That is not the best criteria considering how much tougher winning the Stanley Cup has become. Especially in a sport such as hockey where no single player can make a mediocre team win a Cup. 32 teams with a salary cap and you'll suddenly see a lot more great players never win anything.
He'd be the first generational player to never win a cup if he doesn't. Currently, the best player in Hockey history to not win a cup is Marcel Dionne, who is somewhere after 20 among the greatest players of all time. The best to not win one in his prime would be Bourque, who isn't a generational player either.
That's my point though. 30-32 teams and a salary cap and it's infinitely harder to win a Stanley Cup than it used to be. I don't even think that Ovechkin is a generational player, but that criteria is completely different for a player who played in the 50s or even 80s than it is now.
When you are discussing being among the greatest of all-time, team accomplishments absolutely have to factor in. Its tougher, but until multiple all-time greats go their entire career without reaching the pinnacle of the sport (such as Ted Williams and Barry Bonds in Baseball) it has to be weighted. So, maybe if Ovi doesn't win a cup he's a pioneer in that regard, but I'm not willing to knock that as a criteria, when the best player who played in the cap era managed to win 3 already.
Even then, Galy was projected as a center at the time. This would be the first time someone not even projected as a center went in the top 5 as far back as I can remember.
Generational is the best player of their generation or in serious discussion at the very least. Guys like Yzerman, Sakic, Bourque, Messier, etc weren't generational and they are all very clearly top 50 players of all time.
Where did I say better than McDavid. I expect him to be on same level value wise but its impossible to compare d to f
Because to be generation he has to be the best player of his generation or in serious discussion for it. That will take beating McDavid for a couple Harts and Lindsey's to validate his claim. Something, that I believe is highly unlikely to happen.
False. That's your definition of generational. There may be multiple generational players at the same time like McDavid and Crosby or there may be no generational players in the NHL for a while
Generational means once in a generation. You can't have a significant amount of them. We've seen 4 other guys since McDavid had this tag thrown around them. Yes, you sometimes see multiple, but anyone with a valid case of being generational has won multiple Harts and/or Lindsey's to validate there case. I'd also add, generational in regards to prospects means that its the best prospect in a generation, he isn't the best prospect of the past 5 years.
Your definition is very flawed. Generational doesn't refer to time as much as it refers to specific level of talent
I'd say Bobby was, and Phil wasn't due to Bobby winning 3 harts in basically 8 seasons.
No, it derives its name from being a once in a generation talent aka the best of a generation. There are cases like Bird and Magic or Messi and Ronaldo. But generally someone generational is clear cut like Gretzky, Jordan or Lebron James right now.
