Defining & Looking Back at "Generational Players"

[Cavsfansince84]

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.

I'd agree in the sense that I take it to mean something that we've never really seen before and who can also likely be the best player for at least a period of time. It was that feeling we had when Tyson came on the scene and he just had insane power and a style that seemed like something new. Zion to me fit the bill more than anyone else since LeBron or KD but at the same time no one is going to see a player like Steph coming either. The media is usually in a rush to throw out that label based on physical attributes more than skills which emerge later.

[SNPA]

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...

Add Mikan and this is the current list. It’s not even controversial IMO. You have to really contort not to be very close to this list. It’s the history of basketball.

[tsherkin]

I'd agree in the sense that I take it to mean something that we've never really seen before and who can also likely be the best player for at least a period of time. It was that feeling we had when Tyson came on the scene and he just had insane power and a style that seemed like something new. Zion to me fit the bill more than anyone else since LeBron or KD but at the same time no one is going to see a player like Steph coming either. The media is usually in a rush to throw out that label based on physical attributes more than skills which emerge later.

Oh, coincidence. You mention Tyson, and I'd literally spent the last two days watching peek-a-boo boxing videos and clips of him knocking people out.

[1993Playoffs]

Just to piggyback off some of the other comments. I wonder if Kobe or Wade meet the “generational talent “ criteria. I’m some areas they do. And some places they don’t

[tsherkin]

Just to piggyback off some of the other comments. I wonder if Kobe or Wade meet the “generational talent “ criteria. I’m some areas they do. And some places they don’t

Their athletic profiles don't really stand out, so that angle wouldn't be it. But Kobe was the biggest guard star after Jordan and was/remains an absolutely huge persona in basketball, even after his death. So from an angle of impact/influence, he's certainly up there.

From some definitions, though, you have to wonder. Dirk is a generational, game-changing talent.

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.

I stray away from this thought. Steph definitely changed the game and from a talent POV, Shaq was also generational. We hadn't seen anything like him since Wilt (and even then, not quite the same) and haven't since. He also changed an entire era of basketball. Magic/Larry were generational in the sense of their skills and how they influenced the game, even if their run/jump athleticism wasn't out of this world. I struggle with a definition for 'generational' that doesn't include Wilt based on his physical profile and his achievements. Oscar and West are like their era's Larry/Magic to me in the sense of being twinned in comparison/discussion and being the high-end guys and all that.

But it all comes down to a subjective definition in the end, so everyone will be a little different in how they construct the idea of what 'generational' means, just the same as what 'talent' describes. If we're only talking about what someone's born with, then that list shrinks considerably, for example. If we also include skills, if we look at how that actually unfolded on the court, if we consider how they impacted the game forward and so forth, it all changes. Every little piece of information will subtly alter the concept.

[Texas Chuck]

But it all comes down to a subjective definition in the end

This.

I take no issue with those who define it more liberally or who factor in some of the factors you listed for players like Steph or Wilt for instance. We are obviously going to define nebulous terms like this differently and that's okay. I tend to be very tight on these sorts of things. I can appreciate a liberal approach that is more inclusive though.

For me I see a generational player as the player who essentially defines that generation of the NBA. Mikan did. Russ did. Kareem did. Mike did (Magic/Larry hurt by the overlap of Kareem and Mike plus being a duo). Timmy did, Lebron did, and Jokic looks like he's going to. Though he is a projection to be sure.

But obviously there are other super important players. Dirk for Europe forever changed the fake ceiling we had for them. Yao obviously for Asian basketball. Then guys who changed how the game was played -- Shaq, Curry great examples.

[tsherkin]

But it all comes down to a subjective definition in the end

This.

I take no issue with those who define it more liberally or who factor in some of the factors you listed for players like Steph or Wilt for instance. We are obviously going to define nebulous terms like this differently and that's okay. I tend to be very tight on these sorts of things. I can appreciate a liberal approach that is more inclusive though.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, just use your remark as a way to show the contrast, for sure.

For me I see a generational player as the player who essentially defines that generation of the NBA. Mikan did. Russ did. Kareem did. Mike did (Magic/Larry hurt by the overlap of Kareem and Mike plus being a duo). Timmy did, Lebron did, and Jokic looks like he's going to. Though he is a projection to be sure.

Most people don't really speak of Kareem vis a vis the 80s, though. It's "Magic and Larry saved the NBA" and all that. Magic was in the Finals 9 times and won 5. Larry was 3/5. Between the pair, one or the other was basically in the Finals every season for a decade.

Jokic is a projection, I'll handle you, but anyone paying attention to him understands that what they're seeing is a wild, ridiculous talent unlike anything we've seen before. He is definitely a guy I consider generational, even if I don't think he'll enjoy the type of popularity that drives the narrative around someone like Kobe, or some of the guys from earlier times like Jordan and Magic/Larry.

Anyway, it's neat looking at how everyone constructs the idea of "generational talent," because it can mean so many different things.

[Texas Chuck]

Most people don't really speak of Kareem vis a vis the 80s, though. It's "Magic and Larry saved the NBA" and all that. Magic was in the Finals 9 times and won 5. Larry was 3/5. Between the pair, one or the other was basically in the Finals every season for a decade.

Yeah in retrospect, I think you are right here. Kareem is the 70s(mostly) and Mike is the 90s(mostly). I would go back and include Magic/Larry to represent the 80's. I missed on that. Appreciate you pointing out what should have been obvious to me lol.

[tsherkin]

Most people don't really speak of Kareem vis a vis the 80s, though. It's "Magic and Larry saved the NBA" and all that. Magic was in the Finals 9 times and won 5. Larry was 3/5. Between the pair, one or the other was basically in the Finals every season for a decade.

Yeah in retrospect, I think you are right here. Kareem is the 70s(mostly) and Mike is the 90s(mostly). I would go back and include Magic/Larry to represent the 80's. I missed on that. Appreciate you pointing out what should have been obvious to me lol.

Hey, that's why we talk, right? So maybe someone else shows us something we overlooked. You do that for me plenty, heh.

[Outside]

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

No Sue Bird?

[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

No Sue Bird?

No Sue Bird. You can certainly talk about her as a candidate for a generational point guard or a generational passer, but if what you're talking about is about potentially being the best player of one's generation, the reality is that she just wasn't on the same level of as players like Catchings (born the year before Bird) or Jackson (born the year after) based on any analysis I've seen.

I think the arrival of Breanna Stewart on the Storm really confused matters. Reminds me a bit of folks thinking that Shaq must be making Wade great because there's no way Shaq could just get lucky going to another team with a superstar-level guard scorer. Sometimes folks just get lucky.

Jackson & Stewie really are that good, with or without Bird. Bird's a great player in her own right, but when those Storm teams were contenders, they weren't being led by Bird.

[Outside]

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

No Sue Bird?

No Sue Bird. You can certainly talk about her as a candidate for a generational point guard or a generational passer, but if what you're talking about is about potentially being the best player of one's generation, the reality is that she just wasn't on the same level of as players like Catchings (born the year before Bird) or Jackson (born the year after) based on any analysis I've seen.

I think the arrival of Breanna Stewart on the Storm really confused matters. Reminds me a bit of folks thinking that Shaq must be making Wade great because there's no way Shaq could just get lucky going to another team with a superstar-level guard scorer. Sometimes folks just get lucky.

Jackson & Stewie really are that good, with or without Bird. Bird's a great player in her own right, but when those Storm teams were contenders, they weren't being led by Bird.

That's fair. Just don't let my daughter-in-law hear you say it

[DraymondGold]

I wonder how much decades or round-number timeframes unconsciously guide our thinking here. For example, when considering "Generational Players" (or even All-time players more broadly), how much does e.g. "being the best player of the 60s" or "being the best player of 1965–1969" affect our thinking. In theory, having your prime coincide in 1960–1969 isn't inherently more valuable than having your prime coincide from 1963–1972.

This is particularly relevant the shorter list of players, although theoretically this could still influence our thinking on certain edge-cases on longer lists.

Let's consider the 60s:
For those who have Russell as the only generational player of the 60s... what if we changed our time frame to be 1963–1972? With Russell missing a full 3 seasons, I have a hard time picking him over say Wilt or West or Oscar, particularly when those players all have further prime seasons after Russell retired. Is there anything more special about 1960–69 than 1963–72?

Let's consider the 2000s:
For those who don't have Shaq, what if the time frame was 1995–2004 or 1994–2003? I have a hard time picking any player over Shaq in that timeframe. Jordan and Hakeem and Robinson all have a significant number of post-prime / missing years, while Duncan, Garnett, and Kobe have a significant number of pre-prime / missing years.

Let's consider the 2010s:
For those who don't have Curry, what if the time frame was 2014–2023 (or soon to be 2015–2024 if Curry remains healthy next season)? With every additional season, Curry becomes easier to argue alongside or above LeBron, simply because LeBron is the older player and so will have more post-prime seasons in the most recent 10-year windows.

Rather than taking decades, we could also try to divide the league into different timeframes based on significant changes to the rules, strategies, league size, and league context. For example, we might consider the following eras (years approximate)...
1946–1955 (10 years): the Pre-shotclock era.
1956–1967? (12 years): the first shot clock era and the bulk of the Russell Celtics dynasty.
1968–1976 (9 years): NBA expansion and the NBA/ABA dual leagues.
1977–1984...? (8 years): NBA merger, addition of the 3 point line.
1985–1994 (10 years): peaks of the Celtics/Lakers/Bulls/~Pistons dynasties. Focus on defense slightly increases, pace slows slightly.
1995–2004 (10 years): briefly shortened 3 point line, into deadball era. End of illegal defense, stops at the end of hand checking.
2005–2013? (10 years): Early foundations of the 3 point revolution. Starts the shift from slow paced defensive focus to faster paced more offensive focused.
2014–2023 (10 years): Modern era. 3 point revolution fulfilled, space and pace revolution fulfilled. Continues the increase in international players and international superstars.

Who would be the generational players if these were the time frames we used? Presumably there would be lots of overlap, but you might get slight changes in who you pick if you're doing a shorter list.

[penbeast0]

If you were considered the best player in the world for any 5 year period, you probably fit a decent definition.

[Cavsfansince84]

Just to piggyback off some of the other comments. I wonder if Kobe or Wade meet the “generational talent “ criteria. I’m some areas they do. And some places they don’t

I think it's hard for people to accept that a guy can be mvp caliber for a period of like 10 years, win an mvp and/or title yet still not be seen as a generational type player. That's where the line usually gets blurred I would say. The two that seem to be vying for it in the 20's are Giannis and Jokic. Luka for instance is talented and has insane size for a pg but he's not quite on that level or maybe we just don't realize it yet. As in if he gets some better teammates and leads them to 67 wins plus an amazing playoff run/fmvp maybe we rethink it. Both Jokic and Giannis have the adv of having already done that which validates all the hype they got with mvps.

[tsherkin]

If you were considered the best player in the world for any 5 year period, you probably fit a decent definition.

Is that enough? Is there not a component of "heretofore unforeseen athleticism" or skill or changing the game or something which plays in some?

Can we have a guy BECOME a generational player by surprising us mid-career? All fun questions to ponder, regardless of how they are answered.

[giordunk]

Generational to me is like... really transcended the game or took it above new heights, excellent basketball player and also great cultural significance. Will also be long talked about after their time.

In chronological order I'd probably go

Mikan
Chamberlain/Russell
Kareem
Magic/Bird
Michael Jordan
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron
Curry

I'd say Iverson and Rodman are also generational players in terms of cultural significance. Duncan makes it based on basketball resume but he will never fill that cultural requirement.

[penbeast0]

If Iverson and Rodman make it for their antics, then Maravich and Bill Walton should probably be on the list too since neither Iverson nor Rodman are in the category of the players you named in on court impact and Maravich and Walton have that marketing aspect for their day even if they don't have the on court value.

[HeartBreakKid]

Generational to me is like... really transcended the game or took it above new heights, excellent basketball player and also great cultural significance. Will also be long talked about after their time.

In chronological order I'd probably go

Mikan
Chamberlain/Russell
Kareem
Magic/Bird
Michael Jordan
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron
Curry

I'd say Iverson and Rodman are also generational players in terms of cultural significance. Duncan makes it based on basketball resume but he will never fill that cultural requirement.

Being really famous is hardly cultural significance. What did Rodman influence if he is that significant?

Yao Ming has influenced more people to become basketball players than Dennis Rodman.

[Doctor MJ]

Doing the same thing for men's tennis:

1893 - Bill Tilden (6'1", USA)
1895 - Karel Kozeluh (5'8", Prague's country)

1901 - Henri Cochet (5'6", France)
1904 - Rene Lacoste (un, France)
1909 - Fred Perry (6'0", Great Britain)

1910 - Hans Nusslein (5'7", Germany)
1911 - Ellsworth Vines (6'2", USA)
1915 - Don Budge (6'1", USA)
1918 - Bobby Riggs (5'7", USA)

1921 - Jack Kramer (6'2", USA)
1928 - Pancho Gonzales (6'2", USA)

1934 - Ken Rosewall (5'7", Australia)
1938 - Rod Laver (5'8", Australia)

1944 - John Newcombe (6'0", Australia)

1952 - Jimmy Connors (5'10", USA)
1956 - Bjorn Borg (5'11", Sweden)
1959 - John McEnroe (5'11", USA)

1960 - Ivan Lendl (6'2" Czechoslovakia)

1970 - Andre Agassi (5'11", USA)
1971 - Pete Sampras (6'1", USA)

1981 - Roger Federer (6'1", Switzerland)
1986 - Rafael Nadal (6'1", Spain)
1987 - Novak Djokovic (6'2", Serbia)

I'll leave it there and just note that Carlos Alcaraz was born in 2003, so at least one guy has to qualify between Djokovic and Alcaraz. Pondering it, seems like that guy would probably be Daniil Medvedev.