Generational talents

[PCmor7]

All these Zion threads got me thinking: How do we define a generational talent?

I tried to think who I would consider a generational or transcendent talent, and here's who I came up with ...

George Mikan
Bob Cousy
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Oscar Robertson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Shaquille O'Neal
Kobe Bryant
LeBron James

That's it for me. Walton and Sabonis, had they remained healthy, would have no doubt been on this list. Never saw enough of a healthy Oden to say that he would have. Guys like Maravich, Dr. J., Duncan and Durant fall into the next tier for me, just shy of the very rarest of the rare, and you probably could change my mind and convince me they should be included.

 

[PCmor7]

Jerry West probably in the almost-at-the-top group, too.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I would include both Sabas and Walton, despite their health issues. Dr. J deserves inclusion as well, IMO.

 

[Minstrel]

All these Zion threads got me thinking: How do we define a generational talent?

I tried to think who I would consider a generational or transcendent talent, and here's who I came up with ...

George Mikan
Bob Cousy
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Oscar Robertson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Shaquille O'Neal
Kobe Bryant
LeBron James

That's it for me. Walton and Sabonis, had they remained healthy, would have no doubt been on this list. Never saw enough of a healthy Oden to say that he would have. Guys like Maravich, Dr. J., Duncan and Durant fall into the next tier for me, just shy of the very rarest of the rare, and you probably could change my mind and convince me they should be included.

So, you mean players who proved to be generational over their NBA careers (as opposed to who were generational prospects entering the league)?

My list would be:

George Mikan
Bill Russell
Jerry West
Wilt Chamberlain
Oscar Robertson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
David Robinson
Tim Duncan
LeBron James
Kevin Durant
Stephen Curry

Kobe Bryant is the one that I went back and forth on. I thought he and Tracy McGrady were essentially carbon copies, except McGrady had back issues. But, in the end, neither rose to the level of transcendent talent for me. Sabonis probably was such a talent, but I'm only including players who were transcendent in the NBA.

 

[PCmor7]

So, you mean players who proved to be generational over their NBA careers (as opposed to who were generational prospects entering the league)?

I'm meaning guys who weren't projected as generational talents but those who actually performed as such in the NBA, so performers not prospects. If we did a list of generational prospects it'd be littered with guys who just were very good and even some busts.

But that's just my definition. I think other definitions are valid.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I'm defining this as guys who performed in the NBA who in my mind were transcendent talents.

• Kareem
• Michael Jordan
• Lebron James
• Shaq
• Hakeem
• Magic
• Larry Bird (does this mean Jake Layman too????? ),
• Mikan
• West
• Bill Walton (injuries and all + I'm a Blazer fan so...)
• Steph Curry
• Wilt

Guys who get an honorable mention, Oscar Robertson, Kobe, Duncan, Iverson.

Edit: Edited this to make it readable.

 

[kjironman1]

Durant and Dr J are absolutely generational talents in my opinion.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Durant and Dr J are absolutely generational talents in my opinion.

If KD ever wants put on that list for me, he has to go somewhere else and win one or get really close to one. He never got OKC over the top, and OKC is worse without him but not ALOT worse, and also I'm convinced while KD is obviously great, the Warriors go where Steph takes them.

 

[Minstrel]

If KD ever wants put on that list for me, he has to go somewhere else and win one or get really close to one. He never got OKC over the top, and OKC is worse without him but not ALOT worse

I think they're a lot worse. With Durant (and no Paul George, obviously), they were on the cusp of knocking out the 73-win Warriors and would have been favored in the Finals, IMO. Plus they reached a Finals previously. Without Durant, and even with Paul George as a poor man's replacement, they're not even sniffing title contention.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I think they're a lot worse. With Durant (and no Paul George, obviously), they were on the cusp of knocking out the 73-win Warriors and would have been favored in the Finals, IMO. Plus they reached a Finals previously. Without Durant, and even with Paul George as a poor man's replacement, they're not even sniffing title contention.

All it did was knock them from a title contending team, to a team that's among the very good NBA teams that's in the playoffs. I guess it's semantics to an extent but I wouldn't call it "a lot" worse, totally respect it if you would call it that though, and I think it's a fair assessment.
I still stand by that if KD wants to be a "transcendent" talent for me he has to win one where the cards aren't completely stacked in his favor.

 

[Minstrel]

I still stand by that if KD wants to be a "transcendent" talent for me he has to win one where the cards aren't completely stacked in his favor.

I think that's a pretty tough thing to judge--you have to have enough talent around you to make winning a title possible, but not "too much." Magic Johnson's title-winning teams were awfully talented, apart from him. Ditto Larry Bird's. Bill Russell's were arguably more stacked, relative to the era, than the current Warriors.

 

[PCmor7]

Without Durant, and even with Paul George as a poor man's replacement, they're not even sniffing title contention.

Don't tell ESPN that ...

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I think that's a pretty tough thing to judge--you have to have enough talent around you to make winning a title possible, but not "too much." Magic Johnson's title-winning teams were awfully talented, apart from him. Ditto Larry Bird's. Bill Russell's were arguably more stacked, relative to the era, than the current Warriors.

Of course, I'm not saying he needs to Drag a G-League team to the title, I just feel like Steph is far more important to GS then Durant. Durant's legit and maybe I should have him on my honorable mentions list, but he just falls a bit short for me until I feel like he's "the man" on a title team, I don't think he'll be that in GS.

 

[PCmor7]

I think that's a pretty tough thing to judge--you have to have enough talent around you to make winning a title possible, but not "too much." Magic Johnson's title-winning teams were awfully talented, apart from him. Ditto Larry Bird's. Bill Russell's were arguably more stacked, relative to the era, than the current Warriors.

I think the knock on Durant, and I think it's fair, is that he joined a team that won the title. In fact, he joined the team that his team almost but couldn't quite beat.

 

[blue9]

So, you mean players who proved to be generational over their NBA careers (as opposed to who were generational prospects entering the league)?

My list would be:

George Mikan
Bill Russell
Jerry West
Wilt Chamberlain
Oscar Robertson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
David Robinson
Tim Duncan
LeBron James
Kevin Durant
Stephen Curry

Kobe Bryant is the one that I went back and forth on. I thought he and Tracy McGrady were essentially carbon copies, except McGrady had back issues. But, in the end, neither rose to the level of transcendent talent for me. Sabonis probably was such a talent, but I'm only including players who were transcendent in the NBA.

I can't speak for those before Kareem, so I'll start there and say I mostly agree with your list but it should end at LBJ, and though I don't like it Kobe should be on it. Neither Curry nor Durant belong in that group of players. They are more on the Stockton/Nash/Barkley/T-Mac level - damned good players, but a notch below the cream of the crop.

 

[Minstrel]

I think the knock on Duran, and I think it's fair, is that he joined a team that won the title. In fact, he joined the team that his team almost but couldn't quite beat.

It's definitely the knock on him. I don't think it's fair, personally, but I get the negative perception of it.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I can't speak for those before Kareem, so I'll start there and say I mostly agree with your list but it should end at LBJ, and though I don't like it Kobe should be on it. Neither Curry nor Durant belong in that group of players. They are more on the Stockton/Nash/Barkley/T-Mac level - damned good players, but a notch below the cream of the crop.

Interesting, So I was born in 85 and a lot of the older guys I didn't get to see "every game" but I've always tried to see the history of the NBA. My argument for Curry would be it is very rare that a guy has one skill that dominates games the way Curry's shot does, I equate it to Shaq. Shaq's presence on the court changed everything the other team did. Curry's presence on the court completely changes the defenses that GS see's, teams are scared he might get a good look from 35 feet, and he can make those at an incredible pace too. Just my opinion doesn't mean he makes your list, but that is my rationale for Curry.

 

[Minstrel]

Neither Curry nor Durant belong in that group of players. They are more on the Stockton/Nash/Barkley/T-Mac level - damned good players, but a notch below the cream of the crop.

I think Curry has an argument as the best offensive player ever, considering both his insane scoring efficiency despite the number of shots he takes as well as his unique "gravity," the attention he forces from the defense opening up all his teammates for far better shots.

In a one-on-one league, Curry wouldn't be nearly as good as players like Jordan, Durant or even Kobe--but in a team-based game, his effect on overall team offense in distorting defenses is unrivaled in NBA history, IMO.

 

[PCmor7]

It's definitely the knock on him. I don't think it's fair, personally, but I get the negative perception of it.

I mean, to me, it's kind of the equivalent of Bird joining the Lakers one year after losing to them in the finals, or Jordan joining the Pistons. He was on a great up-and-coming team that almost reached the pinnacle. Just seems to me that he took the easy way and avoided the challenge of taking his team to the next level.

Still, obviously, an incredible talent, but he's done more than a few things that kind of irritated me with his impetuousness.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

It's definitely the knock on him. I don't think it's fair, personally, but I get the negative perception of it.

I didn't like the move at all, but I am "ok" with it in the sense I think Players should be able to make whatever moves they want too when they become FA's. So I respect the decision though I don't like it.
I guess to me I think it's fair that it's a knock on him, the legend around Jordan would be totally different if he had of left Chicago and went to Detroit and started winning there.

 

[Minstrel]

I guess to me I think it's fair that it's a knock on him, the legend around Jordan would be totally different if he had of left Chicago and went to Detroit and started winning there.

It's fair in terms of "legend" or other narrative-based judgements. I don't think it's fair in terms of judging his quality as a player.

 

[H.C.]

I won't argue with any list.
I will say that it's greatly disappointing that Dirk isn't listed on any list so far.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

It's fair in terms of "legend" or other narrative-based judgements. I don't think it's fair in terms of judging his quality as a player.

I don't know if I really agree a distinction should be made there, I think a players "legend" is a big part of how we perceive the quality of them as players. Interesting though, I'm gonna have to mull it over.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't know if I really agree a distinction should be made there, I think a players "legend" is a big part of how we perceive the quality of them as players. Interesting though, I'm gonna have to mull it over.

It's the unromantic "how much value did this player produce on the floor with his mixture of skills" versus the quality of the story that can be told about the player's career. I agree that "legend" plays a large part in perceptions of a player's overall quality, but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Humans are very narrative-based--they love stories.

 

[PCmor7]

It's the unromantic "how much value did this player produce on the floor with his mixture of skills" versus the quality of the story that can be told about the player's career. I agree that "legend" plays a large part in perceptions of a player's overall quality, but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Humans are very narrative-based--they love stories.

Wait until my next thread: "Generational Message Board Posters."

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

It's the unromantic "how much value did this player produce on the floor with his mixture of skills" versus the quality of the story that can be told about the player's career. I agree that "legend" plays a large part in perceptions of a player's overall quality, but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Humans are very narrative-based--they love stories.

Yes, we are but when saying a guy is a Transcendent or Generational talent, I think the legend they left behind is important. Like I never saw Bill Russell live, I've obviously seen games where he played in bad quality video's from a long time ago, but I put him on my list, it has to be said that his legend played a large part in why. So I would agree that "Skills" and "legend" are different, I think in this type of discussion they both play a huge role in who we would put on our list.

 

[Minstrel]

Yes, we are but when saying a guy is a Transcendent or Generational talent, I think the legend they left behind is important. Like I never saw Bill Russell live, I've obviously seen games where he played in bad quality video's from a long time ago, but I put him on my list, it has to be said that his legend played a large part in why. So I would agree that "Skills" and "legend" are different, I think in this type of discussion they both play a huge role in who we would put on our list.

Yeah, everyone defines what it means to be "transcendent" differently. The working definition I'm using is the players who's skillsets best allowed them to be foundational players for a franchise. So while the narratives or legends are interesting and fun, they don't actually impact my rankings. David Robinson should make that clear, as he suffers in the narrative department, by and large.

Regarding your example of Bill Russell, I'd personally make a distinction between "legend" and historical accounts. I also didn't see Russell play, so my putting him in my list isn't based on first-hand observation--it's based on contemporaneous accounts of his ability, supplemented by seeing the numbers at various points. His "legend" could be argued to be about how he and his teams always got the best of Chamberlain and his teams, but that isn't actually relevant to me putting him on my list.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Yeah, everyone defines what it means to be "transcendent" differently. The working definition I'm using is the players who's skillsets best allowed them to be foundational players for a franchise. So while the narratives or legends are interesting and fun, they don't actually impact my rankings. David Robinson should make that clear, as he suffers in the narrative department, by and large.

Regarding your example of Bill Russell, I'd personally make a distinction between "legend" and historical accounts. I also didn't see Russell play, so my putting him in my list isn't based on first-hand observation--it's based on contemporaneous accounts of his ability, supplemented by seeing the numbers at various points. His "legend" could be argued to be about how he and his teams always got the best of Chamberlain and his teams, but that isn't actually relevant to me putting him on my list.

Fair enough, it's a very interesting conversation. Respect your take on it.

 

[Minstrel]

Fair enough, it's a very interesting conversation. Respect your take on it.

Agreed, glad to have the conversation!

 

[tlongII]

I think you have to put Tim Duncan on that list.