Here's a guy I haven't seen listed but what about Steve Nash? The way he orchestrated the offense was unique and the 7 second or less thing apparently took off since that pace of play is slow compared to what we have now.
I think Jason Williams of the Kings was the first to do that...that whole Kings squad changed the way the game was played....my problem with Nash and his MVP nods were his turnover numbers...he'd have 7 a game some nights and he was terrible defensively
Sabonis was a pretty good defender, too. We think of him after the injury, but I remember watching him play against Indiana during a US tour when I believe he was 19. He not only was a tremendous shot blocker, he was very agile laterally. Also a good screen setter. Just such rare instincts and feel for the game that enabled him to play for so long after the injuries. We also tend to forget another really good center who was a contemporary of Robinson: Patrick Ewing.
I think the center who gets the most forgotten (aside from Sabonis, as he didn't spend his prime/peak in the NBA) is Moses Malone. He was amazing himself, and also a tough cut.
Absolutely. He doesn't get nearly the attention these days ... his legend hasn't aged well. Phenom. Absolute phenom.
Curry re-defined the court's geometry too. Not only does everyone fire up threes, more and more players are shooting from 30+ feet, forcing the defense to defend more of the court, making the game more wide open and dynamic. He also made shooting off the dribble and step-back threes a standard weapon, rather than something you pull out as a last resort against tight defense. LeBron James was the era's best overall player, but Curry affected the actual game more. I definitely consider him an era-defining player.
There's certainly overlap of generational players, but I think there's also significant distinctions - as one player is winding down a new one is starting a new generation, or era. Kareem era bleeds into Bird/Magic era bleeds into Jordan era bleeds into Kobe era bleeds into LBJ era...
I'd replace Kobe with Shaq, as I think Shaq was more dominant and I'd rather build a franchise around a young Shaq than a young Kobe, but in general that's certainly a defensible progression.
I think this is the best way to define this argument (although I agree with @Minstrel that it was the Shaq era rather than Kobe). The player/s who basically defined basketball during their prime. And I think it's fair to say that the Lebron era has bled into the Curry era (which will be really interesting to see how that develops next year if Durant leaves GSW).
Maybe a bad memory but it seems like Kobe did it longer and did end up with 5 championships and the current generation I think looks up to Kobe more (figuratively).
Using a quick-and-dirty measure of PER, Shaq was putting up 24+ PER seasons for 14 years--from his rookie season through his second year in Miami. He tacked on a couple more 20+ PER seasons and a few 17+ PER seasons. Kobe had a TOTAL of six 24+ PER seasons, mixed in with a lot of 21-22 PER seasons. Even reducing the standard for Kobe down to 20+ PER, he had a 14 season prime (again, compared with Shaq's 14 season prime of above 24 PER, with some extra 17-22 PER seasons). So I definitely don't think Kobe did it longer (unless you mean literal career length--Kobe played one season more than Shaq, but that would be pretty nitpicky). He did end up with 5 titles--but Shaq had 4, so it's not like there was a huge difference there, especially considering that I think Shaq was the larger factor in the three they won together and Kobe had the pre-insane Phil Jackson for all five titles. As for the current generation looking up to Kobe more, that's likely. Kobe was pretty careful to mirror Jordan's career as closely as possible, right down to his retirement letter. That made him seem quite a better than he was, as though he was a second Jordan (his performance pales in comparison to Jordan's...and to Shaq's).
What I mean by Longer is that really after the 3 championships Shaq was never that dominant again, and had a bunch of years wondering around Phoenix, the Celtics and the Cavs, even though he still had some good years and one won with Miami he wasn't ever really the best player on his team after that, he was better in Miami then he gets credit for, but that team was pretty clearly Wades team. It seems like Kobe won 5 championships in the 00's and was always one of the top guys in the league every year there. Shaq's window was more like 90's to early '00s and after that, it seemed like he just wasn't the same dominant force.
Sure, it seems that way, but his production wasn't really that elite outside of those 6 seasons. Even when Shaq didn't seem like the same dominant guy, he was still producing at a very high level. That's why I'm a little leery of perceptions--Kobe was great at looking the part (and he was obviously a great player) but he wasn't nearly as dominant as he was perceived to be.
Id agree that he wasnt as Dominant as percevied to be. PER isnt a great measure of dominance though. I kind of wonder if maybe it should be Jordan - Duncan - Lebron?
Question, If there is more than one generational talent playing in the nba at the same time, then how are they generational?
