Question for the day....

[macdaddy]

4 hours ago, Diesel said:

Be Foreign!

If Trae was from Kasparovich..  He would be held in higher regards. But unfortunately, he's from OK. 

Yeah and Luka has yet to show that he's serious about conditioning.  It doesn't matter that much at his age and size but it will eventually.  You can't be generational without longevity.  

[dalamchops]

13 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

You forgot Trae, the best pure passer the league has seen since Magic, to me that’s generational.

that's pretty subjective, there's been plenty of great guards since the 80s.

[dalamchops]

13 hours ago, Diesel said:

So by your definition, Giannis and Luka are not generational talents?

Ok..

hmm i didn't put them in order? if anything embiid, luka, jokic are the fringe ones for me, none of them have even been out of the conf finals yet

[Diesel]

47 minutes ago, dalamchops said:

that's pretty subjective, there's been plenty of great guards since the 80s.

I actually agree.

Since Magic,  You have had:

 

Stockton, Nash, Kidd, CP3, Irving, Harden, and Curry. 

Whereas Stockton, Kidd, CP3, are better passers.

Irving is more skilled.

Curry is a better shooter...

Stockton plays better defense. 

Harden just may be better overall. 

None of them save Harden can began to match Trae in all the areas where he blossoms.    That is actually not a subjective statement. 

Trae can finish a career with 25/10/4....   Shooting 37-38% from three  and 97% from the FT line.   He's a Unicorn.

 

 

 

[Diesel]

50 minutes ago, dalamchops said:

hmm i didn't put them in order? if anything embiid, luka, jokic are the fringe ones for me, none of them have even been out of the conf finals yet

2 time MVP Jokic???  Surely, you jest??

Do you know how many guys have won 2?

 

 

[dalamchops]

8 hours ago, Diesel said:

2 time MVP Jokic???  Surely, you jest??

Do you know how many guys have won 2?

 

 

out of 15, only 2 have never made it to the finals. Jokic is a superstar and i think generational talent, but generational star means something else to me. Hakeen has only 1 mvp, does that mean you'd rank jokic over the dream?

[Diesel]

34 minutes ago, dalamchops said:

out of 15, only 2 have never made it to the finals. Jokic is a superstar and i think generational talent, but generational star means something else to me. Hakeen has only 1 mvp, does that mean you'd rank jokic over the dream?

We can do this all day... Iverson and Barkley and Karl Malone never won a chip..  are you saying that they are not generational talents?  Do you think that Bill Walton was better than Karl Malone?  Do you think that Paul Pierce was better than Allen Iverson?  My point is that the NBA finals win is a team accomplishment.   MVP is an individual accomplishment.   IF I'm rating a generational talent, surely MVP means more than NBA championship.   Iverson never had a team that was built to win a chip...Neither did Nique.   But Iverson not only impacted the game... "crossover" and small ball... but he impacted the culture.   How can he not be considered a generational talent?

 

 

[dalamchops]

3 minutes ago, Diesel said:

We can do this all day... Iverson and Barkley and Karl Malone never won a chip..  are you saying that they are not generational talents?  Do you think that Bill Walton was better than Karl Malone?  Do you think that Paul Pierce was better than Allen Iverson?  My point is that the NBA finals win is a team accomplishment.   MVP is an individual accomplishment.   IF I'm rating a generational talent, surely MVP means more than NBA championship.   Iverson never had a team that was built to win a chip...Neither did Nique.   But Iverson not only impacted the game... "crossover" and small ball... but he impacted the culture.   How can he not be considered a generational talent?

 

 

I used Final as the criteria, not rings. Iverson, Barkley, Malone all made it out of the conference and played in the finals, jokic/embiid/luka have not. I've been careful about making a distinction between generational star, superstar, and generational talent. There are more generational talent than generational superstar. I think the latter needs significant amount of winning to earn that label. 

[Diesel]

2 minutes ago, dalamchops said:

I used Final as the criteria, not rings. Iverson, Barkley, Malone all made it out of the conference and played in the finals, jokic/embiid/luka have not. I've been careful about making a distinction between generational star, superstar, and generational talent. There are more generational talent than generational superstar. I think the latter needs significant amount of winning to earn that label. 

So, you can become a superstar by amassing enough talent on your team to overcome whatever superstar team is winning at the time?

I want you to think about this for a second. 

The Boston Celtics was dominant.  They won 11 out of 13 yrs  NBA Championships.   They had the only 8 peat.   No other team in their conference would have made it to the finals.   

The Chicago Bulls had two three peats.   They were dominant.   For 6 yrs, no other team in their conference would have made it to the finals.

Think about all the truly gifted players that never got a shot to go to the finals because they couldn't put together a team good enough to beat the Bulls.   That's what you hang your hat on in terms of a criteria?

I guess that's why Lebron goes out and makes up his own team through tampering...  He realized that he'd never make it to the finals if he didn't tamper. 

 

[dalamchops]

Just now, Diesel said:

So, you can become a superstar by amassing enough talent on your team to overcome whatever superstar team is winning at the time?

I want you to think about this for a second. 

The Boston Celtics was dominant.  They won 11 out of 13 yrs  NBA Championships.   They had the only 8 peat.   No other team in their conference would have made it to the finals.   

The Chicago Bulls had two three peats.   They were dominant.   For 6 yrs, no other team in their conference would have made it to the finals.

Think about all the truly gifted players that never got a shot to go to the finals because they couldn't put together a team good enough to beat the Bulls.   That's what you hang your hat on in terms of a criteria?

I guess that's why Lebron goes out and makes up his own team through tampering...  He realized that he'd never make it to the finals if he didn't tamper. 

 

you're really twisting my words. I've already said those guys are all super stars, trae is a superstar, wtf are you talking about amassing enough talent to become a superstar?

the celtics team played in an era with 4 playoffs team, that's not comparable to the modern game that we are having a discussion over.

once again, i make a distinction between between generational superstar and generational talent. Tons of generational talent, but very few generational superstars with extended winning pedigree.

LBJ took a f***ing garbage team to the finals with larry hughes and drew gooden, what tampering?

[shakes]

35 minutes ago, Diesel said:

We can do this all day... Iverson and Barkley and Karl Malone never won a chip..  are you saying that they are not generational talents?  Do you think that Bill Walton was better than Karl Malone?  Do you think that Paul Pierce was better than Allen Iverson?  My point is that the NBA finals win is a team accomplishment.   MVP is an individual accomplishment.   IF I'm rating a generational talent, surely MVP means more than NBA championship.   Iverson never had a team that was built to win a chip...Neither did Nique.   But Iverson not only impacted the game... "crossover" and small ball... but he impacted the culture.   How can he not be considered a generational talent?

 

 

you have a weird definition of what makes a generational talent.   I believe that a generational talent is a generational talent because a player at that level only comes around once or twice in a generation.   A generation IRL is about 30 years I believe.  A generation in sports is about 10 years, maybe 15.   you need to completely dominate the game to be a generational talent.  And dominating the game in basketball includes winning.   Moreso than any other team sport for the obvious reason that basketball is the team sport where an individual has the greatest effect on winning vs any other player in any other sport.   

 

The game is only 5v5 and the 5 players play both offense and defense.  And the players stay on the court for up to 40 minutes of the 48 total.   No superstar in baseball, football or hockey can claim that.

Iverson, Barkley, Malone?  I don't consider any of them generational talents.

 

Magic was generational.  Bird was generational.  MJ.  Kobe.  Duncan. Lebron.  Hakeem.   Shaq.  Steph.

 

Off the top of my head those are the only generational talents the game has seen since the 80s started.

[Diesel]

9 minutes ago, dalamchops said:

you're really twisting my words. I've already said those guys are all super stars, trae is a superstar, wtf are you talking about amassing enough talent to become a superstar?

the celtics team played in an era with 4 playoffs team, that's not comparable to the modern game that we are having a discussion over.

once again, i make a distinction between between generational superstar and generational talent. Tons of generational talent, but very few generational superstars with extended winning pedigree.

LBJ took a f***ing garbage team to the finals with larry hughes and drew gooden, what tampering?

First... your criteria for Generational superstar is NBA Finals appearance.

The BULLS went to 6 finals...  Had Jordan Never Left... Hakeem would probably have no rings... but that's beside the point.   6 finals...  therefore for 6 years, no other EC team could go to the finals.   Guys like Pat Ewing, Nique, Barkley (with the 76ers), Brad Daugtherty,   Reggie Miller, Alonzo Morning, Iverson. would never get a shot to be a generational superstar player because their teams were not good enough to beat the Bulls.   You remember the Bulls...  went 72 and Freaking 10 bulls...   How many teams do you think would beat them in an ECFs??  But you want to use a TEAM accomplishment to rate how good a player??

 

[dalamchops]

3 minutes ago, Diesel said:

First... your criteria for Generational superstar is NBA Finals appearance.

The BULLS went to 6 finals...  Had Jordan Never Left... Hakeem would probably have no rings... but that's beside the point.   6 finals...  therefore for 6 years, no other EC team could go to the finals.   Guys like Pat Ewing, Nique, Barkley (with the 76ers), Brad Daugtherty,   Reggie Miller, Alonzo Morning, Iverson. would never get a shot to be a generational superstar player because their teams were not good enough to beat the Bulls.   You remember the Bulls...  went 72 and Freaking 10 bulls...   How many teams do you think would beat them in an ECFs??  But you want to use a TEAM accomplishment to rate how good a player??

 

that's not my only criteria, but it's one that should be met imo, if winning is purely a team accomplishment then we wouldn't be talking about star players.

I don't even consider reggie/daugtherty, zo anywhere close to superstar status. you just turned this whole discussion into a joke.

Edited October 27, 2022 by dalamchops

[Diesel]

3 minutes ago, shakes said:

you have a weird definition of what makes a generational talent.   I believe that a generational talent is a generational talent because a player at that level only comes around once or twice in a generation.   A generation IRL is about 30 years I believe.  A generation in sports is about 10 years, maybe 15.   you need to completely dominate the game to be a generational talent.  And dominating the game in basketball includes winning.   Moreso than any other team sport for the obvious reason that basketball is the team sport where an individual has the greatest effect on winning vs any other player in any other sport.   

 

The game is only 5v5 and the 5 players play both offense and defense.  And the players stay on the court for up to 40 minutes of the 48 total.   No superstar in baseball, football or hockey can claim that.

Iverson, Barkley, Malone?  I don't consider any of them generational talents.

 

Magic was generational.  Bird was generational.  MJ.  Kobe.  Duncan. Lebron.  Hakeem.   Shaq.  Steph.

 

Off the top of my head those are the only generational talents the game has seen since the 80s started.

1.  First the bolded part.   While it's true in comparison to other sports... NO ONE MAN HAS EVER WILLED HIS TEAM TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP IN BASKETBALL... if  you disagree, name him.   The closest you get is Hakeem. 

2.  Just from the looks of your list,  it seems like you used Championships to determine Generational talent.

You said Karl Malone is not a generational talent.

• Finished 3rd Alltime scoring (was just passed by Lebron)
• 14-time All Star 
• 2-time MVP (Every year he played was in the top 10 for MVP) 
• 11-consecutive seasons of ALL NBA First team. 
• Scored 2000 or more points for 12 consecutive seasons. 
• Finished 12th in steals alltime. 
• Finished 7th in rebounds alltime
• Won 2 Gold Medals in the Olympics

But because he couldn't beat the Bulls in the finals... he's not a generational star?

PLEASE....

[shakes]

Just now, Diesel said:

1.  First the bolded part.   While it's true in comparison to other sports... NO ONE MAN HAS EVER WILLED HIS TEAM TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP IN BASKETBALL... if  you disagree, name him.   The closest you get is Hakeem. 

2.  Just from the looks of your list,  it seems like you used Championships to determine Generational talent.

You said Karl Malone is not a generational talent.

• Finished 3rd Alltime scoring (was just passed by Lebron)
• 14-time All Star 
• 2-time MVP (Every year he played was in the top 10 for MVP) 
• 11-consecutive seasons of ALL NBA First team. 
• Scored 2000 or more points for 12 consecutive seasons. 
• Finished 12th in steals alltime. 
• Finished 7th in rebounds alltime
• Won 2 Gold Medals in the Olympics

But because he couldn't beat the Bulls in the finals... he's not a generational star?

PLEASE....

He's an ATG superstar, but not a generational talent.   Very exclusive club and he didn't do enough to get into it.

[Diesel]

8 minutes ago, dalamchops said:

that's not my only criteria, but it's one that should be met imo, if winning is purely a team accomplishment then we wouldn't be talking about star players.

I don't even consider reggie/daugtherty, zo anywhere close to superstar status. you just turned this whole discussion into a joke.

The only reason we talk about star players is because the game needed a way to market itself.   It's the Jordan Effect.  Really the Dr. J Effect. 

 

 

[Diesel]

Just now, shakes said:

He's an ATG superstar, but not a generational talent.   Very exclusive club and he didn't do enough to get into it.

Sadly, you put his resume' against those who you call generational.. and some of them don't match up..... except with rings...   It's why players leave teams to go ring chasing.  They don't want to be as accomplished as Karl Malone and have some guy on the internet saying that all their accomplishments don't matter?

Imagine if KG didn't go ring hunting?

One day Trae may be forced to go ring hunting for his legacy... If Travis doesn't get it right. 

 

 

[shakes]

12 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Sadly, you put his resume' against those who you call generational.. and some of them don't match up..... except with rings...   It's why players leave teams to go ring chasing.  They don't want to be as accomplished as Karl Malone and have some guy on the internet saying that all their accomplishments don't matter?

Imagine if KG didn't go ring hunting?

One day Trae may be forced to go ring hunting for his legacy... If Travis doesn't get it right. 

 

 

you keep failing to grasp that, yes, to be a generational talent you need to WIN.

 

oh wait, don't run and hit that keyboard yet Diesel, don't do it.  I know you want to type in all caps But WHaT AboUt RoB HoRry!!!11!!, but that brings us to yet another factor in determining what makes a generational talent.   It's not just about winning rings, but you have to win the rings WHILE BEING THE DOMINANT PLAYER ON THE TEAM.

 

You get all that?  It's only 2 factors, but you seem to be having a hard time understanding it.  here it is again....

 

To be a generational talent you must dominate the sport (counting stats and/or defense) but you must also win championships as the best player on the team.

 

Capiche?

 

 

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, shakes said:

you keep failing to grasp that, yes, to be a generational talent you need to WIN.

 

oh wait, don't run and hit that keyboard yet Diesel, don't do it.  I know you want to type in all caps But WHaT AboUt RoB HoRry!!!11!!, but that brings us to yet another factor in determining what makes a generational talent.   It's not just about winning rings, but you have to win the rings WHILE BEING THE DOMINANT PLAYER ON THE TEAM.

 

You get all that?  It's only 2 factors, but you seem to be having a hard time understanding it.  here it is again....

 

To be a generational talent you must dominate the sport (counting stats and/or defense) but you must also win championships as the best player on the team.

 

Capiche?

 

 

You act as if Karl Malone didn't win??  The only thing he didn't win is a chip...

Karl Malone = 51.8%

Hakeem = 52.4%

This is playoff winning percentage.   0.6% is the difference between somebody that you call a generational talent and Karl Malone. 

Again... TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENT.

 

[Diesel]

14 minutes ago, shakes said:

you have to win the rings WHILE BEING THE DOMINANT PLAYER ON THE TEAM.

Just another great point that give credence to ring chasing. 

If your GM is not putting the best players around you then you need to seek out your own big three...  Isn't that right KD?  Lebron?   Pretty soon, players will be asking out of contracts to go play with a big three.  i.e. The death of small market teams.