Is Anthony Edwards “next” or is that space already occupied by Luka and SGA?

[Kblaze8855]

I was listening to a podcast talking about how if he can properly navigate the off the court stuff that can derail you he’s next in the lineage of great NBA players. They meant as far as Jordan to Kobe to LeBron, but I’m speaking more generally.

He’s only 22 but SGA and Luka are both 24-25ish I believe. There’s enough overlap to directly compare all three right?

And if so, he has not separated.

Is there anything we can reasonably expect from him that would create that separation? They’re all on such a high-level I’m not sure how we even choose who is next.

Luka feels like both now and next somehow.

[Xiao Yao You]

ISH still has Mitchell and others ahead of Edwards so probably not the place to be asking. Luka doesn't play D and needs to get his team in the playoffs

[FultzNationRISE]

Doncic already played multiple playoff series and thrived. Hes ben considered an MVP candidate the last 2-3 years. He’s clearly “here.”

SGA has kinda formally arrived this year, even tho people could see last year he was becoming elite, and presuming he keeps this up in the playoffs. Edwards is too I guess but the Wolves arent on TV as much so I dont think he’s gonna get mentioned as often until he can take advantage of TV exposure in the playoffs.

It basically just comes down to perception, which goes hand in hand with exposure.

[Wardell Curry]

They meant as far as Jordan to Kobe to LeBron

Wembanyama or there isn't one.

ANT, Luka and SGA? Lol. They aren't good enough nor will they ever be.

You gotta have that wow factor also, which none of them have. Steph was next after LeBron but they overlapped like not seen since Bird/Magic and maybe Russell/Chamberlain in all of league history.

It's funny how these things work... while Jordan is maybe the best ever, he gets a boost in this regard because there was nobody else in his era. There were a couple of all timers in his era, but there was no 'transcends the sport' superstar. You could make a serious argument that the second best player in the era was on his team, and even if you ignore Pip, Hakeem and Jordan missed each other two times in a row, very conveniently for Jordan considering Hakeem basically owned him and the Bulls.

Anyone thinks Jordan goes 6-0 if he's got Russell, Steph, LeBron, Magic or Bird in his era where the peaks are overlapping? No way.

[Xiao Yao You]

Wembanyama or there isn't one.

ANT, Luka and SGA? Lol. They aren't good enough nor will they ever be.

You gotta have that wow factor also, which none of them have. Steph was next after LeBron but they overlapped like not seen since Bird/Magic and maybe Russell/Chamberlain in all of league history.

It's funny how these things work... while Jordan is maybe the best ever, he gets a boost in this regard because there was nobody else in his era. There were a couple of all timers in his era, but there was no 'transcends the sport' superstar. You could make a serious argument that the second best player in the era was on his team, and even if you ignore Pip, Hakeem and Jordan missed each other two times in a row, very conveniently for Jordan considering Hakeem basically owned him and the Bulls.

Anyone thinks Jordan goes 6-0 if he's got Russell, Steph, LeBron, Magic or Bird in his era where the peaks are overlapping? No way.

only a couple all time greats in Jordan's era?

[Kblaze8855]

Not good enough and never will be? All three of them?

I feel like what’s happening might involve two of my long-term arguments on here. And they might be in conflict. On one hand, I’ve always believed we are too slow to acknowledge greatness because when you look back in retrospect, the people we wait to call great get compared to the prime versions of other people. I said on here in like 2003 that in 20 years if we asked 2003 Kobe versus whoever it’s going to be seen as a reasonable question. It only wasn’t then because he had not established his legacy as an individual team leader. He didn’t get better in 2003 because we now think higher of him all time. We are just more willing to acknowledge what he was in that 2001 to 2003 range. So looking at it that way I’d almost feel comfortable comparing those guys now to a lot of legends. Like….

If you put 02 Kobe and 2023 Luka on one court…. I feel like whatever happens wouldn’t leave you with the impression one was an all timer and the other was just tiers below hopelessly outmatched. There probably isn’t the difference on the floor there is in “feelings”.

But that bumps up against another observation….

With a massive change in how the game is played, I can’t be sure how much dominance I can attribute to individual skill and how much I have to acknowledge is based on the situation these guys play in. Compared to each other it’s irrelevant. But compared to people 20 years ago?

That’s when it gets to be hard.

For now, I’ll just say I wasn’t really comparing them to that lineage level wise more like what they represent to their era.

Luka may never be Jordan and Kobe. But I can’t say it’s impossible he ends up having a generation feel that way about him.

[Wardell Curry]

only a couple all time greats in Jordan's era?

I'd have to look it up but if we're talking about Jordan's Bulls years I'm pretty sure that Hakeem is the only player from that entire era that Jordan had a losing record against. And for the purposes of this convo I'm talking about players that are flirting with the top 10.

[FultzNationRISE]

Not good enough and never will be? All three of them?

I feel like what’s happening might involve two of my long-term arguments on here. And they might be in conflict. On one hand, I’ve always believed we are too slow to acknowledge greatness because when you look back in retrospect, the people we wait to call great get compared to the prime versions of other people. I said on here in like 2003 that in 20 years if we asked 2003 Kobe versus whoever it’s going to be seen as a reasonable question. It only wasn’t then because he had not established his legacy as an individual team leader. He didn’t get better in 2003 because we now think higher of him all time. We are just more willing to acknowledge what he was in that 2001 to 2003 range. So looking at it that way I’d almost feel comfortable comparing those guys now to a lot of legends. Like….

If you put 02 Kobe and 2023 Luka on one court…. I feel like whatever happens wouldn’t leave you with the impression one was an all timer and the other was just tiers below hopelessly outmatched. There probably isn’t the difference on the floor there is in “feelings”.

But that bumps up against another observation….

With a massive change in how the game is played, I can’t be sure how much dominance I can attribute to individual skill and how much I have to acknowledge is based on the situation these guys play in. Compared to each other it’s irrelevant. But compared to people 20 years ago?

That’s when it gets to be hard.

For now, I’ll just say I wasn’t really comparing them to that lineage level wise more like what they represent to their era.

Luka may never be Jordan and Kobe. But I can’t say it’s impossible he ends up having a generation feel that way about him.

Most people are not gonna factor any of this into a decision to ultimately compare a player with MJ or Kobe.

Theyre gonna say “well did he win a the chips or he didnt winning the chips.”

Like, broad public perception will boil down entirely to that. Their games will have nothing to do with it.

If Luka plays a string of postseasons over the next six years where every team he faces is decimated by injuries and illness to their top 5 players and literally everything he faces is a benchwarmer lineup and he wins six chips? Hes top 3 because he won’d the titles.

If he smashes performance records and plays out of his mind but his whole team is injured every year and hes competing alongside g-league replacements without success, “hes not even good because they didnt winning a the chips.”

Legacy and public perception dont even really matter because it’s defined by the collective groupthink of “the broad swath.” Which is meaningless.

[Xiao Yao You]

I'd have to look it up but if we're talking about Jordan's Bulls years I'm pretty sure that Hakeem is the only player from that entire era that Jordan had a losing record against. And for the purposes of this convo I'm talking about players that are flirting with the top 10.

top 10 and all time greats are different to me

[Wardell Curry]

Luka may never be Jordan and Kobe. But I can’t say it’s impossible he ends up having a generation feel that way about him.

Thing is, casuals will never know any of those guys. If you go up to some rando on the street that doesn't know the NBA, you think they know those names? Of course not. But they will know Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Steph, etc.

[FultzNationRISE]

I mean if Kobe plays for Charlotte and TMac plays for LAL, is Kobe still the one getting compared to MJ and Bron as “that guy” from their era?

Very unlikely. These kinds of distinctions are made very superficially.

[tontoz]

SGA and Luka are elite players right now. Either one could win MVP this year and it wouldn't surprise me.

Ant isn't there yet but he certainly seems like he could get there soon. It's not a sure thing though. His shooting from 3 feet out to the 3 pt line suffers in comparison.

Luka shoots 20% better than Ant from 3-10 feet. SGA is one of the few guys in the league that shoots over 50% from 3-10, 10-16 and 16-3pt. That plus his ability to get to the rim and finish makes him really tough to guard.

[Xiao Yao You]

I mean if Kobe plays for Charlotte and TMac plays for LAL, is Kobe still the one getting compared to MJ and Bron as “that guy” from their era?

Very unlikely. These kinds of distinctions are made very superficially.

McGrady playing for the Lakers and not winning wouldn't have helped him

[Xiao Yao You]

SGA and Luka are elite players right now. Either one could win MVP this year and it wouldn't surprise me.

Ant isn't there yet but he certainly seems like he could get there soon. It's not a sure thing though. His shooting from 3 feet out to the 3 pt line suffers in comparison.

Luka shoots 20% better than Ant from 3-10 feet. SGA is one of the few guys in the league that shoots over 50% from 3-10, 10-16 and 16-3pt. That plus his ability to get to the rim and finish makes him really tough to guard.

Ant plays elite D as well which most people don't care about but it will increase the chances of winning

[tontoz]

Ant plays elite D as well which most people don't care about but it will increase the chances of winning

Yes ant is a good defender but so is SGA. The only weakness for SGA, relative to the other two, is that he isn't a big 3 pt threat. Not sure how much that matters though since he is surrounded by guys who can make 3s.