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