I like it. If there's a link somewhere to this, it would really make these discussions easier to nip in the bud. 18 years on here, you'd think I knew better.
I can't prove that the term originated from Hockey's future, but
Google Trends shows no significant usage of the term until 2018.
This is how
Hockey's Future originally defined it back in 2004:
10- Generational talent - a player for the ages, one that can do things with a puck that no other player would even contemplate doing. Very, very few players will be deserving of this rank, probably one per decade. Think Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Orr, maybe Sidney Crosby, but we'll see.
The term "one per decade" seems contradictory as we do not see a Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr once per decade. I believe they meant that players with a generational
ceiling appear once per decade, but that not all of them hit their ceiling. If this was indeed their intention, this would align with use of the term generational; we see a player with the potential to do this once every decade, and a player actually achieve it once every generation.
What I find helps contextualize the definition is also the definition of the tier below generational:
9 - Elite forward / defenseman / goaltender -- possesses the potential for greatness, a perennial All-Star throughout his career. Think Joe Sakic, Jeremy Roenick, Niklas Lidstrom, Rob Blake, Dominik Hasek, Martin Brodeur.
To me, it seems that players like Jagr, Crosby, and Ovechkin all fit firmly into the 9.5 category. You can argue Crosby had 10 potential but didn't achieve it due to injuries. You can argue Ovechkin had 10 potential but didn't achieve it due to a lack of commitment to his physical fitness. I think you can argue McDavid had 10 potential and hit it; he is the clear-cut best player of the 2000s. Based on what we've seen so far from them in the NHL, if we were to grade them based on the way that HF graded prospects, I would say Celebrini and Bedard both belong in the 9 category for potential. I would maybe give Celebrini a 9.0C and Bedard a 9.0D.
The fact that a proper, rigorous approach to this debate reduces to studying the origins of the term "generational talent" is why I find it generally pointless to engage in such debates in the first place. I mean, what the hell do I care if somebody else wants to use "generational" to describe the best player in a decade while I want to use it to describe the best player in a generation? Mine is based on the dictionary and what I believe to be the place where the term originated, theirs is based on something they read online. Who cares? We're here to discuss hockey, not English or history.
I find it much more productive to compare players to their contemporaries. Going into his draft, Bedard was said to be a player that may be on the same tier as Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid, etc. His 113 games in the NHL are already more than enough to state he clearly does not belong in that tier.
Legendary: One of the greatest of all time; a household name, someone you would seriously consider having a league-wide jersey retirement
Generational: All-time top-10 (excluding legendary players) at his position (center/winger/defense/goalie)
Franchise: A guy who you could win a cup with if he's your best player; a constant threat to win a major award and a peak/prime where he's top-5 player in the league.
In the past ~20 years, McDavid is the only guy who has come close to legendary status. He along with Crosby, Ovechkin, Brodeur, Jagr, and Lidstrom are sure-fire generational talents. Makar is trending as another generational talent
Here's a perfect example of "generational" inflation: Making up a new tier above generational (for players who were previously considered generational) so that players in the tier below generational can now be called that.
.
