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.
I would include both Sabas and Walton, despite their health issues. Dr. J deserves inclusion as well, IMO.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's definitely the knock on him. I don't think it's fair, personally, but I get the negative perception of it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
