Generational Talents

[Romang67]

I mean you could do that kind of exercise with any non-Gretzky player really and result would be similar.

Absolutely. Which is why no one is claiming someone else from that era was comparable to Gretzky. As they shouldn't have (if they indeed did) with Bossy.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Correct. Its cool and fun to remember the history of the original 6, but for that entire time it was roughly 100-120 players playing 50 game seasons. The league was nothing, sorry to say it.

The Stanley Cup was 51 years old when the Original Six started. You're missing out on 50% of hockey history.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Correct. Its cool and fun to remember the history of the original 6, but for that entire time it was roughly 100-120 players playing 50 game seasons. The league was nothing, sorry to say it.

Just know that fifty years from now, there will be people who feel the same about the hockey that you currently enjoy and comment on.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Correct. Its cool and fun to remember the history of the original 6, but for that entire time it was roughly 100-120 players playing 50 game seasons. The league was nothing, sorry to say it.

It took expansion in 67-68 to start the growth and even then another decade plus to start to see the roots grow.

So defense and goalies cant qualify?

I can't say I've seen a defenseman meet the standards of dominance since Bobby Orr.
Goaltenders? Jacques Plante I guess but that was in the 50's and 60's.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Correct. Its cool and fun to remember the history of the original 6, but for that entire time it was roughly 100-120 players playing 50 game seasons. The league was nothing, sorry to say it.

It took expansion in 67-68 to start the growth and even then another decade plus to start to see the roots grow.

So defense and goalies cant qualify?

The original 6 didn’t start until the 40’s, when the NHL officially began it was the original 4.
Toronto, Ottawa and 2 Montreal teams.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Generational players are hands and feet better the next best tier of players. Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr were. Sorry but McDavid is not hands and feet better then the tier of players under him. If Mcdavid is a generational player then so is Jagr and Lidstrom.

Since 2016/17 (after McDavid's 40 game rookie season) until this past season McDavid is...

-1st in points
-Has a 144 point lead over 2nd place (Draisaitl) his teammate, in 10 less games
-Has a 1.56 PPG which blows away his closest competition (Kucherov), averaging an additional 14pts per season more
-Is 1st in Playoff PPG
-2nd only to Kucherov in total playoff points but Kucherov has a whopping 28 more playoff games than McDavid
-Won a Smythe without winning the Cup
-5x Art Ross, 4x Pearson, 3x Hart, and a Richard in his trophy case

-The only people with as many or more Ross trophies as McDavid are: Gretzky, Howe, Esposito, Jagr, and Lemieux.

-The only people with as many or more Hart trophies are: Gretzky, Howe, Shore, Clark, Lemieux, Morenz, Orr, and Ovechkin (i'll toss a Hart Crosby's way because he missed out on a 2011 Trophy he surely would've won if not for injury)

-The only people with as many or more Lindsay/Pearson trophies are: Gretzky and Lemieux (i'll toss another one Crosby's way for 2011 as well). Jagr, Ovie, and Lafleur have 3 each

McDavid is generational.

 

[benfranklin]

The Stanley Cup was 51 years old when the Original Six started. You're missing out on 50% of hockey history.

Just know that fifty years from now, there will be people who feel the same about the hockey that you currently enjoy and comment on.

The original 6 didn’t start until the 40’s, when the NHL officially began it was the original 4.
Toronto, Ottawa and 2 Montreal teams.

Everything pre Orr was barely an organized sport. I recognize the history and awesome the NHL has been around that long, but yes that is a completely different generation and sorry, not sorry, but when there are only a handful of teams in a league for 50+ years, I dont take that too seriously amongst the greats who are doing it with 20-30+ teams. They paved the way, sure, but there wasnt much competition to be "generational" amongst your peers.

Fifty years from now, we will have 40-50 teams in the league and maybe be international, but we will still recognize Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, and McDavid as the greats over randoms from the 30s that no one has ever heard of.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Everything pre Orr was barely an organized sport. I recognize the history and awesome the NHL has been around that long, but yes that is a completely different generation and sorry, not sorry, but when there are only a handful of teams in a league for 50+ years, I dont take that too seriously amongst the greats who are doing it with 20-30+ teams. They paved the way, sure, but there wasnt much competition to be "generational" amongst your peers.

Fifty years from now, we will have 40-50 teams in the league and maybe be international, but we will still recognize Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, and McDavid as the greats over randoms from the 30s that no one has ever heard of.

I mean, you can say this all you'd like. People were saying similar stuff fifty years ago.

I'm just saying that there's a cohort of people fifty years out who aren't going to give a <hoot> about today's GOATs for similar reasons to the ones you're espousing now,.

Oh, and we're "international" now.

 

[sinDer]

Generational talents come into the league and are able to record over a PPG in their first year (forwards). And while most players fall off a cliff between 30 and 33, generational talents will keep their high level of play in their mid thirties or even late thirties.

Crosby and Ovechkin are generational talents. McDavid is too.

With that being said, players like Lemieux and Gretzky dominated their peers like no other players did, which makes them the best players of all time. I guess we could say that they are a tier above Generational talent, if that makes sense...

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

Just know that fifty years from now, there will be people who feel the same about the hockey that you currently enjoy and comment on.

"If you teleported Nic Deslauriers IV back in time against pre-cyborg players like Connor McDavid, how many Monsanto Art Ross trophies would he win?"

 

[Romang67]

"If you teleported Nic Deslauriers IV back in time against pre-cyborg players like Connor McDavid, how many Monsanto Art Ross trophies would he win?"

Nepo baby Deslauries IV is playing in the softest era of hockey ever. He wouldn't have lasted 5 games back before power shields became mandatory.

 

[Crow]

User with Chicago username claims bias, then declares Kane on the same level as Crosby. Checks out.

That guy hates the hawks as much as anyone fwiw.

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

TIL- Bossy was the third fastest to 1k points.

And people really think Crosby is either generational or better then Bossy?

Come on now....

 

[slapKing]

TIL- Bossy was the third fastest to 1k points.

And people really think Crosby is either generational or better then Bossy?

Come on now....

Lol Crosby is better than Bossy

 

[Hockey Outsider]

TIL- Bossy was the third fastest to 1k points.

And people really think Crosby is either generational or better then Bossy?

Come on now....

The NHL averaged about 7.52 goals per game from 1978 to 1986 (the years it took Bossy to reach 1,000 point).

The NHL averaged about 5.63 goals per game from 2006 to 2017 (the years it took Crosby to reach 1,000 point).

Bossy got to 1,000 points 15% faster than Crosby (656 vs 757 games). But he did it in a league featuring 35% more offense. What Crosby did is more impressive, and it's not particularly close.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

The NHL averaged about 7.52 goals per game from 1978 to 1986 (the years it took Bossy to reach 1,000 point).

The NHL averaged about 5.63 goals per game from 2006 to 2017 (the years it took Crosby to reach 1,000 point).

Bossy got to 1,000 points 15% faster than Crosby (656 vs 757 games). But he did it in a league featuring 35% more offense. What Crosby did is more impressive, and it's not particularly close.

Not to mention Bossy was incredibly durable until he suddenly wasn't and promptly retired. With the amount of games he played, you'd expect he'd have more than two retro Rockets to his name. Never led the league in scoring, never won the Hart. It can be argued he wasn't even the best player on his team, that was probably Potvin. And one could make a case for Trottier being ahead of Bossy as well.

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

The NHL averaged about 7.52 goals per game from 1978 to 1986 (the years it took Bossy to reach 1,000 point).

The NHL averaged about 5.63 goals per game from 2006 to 2017 (the years it took Crosby to reach 1,000 point).

Bossy got to 1,000 points 15% faster than Crosby (656 vs 757 games). But he did it in a league featuring 35% more offense. What Crosby did is more impressive, and it's not particularly close.

With this logic, Gretzkys and Marios stats are also subjected to the same...ahem...scrutiny.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

With this logic, Gretzkys and Marios stats are also subjected to the same...ahem...scrutiny.

Yes, obviously they are. Why would I use this argument only against Mike Bossy? Every player from that era, including Gretzky and Lemieux, have stats that are inflated relative to today.

Even after making reasonable adjustments for the scoring environment, Gretzky and Lemieux are far ahead of anyone playing today - McDavid, Crosby, Ovechkin, whoever. But the next level of stars (Bossy, Trottier, Dionne, Lafleur, Yzerman - whoever else) aren't. If you don't consider the scoring environment, you get some wacky conclusions that are plainly false (did Denis Maruk and Bernie Nicholls peak higher than Crosby and Ovechkin?)

If your position is "the numbers are what they are, context be damned", would you agree to pay me $100 US dollars today, and I can pay you back $100 New Zealand dollars in ten years? A hundred is a hundred, after all.

 

[norrisnick]

The Stanley Cup was 51 years old when the Original Six started. You're missing out on 50% of hockey history.

If a lot of that history pre-dates the forward pass it's a completely different sport and shouldn't really be lumped together. Rugby players aren't compared to American football players throughout history and neither of those factor into the real football (soccer) history.

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

Yes, obviously they are. Why would I use this argument only against Mike Bossy? Every player from that era, including Gretzky and Lemieux, have stats that are inflated relative to today.

Because with this logic, players in lower scoring eras, since now we have to nitpick eras to prop up players, are equal to Gretzky and Mario?

This is what we have come to as a society.

Even after making reasonable adjustments for the scoring environment, Gretzky and Lemieux are far ahead of anyone playing today

Again, Bossy averaged 50 goals a season for nine years, something thats never been done before or after to go along with the third fastest to 1k points.

What are these "reasonable adjustments " that suddenly says he isnt just as far ahead as the two generational talents listed above when his own team mates said if he didnt have back issues he would have shattered Gretzkys goal scoring record?

i mean who do i believe? Actual players or somebody on a message board?

- McDavid,

Sorry, McDavid is right up there with Gretzky and Mario. Hes what, fourth fastest to 1k?

Hes right up there with....ahem...Bossy too, whos stats are inflated for some reason...

Crosby, Ovechkin, whoever. But the next level of stars (Bossy, Trottier, Dionne, Lafleur, Yzerman - whoever else) aren't. If you don't consider the scoring environment, you get some wacky conclusions that are plainly false (did Denis Maruk and Bernie Nicholls peak higher than Crosby and Ovechkin?)

Good lord....

If your argument is "well Maruk and Nicholls had single outlier years apiece and that's equal to Mike Bossys nine seasons of consecutive 50 goals, it's the era he played in and not his talent", then you lost the argument.

Scoring was higher in the 80s. How many players during the 80s scored 50 goals for nine consecutive seasons? One? How many players had 9 seasons during their careers with 50 goals? Three?

(Edit- forgot about Ovie)

If your position is "the numbers are what they are, context be damned", would you agree to pay me $100 US dollars today, and I can pay you back $100 New Zealand dollars in ten years? A hundred is a hundred, after all.

100 dollars in the 80s was worth 100 dollars.

With inflation, the value of 100 dollars is less in 2024. But in the 80s, it's still 100 dollars. You cannot argue the value of money because in the 50s, 100 dollars was worth considerably more then in the 1980s.

Does that make it better? If so.....

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

Not to mention Bossy was incredibly durable until he suddenly wasn't and promptly retired. With the amount of games he played, you'd expect he'd have more than two retro Rockets to his name. Never led the league in scoring, never won the Hart. It can be argued he wasn't even the best player on his team, that was probably Potvin. And one could make a case for Trottier being ahead of Bossy as well.

Hmmmm

How many Cups did Potvin and Trottier win without Bossy on the Islanders?

 

[FrozenJagrt]

Hmmmm

How many Cups did Potvin and Trottier win without Bossy on the Islanders?

Same as the number Gretzky won without Messier. What's your point?

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

Same as the number Gretzky won without Messier. What's your point?

They don't win Cups without Bossy?

I mean, Trottier won a Hart with Bossy on his wing all I'll go as far as to say he couldn't do it without him.

Mike bossy, you know. The same guy who produced career years outta a Sutter and Tonelli when Trottier was having injury issues. You do know that, yes?

Potvin has a better argument, but not by much. With Bossy he had consecutive Norris trophies, without him, one, and let's not point out the year he won a Norris without Bossy he...ahem...didn't really have alot of competition.

They don't win Cups without Bossy and his 50 goals a year and 17 goal average for three years in the playoffs during their dynasty.

Messier was great, but those Oilers were as close to plug and play as any team outside of the Habs dynasties. Teams wernt trying to figure out ways to stop Messier on a team with Gretzky. They were trying to figure out how to stop Bossy, tho.

I could just imagine Glen Sather saying "you know, we really got to figure out a way to stop Potvin from getting the puck to the kid who just seems to score at will. Bossys stats are a product of the era, guys, we gotta stop Potvin and Trottier, their stats mean more because they won individual trophies based on writers opinions"

(Shakes head)

But Crosby is generational? The same Crosby who was outplayed by Kessel in one Smythe win and by Toews in his "golden Goal" Olympic year?

Sorry, Bossy is more generational then Crosby and I don't even consider Bossy Generational.

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

Generational talents come into the league and are able to record over a PPG in their first year (forwards).

With this narrative, Mike Bossy is generational.....

And while most players fall off a cliff between 30 and 33, generational talents will keep their high level of play in their mid thirties or even late thirties.

.....while Bobby Orr isnt.

Crosby and Ovechkin are generational talents. McDavid is tisn't.

Mcdavid surely is without a doubt. Ovie....yeah, sure.

Crosby? lol noo

With that being said, players like Lemieux and Gretzky dominated their peers like no other players did, which makes them the best players of all time. I guess we could say that they are a tier above Generational talent, if that makes sense...

It doesn't. It just waters down the field and creates another tier that the media will use to their advantage for attention.

Calling great players like Crosby generational is crap brain rot Podcasters spew for clicks. If you cannot articulate how Crosby is better then Mike Bossy with anything other then "because he is", when stats say otherwise, you lost the argument.

Career longevity? Is Crosby better then Orr?
Individual hardware voted on by hockey writers? Didn't McDavid himself show you just how irrelevant they were in the Cup finals?

The high flying 80s? The league was a level playing field. Every team was scoring high amounts of goals, yet only one player scored 50 goals a year for 9 straight years.

Every single one of these excuses has been debunked, to the point two of the greatest players in the games history's records are suddenly under scrutiny to prop up Crosby? Come on.

If you cannot see the difference between McDavid and Crosby from the eye test alone, you cannot say what a generational talent is and isn't. McDavid is far and away the best player the league will see in this era and it's not by a little, but by alot.

Do people put Steph Curry on the same tier as Jordan, too?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Because with this logic, players in lower scoring eras, since now we have to nitpick eras to prop up players, are equal to Gretzky and Mario?

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your long, rambling response. I clearly stated that no recent player equals Gretzky or Lemieux (even after taking the changes in the scoring environment into account). If you're going to get the first sentence wrong, it tells me you either didn't read my post, or are trying to misrepresent what I said. Either way, I don't see the point in engaging.