RW Kaapo Kakko - TPS, Liiga (2019 Draft) Part 4

[Ippenator]

One generation is about 25 years long? To say that every generational player need to dominate the league as Gretzky or lemieux is stupid cuz its a totaly different era, IF you where to believe that say crosby or ovechkin will be the best players in the nhl between 2006-2030 or atleast be one of the best would that not make them generational? The young kids today will probably talk about alot of other players when they think generational. I believe that McDavid will be one with out a hunch. I dont see why you would have to totaly dominate a league to be seen as generational. Like Gretzky era nhl was fkn beer league.. Cant even compare it even just a little. And talentwise there is more generational players then you seam to think. Id say the top 10 ranked players in the nhl and those who stay ranked as top 10 for like 15 years in their generation should be considered generational. But maybe thats just me butting that Word to context for what it really are?

Every generation doesn’t have a generational player at all. Most of the generations haven’t had it at all, and as the competition has become harder and harder it is more and more unlikely to have any clear generational players for most of the generations.

There might be still some generational players in the future, but they will need to be absolutely dominating and way way better than any other player in the league before they could be truly considered generational. Otherwise they are just top class or even elite players. But generational players happen most likely only in every 20 or 30 year. Of course you never know when one will appear after all, or if there can suddenly be even two of them with careers overlapping, but to think that every generation has their own is simply making a complete inflation to the meaning of what the generational player has meant at least originally.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Because of the north american hype and bias.
Hughes is seen as number 1 so anything below is not talked about.

Dahlin was seen as generational because no one came close to him at the draft.

If Kakko was north american, you can guarentee there would be a much bigger media hype on who would go 1st OA and that both are elite / generational prospects

If there was that much pro-NA bias Kakko would slide behind players like Dach and Cozens. Instead, he's # 2 where he belongs.

 

[fr9dd9]

Every generarion doesn’t have a generational player at all. Most of the generations haven’t had it at all, and as the competition has become harder and harder it is more and more jo infot to have any clear generational players. There might be some in the future, yt they will need to be absolutely dominating and way way better than any other player in the league. Otherwise they are just top class or even elite players. But generational players happen most likely only in every 20 or 30 year. Of course you never know, but to think that every generation has their own is simply making a complete inflation to the meaning of what the generational player has meant at least originally.

Ah well, okej. Great answers but I think my view on generational is different. Thanks anyway

 

[Ippenator]

Ah well, okej. Great answers but I think my view on generational is different. Thanks anyway

Then you will most likely bump into many people easily questioning your usage of the term generational, if you use it to players of Kakko’s caliber. Especially old timers similar to me, whom have seen with their own eyes the true unbelievable dominance that players like Gretzky and Lemieux have shown. And how the term was really originally used to describe such unbelievably dominating players that were head and shoulders above all the other players in their generation.

 

[fr9dd9]

Then you will most likely bump into many people easily questioning your usage of the term generational, if you use it to players of Kakko’s caliber. Especially old timers similar to me, whom have seen with their own eyes the true unbelievable dominance that players like Gretzky and Lemieux have shown. And how the term was really originally used to descrive such unbelievably ei insting players that were head and shoulders above all the other players.

I actually believe that neighter Lemiuex or Gretzky could have dunne what Kakko have dunne at the same age as Kakko in todays liiga. We have to remember that right now in Kakko the only think that can be discussed is his potential or his talent. Todays hockey is so different that you cant even compare the generational talent back then to todays generational talents. Put mcdavid in the era where NHL looked like this and its pretty obvious. Ofc the sticks and skates are better today then back then, but still the differance is so hughe. I dont even think a human being can dominate the league like for example Gretzky did back then.. So in other words we wont ever have any generational players anymore.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Holy...can we cut the dumb Generational talk out? Who the hell is hyping him up to be a top 10 player of all time? Give your head a shake and see yourself out of the thread please. Let the kid develop as he should without all these unrealistic expectations (and i do realize it's probably just 1-2 posters).

 

[tellermine]

Holy...can we cut the dumb Generational talk out? Who the hell is hyping him up to be a top 10 player of all time? Give your head a shake and see yourself out of the thread please. Let the kid develop as he should without all these unrealistic expectations (and i do realize it's probably just 1-2 posters).

Pleaee forgive them. They must be really young.

But yes. Kakko has all the tools to be a star, or even a more special player.

But only time will tell.

 

[Ippenator]

I actually believe that neighter Lemiuex or Gretzky could have dunne what Kakko have dunne at the same age as Kakko in todays liiga. We have to remember that right now in Kakko the only think that can be discussed is his potential or his talent. Todays hockey is so different that you cant even compare the generational talent back then to todays generational talents. Put mcdavid in the era where NHL looked like this and its pretty obvious. Ofc the sticks and skates are better today then back then, but still the differance is so hughe. I dont even think a human being can dominate the league like for example Gretzky did back then.. So in other words we wont ever have any generational players anymore.

I think you are in fact over glorifying the hockey played nowadays. Sure there is more of speed and more of fast skaters, but still the fastest skaters arent really any faster than they were in Gretzky’s or Lemieux times.

They were btw both fine skaters, but they didn’t need to really dominate with the skating because they had so amazing skills in general and especially hockey IQ. No players in todays NHL have even close to the same package of overall skills that either Gretzky or Lemieux had. Remember that both of them scored still crazy amounts of points even when they were already way over 30 years old’s with plenty of nasty injuries that took away some of their best stride. Also players after them (and whom played even at their times as youngsters, like Jagr) have been able to do mighty well in nowadays league even as way over 40 years old’s.

Hockey hasn’t really evolved as a game of skill, but has just become more even with the physical attributes. And no, Kakko as he is now isn’t even close to the class of players that Gretzky or Lemieux were as 18 old’s. Sure he is physically way more dominating than at least Gretzky and maybe even than Lemieux, but he is way behind them in skills and especially hockey IQ. It’s honestly laughable to even try to suggest that Kakko could have done better than either of them or become the same class of a player or even a better player. Absolutely laughable.

 

[fr9dd9]

Holy...can we cut the dumb Generational talk out? Who the hell is hyping him up to be a top 10 player of all time? Give your head a shake and see yourself out of the thread please. Let the kid develop as he should without all these unrealistic expectations (and i do realize it's probably just 1-2 posters).

before you jump at me like that read carefuly. I never said HE would be top 10 player of all time? where the F did that came from? only think I debate for is that being generational should not mean you need to dominate the league like gretzky did in nhl back then. And if you guys dont see Kakkos potential why you have to tell me to leave this thread? and NO in the way you guys see a generational player Kakko will never be.. Probably no one ever will. I think what Kakko display at hes age is something really uniqe, and as a prospect/talent he should be viewd as generational as much as dahlin, hughes or some other pleople. Thats all wanted to say from the beggining. cuz I see people use generational so often but it never came up with Kakko.

 

[fr9dd9]

I think you are in fact over glorifying the hockey played nowadays. Sure there is more of speed and more of fast skaters, but still the fastest skaters arent really any faster than they were in Gretzky’s or Lemieux times.

They were btw both fine skaters, but they didn’t need to really dominate with the skating because they had so amazing skills in general and especially hockey IQ. No players in todays NHL have even close to the same package of overall skills that either Gretzky or Lemieux had. Remember that both of them scored still crazy amounts of points even when they were already way over 30 years old’s with plenty of nasty injuries that took away some of their best stride. Also players after them (and whom played even at their times as youngsters, like Jagr) have been able to do mighty well in nowadays league even as way over 40 years old’s.

Hockey hasn’t really evolved as a game of skill, but has just become more even with the physical attributes. And no, Kakko as he is now isn’t even close to the class of players that Gretzky or Lemieux were as 18 old’s. Sure he is physically way more dominating than at least Gretzky and maybe even than Lemieux, but he is way behind them in skills and especially hockey IQ. It’s honestly laughable to even try to suggest that Kakko could have done better than either of them or become the same class of a player or even a better player. Absolutely laughable.

Guess you are one of them that still believe they where that special, In todays hockey they would just be great, not generational (in your scale). This dont belong here in this thread so I will leave it at that

 

[Ippenator]

Guess you are one of them that still believe they where that special, In todays hockey they would just be great, not generational (in your scale). This dont belong here in this thread so I will leave it at that

I’m honestly pretty sure that an 18 year old Gretzky or Lemieux would’ve scored about 60-80 points in nowadays Liiga. And in their prime they would have scored clearly over 100 points. Liiga is btw clearly weaker than it was for example in the 90’s, so you are absolutely glorifying what hockey is nowadays compared to what it was for example in the 90’s.

 

[5cotland]

If there was that much pro-NA bias Kakko would slide behind players like Dach and Cozens. Instead, he's # 2 where he belongs.

No Dach and Cozens are not even close enough to take over Kakko so even the media couldnt put together list convincing enough.

Hughes has been regarded as the top pick in this draft by most of the hockey media for 3 years.

The N.A media are not gonna let you think that a player who has dominated one of the best hockey leagues in Europe possibly even the world at 17 years old will take over the number 1 spot from their golden boy.

 

[fr9dd9]

I’m honestly pretty sure that an 18 year old Gretzky or Lemieux would’ve scored about 60-80 points in nowadays Liiga. And in their prime they would have scored clearly over 100 points. Liiga is btw clearly weaker than it was for example in the 90’s, so you are absolutely glorifying what hockey is nowadays compared to what it was for example in the 90’s.

Okey.

 

[FinnishSniper]

No Dach and Cozens are not even close enough to take over Kakko so even the media couldnt put together list convincing enough.

Hughes has been regarded as the top pick in this draft by most of the hockey media for 3 years.

The N.A media are not gonna let you think that a player who has dominated one of the best hockey leagues in Europe possibly even the world at 17 years old will take over the number 1 spot from their golden boy.

That’s true. One has to also remember that Kakko has won two golds at the U18s and the U20s against Hughes, while both have been the go-to offensive dudes. I’d say that the NA media would push the narrative of a ”big game player” if he was from the NA.

 

[BB88]

Yeah certainly hoping to god he goes second. Original six would be the dream for him

He has a chance to go to New York as a 18y old and become the new face of the franchise.

Why fight that?

 

[FinnishSniper]

He has a chance to go to New York as a 18y old and become the new face of the franchise.

Why fight that?

Yeah, that would be every 18 year olds dream.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

I think you are in fact over glorifying the hockey played nowadays. Sure there is more of speed and more of fast skaters, but still the fastest skaters arent really any faster than they were in Gretzky’s or Lemieux times.

They were btw both fine skaters, but they didn’t need to really dominate with the skating because they had so amazing skills in general and especially hockey IQ. No players in todays NHL have even close to the same package of overall skills that either Gretzky or Lemieux had. Remember that both of them scored still crazy amounts of points even when they were already way over 30 years old’s with plenty of nasty injuries that took away some of their best stride. Also players after them (and whom played even at their times as youngsters, like Jagr) have been able to do mighty well in nowadays league even as way over 40 years old’s.

Hockey hasn’t really evolved as a game of skill, but has just become more even with the physical attributes. And no, Kakko as he is now isn’t even close to the class of players that Gretzky or Lemieux were as 18 old’s. Sure he is physically way more dominating than at least Gretzky and maybe even than Lemieux, but he is way behind them in skills and especially hockey IQ. It’s honestly laughable to even try to suggest that Kakko could have done better than either of them or become the same class of a player or even a better player. Absolutely laughable.

The biggest change since Gretzky and Lemieux were in their primes was pro goaltending getting much better everywhere. Like in statistical terms, goaltending now is more than a standard of deviation better than it was in 1980s, which is sort of like the difference in IQ between a genius and an ordinary smart person.

Beyond equipment, the goalies are bigger and faster than they used to be and their technique is better across the board. You can compare Cory Schneider and Chico Resch (who was a decent goalie in his day) and it's like looking at Mike Tyson and a light weight boxer.

 

[Ippenator]

The biggest change since Gretzky and Lemieux were in their primes was pro goaltending getting much better everywhere. Like in statistical terms, goaltending now is more than a standard of deviation better than it was in 1980s, which is sort of like the difference in IQ between a genius and an ordinary smart person.

Beyond equipment, the goalies are bigger and faster than they used to be and their technique is better across the board. You can compare Cory Schneider and Chico Resch (who was a decent goalie in his day) and it's like looking at Mike Tyson and a light weight boxer.

I agree with you when talking about the earlier 80’s and before that, but the goalies changed already drastically year by year at the end of the 80’s and during the 90’s they were already quite close to what they have been for pretty long already. But yeah, beginning of the 80’s and before that it was really looking even a bit comical in some situations, when comparing to what goaltending is nowadays.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Somebody made up the term "generational" that is extremely vague and poorly defined. And now people are freaking out about its usage. It means nothing, it's just a word that no one even can propely define.

 

[LoveHateLeafs]

He has a chance to go to New York as a 18y old and become the new face of the franchise.

Why fight that?

I don't know. As a lover of all things gluten, it seems kind of cruel to force a guy with Coeliac disease to spend the next seven years in the city of New York-style bagels and Big Slices.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Somebody made up the term "generational" that is extremely vague and poorly defined. And now people are freaking out about its usage. It means nothing, it's just a word that no one even can propely define.

Less muddled way to think of it is to take a player who is generational at the position and compare. If you don’t think Hughes is either as good a prospect as either Crosby or McDavid, he’s not a generational prospect. If five years from now he’s proven to be always in the top five in points and is a perennial Hart Trophy finalist, he will have proven to be a generational player.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Less muddled way to think of it is to take a player who is generational at the position and compare. If you don’t think Hughes is either as good a prospect as either Crosby or McDavid, he’s not a generational prospect. If five years from now he’s proven to be always in the top five in points and is a perennial Hart Trophy finalist, he will have proven to be a generational player.

But that's YOUR definition of the term. There's no objective basis to define it. This is the only sport that I know of that even uses that term.*

*Someone in another thread said they'e using it in football, I've never heard that personally. But apparently they have a very loose definition.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

But that's YOUR definition of the term. There's no objective basis to define it. This is the only sport that I know of that even uses that term.*

*Someone in another thread said they'e using it in football, I've never heard that personally. But apparently they have a very loose definition.

I’ve heard people use it to describe Mike Trout. It’s easier in baseball to make that determination as OPS and WAR (categories that Trout always dominates when he plays close to a full season) are far more superior ways to measure how good a baseball player is than any single statistic in hockey.

Still, Crosby and McDavid were clearly considered very special prospects. The term generational seemed to have caught on with McDavid and overused after that.

 

[ijuka]

Somebody made up the term "generational" that is extremely vague and poorly defined. And now people are freaking out about its usage. It means nothing, it's just a word that no one even can propely define.

So, the thing is this. "Generational" isn't a made up word, it's derived from the word "generation". As such, it does have implied meaning tied to that word, and it honestly is pretty obvious. "A player who comes by once upon a generation".

As far as personal interpretation goes, my opinion is that it's meant for prospects alone. An amazing career can't make a non-generational prospect generational. I guess we can then have sub-categories like "generational prospect" and "generational player", but the initially coined term was about prospects, where cases like Ovechkin or Karlsson wouldn't be making the cut.

On Kaapo Kakko, I really don't think he's generational.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

So, the thing is this. "Generational" isn't a made up word, it's derived from the word "generation". As such, it does have implied meaning tied to that word, and it honestly is pretty obvious. "A player who comes by once upon a generation".

As far as personal interpretation goes, my opinion is that it's meant for prospects alone. An amazing career can't make a non-generational prospect generational. I guess we can then have sub-categories like "generational prospect" and "generational player", but the initially coined term was about prospects, where cases like Ovechkin or Karlsson wouldn't be making the cut.

On Kaapo Kakko, I really don't think he's generational.

But if it's strictly once a generation then Lemieux isn't generational.