Transcendent vs Transformative

[MSSportsGuy]

I'm stuck at home sick again and am killing time. I've made these references in posts before but wondered what people would think if I posed this question:

While I've been watching the sports I've seen some of the best come through the college ranks, have successful professional careers and lead the US to many victories against international opponents. I think most can agree that Holdsclaw, Taurasi, Parker, Moore, Griner, EDD, and Stewart are among those rare talents who often made and make it look easy.

I have another category of players called transformative because their talent is tremendous and they are among the best in the game but I wouldn't put them at the level of the ladies I listed above. By transformative I mean they took their program to new heights during their days. Two major examples for me are Diggins and Wilson.

Ionescu has definitely been transformative by my definition. It could be too early to say but do people think she's on the transcendent trajectory? I watched Oregon lose to ND in 2018 EE, defeat MSU in the 2019 EE then lose to Baylor at the FF. Ionescu impressed the heck out of me but I'm not ready to put her at transcendent level......yet.

Who here puts Ionescu in the transcendent category? Any additional thoughts about my groupings?

 

[nwhoopfan]

Just looking at college careers?

Plum has to be considered transformative.

Maybe as a group I'd throw Weisner/Hamblin/Wiese in the transformative category.

 

[triaddukefan]

I'd say Alana Beard was transformative in college.

 

[eebmg]

Personally, I would add Ionescu as transcendant with her triple doubles and attitude although I understand if others will want to wait to see if she can bring OU a championship. Then for the real test, lets she if she can make the Liberty a winner. .

 

[MSSportsGuy]

Just looking at college careers?

Plum has to be considered transformative.

Maybe as a group I'd throw Weisner/Hamblin/Wiese in the transformative category.

I'd say Alana Beard was transformative in college.

Both ladies definitely fall in that category. I'm primarily thinking about college careers but it's an open forum so any input is welcome.

 

[j66kicker]

I'm stuck at home sick again and am killing time. I've made these references in posts before but wondered what people would think if I posed this question:

While I've been watching the sports I've seen some of the best come through the college ranks, have successful professional careers and lead the US to many victories against international opponents. I think most can agree that Holdsclaw, Taurasi, Parker, Moore, Griner, EDD, and Stewart are among those rare talents who often made and make it look easy.

I have another category of players called transformative because their talent is tremendous and they are among the best in the game but I wouldn't put them at the level of the ladies I listed above. By transformative I mean they took their program to new heights during their days. Two major examples for me are Diggins and Wilson.

Ionescu has definitely been transformative by my definition. It could be too early to say but do people think she's on the transcendent trajectory? I watched Oregon lose to ND in 2018 EE, defeat MSU in the 2019 EE then lose to Baylor at the FF. Ionescu impressed the heck out of me but I'm not ready to put her at transcendent level......yet.

Who here puts Ionescu in the transcendent category? Any additional thoughts about my groupings?

Except for EDD, who I don’t consider to be transcendent, ALL of your first group led their teams to NCs before they were seniors. Ionescu did not. I would put her in the Plum category: record-breaking individual stats which did not produce the ultimate team results. If Oregon gets it done this year then I might change my mind, especially in light of her foregoing the WNBA and likely overall #1 draft status to stay in college and take care of unfinished business.

 

[j66kicker]

Just looking at college careers?

Plum has to be considered transformative.

Maybe as a group I'd throw Weisner/Hamblin/Wiese in the transformative category.

Plum definitely, the others no way.

 

[MSSportsGuy]

Except for EDD, who I don’t consider to be transcendent, ALL of your first group led their teams to NCs before they were seniors. Ionescu did not. I would put her in the Plum category: record-breaking individual stats which did not produce the ultimate team results. If Oregon gets it done this year then I might change my mind, especially in light of her foregoing the WNBA and likely overall #1 draft status to stay in college and take care of unfinished business.

Curious why you don't think EDD falls in the transcendent category? I will be curious to see how Oregon progresses this season. I am not convinced a player has to win a NC to fall into that category but most of the time they do.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Plum definitely, the others no way.

They took Oregon St. from nothing to the top of the Pac 12 and a Final 4 during their careers. They certainly transformed the OSU program. Isn't that by definition transformative?

 

[nwhoopfan]

Curious why you don't think EDD falls in the transcendent category? I will be curious to see how Oregon progresses this season. I am not convinced a player has to win a NC to fall into that category but most of the time they do.

I agree with you. They haven't even been to the Tourney since EDD left. She was playing with nobody that was even remotely close to a WNBA level player. The whole "win a Championship or it doesn't matter" ideology needs a large dose of context.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

EDD is a transcendent player, I don't think how you could deny it. But it is based on her entire body of work.

College - yes she was wonderful. But she played with teammates who were not in most cases top tier and also missed out on playing against as many top tier teams as the others mentioned. Without the rest of the body of work, this would limit consideration.

Jackie Styles "could" have been considered in that category - had she gone on to international and WNBA success - but she didn't. EDD did.

 

[shiverz45]

There is no way A'ja is in the same category as Weisner/Hamblin/Wiese .

 

[j66kicker]

Curious why you don't think EDD falls in the transcendent category? I will be curious to see how Oregon progresses this season. I am not convinced a player has to win a NC to fall into that category but most of the time they do.

What did she transcend? She never won anything til this year when all the other WNBA stars weren’t playing.

 

[nwhoopfan]

By transformative I mean they took their program to new heights during their days.

That was in the OP. I don't think I'm even remotely implying the OSU trio are as good as Wilson.

 

[Kaizen]

Jackie Stiles ?

During her four collegiate years, Stiles scored 3,393 points, a career total that stood as a record for Division I women's basketball until it was broken by Kelsey Plum in 2017. On March 10, 2000, she scored 56 points against Evansville, which stands as the sixth highest number of points in a single Division I game.[6] In her senior season, Stiles scored 41 points to help fifth seed Missouri State upset top seed Duke in the 2001 Sweet 16.

 

[nwhoopfan]

What did she transcend? She never won anything til this year when all the other WNBA stars weren’t playing.

Led her team to the Finals twice prior to this year. But I guess that's nothing?

Charles Barkley never won a Championship, so I guess he was a nobody. Ewing never won an NBA Title. Stockton and Malone, probably the best pick and roll duo ever, also never got a Title. The whole idea that you have to win a Championship to even be considered in conversations is so limiting.

 

[j66kicker]

I agree with you. They haven't even been to the Tourney since EDD left. She was playing with nobody that was even remotely close to a WNBA level player. The whole "win a Championship or it doesn't matter" ideology needs a large dose of context.

That would be the context of, “Weren’t good enough to get it done, but still want to be considered equal with those who were, and did get it done.” Patrick Ewing and Dan Marino were great players, but they didn’t get it done and were not “transcendent.”

 

[bballnut90]

Led her team to the Finals twice prior to this year. But I guess that's nothing?

Charles Barkley never won a Championship, so I guess he was a nobody. Ewing never won an NBA Title. Stockton and Malone, probably the best pick and roll duo ever, also never got a Title. The whole idea that you have to win a Championship to even be considered in conversations is so limiting.

But I think it is valid if you're talking about a very small elite group of people like that. There's a reason only a small group would be considered among the likes of Parker, Holdsclaw, Taurasi, Stewart, Moore, Miller, Griner, etc.

 

[j66kicker]

Led her team to the Finals twice prior to this year. But I guess that's nothing?

Charles Barkley never won a Championship, so I guess he was a nobody. Ewing never won an NBA Title. Stockton and Malone, probably the best pick and roll duo ever, also never got a Title. The whole idea that you have to win a Championship to even be considered in conversations is so limiting.

It should be limiting. To me the whole idea of “transcendent“ is that it’s extremely exclusive. Everybody can’t be transcendent. Hardly anybody can be transcendent or it doesn’t mean anything. If we have to expand the definition, then at least make 2 categories: Transcendent and Won It All vs. Transcendent but Didn’t Win It.

 

[bballnut90]

Players I'd consider transformative by the OP standards which I interpret as taking a program to new heights while playing at an extremely high level include:
Jackie Stiles
Alana Beard
Lindsay Whalen
Kelly Mazzante
Skylar Diggins
Chantelle Anderson
Sophia Young
Ivory Latta
Seimone Augustus
Angel McCoughtry
Courtney Paris
Amber Harris
Courtney Vandersloot
Tashia Phillips
Victoria Vivians
Elena Delle Donne
Alyssa Thomas
Crystal Langhorne
Kelsey Plum
Arike Ogwumike
Sabrina Ionescu
Asia Durr


The only problem with this is it doesnt identify a spot for great but not transcendent players who played at already established programs. Basically anyone who was a standout for Tennessee, UCONN, Baylor, Stanford or ND. Someone like Tina Charles or Odyssey Sims I wouldnt consider transformative or transcendent but were much better collegiate players than several of the ones listed above.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Fair enough points.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Rebecca Lobo would also be transformative wouldn't she?

 

[bballnut90]

Rebecca Lobo would also be transformative wouldn't she?

I'd say she'd fit the bill to a T going off the OP's definition.

 

[Puppy Love]

One problem with a list this like this is that it is limited by historical perspective. The accomplishments of people early in the game are diminished simply because the boundaries they pushed are easily exceeded today. However when looked at in the context of their time, some of those players were no less transcendent than the ones on the list above.

As a side note, I’d put Shelly Pennefather on the list of transformative players. For a few professional years, she was paid crazy money to play overseas.

 

[DallasBUFan]

Sophia Young helped start it all for Baylor!