Fair question about Boston from a UCONN fan perspective

[CL82]

Agreed it's a very generously applied label. If Ionescu pulled off a NC she may have been fairly considered because of her motor and triple double threat. Bueckers and Boston are extremely good, but neither comes close to Stewart (yet).

Yup. Definitionally you can’t have a “generational player“ in every high school class.

I agree with you that Boston isn’t quite there yet. But she clearly is a very very good college player, probably the best in the country last year. That’s a pretty good start.

(The same can be said about Paige but she hasn’t achieved all that Boston has.)

 

[BobbyJ]

Diana Taurasi is the first player to make it OK to “play like a guy”. I’d put her in that group, too.

And of course earlier, Ann Meyers and Cheryl Miller were the poster girls for playing like a guy. In 1979 Meyers was even offered a tryout with the Indiana Pacers but didn't make it.

 

[bballnut90]

Same and Ionescu type success comes to mind as clearly Boston is the best player on what was the best team this year but she isn't in the same stratosphere at Stewart or Griner. In fact I'd say Wilson is an overall better player than Boston although she has one more season to prove me wrong.

I'd take Boston over Wilson in college by a decent margin factoring impact on both ends. I dont think it's coincidence SC was the #1 team most of 2020, a putback away from maybe winning it all in 2021 and #1 from wire to wire in 2022.

 

[Going4Natty]

In the various lists of generational players How can you leave off this lady: WBCA All American 1998,99,00,01, Naismith Player of the Year, national Champion 1998; USBWA Freshman of the year, WNBA championship (2012), WNBA Most Valuable Player Award (2011), WNBA Finals MVP Award (2012), five WNBA Defensive Player of the Year Awards (2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012), four Olympic gold medals (2004, 2008, 2012, 2016), and the WNBA Rookie of the Year Award (2002). She is one of only 11 women to attain all four accolades. She has also been selected to ten WNBA All-Star teams, 12 All-WNBA teams, 12 All-Defensive teams and led the league in steals eight times. In 2011, was voted in by fans as one of the WNBA's Top 15 Players of All Time, and would be named to two more all-time WNBA teams, the WNBA Top 20@20 in 2016 and The W25 in 2021.

 

[baggerbob]

Agreed it's a very generously applied label. If Ionescu pulled off a NC she may have been fairly considered because of her motor and triple double threat. Bueckers and Boston are extremely good, but neither comes close to Stewart (yet).

Stewie and A'ja belong in that conversation, along with J Jones. EDD when healthy.

 

[Bama fan]

Hyperbole seems to be at its best with NEW players. UConn or SC or even ND whether a player is "generational" takes a generation to see.
So many players come into Uconn or any other big time program with HYPE and 5 our to 10 fall flat.
the Hyperbole isn't about stretching the truth because the fans are hoping their high emotional truisms are true.
Maya, Stewie, DT, Paige (so far) have lived up to the billings. But 5 others on those (12 member ) teams didn't come close.
Except for kids like Paige and Fudd (Caroline didn't have the hype) so far exceeded the hype.
Yet we love em all that have worn or wear the Uconn Uniform. So much of what the STAR accomplishes is determined by the players that surround her.

I have never seen or heard the phrase "high emotional truisms", but by definition all truisms, emotional or emotionless, are true. So no hope is needed, high or otherwise.

 

[Nicvan07]

I think she gets away with a lot of fouls… is she good? Yes… but she gets away with a lot of no calls. I don’t think she’s at the level of Taurasi, Maya, or Breanna. I wonder how she’ll be in the WNBA.

 

[Carnac]

No. A very good player, yes. I would say the same if Boston was playing for UConn. Aja Wilson is South Carolina’s only generational player so far.

Something to chew on for a Monday - I have a question about Aliyah Boston. This is speculation only. It's NOT about her being a generational player, it has to do with her being the best post in the country and the NPOY. I'm preferencing my question by acknowledging this WILL NOT HAPPEN!!!

IF Boston was to transfer to UConn for her senior year, would that make UConn the prohibitive favorite to win the NC next year? A dominate post that routinely posts a double double and protects the rim without fouling, That would also mean Boston would not be playing for SC.

I understand that right now, there is some uncertainty at the post position for UConn next season. I am in the camp that thinks UConn could use another "seasoned" 6'5" post player if one can found in the portal to replace Piath Gabriel on the roster. A player that could come in and give Geno 12-18 minutes a game and hold her own. As I write this comment, we don't know if 6'5" Sophomore Amari DeBerry or incoming 6'4" freshman Isuneh "Ice" Brady can/will claim and hold the starting post position this coming season.

If either one does, it would answer a lot of questions and solve the mystery of who will replace Nelson-Ododa who was the starting post player for UConn the last 4 years. Does Geno go with one of these post players, or will he resort to using an undersized
Aaliyah Edwards (6'3") or 6'5" Dorka Juhasz neither of whom are post players?

 

[Bigboote]

I guess it would depend on what someone's definition of "generational" is. The best description I've found that I can agree with is a player who dominates an ERA with elite skill and ability, a clear talent supremacy. The definition of an era is " a long and distinct period of history". A definition of a generation is "all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively". By these definitions it would probably be longer but for describing athletic careers I would consider an era to be roughly 20-25 years. For me this doesn't leave room for 3-4 players every year at all levels to be called "generational" when none of them have dominated anything other than 3-4 seasons at a specific level, let alone close to 20. So my answer would be no, Boston doesn't qualify. And to refer to HS or college players as generational is just ridiculous. They haven't even played against the best of their generation yet. I would suggest that people find a different description for all of these very talented but non-dominating players.

That's definitely a valid conversation and one that I've thought about some. I guess it means whether one is thinking a generational College basketball player or just basketball player. Taking the sociological definition of a generation (~25 years), that's SIX four-year classes in college. If the average career length of a player who sticks in the WNBA is 5 years, that's five five-year sets of folks.

I tend to think of a basketball generation as more like 4-5 years, which would roughly align with the number of folks mentioned by several in this thread -- Taurasi, Parker, Moore, Griner and Stewie over the last 25ish years.

But I agree that it's silly that Boston, Bueckers, Clark, and Fudd are all occasionally (or often) mentioned as generational.

 

[Bigboote]

IF Boston was to transfer to UConn for her senior year, would that make UConn the prohibitive favorite to win the NC next year? A dominate post that routinely posts a double double and protects the rim without fouling, That would also mean Boston would not be playing for SC.

In the popular media, I have no doubt they'd be played up as the prohibitive favorite. I'd probably drink the Kool Aid myself. Just looking at the surface, insert an elite rim protector, general defender, and offensive rebounder onto a team that already can score and defend and always shoots a high percentage, and that is a recipe for success.

But looking more closely, I'd worry about how well she'd adjust to the motion offense and switching defense. Sure would be a fun experiment!

 

[huskyd]

I suppose this discussion should include some metric for high praise. Mine is a player whose very presence gives her team an excellent chance to win. In fact, I'd say that 3 players at the moment fit that description. If you have any of them, you'll probably win everything: Stewie, Griner, Boston. No other player gives you an almost certain victory. Those 3 do.
Ironically, these may not be the best "athletes," but they are the most dominant.
Carnac's question is the right one: If Boston transferred to UConn, the Huskies would run away from every other team. That's the test.

 

[The deacon]

Great city. Big Red Sox fan. Don't care much for the round-abouts.

Ha! Better not vacation in the UK or Ireland... roundabouts are the way to go there and keep traffic moving very much better than traffic lights.

 

[The deacon]

Diana Taurasi is the first player to make it OK to “play like a guy”. I’d put her in that group, too.

At UConn, HuskyNan, perhaps.

 

[BobbyJ]

That's definitely a valid conversation and one that I've thought about some. I guess it means whether one is thinking a generational College basketball player or just basketball player. Taking the sociological definition of a generation (~25 years), that's SIX four-year classes in college. If the average career length of a player who sticks in the WNBA is 5 years, that's five five-year sets of folks.

I tend to think of a basketball generation as more like 4-5 years, which would roughly align with the number of folks mentioned by several in this thread -- Taurasi, Parker, Moore, Griner and Stewie over the last 25ish years.

But I agree that it's silly that Boston, Bueckers, Clark, and Fudd are all occasionally (or often) mentioned as generational.

I agree that people are going to define a generation how they want to. To me, 4-5 years is more like a class, too short to be a generation or era. But as for quality I'll stick with my second sentence, a single player who dominates that time period with elite skill and ability. A clear talent supremacy. So whether it's 5 years, 10, or 25, to be THE generational player you have to be better than all of the others of that period. To throw in 15-20 different players just waters it down to " a lot of great players". And stats don't matter to me, high level players don't need numbers to know who has dominated, they know. Most fans just add up numbers or the most outrageous dunks or moves. I know it's pretty much impossible to split hairs on who's the very best and that's my point. "Generational" is a dumb term. They can't all have the trophy as the best like today's society wants so just call them great or whatever. Obviously JMO.

 

[The deacon]

I agree that people are going to define a generation how they want to. To me, 4-5 years is more like a class, too short to be a generation or era. But as for quality I'll stick with my second sentence, a single player who dominates that time period with elite skill and ability. A clear talent supremacy. So whether it's 5 years, 10, or 25, to be THE generational player you have to be better than all of the others of that period. To throw in 15-20 different players just waters it down to " a lot of great players". And stats don't matter to me, high level players don't need numbers to know who has dominated, they know. Most fans just add up numbers or the most outrageous dunks or moves. I know it's pretty much impossible to split hairs on who's the very best and that's my point. "Generational" is a dumb term. They can't all have the trophy as the best like today's society wants so just call them great or whatever. Obviously JMO.

Excellent points by both you and Bigboote, BobbyJ.

I'd question only Bigboote's inclusion of Azzi with Boston, Bueckers and Clark, all of who have distinguished themselves as outstanding college players. I understand Fudd is mentioned becaue she has thus far been over-hyped. I surely hope (and expect) it'll happen, but Azzi's got a long way to go to be considered at that trio's level, let alone as a generational player.

 

[DrummerDee]

I probably wouldn't. She's really really good and the most dominant interior player since Griner but isn't as uniquely skilled as the "generational" players like a Stewart, Griner, Moore or Parker.

All of those players changed the game in some way, I haven't seen Boston do that yet but she's obviously exceptional and was the clear standout in women's basketball this past year. If she wins another title and continues to expand her game, it's a different discussion next year. Looking at players from the last ten years, I'd probably put her behind Stewart and Griner and on par with Ionescu, but ahead of everyone else at this point.

I'd definitely put Tina ahead of her, hands down.

 

[shiverz45]

I'd take Boston over Wilson in college by a decent margin factoring impact on both ends. I dont think it's coincidence SC was the #1 team most of 2020, a putback away from maybe winning it all in 2021 and #1 from wire to wire in 2022.

To me it is still a toss-up as far as college. You have to factor in the talent level that Boston has compared to what A'ja had her 4 years. I think A'ja will be the better pro.

 

[shiverz45]

Can you be a "transcendent" player without ever winning a championship? I think you have to win championship(s) in order to be considered, no matter what your stats look like. Can you think of one that you would consider from the past?

 

[JellyBean]

I watched Kerry Bascom play 4 years of HS and AAU like a guy before she ever got to UConn and 4 more there before anybody had heard of Taurasi, but nobody was paying attention back then.

Bascom was a classmate of mine at UConn. Fun player to watch back then. But sticking to the topic, Boston is a great player, but I would not call her "generational" player.

 

[bballnut90]

I'd definitely put Tina ahead of her, hands down.

Maybe long term but in terms of college career it's Boston by a solid margin, especially considering her impact defensively.

Freshman year:
Charles-NFOY, Elite 8
Boston-NFOY, 2nd Team AA, team ended #1 in the country

Soph year:
Charles-Final Four, no national individual accolades
Boston-1st Team All American, Final Four

Junior year:
Charles-2nd Team AA, F4 MOP, champions
Boston-Consensus NPOY, DPOY, F4 MOP, champions

Charles had a great senior year but Boston's the clear winner through 3 years at this point.

 

[bballnut90]

To me it is still a toss-up as far as college. You have to factor in the talent level that Boston has compared to what A'ja had her 4 years. I think A'ja will be the better pro.

Wilson had Coates, Mitchell, Gray and Davis. None of Boston's teammates seem particularly likely to get as good of pros or as talented as any of the listed above. I do think Wilson may be a better pro but Boston has been the clear better collegiate player through 3 years IMO.

 

[shiverz45]

Wilson had Coates, Mitchell, Gray and Davis. None of Boston's teammates seem particularly likely to get as good of pros or as talented as any of the listed above. I do think Wilson may be a better pro but Boston has been the clear better collegiate player through 3 years IMO.

Gray and Davis was only there for the championship year. I am talking about the whole team as far as talent. After the top 3, there was a significant drop off in talent with Dawn's early team compared to her present team. Just look at who A'ja had at the point guard and who Boston had at the point guard. A'ja had Sessions who was solid. They both had Ty Harris, but there is a big difference between a young Ty Harris and a Senior Ty Harris with Destanni Henderson. If you are looking at the numbers, it would tell you A'ja was the better offensive player and Boston was the better Defensive player. The accolades are the same after 3 years. Boston still has one more year to add to that. A'ja will still be the school all time leading scorer and probably shot blocker. Also she is the only player in SEC history to have won 3 SEC player of the year. Boston, if she has a great year, will probably be the most decorated player. She will probably go down as the school's leading rebounder. If she scores over 2,000 points, then it will be an argument. A'ja has about 2,400 and didn't even start her Freshmen year.

 

[Cuango]

When Boston was a freshman many South Carolina fans said she was a "generational" player. The response here was...no, she hasn't proved anything yet. I consider many of the UCONN players generational but above all Stewie.....I know Boston is not in Stewie's league yet but would you now consider her a generational player ?

​

No, but a very, very good player.

 

[TeamFirst!]

Yes, Boston is the generational player of this era. She clearly is. No one else is more dominant. She would be most people's first pick in a draft situation. Let's give credit where credit is due. I can't believe how many people are still debating it. If not her then who else is?

 

[Cuango]

Yes, Boston is the generational player of this era. She clearly is. No one else is more dominant. She would be most people's first pick in a draft situation. Let's give credit where credit is due. I can't believe how many people are still debating it. If not her then who else is?

So, it sounds like you think there is always a “generational” player in the system? I disagree, “generational” players have to earn that description. It is not awarded simply because you are the best player in a particular season. There is no rule that says there must be a generational player for every season/era!