list the number one players to build a contender around

[Moranis]

Since the 70's the #1 way to win championships is to have the transcendent talent in the league at that time on your team or a very deep group of All-Stars.
 
2010's - Lebron
2000's - Kobe, Shaq, Duncan
1990's - Jordan Olajuwah
1980's - Bird, Magic

Teams like 2011 Dallas, 2008 Celtics, 2004 Pistons, 1989 and 1990 Pistons and 1983 Sixers are more in line with being teams with a large group of All-Stars rather than having the transcendent singular talent of that decade.

So knowing this I would have to say the answer for future title winners that are led by a player will be Lebron, Durant and Davis and I really don't see anyone else for right now.

I think you could make a case where KG was still a transcendent player in 2008 as well as Moses Malone for the '83 Sixers (plus Dr J).

  Isiah as well. played great in big games and was the 2nd best pg in the game.

I don't think I'd call Isiah a transcendent player.  Moses probably was though even that is a bit of a stretch, I just don't see it with Isiah.

Seriously?

yep.  Finals appearances make a player transcendent.  Moses, while just the 1 finals appearance, had 3 MVP's (and he was competing for those against kareem, larry, and magic), thus even though he wasn't making the finals I think you have to give him a big boost for the MVP's, especially given his competition. 

Isiah was the best player on a team with 3 finals appearances, but he wasn't appreciably better than Dumars, Rodman, and company.  So it is tough for me there.

Durant only has one Finals appearance but I'd already consider him transcendent. 

I also don't think its a stretch to call the Hakeem of the mid-90s transcedent at all.

Durant is a great player that could become a transcendent player, but at this point he isn't.  Was Karl Malone a transcendent player?  At this point that is what Durant is.  A great player, but not a transcendent one.  He could certainly get there as he is just before or just entering his prime and should win the MVP this year, but he is going to have to win multiple titles to become a transcendent player, you know a guy that is in that special room in the HOF.  He isn't there yet.

  You're making your determination about whether a player's transcendent or not based upon a fairly arbitrary standard that's fairly dependent upon things like health, quality of teammates and quality of opponents. Take Kobe, for instance. Shaq was the best player during the three-peat, Kobe was the best player on the 09 and 10 title teams. So clearly Kobe's a transcendent player. Unless KG doesn't hurt his knee, the Celts go on a three-peat and he's never the best player on a title team. Or they don't swing the Pau trade. So the exact same player can play at the exact same level for his entire career and whether or not he's on a list of transcendent players is dependent on events that happen to other players on other teams.

Transcendent players win titles.  That is sort of the point of being a transcendent player.  So sure a lot of it depends on teammates, circumstance, etc., but thems the breaks.  Jordan didn't win a single playoff series without Pippen, but Jordan was still a transcendent player even though he had no team success pre-Pippen. 

[Moranis]

The clear transcendent players are:

Russell
Chamberlain
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Jordan
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
Lebron


I think you could make strong arguments for:

The Big O
Moses
Dr. J. (though unfortunately much of his time was ABA)
Hakeem


I think those 14 players have clearly separated themselves from the rest of the field.

Since this has evolved into an all time list. Baylor, West and Havlicek are worthy. Baylor and West would of one multiple titles except for one obvious problem. Havlicek won multiple titles with two completely different teams.

But since no one mentioned longevity as a requirement, please examine 1976-1978 where Bill Walton played a year and a half stretch of some of the most dominate basketball every seen in the NBA.

Bob Ryan, who has forgotten more NBA basketball than we collectively know, still maintains that a healthy Bill Walton would be his first all time player selection to suit up for a deciding game seven.

If you did not see the 1977 NBA finals or the first 60 games of 1978 season (Blazers were 50-10) before Walton broke his foot, you missed one of the greatest players ever.

Also, Walton went over 5 years from his junior year in HS to senior year at UCLA without losing a single game. Greatest college player in history IMO and was simply amazing for just over one year with the Trailblazers.

Baylor and West are like Karl Malone and John Stockton in my mind.  Great players, great teammates, but not in the special room in the HOF.  Havlicek is an interesting case, but he was never the best player on those title teams (Russell and Cownens were) so I put him more in the Pippen category.  As for Walton, you can't be transcendent if you are only transcendent for 2 years before injury.  There has to be a level of longevity to things. 

[slamtheking]

Since the 70's the #1 way to win championships is to have the transcendent talent in the league at that time on your team or a very deep group of All-Stars.
 
2010's - Lebron
2000's - Kobe, Shaq, Duncan
1990's - Jordan Olajuwah
1980's - Bird, Magic

Teams like 2011 Dallas, 2008 Celtics, 2004 Pistons, 1989 and 1990 Pistons and 1983 Sixers are more in line with being teams with a large group of All-Stars rather than having the transcendent singular talent of that decade.

So knowing this I would have to say the answer for future title winners that are led by a player will be Lebron, Durant and Davis and I really don't see anyone else for right now.

I think you could make a case where KG was still a transcendent player in 2008 as well as Moses Malone for the '83 Sixers (plus Dr J).

  Isiah as well. played great in big games and was the 2nd best pg in the game.

Thomas excluded, not having multiple titles during those respective stretches probably serves them a bit of an injustice.

more than that though, they didn't make it to more than 2 finals.  Heck Moses was only in one.  Garnett was in 2, the 2004 Pistons just 2.  Even the Isiah led Pistons only made 3 finals.  when you think of transcendent players, you think 4,5,6, etc. finals appearances with multiple wins, which is also why I think Hakeem is a bit of stretch (the 1 in his 2nd year and then 2 in the mid-90's). 

I mean Lebron already has 4 (with 2 wins) and is still very much in his prime.  Shaq had 6 (4-2), Duncan has 5 (4-1), Kobe has 7 (5-2), Jordan had 6 (6-0), etc.  Those are transcendent players.

correction - Moses was in 2.  Don't forget his bragging about being able to beat the C's in '81 with 4 guys he could pull from a pickup game (paraphrased of course)

[Fafnir]

I like that being transcendent is on the player to win titles, then you immediately point out that Jordan couldn't do squat without Pippen.

Just points out how meaningless being a transcendent player is by your definition. LBJ isn't less of a player if he stays in Cleveland and continues to "struggle" (ie not win titles) with that terrible organization trying to put a team around him.

[Moranis]

I like that being transcendent is on the player to win titles, then you immediately point out that Jordan couldn't do squat without Pippen.

Just points out how meaningless being a transcendent player is by your definition. LBJ isn't less of a player if he stays in Cleveland and continues to "struggle" (ie not win titles) with that terrible organization trying to put a team around him.

Sure you don't win titles by yourself, but Baylor had West (no titles), Malone and Stockton (no titles), Barkley played with a number of greats (no titles), etc.

Titles separate the great from the transcendent.  Just the way it works.

[Future Celtics Owner]

Besides Bron and Durant, Anthony Davis tops my list if we're talking about building a team.

Yes

[BballTim]

I like that being transcendent is on the player to win titles, then you immediately point out that Jordan couldn't do squat without Pippen.

Just points out how meaningless being a transcendent player is by your definition. LBJ isn't less of a player if he stays in Cleveland and continues to "struggle" (ie not win titles) with that terrible organization trying to put a team around him.

Sure you don't win titles by yourself, but Baylor had West (no titles), Malone and Stockton (no titles), Barkley played with a number of greats (no titles), etc.

Titles separate the great from the transcendent.  Just the way it works.

  Just the way it works for you. Say MJ never comes back from his year and a half off or suffers a serious injury. Suddenly one or both of Stockton and Malone (multiple titles) switch their levels of greatness without any change at all to their level of play in their careers.

[Donoghus]

Seems that this has come down to semantics. Not gonna bang my head on the wall on that one.

I'll just disagree with the idea that titles separate the greats from the transcendant in professsional baskeball.

I think you can start bringing titles into the conversation when you're debating between two player of similar worth  (think Marino v. Elway in football).  That is a different conversation than we're having here, though.

You can be transcendant before your first title.  Guys like Shaq & Lebron were transcendant players before winning their first titles.  They were guys you could build contenders around. Heck, both made Finals appearances before winning their first titles. 

Durant hasn't won a title yet but he is a transcendant talent.  You can build a contender around him.  To me, him & Lebron are the two slamdunks in today's NBA.  That's transcendance to me.

In the end, its all semantics anyways.

[Dog_Lover106]

The clear transcendent players are:

Russell
Chamberlain
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Jordan
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
Lebron


I think you could make strong arguments for:

The Big O
Moses
Dr. J. (though unfortunately much of his time was ABA)
Hakeem


I think those 14 players have clearly separated themselves from the rest of the field.

Since this has evolved into an all time list. Baylor, West and Havlicek are worthy. Baylor and West would of one multiple titles except for one obvious problem. Havlicek won multiple titles with two completely different teams.

But since no one mentioned longevity as a requirement, please examine 1976-1978 where Bill Walton played a year and a half stretch of some of the most dominate basketball every seen in the NBA.

Bob Ryan, who has forgotten more NBA basketball than we collectively know, still maintains that a healthy Bill Walton would be his first all time player selection to suit up for a deciding game seven.

If you did not see the 1977 NBA finals or the first 60 games of 1978 season (Blazers were 50-10) before Walton broke his foot, you missed one of the greatest players ever.

Also, Walton went over 5 years from his junior year in HS to senior year at UCLA without losing a single game. Greatest college player in history IMO and was simply amazing for just over one year with the Trailblazers.

Baylor and West are like Karl Malone and John Stockton in my mind.  Great players, great teammates, but not in the special room in the HOF.  Havlicek is an interesting case, but he was never the best player on those title teams (Russell and Cownens were) so I put him more in the Pippen category.  As for Walton, you can't be transcendent if you are only transcendent for 2 years before injury.  There has to be a level of longevity to things.

Fair enough and points well taken and this of course is just an enjoyable personal opinion discussion.

My rebuttal.....

Havlichek stuck me as a player who did exactly what was needed for his team at any point in time.

During 1970-1972, on a rebuilding team, he averaged 29 points a game over the two year period and was a top scorer in the league. During the 60's and 70's championship runs, he was content being what Bill Russell called "the greatest all around player he had ever seen."

What separated Havlichek for me was that he won multiple championships each, with two entirely different sets of core teammates.

Baylor's numbers and impact on the game was just off the charts and BTW he does technically have a championship ring having retired from his bad knee injury during the 33 win Laker season, ha,ha.

From 1960-1963 Baylor averaged 34.8, 38.3 and 34 PPG during those three seasons. The 1962 season he was in the military and played Lakers games traveling from Washington state on military furlough passes. Puts up 38 a game in the NBA while also serving in the military!

Baylor had a 71 point 25 rebound game against the Knicks. Also, Baylor went for 61 points and 22 rebounds in the NBA finals against our Boston Celtics. His career rebound at 6' 5" is 13.5 RPG, a couple above Barkley's career RPG numbers BTW.

Jerry West is of course the logo and I think you would agree that both Baylor and West would of won multiple championships had they not been unfortunate enough to be opposed each year by the greatest dynasty in the history of sports.

Point taken on Walton and his injuries, just wanted the young ones to know what a dominate player he was when healthy. As Ryan said, if he had to win just one game, Bill Walton 1977-78 was his first all time draft pick.

[The Fawb]

Isiah was the best player on a team with 3 finals appearances, but he wasn't appreciably better than Dumars, Rodman, and company.  So it is tough for me there.

I don't agree with this bit in the slightest.

This guy is just wrong. Isiah Thomas was massively overrated and was just very inefficient. Ben Wallace and Rodman carried that team.

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/02/18/was-isiah-thomas-one-of-the-greatest-point-guards-ever/

  I doubt that a single person who watched the Pistons in that era would agree with his assessment of Isiah.

  I've been on this blog for close to 10 years. When I started coming here I watched a lot of basketball but wasn't much of a stats guy, especially advanced stats. I got into some interesting discussions about the numbers and for a while I thought they were the coolest thing since sliced bread. I now frequently cringe when I see them cited because knowing the stats is seen as a substitute for having any idea what you're looking at when you watch a game.

  It's hard to say which is truly more absurd, that players like Rodman and Laimbeer carried the team or that many of the point guards listed (Mookie? Miller? Bogues?) were better players than Thomas. Again, I'd hope anyone who believes that is too young to have seen the games back then.

i grew up watching those guys, so to me it was even more amazing seeing it through my child's eyes. The problem is he had about 3 good years, then became terribly turnover prone and a very inefficient shooter. It's just the facts of the game. When the advanced stats are directly correlated to actual NBA wins, and is derived from such, i don't see how you can say that Wins Produced doesn't actually describe how well a player plays. The only argument you can make is he was very skilled, but didn't use those skills effectively to wins games.

[The Fawb]

The way i look at it, you need a true consistent superstar talent (>.300 WinsProduced/48) who can play a lot of minutes. This narrows the list down to the following for me:
Chris Paul   -.347 WP/48
Kevin Durant -.343 WP/48
Lebron James -.327 WP/48
Andre Drummond- .333 WP/48
Kevin Love    - .313 WP/48
Anthony Davis (in 2 yrs)- .242 WP/48
Stephen Curry  (in 2 yrs)- .251 WP/48
Lance Stephenson/Paul George (in 2 yrs)-.248/.184 WP/48

I see very little respect for what David Berri has done with the Wins Produced model for evaluating talent on this board, even though statistics have shown it has a higher correlation with actual wins in the NBA than any other stat going (due to the fact it's derived from *gasp* actual wins!).
Also anyone who doesn't think Kevin Love isn't a top 5 player overall (best PF if you don't include Lebron), doesn't  really understand basketball at its most basic level. REBOUNDS ARE DEFENSE!!!!

http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/players?direction=desc&minimum=true&sort=per48_wins_produced

I question any metric derived from winning that subsequently rates Kevin Love highly.

Well, that's like, your opinion man. Statistical evidence trumps your opinion, but you have the right to it, i suppose. Look at the wages of wins blog and how they determine wins produced and i think you may change your mind.

[The Fawb]

Isiah was the best player on a team with 3 finals appearances, but he wasn't appreciably better than Dumars, Rodman, and company.  So it is tough for me there.

I don't agree with this bit in the slightest.

This guy is just wrong. Isiah Thomas was massively overrated and was just very inefficient. Ben Wallace and Rodman carried that team.

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/02/18/was-isiah-thomas-one-of-the-greatest-point-guards-ever/

A) You're adorable.

B) Winshares/48 is nice, but not the definitive metric.

C) You're way too reliant on numbers to craft your entire narrative, rather than letting the numbers embellish the story with factual information.

D) Ben Wallace wasn't on the Bad Boy Pistons. If you're going to say someone's wrong, please try to at least get the players right - you're looking for "Bill Laimbeer"

Thanks for the correction, i wrote this kind of quickly. Yes, Bill Laimbeer is who i meant. Also, please take note that i said Wins Produced, not Win Shares. They are two completely different metrics and i believe that Wins Produced is a far better metric. Also i would like to know what you use besides statistics to create your "narrative", or how as you say "factual information could embellish a story". Imagine if thats how journalism worked. "never let the facts get in the way of a good story"

[BballTim]

Isiah was the best player on a team with 3 finals appearances, but he wasn't appreciably better than Dumars, Rodman, and company.  So it is tough for me there.

I don't agree with this bit in the slightest.

This guy is just wrong. Isiah Thomas was massively overrated and was just very inefficient. Ben Wallace and Rodman carried that team.

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/02/18/was-isiah-thomas-one-of-the-greatest-point-guards-ever/

  I doubt that a single person who watched the Pistons in that era would agree with his assessment of Isiah.

  I've been on this blog for close to 10 years. When I started coming here I watched a lot of basketball but wasn't much of a stats guy, especially advanced stats. I got into some interesting discussions about the numbers and for a while I thought they were the coolest thing since sliced bread. I now frequently cringe when I see them cited because knowing the stats is seen as a substitute for having any idea what you're looking at when you watch a game.

  It's hard to say which is truly more absurd, that players like Rodman and Laimbeer carried the team or that many of the point guards listed (Mookie? Miller? Bogues?) were better players than Thomas. Again, I'd hope anyone who believes that is too young to have seen the games back then.

i grew up watching those guys, so to me it was even more amazing seeing it through my child's eyes. The problem is he had about 3 good years, then became terribly turnover prone and a very inefficient shooter. It's just the facts of the game. When the advanced stats are directly correlated to actual NBA wins, and is derived from such, i don't see how you can say that Wins Produced doesn't actually describe how well a player plays. The only argument you can make is he was very skilled, but didn't use those skills effectively to wins games.

  You claim to have watched him play but your description of his play is nothing but a regurgitation of the article that you posted. I guess I should have stated "watched him play with more than a child's eye". In any case, wages of wins is interesting and good for what it is but, like every other statistical measure of games, it has it's flaws.

  One of them is that it relies on basic stats that only measure certain things that happen in games that are easily quantifiable. Another is that it doesn't take game situations into account, so there's no premium placed on clutch play. Also, and most importantly, there's no accounting for roles on a team.

  Bill Laimbeer was an efficient scorer who didn't turn the ball over a lot and rebounded well. That's the main reason he has a high WP number. Creates possessions, doesn't waste many and scores efficiently. But again, it's roles. He generally would get the ball on offense when he was in a good position to score and didn't have to put the ball on the floor.

  Why was that? In general because his point guard would put him in those positions. What would have happened to Laimbeer's efficiency if he was counted on to (in your words) carry the team down the stretch? It would have plummeted. What would have happened to his turnover rate? At the very least, a significant increase. WP doesn't account at all for the thing that tends to have the biggest impact on how efficient a player is on offense, which is how much the defense focuses on stopping him.