Do you consider Matthews a 'Generational' player or talent?

[nbwingsfan]

Gretzky
Orr
Mario
Howe
Sid (imagine if he never lost his prime to injury)

Everyone else are exceptional franchise players.

McDavid is every bit as good as Crosby was

 

[HFpapi]

I'm a Leafs fan and a huge Matthews supporter, but the answer is obviously no.

I don't consider Brett Hull generational and he had three seasons of 70+ goals. (Different era, I know).

Bure had seasons of 60, 60, 59, 58 goals in a similar scoring environment as today (in some cases even lower) and he's not generational either.

Stamkos had 60 goals, not generational.

Matthews goal scoring the past 3 seasons has been exceptional but not unprecedented even for non-generational players.

Generational players are era-defining and the era-defining player is clearly McDavid.

 

[HabsQC]

Playoffs clutchness should count IMO. Not necessarily a cup, but at least help your team win a round

 

[Holymakinaw]

I'm a Leafs fan and a huge Matthews supporter, but the answer is obviously no.

I don't consider Brett Hull generational and he had three seasons of 70+ goals. (Different era, I know).

Bure had seasons of 60, 60, 59, 58 goals in a similar scoring environment as today (in some cases even lower) and he's not generational either.

Stamkos had 60 goals, not generational.

Matthews goal scoring the past 3 seasons has been exceptional but not unprecended even for non-generational players.

Generational players are era-defining and the era-defining player is clearly McDavid.

This is correct. Matthews is a very good goal scorer, but that doesn't come close to making him "generational". Within the last generation(which is 30 years) there have been LOTS of 60-goal scorers. Ovie and Stamkos and Robitaille and Jagr and Bure and Mogilny and Lemieux and Hull and Selanne have all done it in that span. Are they all "generational"? No way.

 

[AvroArrow]

Yes. We all remember when Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid were all 6th overall or worse in points during their primes.

Sheesh, you really don't understand how games played and points per game work do they. I'm not even disputing the idea that he isn't generational, I quoted your OP "routinely outscored by non-generational players"

 

[Conbon]

If he’s generational then we have 3-4 generational players within one generation. So no.

If you believe the 80s/90s nostalgia posters we have like 10 per generation

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

He's a generational goal scorer. I know its semantics, but I don't think that makes him a generational player.

 

[Video Nasty]

The discussion has been dominated by a mindless interpretation of the term generational and quoting era adjusted statistics that people couldn’t even tell you for themselves how they’re calculated.

Great thread.

 

[NyQuil]

I see him as a modern Mike Bossy at the moment.

Close but not quite.

 

[filinski77]

Lol. No I'm not. It's baffling people can't grasp 30 is lower than 50 but it is.

I love how absolutely terrible your logical reasoning is.

You came out and straight up said "So you don't think suddenly dipping to 5 30sh goal seasons the following 7 years is falling off?" as an argument to support a goal-scoring tweet that commented saying Ovechkin's game fell off after 25.

1) I proved with a fact that your original statement was straight up factually incorrect (only 4x 30ish goal seasons).

2) And then also showed you why you were also being disingenuous (since one of those 30 goal seasons was a rocket win, and the other was a 5th place finish, plus we can argue that the one coming in at 31 years old is completely irrelevant to your point as well).

You also conveniently completely ignore that Ovechkin after 25 has a string of 4 straight rockets that are more impressive relative to peers than anything Matthews has done in his (historically) peak-aged years.

You making the assertion that at 25 onwards, Ovechkin fell off from a goal scoring perspective is completely incorrect, and has not been substantiated by any reasonable argument on your end.

If you want to say "Ovechkin has his worst goal-scoring years in his career in his 25 and 31 year old seasons", then you are completely correct. The only reasonable argument for him falling off is if you look at an overall offense perspective only, and not a sole goal-scoring perspective.

 

[Machinehead]

I would actually say yes.

I think the idea that "generational" means like, 5-10 players ever is too narrow and renders the term pretty useless. You could just say top 10 all-time if that's what you mean.

If you think it's just Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and Howe, then you could literally just refer to those players. It doesn't need a term. It's like those metal "subgenres" that have four bands in them.

 

[tapi]

The best player in the league, the best goal scorer ever since his entry as a rookie...

He is as generational as they come.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I would actually say yes.

I think the idea that "generational" means like, 5-10 players ever is too narrow and renders the term pretty useless. You could just say top 10 all-time if that's what you mean.

If you think it's just Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and Howe, then you could literally just refer to those players. It doesn't need a term. It's like those metal "subgenres" that have four bands in them.

Even using the more lenient definition I'm not sure why he's a yes. At the very least, generational should be someone who is the best player of his generation for a period of time, not just have one season where you can argue he was the best that year.

This past season is the first time Matthews had any sort of argument for being the best player in the league in one season. Prior to that he was never the top guy.

 

[Machinehead]

Even using the more lenient definition I'm not sure why he's a yes. At the very least, generational should be someone who is the best player of his generation for a period of time, not just have one season where you can argue he was the best that year.

This past season is the first time Matthews had any sort of argument for being the best player in the league in one season. Prior to that he was never the top guy.

I think that's a fair argument but what he did in that season hasn't been done in many, many seasons. He actually scored 50 goals over a 50-game sample, which gets overlooked because it wasn't arbitrarily at the start of a season.

 

[FlameChampion]

Generational wrist shot and release. I dont think hes a generational player though.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Depends on your definition of Generational player. After the season he just had, I would put Matthews in that tier. The guy just won the Hart, played great defense while potting 60 goals.

Is McDavid better? You could certainly argue it, but my definition of Generational player can include multiple guys. I’d say Ovy and Crosby are both generational guys who played at the same time.

Can a guy be generational without ever winning an Art Ross or even being top 3 in points in his career?

 

[norrisnick]

I would actually say yes.

I think the idea that "generational" means like, 5-10 players ever is too narrow and renders the term pretty useless. You could just say top 10 all-time if that's what you mean.

If you think it's just Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and Howe, then you could literally just refer to those players. It doesn't need a term. It's like those metal "subgenres" that have four bands in them.

It is a useless term and shouldn't be used. Especially if the intent is to use it on half a dozen guys in a 20yr span.

Generational is rapidly approaching literally in terms of being meaningless.

 

[Machinehead]

It is a useless term and shouldn't be used. Especially if the intent is to use it on half a dozen guys in a 20yr span.

Generational is rapidly approaching literally in terms of being meaningless.

What should we call players where "elite" doesn't seem to suffice?

 

[nbwingsfan]

Matthews is going to finish his career as the best USA born player of all time. He’s generational.

Not really how that works at all.

 

[norrisnick]

What should we call players where "elite" doesn't seem to suffice?

Why doesn't elite suffice?

My biggest issue with generational is that it has a built in "mutually exclusive" factor. Because it's based on "oh this kind of guy comes around once a generation". So by definition multiple generational players shouldn't be able to exist (Mario is already an annoying exception to the rule). If that is no longer the case, it becomes a poorly used word.

If you want something that's a tier above elite, why not all-time great? Even has fewer syllables so it's easier to use.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Dude will have 500 goals ,last time I checked that is HOF territory...Isnt that the definition of generational??

Do you consider Kevin Lowe generational? Daniel Alfredsson?

 

[Machinehead]

Why doesn't elite suffice?

The "elite" are a handful of the best players in the game now.

Matthews is putting up numbers that a handful of guys have put up ever. He had the first stretch of 50 goals in 50 games in 25 years.

MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Makar, Stamkos, Panarin, Josi, etc. are elite players. It seems disingenuous to say they share a categorization with Matthews and McDavid.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

No, but I do think he will be a HOFer.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Do you consider Kevin Lowe generational? Daniel Alfredsson?

Don't forget noted generational talent Dino Ciccarelli.

 

[norrisnick]

The "elite" are a handful of the best players in the game now.

Matthews is putting up numbers that a handful of guys have put up ever. He had the first stretch of 50 goals in 50 games in 25 years.

MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Makar, Stamkos, Panarin, Josi, etc. are elite players. It seems disingenuous to say they share a categorization with Matthews and McDavid.

Not at all. They're all elite. The only one with a potential argument about not standing out is maybe McDavid. Matthews certainly doesn't have that separation from those you've listed.