Who playing right now is an all time great, not counting end of career players

[thebuzzardman]

Was wondering which of the current group of players will be looked back at in 20 or 30 years as all time greats.
Players 30 and under

Not "very good" players. Not even "great" players. Who is an all time great?


Let's discard obvious candidates while acknowledging their greatness:

LeBron
Curry
sigh....Durant

Looking more at players with 8 or less years of experience, where it's pretty clear we are watching an all time great, or maybe you want to take a wild ass guess at a player with 2 or 3 years experience.

I'd say the group of ALL TIME greats playing right now is fairly small - at least ones clearly identifiable. IF you remove players at the tail end.


I've got:

Jokic
Giannis

bubble:
Harden (kind of getting near the end also)
Luka

Embiid will be remembered as great player. Not an all time great.
It's possible for all of Giannis freakishness, he might not get into a top 15 pantheon. Still, I think he'll be considered an all time great.


There are great players playing.
AD, Klay, Dame, Westbrook even.
Butler, Tatum, Kawhi, George, Paul, Booker, etc

I'm talking about all time great.

Right now, among players younger than 30:

Jokic, Giannis, Luka (maybe)

[DaGawd]

i’d put kawhi right up there with bron curry and durant even with his injury plagued career. he’s accomplished more than most who have been relatively injury free

[thebuzzardman]

i’d put kawhi right up there with bron curry and durant even with his injury plagued career. he’s accomplished more than most who have been relatively injury free

Agreed. But once we dip under the age of 30, who is there?

Jokic
Giannis
Luka?

I think those are the guys, as of right now, 20 years from now people say "Damn, I got see "X" play"

Again, Curry, LeBron, etc, already on the list with Durant, probably Harden and Kawhi.


Greatness is different from uniqueness, but I'd say the NBA has never seen a Giannis or Jokic before.
Even Donic, there are precursor players like Bird, Harden etc.

Never a dominating C like Wilt
Great C's but never a sky hook master like Kareem
Great point guards but never one 6'9" like Magic
Even Erving there's a line from Elgin Baylor to Connie Hawkins to Dr J
Never a guard as dominant on offense and defense as Jordan (Oscar Robertson was great though)
Never a SF/PF like Bird. Ok, maybe Rick Barry, but he was a Guard/SF
While Magic is a precursor to LeBron, never a player built like Karl Malone with Magic's game. Truly unique.

Never a 7 footer with the handle of Giannis, the freakish strides.
Walton and Sabonis might have been great passing Centers, but never on the level of Jokic. Not NBA Sabonis.

*And of course, never a player with a name as cool as Tobias Harris

[DOT]

Giannis

Jokic if he wins a ring this year

Too early to tell for a lot of the under-25 guys, but of that group, I'd say Luka has the best chance.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

It's semi interesting that the only people who are really in the conversation are all

* euros

* drafted way below where they should have been

[Jeffrey]

Dwight Howard. People sh.it on this guy but in his 20s, he had all of the accolades. A 2-way player before stretch 5.

[Jadoogar]

i’d put kawhi right up there with bron curry and durant even with his injury plagued career. he’s accomplished more than most who have been relatively injury free

I think Kawhi would have a more compelling case if he won one more FMVP. The list of players with 3+ finals mvps is extremely small: Duncan, Magic, Shaq, Lebron, MJ.

Even with his limited stats, 3 FMVPs would put him in the upper echelon of all time super stars.

[thebuzzardman]

It's semi interesting that the only people who are really in the conversation are all

* euros

* drafted way below where they should have been

Is AAU ball leveling out the freaks?

Draft position - always a crap shoot.

Totally reaching for it here, but is it that the hype pipeline bestows more perceived value to roughly 5 players per year than they really deserve and makes some diamonds slip?

Most likely the randomness of the draft and some lingering euro/foreign bias, though obviously it's WAY down from 10 or 20 years earlier.

There has be great players in Asia and Africa ready to emerge.

[DOT]

Dwight Howard. People sh.it on this guy but in his 20s, he had all of the accolades. A 2-way player before stretch 5.

Question was guys right now who are playing, not end of career guys

Dwight didn't play all last year and is 37, he doesn't count.

[thebuzzardman]

Dwight Howard. People sh.it on this guy but in his 20s, he had all of the accolades. A 2-way player before stretch 5.

Right, but the discussion is about under 30 players. I don't think Howard has less than 30 children.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

i’d put kawhi right up there with bron curry and durant even with his injury plagued career. he’s accomplished more than most who have been relatively injury free

Agreed. But once we dip under the age of 30, who is there?

Jokic
Giannis
Luka?

I think those are the guys, as of right now, 20 years from now people say "Damn, I got see "X" play"

Again, Curry, LeBron, etc, already on the list with Durant, probably Harden and Kawhi.


Greatness is different from uniqueness, but I'd say the NBA has never seen a Giannis or Jokic before.
Even Donic, there are precursor players like Bird, Harden etc.

Never a dominating C like Wilt
Great C's but never a sky hook master like Kareem
Great point guards but never one 6'9" like Magic
Even Erving there's a line from Elgin Baylor to Connie Hawkins to Dr J
Never a guard as dominant on offense and defense as Jordan (Oscar Robertson was great though)
Never a SF/PF like Bird. Ok, maybe Rick Barry, but he was a Guard/SF
While Magic is a precursor to LeBron, never a player built like Karl Malone with Magic's game. Truly unique.

Never a 7 footer with the handle of Giannis, the freakish strides.
Walton and Sabonis might have been great passing Centers, but never on the level of Jokic. Not NBA Sabonis.

*And of course, never a player with a name as cool as Tobias Harris

If AD wasn't made of glass he might be in the conversation.

Kyrie is obviously an extremely good player overall. But maybe on the step below your pantheon.

I'm a Zion non-believer. But maybe there are folks out there who still think he can get his weight under control. :ascii-shrug:

The main other candidate beyond Jok-Giannis-Luka is obviously another euro. Victor. And we haven't even seen him play.

I mean, I really like watching SGA or Murray or ... really quite a lot of guys who are SG/SF types, as you say in the line of Elgin Baylor and Dr J. But these are people who will be in the tier of Mark Aguirre or T-Mac. You will have enjoyed them, but replaceable in some sense.

JB for sure. Super fascinating to watch him posting up bigger players in the paint. Actually, not that I think he's on an all time great level, but current JB is kind of a unique proposition. Do we really have precedent for someone who is, meh, let's give him 6'2", with most of Hakeem's moves and who's game revolves around using them?

[thebuzzardman]

Giannis

Jokic if he wins a ring this year

Too early to tell for a lot of the under-25 guys, but of that group, I'd say Luka has the best chance.

I think Jokic bumps the bottom of the all time greats even without a chip, just for dominance in the regular season and uniqueness.

Though then we get into debate over all time great, and all time is what? Top 20? I didn't really define it, other than vaguely as top 15.

Barkley never won and it top 50. Also very unique player.
Ewing more ordinary, but is top 50.
Gervin not really unique, but a truly dominant scorer who didn't play a lick of defense, was top 50 last I checked; he might get bumped soon.

But that's "50 greatest". Is that all time great? All time great might mean top 10, expanded to top 15 or 20, since the league has been around for a while now.

[DOT]

Giannis

Jokic if he wins a ring this year

Too early to tell for a lot of the under-25 guys, but of that group, I'd say Luka has the best chance.

I think Jokic bumps the bottom of the all time greats even without a chip, just for dominance in the regular season and uniqueness.

Though then we get into debate over all time great, and all time is what? Top 20? I didn't really define it, other than vaguely as top 15.

Barkley never won and it top 50. Also very unique player.
Ewing more ordinary, but is top 50.
Gervin not really unique, but a truly dominant scorer who didn't play a lick of defense, was top 50 last I checked; he might get bumped soon.

But that's "50 greatest". Is that all time great? All time great might mean top 10, expanded to top 15 or 20, since the league has been around for a while now.

I think I just have a much stricter definition of all time great

But it's not that Jokic needs a ring, it's that I think he needs a bit more. Like, this is a bad way to judge, but he's not even top 250 in total points scored. Yeah, his peak is right up there, and he's already 125th in assists, so he's close, but not just yet. A ring puts him over the top, but he can still get there without a ring if he plays like this for a few more years.

[thebuzzardman]

i’d put kawhi right up there with bron curry and durant even with his injury plagued career. he’s accomplished more than most who have been relatively injury free

Agreed. But once we dip under the age of 30, who is there?

Jokic
Giannis
Luka?

I think those are the guys, as of right now, 20 years from now people say "Damn, I got see "X" play"

Again, Curry, LeBron, etc, already on the list with Durant, probably Harden and Kawhi.


Greatness is different from uniqueness, but I'd say the NBA has never seen a Giannis or Jokic before.
Even Donic, there are precursor players like Bird, Harden etc.

Never a dominating C like Wilt
Great C's but never a sky hook master like Kareem
Great point guards but never one 6'9" like Magic
Even Erving there's a line from Elgin Baylor to Connie Hawkins to Dr J
Never a guard as dominant on offense and defense as Jordan (Oscar Robertson was great though)
Never a SF/PF like Bird. Ok, maybe Rick Barry, but he was a Guard/SF
While Magic is a precursor to LeBron, never a player built like Karl Malone with Magic's game. Truly unique.

Never a 7 footer with the handle of Giannis, the freakish strides.
Walton and Sabonis might have been great passing Centers, but never on the level of Jokic. Not NBA Sabonis.

*And of course, never a player with a name as cool as Tobias Harris

If AD wasn't made of glass he might be in the conversation.

Kyrie is obviously an extremely good player overall. But maybe on the step below your pantheon.

I'm a Zion non-believer. But maybe there are folks out there who still think he can get his weight under control. :ascii-shrug:

The main other candidate beyond Jok-Giannis-Luka is obviously another euro. Victor. And we haven't even seen him play.

I mean, I really like watching SGA or Murray or ... really quite a lot of guys. JB for sure. Super fascinating to watch him posting up bigger players in the paint. But these are people who will be in the tier of Mark Aguirre or T-Mac. You will have enjoyed them, but replaceable in some sense.

Actually, not that I think he's on an all time great level, but current JB is kind of a unique proposition. Do we really have precedent for someone who is, meh, let's give him 6'2", with most of Hakeem's moves and who's game revolves around using them>

Couple of replies, and glad to see you posting more frequently again.

Something I was going to put in one of the original posts - is that IF Wenby stays healthy, he might wind up erasing some of Jokic's legacy.

Jokic is a scoring machine with freak like, top tier guard passing skills at C. So so on defense. Average.

If Wenby comes along, with a Durant game at 7 foot plus, plus the shotblocking - and when I say "Durant game", I mean Durant scoring plus passing, since, like most good players, Durant racks up decent amount of assists, then all the talk would suddenly become about Wenby, and less about Jokic.

There would still be the debate, since I'm going to assume that Jokic passes more than Wenby will, but the tapes indicate that Wenby is an very good passer.
It's just that Jokic is one of the best passers EVER, regardless of position.

Might be the modern day Jordan vs Bird vs Magic, who you want.

Brunson - I've posted a few times we should all take the time to appreciate Brunson, because he's really good and he's really unique.
I've posted over the years "how come the Knicks never get that really great or really interesting players with the cool/weird skillset?"

They've got one now, in Brunson.

At least for Knick fans, he'll be a "I remember when Brunson played..."

[thebuzzardman]

Giannis

Jokic if he wins a ring this year

Too early to tell for a lot of the under-25 guys, but of that group, I'd say Luka has the best chance.

I think Jokic bumps the bottom of the all time greats even without a chip, just for dominance in the regular season and uniqueness.

Though then we get into debate over all time great, and all time is what? Top 20? I didn't really define it, other than vaguely as top 15.

Barkley never won and it top 50. Also very unique player.
Ewing more ordinary, but is top 50.
Gervin not really unique, but a truly dominant scorer who didn't play a lick of defense, was top 50 last I checked; he might get bumped soon.

But that's "50 greatest". Is that all time great? All time great might mean top 10, expanded to top 15 or 20, since the league has been around for a while now.

I think I just have a much stricter definition of all time great

But it's not that Jokic needs a ring, it's that I think he needs a bit more. Like, this is a bad way to judge, but he's not even top 250 in total points scored. Yeah, his peak is right up there, and he's already 125th in assists, so he's close, but not just yet. A ring puts him over the top, but he can still get there without a ring if he plays like this for a few more years.

I generally think of all time great as Top 10, but I like to push it out to 15 or 20 - without even trying to name players, because they have been a LOT of all time greats.

But that list is the argument for "Greatest of All Time", so I think all time great is a larger number. I've never sorted in my head what the cutoff would be.

It's another good debate.


There's a guy with a nice video series "Making the Case" for all time great. I think he lists 9.

Watch on YouTube

;list=PLTn2dCWF6ZYqyG6VOAwVm1IvHnfuwy2Jz

In no particular order, his vids are:

LeBron
Jordan
Bill Russell
Kareem
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Duncan

Wow. It's 8.
Maybe West?

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

It's semi interesting that the only people who are really in the conversation are all

* euros

* drafted way below where they should have been

Is AAU ball leveling out the freaks?

Draft position - always a crap shoot.

Totally reaching for it here, but is it that the hype pipeline bestows more perceived value to roughly 5 players per year than they really deserve and makes some diamonds slip?

Most likely the randomness of the draft and some lingering euro/foreign bias, though obviously it's WAY down from 10 or 20 years earlier.

There has be great players in Asia and Africa ready to emerge.

Obviously another pretty smart post. But you don't need to hear me say that.

So just to the last line. I think football (soccer) is a warning light there.

Asia has produced tiny amounts of top quality players despite there being a lot of focus on the game. I'm sceptical that basketball .. where phenotype is a significant factor ... will see lots of Asian players. Who knows? I was talking in an international org environment with lots of asian guys during Linsanity ... whatever expectations they had (and I hoped for .. because, roughly speaking, a bigger world is a better place) simply didn't work out.

Africa: yeah, sure. I mean there is probably quite a lot of money being spent to promote camps and what not. But, the lesson of football is that (i) it's easier to import the parents and grow the 2nd generation and (2) it's possible to recruit young and early, just about. but it's not Brazil: you can't leave teams to develop players to the required level to young adulthood (18-21).

I think, for different reasons, both continents are multiples of 5-years away from being 5-years away.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

I think Jokic bumps the bottom of the all time greats even without a chip, just for dominance in the regular season and uniqueness.

Though then we get into debate over all time great, and all time is what? Top 20? I didn't really define it, other than vaguely as top 15.

Barkley never won and it top 50. Also very unique player.
Ewing more ordinary, but is top 50.
Gervin not really unique, but a truly dominant scorer who didn't play a lick of defense, was top 50 last I checked; he might get bumped soon.

But that's "50 greatest". Is that all time great? All time great might mean top 10, expanded to top 15 or 20, since the league has been around for a while now.

I think I just have a much stricter definition of all time great

But it's not that Jokic needs a ring, it's that I think he needs a bit more. Like, this is a bad way to judge, but he's not even top 250 in total points scored. Yeah, his peak is right up there, and he's already 125th in assists, so he's close, but not just yet. A ring puts him over the top, but he can still get there without a ring if he plays like this for a few more years.

I generally think of all time great as Top 10, but I like to push it out to 15 or 20 - without even trying to name players, because they have been a LOT of all time greats.

But that list is the argument for "Greatest of All Time", so I think all time great is a larger number. I've never sorted in my head what the cutoff would be.

It's another good debate.


There's a guy with a nice video series "Making the Case" for all time great. I think he lists 9.

Watch on YouTube

;list=PLTn2dCWF6ZYqyG6VOAwVm1IvHnfuwy2Jz

In no particular order, his vids are:

LeBron
Jordan
Bill Russell
Kareem
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Duncan

Wow. It's 8.
Maybe West?

I mean the GOAT debate is kinda boring from my pov. Because it's obviously George Mikan. :mic-drop.gif:

[thebuzzardman]

It's semi interesting that the only people who are really in the conversation are all

* euros

* drafted way below where they should have been

Is AAU ball leveling out the freaks?

Draft position - always a crap shoot.

Totally reaching for it here, but is it that the hype pipeline bestows more perceived value to roughly 5 players per year than they really deserve and makes some diamonds slip?

Most likely the randomness of the draft and some lingering euro/foreign bias, though obviously it's WAY down from 10 or 20 years earlier.

There has be great players in Asia and Africa ready to emerge.

Obviously another pretty smart post. But you don't need to hear me say that.

So just to the last line. I think football (soccer) is a warning light there.

Asia has produced tiny amounts of top quality players despite there being a lot of focus on the game. I'm sceptical that basketball .. where phenotype is a significant factor ... will see lots of Asian players. Who knows? I was talking in an international org environment with lots of asian guys during Linsanity ... whatever expectations they had (and I hoped for .. because, roughly speaking, a bigger world is a better place) simply didn't work out.

Africa: yeah, sure. I mean there is probably quite a lot of money being spent to promote camps and what not. But, the lesson of football is that (i) it's easier to import the parents and grow the 2nd generation and (2) it's possible to recruit young and early, just about. but it's not Brazil: you can't leave teams to develop players to the required level to young adulthood (18-21).

I think, for different reasons, both continents are multiples of 5-years away from being 5-years away.

Here's an interesting one to tease out:

Obviously, it takes INCREDIBLE talent and dedication to skills to achieve any pro level.
Generally - and this is an EXTREMELY broad statement, is that kids start to focus exclusively on one sport.
Let me get out of the way that there are a bunch of bball and football players who were multisport, same for baseball.

Interesting that Jokic comes from a water polo background, Giannis played a lot of soccer, like Hakeem.

There's been arguments that playing multiple sports is better than a single sport focus, but not sure what the level of pro success is - I'm sure someone has already done a study.

Probably most pros played more than one sport and we just tend to highlight the greats when it pops, like Nash, Hakeem, Jokic, Giannis and so on.

I'm basically thinking/typing out loud here.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

I think Jokic bumps the bottom of the all time greats even without a chip, just for dominance in the regular season and uniqueness.

Though then we get into debate over all time great, and all time is what? Top 20? I didn't really define it, other than vaguely as top 15.

Barkley never won and it top 50. Also very unique player.
Ewing more ordinary, but is top 50.
Gervin not really unique, but a truly dominant scorer who didn't play a lick of defense, was top 50 last I checked; he might get bumped soon.

But that's "50 greatest". Is that all time great? All time great might mean top 10, expanded to top 15 or 20, since the league has been around for a while now.

I think I just have a much stricter definition of all time great

But it's not that Jokic needs a ring, it's that I think he needs a bit more. Like, this is a bad way to judge, but he's not even top 250 in total points scored. Yeah, his peak is right up there, and he's already 125th in assists, so he's close, but not just yet. A ring puts him over the top, but he can still get there without a ring if he plays like this for a few more years.

I generally think of all time great as Top 10, but I like to push it out to 15 or 20 - without even trying to name players, because they have been a LOT of all time greats.

But that list is the argument for "Greatest of All Time", so I think all time great is a larger number. I've never sorted in my head what the cutoff would be.

It's another good debate.


There's a guy with a nice video series "Making the Case" for all time great. I think he lists 9.

Watch on YouTube

;list=PLTn2dCWF6ZYqyG6VOAwVm1IvHnfuwy2Jz

In no particular order, his vids are:

LeBron
Jordan
Bill Russell
Kareem
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Duncan

Wow. It's 8.
Maybe West?

I've said this before, but Russell and Wilt are really hard to judge imo. Not that they weren't great players and dominant in their era, but what really was the competition? Did fewer teams mean better average quality of opponent? Or did the NBA generally get a lot better through time? Or through some periods of time? E.g., How would Russell cope with defending KAT or KP?

The list is of 8 is fine. I'd imagine all-time great to be a bit more inclusive than "candidate for greatest of all time". But, wateva.

Steph seems like an obvious omission if we're going to talk about Duncan and Bird (setting aside Bill and Wilt).

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

Is AAU ball leveling out the freaks?

Draft position - always a crap shoot.

Totally reaching for it here, but is it that the hype pipeline bestows more perceived value to roughly 5 players per year than they really deserve and makes some diamonds slip?

Most likely the randomness of the draft and some lingering euro/foreign bias, though obviously it's WAY down from 10 or 20 years earlier.

There has be great players in Asia and Africa ready to emerge.

Obviously another pretty smart post. But you don't need to hear me say that.

So just to the last line. I think football (soccer) is a warning light there.

Asia has produced tiny amounts of top quality players despite there being a lot of focus on the game. I'm sceptical that basketball .. where phenotype is a significant factor ... will see lots of Asian players. Who knows? I was talking in an international org environment with lots of asian guys during Linsanity ... whatever expectations they had (and I hoped for .. because, roughly speaking, a bigger world is a better place) simply didn't work out.

Africa: yeah, sure. I mean there is probably quite a lot of money being spent to promote camps and what not. But, the lesson of football is that (i) it's easier to import the parents and grow the 2nd generation and (2) it's possible to recruit young and early, just about. but it's not Brazil: you can't leave teams to develop players to the required level to young adulthood (18-21).

I think, for different reasons, both continents are multiples of 5-years away from being 5-years away.

Here's an interesting one to tease out:

Obviously, it takes INCREDIBLE talent and dedication to skills to achieve any pro level.
Generally - and this is an EXTREMELY broad statement, is that kids start to focus exclusively on one sport.
Let me get out of the way that there are a bunch of bball and football players who were multisport, same for baseball.

Interesting that Jokic comes from a water polo background, Giannis played a lot of soccer, like Hakeem.

There's been arguments that playing multiple sports is better than a single sport focus, but not sure what the level of pro success is - I'm sure someone has already done a study.

Probably most pros played more than one sport and we just tend to highlight the greats when it pops, like Nash, Hakeem, Jokic, Giannis and so on.

I'm basically thinking/typing out loud here.

Sure, but that's actually quite an interesting point. Luka, for sure, in downtime at Real Madrid was playing football. Not in the organized way Nash and Giannis were perhaps, but there are plenty of videos of him soccer-dribbling basketballs in warm-ups. Maybe????? US basketball players don't play enough compatible different sports? (I mean, I don't see American football as developing relevant skills in the way it's pretty clear soccer and, well, now we've seen it, water polo does.)

Football/soccer players are maybe a little different - the season is so long even as kids. However of the (not many) pros I ever met, quite a few were decent (amateur) cricket players. Rugby and cricket players definitely tend to have multisport backgrounds. But that's the normies. Obviously good hand-eye coordination and enjoying sports generally has a big pull.