So who *are* the NHL's generational players?

[Boxscore]

Generational locks:

1. Morenz
2. Howe
3. Orr
4. Gretzky
5. Lemieux

Generational maybes:

1. Cyclone Taylor
2. The Rocket
3. Hasek
4. Crosby
5. Ovechkin
6. McDavid

 

[Plural]

Not really, and that wasn't the criteria laid out.

Yes he was. It wasn't a consensus, but there was a legitimate opinion (shared by media and peers alike, which is reflected by the awards voting) that Ovechkin might have been the better of the two. At worst, it was a 1A/1B type of situation. Pretending it was otherwise is just twisting history.

 

[Plural]

Generational locks:

1. Morenz
2. Howe
3. Orr
4. Gretzky
5. Lemieux

Generational maybes:

1. Cyclone Taylor
2. The Rocket
3. Hasek
4. Crosby
5. Ovechkin
6. McDavid

I can get behind this.

Edit. Though, I think you missed Hull

 

[Dekes For Days]

Yes he was. It wasn't a consensus, but there was a legitimate opinion (shared by media and peers alike, which is reflected by the awards voting) that Ovechkin might have been the better of the two.

Whatever you think the situation was, it doesn't fit the criteria that was laid out.

 

[Plural]

Whatever you think the situation was, it doesn't fit the criteria that was laid out.

Oh, I missed it. What was the criteria?

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Then what does that make Connor McDonald? Matthews is already better than that figure skater...

Worst post of the year. Easily.

Please go on. List how Matthews is better. Because he wears a Maple Leaf?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Worst post of the year. Easily.

Please go on. List how Matthews is better. Because he wears a Maple Leaf?

It amazes me how suddenly the *only* thing that matters when comparing players is goal scoring. This phenomenon seemed to start roughly around 2016-17, but I can't quite put my finger on why that is.

 

[Dominance]

Vezina, Richard, Bossy, Dryden, Potvin, Lidstrom, Lindros, Malkin, Kane, Matthews and Bedard were/are not generational. Some of them were generational talents (Malkin and Lindros especially) but injuries stopped them. Some of them just don't belong. I mean if Richard is generational, then what about Bobby Hull and Beliveau who were both better than him? If Bossy is generational then what about his own team mate Trottier who was better than him? If you're including Lidstrom and Potvin, you have to include Bourque. Now you're at way too many players.

Generational:
Bobby Hull
OV
Crosby
Jagr
Hasek
(Bourque and Roy are fine too)

Tier above generational:
Orr/Howe/Lemieux

In his own tier:
Gretzky

This is absolutely, indubitably correct, with the one caveat that it is probably safe to write in McDavid at this point.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Generational locks:

1. Morenz
2. Howe
3. Orr
4. Gretzky
5. Lemieux

Generational maybes:

1. Cyclone Taylor
2. The Rocket
3. Hasek
4. Crosby
5. Ovechkin
6. McDavid

Morenz a better player than Crosby? Come on man

 

[Shaman464]

I think the lack of love Lidstrom gets is amazing, but also points to the fact most people here never actually watched him play. I think there's a strong argument that defensively he was the best defenseman ever to play the game, and as a total package there's definitely argument for 2nd best to ever lace them up. And he did it in a way and at a time where his style wasn't considered the right way to play defense in the NHL. I think one can easily say that a defenseman like him only comes into the NHL once a generation.

 

[Boxscore]

I can get behind this.

Edit. Though, I think you missed Hull

I don't think Hull was generational at all. If he was, so was Beliveau, Jagr, Ovechkin, etc. To me, generation equates to, "light years better than anyone when they played and it wasn't close." Generational players also need to accomplish things that sheer mortal players cannot. Hull was fabulous but doesn't meet my criteria.

 

[GermanSpitfire]

You have to add Taylor Hall here right?

 

[Boxscore]

I think the lack of love Lidstrom gets is amazing, but also points to the fact most people here never actually watched him play.

I watched Lidstrom's entire career -- he wasn't close to generational. Heck, he wasn't even as all-around great as Ray Bourque, who also isn't generational in my book. There's only one generational defenseman and he wore #4 in black and gold.

I think there's a strong argument that defensively he was the best defenseman ever to play the game

Unless Orr is miraculously removed from memory, such an argument is absurd.

 

[Boxscore]

Morenz a better player than Crosby? Come on man

During his career, there were times Crosby wasn't as great as Ovechkin, Malkin, McDavid, MacKinnon, and even Price and Kane (for an extremely short time). Crosby also never dominated offensively close to players like Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. Morenz was the best of his day, no questions, and the NHL's first true "megastar." Crosby will go down as an all-time great, but not generational in my book. Either is Ovechkin, etc.

 

[Shaman464]

I watched Lidstrom's entire career -- he wasn't close to generational. Heck, he wasn't even as all-around great as Ray Bourque, who also isn't generational in my book. There's only one generational defenseman and he wore #4 in black and gold.



Unless Orr is miraculously removed from memory, such an argument is absurd.

First, I doubt the former if you put him under Bourque but you do you. There's a reason why people who get paid to talk hockey talk Lidstrom up so much.

Second, as for the latter Orr was top tier defensively for sure. But, his offensive abilities way out paced his defensive play. This conversation has happened multiple times on the board and its almost always deadnuts even who pick Lids and who pick Orr for pure defensive play, so acting like this is a stretch is pretty funny.

Here is a relevant link to contemporaneous rankings of Orr's defensive play: Is Orr the best defenseman of all time defensively? If not - where do you rank him?

 

[Boxscore]

First, I doubt the former if you put him under Bourque but you do you. There's a reason why people who get paid to talk hockey talk Lidstrom up so much.

Second, as for the latter Orr was top tier defensively for sure. But, his offensive abilities way out paced his defensive play. This conversation has happened multiple times on the board and its almost always deadnuts even who pick Lids and who pick Orr for pure defensive play, so acting like this is a stretch is pretty funny.

Here is a relevant link to contemporaneous rankings of Orr's defensive play: Is Orr the best defenseman of all time defensively? If not - where do you rank him?

In all fairness, I misread your quote and thought it said, "there's a strong argument that Lidstrom was the best defenseman to ever play the game." My apologies. That said, I've always felt Lidstrom was a master technician who played a mostly error-free game, but I prefer defensemen who bring a physical element to the table.

So, yes, to your point, I agree that Lidstrom was as technically sound defensively as just about any defenseman who ever played the game, regardless of era. But other master technicians also had a level of physical intimidation that they could pull from their back pockets.

Raymond Bourque was as defensively sound as Lidstrom IMO -- and although he wasn't a predator like Stevens or Potvin -- he was a thick man who would throw the body. Denis Potvin was another one -- just as spectacular on D as Lidstrom but way more physical.

However, if you (or any other hockey person) prefer a more cerebral, defensive chess master, I can see your case for Lidstrom. I just disagree.

All of that said, overall Orr leaves Lidstrom and any other defenseman in the dust, and is the only defender I would consider "generational." The separation between Bourque, Lidstrom, Potvin, Harvey, Shore, Robinson is so razor thin -- if Lidstrom is generational, they all are too.

 

[Lebowski]

During his career, there were times Crosby wasn't as great as Ovechkin, Malkin, McDavid, MacKinnon, and even Price and Kane (for an extremely short time). Crosby also never dominated offensively close to players like Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. Morenz was the best of his day, no questions, and the NHL's first true "megastar." Crosby will go down as an all-time great, but not generational in my book. Either is Ovechkin, etc.

Based on what metric?

I did the math not so long ago. In terms of the amount of standard deviations from the mean for his prime, which I considered as each player's most productive 10 consecutive seasons IIRC, Crosby outperformed Howe.

And if you want to play with the numbers a bit, you could do the same calculation while only factoring in Canadian players for Crosby or any modern-times players for that matter, since Howe didn't compete against the top European players in his era...

I'm not disputing Howe's place in a top 5 all-time, but to me he's closer to whoever you'd rank 5th than he is to Orr/Lemieux.

 

[Shaman464]

In all fairness, I misread your quote and thought it said, "there's a strong argument that Lidstrom was the best defenseman to ever play the game." My apologies. That said, I've always felt Lidstrom was a master technician who played a mostly error-free game, but I prefer defensemen who bring a physical element to the table.

So, yes, to your point, I agree that Lidstrom was as technically sound defensively as just about any defenseman who ever played the game, regardless of era. But other master technicians also had a level of physical intimidation that they could pull from their back pockets.

Raymond Bourque was as defensively sound as Lidstrom IMO -- and although he wasn't a predator like Stevens or Potvin -- he was a thick man who would throw the body. Denis Potvin was another one -- just as spectacular on D as Lidstrom but way more physical.

However, if you (or any other hockey person) prefer a more cerebral, defensive chess master, I can see your case for Lidstrom. I just disagree.

All of that said, overall Orr leaves Lidstrom and any other defenseman in the dust, and is the only defender I would consider "generational." The separation between Bourque, Lidstrom, Potvin, Harvey, Shore, Robinson is so razor thin -- if Lidstrom is generational, they all are too.

Borque is my #3 on my list of defenders anyway, and the few things that put Lidstrom over the age are likely personal preference. Generational is thrown around here so often and so loosely I think Lidstrom, Bourque, and Harvey for sure would be called generational if any of them played today. But, in the end the definition is purely subjective and I think on average non-currently playing defensemen on this board tend to get forgotten because of how hard it is for a casual watcher to appreciate the position.

 

[Boxscore]

Based on what metric?

Gordie won 6 scoring titles, 6 MVP's and was one of only 3 players in NHL history who lead the NHL in goals and assists in the same season -- doing it twice.

For all of the "generational" talk about Crosby, he has 2 scoring titles and 2 MVP's in 15 years. McDavid is still in pampers and already has 3 scoring titles and will match Crosby's MVPs in a couple months. If the industry standard for "generational" is now 2 scoring titles and 2 MVPs over 15 years, we need a new industry standard.

Mario, Gretz, Gordie and Orr dominated in a way Crosby could never dream of. The only player who "could" come close to their level of dominance is Connor McDavid, based on what he has accomplished so far in his young career. And that's a big "could."

 

[Lebowski]

Gordie won 6 scoring titles, 6 MVP's and was one of only 3 players in NHL history who lead the NHL in goals and assists in the same season -- doing it twice.

For all of the "generational" talk about Crosby, he has 2 scoring titles and 2 MVP's in 15 years. McDavid is still in pampers and already has 3 scoring titles and will match Crosby's MVPs in a couple months. If the industry standard for "generational" is now 2 scoring titles and 2 MVPs over 15 years, we need a new industry standard.

Mario, Gretz, Gordie and Orr dominated in a way Crosby could never dream of. The only player who "could" come close to their level of dominance is Connor McDavid, based on what he has accomplished so far in his young career. And that's a big "could."

So your metric for dominance is trophy counting with complete disregard for context, gotcha.

 

[Boxscore]

So your metric for dominance is trophy counting with complete disregard for context, gotcha.

This is pro-Crosby spin. I think Sid is fantastic, but this spin has always been spun by his biggest fans, because the numbers, awards, and eye test don't deliver. If you are head and shoulders better than your peers, you win more than 2 scoring titles or MVPs in 15 years. Not sure how disputing that could be justified. It's not like Crosby was winning multiple Selkes to balance his lack of offensive dominance.

There's a difference between being considered "the best player in the league" over a certain span and a "generational player" who cannot be matched. Crosby is the former.

The NHL has existed over 100 years and I only consider 5 players out of many thousands to be generational. I don't think it's a term that should be thrown around every time a new, great player enters the league.

 

[keglu]

Then by that definition, Ovechkin wouldn't be either, since he was not the one single best player of his generation.

Some people leave him out, more people are ok with having 2 generational players from one period of time if they equally talented/sucessful.

 

[psycat]

Vezina, Richard, Bossy, Dryden, Potvin, Lidstrom, Lindros, Malkin, Kane, Matthews and Bedard were/are not generational. Some of them were generational talents (Malkin and Lindros especially) but injuries stopped them. Some of them just don't belong. I mean if Richard is generational, then what about Bobby Hull and Beliveau who were both better than him? If Bossy is generational then what about his own team mate Trottier who was better than him? If you're including Lidstrom and Potvin, you have to include Bourque. Now you're at way too many players.

Generational:
Bobby Hull
OV
Crosby
Jagr
Hasek
(Bourque and Roy are fine too)

Tier above generational:
Orr/Howe/Lemieux



In his own tier:
Gretzky

Mostly agree with this(not really but it's close enough).

 

[Arzak]

Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemieux. That's it.

Talking generational talents, Jagr went for what 5 Art Ross in a row, ended second in points to Gretzky. Probably had to go for 10 straight to get on your list

btw Dominik Hasek

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Gordie won 6 scoring titles, 6 MVP's and was one of only 3 players in NHL history who lead the NHL in goals and assists in the same season -- doing it twice.

For all of the "generational" talk about Crosby, he has 2 scoring titles and 2 MVP's in 15 years. McDavid is still in pampers and already has 3 scoring titles and will match Crosby's MVPs in a couple months. If the industry standard for "generational" is now 2 scoring titles and 2 MVPs over 15 years, we need a new industry standard.

Mario, Gretz, Gordie and Orr dominated in a way Crosby could never dream of. The only player who "could" come close to their level of dominance is Connor McDavid, based on what he has accomplished so far in his young career. And that's a big "could."

Obviously you don't know what a slap shot to the face and a serious neck injury can stop guaranteed awards.