Is Cale Makar a generational talent?

[JoemAvs]

He has the raw talent and skill in theory. But a lot of it will depend on if he can stay healthy and how he will continue to develop (he is a crazy good level already but is still only 22 which is very young for Ds.)

He already has had trouble staying healthy at times and very much relies on his non-human skating. One bad injury and he could go from Norris Karlsson to SJ Karlsson rather quickly.

So no he is not a generational talent. Lets revisit his career 10 years from now. Maybe then we can make an argument forit.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

Bobby Orr is clearly generational to me but if Hasek is then Roy is too.

I know this is a touchy subject, but I’ll just respectfully disagree. After Hasek became a starter, he won 6 vezinas in 8 years, and Roy never won another won. He won back to back hart trophies, and was nominated numerous times. I don’t think we will ever see that level of dominance again by a goalie. Like imagine if Carey Price did what he did in 2015 for nearly a decade instead of one year. That was Hasek.

 

[Peltz]

Makar is the only dman with potential to have multiple hundred point seasons. It has been accomplished only 14 times in the history of the NHL and the last time was in 1991/92 by Brian Leetch. 30 freaking years ago!! Team defense and goaltending are much stronger these days. In the past it was obviously much easier to score.

Since year 2000 only 2 dmen have managed just over 80 points (Burns and Karlsson once each).

If Makar can hit 100 point multiple times while playing above average defense and win multiple Norris's than I would say he is generational. If he played a few more games this year he would have won the Norris and will likely win multiple times in his career.

You should be able to have a generational forward, dman and goalie at the same time IF they are deserving. Obviously McDavid is generational, but if Makar can be head and shoulders above all other dman than why not label him generational? What does Hasek's dominance have to do with Lemieux's dominant play?

Hasek, Brodeur and Roy are the GOAT's and none can be called generational?

Why do we measure whether a defensemen is "generational" by using offensive production as the measurement though? By the standards outlined in your own post, would you consider Brian Leetch generational? Probably not - and I'm a Rangers fan.

I'm not taking anything away from Makar - he's fantastic. But I just don't measure a defensemen's value by how much he scores like a forward.

 

[cjm502]

The first reply to this thread should have been "No", and it should have ended there. How it made it to 14 pages so far, I don't have a clue.

 

[KevinFinnerty]

Gretzky
Lemieux
Orr
Hasek
Howe
Bourque
Mcdavid
Crosby
Ovechkin
Lidstrom

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Gretzky
Lemieux
Orr
Hasek
Howe
Bourque
Mcdavid
Crosby
Ovechkin
Lidstrom

drop Lidstrom and Bourque

 

[wetcoast]

This reminds me of the Tyler Myers threads after his first 100 games.

Not even close man.

Either that or you have a really bad memory.

Isn’t Fox closer to generational than Makar is right now?

Seriously?

Makar has by far the better career right now.

The only other defenseman to win a Norris in his sophomore season was Bobby Orr. Not saying either of them are generational but Fox won the Norris and Makar has not yet

It was his 5th year after being drafted though and it was such a narrow win 743-655 in an unbalanced schedule and with Makar missing 12 games in a 56 game season but sure Fox winning in his sophomore season is exactly like Orr....

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Not even close man.

Either that or you have a really bad memory.



Seriously?

Makar has by far the better career right now.



It was his 5th year after being drafted though and it was such a narrow win 743-655 in an unbalanced schedule and with Makar missing 12 games in a 56 game season but sure Fox winning in his sophomore season is exactly like Orr....

How does Makar have by far the better career?

 

[Lays]

Not even close man.

Either that or you have a really bad memory.



Seriously?

Makar has by far the better career right now.



It was his 5th year after being drafted though and it was such a narrow win 743-655 in an unbalanced schedule and with Makar missing 12 games in a 56 game season but sure Fox winning in his sophomore season is exactly like Orr....

How does Makar have a by far better career? Fox has a Norris. Makar does not. And even if Makar played those games, he wasn’t better than Fox defensively this past year either. Fox put up better defensive results than Makar on a significantly worse defensive (and overall) team with a significantly worse system/coach as well.

And you’re acting like this being Fox’s 5th year since being drafted really means anything. Fox was drafted in 2016. Makar was drafted in 2017. Fox is still the only defenseman other than Orr to win a Norris in his sophomore season

 

[wetcoast]

How does Makar have a by far better career? Fox has a Norris. Makar does not. And even if Makar played those games, he wasn’t better than Fox defensively this past year either. Fox put up better defensive results than Makar on a significantly worse defensive (and overall) team with a significantly worse system/coach as well.

And you’re acting like this being Fox’s 5th year since being drafted really means anything. Fox was drafted in 2016. Makar was drafted in 2017. Fox is still the only defenseman other than Orr to win a Norris in his sophomore season

How does Makar have by far the better career?

Makar barely missed the Norris last year and was 9th in Norris voting the year before (Makar also won the Calder and Fox was 4th in Calder voting and wasn't in the top 23 in Norris voting), has a much better playoff resume and really tilts the ice when he is on.

We all know that Fox won the Norris last year and most here would agree that Makar is the better player.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Makar barely missed the Norris last year and was 9th in Norris voting the year before (Makar also won the Calder and Fox was 4th in Calder voting and wasn't in the top 23 in Norris voting), has a much better playoff resume and really tilts the ice when he is on.

We all know that Fox won the Norris last year and most here would agree that Makar is the better player.

So, in other words conjecture and your gut?

 

[caufieldbeerman]

You have Matthews as being a generational talent?

yes

 

[Norwegianoiler]

Why do we measure whether a defensemen is "generational" by using offensive production as the measurement though? By the standards outlined in your own post, would you consider Brian Leetch generational? Probably not - and I'm a Rangers fan.

I'm not taking anything away from Makar - he's fantastic. But I just don't measure a defensemen's value by how much he scores like a forward.

This is a good question. It might be because it's the most convenient way we have - in the absence of more thorough analysis, for which data is not available for most of hockey history, we resort to what we can measure more easily. Then again, there's an inherent problem with measuring defense, which is the fact that it is out to identify non-events (goals not happening), whereas measuring offense is easier as it aims to identify an event (goals happening). How many times did a goal not happen when player X was on the ice? From there the complexity of measuring defensive contribution increases beyond what we often bother to look at - and for my part way beyond what I am competent to comment.

 

[Machinehead]

How does Makar have by far the better career?

We decided that the Norris sucks as soon as a Ranger won it

 

[Mr Burns]

I know this is a touchy subject, but I’ll just respectfully disagree. After Hasek became a starter, he won 6 vezinas in 8 years, and Roy never won another won. He won back to back hart trophies, and was nominated numerous times. I don’t think we will ever see that level of dominance again by a goalie. Like imagine if Carey Price did what he did in 2015 for nearly a decade instead of one year. That was Hasek.

It's not only about trophies but the impact on the game because like Bobby Orr did for defensemen, Roy changed to game forever for goalies with his butterfly style, this is generational to me. The fact he is arguably the greatest goalie of all time helps his case too.

 

[The S5]

This is a good question. It might be because it's the most convenient way we have - in the absence of more thorough analysis, for which data is not available for most of hockey history, we resort to what we can measure more easily. Then again, there's an inherent problem with measuring defense, which is the fact that it is out to identify non-events (goals not happening), whereas measuring offense is easier as it aims to identify an event (goals happening). How many times did a goal not happen when player X was on the ice? From there the complexity of measuring defensive contribution increases beyond what we often bother to look at - and for my part way beyond what I am competent to comment.

Ask his teams goalie or the opposition forward how good of a defenseman someone is. They know.

 

[majormajor]

It's not only about trophies but the impact on the game because like Bobby Orr did for defensemen, Roy changed to game forever for goalies with his butterfly style, this is generational to me. The fact he is arguably the greatest goalie of all time helps his case too.

People would have copied Hasek if it was humanly possible. I don't think you have a good definition of generational.

Really if anything generational sounds more like unparalleled, unmatchable. That's Hasek.

 

[Foppberg]

yes

Damn son

 

[wetcoast]

So, in other words conjecture and your gut?

Actual facts and reasoned thinking with a dash of critical analysis.

But back after the 12-13 season you would have no doubt argued that PK Subban was the best Dman in the world based on the previous shortened unbalanced season right?

Also a "gut" feeling is just that one doesn't back it up with anything.

Example I have a gut feeling that some people don't actually look at the facts, and that they back the player from their team.

 

[Mr Burns]

People would have copied Hasek if it was humanly possible. I don't think you have a good definition of generational.

Really if anything generational sounds more like unparalleled, unmatchable. That's Hasek.

Bobby Orr is generational for most but Paul Coffey was able to match him very well in style of play then you argument is invalid too if you consider Orr generational.

If Hasek was, Roy was too. You can't be considered as arguably the greatest goalie of all time and not be generational, sorry.

 

[majormajor]

Bobby Orr is generational for most but Paul Coffey was able to match him very well in style of play then you argument is invalid too if you consider Orr generational.

If Hasek was, Roy was too. You can't be considered as arguably the greatest goalie of all time and not be generational, sorry.

Yeah and if I thought Roy was the greatest goalie of all time, as opposed to Hasek, then I might think you have a good argument (I don't).

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

I don’t know why Fox is being brought up so much in this thread.

Makar being a generational talent can easily be dismissed by McDavid, who is the only generational player right now.

If Rangers fans are so thirsty for a Makar/Fox debate they should create a thread about it.

 

[avsfan9]

I don’t know why Fox is being brought up so much in this thread.

Makar being a generational talent can easily be dismissed by McDavid, who is the only generational player right now.

If Rangers fans are so thirsty for a Makar/Fox debate they should create a thread about it.

There has been and Makar won by a landslide. Pretty much Ranger fans vs everyone else.

 

[CTHabsfan]

The first reply to this thread should have been "No", and it should have ended there. How it made it to 14 pages so far, I don't have a clue.

This ^^^^^^^

No Norris trophies, no Hart trophies, not considered the best player in the NHL, not considered the best player at his position, yet we're talking about Cale Makar being a generational talent? Maybe we should revisit this subject in 2031, or 2041.

 

[KidLine93]

That’s ridiculous, Orr, Howe, and Hasek are easily right there. I think you mean Gretzky sits all by himself at the top.

If I left out Lemieux the Pens fans would batter me with Homer Oiler posts so I ket him there to save myself some flack. My point still stands tho. They guys he mentioned (crosby) are generational but theres a gap from them and the very top guys in history still.