Generational talents (1 Viewer)

[riverman]

Dr J for sure on the original list...I'd add Dirk and Duncan and Iverson to the list as well as West and Walton...I'd probably add David Robinson as well

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

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

I really thought about it, he’s kind of the most interesting case study of NBA Greats for me. I dont think there was a single year in his career I thought he was a top 2-3 player in the NBA. He didnt really dominate games in the way thats conventional. He was just so freaking good at everything one of the few players that for his position didnt really have a weakness, and ultimately he just won.

He probably should be on my list, Im talking myself into it!

 

[andalusian]

I really thought about it, he’s kind of the most interesting case study of NBA Greats for me. I dont think there was a single year in his career I thought he was a top 2-3 player in the NBA. He didnt really dominate games in the way thats conventional. He was just so freaking good at everything one of the few players that for his position didnt really have a weakness, and ultimately he just won.

He probably should be on my list, Im talking myself into it!

I disagree. The man had 5 years with PER > 26 in an era without the crazy pace that we have now and the crazy numbers people put thanks to the 3 ball - while also being first team all-defensive team in 4 of these 5 years. He won MVP 2 of these years (should have probably won 3, KG won in one of the years where TD was better than him - but everyone was excited for KG finally winning).

PER is an offense stat mostly, and remember that the 7 seconds or less Suns (the fastest team in pace during these times) would be among the slowest teams in the NBA today (2nd slowest if I remember correctly a stat I saw recently).

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Tim Duncan is above Kobe and should be on the list.

KD is not a generational talent.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I disagree. The man had 5 years with PER > 26 in an era without the crazy pace that we have now and the crazy numbers people put thanks to the 3 ball - while also being first team all-defensive team in 4 of these 5 years. He won MVP 2 of these years (should have probably won 3, KG won in one of the years where TD was better than him - but everyone was excited for KG finally winning).

PER is an offense stat mostly, and remember that the 7 seconds or less Suns (the fastest team in pace during these times) would be among the slowest teams in the NBA today (2nd slowest if I remember correctly a stat I saw recently).

Well Lebron after his rookie season couldve arguably won MVP just about every year imo. I understand that he was incredible in his own right. Then early in his career Shaq was there, So yeah I suppose you could say he was a top 2-3 guy a few of those years.

 

[Stevenson]

I'm usually alone on this, but I think Allen Iverson is way overrated. He was really just a showy ballhog who jacked up a lot of shots so he scored a lot of points. Just checked, and his career FG% is a measly .415. His 3-pt% was .313. Far from transcendent.

David Robinson was a great center, but really sort of run-of-the-mill in that dept., a la Patrick Ewing, Sabonis, etc. Super players, but not generational talents.

I agree with @riverman, Dirk and Duncan should be on the list though. And Karl Malone was the best pure PF I ever saw.

 

[PCmor7]

I still remember Sabonis destroying Robinson in the World Championships, I think. I just have a hard time putting Robinson in the absolute top level after that. I can't imagine a generational guy being so thoroughly dominated by a guy his own age; they can't both be generational.

 

[Minstrel]

I still remember Sabonis destroying Robinson in the World Championships, I think. I just have a hard time putting Robinson in the absolute top level after that. I can't imagine a generational guy being so thoroughly dominated by a guy his own age; they can't both be generational.

First of all, they both could be generational. Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain were generational and direct counterparts. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, too. It's not at all uncommon for generational players to play each other.

Second, it's a myth that Sabonis dominated Robinson in the World Championships (another reason "legend" can be a bit problematic). Sabonis posted a very nice 16 points, 13 rebounds and 4 blocks. The "dominated" Robinson? 20 points, 7 rebounds, 4 blocks. You could argue Sabonis was better, preferring 6 extra rebounds to 4 extra points, but the difference between those two performances is negligible. They basically both played well.

They also played in the 1988 Olympics and Robinson had 23 points and 12 boards, while Sabonis had 13 points and 13 rebounds. Granted, this was after Sabonis' first injury (I believe), so you could toss this out if you want, but these were their two international meetings.

 

[KingSpeed]

I’ve followed the NBA for 30 years. There have only been 4 generational guaranteed trip to Finals players entering the league: Shaq, Duncan, LeBron, and Oden.

 

[KingSpeed]

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.

Dirk wasn’t considered generational coming into the league.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

You can't be a generational talent and not have ever won a regular season MVP

 

[KingSpeed]

You can't be a generational talent and not have ever won a regular season MVP

Aren’t we talking about entering the league? Zion is being talked about as a generational talent and he hasn’t won a regular season GAME.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Aren’t we talking about entering the league? Zion is being talked about as a generational talent and he hasn’t won a regular season GAME.

I dunno, seems to me we were talking about performance in the league and who were generatinaltalenfs when it was all said and done . Hype from college is another issue.

Otherwise Danny Manning and Larry Johnson would be on the list

 

[PCmor7]

First of all, they both could be generational. Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain were generational and direct counterparts. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, too. It's not at all uncommon for generational players to play each other.

Second, it's a myth that Sabonis dominated Robinson in the World Championships (another reason "legend" can be a bit problematic). Sabonis posted a very nice 16 points, 13 rebounds and 4 blocks. The "dominated" Robinson? 20 points, 7 rebounds, 4 blocks. You could argue Sabonis was better, preferring 6 extra rebounds to 4 extra points, but the difference between those two performances is negligible. They basically both played well.

They also played in the 1988 Olympics and Robinson had 23 points and 12 boards, while Sabonis had 13 points and 13 rebounds. Granted, this was after Sabonis' first injury (I believe), so you could toss this out if you want, but these were their two international meetings.

I can't see having two generational players the same age, with the possible exception of Bird-Magic. We're already kind of pushing it. Generational means a guy that comes around once in a generation. It's more than special. Just MO.

As for the head to head, those stats definitely surprised me. Not what I remembered. I remember Sabonis dunking on Robinson a couple of times and blocking him a couple of times. The unfortunate thing is we don't have the assists, because Sabonis also was such a gifted playmaker.

 

[Minstrel]

I can't see having two generational players the same age, with the possible exception of Bird-Magic. We're already kind of pushing it. Generational means a guy that comes around once in a generation. It's more than special. Just MO.

I agree. I kind of made that same point in my first post about it in the Zion trade value thread--we get "generational" prospects or talents much more often than once per generation. Russell and Wilt were both definitely of the same caliber, as were Magic and Bird (well, I'd take Magic very slightly over Bird, but still). "Generational" is probably a bad tag, unless you want to be ultra-exclusive--like Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, LeBron or something.

"Generation-defining" might be a better tag...multiple players could define a generation.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I can't see having two generational players the same age, with the possible exception of Bird-Magic. We're already kind of pushing it. Generational means a guy that comes around once in a generation. It's more than special. Just MO.

As for the head to head, those stats definitely surprised me. Not what I remembered. I remember Sabonis dunking on Robinson a couple of times and blocking him a couple of times. The unfortunate thing is we don't have the assists, because Sabonis also was such a gifted playmaker.

Sabonis was also basically playing by himself against the greatest team ever assembled so, its very hard to compare.

 

[H.C.]

Dirk wasn’t considered generational coming into the league.

And?



Wait
Why am I even responding to you.

 

[hoopsjock]

Sabonis was also basically playing by himself against the greatest team ever assembled so, its very hard to compare.

I think they're talking about the 1988 Olympics, not the 1992 Dream Team. Sabonis is the reason the Dream Team was formed.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

And?



Wait
Why am I even responding to you.

Im not sure how I feel about Dirk when I think of generational talents, this isnt meant as disrespect to you or Dirk, but I dont really think of him on that level.

Obviously won a championship and a MVP. Great career too. Maybe I should put him up there.

 

[Minstrel]

I think they're talking about the 1988 Olympics, not the 1992 Dream Team. Sabonis is the reason the Dream Team was formed.

1986 World Championships and 1988 Olympics, yeah. The US barely won the World Championships and lost the Olympics. Both were when the US still fielded amateurs.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I think they're talking about the 1988 Olympics, not the 1992 Dream Team. Sabonis is the reason the Dream Team was formed.

Oh I think you’re right, my bad.

 

[KingSpeed]

And?



Wait
Why am I even responding to you.

I thought since Zion isn’t in NBA, we were talking about talent level/hype coming into the league.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I thought since Zion isn’t in NBA, we were talking about talent level/hype coming into the league.

This thread I believe was more about generational NBA talents more than just who was hyped to be a generational talent. I think that conversation was in the Zion thread.

 

[riverman]

I don't think the definition of "generational talents" is very clear....players of each generation have affected the way the game is played...had an impact on the sport that gave them some sort of legacy I guess....Pete Maravich changed the way guys created shots for themselves ...Dirk...Iverson...Shaq...Walton...Wilt...West...it's really a long list for a long list of reasons...Spud Webb changed the game....Iverson changed the perception of small guys being soft in the paint...Jason Williams with the Kings changed the way pt guards passed the ball....so did Meadow Lark Lemon and that amazing Globe Trotter squad. It's tough to narrow it down to a few players for me...great thread though...Karl Malone and John Stockton were the blueprint for the pick and roll for many, many young kids learning the game. Gary Payton showed that a pt guard could dominate with defense

 

[borim69]

John Stockton belongs on this list. Holds not 1 but 2 NBA records that probably will not be broke at least for 20 years. he has 3000 more assists then #2 and 1000 more steals then #2. Not sure of the definition of generational player but if this aint it then no one else belongs on this list either.

 

[PCmor7]

I agree. I kind of made that same point in my first post about it in the Zion trade value thread--we get "generational" prospects or talents much more often than once per generation. Russell and Wilt were both definitely of the same caliber, as were Magic and Bird (well, I'd take Magic very slightly over Bird, but still). "Generational" is probably a bad tag, unless you want to be ultra-exclusive--like Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, LeBron or something.

"Generation-defining" might be a better tag...multiple players could define a generation.

I think that's an excellent point. I think those four you mentioned really are the generational of the generational ... except how do you not include Bird and Magic, who re-invigorated the game with their ability to play so creatively at their heights. In fact, I was thinking about this last night, how their rivalry almost was the most generational thing about them, because it turned on a whole new generation of fans to the NBA and paved the way for the success the game enjoys today.

I suppose, in that sense, they might have been better described as "transcendent."

 

[Minstrel]

I think that's an excellent point. I think those four you mentioned really are the generational of the generational ... except how do you not include Bird and Magic, who re-invigorated the game with their ability to play so creatively at their heights.

Well, that's my point. To truly use a "generational" tag, your list has to be so exclusive that you have to exclude people that seem like they should belong. If we add Bird and Magic, then you have three prime "generational" players playing at the same time in Magic, Bird and Jordan.

"Transcendent" is an easier tag for me to define--players who transcended the game of basketball. In that sense, you could certainly apply that to Bird and Magic, as they weren't just popular within the game as it existed, they made the game exciting for many more people and grew the game. Jordan would also get the tag as the first basketball player who truly became a worldwide icon, such that even people who didn't care about basketball in nations that didn't care about basketball knew who he was. LeBron James might qualify--you could argue he's a cultural icon known even among non-basketball fans.

But if we adjust the "generational" tag to "generation-defining," then I'm satisfied with the list I posted at the start. They can't all be generational, but they were the most dominant basketball players, to me.

 

[PCmor7]

Well, that's my point. To truly use a "generational" tag, your list has to be so exclusive that you have to exclude people that seem like they should belong. If we add Bird and Magic, then you have three prime "generational" players playing at the same time in Magic, Bird and Jordan.

"Transcendent" is an easier tag for me to define--players who transcended the game of basketball. In that sense, you could certainly apply that to Bird and Magic, as they weren't just popular within the game as it existed, they made the game exciting for many more people and grew the game. Jordan would also get the tag as the first basketball player who truly became a worldwide icon, such that even people who didn't care about basketball in nations that didn't care about basketball knew who he was. LeBron James might qualify--you could argue he's a cultural icon known even among non-basketball fans.

But if we adjust the "generational" tag to "generation-defining," then I'm satisfied with the list I posted at the start. They can't all be generational, but they were the most dominant basketball players, to me.

I agree with you on that. I used the term "generational" because that's the term that most people have been using, even though it's been misappropriated for use of players like this. I joked in another thread how these generational players only come around ever couple of years.

Getting away from the semantics, I guess my perception of Bird and Magic is they were so close in ability, more than I perceived a prime, healthy Sabonis and David Robinson to be. Where I see Sabonis as a ferocious rebounder and a uniquely artful passer for his size with unusual shooting range for a player his size, Robinson was something a notch less than that. He was better than most of the contemporaries at his position, but he was a typical player at his position who just had more traditional statistical success. Right or wrong, he wasn't a player that I ever feared as an opponent like I dreaded facing Bird, Magic, Jordan, Kobe or LeBron because of their ability to just take over games or rise to the occasion during crunch time.

But I don't see either Sabas or Robinson as that absolute elite level. I think had Sabonis remained relatively healthy, he almost certainly ascends. But he didn't. It is what it is.

 

[Minstrel]

The other thing to remember about Robinson was that he was among the greatest defensive players of all-time, in addition to being a dominant scorer. He didn't have the passing chops of Sabonis (few ever have, at that position), but he had a pretty complete offensive game (mid-range jumper, face-up game, post moves, competent ability to pass out of a double-team) to go with all-time defense. He did have the misfortune the share the stage with two other amazing centers (Shaquille O'Neal and Hakeem Olajuwon), so I don't think he was ever fully appreciated for his own abilities. I think, though, that he'd be an amazing franchise foundation: a dominant offensive game that required a double-team and the kind of ability to anchor a team defense.

I assumed that Robinson would be my most controversial selection (and that Kobe Bryant would be my most controversial cut) but, to me, few have had superior skillsets to build a team around.

 

[blazerboy30]

Interesting discussion...

Perhaps I'm using the term "generational" too literally, but I feel that the list should essentially capture two things:
1) Players that changed the game such as: how it's played, rules changes, or how the rest of the league built their teams
2) Closer to 1 player per "generation".

By the above criteria, my list would look something like:

Mikan
Robertson
Wilt
Bird
Magic
Jordan
Shaq
Lebron