Is Cale Makar a generational talent?

[Beukeboom Fan]

I've seen him enough to know he was great. I wouldn't call him generational. Same with Makar.

I'm not a "historical" hockey fan who thinks he knows enough to have hot takes regarding player, but I've watched for 30+ years. I would tend not to call Makar generational, but although I'm a Red Wing hater Lidstrom's level of play throughout his career IMO at least potentially opens that door.

A lot. He was never in consideration for best player in the game really, although he had some tough competition at forward. Conversely a lot of his domination among his defensive peers was due to slightly worse competition.

That's probably a good way to define generational - easily the best player in the game for more than a short period of time. I always was more of a fan of the way that Pronger played the game than Nik, but NL's dominance late in his career was really amazing.

 

[LemonSauceD]

His defensive analytics have declined literally every season since his Norris win.

And he has a hard time producing when Mackinnon isn’t on the ice.

 

[benfranklin]

Jagr was closer to a generational talent than Lindros

Exactly, but by pre draft hype, Lindros is arguably the most "generational" ever, but obviously on ice success never fully translated to the hype.

Brings in the argument that pre-draft hype isnt everything and that on ice success can earn you the title of "generational".

His defensive analytics have declined literally every season since his Norris win.

And he has a hard time producing when Mackinnon isn’t on the ice.

I'd love to see the analytics breakdown for this. Ill wait.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

I've only seen six generational players in my lifetime:

* Gretzky
* Lemieux
* Lindros
* Crosby
* Ovechkin
* McDavid

I think Jagr has to be considered
Orr I think has to be on the list. That short crazy prime

Lindros I put in the almost Generational tier

 

[TageGod]

MacKinnon Landeskog and Rantanen riding shotgun with Makar makes it hard to argue he is even the best player on their team. His defensive side is not good, and he is a defenseman, so no. Best offensive D, maybe?

 

[NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS]

His defensive analytics have declined literally every season since his Norris win.

And he has a hard time producing when Mackinnon isn’t on the ice.

The second sentence under states how bad Makar has "declined". I'm not sure he's actually declined as much as he was never that good to begin with.

But if you look at Makar away from MacGinnon the last three seasons the stats look like an aspiring full time nhler who might stick on the bottom pairing of the worst team in the league.

Nothing about this guy says top pairing defender. Generational? Not even close.

 

[Warh1ppy]

He is walking away with the defensive scoring lead at the moment no question.

But his defensive play this year and much of last year as well has been entirely questionable.

 

[authentic]

I'm not a "historical" hockey fan who thinks he knows enough to have hot takes regarding player, but I've watched for 30+ years. I would tend not to call Makar generational, but although I'm a Red Wing hater Lidstrom's level of play throughout his career IMO at least potentially opens that door.

That's probably a good way to define generational - easily the best player in the game for more than a short period of time. I always was more of a fan of the way that Pronger played the game than Nik, but NL's dominance late in his career was really amazing.

Same I thought Pronger was the best from that generation, Lidstrom was just more consistent.

 

[Mike Liut]

I've only seen six generational players in my lifetime:

* Gretzky
* Lemieux
* Lindros
* Crosby
* Ovechkin
* McDavid

I’d add Pronger. Nobody controlled the game like him.

 

[Prettyisland]

I mean he’s absolutely elite. Can that be enough for now?

 

[Adam da bomb]

I think Jagr has to be considered
Orr I think has to be on the list. That short crazy prime

Lindros I put in the almost Generational tier

I think Orr played much earlier no? I mean it's not a list of all the generational players just the ones the poster has seen.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

I think Orr played much earlier no? I mean it's not a list of all the generational players just the ones the poster has seen.

Makes sense. My bad.

 

[josra33]

Woof some really dumb takes in here from people who only stat watch. Sad…

 

[Rowlet]

I'd love to see the analytics breakdown for this. Ill wait.

His ES possession numbers every year

Just for comparison's sake, because they're probably the top 3 at this point (note CorsiRel and FenwickRel), here's Quinn Hughes:

and here's Adam Fox:

Here's the Avs last year, they were a better team without Makar on the ice if MacKinnon wasn't also there.

Here's this year, it's actually going even worse so far.

Yes, Makar is still obviously one of the best D in the league, but his minutes need to be protected more than the others. He also benefits much more from MacKinnon than Hughes does Pettersson or Miller and Fox does from Panarin.

 

[NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS]

His ES possession numbers every year

View attachment 922832

Just for comparison's sake, because they're probably the top 3 at this point (note CorsiRel and FenwickRel), here's Quinn Hughes:

View attachment 922838

and here's Adam Fox:

View attachment 922840

Here's the Avs last year, they were a better team without Makar on the ice if MacKinnon wasn't also there.

View attachment 922833

Here's this year, it's actually going even worse so far.

View attachment 922836

Yes, Makar is still obviously one of the best D in the league, but his minutes need to be protected more than the others. He also benefits much more from MacKinnon than Hughes does Pettersson or Miller and Fox does from Panarin.

The numbers don't lie. Makar isn't one of the best D in the league. He is one of the best point producing D in the league and plays off of MacGinnon very well. Which isn't nothing. But his relative numbers show that in terms of overall in ice impact he struggles to keep up with the Girards and Mansons of the league.

That's not a top player.

 

[GrandmaCookie]

The second sentence under states how bad Makar has "declined". I'm not sure he's actually declined as much as he was never that good to begin with.

But if you look at Makar away from MacGinnon the last three seasons the stats look like an aspiring full time nhler who might stick on the bottom pairing of the worst team in the league.

Nothing about this guy says top pairing defender. Generational? Not even close.

Who?

The numbers don't lie. Makar isn't one of the best D in the league. He is one of the best point producing D in the league and plays off of MacGinnon very well. Which isn't nothing. But his relative numbers show that in terms of overall in ice impact he struggles to keep up with the Girards and Mansons of the league.

That's not a top player.

Are you doing this shit on purpose? I mean the k and the g are pretty far apart on the keyboard.

 

[AslanRH]

Hoping this got bumped again to remind everyone that Makar is really just a forward who prefers to see the ice from the blue line. If it wasn't for Toews covering his defensive flaws, Bednar would probably only ice him at PP specialist getting 3rd pairing minutes

 

[PainForShane]

The numbers don't lie. Makar isn't one of the best D in the league. He is one of the best point producing D in the league and plays off of MacGinnon very well. Which isn't nothing. But his relative numbers show that in terms of overall in ice impact he struggles to keep up with the Girards and Mansons of the league.

That's not a top player.

Go home clown. Take MacGinnon with you

 

[nowhereman]

No, he's not generational. There are several other defensemen (Hughes, Fox, Josi) that are in the same tier as him. He's an exceptional offensive talent but leaves a lot to be desired on the defensive side of things.

When you start mentioning names like Lidstrom, Potvin or Bourque (and especially the term "generational"), you're taking a pretty massive leap. He's going to need to add a handful of Norris trophies and another 800-1000 career points to be in that conversation. Easier said than done.