Okay I see what you're saying but I don't really agree. I think you can defend "good enough to lead a team to a championship as the lead dog" just as well as you can defend "top 15 player in the NBA." You can bring up numbers and show similar player comps, similar teams with similar success etc, and argue it that way. I don't think "well he hasn't won one yet, therefore I'm right" is a reasonable argument lol and I wouldn't take it seriously.
The homogenization of professional level basketball training has created a new type of league where there never is a clear cut "top x number" like in the 90s and the early aughts year in and year out. I think talent and skill is mor evenly distributed to where the gap between the complete ultimate mid player and the league MVP is so much smaller than those previous eras. All these dudes are training the same way and have access to the same level of training staff and facilities since like middle school.
So true. A lot of people have talent. But it’s the one that harness it the most effective and efficient way, essentially are the ones that separate from the pack. Everyone can see fellows like Kobe, MJ, Hakeem, etc. and try and emulate their excellence; but that group of guys worked as hard as anyone in the gym, in the film study, in the drills, learning the playbook, etc. And as it’s become apparent that discipline is the key to achieving lofty expectations, the recipe is there for the ones (talented and gifted athletes) that want to be the best of the best. The training, sports psychologist, nutritional experts, strength training, skills clinics, real time data, etc. etc…. Seems you don’t hear as many guys succumb to drug issues or other vices that used to litter sports news in the 80’s and 90’s. So many guys that had sky is the limit talent that derailed their own future via bad choices. Hence the top 10 is very subjective, except for 2 or 3 players year after year. It’s not as clear cut as it was in years past.
Maybe - we can quibble over whether he ultimately is a #2-#3 on a title team, but he isn't a #1 - at least I don't think so.
There are a lot of things that go into this - but I agree with you that it is more subjective than in the past. The changes in the rules about 20 years ago changed the style of play and what players need to do.
A hall of famer isnt even a franchise player? LOL. The reality is only the best team wins you dont have a checkbox that say "unless you have X you are disqualified". The Mavericks team beat the Heatles with 2 top 5 and 1 top 10 guy. The Billups Pistons didnt even have 1 guy in the top 10. The NBA has shown us there are multiple ways to skin a cat, and the current Rockets arent your typical team. They are gonna go down in history if Stone can keep this group together.
Would you consider guys like klay, iggy, etc. franchise players? I don’t think they’re even close but will make the hof
Yes - there are Hall of Famers that are not franchise players....... for example, Dennis Rodman.... there are a number of Hall of Famers that were not franchise players. The Mavs had a franchise player when they beat the Heat - they had Dirk.... Also - the Pistons are the exception that prove the rule....... every decade or so a team wins a title that is a surprise, but they are the outliers.
Klay was a multi time all star and a top 10 player at some point. Why shouldnt he qualify as a franchise player he was one of the splash brothers? Why will Iggy be in the HOF?
Dirk wasnt a top 5 player when he won a ring. Also Miami had 3 guys better than him. The point is you are using backwards thinking to label someone a franchise player or not. If they win a ring ok Dirk is a franchise player. If they dont win a ring ok Dirk was never a franchise player. That doesnt really make any sense just now you said Booker isnt a franchise player but if the Suns somehow win a ring ok Booker is now a franchise player lmao.
There are tons of hall of famers that aren't franchise players. Franchise player is a much higher bar.
Because the standards for the hof are ungodly low, so iggy will make it. Klay was never a top 10 player that’s ludicrous.
I think we have seen Green's peak this past two weeks. This "January Jalen" is better than the "March Jalen" last season because he's not just hitting shots but also playing fairly good defense and showing signs of reading the court better. So this is his peak so far. I also believe that this is his ceiling. If he can keep this up, he is definitely in the top 10 (at least top 15) conversation. If he goes back to his up and down pattern and falls back to his career averages, then of course that's what his doubters have always expected. I am also "cautiously optimistic" but I think my definition is not the same as yours. If I understand you correctly, you mean you believe there's a possibility that it will happen but not likely. What most people mean by "cautiously optimistic" is that it has a good possibility to happen but dare not expect it for not wanting to be disappointed. "Optimism" normally means expectation of good result.
GSW literally broke the regular season record with Curry, Klay, Iggy, Bogut and Draymond. Curry has never been better than Lebron, KD, Kawhi his entire career. If Klay wasnt a top 10 how would they do that? If the standards for HOF are so low why is everyone making it a big deal and you have players crying on stage?
Huh? Curry was a legit mvp level player and his 2016 peak (granted his true peak lasted 1 season) was incredible. They also had insane injury luck, insane clutch luck (they replaced barnes with durant and got much worse in the clutch the following season). Crazy stuff can happen in small sample sizes.
