Is Cale Makar a generational talent?

[jcs0218]

There is so much wrong in this post. It just shows how little you watch him play.

I admit that I don't watch every game of his.

But the things I posted, I saw it happen with enough frequency during the playoff series against Vergas that I am fairly confident in saying that what I posted is a weakness in his game.

 

[3rd Line]

Greetings Northern Avs Fan

Please excuse the double-clutch in executing this post.

Anyway, in response to my theory that some of the credit for Makar's offensive success is a function of playing with Nate, you are pushing that Makar has greater 5 on 5 chemistry with Bellemare than he does with Nate.

So that motivated me to research the Bellemare/Makar connection - which first led me to the discovery of a minor error. My earlier post stated that "Cale was on-ice during 64 Avalanche Even Strength Goals – and Nate was on for 35 of them." Excuse me...that should have read "Cale was on-ice for 63 Avalanche Even Strength Goals - and Nate was on for 35 of them." Nonetheless, my original point is still made (and slightly stronger).

Anyway, checking the data on Bellemare with Makar: Cale was on-ice during 63 Avalanche Even Strength Goals – and Bellemare was on for 7 of them.

So I fail to see your point. Nate was on-ice with Makar on Avs' Even Strength Goals 5 times more than Bellemare. That proves my point - not yours.

But re-reading your post, I see that you use the words "higher rate". So are you saying that you are factoring TOI with each other? In other words, Nate may have been on-ice with Cale for 5 times the number of Even Strength Avs' goals (than Bellemare), but (just for example) he may have 6 times the amount of TOI with Cale than Bellemare has. And if that is what you mean by a higher rate - then I will grant you that it is in fact a higher rate. But c'mon. Let's be real. The Cale + Bellemare TOI together is way too small a sample size to draw the conclusion that Makar has it going with Bellemare more than with Nate.

As such, in addition to my quantitative argument with respect to Bellemare's small sample size, the claim that Makar's 5v5 offensive prowess is much greater when on-ice with Bellemare (than with Nate) would not pass the eyeball test of most any fan that watches the Avs play. And by the way, I also do not think many fans would agree with your point that generally asserts that Makar and MacKinnon's offensive production is deterred when they are on the ice together because there is only one puck.

So while I do not feel that you presented a convincing argument that Cale's 5v5 offensive success is not linked to Nate, I also notice that no mention was made for the Power Play contribution to Cale's offensive success. That accounted for a whopping 52% of Cale's points last season. And Nate was in on-ice for 86% of Cale's PP points.

It is quite clear that Cale is abundantly dependent upon Nate for his offensive success. Whereby, since Cale's offense is the only reason he is being considered as a generational talent (not his D), this "Nate effect" totally dismisses the generational label for Cale - at least in my view. Time will tell, my friend.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Amazing start to his career but there hasn't been a generational talent on defence since Orr. Its a high bar.

Uh, Robinson, Bourque, Chelios, Lidstrom and Pronger. Unless your bar is The Best Defenseman Who Ever Was, your standard doesn't hold up. At all.

 

[BertMcDrai]

No.
In general it's too early to say but as it is now it's an easy no.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

Makar will be the best player on the Avs very soon, possibly next season. Assuming a healthy career he will also go down as the superior talent on the Avs roster instead of MacKinnon or Rantanen.

Generational is too much, we need to see total domination for many years before this is even a reasonable discussion.

 

[Voight]

Uh, Robinson, Bourque, Chelios, Lidstrom and Pronger. Unless your bar is The Best Defenseman Who Ever Was, your standard doesn't hold up. At all.

None of whom were ever the best player in the league.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Makar > Mackinnon right now

 

[MaKarter]

And Nate was in on-ice for 86% of Cale's PP points.

You did all of that research and your conclusion was they both play on the 1st powerplay unit?

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

Greetings Northern Avs Fan

Please excuse the double-clutch in executing this post.

Anyway, in response to my theory that some of the credit for Makar's offensive success is a function of playing with Nate, you are pushing that Makar has greater 5 on 5 chemistry with Bellemare than he does with Nate.

So that motivated me to research the Bellemare/Makar connection - which first led me to the discovery of a minor error. My earlier post stated that "Cale was on-ice during 64 Avalanche Even Strength Goals – and Nate was on for 35 of them." Excuse me...that should have read "Cale was on-ice for 63 Avalanche Even Strength Goals - and Nate was on for 35 of them." Nonetheless, my original point is still made (and slightly stronger).

Anyway, checking the data on Bellemare with Makar: Cale was on-ice during 63 Avalanche Even Strength Goals – and Bellemare was on for 7 of them.

So I fail to see your point. Nate was on-ice with Makar on Avs' Even Strength Goals 5 times more than Bellemare. That proves my point - not yours.

But re-reading your post, I see that you use the words "higher rate". So are you saying that you are factoring TOI with each other? In other words, Nate may have been on-ice with Cale for 5 times the number of Even Strength Avs' goals (than Bellemare), but (just for example) he may have 6 times the amount of TOI with Cale than Bellemare has. And if that is what you mean by a higher rate - then I will grant you that it is in fact a higher rate. But c'mon. Let's be real. The Cale + Bellemare TOI together is way too small a sample size to draw the conclusion that Makar has it going with Bellemare more than with Nate.

As such, in addition to my quantitative argument with respect to Bellemare's small sample size, the claim that Makar's 5v5 offensive prowess is much greater when on-ice with Bellemare (than with Nate) would not pass the eyeball test of most any fan that watches the Avs play. And by the way, I also do not think many fans would agree with your point that generally asserts that Makar and MacKinnon's offensive production is deterred when they are on the ice together because there is only one puck.

So while I do not feel that you presented a convincing argument that Cale's 5v5 offensive success is not linked to Nate, I also notice that no mention was made for the Power Play contribution to Cale's offensive success. That accounted for a whopping 52% of Cale's points last season. And Nate was in on-ice for 86% of Cale's PP points.

It is quite clear that Cale is abundantly dependent upon Nate for his offensive success. Whereby, since Cale's offense is the only reason he is being considered as a generational talent (not his D), this "Nate effect" totally dismisses the generational label for Cale - at least in my view. Time will tell, my friend.

Every top power play quarterback plays with their teams best players on the power play. I didn’t really see much point in respond to that. Mikko Rantanen is more important to the Avs than MacKinnon on the power play anyways. So if you want to say that Makar is carried by others on the power play, you should probably give Rantanen more credit.

I gave you the Bellemare stat because that’s the truth and it’s a factual statement that he was on the ice for a higher rate of goals with him. It supports what I’ve seen from the player this season. Makar can break down a defence by himself and that happens regardless of who’s on the ice with him.

His game is a lot more diverse than just points, but that’s what people will focus on. He’s better on offence than defence, but he’s still good defensively. It seems a lot of people in here are confusing Makar for Girard in terms of physical strength on the defensive side. While I wouldn’t say he’s a people mover in front of the net, he can eliminate guys with the body and take pucks away in on one on one battles. The guy is incredibly strong on his skates and built for his height.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

9 mil a season is waay too much for this guy.

 

[Slurpeelover27]

fox has a norris in his first 2 seasons. Heiskanen had 26 points in a 27 game playoff run to the cup finals.

If Cale did not get injured he would have easily won the Norris this year. Easily.

 

[Bupi]

Somebody please give a specific definition of what a "generational talent" means. And who defined it.

About 15 years ago this forum's parent site Hockey's future also focused on prospects and they graded them: 8 was basically a career 1st liner or a top-2 defenseman, 9 was an elite player (they used to name examples like Yzerman, Hasek, Roy, Lidstöm, Forsberg, Sakic, etc). They used to call 10 a "generational talent" - they defined it as "a player who is head and shoulders above their peers and change they way the game is played". They listed examples as Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr and there was also a phrase like "maybe Sidney Crosby, but we'll see". They also added accuracies on prospects, A meaning player will reach this level, B at least one level below, etc.

They didn't hand out this title to everyone like the case is today on this forum. As I recall Crosby was a 10C, meaning he could reach the Gretzky/Lemieux level but he would at least be a 1st liner (10C = 10-2=8) for his whole career. Ovechkin was 9A (9-0=9) - he was basically gonna reach the Yzerman/Forsberg/Sakic level but his game lacked the wow-factor which would make him considered really special.

To conclude, hockeysfuture.com was the first place I ever saw the term "generational talent" being mentioned and they actually did define it.

As my personal note I would add that if a person has a really special talent in anything - music, math or hockey - it is obvious already when the person is a 7 year old. That was the case with Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. You don't all of a sudden develop that special ability. You may become really good but that extra special ingredient will always be missing. If Cale Makar had this ingredient he would not drop to 4th overall in the draft and we would have seen HNIC specials about him 5 years before his draft.

 

[Wierzbowski426]

No.

 

[Volica]

No.
But that doesn't mean he isn't/won't be one helluva player that has HoF caliber written all over it if he keeps trending the way he is.

 

[Regal]

Greetings Northern Avs Fan

Please excuse the double-clutch in executing this post.

Anyway, in response to my theory that some of the credit for Makar's offensive success is a function of playing with Nate, you are pushing that Makar has greater 5 on 5 chemistry with Bellemare than he does with Nate.

So that motivated me to research the Bellemare/Makar connection - which first led me to the discovery of a minor error. My earlier post stated that "Cale was on-ice during 64 Avalanche Even Strength Goals – and Nate was on for 35 of them." Excuse me...that should have read "Cale was on-ice for 63 Avalanche Even Strength Goals - and Nate was on for 35 of them." Nonetheless, my original point is still made (and slightly stronger).

Anyway, checking the data on Bellemare with Makar: Cale was on-ice during 63 Avalanche Even Strength Goals – and Bellemare was on for 7 of them.

So I fail to see your point. Nate was on-ice with Makar on Avs' Even Strength Goals 5 times more than Bellemare. That proves my point - not yours.

But re-reading your post, I see that you use the words "higher rate". So are you saying that you are factoring TOI with each other? In other words, Nate may have been on-ice with Cale for 5 times the number of Even Strength Avs' goals (than Bellemare), but (just for example) he may have 6 times the amount of TOI with Cale than Bellemare has. And if that is what you mean by a higher rate - then I will grant you that it is in fact a higher rate. But c'mon. Let's be real. The Cale + Bellemare TOI together is way too small a sample size to draw the conclusion that Makar has it going with Bellemare more than with Nate.

As such, in addition to my quantitative argument with respect to Bellemare's small sample size, the claim that Makar's 5v5 offensive prowess is much greater when on-ice with Bellemare (than with Nate) would not pass the eyeball test of most any fan that watches the Avs play. And by the way, I also do not think many fans would agree with your point that generally asserts that Makar and MacKinnon's offensive production is deterred when they are on the ice together because there is only one puck.

So while I do not feel that you presented a convincing argument that Cale's 5v5 offensive success is not linked to Nate, I also notice that no mention was made for the Power Play contribution to Cale's offensive success. That accounted for a whopping 52% of Cale's points last season. And Nate was in on-ice for 86% of Cale's PP points.

It is quite clear that Cale is abundantly dependent upon Nate for his offensive success. Whereby, since Cale's offense is the only reason he is being considered as a generational talent (not his D), this "Nate effect" totally dismisses the generational label for Cale - at least in my view. Time will tell, my friend.

Nothing you've said shows this. He's on the ice a lot with MacKinnon for goals for because they both play a lot and play a lot together. This is true of the top players on every team. You're right that the Bellemare example is a small sample, but the point is that in general, Makar's rates don't change whether MacKinnon is on the ice or not. Which suggests the opposite of what you're arguing.

 

[rynryn]

wouldn't say that but IMO he has the best chance to be one in a long time. Defensemen get the shaft when it comes to earning a "generational" label. A big part of their job is defending and that can be so skewed by the rest of the team.
I think he'll be the best defenseman for the next ten years or so (overall, consistently, not necessarily #1 every year in stats)

 

[nergish]

I'm still not convinced he'll be better than Q. Hughes in 10 years.
That Calder race was closer than people think, and Makar is clearly more physically mature than Quinn right now, with a better supporting cast.

 

[Three On Zero]

I'm still not convinced he'll be better than Q. Hughes in 10 years.
That Calder race was closer than people think, and Makar is clearly more physically mature than Quinn right now, with a better supporting cast.

You’re right he won’t be better in 10 years, he already is better than Q. Hughes, he isn’t generational though

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Makar > Mackinnon right now

....and this is why this guy is getting overrated.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Erik Karlsson’s peak wasn’t that long ago.

Exactly. And I'd love to see Makar do what he's doing with a team like Ottawa from 2011-2019...
Karlsson is the best D of his generation- historical player. Makar has a ways to go before we can say the same.

 

[TeddyBare]

To use the term GENERATIONAL for a player I would expect said player to be the best player on his team to start



Makar isn’t.

 

[KidLine93]

If Cale did not get injured he would have easily won the Norris this year. Easily.

Shoulda coulda woulda tho. Those other guys actually did these things which was the question I answered.

 

[kingsfan28]

Exactly. And I'd love to see Makar do what he's doing with a team like Ottawa from 2011-2019...
Karlsson is the best D of his generation- historical player. Makar has a ways to go before we can say the same.

Historical at putting up points...not defense.

 

[sparxx87]

About 15 years ago this forum's parent site Hockey's future also focused on prospects and they graded them: 8 was basically a career 1st liner or a top-2 defenseman, 9 was an elite player (they used to name examples like Yzerman, Hasek, Roy, Lidstöm, Forsberg, Sakic, etc). They used to call 10 a "generational talent" - they defined it as "a player who is head and shoulders above their peers and change they way the game is played". They listed examples as Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr and there was also a phrase like "maybe Sidney Crosby, but we'll see". They also added accuracies on prospects, A meaning player will reach this level, B at least one level below, etc.

They didn't hand out this title to everyone like the case is today on this forum. As I recall Crosby was a 10C, meaning he could reach the Gretzky/Lemieux level but he would at least be a 1st liner (10C = 10-2=8) for his whole career. Ovechkin was 9A (9-0=9) - he was basically gonna reach the Yzerman/Forsberg/Sakic level but his game lacked the wow-factor which would make him considered really special.

To conclude, hockeysfuture.com was the first place I ever saw the term "generational talent" being mentioned and they actually did define it.

As my personal note I would add that if a person has a really special talent in anything - music, math or hockey - it is obvious already when the person is a 7 year old. That was the case with Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. You don't all of a sudden develop that special ability. You may become really good but that extra special ingredient will always be missing. If Cale Makar had this ingredient he would not drop to 4th overall in the draft and we would have seen HNIC specials about him 5 years before his draft.

Excellent post. The term generational has been so overused on this site.

Makar is a great young talent but let’s not get carried away. He’s not even the best d man in 2021, never mind this whole generation.

 

[avsfan9]

It’s possible Makar could be the best defensman of his generation without being generational.