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

[WaveRaven]

Generational means one player that is head and shoulders above the rest that only comes along ONCE in a generation.

There have only been 4 or 5 in the last 60-70 years.

Since the late 60s this is it.
Orr
Gretzky
Crosby
McDavid.

 

[Irzi]

Generational means one player that is head and shoulders above the rest that only comes along ONCE in a generation.

There have only been 4 or 5 in the last 60-70 years.

Since the late 60s this is it.
Orr
Gretzky
Crosby
McDavid.

By your definition Crosby and Gretzky aren't generational. Gretzky wasn't head and shoulders above #66 and Crosby wasn't head and shoulders above #8.

 

[ted2019]

Frank Nighbor trumps all.

 

[Muikea Bulju]

All of them changed the game in some way personally:

Richard
Howe
Bobby Hull
Orr
Gretzky
Hasek
Roy
Lemieux
Ovechkin
McDavid

Some other player types that also changed the game, but it's hard to pick one when there's multiple guys

-Smaller / less physical skilled, puck carrying D, like Coffey, Bourque, Niedermayer etc.

-Really physical, skilled D, like Pronger, Stevens, Chelios or Robinson.

-80s - 90s speed monsters, especially the wingers, like Selanne, Bure, Kariya, Gartner, Fedorov, Kapanen, Bondra etc

Might even want to add a guy like Datsyuk, who entertained while still being good on D

 

[Alan Wake]

A 15 year old at 2.0 ppg in WHL
McDavid was at 1.0 ppg at same age

He’s a ridiculously talented elite prospect. Just won a gold medal at a really young age as well. Unless he falls off a cliff he’s looking like good bet for a franchise player.

First ever "generational" 15 year old without playing in the NHL as well, apparently.

 

[Dakinjor]

If Bedard is considered generational the Matvei Michkov should be as well. doesn't matter because he shouldn't and the only one of this generation is McDavid.

 

[Akrapovince]

Generational means one player that is head and shoulders above the rest that only comes along ONCE in a generation.

There have only been 4 or 5 in the last 60-70 years.

Since the late 60s this is it.
Orr
Gretzky
Crosby
McDavid.

This is simply just not true, there isn’t any time frame standards that need to be met just because the word is “generational”.

You can have 5 generational players in 5 straight drafts and have zero generational players the next 20-30 years. There’s no time frame.

The head and shoulders conversation is a blurry one too because in an alternate universe, if Gretzky and Orr both played at the same time, they would both be considered generational. If all four of your generational players played together at the same time they would all be considered it as well.

I think you’ve got the names right but just some things to consider with your definition.

 

[Eisen]

Fair enough I actually didn’t know that. I would still say Roy popularized it & deserves the generational tag

Roy had the equipment to do it. The pads deserve generational.

 

[Three On Zero]

Bedard? The kid is projected to be phenomenal but he’s not even draft eligible yet

 

[bobholly39]

This is quite the charged debate, mostly how long is a generation of player if we say that it is around 10 year's (i.e. how long a very high prime tend to be that a player challenge the best players in the league position) and we start with somewhat modern hockey in the 20's, that would give us 10-11 generational talent (once in a generation level of players)

By when they enter the nhl:

early 20's: Morenz
later 20,s: Shore
early 40's: Richard
Late 40's: Howe
late 50's: Hull
late 60's: Orr
early 70's: Lafleur
early 80s: Gretzky
mid 80's: Lemieux
early 90s: Jagr-Lindros-Hasek
mid 2000s: Crosby-Ovechkin
2010s: McDavid

That around 15 names with many discutable (creating a list of arguable name that would compete with them, Beliveau, Roy, Bourque, etc...), some did not pan out like Lindros or where not once in a generation prospect coming to their draft but developed into something special.

You can have talent so rare they happen once in a generation close to each other like Lemieux-Gretzky, specially during baby boom and drought, but in total you want it to average to one every 7-10-12-15-20 year's depending of what you define has a generation of nhler and would exclude the Mike Bossy, Dryden type of candidate.

Perfect list. I wouldn't change anything.

I think I may have Beliveau or Roy duking it out for 5th greatest player of all-time (well - I think Crosby surpassed them now, so 6th) - but I'd still agree to not have them 'generational'. To me those guys, and Bourque and Messier - were a bit 'lesser' talents but who got the absolute most out of their careers. So they're better than some generational players, without necessarily having that tag.

And as you said - Lindros, generational talent - the 'player' part, no because of injuries.

 

[bobholly39]

Bedard? The kid is projected to be phenomenal but he’s not even draft eligible yet

I'm not saying he will or won't be - I don't follow young players that much so I don't know enough about him - but the whole hockey world knew of Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby, McDavid way before they were 18 yrs old. You can usually tell early on when a player will be special caliber. Sometimes they don't pan out as high by 18, but this is the age where you start to recognize that usually

 

[Statto]

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

I started to reply to the OP in similar fashion but you’ve covered it nicely. For me the definition and criteria for being generational has grown wider and wider, what was once Elite people often now call Generational.

I’m not even sure I’d include Jagr and Hasek (both greats of the game) because they weren’t dominant enough for long enough and yes I know it’s a strict criteria. I wouldn’t include Roy and Bourque even if they were the best at their position for certain periods and I don’t know enough about Bobby Hull to have a view. I do though agree with everyone else you excluded. A generational talent needs to be an outlier, the truly exceptional talents of the game, Unicorns... by definition it cannot be a long list. There will have been times that there wasn’t even a generational player active in the league.

McDavid has a very good chance to end up in the generational bracket but it’s too early to say it, because like Lindros he could get derailed (let’s hope not).

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

I started to reply to the OP in similar fashion but you’ve covered it nicely. For me the definition and criteria for being generational has grown wider and wider, what was once Elite people often now call Generational.

I’m not even sure I’d include Jagr and Hasek (both greats of the game) because they weren’t dominant enough for long enough and yes I know it’s a strict criteria. I wouldn’t include Roy and Bourque even if they were the best at their position for certain periods and I don’t know enough about Bobby Hull to have a view. I do though agree with everyone else you excluded. A generational talent needs to be an outlier, the truly exceptional talents of the game, Unicorns... by definition it cannot be a long list. There will have been times that there wasn’t even a generational player active in the league.

McDavid has a very good chance to end up in the generational bracket but it’s too early to say it, because like Lindros he could get derailed (let’s hope not).

Lindros was on his way to being generational until he ran into Scott Stevens.
It's really a shame they didn't know as much about concussions 25 years ago as they do now, because if current rules/knowledge were in place I think Lindros would have had a career much like Crosby. Missed some time in the middle due to injuries, but otherwise great.....however I could also see a Lindros that only missed a season or two have a dropoff from generational to merely very good late in his career.

 

[McFlash97]

Dude is 15 in the WHL already at 2 PPG. McDavid was barely PPG at same age.

15 game sample size in front of no fans. He's good though.

 

[MadLuke]

Malkin is so close to as good as Crosby and ovie that idk how separate them you either include him or take out all three

The argument for them being a debated hard to separate big 3 is there for sure, but there is a way (potentially a bad one) to separate Ovechkin/Crosby from Malkin

Career PPG since 2005, player with 600 RS games or more:

Crosby..: 1.28
Malkin..: 1.17
Ovechkin: 1.10
Kane....: 1.06
Stamkos.: 1.03

When looked at it that way Crosby seem to have separated himself, with Ovechkin 730 goals making him generational by itself and living Malkin aside.

Most point since malkin entered the league in 06/07
Crosby..: 1,223
Ovechkin: 1,214
Malkin..: 1,104
Kane....: 1,088

Again, that could give the occasion to detach Malkin from the other 2.

Top 10 points:
Crosby..(12): 1-1-2-2-3-3-3-3-5-6-10
Ovechkin (8): 1-2-2-3-3-4-7-8
Malkin.. (4): 1-1-2-4

Malkin is able to be has good as the other 2 when he is going on and healthy, but it happened way less often, for injuries or other reason, Crosby has twice as many top 3 finish in points than Malkin has top 5 in points, that an other way to separate the 2 from Malkin, top 5 or top 10 points and obviously top 1 goals for Ovechkin are a tier different than Malkin.

That said, if we remove a bit of the bad luck factor of almost always missing some game top 10 ppg:
Crosby..(12): 1-1-1-1-1-2-2-3-3-4-5-6
Ovechkin (8): 1-1-1-5-5-8-9-9
Malkin..(10): 1-2-2-3-3-3-4-6-7-8

And in the playoff points / ppg:

Crosby..: 190 (1.12)
Malkin..: 169 (1.02)
Kane....: 132 (.97)
Ovechkin: 132 (.96)
Getzlaf.: 120 (.96)

Has generational of a talent but arguably just a step below career wise has of now.

 

[Former Referee 68]

Matthews..thats a good one

 

[mikemar1]

I guess everyone is generational now. We need a new term for what generational use to mean if we're going to keep watering it down like this.

Best post in this thread

 

[yegoldboysclub]

Matthews..thats a good one

5 yrs into career, high water mark is 80pts in a season. lol

 

[Sempiternal]

Generational is Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and Howe level. It doesn't mean elite, great or very good.

Connor McDavid is 100% generational. Everyone is in awe of him. Casual hockey fans across the world acknowledge how incredible he is. I've seen the Oilers play in LA, Vegas and Vancouver and every game I heard several opposing fans excited yet scared to watch him play.

I think we were lucky to have both Alex Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby being generational at the same time during their prime. However, Connor McDavid is on another level due to his unreal speed.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

Malkin is so close to as good as Crosby and ovie that idk how separate them you either include him or take out all three

He's really not though. He's missed hundreds of games and is generally unreliable. When he's on his game, he's absolutely as good as them, I don't deny that. When he is off his game though, he's a train-wreck that doesn't produce and takes a lot of offensive zone penalties.

What sets Crosby and Ovechkin apart from Malkin is consistent greatness, from game to game and season to season. Malkin hasn't even been in the talks for any award since 2012, and he's a shadow of himself already. In the same timeframe, here's what the other two racked up.

Crosby:
- 2x Lindsay
- 1x Art Ross
- 1x Hart
- 1x Rocket
- 2x Conn Smythe

Ovechkin:
- 1x Hart
- 7x Rockets
- 1x Conn Smythe

I think Malkin is on the 2nd tier with Patrick Kane, but Crosby and Ovechkin are clearly ahead of him career wise.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Scoring finishes top 10
Crosby 1,1,2,2,3,3,3,3,5,6,10,10
Ovech 1,2,2,3,3,4,7,8
Malkin 1,1,2,4

For regular season crosby is really starting to distance himself from ovechkin and is far above Malkin.

Playoffs its
Crosby
Malkin

Ovechkin

 

[shaner82]

Draisaitl has played at a 125 point pace over the past 2 years. If Matthews is generational Draisaitl absolutely is.

I feel like generational means you are the best at what you do compared to your peers. Like a tier above everyone else. So in my opinion, Matthews can get there due to his goal scoring, but he's not there yet. The sample size is still too small. He needs to continue it for a few more years before he could fit in the generational category.

I don't see Drai really fitting in. He's a far lesser version of McDavid in terms of points and far lesser version of Matthews in terms of goals.

 

[Confucius]

Bossy
Potvin
Lindros
Kane
Matthews (lol)

Dont belong

Where's Patrick Roy and Ray Bourque

How can you disregard Bossy when we count Orr. Bossy had 9 great seasons, Orr had 8. Only Gretzky scored more goals in Nine seasons than Bossy.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

How can you disregard Bossy when you count Orr. Bossy had 9 great seasons, Orr had 8. Only Gretzky scored more goals in Nine seasons than Bossy.

Not sure if this post is serious

 

[Cricket Green]

How can you disregard Bossy when you count Orr. Bossy had 9 great seasons, Orr had 8. Only Gretzky scored more goals in Nine seasons than Bossy.

Im an enormous Bossy fan, but do NOT equate him with Orr in any way, especially in the ways you chose regarding this topic