Generational Talents

[daver]

Yzerman was significantly better than Messier was in 1990. Close in points and 17 more goals. He just played on a far worse team.

So what? That has nothing to do with individual point totals. Great players produce regardless. Jagr's was as dominant with or without Mario. McDavid has been as dominant when his team was missing the playoffs or making the SCF. Crosby was as dominant with or without Malkin playing/playing well.

It was a very good season, on par with some of the season's by Jagr, Crosby, and McDavid but not "generational". Hull was the only one doing anything that was close to being "generational".

 

[daver]

If you think +155 is the standard by which a player has to dominate at to be considered generational then there’s only two players who qualify.

I never said that. You are the one who is focused on raw numbers. You need to look at relative domination. Yzerman had one season that is legitimately in the conversation for "Best of the Non-Big 4" based on how much separation there was %-wise between him and the rest of the league's elite scorers. He didn't get close to the level again, or have a longer elite (best player in the league level) prime than 3 seasons.

In comparison to Jagr, Crosby and McDavid he falls off of their level when you compare their 2nd best seasons.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

So what?

So it’s a big reason why he wasn’t seriously considered for the Hart.

That has nothing to do with individual point totals.

Of course it does. You don’t think it’s easier for Luc Robitaille to score while playing with Gretzky. Look at what happened to Bernie Nichols when Gretz joined. You don’t think Trottier and Potvin helped Bossy? Get real.

Great players produce regardless. Jagr's was as dominant with or without Mario. McDavid has been as dominant when his team was missing the playoffs or making the SCF. Crosby was as dominant with or without Malkin playing/playing well.

Right. And Yzerman produced regardless. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have been even better playing with Larry Robinson.

It was a very good season, on par with some of the season's by Jagr, Crosby, and McDavid but not "generational". Hull was the only one doing anything that was close to being "generational".

Again… you seem to be stuck on this idea that only a 150 point season qualifies as generational. That’s not the case unless you want to exclude everyone but two players.

McDavid, Crosby, Bossy, Lafleur, Ovechkin… they didn’t win the scoring title every year. And none had the 155 point season Yzerman did. Are they not generational either?

 

[daver]

Omitting them, Yzerman was the best player in the planet that season before getting hurt. He was pacing for 63 goals and 128 points. That puts him three points behind Savard with 19 more goals. It’s not close. And it’s not like that year was an outlier either. It’s pretty similar to what he averages over those six seasons.

Savard's PPG dropped over the last 15 games or so. You cannot assume that Yzerman's doesn't drop also.

I clearly showed that Yzerman was not the best player when he got injured on Mar. 1. At that point he was pacing to finish 13 points behind Savard (140 points to 127).

So it’s a big reason why he wasn’t seriously considered for the Hart.

I haven't mentioned the Hart once and never bring it up in a discussion about the strength of a season.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I never said that.

You’re saying he had only one generational season… it’s silly to look at things that way.

You are the one who is focused on raw numbers. You need to look at relative domination.

I get it. 155 points isn’t the same today. Fair point.

But relatively speaking he’s the best player in hockey over six years. No not on a year by year basis but that doesn’t matter. No player other than Gretzky can say that.

Yzerman had one season that is legitimately in the conversation for "Best of the Non-Big 4" based on how much separation there was %-wise between him and the rest of the league's elite scorers. He didn't get close to the level again, or have a longer elite (best player in the league level) prime than 3 seasons.

He’ll never be big four. I’d never suggest he is. And if the big four is your standard for generational then say so because then this conversation is over.

Nobody would suggest Yzerman - or anyone else fit that matter is that good.

In comparison to Jagr, Crosby and McDavid he falls off of their level when you compare their 2nd best seasons.

Right. But Jagr has Lemieux. Crosby has Malkin. McDavid has Drai. In each case they’re playing with a guy close to as good or better.

For the most part Yzerman’s playing with Gerrard Gallant.

 

[daver]

Of course it does. You don’t think it’s easier for Luc Robitaille to score while playing with Gretzky. Look at what happened to Bernie Nichols when Gretz joined. You don’t think Trottier and Potvin helped Bossy? Get real.

Noone is promoting these players as being "generational". I mentioned Crosby, Jagr and McDavid; all of whom have produced regardless of the team situation.

 

[daver]

But relatively speaking he’s the best player in hockey over six years. No not on a year by year basis but that doesn’t matter. No player other than Gretzky can say that.

You can look at any six year stretch and determine who was the best over than time period. It is the level in which they separated themselves from the pack in both points and/or PPG that determines where that player sits in relation to others.

Yzerman, unlike prime Crosby, prime McDavid and prime Jagr, was not in the conversation for best player after each of those six seasons.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Savard's PPG dropped over the last 15 games or so. You cannot assume that Yzerman's doesn't drop also.

What not? It’s right in line with what he did over that timespan.

I clearly showed that Yzerman was not the best player when he got injured on Mar. 1. At that point he was pacing to finish 13 points behind Savard (140 points to 127).

I couldn’t care less that Savard dropped off. If anything Yzerman improved by leaps and bounds the next season. No reason to think he’d have suddenly slumped.

It’s right in line with his six year average.

I haven't mentioned the Hart once and never bring it up in a discussion about the strength of a season.

I’m bringing it up. 1990 is a perfect example of how he was overlooked. Best player in hockey and his season was completely forgotten about.

The reason I bringing up Yzerman in the first place is because he’s almost never considered in the group of borderline generational talents. He played for one of the worst teams in the league in his prime and was forgotten about. Then when his teams begin winning he’s nowhere near the player he was.

Snapshot him in those prime years though - he’s really close to Guy Lafleur. Best player in hockey over those years. Again, maybe not in a season by season basis but that doesn’t matter.

 

[daver]

He’ll never be big four. I’d never suggest he is. And if the big four is your standard for generational then say so because then this conversation is over.

I said "Best of the NON-Big 4". I could care less about the useless debate about what "generational" means.

I am debating you about your claim that Yzerman from '88 to '93 would have been giving McDavid a run for best player if they played in the same era.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Noone is promoting these players as being "generational". I mentioned Crosby, Jagr and McDavid; all of whom have produced regardless of the team situation.

I’m merely showing the effect a superstar player can have on point totals. It matters a lot.

Does Lafleur get 6x50/100 if he’s not with the big three, Shutt, Cournoyer etc… Does Bossy do it without Trottier and Potvin?

McDavid and Crosby have seasons where their teammates even outproduced them. That’s a huge luxury Yzerman didn’t have.

 

[daver]

I couldn’t care less that Savard dropped off. If anything Yzerman improved by leaps and bounds the next season. No reason to think he’d have suddenly slumped.

Noone would have claimed Yzerman as the league's best player on Mar. 1. We will leave at that.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Noone would have claimed Yzerman as the league's best player on Mar. 1. We will leave at that.

No we won’t. Yzerman already had 50 goals by that time.

 

[daver]

I’m merely showing the effect a superstar player can have on point totals. It matters a lot.

Does Lafleur get 6x50/100 if he’s not with the big three, Shutt, Cournoyer etc… Does Bossy do it without Trottier and Potvin?

McDavid ans Crosby have seasons where their teammates even outproduced them. That’s a huge luxury Yzerman didn’t have.

Crosby's PPG was higher when Malkin was injured or underperforming. He wasn't relied on as much offensively when Malkin was in Art Ross form.

No reason whatsoever to think that Yzerman's point totals go up if he was on another team. You can easily argue they go down.

Look at MacKinnon and Kucherov, they put up their best totals as they were relied on more for offense.

 

[daver]

No we won’t. Yzerman already had 50 goals by that time.

I already showed he wasn't doing anything that clearly stood out from many other players in that era and best goalscorer does not necessarily equal best player.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Crosby's PPG was higher when Malkin was injured or underperforming. He wasn't relied on as much offensively when Malkin was in Art Ross form.

No reason whatsoever to think that Yzerman's point totals go up if he was on another team. You can easily argue they go down.

Look at MacKinnon and Kucherov, they put up their best totals as they were relied on more for offense.

You’re still benefiting from great players passing you the puck. Moreover the checking is going to be a lot more spread out. Maybe Crosby’s production went up because teams were checking Malkin harder.

Playing with better players is only going to help you. You think Messier didn’t benefit? Even if Gretz got him 0 points all the checking was on him.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I already showed he wasn't doing anything that clearly stood out from many other players in that era and best goalscorer does not necessarily equal best player.

No, but he wasn’t just scoring goals. He was pacing for 128 points and 63 goals. We’re not talking Brett Hull here.

Btw, Savard slumping from the numbers you gave us is not a surprise.The very last game you cut off from him was a five point night. That skews the numbers a fair bit. Go back one day before and he’s pacing for 135 points rather than 140.

Yes, Yzerman was considered the best. I’m old enough to remember it. Everyone was pissed when he went down.

 

[Auston Marlander]

Sid, Ovy and McDavid are generational.

The only other guy I thought flirted with it was Lindros.

Ovy is there because of goal scoring. If someone was to match or surpass him, would they be considered generational?

 

[BLNY]

Generational implies ONCE in a generation. An outlier at the very least. Outside of sport, a generation is 20-30 years. In sport, maybe every 10? The way the word is thrown around by media and fans alike, you'd think there are at least 5 at the forward and defense positions at any one time.

 

[daver]

Snapshot him in those prime years though - he’s really close to Guy Lafleur. Best player in hockey over those years. Again, maybe not in a season by season basis but that doesn’t matter.

Art Ross finishes:

Lafleur - 1, 1, 1, 1*, 3, 3 * Lead in PPG in 75/76

Yzerman - 1, 2, 2*, 4, 7, 7 * 2nd in PPG in 87/88


Goal finishes

Lafleur - 1, 1*, 2, 2, 3, 7 *0.01 GPG behind Esposito/Orr

Yzerman - 1, 1*, 2, 3, 6, 6 * 1st in GPG in 87/88


He hung with Lafleur for 3 seasons/maybe four seasons. And of course Guy's playoff resume is as impressive as his regular season one.

Guy deserves the "Borderline" generational tag more than Yzerman.

Ovy is there because of goal scoring. If someone was to match or surpass him, would they be considered generational?

OV is there because, at his peak, he was an Art Ross threat while scoring goals at a generational level.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Art Ross finishes:

Lafleur - 1, 1, 1, 1*, 3, 3 * Lead in PPG in 75/76

Yzerman - 1, 2, 2*, 4, 7, 7 * 2nd in PPG in 87/88


Goal finishes

Lafleur - 1, 1*, 2, 2, 3, 7 *0.01 GPG behind Esposito/Orr

Yzerman - 1, 1*, 2, 3, 6, 6 * 1st in GPG in 87/88


He hung with Lafleur for 3 seasons/maybe four seasons. And of course Guy's playoff resume is as impressive as his regular season one.

Guy deserves the "Borderline" generational tag more than Yzerman.

Oh I agree. Bossy's better too. I specifically chose Lafleur and Bossy because they are insanely good. Yzerman isn't quite there... but he's not far off. That's my point though, you have to go to guys like Lafleur and Bossy for that kind of production/placement. And again, it's not just the points... it's the goals. Goals are more valuable than assists. Again if we look at 88 - pacing for 63 and 128. I'd take that over Savard's 131 (even if we bumped it to 135.)

And I totally agree on the playoffs too. Yzerman got the shit checked out of him in the playoffs - he was the only guy they needed to stop.

Anyways, Yzerman went on to have a longer career than either one. He was never the same after that injury though.

OV is there because, at his peak, he was an Art Ross threat while scoring goals at a generational level.

OV was the best player in the game for at least a few years. I count him as generational.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Generational implies ONCE in a generation. An outlier at the very least. Outside of sport, a generation is 20-30 years. In sport, maybe every 10? The way the word is thrown around by media and fans alike, you'd think there are at least 5 at the forward and defense positions at any one time.


View attachment 933169

The Issue is Ovi and Crosby came at the same time , it ruined the term. You can't simply go on years , you gotta go by dominance vs peers

Ovy is there because of goal scoring. If someone was to match or surpass him, would they be considered generational?

Have you seen Ovi play at 19-20-21-22-23? We still haven't seen anybody visually replicate that on the ice, maybe McDavid but its not the pure violent power game Ovi had

 

[BLNY]

The Issue is Ovi and Crosby came at the same time , it ruined the term. You can't simply go on years , you gotta go by dominance vs peers

I started typing up a comment about Gretz and Mario, but didn't have time to complete so I deleted and posted what I had.

I think hype ruined the term more than the players. Gretz and Mario had justifiable hype, but the draft got nowhere near the coverage it gets today. There wasn't the somewhat disingenuous media/marketing machine pumping the tires on any kid projected to got at, or near, the top of a draft.

I don't think anyone has truly stood head and shoulders above their peers as Wayne and Mario since Wayne and Mario, but Sid and Ovi are clearly the best of their generation.

 

[MessierII]

Ovy is there because of goal scoring. If someone was to match or surpass him, would they be considered generational?

I mean to have a chance to catch him they would pretty much have to be no?

 

[Randyne]

Great players produce regardless. Jagr's was as dominant with or without Mario. McDavid has been as dominant when his team was missing the playoffs or making the SCF. Crosby was as dominant with or without Malkin playing/playing well.

Why someone need to post such a nonsense?
It's like to post 1+1=1
Of course having 2 gen.talents increasing production
From naturalstattrick.com 2007/08-2012/13

				TOI (hours)	GF/60	increase by %
ES	Sidney Crosby	with	Evgeni Malkin	21.6​	5.46​	42​
ES	Sidney Crosby	w/o	Evgeni Malkin	59.1​	3.85​
PP	Sidney Crosby	with	Evgeni Malkin	21.7​	8.09​	43​
PP	Sidney Crosby	w/o	Evgeni Malkin	4.3​	5.65​