How to define the difference between Franchise/Generational/Superstar/Star players?
Great question actually. That's the thing - the definition is in the eye of the beholder. Many people define these differently. Here's my personal take...
FRANCHISE: A franchise player is a player who ends up an organizational icon. A player who automatically takes his team to a whole new level. A player that produces at the top of his franchise and is also beloved by the fans. This player is "the face" or "one of the few faces" of his entire organization. These players are the one(s) you immediately think of when someone mentions a particular team. Names that come to mind are: Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid, Kane, Matthews, Dahlin, Giroux, Getzlaf, Tavares, Karlsson, Doughty, Malkin, MacKinnon, etc.
SUPERSTAR: All franchise players are superstars IMO but not all superstars are necessarily franchise players. Superstars are great, sometimes elite players, but for whatever reason lack the consistency, staying power, likability, attitude, etc. as franchise players. Some examples are the great players who end up getting traded, sometimes multiple times. Guys like Kessel, Subban, Seguin, etc. I wouldn't particularly consider them franchise players because some franchises do better without them. But they are (or have been) superstars. They are among the elite players in the NHL at any given moment. Some superstars are also franchise players though - even if traded - Gretzky, Jagr, Bourque, Thornton, Karlsson, etc.
STAR: These players are high-end players that are a cut below league icons and superstars. They are great, but sometimes just good or very good, and you would likely never consider them "untouchable." Examples of star players are Voracek, Johansen, Huberdeau, Couture, etc.
GENERATIONAL: This is the largest grey area IMO. It seems to me that some people consider top superstars or franchise players to be automatically "Generational" players. I've heard all of these players considered "Generational" at some point: Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, McDavid, Thornton, Karlsson, Kane, Doughty, Tavares, Stamkos, MacKinnon, Matthews, Eichel, Dahlin. And, I disagree with this sentiment. Yet, some don't. TO ME... a Generational player is the type of player that comes around rarely in a lifetime (regardless of era or "generation") and completely dominates the league, their peers, or impacts the game in ways that have never been done before. When they are playing, there is ZERO debate if they are the greatest, and even perhaps the greatest all-time.
Gordie Howe was the first "Generational" player IMO. Shore, Richard, Morenz, etc. were among the best Superstars in hockey history but none of them dominated like Howe. None of them had his longevity, consistency and constant production. None of them dominated in multiple ways: offensively and physically. None of them lived up to the legend of Mr. Hockey the way Gordie did. Some consider him the greatest of all-time. He's without question in the top 3 or 4 at the worst.
Bobby Orr was the next "Generational" player. Here was a defensemen carrying the puck end to end better than anyone in history. He changed the position, the way teams defended against defensemen, and he made young kids want to play defense. He owned the Norris trophy for 8 consecutive years and he scored more points than 99% of forwards when he played. No player in hockey history dominated the entire ice (all 3 zones) like Orr. And, even though his career was cut short, he was so dominant when he played, many people still consider him the single greatest player in hockey history.
Wayne Gretzky was the next (and ultimate) "Generational" player. He was the greatest offensive machine in hockey history and it wasn't close. That term is used way too much these days, but with Gretzky it was real. He would win scoring titles just on his assists alone. He is the only player in hockey history to score 200+ points in a season. He was hockey's first name that was borderline celebrity. He grew the league by his move to Los Angeles. Many of his records will never be broken. The majority of hockey people consider him the greatest of all-time and some insist nobody will ever be greater.
Mario Lemieux was the most recent "Generational" player, even though his timeline mostly coincided with Gretzky. It's like the two greatest offensive gods of all-time were placed on earth around the same time. It was even closer in timeline than Cobb-Ruth and Howe-Orr. It was absolutely remarkable... and those lucky enough to see them both throughout their careers should feel blessed - I know I do!! Lemiuex took over for Gretzky as the undisputed greatest and it was never a question. He was the only player in hockey history who could match Gretzky offensively at his best. Of course Lemieux always fell a tad short due to injuries or cancer. However, during the year he fought cancer, he scored at the same pace Gretzky did when he scored 215 points!! While fighting cancer. Mind-boggling. Immortal. He also scored 199 points. A lot of hockey people insist that Lemieux may not have been the "all-around greatest player ever" but he was without question "the most talented of all-time." The other thing Mario had going for him - that Howe and Gretzky did not - is the flair for the dramatic and artistry. If Gretzky was a master chess player, and Gordie was the brute force missile, Mario was the genius artist. He was the most exciting player in hockey history IMO and he did multiple things every game that pulled fans out of their seats and made them question what they just saw. Every. Freaking. Game. Nobody could touch Mario at his best, even when he was busted and broken. I'm still shocked by many of the things this man was able to do with a puck on his stick. His physical gifts will NEVER be matched. I'm convinced of that.
To me, this is where the list ends. Since Mario, I have seen some players do things that amaze me, but they didn't do them frequently enough to be considered as great as the four above. The closest have been Hull, Jagr and Ovechkin. McDavid is starting to but it's way to early to even consider him among the all-time demigods.
Others have been consistently great (Crosby, Yzerman, Messier, Sakic, Trottier, Clarke, Mikita, etc.) but they never equaled the players above and they never did anything that wasn't done before. Crosby, Yzerman and Sakic are all similar. Clarke was like Lindsay. Mikita and Trottier were similar but never dominated on a level of Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux. None of these players were able to OWN the elite awards for long periods. At times they were great (or the greatest) but other times they weren't.
In my opinion, "Generational" doesn't just mean that you were the best "when you played", it needs to be more than that. To me, it means you are the type of unique talent that only comes along a few times in history. The NHL has been around for over 100 years and I only consider 4 players to be Generational TODAY.
That said, Ovechkin could very well be the 5th if/when he becomes the single greatest goalscorer in NHL history. When you own that title and accomplish such an impossible feat (and most feel besting Gretzky in goals is), you belong among the "only comes along a few times in a lifetime" category. Hence, "Generational."
My opinion.
