falcolombardi wrote:who are the best players across these 10 year stretches (evaluate them with the idea of defining THE player of that period under whatever criteris you think correct)
So, this thread totally pulls me, but I do feel like you're asking two different questions.
One statement is about competitive greatness.
The other is about representing an era - which to me would make me think of explaining something distinct about how basketball was played in the era.
Much overlap between the two, but not quite the same thing. Additionally, while for the former I feel like I should have the same player multiple times if he dominates for that long, for the latter, I feel like a new player should represent each era.
All this to say I may ramble a bit.
Okay, starting from the deep past, because y'know that's how I roll.
20-29:
Nat Holman &
Dutch Dehnert (primarily of the Original Celtics) are the guys on my mind. This was the dominant team of the era, and these were the two most important players, and two avatars of the era. Holman literally wrote the books of the era, Dehnert is the one who made the great innovation - the creation of the pivot player.
I might be inclined to guess that Holman was the most valuable player over the course of the entire decade, but that Dehnert represents what basketball became as a result of this era.
25-34:
Tarzan Cooper (primarily of the New York Renaissance). Rens become the best team in the world, becoming the first Black Five team to be the best in the world, with Cooper as the team's most celebrated star (and Dehnert-style pivot).
30-39:
Cooper of the Rens I think is the clear Player of the Decade, but
Hank Luisetti (Stanford) in 1936 became the avatar of this new West Coast Basketball that would end up resulting in the creation of the point guard and the eventual dominance of the one-handed jumpshot.
35-44: Between
Luisetti &
Bobby McDermott (peak with Zollner Pistons). If you're focused on pro ball, it's McDermott. But Luisetti continued playing through 1944 (military, AAU) and was apparently the guy soon-to-be New York Knicks owner Ned Irish was intending to be his franchise player after the War until a bout of spinal meningitis ended Luisetti's athletic career.
Interesting to not that both Luisetti & McDermott were incredible long-distance shooters, but McDermott represented the apex in the two-handed set shot. He could hit it from well beyond the modern 3-point arc...if he could get his shot off, which became a problem for him. It's worth noting that Luisetti at 6'2" was two inches taller, and very athletic, and jumped with a more modern technique, so there is very real reason to argue that McDermott despite being the dominant pro of the era, was never the best basketball player in the world.
40-49:
George Mikan (DePaul, Chicago American Gears & Minneapolis Lakers) and
Bob Kurland (Oklahoma A&M, Team USA & Phillips 66ers)
45-54:
Mikan (DePaul, Gears, Lakers) and
Kurland (Oklahoma A&M, USA, 66ers)
Forced to pick one man, it's Mikan, but when we talk about "the big man cometh", we mean the two of them causing the biggest paradigm shift in the history of the game.
50-59: I'll give a nod to
Mikan of the Lakers and
Paul Arizin (Villanova, then Philadelphia Warriors), but it's tough.
This is one of those decades where the splits just don't work well. In the end, I think Mikan's dominance through '54 is the most impressive run of the decade.
One could certainly call Mikan the avatar of the decade - and I expect that anyone who doesn't begin their list in an earlier era would do so - but since I have, and I know that this was the back end of a player who did his revolution in the '40s, let me single out the player who played the bulk of his playing career in the '50s who I think was the best player: Paul Arizin.
Arizin's career was messed up by military service. There might be more to it than that, but what is pretty clear is that Arizin became the best offensive player in the NBA, left the NBA, and then came back and did it again. And yes, I would consider him the best offensive player of this era, and a sign of things to come specifically because the NBA had outlawed zone defense and widened the lane.
Arizin, in other words, can be seen as something of a proto-Jordan.
55-64:
Bill Russell (U of San Francisco & Boston Celtics)
60-69:
Bill Russell (Celtics)
Amazing era with 4 guys who are Player of the Decade worthy, but Russell towers above all.
65-74:
Wilt Chamberlain (Philadelphia 76ers & Los Angeles Lakers) &
Connie Hawkins (Harlem Globetrotters, Pittsburgh/Minnesota Pipers, Phoenix Suns, Los Angeles Lakers)
Another transitionary period, and Wilt straddles the two half-decades and clearly deserves Player of the Decade and is a reasonable choice for avatar of the era.
I'm shouting out the Hawk here from a perspective of the influence of the non-NBA from this period which would end up looking more like the future NBA than the NBA of the time would.
70-79:
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Milwaukee Bucks & Los Angeles Lakers) &
Julius Erving (UMass, Virginia Squires, New York Nets, Philadelphia 76ers)
75-84:
Abdul-Jabbar (Lakers) &
Erving (Nets, 76ers)
Kareem is clearly the player of the decade over both of these eras, and a fitting avatar, but if there was another face of basketball encompassing this time, it was the Doctor.
80-89:
Magic Johnson (Los Angeles Lakers) &
Larry Bird (Boston Celtics)
Truly this is an award that works best if split between the two. A Golden Age of basketball comes again, with the two of them leading the way.
Forced to choose between Magic & Bird, while I consider Bird the more singularly interesting player, I'd have to side with Magic.
85-94:
Michael Jordan (Chicago Bulls)
90-99:
Jordan (Bulls)
MJ takes up all the oxygen in the room.
95-04: Shaquille O'Neal (Orlando Magic & Los Angeles Lakers)
Absolutely defined this era both in his successes and failures. Big personality too.
00-09: Have to mention 3 guys here -
Kobe Bryant (Los Angeles Lakers),
Tim Duncan (San Antonio Spurs),
Kevin Garnett (Minnesota Timberwolves & Boston Celtics)
I personally think the Player of the Decade award is between Duncan & Garnett. I've come to side with Garnett, but don't ever expect that to be a majority view, and have no wish to denigrate Duncan who is absolutely worthy.
While Kobe doesn't personally represent the decade for me (that would be Steve Nash), I don't think there's any doubt that Kobe is the great basketball icon of this era. As an Angeleno, I'll say flat out that if they asked the denizens here to name something important after an Angeleno - like a new airport or something - I think Kobe Bryant would be the man they'd choose to honor.
05-14:
LeBron James (Cleveland Cavaliers & Miami Heat)
10-19:
James (Cavaliers, Heat & Los Angeles Lakers)
Slam dunk choice.
15-24*: (so far)
Stephen Curry (Golden State Warriors)
Y'all are seeing me talk about Curry everywhere else so I won't make myself even more annoying here.
20-29**: (projected)
Giannis Antetokounmpo (Milwaukee Bucks),
Nikola Jokic (Denver Nuggets) &
Luka Doncic (Dallas Mavericks) feel appropriate to single out.
While it's possible that, say, the American Jayson Tatum ends up being the leader of a Boston Celtic dynasty and snatches the story of the decade away, right now this seems like it will be the decade where the game of basketball if finally dominated by non-Americans...and I'll just say I'm super-excited for this.
If you were asking me for odds right now, I'd say Giannis is most likely to emerge as the Player of the Decade, followed by Luka, and then Jokic.
One thing I've been thinking about Jokic with respect to Luka: We might end up seeing Jokic as Bird to Luka's Magic. While to this point Jokic remains the more effective basketball player, I feel like it's entirely possible that Luka will blow right past him all while I sit in a corner talking about how Jokic is the more profound player.
I'm frankly pulling for all these guys to succeed - I want to see greatness reach its potential - but will admit to bias of seeing Jokic become influential, because I'm not sure he will be the way I think Luka (and Giannis for that matter) are all but guaranteed to be.
