Random player tiers.

[Got the Babych]

We need to agree on player tiers before I can reply on recent and future discussions. I think we all agree that "generational" is the top, but no one agrees on what that means. So leaving that out, that can be another discussion.

 

This looks like a 3rd grader built it.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Got the Babych
First Poll

[Ballisticsports]

Imo

Superstars are constantly Elite

Elite players have flashes of being Superstars

 

A generational talent is one singular player that dominates over all others for a decade and a half. A generation is approximately 10- 15 years so … hands down best player during those years

There are only three generational players atm in my opinion: Crosby, Ovechkin, and McDavid

 

[Jess]

Franchise is definitely the next tier of superlative. I could go either way on "elite" vs "superstar", but I chose superstar over elite.

[PeteyBOI]

franchise should be removed... every team gots one...

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, -AJ- said:

Franchise is definitely the next tier of superlative. I could go either way on "elite" vs "superstar", but I chose superstar over elite.

Elite gets muddy.  All or most of  these guys are all elite, the top .01% or whatever.     There for sure can be more several generational talents at the same time.   Usually (not always), you can just look at the stats and pick them out.   Context for sure comes into play as well.   Careers sometimes get cut short.    A tier above the rest for generational is fine.     Is Joe Thornton generational?   Try and find a guy, drafted a couple years before him,  until Crosby and Ovechkin.   It's not easy.    The Sedins?  

Edited December 31, 2023 by IBatch

[Down By the River]

57 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Elite gets muddy.  All or most of  these guys are all elite, the top .01% or whatever.     There for sure can be more several generational talents at the same time.   Usually (not always), you can just look at the stats and pick them out.   Context for sure comes into play as well.   Careers sometimes get cut short.    A tier above the rest for generational is fine.     Is Joe Thornton generational?   Try and find a guy, drafted a couple years before him,  until Crosby and Ovechkin.   It's not easy.    The Sedins?  

Thornton definitely not generational One exceptional season (2006) is not enough to separate himself from his peers (Sedins, Iginla, Pronger). 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Down By the River

[higgyfan]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Elite gets muddy.  All or most of  these guys are all elite, the top .01% or whatever.     There for sure can be more several generational talents at the same time.   Usually (not always), you can just look at the stats and pick them out.   Context for sure comes into play as well.   Careers sometimes get cut short.    A tier above the rest for generational is fine.     Is Joe Thornton generational?   Try and find a guy, drafted a couple years before him,  until Crosby and Ovechkin.   It's not easy.    The Sedins?  

 

There was a long dry spell before Crosby/Ovechkin, that's for sure.  Mario is often included

in the generational talk, but his #s dropped off significantly after he went through his cancer

treatments (personally, I think he would have challenged Gretz).

 

But for injuries, Lindros and (especially) Pronger probably would have been generational.

 

Why isn't Lidstrom not included in generational talk? Or, maybe he is?

1 Conn Smythe and 6 Norris trophies. What a player!

 

I say no for Thornton and the twins.

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, Down By the River said:

Thornton definitely not generational One exceptional season (2006) is not enough to separate himself from his peers (Sedins, Iginla, Pronger). 

And that's the point.   Iginla and Thorton, are they generational?    Pronger and Lidstrom.   Are they?  Of course Lidstrom is, but Konstantinov according to Holland has a higher trajectory, and was their number one guy... food for thought anyways.    Couldn't win until the old guard retired or aged out.    Personally don't think each generation is equal.    The fact Tochett needs to call our guys out says a lot (fitness wise).   Rod the Bod.   That generation, was something.   Iginla wasn't better than Joe New for quite awhile.     Thornton, started at 18, and schooled the Sedins early.   Definitely a level above, didn't need the runway.  

Edited December 31, 2023 by IBatch

[IBatch]

43 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

 

There was a long dry spell before Crosby/Ovechkin, that's for sure.  Mario is often included

in the generational talk, but his #s dropped off significantly after he went through his cancer

treatments (personally, I think he would have challenged Gretz).

 

But for injuries, Lindros and (especially) Pronger probably would have been generational.

 

Why isn't Lidstrom not included in generational talk? Or, maybe he is?

1 Conn Smythe and 6 Norris trophies. What a player!

 

I say no for Thornton and the twins.

Was it really a dry spell?  Yzerman, Sakic.  Bure, Selanne, Federov... Lindros.   Really don't think you can include Orr, Mario and Gretzky.   They are once in a lifetime players.    Each decade had a different flavour.    And personally, would have a tough time ranking Crosby higher than Yzerman if he retired right now.   Maybe Sakic too, he got a lot of hardware as well, plus regular votes/all-star berths.   A lot of centers competing for those as well, excellent ones.    No dead puck era.   Jagr...Messier where do they fit in?   Iginla took time, didn't fly out of the gate. 

 

Edit:  Point is, it was still a generation.   Nothing truly amazing  shook out.    But it was still a generation.    Sakic/Jagr/Selanne/Sundin etc etc lost 1.5 years to lockouts...others just one, some half.   That kind of blows too.   Jumbo lost 1.5 of prime years. 

Edited December 31, 2023 by IBatch

[higgyfan]

3 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Was it really a dry spell?  Yzerman, Sakic.   Lindros.   Really don't think you can include Orr, Mario and Gretzky.   They are once in a lifetime players.    Each decade had a different flavour.  

 

I was only referring to 'generational talent'.

[Kevin Biestra]

Babych-esque > God of Hockey > Generational > Superstar > Elite > My Grandmother on Skates > Loui Eriksson

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Kevin Biestra

[iceman1964]

I didn't see anyone mention Bure but he was all those things and then some.. almost to the point if he got the puck you almost expected him to score, ok so realistically that's impossible but was "always a threat" to score as much as anyone named Gretz, Lem, McD etc.  

Oh and a elbow for the ages as well  lmao! Churla would definitely attest to that reality...

Edited December 31, 2023 by iceman1964

[Jess]

1 hour ago, higgyfan said:

 

There was a long dry spell before Crosby/Ovechkin, that's for sure.  Mario is often included

in the generational talk, but his #s dropped off significantly after he went through his cancer

treatments (personally, I think he would have challenged Gretz).

 

But for injuries, Lindros and (especially) Pronger probably would have been generational.

 

Why isn't Lidstrom not included in generational talk? Or, maybe he is?

1 Conn Smythe and 6 Norris trophies. What a player!

 

I say no for Thornton and the twins.

 

I was thinking about Lidstrom, but I don't think he crosses the gap. The Conn Smythe is probably his greatest single achievement, but he never won the Lester B. Pearson/Ted Lindsay, nor was he ever even a finalist for the Hart trophy. Orr, for instance, won three Hart trophies and finished 3rd in voting another four times.

 

For my money, Orr is the only generational NHL defenseman there's ever been. The rest of the top end elite D like Lidstrom, Shore, Harvey, Bourque, Potvin, etc are just barely a level below. I'll be curious to see if Makar can ever seriously get into the Hart conversation or win a Ted Lindsay. He's already got a Conn Smythe, so that's a great start.

[Optimist Prime]

Any player I look up on Dobber Prospects seems to have a chart called the PNHLe

Quote

PNHLe is a value that projects a prospect's point potential at the NHL level.
It takes into consideration point production (i.e., points-per-game), the league a prospect plays in, their age and the position they play

Quinn Hughes for example 

 

So you can see they break the ranking down to 2nd line potential, 1st line Potential and then Superstar..but Quinn is one of those guys I would call Generational. 

 

For me, top to bottom it would probably be this:

Generational Talent
ELITE Superstar

Superstar

top Liner/Pair

2nd Line/Pair

Bottom Six/Bottom Pair.

Replacement/Callup

 

not perfect because we all know Taylor Pyatt wasn't a Top Line player, but when you are short on amazing third wheels, really any third wheel can have a sedin bounce pucks off them into the net. lol Still though, I think that is my ranking.

 

Just for grins here is EP40's from Dobber: See how he is around 125 vs Hughes 143? For me that is the difference between Generational and Elite Superstar.

 

[Phil_314]

I voted for "Elite => Franchise => Superstar".
By definition, "elite" means top-top tier league/ sport-wide, whereas franchise would be multiple players (e.g. if you look at juggernauts like COL or TB, where would you draw the line for which guys are franchise guys?  At their peak, COL has had Mackinnon/ Landeskog/ Rantanen/ Nichushkin(?)/ Makar/ Georgiev (given how he's played this season, he's still the default #1, but is he franchise?); TB has had Point/ Kucherov/ Stamkos/ Hedman/ Sergachev/ Vasilievskiy, plus a multitude of invaluable depth in Palat/ Cirelli/ Killorn, etc. etc.).  "Superstar" gets thrown around too often too, e.g. I think those with loose definitions would say Nugent-Hopkins or Hall in Edmonton were superstars, possibly even on the basis of their #1 pick draft status, which broadens the definitions and lowers the bar significantly.

[Got the Babych]

On 12/31/2023 at 4:07 PM, Phil_314 said:

I voted for "Elite => Franchise => Superstar".
By definition, "elite" means top-top tier league/ sport-wide, whereas franchise would be multiple players (e.g. if you look at juggernauts like COL or TB, where would you draw the line for which guys are franchise guys?  At their peak, COL has had Mackinnon/ Landeskog/ Rantanen/ Nichushkin(?)/ Makar/ Georgiev (given how he's played this season, he's still the default #1, but is he franchise?); TB has had Point/ Kucherov/ Stamkos/ Hedman/ Sergachev/ Vasilievskiy, plus a multitude of invaluable depth in Palat/ Cirelli/ Killorn, etc. etc.).  "Superstar" gets thrown around too often too, e.g. I think those with loose definitions would say Nugent-Hopkins or Hall in Edmonton were superstars, possibly even on the basis of their #1 pick draft status, which broadens the definitions and lowers the bar significantly.

I had Elite as my top, too, but the group has spoken with their votes. Arguments can be made for either, and really they could be seen as interchangeable in many ways. For the purposes of discussion, I think it helps if we just agree on the tiers, based on the majority.

 

Definitely hard to choose with the teams you brought up, they are both full of franchise/ superstar/ elite talent, and it shows in their dominance.

 

Glad Babych-esque showed strong. Where my old people at?

[Kevin Biestra]

4 hours ago, Got the Babych said:

I had Elite as my top, too, but the group has spoken with their votes. Arguments can be made for either, and really they could be seen as interchangeable in many ways. For the purposes of discussion, I think it helps if we just agree on the tiers, based on the majority.

 

Definitely hard to choose with the teams you brought up, they are both full of franchise/ superstar/ elite talent, and it shows in their dominance.

 

Glad Babych-esque showed strong. Where my old people at?

 

 

I think Babych himself is a pretty good example of how I would distinguish between the terms.  I think there is no question in his Winnipeg days that Dave Babych was an elite player.  I think he was something like 6th place for the Norris Trophy and had over 70 points.  At the same time...he wasn't the franchise player.  That was Dale Hawerchuk and then Babych was in a mix with Thomas Steen and Paul MacLean, though I would say he was closer to being the franchise player than those two.  Was he a superstar?  That's probably pushing it.  He was a star player though.

[IBatch]

On 12/31/2023 at 2:11 PM, -AJ- said:

 

I was thinking about Lidstrom, but I don't think he crosses the gap. The Conn Smythe is probably his greatest single achievement, but he never won the Lester B. Pearson/Ted Lindsay, nor was he ever even a finalist for the Hart trophy. Orr, for instance, won three Hart trophies and finished 3rd in voting another four times.

 

For my money, Orr is the only generational NHL defenseman there's ever been. The rest of the top end elite D like Lidstrom, Shore, Harvey, Bourque, Potvin, etc are just barely a level below. I'll be curious to see if Makar can ever seriously get into the Hart conversation or win a Ted Lindsay. He's already got a Conn Smythe, so that's a great start.

Borque for sure was generational, as was Coffey.    For one, we haven't seen anything like either of them until just the past couple years.   In Makar.   As an NHL D that starts with a Calder or almost right away, and just keeps doing it.    Borque's accolades from start to finish put him there.   Watched every single post season game televised in 1989-1990, and a few of the 1988 run as well.   1988 they just couldn't do it (Bruins), EDM at the peak of their powers, their young players now in their primes, it looked like they would win the next 5-7 cups then.   Easily.    Borque was Bostons super-star.    Their captain, and Neely wasn't filling the net like he would later.   Middleton was a great player, but over the hill.    They absolutely peppered Ranford.   That series was closer than the five games suggests.   

 

To me a generational player, starts almost right away, is drafted, and there isn't much lag.   Borque learned from Park his rookie year.   Was blessed with a Scott Steven's physique,  215, by the end played at 230-235.   Was maybe 6', was a block.     First and second team all-star matters a lot, because that means they are tops or near tops in the league, at their position, or at least perceived that way, and it's accurate enough really.    And it's pretty easy to go back and compare who he was playing against.   Larry Robinson and Potvin, even Park at the start,  Pronger, Neidermayer, Steven's, Lidstrom, Blake, Zubov, Leetch,  Al Mac etc, at the end .. Norris, Hart.... You will only find a very small list of guys who did this: 

 

Edit.   Will add, 22 years ... how old was he when he started?   To me Borque > then Lidstrom.   He also led the COL team to their last cup, not as much on the ice as the locker room, but was still a vital cog to that stacked team.    Probably the best cup hand off all-time.   Even though COL was our enemy, when Borque was on that team, all the people I know from my generation, was rooting for them.   And beating NJ, another stacked and great team, made it one of the best finals ever.   It also proved that Roy was better than Broduer.    Not that i personally needed to witness that to know.    Those early 80's Boston teams were just ok.   And the late 90's ones were downright bad.   Borque was the perfect defenseman,  his highlights stand the test of time, could have the hit of the year, and the play of the year by a defenseman.    There were no flaws.   Wish that folks that got to see Lidstrom, also got to see Al Mac,  Potvin, Robinson, Borque and Coffey do their thing.   Al Mac became a very good defender with time.   Borque started that way,  what a skater, puckhandler, defender...he was everything for his Bruins teams.    Before 2011, Boston  had better teams that didn't win a  cup, a big part of that is Borque, but it was also the Oats and Neely show.. it was better then the Hull and Oats show (and meeting EDM in the final twice).    That team was stacked.   PIT/Boston/NYR ... the East was the Beast in the early to mid 90's. 

Before 2011, Boston wasn't the enemy to a lot of us fans who grew up in the 70's and 80's. 

 

Only other generational guy that managed this was Gordie Howe when he first retired from hockey, and Ovechkin up until this year.    So just Howe, who's a once in a lifetime sort.  If that.       

 

Edit:  Just look at that TOI.  Aged 37-42.   Doubt Makar, Hughes, Heiskanen, Fox  or anyone except maybe Dahlin from this current group of guys, is doing that later.  It's also why his scoring records are just as impossible to beat, as Gretzky's.   Bet he could have played past the lockout if he wanted to as well and pulled a Chelios.   But didn't.   Also bet if he did, like Zubov, would have had some epic scoring increases.    Coffey was the guy everyone wanted to be, or have in the 80's,  Borque took that mantle.      As for Coffey ..: Borque played long enough to pass his records, and become the player we all wanted instead.   It took time though.   

Edited January 2 by IBatch

[IBatch]

Potvin.   He was generational too.   Once in a generation.   Was highly touted and more than made up for the hype.    If that group of guys, didn't have that run of five finals in a row..well it took a toll.    He was their leader, and he was one tough SOB.     That team called him "Dad" because he was the leader of the group.   Made Trottier part of that group.  The NYI sucked when he was drafted.    He legitimized them right away, and is exactly what you hope for in a number one pick.   Those MTL and PHI teams were very good, and the NYI beat them both.    And beat the Oilers their fourth cup in a row.   They all believe, had they played them a few years earlier, and weren't playing 100 hard games a year, they'd of beat them twice.     It shortened Bossy's career, and Potvin also played injured his final years as well.   Retired as the all-time leader in points, and Gretzky named him the scariest player he'd ever played against.   Not Lemieux, or Bossy, or Selanne, Yzerman, Dionne, Sakic, Lafluer etc etc.  Also says that they played that team differently the second time,  and it was all about how they played Potvin.   If that isn't a testament to the player, not sure what is.  

 

The leader of one of the best dynasties all-time, that holds a record of consecutive playoff series that is now impossible to beat.    For a decade, Potvin was at, or near the top of the heap.    That's good enough for me.   

 

[Phil_314]

On 1/1/2024 at 6:49 PM, Got the Babych said:

I had Elite as my top, too, but the group has spoken with their votes. Arguments can be made for either, and really they could be seen as interchangeable in many ways. For the purposes of discussion, I think it helps if we just agree on the tiers, based on the majority.

 

Definitely hard to choose with the teams you brought up, they are both full of franchise/ superstar/ elite talent, and it shows in their dominance.

 

Glad Babych-esque showed strong. Where my old people at?

Hey all good, it's just words anyways, and we can all appreciate really good players.