Defining & Looking Back at "Generational Players"

[Doctor MJ]

So, there' s a lot of talk nowadays about "Generational Talents" to the point it feels like the term has lost it's significance.

I would generally struggle to define a "generation" as something shorter than a decade, but it seems like every few years we get a "Generational Prospect". What gives?

Well aside from the natural tendencies for over-optimism and hyperbole, part of what's going on here is something akin to the confusion around "Hundred Year Flood" type descriptions. The "hundred year" terminology makes folks think it means it's the "Flood of the Century", but really it's just a threshold given to a level of flooding which has a likelihood (estimated) of .01 in any given year.

If I give "Generational" as similarly kind interpretation, what we'd be looking for is a player who for some 10 year birth period around him was the best of all comers.

So, to paint the most extreme picture, this could mean that a guy born in 2024 who doesn't rate as highly as a guy born in 2023, could still end up rating the highest of any born in a decade if he rates higher than everyone born from 2025 to 2033.

Obviously one could use more refined measures of time to do a better job of this, you could choose a different increment of time, and you can ask varying questions pertaining to Peak, Prime, Competitive Career, Cultural Significance, etc.

I'm interested in others thoughts about how I've defined "Generational" as well as their thoughts about who most deserves that title with a given criteria.

I'm going to write a post next sharing some of my consideration of the living specifics.

[HeartBreakKid]

A generation is less than a decade in basketball. This is a sport where someone who is 21 and someone who is 26 are not really considered peers. Probably something closer to every 5-6 years than every 10.

Example, Lebron James and Derrick Rose are drafted 5 years apart. Most people would not consider Rose/Westbrook/Harden to be from the same exact era as James/Wade/Howard. Yao Ming and Kevin Durant etc.

If top prospects still played 4 years of college it would look more pronounced.

[SHAQ32]

Kewl

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I don't think there's a high risk of losing significance as I am not sure it had much of it to begin with.
It's more of marketing/hype term than a truly informative one, nobody ever cared to define it and its use.

Playing along, the way I would think it makes sense is a guy who can be the best player in the NBA during his prime, and hence define his "generation".
As we're talling about NBA careers with primes normally lasting 5 to 8 years that's how often I would expect such players to come along, roughly twice per decade.
60s Wilt-Russell
70s Alcindor
80s Bird-Johnson
90s jordon-Olajuwon
00s Shaq-Duncan
10s LeBron-Steph
20s Jokic

We have a decent approximation of many people's Top10...

[Doctor MJ]

Alright so I'm going to list out some "Generational" consideration below. I'm not going to focus on who I give the title so much as who comes to mind, and who comes to mind depending on criteria with the birth year focus I laid out in my OP.

I'll also be mentioning their height, position, origin, and primary team. The height and team because I think that's stuff everyone wants to know. The position because that's probably true as well - here I'm going by what I see them listed at. The origin because I think it's something to keep in mind particularly for the early years. Also, I would consider their origin to be the place where they had their emergence as an excellent basketball player. That's typically where they were as teenagers, which I think is more relevant for most than where they were born.

1883 - Ed Wachter (6'1", C, New York, Troy Trojans) - the most celebrated early pro.
1884 - John Schommer (6'3, C, Illinois. U. of Chicago) - the most celebrated early college player, HOF inducted before Wachter.

1890 - Cumberland Posey (5'9", G, Pennsylvania, Loendi Big Five) - the most celebrated early Black pro.
1896 - Nat Holman (5' 11", G, New York, Original Celtics) - characterized as the best all-around pro of the '20s, on best team of era.
1898 - Dutch Dehnert (6'1", F/C, New York, Original Celtics) - the inventor of the "pivot" position which revolutionized 20s-30s.

1907 - Tarzan Cooper (6'5", C, Pennsylvania, New York Renaissance) - star pivot of likely best teams of the '30s & early '40s.
1908 - Charley Hyatt (6'0", G, Pennsylvania, U. of Pittsburgh) - most celebrated college/AAU player 20s-early 30s.

1914 - Bobby McDermott (5'11", G, New York, Zollner Pistons) - top pro early '40s.
1916 - Hank Luisetti (6'2", F/G, California, Stanford) - most celebrated college/military player 30s-early 40s, "first modern player".

1924 - George Mikan (6'10", C, Illinois, Minneapolis Lakers) - college big man revolutionary, best pro 40s-early 50s).
1924 - Bob Kurland (7'0", C, Missouri, Phillips 66ers) - college big man revolutionary, best AAU 40s-50s).

1934 - Bill Russell (6'10", C, California, Boston Celtics) - the most competitively success and great inflection point in sport .
1936 - Wilt Chamberlain (7'1", C, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Warriors) - incredible career, even more incredible talent.
1938 - Jerry West (6'3", G, West Virginia, Los Angeles Lakers) - elite superstar for a long time.
1938 - Oscar Robertson (6'5", G, Indiana, Cincinnati Royals) - elite superstar for a long time.

1947 - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7'2", C, New York, Los Angeles Lakers) - possibly great all-level career.

1950 - Julius Erving (6'7", F, New York, Philadelphia 76ers) - avatar of the ABA era and influence, elite player in era.
1952 - Bill Walton (6'11", C, California, Portland Trail Blazers) - legendary pro peak and college career.
1956 - Larry Bird (6'9", F, Indiana, Boston Celtics) - co-savior of the game's popularity, possibly highest peak of era.
1959 - Magic Johnson (6'9", G, Michigan, Los Angeles Lakers) - co-savior of the game's popularity, possibly best career of era.

1963 - Michael Jordan (6'6", G, North Carolina, Chicago Bulls) - basketball's great icon, best of his age.
1964 - Arvydas Sabonis (7'3", C, Lithuania, Zalgiris) - international champion, the great NBA European what-might-have-been.

1972 - Shaquille O'Neal (7'1, C, Texas, Los Angeles Lakers) - dominant player of his age
1975 - Allen Iverson (6'0, G, Virginia, Philadelphia 76ers) - MVP, mainstream icon
1976 - Tim Duncan (6'11, C/F, US Virgin Islands, San Antonio Spurs) - an NBA career like no other
1976 - Kevin Garnett (6'11", F/C, South Carolina, Minnesota Timberwolves) - possibly best of his age
1978 - Kobe Bryant (6'6", G/F, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles Lakers) - MVP, mainstream icon

1984 - LeBron James (6'8", F/G/C, Ohio, Cleveland Cavaliers) - epicenter of all basketball in his age
1988 - Steph Curry (6'2", G, North Carolina, Golden State Warriors) - avatar of the 3-point revolution, extreme influence

I'll stop there without considering what other current and future players will be candidates going forward.

I'll end by pointing specific attention to clusters of "Generational Players". I have thoughts as to what's going on with them, but please consider what you think about what was going on there.

[WintaSoldier1]

Personally I believe that the rhetoric about being a generational talent is less about time and more about basketball prowess, although previously weaker draft classes often give opportunity for a strong prospect to be labeled as “Generational”

[Doctor MJ]

A generation is less than a decade in basketball. This is a sport where someone who is 21 and someone who is 26 are not really considered peers. Probably something closer to every 5-6 years than every 10.

Example, Lebron James and Derrick Rose are drafted 5 years apart. Most people would not consider Rose/Westbrook/Harden to be from the same exact era as James/Wade/Howard. Yao Ming and Kevin Durant etc.

If top prospects still played 4 years of college it would look more pronounced.

I think you have a valid point here. The 4-year nature of traditional college ball did make that a meaningful increment to consider. I may end up doing something like that and seeing if it comes across as meaningful to me.

Part of what I'm looking to point out though is that in retrospect, the list I've generated feels more like a "generational" list in terms of how many guys get mentioned. Right now I already have 4-5 guys representing a single decade. If I literally do a 4-year "Generation" list, what if I end up with like 10 guys? If we average a "generational" player annually, I think it just doesn't make sense.

So while I can understand thinking in terms of something as low as 4 years as a "Generation", I think when we look back on history, we don't tend to insist that guys born 4 years apart are of different Generations because their primes overlapped and were thus contemporaries.

[Cavsfansince84]

A generation is less than a decade in basketball. This is a sport where someone who is 21 and someone who is 26 are not really considered peers. Probably something closer to every 5-6 years than every 10.

Example, Lebron James and Derrick Rose are drafted 5 years apart. Most people would not consider Rose/Westbrook/Harden to be from the same exact era as James/Wade/Howard. Yao Ming and Kevin Durant etc.

If top prospects still played 4 years of college it would look more pronounced.

Though I think its fair if someone wants to say that a generation is less than 10 years(maybe even 6-7 in the nba) I think that would be a more recent interpretation of the term. I think what happened is that in the era of the internet everything became shortened which I'd say is basically since 2000/2010. I don't really recall the term generational being used much at all before LeBron which is just my memory/experience so I'm not saying its the rule; it's just my own perspective. With someone like Shaq everyone just knew he was a rare prospect and something we hadn't really seen since at least Wilt in terms of sheer physical dominance. I think we got sort of spoiled with center prospects from 83-92 with Sampson then Hakeem then Ewing then Robinson then Shaq. So by the time Duncan came around I don't recall him being thought of as much more than a big with a lot of polish who should be at least an all star.
Since LeBron I think generational became an easy buzz word for the media to use to get people's attention to where now it seems like every 3-4 years we have a new generational prospect coming up. So I think we've been forced to change the definition of what it means to fit the way the media likes to use it. Which happens with words throughout history. They take on whatever meaning a society wants to use them for. My point being that I think 20-30 years ago generational would have meant every 10-20 years. Now it may mean every 5.

[penbeast0]

A generation is less than a decade in basketball. This is a sport where someone who is 21 and someone who is 26 are not really considered peers. Probably something closer to every 5-6 years than every 10.

Example, Lebron James and Derrick Rose are drafted 5 years apart. Most people would not consider Rose/Westbrook/Harden to be from the same exact era as James/Wade/Howard. Yao Ming and Kevin Durant etc.

If top prospects still played 4 years of college it would look more pronounced.

Though I think its fair if someone wants to say that a generation is less than 10 years(maybe even 6-7 in the nba) I think that would be a more recent interpretation of the term. I think what happened is that in the era of the internet everything became shortened which I'd say is basically since 2000/2010. I don't really recall the term generational being used much at all before LeBron which is just my memory/experience so I'm not saying its the rule; it's just my own perspective. With someone like Shaq everyone just knew he was a rare prospect and something we hadn't really seen since at least Wilt in terms of sheer physical dominance. I think we got sort of spoiled with center prospects from 83-92 with Sampson then Hakeem then Ewing then Robinson then Shaq. So by the time Duncan came around I don't recall him being thought of as much more than a big with a lot of polish who should be at least an all star.
Since LeBron I think generational became an easy buzz word for the media to use to get people's attention to where now it seems like every 3-4 years we have a new generational prospect coming up. So I think we've been forced to change the definition of what it means to fit the way the media likes to use it. Which happens with words throughout history. They take on whatever meaning a society wants to use them for. My point being that I think 20-30 years ago generational would have meant every 10-20 years. Now it may mean every 5.

Surprised you didn't consider Duncan as great a generational prospect as Shaq. I remember Duncan finally declaring for the draft after being considered the probably top pick for the previous two years as well as being considered the surest thing since Ewing or Sampson, possibly since Walton. There were far more questions about Robinson who had played at Navy, Hakeem who was still pretty raw at Houston, and even Shaq with his massive body and (at the time we thought) limited tool set. We all knew Duncan would be a Hall of Famer given health and going to San Antonio seemed overkill with Robinson coming back.

[Cavsfansince84]

Surprised you didn't consider Duncan as great a generational prospect as Shaq. I remember Duncan finally declaring for the draft after being considered the probably top pick for the previous two years as well as being considered the surest thing since Ewing or Sampson, possibly since Walton. There were far more questions about Robinson who had played at Navy, Hakeem who was still pretty raw at Houston, and even Shaq with his massive body and (at the time we thought) limited tool set. We all knew Duncan would be a Hall of Famer given health and going to San Antonio seemed overkill with Robinson coming back.

Well that could just be me not being as much into cbb at that time. I was into it more in the late 80's/early 90's. So I didn't really see much of Duncan and I knew his teams didn't do much in the tourney so even though I heard talk about him being a major prospect I never got the impression he was meant to be on Shaq level(keep in mind that Shaq by then had gone from hyped up to possible future goat in those years).

[penbeast0]

Also could be I just missed a lot of the Shaq hype somehow. I was in ACC territory so I got the full measure of Duncan hype.

[One_and_Done]

Pen is right on the money with Duncan. He was incredibly hyped. If you go read the Oral History of Duncan that came out after the 2014 title run it has alot of the relevant info.

[LukaTheGOAT]

There are multiple generational talents than there are players because talent implies projecting forward. Talent is subjective to many people, moreso thsn proven production that determines generational players.

Some generational talents never really were generational talents probably, but people couldn't necessarily determine that in the moment. Some generational talents suffer injury and or longevity therefore never become decade defining players (ex. maybe a Bill Walton applies here).

[Jaivl]

Just another word devoid of meaning in informal conversation, like "GOAT".

[Texas Chuck]

yep agree with those pointing out this is just a marketing phrase and its overused any time there is any kind of good prospect. Guys like Zion and Wemby have been hit with this just in recent years.

Working backwards and being really strict I think we have the following to whom a generational talent should be applied:

Jokic(possibly premature but feels reasonably safe)
Lebron
Duncan
Jordan
Kareem
Russell
Mikan

I can't go back any further than that with any confidence. You will note I left off guys like Steph and Shaq and Larry/Magic and Wilt and Oscar and West. That's how high I think this standard should really be. There just shouldn't be much overlap excepting of course guys like Lebron, Duncan, Kareem who just dominate for so long that there will be some.

[kcktiny]

When thinking of generational talent the one player that always comes to mind is Dr. J. Julius Erving.

When he was in the ABA there was no one in the NBA doing the things he was doing. The NBA merged with the ABA first and foremost just to get Erving in the league. And once in the NBA he did not disappoint. He was a huge star and a huge draw, was the face of the league until Bird and Magic did their thing.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm going to add more analyses like I did above just because I'm interested in it, and, well, thread's already here.

So women's basketball:

First thing, it's far murkier going back into history in the women's game for many reasons, and this makes it harder to realistically use the process I presented with men's basketball. I'll give some shout outs of pioneers at the end, but I'm going to start off with the first player who was clear cut the best women's player in the world:

1952 - Uljana Semnonova (6'11", C, Latvia, TTT Riga) - absolute unbeatable giant when she played, no man as dominant as she was
1955 - Lusia Harris (6'3", C, Mississippi, Delta State) - star of the start of the Title IX era, star of the Silver Medal USA team in '76.

1963 - Cynthia Cooper (5'10", G, California, Houston Comets) - the way she ended her career dominating the WNBA was astonishing.
1964 - Cheryl Miller (6'2", F, California, USC) - Cooper's more celebrated teammate at USC, career ruined by injury.

1972 - Lisa Leslie (6'5", C, California, Los Angeles Sparks) - the dominant force in an era of the women's ball.
1979 - Tamika Catchings (6'1", F, Illinois, Indiana Fever) - considered greatest modern defensive player, exceptional career.

1981 - Lauren Jackson (6'6", F/C, Australia, Seattle Storm) - strongest prime of her generation.
1982 - Diana Taurasi (6'0", G, California, Phoenix Mercury) - voted WNBA GOAT, arguably greatest scorer in WNBA history
1989 - Maya Moore (6'0", F, Georgia, Minnesota Lynx) - most dominant run sense Semnonova.

Stopping there, but think it likely that Breanna Stewart will be the next added to my list.

Pioneer shout out:

1898 - Ora Washington (5'7", C, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Tribunes) - celebrated early Black star

1914 - Hazel Walker (5'9", C, Arkansas, Arkansas Travelers) - the great American pro of her time
1915 - Noel MacDonald (5'10", C, Canada, Edmonton Grads) - when Canada had the best team in the world, she was their very best.

1933 - Katherine Washington (5'9", G, Tennessee, Nashville Business College) - Led USA's '50s World "Cup" dominance.
1935 - Nera White (6'1" C, Tennessee, Nashville Business College) - more revered than Washington.

1943 - Skaidrīte Smildziņa-Budovska (6'3", C, Latvia, TTT Riga) - star as Soviet Union eclipses USA

[MacGill]

My take on this would be the following:

1a) Every player who ever made the nba is/was a generational talent. They'd basically be the best player growing up in every league, school, that they'd play in until consolidation happens as they grow older, tournamment play, country wide meet-ups etc.

1b) Once in the league, this now changes from prospect to pro. Separation and division now happens and not all players go into the league with the same opportunity or luck. The league filters out the true 'best of the best' but in my eyes there is also a difference in ranking the best ever vs generational talent. Charles Barkley, for example, would be a generational talent in my eyes but probably doesn't make most top 15 all-time lists. I would also add Vince Carter into the mix as well just to name a few.

I agree with the dilution of the term and I also think it's because the meaning today is expected to carry the 'said' franchise to victory etc. For the most part, I'd be comfortable with all-nba rankings, all-star selections helping to seperate the higher elite athlete from the rest but it will never be perfect and never the exact same situation or sample size.

[tsherkin]

I feel like the original intent behind the phrase was to describe a player whose talent/skill altered the game and defined a consequential block of time. We talk about Wilt or Kareem, Dr J, MJ, Shaq, etc. Dominant archetypes who remain perpetually at the top of the league for a decade or so of major prime while also influencing league trends and strategy, etc. They change something about the game.

[falcolombardi]

I see generational player as someone who defines thw theorical peak of the sport

Not necesarrily at beint the best player ever but at how far they push their specific roles/skillset/positions or builds

Russel was a generational defender not because he would necesarrily be better than hakeem if time machine's to the 80's (although he honestly may justbe that lol) but because he redefined the ideal of mobile all around athletic defensive centers

Jokic is generational cause he set a new ceiling to match in what a 7 footer can do offensuvely in a court

Lebron redefined what a big wing can do all around with a combination of skill,size, athletism and IQ that remains unmatched among bigger perimeter players

Curry redefined what a regular size and athletism guard can do with shooting threat

Even if there ever comes a better curry archetype or a lebron-like player who also shots 95% in the line or a jokic like player who also happens to have all time athletism jokic, curry amd lebron will remain generational talents for redefining the limits og basketball