literal.

Generational.... something that happens once every 20 years or so.

Generation = 20 years.
Pro hockey first played in 1904... so about 100 years
This would yield 5 generational players.

Ask 100 Hockey history buffs to name the 5 greatest players, at least 95 would name Howe, Orr, Gretzky and Lemiuex..... the fifth always seems up to debate. There are your generational talents. The fact that careers overlapped isnt relevant.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Jordan was as much a product of time too. Do you think that Jordans teams of the early 90s would have won 6 championships in the 80s. No way. The only reason why Bird or Magic did not win more because they played each other too much.

I think everyone takes generational to lighlty. To me and the original question was what defines it. I see it as a once in a life time thing. Or a once in a life time talent. You cannot have 2-3 once in a life time moments. Just like i do not see more than one payer to summerize a generation. If there is not one player to summerize it. Then there is none.

Really all those guys emulated Pistol Pete Maravich. He was the first real razzle dazzle player. Who did all the tricks.

To all the people who say i am full of it. What are your criteria for generational? Maybe some specifics. Because i do not see really good as the only criteria.

Actually, you are correct about Pistol. He was the one that they emulated.

If push came to shove, I would have to think long and hard about starting my franchise with Bird or Magic, not Jordan. It would be close between all three. Michael was definitely not leaps and bounds ahead of them, if at all.

 

[Raisy]

Actually, you are correct about Pistol. He was the one that they emulated.

If push came to shove, I would have to think long and hard about starting my franchise with Bird or Magic, not Jordan. It would be close between all three. Michael was definitely not leaps and bounds ahead of them, if at all.

Magic was great and Bird was great, but Jordan was better. I don't think there is much argument. I think most players, coaches and fans would agree he is the best. What really sets him apart was his competitiveness. Nobody could carry a team like him to victory. With his individual achievements and team achievements. How could someone deny he is a generational talent, if not the best ever. He would have dominated any era.
Same goes for Gretzky and Lemieux. They not only dominated individually, they won championships. When valid arguments can be made for possibly being the best ever, they are generational talents.