Generational Players-when can you tell?

[CocoHusky]

Great work, but I'm so confused. Neither your post nor the attachment included a mention of Aliyah Boston. Was this an oversight or an intentional omission?

 

[uconnfan68]

Nonsense, Boston is a very good young big, but she is not a "generational player" or ANYWHERE near as good as a Jr/Sr Tina Charles!

I never said Tina was a generational player. Neither is Boston.

 

[jonson]

Generational in terms of athletes is a pretty useless but very popular term and it has nothing to do with the definition of 20 years - at best it relates more to athletic lifespan which is more of a 10 year period for pro athletes and maybe 8 years or less for college athletes. DT never overlapped with Maya who never overlapped with Breanna for example.

I like the transcendent/transformative terms better but ...

Agree it has nothing to do with championships but championships do help highlight players so EDD passed through college with less fanfare than she would have at Uconn or any other school that had a legit chance of a title. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird enhanced college legends by competing against each other and carried that to the pros. And how much difference does environment make in a team game - lead a bunch of good young players to championships and you stand out or fail because your teammates are not good enough; be part of a phenomenal team like team USA and your contribution may seem ordinary among other greats. Who was better in 2010 - Maya or Tina? The voters couldn't figure it out and neither won in college without the other. Or how many titles does Breanna win without Moriah and Morgan and how does that change her story?

Lobo was pretty much a first as a big shooting threes. DT was statistically insignificant in college but her will to win with a very young team stands out, Maya brought power and dynamic play, Stewart followed Lobo, Parker, and EDD in adding refinement to what tall players are capable of. As a pro/national team player Sue stands out for her ability to lead.

Griner who some mention was a new type of force in college following after Paris. Vandersloot, Plum, and now Ionescu have there own statistical importance but are they very good or something more.

To some degree college is too short a time period and too spotty a competitive universe to qualify for something so grandiose as 'generational'. Paris thrived as a collegian but struggled to play as a pro so she is diminished, Fowles was impressive as a collegian but has taken it up a notch as a pro/international star. Moriah was special in college but hasn't developed as a pro (because of injury.) So Holdsclaw may get lost compared to her teammate Catchings whose pro career was special.

Great post (as always)! I'd also go with "transcendent/transformative" as fuzzy as those terms are. There are far too many problems attending "generational," despite its popularity (sort of like the ever present "existential" this's and that's in politics). I also find the use of #1 and #2 recruiting rankings not as helpful as it should be (other than to limit possibilities) since--to me, at least-- the biggest takeaway from the chart is their hit or miss nature, no matter how carefully done, with the former not much more frequent (if at all) than the latter. I also believe that making a team accomplishment (national championship) an in or out criterion pushes what is supposed to be a measure of individual recognition too far in the direction of team accomplishments . If Stewie, for instance, had played on a team other than UCONN while in college, would she have won 4 National Championship? 3? Even 1? Probably? Maybe? I think the best answer would be "it depends," with "depends" being a function of the quality of the other players on the team of which she was part, the quality of potential competitors, and, even, luck (Louisville upsetting one of the Griner teams, SC not having to face UCONN a second time due to a last second shot, etc.). (And this doesn't even take into account coaching.) But Stewie would still be Stewie and, to me, still one of the very best players to play the college game.

 

[ConwayGmck]

I'm going to try and pin you down by separating facts from opinions.
Facts: EDD played at Delaware and did not win a NCAA championship. I was there, EDD definitely made her Delaware teammates better.
Opinion: Is EDD not to be considered a generational talent because she did not win a championship?

I agree: someone else in this thread also referred to A'ja Wilson as a "more traditional and not generational" player. Let's compare Wilson to Stewart, who is hands down considered a generational player here:

B.S.: .530 FG%, .355 3PFG%, 17.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.7 bpg, 1.5 spg
A.W.: .550 FG%, .375 3PFG%, 17.3 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 1.4 apg, 2.6 bpg, 1.0 spg

Now, I'm being a little disingenuous here: Stewart attempted 428 career 3-pt FGs, while Wilson attempted only 16. Stewart's perimeter offense is truly what separates her from Wilson, but is that enough based on the other stats? And of course, the fall-back is, "Stewart won more championships than Wilson", but Stewart did NOT win CT WBB it's first ever Big East/AAC conference tournament title, did NOT lead CT to it's first ever #1 national ranking, did NOT lead CT to its first ever Final Four, and did NOT lead CT to its first ever national championship, nor be CT's first ever consensus NPOTY, Wooden, Naismith, Wade. They both own their program's career blocks record, but only Wilson owns her program's career points record. But Stewart is generational, and Wilson is traditional?

We also need to look at the caliber of teams players that we consider to be generational play on. As a fan of an SEC school, this is a very healthy debate when it comes to college football, and the talent that Alabama has, and whether or not they are generational players. Running backs rushing for Heisman-level yardage, but that play behind offensive lines full of 1st-round NFL talent.

This is by no means an attempt to diminish Stewart's talent - I consider her definitely a "generational" type player. But in considering Wilson, for example: Stewart played alongside other players such as Doty, Hartley, Dolson, Mosqueda-Lewis, Jefferson, Tuck, Williams, Edwards, Ekmark, Nurse, KLS, and Collier. All high 5-stars. Wilson played with Cuevas, Harris, White (2 yrs), Duckett (1 yr), Davis (1 yr), Gray (1 yr), Bradshaw (1 yr), Grissett, Jackson, Williams.

Because so many of those at USC were for just 1 year each, they never stacked up on the roster, so Stewart played with a combined 25 player-years with other 5-star talent, compared to Wilson playing with 15 player-years with other 5-star talent. Over 4 years, that's an average of 2.5 more 5-star caliber teammates per year that Stewart played with, than what Wilson played with. At USC, Duckett, White, Bradshaw, and Williams hardly contributed at all before they moved on. Same with Jackson I guess...

 

[ConwayGmck]

Well, while I was posting the above, most of the questions I was asking were better addressed by others who posted before mine, LOL. Good discussions all!

 

[CocoHusky]

I also find the use of #1 and #2 recruiting rankings not as helpful as it should be (other than to limit possibilities) since--to me, at least-- the biggest takeaway from the chart is their hit or miss nature, no matter how carefully done, with the former not much more frequent (if at all) than the latter.

I had a slightly different take on the chart. I think it is significant when a player reaches Consensus #1 in High school. As with the @meyers7 post which I copied here I think HS Consensus #1 is a great starting point (not definitive) for identifying generational talent. In the decade prior to the @and one attachment there were 5 players that achieved consensus HS #1 Maya, Parker EDD, Tina and Brittney Griner. I would make the argument that Maya, EDD, Parker, and Griner solidify their status as generational talents while Tina's play, especially her Freshman and Sophomore did not solidify her status. That solidify is the most important because a big part of my criteria is how early you get the label and how well you carry it.
Can a Non-Consensus HS #1 ever become a generational talent? Sure, but I just can't think of one right now & Sabrina might come the closest. Is anyone really prepared to say that Sabrina was more of a talent than Tina Charles or A'ja Wilson?
I would also strongly disagree with the concept that we could apply the generation talent label with a caveat for a specific school as in, A'Ja Wilson being a "generational player for South Carolina." For me a generational talent would have been a BOSS regardless of where they played.

 

[soxfan23]

I never said Tina was a generational player. Neither is Boston.

No, you said Boston is as good right as a Jr/Sr Charles. That is just absurd!

 

[CocoHusky]

Let's compare Wilson to Stewart, who is hands down considered a generational player here:

B.S.: .530 FG%, .355 3PFG%, 17.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.7 bpg, 1.5 spg
A.W.: .550 FG%, .375 3PFG%, 17.3 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 1.4 apg, 2.6 bpg, 1.0 spg

Now, I'm being a little disingenuous here: Stewart attempted 428 career 3-pt FGs, while Wilson attempted only 16. Stewart's perimeter offense is truly what separates her from Wilson, but is that enough based on the other stats? This is by no means an attempt to diminish Stewart's talent - I consider her definitely a "generational" type player.

I'll just keep it a full buck with you! There is no comparison of the these two players before college, during college, or after college. I have seen it up close and personal with my own eyes from the beginning. Don't let these number lie to you. If you are still unsure go ask A'ja. Whatever you do don't ask Roscoe-that's A'ja dad because that's his baby girl and he's gonna lie to you.

 

[Tank]

I never said Tina was a generational player. Neither is Boston.

Boston, it’s early but probably not generational...Aja was generational imo. I reserve my opinion on Boston to wait and see if she can improve her conditioning and body type more in the next 3 years. Aja had both those qualities from day one.

Stew was the best ever imo. Diana a close second.

 

[Bama fan]

Yes EDD would likely have had a championship or 2 had she stayed at UConn, but she did not. It is just my opinion, but I firmly believe that the greatest players make everyone on their team better. I have no problem with EDD’s decision to get closer to home, but as a result of that decision, we just don’t know if she would have been able to lead her team to a championship.

There is an interesting bit of trivia about Y. A. Tittle that relates to this discussion I think. If you go to the FB HOF in Canton, OH, you will see the busts of many great pro QB’s, including Tittle. Tittle has a unique distinction. He is the only QB ever enshrined in the FB HOF who never won a playoff game.

This is how I most remember Y A Tittle. I was a 13 year old delivering the Pittsburgh Post Gazzette on a Monday morning and I stopped to read the sports page . This iconic photo was there. Y A later said that was the end of him. A whole lifetime was over! Big John Baker leveled him that day, and Y A left it all on the field that afternoon.

A tale of two frames: The iconic Y.A. Tittle photo(s)

PG photographer Morris Berman’s famous image wasn’t the only fine picture he shot that day.

newsinteractive.post-gazette.com

 

[oldude]

This is how I most remember Y A Tittle. I was a 13 year old delivering the Pittsburgh Post Gazzette on a Monday morning and I stopped to read the sports page . This iconic photo was there. Y A later said that was the end of him. A whole lifetime was over! Big John Baker leveled him that day, and Y A left it all on the field that afternoon.

A tale of two frames: The iconic Y.A. Tittle photo(s)

PG photographer Morris Berman’s famous image wasn’t the only fine picture he shot that day.

newsinteractive.post-gazette.com

One of my prized possessions is a copy of that photo, autographed by Tittle, which hangs in my “man cave” downstairs.

 

[bballnut90]

I agree: someone else in this thread also referred to A'ja Wilson as a "more traditional and not generational" player. Let's compare Wilson to Stewart, who is hands down considered a generational player here:

B.S.: .530 FG%, .355 3PFG%, 17.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.7 bpg, 1.5 spg
A.W.: .550 FG%, .375 3PFG%, 17.3 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 1.4 apg, 2.6 bpg, 1.0 spg

Now, I'm being a little disingenuous here: Stewart attempted 428 career 3-pt FGs, while Wilson attempted only 16. Stewart's perimeter offense is truly what separates her from Wilson, but is that enough based on the other stats? And of course, the fall-back is, "Stewart won more championships than Wilson", but Stewart did NOT win CT WBB it's first ever Big East/AAC conference tournament title, did NOT lead CT to it's first ever #1 national ranking, did NOT lead CT to its first ever Final Four, and did NOT lead CT to its first ever national championship, nor be CT's first ever consensus NPOTY, Wooden, Naismith, Wade. They both own their program's career blocks record, but only Wilson owns her program's career points record. But Stewart is generational, and Wilson is traditional?

We also need to look at the caliber of teams players that we consider to be generational play on. As a fan of an SEC school, this is a very healthy debate when it comes to college football, and the talent that Alabama has, and whether or not they are generational players. Running backs rushing for Heisman-level yardage, but that play behind offensive lines full of 1st-round NFL talent.

This is by no means an attempt to diminish Stewart's talent - I consider her definitely a "generational" type player. But in considering Wilson, for example: Stewart played alongside other players such as Doty, Hartley, Dolson, Mosqueda-Lewis, Jefferson, Tuck, Williams, Edwards, Ekmark, Nurse, KLS, and Collier. All high 5-stars. Wilson played with Cuevas, Harris, White (2 yrs), Duckett (1 yr), Davis (1 yr), Gray (1 yr), Bradshaw (1 yr), Grissett, Jackson, Williams.

Because so many of those at USC were for just 1 year each, they never stacked up on the roster, so Stewart played with a combined 25 player-years with other 5-star talent, compared to Wilson playing with 15 player-years with other 5-star talent. Over 4 years, that's an average of 2.5 more 5-star caliber teammates per year that Stewart played with, than what Wilson played with. At USC, Duckett, White, Bradshaw, and Williams hardly contributed at all before they moved on. Same with Jackson I guess...

Watch them play, there's really no comparison. Stewart dominated both ends her senior year unlike almost anyone else ever has. She won 4 titles and was the centerpiece of all 4. Even with all of those talented teammates and upperclassmen, she was the star. She went 116-1 over her last 3 seasons and every single win was by double figures. There was one truly competitive game in her final 3 seasons and it was a nail biter in overtime. 3 POY seasons and she dominated Wilson head to head. Wilson's SC teams were handily beat by UCONN each year, with or without Stewart.

A'ja joined an excellent program (they were a #1 seed the year before she arrived) and elevated them to a title her junior year with the help of some marquee transfers. Her first 2 years she played with 2x SEC POY Tiffany Mitchell and #2 WNBA draft pick Alaina Coates. Coates was there her junior year too along with Gray/Davis. That year they took their time to adjust and ultimately hit their stride once A'ja had the paint to herself. Her senior year I'll give you that her supporting cast just wasn't very strong, but it was her 2nd year with the same PG for what its worth.

She was a great collegiate player but just isn't on the same level as a Stewart/Griner/Moore/Parker. Her skill set wasn't as polished and she wasn't peerless like the "generational" types. She's more on par with the likes of the Ogwumikes, Tina Charles, Sylvia Fowles, Skylar Diggins. Excellent players who won a lot of awards/honors and elevated their team to greatness during their career but not in consideration for best ever.

I know the argument of "Wilson won a title, Diggins/Fowles/Ogwumikes didn't" is coming, but I think there is value in noting that all of those players had their seasons end losing the likes of Moore, Griner, Stewart and Parker. A'ja deserves her 2017 title but I don't think of it as a difference maker comparing her to that other grouping considering the circumstances.

 

[bballnut90]

Imo there has been 5 generational since 1995. Holdsclaw and Parker from Tennessee and Taurasi, Moore and Stewart from Uconn! These 5 players dominated college basketball like no others! 14 National Championships between them and if Candace stayed 1 more year! Maybe Uconn doesnt win in 2009 but none of them played each other in college!

I'd throw Griner into that list even with just 1 title. In terms of greatest of all time conversation, she's not in it due to 1 title, but in terms of being a once in a generation type of player, absolutely. No one has physically came close to making the impact Griner did while she was at Baylor.

 

[bballnut90]

A few months ago I started the thread "transcendent vs transformative" to get peoples thoughts about this very thing. The choice of words wasn't that best but I was more or less asking if people thought Ionescu was in that transcendent category yet. Clearly Stewart, DT, Maya all fit transcendent and I think we all know there is a fine line between exceptionally good and transcendent. I do think Ionescu is still on that line and that's not to slight her.

Boston is pretty darned good. I said once on this board it just seems to take female post players, even the very good ones, a year of college to adjust to the pace, get their conditioning up to par, and figure how to play against competition when they aren't necessarily the tallest or strongest on the floor. Well Boston is making me eat my words regarding that statement. It's still a little soon to anoint her with any labels other than likely NFOY and WBCA All American.

Boston is going to be really good. I don't see her being a Stewart/Parker/Maya type of player though. A Sylvia Fowles/A'ja Wilson hybrid might be a better example IMO.

 

[BobbyJ]

Watch them play, there's really no comparison. Stewart dominated both ends her senior year unlike almost anyone else ever has. She won 4 titles and was the centerpiece of all 4. Even with all of those talented teammates and upperclassmen, she was the star. She went 116-1 over her last 3 seasons and every single win was by double figures. There was one truly competitive game in her final 3 seasons and it was a nail biter in overtime. 3 POY seasons and she dominated Wilson head to head. Wilson's SC teams were handily beat by UCONN each year, with or without Stewart.

A'ja joined an excellent program (they were a #1 seed the year before she arrived) and elevated them to a title her junior year with the help of some marquee transfers. Her first 2 years she played with 2x SEC POY Tiffany Mitchell and #2 WNBA draft pick Alaina Coates. Coates was there her junior year too along with Gray/Davis. That year they took their time to adjust and ultimately hit their stride once A'ja had the paint to herself. Her senior year I'll give you that her supporting cast just wasn't very strong, but it was her 2nd year with the same PG for what its worth.

She was a great collegiate player but just isn't on the same level as a Stewart/Griner/Moore/Parker. Her skill set wasn't as polished and she wasn't peerless like the "generational" types. She's more on par with the likes of the Ogwumikes, Tina Charles, Sylvia Fowles, Skylar Diggins. Excellent players who won a lot of awards/honors and elevated their team to greatness during their career but not in consideration for best ever.

I know the argument of "Wilson won a title, Diggins/Fowles/Ogwumikes didn't" is coming, but I think there is value in noting that all of those players had their seasons end losing the likes of Moore, Griner, Stewart and Parker. A'ja deserves her 2017 title but I don't think of it as a difference maker comparing her to that other grouping considering the circumstances.

See, you know just as much as Creme and Voepel.

 

[and one]

I like a lot of the posts to this thread - thoughtful and well reasoned.

Defining a "generational" talent leads down the road of what constitutes a generation, and how long that might be. There is also at least an implication that there is for each generation one and only one talent that rises above the rest in that generation. It seems clear to me that super-duper talents come along randomly, sometimes spaced apart and sometimes clustered into a short time period. In tennis, Federer, Nedal and Djoko all clearly meet any reasonable definition of a generational talent, yet largely share the same timeline.

For discussion purposes I like "transcendent" talent better. It eliminates the artificial time constraint implied by "generational" and puts the focus on the player talent level where it belongs. Transcendent players are, to pick a number, one in 10,000. Not just an A player, but an A+++ player. There is no reason why you can't separately look at who is transcendent at various age/competition levels - high school, college, pro. There is no direct line from being A+++ at one level to maintaining that at the next level. For me, adding high school players into the transcendent player discussion doesn't have much value unless it is only a discussion of who are/were great high school players.

A lot of criteria for what goes into making a player transcendent have been brought up and most seem reasonable to me, with the exception of winning championships. More often than not great, great players do end up on teams that win championships, but not necessarily. EDD (who is at least in the conversation as an A+++ player) had no shot at taking Delaware to a national championship and that doesn't obviate her very high skill level.

In the end, transcendent players stand out so easily from the rank and file that what ever your criteria, if you have to think about if someone is one of that rare breed they probably aren't.

 

[uconnfan68]

No, you said Boston is as good right as a Jr/Sr Charles. That is just absurd!

You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. I liked Tina, but she was underwhelming sometimes. Many of her offensive rebounds were her own missed shots. I've only seen one game of Boston, and she was good. Even made 3s.

 

[baggerbob]

I like a lot of the posts to this thread - thoughtful and well reasoned.

Defining a "generational" talent leads down the road of what constitutes a generation, and how long that might be. There is also at least an implication that there is for each generation one and only one talent that rises above the rest in that generation. It seems clear to me that super-duper talents come along randomly, sometimes spaced apart and sometimes clustered into a short time period. In tennis, Federer, Nedal and Djoko all clearly meet any reasonable definition of a generational talent, yet largely share the same timeline.

For discussion purposes I like "transcendent" talent better. It eliminates the artificial time constraint implied by "generational" and puts the focus on the player talent level where it belongs. Transcendent players are, to pick a number, one in 10,000. Not just an A player, but an A+++ player. There is no reason why you can't separately look at who is transcendent at various age/competition levels - high school, college, pro. There is no direct line from being A+++ at one level to maintaining that at the next level. For me, adding high school players into the transcendent player discussion doesn't have much value unless it is only a discussion of who are/were great high school players.

A lot of criteria for what goes into making a player transcendent have been brought up and most seem reasonable to me, with the exception of winning championships. More often than not great, great players do end up on teams that win championships, but not necessarily. EDD (who is at least in the conversation as an A+++ player) had no shot at taking Delaware to a national championship and that doesn't obviate her very high skill level.

In the end, transcendent players stand out so easily from the rank and file that what ever your criteria, if you have to think about if someone is one of that rare breed they probably aren't.

EDD and Stewie have changed the women's game just as Kevin Durant changed the men's game. Those 3 showed that a total game can be had by all size of players. As long as EDD and Stewie stay healthy the USA is the best in the world. No one can guard either one of them, let alone both.

 

[Bama fan]

One of my prized possessions is a copy of that photo, autographed by Tittle, which hangs in my “man cave” downstairs.

When I looked for the article to link, I saw ads for autographed photo copies. Hope you got yours at a discount!

 

[MSSportsGuy]

Watch them play, there's really no comparison. Stewart dominated both ends her senior year unlike almost anyone else ever has. She won 4 titles and was the centerpiece of all 4. Even with all of those talented teammates and upperclassmen, she was the star. She went 116-1 over her last 3 seasons and every single win was by double figures. There was one truly competitive game in her final 3 seasons and it was a nail biter in overtime. 3 POY seasons and she dominated Wilson head to head. Wilson's SC teams were handily beat by UCONN each year, with or without Stewart.

A'ja joined an excellent program (they were a #1 seed the year before she arrived) and elevated them to a title her junior year with the help of some marquee transfers. Her first 2 years she played with 2x SEC POY Tiffany Mitchell and #2 WNBA draft pick Alaina Coates. Coates was there her junior year too along with Gray/Davis. That year they took their time to adjust and ultimately hit their stride once A'ja had the paint to herself. Her senior year I'll give you that her supporting cast just wasn't very strong, but it was her 2nd year with the same PG for what its worth.

She was a great collegiate player but just isn't on the same level as a Stewart/Griner/Moore/Parker. Her skill set wasn't as polished and she wasn't peerless like the "generational" types. She's more on par with the likes of the Ogwumikes, Tina Charles, Sylvia Fowles, Skylar Diggins. Excellent players who won a lot of awards/honors and elevated their team to greatness during their career but not in consideration for best ever.

I know the argument of "Wilson won a title, Diggins/Fowles/Ogwumikes didn't" is coming, but I think there is value in noting that all of those players had their seasons end losing the likes of Moore, Griner, Stewart and Parker. A'ja deserves her 2017 title but I don't think of it as a difference maker comparing her to that other grouping considering the circumstances.

I feel the exact same way about Wilson and Diggins: phenomenal talents who stayed close to home and elevated their programs to high levels. SC was on it's way up but Aja clinched their status as elite company. ND had won a title and was generally successful but Skylar played in 3 final fours and started a trend that lasted the rest of the decade of ND in the conversation as elite. Ionescu is at worst in this category and at best in the company with the other mentioned names.

It came up the last time and has again about EDD. I have no doubt EDD is transcendent despite her lack of a collegiate NC. She is a bit injury prone but has more than demonstrated her toughness, leadership and versatility.

 

[bballnut90]

You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. I liked Tina, but she was underwhelming sometimes. Many of her offensive rebounds were her own missed shots. I've only seen one game of Boston, and she was good. Even made 3s.

Tina as a junior vs. Tina as a senior are very different stories.

Boston probably compares well to Tina as a junior IMO. Tina split POY honors with Maya Moore as a senior and it wasn't like Moore had a let down season, Charles was really really good. Boston physically and skill wise looks like she has all of the tools to be a top rate player. Other players have too, like Kristine Anigwe, and it just didn't pan out quite as expected, so it's too early to declare anything regarding how good she'll be. Her size and hands remind me of McCowan, but Boston is far more developed as an offensive threat than McCowan ever was at SC despite not having quite the same size and stature that Big T did.

 

[bballnut90]

I feel the exact same way about Wilson and Diggins: phenomenal talents who stayed close to home and elevated their programs to high levels. SC was on it's way up but Aja clinched their status as elite company. ND had won a title and was generally successful but Skylar played in 3 final fours and started a trend that lasted the rest of the decade of ND in the conversation as elite. Ionescu is at worst in this category and at best in the company with the other mentioned names.

It came up the last time and has again about EDD. I have no doubt EDD is transcendent despite her lack of a collegiate NC. She is a bit injury prone but has more than demonstrated her toughness, leadership and versatility.

Agree. Very comparable players when you look at their career and impact. I do think SC was more advanced prior to A'ja than ND was prior to Sky, but A'ja got them to a title and Skylar came up just short so it evens out. And agree regarding Ionescu. She absolutely needs to win a title to be in consideration with the next group.

EDD is kind of a weird one. Skill wise she's absolutely up there with the best of the best, but playing at Delaware she didn't really challenge herself or ever compete against good competition. I looked it up a while back, but I think she played against like 3-4 ranked opponents in her entire career. For that I can't include her in either the top or 2nd tier grouping since she was irrelevant during her collegiate career when you look at her effect during women's college basketball from 2009-2013. IMO she's in her own side category since no one else that talented has played at such a low level. If she didn't go on to be a great WNBA player and Olympian, no one would include her on any of these lists IMO.

 

[MilfordHusky]

I agree: someone else in this thread also referred to A'ja Wilson as a "more traditional and not generational" player. Let's compare Wilson to Stewart, who is hands down considered a generational player here:

B.S.: .530 FG%, .355 3PFG%, 17.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.7 bpg, 1.5 spg
A.W.: .550 FG%, .375 3PFG%, 17.3 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 1.4 apg, 2.6 bpg, 1.0 spg

Now, I'm being a little disingenuous here: Stewart attempted 428 career 3-pt FGs, while Wilson attempted only 16. Stewart's perimeter offense is truly what separates her from Wilson, but is that enough based on the other stats? And of course, the fall-back is, "Stewart won more championships than Wilson", but Stewart did NOT win CT WBB it's first ever Big East/AAC conference tournament title, did NOT lead CT to it's first ever #1 national ranking, did NOT lead CT to its first ever Final Four, and did NOT lead CT to its first ever national championship, nor be CT's first ever consensus NPOTY, Wooden, Naismith, Wade. They both own their program's career blocks record, but only Wilson owns her program's career points record. But Stewart is generational, and Wilson is traditional?

We also need to look at the caliber of teams players that we consider to be generational play on. As a fan of an SEC school, this is a very healthy debate when it comes to college football, and the talent that Alabama has, and whether or not they are generational players. Running backs rushing for Heisman-level yardage, but that play behind offensive lines full of 1st-round NFL talent.

This is by no means an attempt to diminish Stewart's talent - I consider her definitely a "generational" type player. But in considering Wilson, for example: Stewart played alongside other players such as Doty, Hartley, Dolson, Mosqueda-Lewis, Jefferson, Tuck, Williams, Edwards, Ekmark, Nurse, KLS, and Collier. All high 5-stars. Wilson played with Cuevas, Harris, White (2 yrs), Duckett (1 yr), Davis (1 yr), Gray (1 yr), Bradshaw (1 yr), Grissett, Jackson, Williams.

Because so many of those at USC were for just 1 year each, they never stacked up on the roster, so Stewart played with a combined 25 player-years with other 5-star talent, compared to Wilson playing with 15 player-years with other 5-star talent. Over 4 years, that's an average of 2.5 more 5-star caliber teammates per year that Stewart played with, than what Wilson played with. At USC, Duckett, White, Bradshaw, and Williams hardly contributed at all before they moved on. Same with Jackson I guess...

"Generational" or "transcendent" in my mind means how they play, more than their stats or championships. Stewie probably has the greatest versatility in the world. That's what makes her unique. A'ja is a solid post player with a good handle and shot, at least going to her left. I view her as more traditional.

Elena won no championships in college, but her height and shooting accuracy make her unique.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Championships are not individual accomplishments.

I think you can certainly be a generational player without winning any championships.

The best player doesn't always win even most of the time. See Lebron James.

 

[bballnut90]

Championships are not individual accomplishments.

I think you can certainly be a generational player without winning any championships.

The best player doesn't always win even most of the time. See Lebron James.

I agree but he's not the best example considering he's won 3 times and took his team to the finals in 9 consecutive years. One time he beat a team with the best record in NBA history (73-9 Warriors) in a massive series comeback in epic fashion.

If you look at players who define a generation or an era of a sport, it usually revolves around them being the gold standard and having their team consistently in the championship hunt. Collegiately, you have a shorter time frame to work with, so if you're going to make your mark as the defining player of your era, you have to win titles. I know it's a team sport, but historically the best WCBB players have won titles and their program was viewed as the pre-eminent school during their title run. Everyone has their own definition of what transcendent, generational, etc. means, but usually it comes down to who is the greatest of all time or who defined a particular era of women's college basketball. To me, the only players who truly defined eras of women's basketball are Stewart, Griner, Moore, Parker, Taurasi and Holdsclaw. Mid 90s is about as far as my viewership goes back.