Generational Talent vs Franchise Player

[Maestro84]

This seems to be a somewhat controversial topic in all team sports since every fan seems to have a differing view on it. So what exactly separates a gen. talent from a franchise star player, and who exactly would classify under the two categories?

IMO, Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid and even Malkin are all generational talents since they're all going down as all-time great players and are essentially game changers, where if they were put on any of the 31 teams, they'd still dominate and change the entire complexion of the league. They've also been a clear-cut above the rest of the field for the majority of their careers, and will be remembered as either the best or among the very best of their eras

Franchise players are those who can be the face of a team for most of their prime, while putting up all-star level numbers, and pushing the team to contend for the postseason most years. They usually don't have insane stats year in year out though which is why their career stats and trophy cases are significantly lower than the gen talents. They're many examples of franchise players in the league right now including Bergeron, Seguin, Doughty, Keith, Price, Bobrovsky, Getzlaf, Burns, Tarasenko, Hall, Giroux, Tavares, etc.

Kane, Karlsson, Kucherov and Stamkos are kinda in their own little category in between the two since their stats at their peaks are insane, and have all won some big individual awards over their careers. Other players like Matthews, Marner, MacKinnon, Gaudreau, and Eichel are still too young to evaluate at the moment.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

This seems to be a somewhat controversial topic where every fan seems to have a differing view on.
So what exactly makes separates a gen. talent from a franchise star player, and who exactly would classify under the two categories?

IMO, Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid and even Malkin are all generational talents since they're all going down as all-time great players and are essentially game changers, where whichever team they got put on, it'd change the entire complexion of the league. They've all been a clear-cut above the rest of the field for the majority of their careers.

Franchise players are those who can be the face of a team for most of their prime, while putting up all-star level numbers, and pushing the team to contend for the postseason most years. They usually don't have insane stats year in year out though which is why their career stats and trophy cases are significantly lower than the gen talents. They're many examples of franchise players in the league right now including Kane, Bergeron, Seguin, Doughty, Price, Getzlaf, Burns, Tarasenko, Hall, Giroux, Tavares, etc. Karlsson, Kucherov and Stamkos are in between the two categories since their stats at their peaks are insane, while players like Matthews, MacKinnon and Eichel are still too young to evaluate at the moment.

What are your thoughts?

Kane is in weird purgatory between the two. As of right now, I'd honestly put McDavid in the weird purgatory category as well. He's yet to put up a season at the level of the other guys on your generational list, but he has the talent to do so. IMO, Kane is held back by being a smurfy guy. If he was 6-2 205 and accordingly strong, he'd be generational, all else being equal.

 

[Varan]

you hit the nail on the head. I wouldn't call Malkin a generational player though, however he does belong in that group (87/8/97) if that makes sense because he can play at that level and has shown that he can, just hasn't done it with the consistency the others have.

I wouldn't put Kane in that group though. He's clearly better than all of the names listed. He's in an awkward spot in b/w the big 3/4 and the others

 

[Tifosi]

Crosby, OV

Kane, McDavid, Malkin, Kucherov

The rest.

 

[Maestro84]

you hit the nail on the head. I wouldn't call Malkin a generational player though, however he does belong in that group (87/8/97) if that makes sense because he can play at that level and has shown that he can, just hasn't done it with the consistency the others have.

I wouldn't put Kane in that group though. He's clearly better than all of the names listed. He's in an awkward spot in b/w the big 3/4 and the others

Yeah Kane is probably in the in-between group with Stamkos, Karlsson and Kucherov. When they're at their peaks they're clearly well above all the franchise players and are close but still not fully at the level of the generational players.

 

[TheBluePenguin]

Crosby, OV

Kane, McDavid, Malkin, Kucherov

The rest.

I agree with this although you could add a couple of defenseman in the second group, I would have to think about which ones, maybe Keith/DD/EK

 

[Shaman464]

Generational players: Howe, Richard, Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Lidstrom, Ovie, Crosby, Hasek, Sawchuk, possibly McDavid (nearly a lock). There are a couple names you could add, but these are players all defined their era in their positions. They all won multiple trophies putting them as the best in the game. Many of them redefined how the game was played. Usually only a couple playing at any given time.

Franchise players: Sakic, Yzerman, Bossy, Hull, Malkin, Matthews, Kane, Kucherov, Messier, Jagr etc. These are players that teams are built around. They put up elite numbers. They will contend, and sometimes win individual seasonal trophies. These guys tend to be the top ~30 players in the league. But, they aren't the definitive players of their era.

 

[Atas2000]

This seems to be a somewhat controversial topic in all team sports since every fan seems to have a differing view on it. So what exactly separates a gen. talent from a franchise star player, and who exactly would classify under the two categories?

IMO, Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid and even Malkin are all generational talents since they're all going down as all-time great players and are essentially game changers, where if they were put on any of the 31 teams, they'd still dominate and change the entire complexion of the league. They've also been a clear-cut above the rest of the field for the majority of their careers, and will be remembered as either the best or among the very best of their eras

Franchise players are those who can be the face of a team for most of their prime, while putting up all-star level numbers, and pushing the team to contend for the postseason most years. They usually don't have insane stats year in year out though which is why their career stats and trophy cases are significantly lower than the gen talents. They're many examples of franchise players in the league right now including Bergeron, Seguin, Doughty, Keith, Price, Bobrovsky, Getzlaf, Burns, Tarasenko, Hall, Giroux, Tavares, etc.

Kane, Karlsson, Kucherov and Stamkos are kinda in their own little category in between the two since their stats at their peaks are insane, and have all won some big individual awards over their careers. Other players like Matthews, Marner, MacKinnon, Gaudreau, and Eichel are still too young to evaluate at the moment.

What are your thoughts?

If you dare to call McDavid generational already then Kucherov is too.

 

[daver]

It is 100% semantics and neither term holds any value.

 

[daver]

If you dare to call McDavid generational already then Kucherov is too.

If you want to apply the term, McDavid has "generational" potential after a "generational" start to his career as an 18 year old.

Kucherov has neither of those but he has a chance to share the best player title after this year.

 

[Atas2000]

If you want to apply the term, McDavid has "generational" potential after a "generational" start to his career as an 18 year old.

Kucherov has neither of those but he has a chance to share the best player title after this year.

Kucherov always had generational potential(if you are not blind that is). Now Kucherov is only living up to it.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

I always thought of generational as meaning "once in a generation" and the fact that all dictionary sources are telling me it just means "relating to a particular generation" is gonna really f*** with my lit major pride.

The term is pretty open to interpretation, then. I'd say Ovi, Sid, Chara, and maybe Karlsson are generational. Kane and Malkin no. McDavid will be. I read it as defining a generation, being the definitive best of that era and adding something new to the game. You can argue Malkin and Kane if ya like, but to me they're superstars but not really generation defining talents.

Agree with OP's ideas on franchise players.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

Every franchise has a franchise player. Ours will be Thomas Chabot when Stone gets traded to Columbus.

 

[1972]

Generational

Crosby
Ovechkin
McDavid

Franchise

Kucherov
Kane
Matthews
Tavares
Stamkos
Eichel
Getzlaf
MacKinnon
Etc...

 

[daver]

Kucherov always had generational potential(if you are not blind that is). Now Kucherov is only living up to it.

Now we are into a battle of semantics but "generational" talent is obvious and does not need to time to show itself. This should not take away from Kucherov's great season.

 

[daver]

Since 2000, the "generational" talents that have come into the league can be ranked as follows:

Crosby
OV/McDavid
Malkin

Karlsson/Kane

 

[ijuka]

Nowadays, "generational player" means "franchise player". We need to figure out a new term to describe an actually generational player.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Kane is in weird purgatory between the two. As of right now, I'd honestly put McDavid in the weird purgatory category as wellHe's yet to put up a season at the level of the other guys on your generational list, but he has the talent to do so. IMO, Kane is held back by being a smurfy guy. If he was 6-2 205 and accordingly strong, he'd be generational, all else being equal.

Sorry but nope.

Kane is not close to being generational. He is firmly in the franchise category

 

[RAB FERD]

There are so many silly "hockey only" words but generational has to be the silliest.
I like internet drama though so I suppose it has brought be something.

 

[snipes]

If you dare to call McDavid generational already then Kucherov is too.

Well McDavid and Gretzky are the only two players in NHL history to have multiple Art Rosses by 21.

McDavid is also the only player in NHL history to have multiple Ted Lindsay/Pearson’s by 21.

He’s generational. Not like he came out of nowhere, the hockey world saw him coming since he was like 14. He’s more than living to the immense expectations and pressure that comes with being a generational player.

Like Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, and Crosby before him he was a prodigy who was head and shoulders above his peers. Similarly, they all achieved tremendous individual success immediately against the best in the world.

Orr was playing junior hockey at 14 against 18/19/20 year olds dominating his competition right from the beginning. Runner up for the Norris his rookie year at 18. He went on to win 8 straight after that.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby have similar immediate successes. McDavid’s success immediately follows the same trajectory.

Don’t see how it’s a “dare” to call McDavid generational and Kucherov must be as well.

 

[Atas2000]

Now we are into a battle of semantics but "generational" talent is obvious and does not need to time to show itself. This should not take away from Kucherov's great season.

Kucherov needed no time. He always was at that level(if you are not blind that is).

 

[Atas2000]

Well McDavid and Gretzky are the only two players in NHL history to have multiple Art Rosses by 21.

McDavid is also the only player in NHL history to have multiple Ted Lindsay/Pearson’s by 21.

He’s generational. Not like he came out of nowhere, the hockey world saw him coming since he was like 14. He’s more than living to the immense expectations and pressure that comes with being a generational player.

Like Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, and Crosby before him he was a prodigy who was head and shoulders above his peers. Similarly, they all achieved tremendous individual success immediately against the best in the world.

Orr was playing junior hockey at 14 against 18/19/20 year olds dominating his competition right from the beginning. Runner up for the Norris his rookie year at 18. He went on to win 8 straight after that.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby have similar immediate successes. McDavid’s success immediately follows the same trajectory.

Don’t see how it’s a “dare” to call McDavid generational and Kucherov must be as well.

Are we talking about hockey or individual awards in a local league?

And do we cut off a career at 21 for evaluation?

Circumstances prevented Kucherov from racking up statistical evidence for objective quality of a player at 18-19. Just as circumstances prevent McDavid from being less than 15 points behind Kucherov right now.

The obsession with stats and awards is avery NA thing. But numbers can't fool me when I see a player on the ice. McDavid is special. So is Kucherov. I don't care if they could hold a hockey stivk as toddlers.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Are we talking about hockey or individual awards in a local league?

And do we cut off a career at 21 for evaluation?

Circumstances prevented Kucherov from racking up statistical evidence for objective quality of a player at 18-19. Just as circumstances prevent McDavid from being less than 15 points behind Kucherov right now.

The obsession with stats and awards is avery NA thing. But numbers can't fool me when I see a player on the ice. McDavid is special. So is Kucherov. I don't care if they could hold a hockey stivk as toddlers.

Oh, here we go. Gotta discredit personal hardware when analyzing individual players because it’s apparently a North American thing.

Dismissing numbers and personal achievements because you can “see things on the ice” is a very crappy way to evaluate players achievements.

I can’t roll my eyes hard enough to this backwards way of thinking.

 

[trentmccleary]

A lot of the franchise players listed have a lot of extra variables that affected their careers. My ideal when I think of an example of a franchise player is Mike Modano.

Mike Modano was the face of the Stars for a long time, but more importantly is his calibre of play.
He led the team in scoring most of the time and was generally a top-20 scorer in his prime.
He did whatever takes to win, becoming a very good defensive player.
In the middle of his prime; he led his team to a Stanley Cup and another Finals appearance the next year.

I think this is what you reasonably hope for when your make high draft selections.

In looking at rough "generations", I find that there tend to be 1-2 players so far above everybody else offensively that they can only be called generational (ie: Jagr). Then there are maybe 1-2 players who are elite offensively, clearly ahead of the franchise players and clearly behind the generational players (ie: Selanne). Then there are the franchise players who contribute stable, high end offense, lead their teams and typically have intangible assets. Behind them are good players who either produced noticeably less over the long term (ie: Whitney, Doan) or an equal amount for a handful of seasons while in a great situation (ie: Naslund, Kovalev).

When I consider whether a player was a franchise player, I usually ask myself:
If they were the best player of a team or co-best player, could that team be a legitimate Stanley Cup contender?

 

[Butch 19]

This seems to be a somewhat controversial topic in all team sports since every fan seems to have a differing view on it.

What are your thoughts?

ignore thread...?